1977-02-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The long waiting period and lack of enough domiciliary and chronic care beds in veterans' hospitals transferred to non-departmental agencies is causing doubt and mounting concern among veterans' associations that agreements to effect those transfers ensure proper care when taking into consideration present and future needs. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That until the matter can be dealt with during consideration of estimates before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, that this House orders that no further transfers of veterans' hospitals take place.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion for debate in the House can take place only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. It seems clear that the House wants to say something with respect to what is going on in Uganda, but it wants to be able to do it without debate. I hope that this motion will solve that problem, and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House orders that a motion presented by the government, today or tomorrow, calling on President Amin to permit an impartial inquiry by the Commonwealth or the United Nations into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the Archbishop of Uganda and two Ugandan cabinet ministers, shall be decided without debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent and important matter.
Since the Quebec Minister of Agriculture has already announced that, beginning next September, milk would be distributed free in schools and since that program will cost about $5 million to the province of Quebec for the financial year 1977-78, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the Committee on Agriculture strongly recommend that the Treasury Board make available to the Minister of Agriculture the necessary funds to pay a part of this program whose first aim is to get young people used to consuming dairy products while improving their eating habits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

February 24, 1977
LearStar Jet


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43.
Considering that, effective December 31, 1975, people aged 65 have lost their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, and that some of them have successfully fought in courts to preserve this vested interest; considering also that the government announced some ten days ago that it would reimburse this category of recipients up to the moment they started receiving payments under the Quebec or Canada Pension Plans; and considering further that these people, misled by civil servants, have consequently incurred losses which could have been prevented, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie):
That the House unanimously urge the minister in charge to reimburse these people the difference between the income under these two pension plans and the amount to which they were otherwise entitled under the unemployment insurance scheme. This, in my opinion, being the only possible way to right the inacceptable wrong done to this category of people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the government of Canada has invested over $88 million in Cana-dair, including the guarantee of loans, the financing of private firms to purchase planes and now Canadair has embarked on the development of the LearStar jet, of which they must sell 400 to 500 just to break even, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to appoint an independent committee composed of three aerospace experts to determine if the LearStar program is feasible and to investigate the structural problems Canadair is experiencing and if there is a definite market for at least 400 LearStar jets.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at a Washington press conference yesterday in which he said the break-up of Canada would "be the worst thing that could happen to the United States", and in view of the fact that such remarks are a tacit invitation for a foreign power or interests to engage in economic or other such intervention in Canada against Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House disassociates itself from such remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RHODESIA-REDUCTION OF SENTENCE OF BISHOP LAMONT- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion under Standing Order 43. Nearly four months ago my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), and I were denied unanimous consent for a motion which would have protested against the severe punishment imposed upon Bishop Lamont by Rhodesian authorities. Whether or not the resulting controversy had any effect on the government of Rhodesia is, of course, uncertain. However, it was with pleasure that I noted today that the government of Rhodesia has reduced Bishop Lamont's sentence and he will have only one more year to serve. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House notes with some relief the action of the government of Rhodesia in reducing the severe sentence of ten years hard labour imposed upon Bishop Lamont late last year.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate in the House can only be made with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 24, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I begin by welcoming the right hon. gentleman back to the House of Commons and extending to him the congratulations of this side of the House, and I am sure of all our colleagues, on the very effective speech that he delivered to the joint meeting of Congress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In that speech the Prime Minister said, and it was a point which drew particular attention from his American audience, and I quote:
Accommodations will be made, revisions will take place.
Subsequently, at a press conference yesterday morning in answer to particular questions as to the specific nature of those accommodations or revisions, the Prime Minister said, and I quote again from the transcript:
My accommodation is to get Canada to accept our language policy and our approach to the French fact and to get it accepted.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether that is all he meant by his commitment in his speech to accommodation and revisions?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: How come you're not applauding, Basford?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will see him later.
I appreciate the words of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure the House would want me in response to express on behalf of all parliamentarians our sincere thanks for the very warm welcome that the Congress of the United States extended to me and to my fellow parliamentarians who were there on that occasion, and also to express to President Carter and Vice-President Mondale our thanks for the very co-operative and friendly spirit in which discussions took place between that administration and ourselves, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself, and for the very warm way in which those relations were established.
With regard to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, obviously my answer at the press conference was not the sum total of ways in which we think accommodations should be made with the province of Quebec and the French fact. But if the Leader of the Opposition refers to the various propositions we have made over the years, he will find the ones we have made between 1968 and 1971 when the conferences on the Constitution were taking place, and more recently the
Oral Questions
proposal we made in the letter I sent to the premiers of the provinces when we were discussing the patriation of the Constitution. Let me point out also that I suggested various amendments and various formulae, including some which would support the concern expressed by many Quebecers for the guarantee of their language and culture. So, of course, there are many things that can be said but I doubt whether this would be the place to go into detail on all of them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in his response, referred to a variety of potential accommodations that might be made-I think I am quoting him correctly-to the province of Quebec and to the French fact. Is it his view that the only accommodations that are required to be made, the only major revisions that are required to be made in the interest of national unity of the country, relate to Quebec, relate to language and relate to the acceptance of the French fact? We are trying to get some understanding of the perspective with which he views his responsibilities as the leader of the national government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is, obviously not. The series of proposals we made, and to which I just referred, between 1968 and 1971 were addressed to all the provinces. They had to do with the sharing or division of powers which would be offered equally to every one of the provinces. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I have always opposed, and I continue to oppose, any concept of a special status for any one province. But in the case of Quebec's feelings now, my whole argument is that the rest of Canada must accommodate to and accept the French fact, much as Qtiebecers must accept the Canadian reality and not try to solve the problems by separating.


POSSIBILITY CHANGES IN ECONOMIC POLICY TO PRESERVE NATIONAL UNITY-GUARANTEE OF1 FRENCH CULTURE
Charles Joseph Clark: In the spirit of accommodations and revisions designed to achieve the goals of which the Prime Minister spoke, can he tell us whether he and his government are seriously and actively contemplating any substantial changes in economic policy which might deal with economic tensions which exist in many parts of the country, including Quebec, whether they are considering a new and hopefully more serious approach to a conference such as the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, which failed so signally in western Canada, and whether they are considering any particular measures which might be seen by Quebecers as being a means to offer a greater guarantee of the cultural viability of that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, we do not envisage any constitutional changes at this point which would solve the particular economic problems to which the hon. member is referring, but initiatives of interest to all provinces will continue to be taken. There will be, certainly in the budget, economic measures which will be addressed to the benefit of all Canada.
3370

February 24, 1977
Oral Questions
1 do not share the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition on the Western Economic Opportunities Conference when he says that we failed. On the contrary, my recollection is that just a few short weeks ago the premier of one of the western provinces said his fear now is about preoccupation with Quebec and that the federal government would deviate from the very important thing it was doing under the spirit of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. That seemed to me to be a clear admission that the results had been very positive and that the premier in question just wanted to be assured that we would not cease to be interested in the west. The answer to that is, of course, that we will not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You haven't been in the west lately.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the news conference the Prime Minister held following his address to the United States Congress. In that conference the Prime Minister seemed to have adopted a rather equivocal approach to the question of a third option in Canada's foreign policy. Could the Prime Minister give a fuller explanation to the House of the yes and no answer given yesterday in response to a question. I think 1 have the question correct when I quote it in this way:
Canada-U.S. relations is the foundation stone of our foreign policy and consequently, whether that heralds the end of a more broadly based third option in foreign policy . . .
Is this an indication of a change in attitude in Canada? Is that what the Prime Minister meant by his answer, or can he explain the yes or no equivocation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the question just read by the hon. member there were two questions. One was whether we consider our relations with the United States still to be the foundation stone of our foreign relations, and my answer to that was yes. The question went on to ask whether that means that we are changing our policy, which is described as the third option, and my answer to that was no.


DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT CARTER OF VIOLATIONS OF HELSINKI AGREEMENT-POSSIBILITY OF JOINT ACTION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister indicate whether the issue of human rights, specifically with respect to Soviet violations of the Helsinki Pact, was raised with President Carter? If this is the case, would the Prime Minister inform the House what action is being contemplated and whether any joint action is being

contemplated to condemn the violations of human rights which occur.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that question was discussed at some length, and the House well knows President Carter's interest in pursuing this objective of the respect of human rights. President Carter well knew the interests of this government in that same subject. I repeat that we discussed it at some length, and we agreed that there should be continued co-operation between our two governments in preparation for the review of the Helsinki Pact which will be held in Belgrade, probably in the fall of this year. We agreed to make available to the United States information we have which relates particularly to the subject matters contained in the Third Basket, the reunification of families and the free flow of ideas, and President Carter indicated his interest in getting that information from us.


Walter David Baker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following on those discussions, has an arrangement been made with the government of the United States with respect to this particular matter for the carrying on of discussions preliminary to that review by the staffs and officials of both governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The subject was dealt with in the way I just indicated and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have his officials deal with officials of the State Department. We intend to co-operate with other signatories of the Helsinki pact who would be as interested as we were in insisting that the Third Basket be part of the Helsinki agreement before it was signed.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In so doing I should like to join with the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the Prime Minister on a very fine speech that did justice to Canada and all the people in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I want to call attention once again to the passages in the speech which were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that accommodations will be made, revisions will take place. I call attention to the fact that these statements were very definite. He also said that there would have to be changes in some of our attitudes and we may have to review some aspects of our constitution so that the Canadian federation can be seen by Ok million French-speaking Canadians to be the strongest bulwark against submersion by 220 million English-speaking North Americans.
February 24, 1977

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity at a suitable time to make a full statement to this House and detail changes, the accommodations and the revisions of the constitution to which he was referring in his address to the Congress of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member also for his kind words regarding the honour I believe we all shared as parliamentarians, in being invited to address the Congress.
My answer to the hon. member's question would be quite a lengthy one and suggest a statement. I would attempt now to perhaps indicate the sense of any possible statement or action.
At the Victoria conference and in the correspondence to which I have just alluded in answering the Leader of the Opposition, we have already indicated several measures which in our view if introduced and guaranteed in the constitution, would constitute an entrenchment of the French fact in our constitution and give ample protection to some of the concerns that Quebecers express-the fear that they would not be protected permanently within the framework of our constitution. So, a lot is already on record as being part of the government's policy.
Beyond that, I would hesitate to undertake in any future statement to put before the House or before the Canadian public a whole series of amendments to the constitution just so that they be on the table for the provinces to reject or negotiate. I believe there has to be a will on the part of the provinces as well as the federal government to proceed with certain types of revision. We have certain ideas, to many of which I have just alluded to improve the constitution but I do not think it practicable to take initiatives which the provinces would merely find themselves free to reject. The hon. member will recall that in previous conferences the federal government had worked out positions jointly with one or several provinces thinking there was agreement, and then at the last minute the provinces would reject the whole package. We do not think that is a very profitable way to proceed.
By and large I have always said that the British North America Act is a pretty good one, that the basic framework of the constitution is still a pretty good one in my view. I have repeated the government's intention to be flexible. If the provinces see ways in which it can be improved, we see some ways, too. But we are not anxious to say that the constitution is not a good, basic framework. If the provinces want to make the case, we are prepared to discuss it with them and hear them out.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of his statement to the Congress about the sovereignty of parliament and the determination of Canadians to govern themselves with a parliamentary system, I ask if the Prime Minister does not think it would be useful to discuss in greater detail the up-to-date account of what changes are required, elicit the partnership of parliament and its members in dealing
Oral Questions
with the threats to Canadian unity and thus expand on the message he gave the United States Congress?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course, I would welcome debate on the subject, if the House would see fit to set aside time for that. I know the hon. member realizes, as we all do, that the matters to be dealt with are not purely or strictly constitutional. That is only one part of the whole series of accommodations which we must make within Canada in order to bind together even more tightly the Canadian people. The Leader of the Opposition was quoting some economic measures. There are social matters and other areas like immigration and communications which, without going into the constitution, might be the subject of administrative arrangement which would increase the bonds of national unity. So, I think it is rather difficult to reply to the hon. member only in terms of the constitution.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
During the talks he had with the President of the United States, he probably made a complete political survey and discussed many matters with him. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether, during his discussions with the President of the United States, they considered the issue of uranium and nuclear equipment sales for pacific purposes by both countries and whether they came to an agreement on the need for more severe safeguards in the nuclear arms trade?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very interesting question and, on this matter, I can tell the hon. member that we discussed this point and that the President of the United States seemed very interested by the decision of Canada to require more severe safeguards than those required by most countries. Of course I cannot talk in the president's name or commit him, but he was quite prepared to have more discussions on these safeguards and he said he wanted to co-operate with us as much as possible. I might add that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is going to Washington, next week, I think, and will probably have the opportunity to pursue these matters further.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether disarmament was also discussed during that meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. President Carter is highly interested in that matter. We discussed disarmament, as well in the context of the so-called strategic arms discussions, the SALT negotiations, as in the field of more conventional weapons. We dealt at length with both subjects.
80010-7'/2

February 24, 1977
Oral Questions


OIL AND GAS-POSSIBLE COMMITMENTS ON DELIVERY OR SALE GIVEN UNITED STATES BY PRIME MINISTER-TIME-FRAME OF DECISION
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. According to press reports of yesterday it appears that the Prime Minister discussed with President Carter energy matters, particularly alternatives concerning pipeline proposals for gas deliveries to the United States from sources in Canada, or from Alaska. Can the Prime Minister say what was the nature of these discussions, what specific topics were discussed, whether he gave the president any assurances, promises or commitments covering the delivery or sale of oil or gas supplies to the United States from Canada, or from Alaska across Canada by way of pipeline or otherwise, or via the Mackenzie Valley Pipe Line or any other route to the U.S.?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the subject was of great interest to the United States government. They raised it and we, too, raised the subject. We did not examine in detail any of the possible routes, including the ones the hon. member just mentioned, but we did examine the time frame within which decisions would have to be taken, if they were to be taken usefully. We made each other aware of the structures of that time frame. Beyond that, the hon. member asks if any assurances were given. Mr. Speaker, I felt justified in speaking for the Canadian government and the Canadian people in indicating to the American President that we would co-operate in every way we can with the Americans, particularly in the area of gas, that we would, in so far as it is possible and feasible, not stand in the way of their bringing their gas to their people in the way which would be satisfactory to them, provided certain subjects of great importance to Canadians could be dealt with satisfactorily. 1 mentioned in particular the subjects of Indian claims, protection of the environment, the economic consequences of a vast injection of capital, and other such matters.


John Carnell Crosbie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister confirm that the only assurance or commitment made in connection with these important matters was that the Canadian government would attempt to make a decision by December? Is that the only commitment which was made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, except in so far as the first part of my answer could be interpreted as a commitment, it certainly was an expression of goodwill.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can the minister tell the House and the people of the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe and Iles-de-la-Madeleine whether the dialogue interrupted on November 15, 1976 has been resumed between him and his Quebec counterpart, and whether the possibility of the birth, in the near future, of an economic development agreement for that area, looks promising?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I can advise the House and the hon. member that last Friday I met the Hon. Jacques Leonard, Minister of Development for Quebec. In the course of our two-hour conversation, we had a chance to review the objectives of the department and its activities in Quebec; I can confirm to the hon. member that negotiations have indeed been resumed between the two levels of government. It can be hoped that, in coming weeks or at the most coming months, we will be able to sign agreements through which we should be able to pursue the implementation of our programs in the province of Quebec.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell the House if he gave the President any assurances in connection with the time frame of the decision which Canada must make, or did he make any promises or commitments in this field? I understand he discussed the subject and discussed sympathetically American problems. Were there any promises, commitments, assurances or decisions with respect to certain time frames? Were there any commitments at all in this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. So far as we know, we will have the Berger report some time in the spring, and the national energy report is expected in June. We realize that the President will be under some pressure to make a decision, perhaps as early as September. We indicated that we would do our utmost to have the Canadian government express its views within that narrow time frame of June to September.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since industrial productivity in this country is now 20 per cent lower than productivity in the United States, since the gap between the two countries is widening steadily, and since the the steadily increasing productivity of the United States is one reason that country is experiencing a satisfactory increase in industrial activity at this time, whereas this country is not, I ask the Prime Minister if he, during his Washington visit, discussed this matter with the President, to see if he could learn of any
February 24, 1977

useful initiatives the Canadian government might introduce to at least bring the productivity of this country up to the level of productivity in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 would want to check, to make sure that the hon. member's figures are up to date, because I know that the United States authorities are showing some concern about the rate of increase of their own productivity. Subject to that word of caution, Mr. Speaker, we did discuss the economic situation and offered each other helpful advice on ways in which both of us could come to grips with our woes.


George Harris Hees: First, I should like to assure the Prime Minister that my figures are, as usual, correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Second, in reply to his non-answer in which as usual, he talked all around the question, would he, at the earliest opportunity, screw up his courage and tell the House just what he proposes to do to make good his promise to increase industrial productivity as he has been telling me he would do for two years, while doing nothing at all about it?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister with reference to his speech to the United States Congress. In his speech the Prime Minister cited commodity price stabilization, nuclear safeguards and special drawing rights as core issues in the building of peace. May I ask the Prime Minister what steps Canada is taking to advance the north-south conference on international economic co-operation dealing with these precise issues? Can he say what response Canada has made to the widely publicized call by Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank, for more willingness by the industrialized nations to come to grips with these real issues?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House leader is co-chairman of the Conference of International Economic Co-operation and he has been meeting as recently as during the last fortnight with his co-chairman, Mr. Perez Guerrera of Venezuela. There are some difficulties in the conference but at this time we are hopeful that under the skillful direction of these two gentlemen the conference will make progress. We discussed it in Washington and there is great anxiety on the part of our government, certainly, to show progress in this area. I am sure that at the appropriate time the House leader will want to report on this particular matter.
Insofar as Mr. McNamara's appeal is concerned, we are very sympathetic to it and, of course, we have great respect for
Oral Questions
the goal he is proposing. However, we have some reservations as to whether we should set up this Brandt Commission, I believe it would be called, before the CIEC conference itself meets. Our reservations are to the effect that it would probably be better to have CIEC pursue its work before the Brandt Commission was set up, which might appear to many at the CIEC conferences as a diversionary tactic. It would not be our view, but there is a tactical matter here to be considered.


EFFORTS TO PUBLICIZE GOVERNMENT S FIVE-YEAR STRATEGY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION
Douglas Roche: I thank the Prime Minister for his informative answer. Again with reference to his speech to the U.S. Congress in which he said, and 1 quote: "We have failed to mobilize adequately full support of our electorate for the construction of a new world order", may I ask him what steps he is taking to ensure that the government's five-year strategy for international development cooperation, a document published 18 months ago, one which is practically unknown to Canadians, is made better known among the Canadian electorate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is touching on an important point of communication here. We do our best to make sure that the Canadian people are aware of the policy directions the government is pursuing and we do try get the information out to the people without being suspected of trying to propagandize Liberal government goals. Within that structure we will continue to try to impress upon the Canadian people the necessity of making progress in this area. The House leader on this side is a very active and respected participant in this conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am somewhat gunshy, personally, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to selling to the Canadian people the need for a new order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: My question is to the Prime Minister. Welcoming the Prime Minister to Washington, the President of the United States rather surprisingly referred to him as a senior statesman of NATO.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Would the Prime Minister inform the House when he plans to bring our NATO units up to full strength?

February 24, 1977
Oral Questions


Steve Eugene Paproski: Nato. N-A-T-O.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. gentleman opposite will now join me in the ranks of senior statemen. He knows how to spell, too!


An hon. Member:: What do you mean, "too"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: My supplementary is for the Minister of National Defence, who may have more knowledge about NATO. The minister has apparently submitted his plan for Barney's Brownies or Operation Canada to the cabinet. The plan calls for a budget of $48 million by the end of next year. This amount is approximately the amount needed to increase the size of the Armed Forces by 4,000 which he so eagerly promised to the Conference of Defence Associations in January but now seems reluctant to present to cabinet. Can the minister inform the House if his early presentation of Operation Canada and his foot-dragging on the increase to the forces represents his order of priorities at this time?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member get his facts straight before asking questions.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION BEFORE ENERGY BOARD OR MR JUSTICE BERGER REPORT POSSIBILITY OF DEBATE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister regarding a press report in yesterday's paper from Washington. It reads:
Canadian officials indicated here Tuesday that Prime Minister Trudeau is ready to do all he can to speed a decision on the construction of a multi-million dollar Mackenzie Valley pipeline to carry Alaskan gas to Americans... the official said Trudeau explained to Carter that he would "like to be in a position not to embarrass him" over the pipeline.
In view of the fact that during this morning's CBC news, Mr. Lougheed, the Vice-President of Imperial Oil has taken these remarks to be what he calls "a favourable sign", I want to ask the Prime Minister if this assurance that the President is not going to be embarrassed represents a tacit understanding that Canada will proceed with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline despite the fact that neither the National Energy Board nor Mr. Justice Berger's report has yet been received?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can say that anyone who would play the stockmarket on the basis of that remark would probably be very seriously financially embarrassed. What went on between President Carter and myself in the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was exactly as I have stated earlier in reply to a question from a

member of the Conservative Party. There were no guarantees of any particular pipeline. Indeed, there were no guarantees of any pipeline at all. There was an undertaking to study this whole question with a view to co-operating as much as we can with the United States, within the obligations we have to meet Canadian objectives, too. I spelt them out in some detail. Insofar as the words "embarrassing the President" are concerned, they were never used, Mr. Speaker, and no intention was there to use them. I do not believe I would be concerned about embarrassing him. He is a very eminent president and he can conduct his own affairs without my messing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the statement by what is alleged to be a Canadian official, that the Prime Minister assured the United States President that he would do everything he could to speed a decision, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether "speeding a decision" involves bypassing parliament. Will he give parliament an assurance, now, that before the go-ahead sign is given for the construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline the matter will be brought before the House of Commons so that members of this House will have an opportunity to vote whether they are in favour of proceeding with that pipeline or rejecting it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe this whole subject was discussed during the opposition day yesterday. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave the government position on this. To the extent, I repeat, to which I gave assurances, they were on the time frame. He explained in detail that there is no undertaking to bypass either the energy board or Judge Berger's report. We are waiting for these. I do not know what decision will be taken, but if it is one which necessitates the government's coming before parliament, of course we will come before parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday that he will consider having this matter discussed in a standing committee of the House, which the Prime Minister knows perfectly well does not mean it will come before the House itself, I think the House is entitled to some assurance that before such an important decision is made the House of Commons as a whole should be given an opportunity to express its views on this matter. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will give that commitment so that the Canadian people will know that they will not wake up some morning and find that the government has committed itself to an expenditure which could have very little economic benefit to the people of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these are the very subjects about which we will know more when we have the report of the National Energy Board. I, personally, woulld be very interested in knowing the position of various members of parliament, and indeed of the people of Canada, on this subject. It is a very important one, but as some of the member's party are saying,
February 24, 1977

we voted on this subject yesterday. I think the NDP seems to have made up its mind before it has seen the report. We have not.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There have been reports that an interim fisheries agreement between Canada and the United States would be reached prior to March 1 when the United States declares its 200 mile jurisdiction. Can the minister indicate whether such an agreement has been reached and, if not, when we can expect such an agreement?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, some time within the last hour or so there was a joint communique issued from the United States capital and from here indicating that in fact an interim agreement had been reached by the negotiators as of about noon today. This was a follow on to the Prime Minister's meeting yesterday and I am delighted to be able to report this. The text, I understand, will not be released until tomorrow.


INCARCERATION OF ALEKSANDR FELDMAN IN SOVIET UNION- CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS FOR RELEASE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whom 1 commend for his courage in taking up with Soviet authorities the persecution of Jews within that system who wish to emigrate to Israel. Since the outrage of persecution is continuing, I should like to ask the minister whether he has made any representation to the Soviet authorities on behalf of Aleksandr Feldman, a prisoner of conscience, who is being held in a labour camp on bogus charges simply because of a courageous observance of his faith. This man is reported to be in ill-health, and if the minister has not made any representation on his behalf, would he take a personal interest in his case?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to take a personal interest, as the hon. member has asked. 1 am not in a position from memory to answer the first part of his question. I have explained in the House on previous occasions that we submit lists to the Soviet representatives from time to time. The most recent submission was last week and there were on the list some 136 or 137 cases, so I would have to check the list to see whether that particular name was included.
Oral Questions


EMIGRATION OF JEWS FROM SOVIET UNION-DISCUSSION BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT CARTER
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that President Carter, since taking office, has shown very real leadership on the question of prisoners of conscience within the Soviet Union, did the Prime Minister include this question in his discussions with the United States President, in terms of those of us who enjoy freedom and democracy occupying a common front against the Soviet authorities in regard to Jews who wish to emigrate to Israel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we discussed this matter at great length. We discussed the best possible approach to get results in this particular area, and we agreed, as I indicated earlier, in preparation for the Belgrade review of the Helsinki Conference, to exchange information and to try together to ascertain what we believe to be the most efficient ways of getting results in regard to protection of human rights.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the widespread speculation that the Canadian dollar will fall to 90 cents or so, has the minister any plan to deal with any precipitous fall in the dollar and is he making any contingency plans?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy since 1971 has been to let the dollar float on foreign exchanges and there will be no departure from that policy.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister consider that there is no need to worry about any precipitous fall in the dollar in the near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as part of that policy the Bank of Canada does intervene for the purpose of smoothing out the market over any short period of time. As indicated, I would not propose to intervene in any other way but to accept market judgment as to the value of the dollar.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister inform us whether or not his department or his office has prepared a detailed proposal

February 24, 1977
Oral Questions
relating to the youth corps, including proposals as to the amount of pay, where they would be housed, and the outbound type of program that they are envisaging?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr,
Speaker, my department has done nothing specifically on this. As for the general question, I should be able to say something within the next couple of weeks.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the hon. member for Lapointe made representations last week regarding old age people who have lost their entitlement to unemployment benefits because of an erroneous decision by this government, may I ask the minister today whether he has carefully analyzed this inequity vis-a-vis this group of people, and whether he is prepared to recommend to cabinet that some action be taken to pay those people the difference between the Quebec or Canada Pension Plan benefits and what they would have got through unemployment benefits? Thus, so as to correct this inequity, is the minister prepared to recommend such a proposition to cabinet?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Well, Mr. Speaker, first and foremost 1 think we should remember that some 600 individuals did in fact refuse to take their Quebec pension or Canada pension, did see fit to appeal and in fact won their appeal. So they will be drawing the unemployment insurance as directed by Mr. Justice Addy under the terms and conditions established at that time. However, in the interest of equity, and because there were thousands of others who did not apply, I thought that rather than topping up the Canada or Quebec pension plan pension, which would be unfair to those who did appeal, what we would do is to pay the difference from the time they stopped getting their UI until they began getting their Quebec or Canada pension. The difference I refer to is that amount of money which will be paid from the time they stopped receiving UI until the time they received their Canada pension or Quebec pension.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister discuss the Garrison project with President Carter; and further did the Prime Minister receive an unconditional assurance from Presi-
|Mr. Dick.]
dent Carter that the United States would abide by IJC decisions regarding the Garrison project, just as the Prime Minister committed Canada during his press conference in Washington to abiding by IJC decisions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We did discuss the subject, Mr. Speaker, but in reality the essence of the discussion consisted of my thanking President Carter for having taken at our request, and after many representations on the part of this government, action to suspend work on the Lonetree reservoir. We did not go beyond that. The law does not bind us in any way to follow the IJC's recommendations, but I hope that the Canadian inclination to observe them will be also shared by the United States. This is a tribunal that has the high respect of both governments. They cannot be bound by law, but they certainly will be morally inclined to listen to the recommendations of the IJC. I think the Canadian case is a very good one. We have had representations on the matter from both sides of the House and from people in Manitoba. Certainly, our entire Manitoba caucus has been very forceful in making representations on this subject. At this point the essential thing to underscore is that President Carter acted in a way very favourable to Canada and we are very grateful for it.


APPARENT CHANGE OF VIEW OF UNITED STATES BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the visit of the Prime Minister in that the United States and Canada are now kissing cousins. I can recall another famous trip of his when he apparently alleged that we have something to fear from the United States regarding economics, culture and its military strength. Has the Prime Minister's visit to the United States now convinced him that he was wrong when he suggested we had to fear the United States culturally, economically and militarily, a statement allegedly made during his visit to the U.S.S.R.?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat embarrassed to hear the hon. member express his fear about anything. I should have thought he would have been more courageous than that. On our side, the reality of American domination in every area is a very real one.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Militarily?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the matter with the Prime Minister. The right hon. member for Prince Albert wants further information. I hope the Prime Minister will continue that particular reference to the military strength of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 24, 1977


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader can indicate his intentions for government business over the next few days, and can he designate Friday, March 4, as an opposition day?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, as has been previously arranged, we will be calling first today the bill of the Minister of Finance on fiscal relations, to be followed by the human rights legislation. Tomorrow we will resume the debate on the unemployment amendments in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. We will continue with that on Monday if it is not completed tomorrow. As I have indicated, I have in mind calling the amendments to the National Transportation Act following the bill in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I extend my usual co-operation to the hon. member and graciously designate next Friday, March 4, as an allotted day.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his courtesy. Do I gather that he has made up his mind to call the National Transportation Act on Tuesday, or is it possible we will be dealing with unemployment insurance matters if they are not finished on Monday? I just want to probe his thoughts on that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if at the end of the day on Monday we have not completed the second reading stage of that bill, after having spent four days on it, I will reconsider the situation and decide then whether to continue with the bill or call the National Transportation Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the government House leader with respect to the House business? I realize that to ask about something that may be 51 weeks away may seem strange, but this government moves rather slowly. In view of the fact there was a good deal of disappointment that the House did not get the Heritage Day bill through in time for 1977, will the minister make sure that that legislation is dealt with in this session so that Heritage Day can be observed in February of 1978?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated my readiness to call the Heritage Day bill, and will call it only if I get an undertaking from other parties that we can conclude the debate in a day or so. Any time that undertaking comes forward, I will move the bill.


Walter David Baker: Bring it on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we give that undertaking, and the official opposition is now saying, "Bring on the bill". I therefore suggest that the onus is on the government.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the extended absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs-and do not quarrel with the reason-the holdup in vital amendments to veterans legis-
Order Paper Questions
lation has reached the point where they should be considered on an emergency basis. Can the minister give an update on the amendments to the Pension Act to increase pensions of veterans widows who are receiving less than 48 per cent? This is a very important bill and it should be brought forward.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member. Unfortunately, I cannot give him an update today. However, I will make inquiries and provide him with the best information I can find.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 139, 1,568 and 1,688.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) $429,623. (b) $160,556.
2.	(a) and (b) See following statement.
3.	(a) $203,590. (b) $7,730.
Contractor	Cost
M. N. Lopianouski and Associates Ltd.	2,803
Adimec Inc.	7,700
William Cameron	3,240
Gordon MacDougall	4,997
Gordon MacDougall	4,541
Square One Management Ltd.	4,914
Michael Abbot	1,000
J. Graham Clarkson Consultants Ltd.	8,510
Systems Approach Ltd.	2,930
3378

February 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Contractor	Cost
Centre de recherche medicale de TUniversite de Sherbrooke	14,166
Claude Castonguay	6,690
Donald Green	9,055
Prof. Larry Taman	2,100
Prof. Larry Taman	32,000
Dr. Luc Laroche	3,800
Ralph McKendry	6,300
Rashim Ahluwalia	440
Graig Angus	825
Dick de Jong	1,175
Dr. Lucinda V. Brettler	4,600
Edward S. Cardwell	150
Robert A. Davis	3,126
Joyce Askwith	150
Marie Berlinguet	200
Raymond Boutin	150
Douglas Braun	2,750
Marie-Paul Doyle	150
Family Counselling Service	428
Carmina Gordon	200
Dr. James F. Hawkes	1,644
Lawrence F. Heinman	1,466
C. Norman Knight	2,250
David Hagerman	2,000
Robert Marcus	150
Grant Lowery	17,000
Rolande Morin	2,585
Robert Marcuse	200
John McDonald	4,950
John McDonald	1,797
Ontario Association of Marriage and Family Counsellors	700
Maureen Orton	150
Company L87429 (Ontario) Ltd.	35,000
Ruth Cooperstock	600
Roland Crooks	3,600
Dr. Lynn Davie	1,150
Emergency Associates	1,000
Epidemiologic Research Associates	5,000
Dr. William Harrell	2,000
Memorial University of Newfoundland	4,700
George Nichols	3,600
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education	5,820
Kai Pernanen	700
Policy Research Inc.	4,000
Dr. Simona Radouco-Thomas	3,000
Dr. Lewis C. Robbins	3,000
Santa Cabrina Hospital, Montreal, Quebec	5,000
John R. Schallow	2,250
Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada	17,307
Randall C. Potts	2,000
University of Calgary	14,700
University of Toronto	3,455
Contractor	Cost
P. C. Whitehead Assoc.	4,800
Canadian Public Health Association	5,000
William C. Lam	2,500
Ernest Wotton	2,500
Dr. George K. Jarvis	5,000
Dr. George K. Jarvis	5,000
Mr. Cyril Dabydeen	3,500
Ruth H. Blue	3,990
Ruth H. Blue	3,220
Walter D. Brust	4,950
R. A. Lacerte et Associes	5,919
William Martin	5,000
Harry A. Hicks	4,500
Doris Stepler	1,840
R. A. Lacerte et Associes	28,737
Mac H. Haufe	2,850
Leetham, Simpson Ltd.	5,275
Balmer, Crapo and Associates Inc.	5,000
Dr. Stanley Brown	4,000
Dr. Robert Hindmarch	5,000
Mrs. Judy Hunter	5,000
Dr. Maurice Jette	5,000
Dr. Gregg McKelney	4,500
Jean-Guy Noel	4,800
George Shepherd	1,500
Bernie Swords	3,000
Dr. Peter Witt	4,500
Dr. Jack Daniels	5,000
Dr. Rena Paul	200
Denise Dicker	200
Glenn Rutherford	200
William Thomson	200
Glenn Rutherford	200
Dr. Leonard Rutman	4,278
Dr. Paul Sachdev	200
Dr. Ben Schlesinger	400
Department of Supply and Services Audit Services Bureau	98,000
Audit Services Bureau	38,356
Bureau of Management Consulting	4,837
Bureau of Management Consulting	14,013
David Hagerman	1,600
Lome Plunkett	1,500
Lome Plunkett	2,250
GASOLINE rebates


Mr. Herbert: By province, what amount has been claimed in rebates for gasoline used for farm and commercial purposes, since the beginning of the programme?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Farmers
Province	and Fishermen	Professionals	Small Business	Salesman	Corporations	Transportation Industry	TaxiNewfoundland	S 74,736.16	$ 25,902.47	$ 292,679.04	$ 42,136.29	$ 1,002,314.83	$ 420,146.46	$ 158,905.22Nova Scotia	434,928.84	46,772.67	652,214.97	108,068.48	1,912,022.30	755,845.65	103,502.18Prince Edward Island	309,891.97	8,759.74	107,972.49	14,174.22	280,713.73	105,143.75	5,903.37New Brunswick	396,479.50	37,791.83	551,666.14	80,636.63	2,343,750.70	867,567.33	67,746.48Quebec	1,231,392.37	373,066.24	2,214,403.69	1,385,578.36	18,298,394.12	7,666,922.28	1.504,092.44Ontario	5,762,717.28	687,593.71	6,605,266.22	2,034,833.36	31,355,079.49	9,775,490.44	1,817,750.63Manitoba	3,806,045.35	67,818.62	788,487.19	211,509.37	2,593,215.48	1,070,793.84	242,616.63Saskatchewan	8,788,420.70	67,298.36	896,436.15	174,900.33	2,082,808.73	749,285.62	135,766.19Alberta	7,399,245.94	118,472.83	1,716,052.99	368,058.81	8,564,603.91	2,919,879.37	238,524.21British Columbia	910,379.47	123,238.02	1,237,415.35	387,239.28	7,167,080.20	2,073,593.48	607,317.37Northwest Territories	3,621.99	958.51	8,090.12	1,207.30	37,092.76	16,885.99	12,773.26Yukon	6,007.70	842.36	11,817.23	1,544.31	40,850.42	15,565.68	11,465.42

February 24, 1977


Mr. Brewin: 1.	Does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce remit duties on coloured televisions and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	Has the Department taken any steps to (a) ensure increased television manufacturing in Canada (b) prevent lay-offs of employees in small plants that manufacture components for televisions and, if so, in each case, what steps?
3.	Has the government taken any steps (a) to enable Renfrew Electrical Company Ltd., Toronto, Ontario to re-hire laid-off employees (b) by way of adjustment assistance to assist the employees involved in the lay-off and, if so, in each case, what steps?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not administer tariffs and thus has no power to remit duties. However, under the Financial Administration Act, the Governor in Council has the power to authorize Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, to remit duties paid or payable in respect of goods imported into Canada. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has set into motion a programme, which under certain conditions, will permit the remission of duties on imported television receivers paid or payable by manufacturers of television sets in Canada. The purpose of this programme is to prevent an imminent failure of this industry sector which has neither the technology base nor scale to remain competitive in the Canadian market even with the current tariff of 15 per cent. Under the programme, television manufacturers who maintain at least a previous level of production with at least 50 per cent Canadian value added in their production will be allowed duty remission on sets which they import. The amount of duty remitted will be determined by the ratio of the value of their production to sales. This programme will allow Canadian manufacturers to specialize in those types of production that lead to improved efficiency. At the same time, the market share they obtain is not expected to change although they would no longer make a full range of T.V. products in Canada.
2.	(a) The department held negotiations with all Canadian television set manufacturers and with many of their parent companies with a view to increasing television production in Canada. No means was found to increase production in Canada that resulted in no higher costs to Canadian consumers, tax-payers or companies, (b) The new programme will include a Canadian value added requirement favouring the sourcing of components from Canadian component suppliers. Department officials have met with component manufacturers and are continuing to seek ways and means, in addition to the programme, to overcome the problems of a small domestic market.
3.	The department has taken no special measures in regard to layoffs at Renfrew Electric nor has the company or its employees approached the Department directly, asking for special measures. Officials of the department have expressed willingness to discuss Renfrew's situation with the company management with a view to assisting the firm to improve its position in the market place.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 950 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Howie: Were outside consultants employed by the Treasury Board between January 1, 1975 and November 1, 1976 and, if so (a) how many (b) who were the firms or persons (c) what amount was paid to each (d) for what purpose (e) in each case, is the report available to the public and, if not, will it be published?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-37, to provide for the making of certain fiscal payments and of established programs financing contributions to provinces, to provide for payments in respect of certain provincial taxes and fees, and to make consequential and related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, as so many members have shown in this debate, the question posed by Bill C-37 is not only fiscal payments to the provinces for the next five years, already decided at the first ministers meeting' last December, but whether this bill is a sufficient response to the crisis of federalism. I said in the first part of
80010-8V2

February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements my speech Tuesday night that Bill C-37 does not answer the real question in the relationship between Ottawa and the provinces. That is why so many members, in speaking during this debate, have responded to that deep yearning across the land for some leadership in parliament about the ways Canada can be held together. The Canadian people, fearful of the consequences of separation, need encouragement that members of parliament are at least sensitive to the dilemma. It is not the esoteric algebraic formulae in this bill that we should be debating. Rather, it is the future of confederation.
It is not good enough for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to go to Washington and assure the Americans that Canada will remain united. He has a duty to come into the House of Commons and tell Canadians precisely what he is going to do to keep Canada together. 1 think the questions that were raised in the House today on the Prime Minister's speech in Washington reflect the very deep concern of the members of the House that some serious statements be made right here in this forum about the government's plans for the accommodations that will be necessary to hold all the regions intact and to ensure the integrity of Canada. It is all very well to dazzle Washington, but it will take more than a high-flown speech to the U.S. Congress to settle the problems of regional alienation in this country.
There is no doubt that the Prime Minister opened the election campaign with his speech in Washington. That election is coming soon. The east block wizards are preparing their electronic electioneering to fool the Canadian people again; to make the people forget what miserable leadership they have had for the past nine years; to make them forget that this recycled architect of unity is the very man who has split the country apart; to make them forget that the deep problems of regional alienation are caused by this government's rigid centralism. But the Canadian people are not going to forget or forgive the damage done to our unity by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: There is no question that we as Canadians can hold this country together. We do not need a Washington declaration to make that point. What the Americans did not hear, however, is that this government, by debasing and demeaning our national institutions and taking power away from them, is itself a principal cause of the fracture of our national spirit and national identity. Mr. Speaker, the government has tried to fool the people once too often. There is too much doubt, dismay and discord in Canada today to be glossed over by yet another electronic mind-wash. It is the duty of the opposition in this debate on fiscal payments to get beneath the surface. It is the opposition members who have focused on the real concerns of Canadians in federal-provincial relations. It is the members on this side who have spoken out most sensitively and sensibly to the questions Canadians are asking about their future. It was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who spoke about the integrity of the country. He said:

We need to establish again a unifying sense of purpose, a sense which applies to building, a sense that there is more to Canada than simply conflicts over constitutions or tax points. This requires us, as members of parliament, to look upon other governments and members of other legislatures in the land not as adversaries but as partners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: That is the speech of a man who will be, and deserves to be, the next prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) struck the central note in this debate. She
said:
It would be strange, indeed, if the parliament of Canada which so uniquely reflects the reality of federalism were to allow itself to be excluded from participating in the revitalization of that federalism. In the case of the bill before us today, parliament was relegated to the sidelines while these fiscal arrangements were being negotiated. Every time this happens, parliament is diminished-and at this critical time in Canada's history we need strengthened, not diminished, national institutions.
Advocating greater decentralization of the legislative and administrative systems through a national planning council that would develop a new national policy, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said:
A truly national policy born of a consensus among all governments would, I believe, have a better chance of being accepted by the whole population because it would be more able to meet the objectives and priorities of each part of Canada.
That is a positive input into this debate that tells Canadians the direction in which the Progressive Conservative party is headed. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) also enriched the debate from the perspective of the maritimes. He said:
The problem with which we must grapple, along with the complexities of this bill, is whether or not the arrangements which have been put before us and which were generally agreed to by the provinces in December hold out the danger of fundamentally increasing the sorts of disparities which exist now. When we look at the situation in the five eastern provinces specifically, and the swelling of the unemployment rate which has taken place in the past several months, we cannot be sanguine about this kind of proposed agreement and about the services which will be provided under this arrangement.
We want to be sure that the formula and framework which is being presented here will not be so rigid as to prevent effective action for dealing with disparities of income, employment, or unforeseen developments which may affect either existing revenues or bring about, indeed, a shortfall of revenues, or excessive costs in certain programs of the poorer provinces.
From the west we heard from the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who pointed out:
This whole process of executive federalism, of dealing with the constitutional system of the country at only the highest and, in most cases, the most remote levels of government, belittles the House of Commons, renders the opposition meaningless, and contributes to a sense of high-level confrontations between political stars which heighten rather than reduce the centrifugal forces inherent in federal systems of government.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), another westerner, revealed his deep sense of Canadianism when he said:
We may be on the threshold of a new era of Canadian confederation, an era marked by greater awareness of provincial and regional needs and sensitivities, greater respect for the diversity of culture and heritage which characterizes the various parts of this country and, in the not too distant future, by a better
February 24, 1977

balance as between the centre and periphery of the country. This is the concept for which we must strive, in both official languages, and all regions.
Mr. Speaker, these are the speeches of leadership. Let no one say the opposition in this parliament only criticizes. We are leading the way into a renewed Canada. We do not need show business tactics. What we are doing is studying the options and creating new policies.
Mr. Speaker, around the world people are asking, "Can democracy cope with the complex problems of a modern, interdependent global community? There is a crisis of political faith in the ability of democratic governments to respond. All the polls indicate a serious dropping off of public belief in the efficacy and trustworthiness of government. Canada is by no means exempt from this voter disenchantment. Distrust of a large, powerful and faceless bureaucracy in Ottawa is intensifying. People are paying higher taxes than ever to support an ever-growing government-and yet the problems of transportation, housing and safety in society are getting worse. Decentralization is not a magic answer to all this, but without decentralization the problems of the municipalities, the level of government closest to the people, will become chaotic.
The rate of urbanization is nothing short of phenomenal. Before the end of this century 94 per cent of Canadians will be urbanized and three-quarters will live in 12 major cities. Urbanization is caused by an interlocking set of developments spawned by exploding technology. Government efforts must be directed toward managing the process of urbanization. The special problems of urbanization-public assistance, transportation, environmental management, leisure, recreation and housing-interact on one another and demand more money which municipalities have no way of raising, thus exacerbating their dependence on provincial and federal government grants.
The quality of life in urban centres is diminishing, despite local efforts; the institutional framework of government was established long before the social impact of urbanization was ever dreamed of. As the role and level of government in Canada has expanded, each level-federal, provincial and municipal-has become involved in areas in which the other levels previously had a special or exclusive interest. Complexity and fragmentation of government has followed. This has resulted in a proliferation of duplicative, autonomy-seeking special agencies in each level of government, and hence has highlighted the problem of a decision-making mechanism which can no longer respond to the needs of a society in an era of accelerating social change.
Thus, a new philosophy at the top is needed to meet the super problems of big government and urbanization. Only a new philosophy can counter the mounting evidence that government is big, rather than strong; flabby, rather than powerful; that is costs a great deal and does not achieve very much. More tinkering with government will not be enough. That is why the present federal government's policies on decentralization are inadequate. They are focused on spreading out certain government departments such as DREE, Revenue, and Supply and Services, and diversifying the sources of federal purchasing. This approach is too narrow a concept of decentralization.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
A comprehensive plan based on a philosophy of streamlining is urgently needed-not more piecemeal solutions to mounting problems.
Decentralization is a theme running through the report on the constitution of Canada produced by the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons in June, 1972. The committee made clear that we need a new constitution to make possible a more functional federalism. It stated:
A new Canadian constitution should be based on functional considerations, which would lead to greater decentralization of government powers in areas touching cultural and social policy and to greater centralization of powers which have important economic effects at the national level. Functional considerations also require greater decentralization in many areas of government administration.
The principal way in which constitutional decentralization can be brought about is contained in recommendation No. 50 which sets the division of powers in a more modern context as follows:
Concurrent powers which predominantly affect the national interest should grant paramountcy to federal parliament and those which predominantly affect provincial or local interests should grant paramountcy to the provincial legislature.
Therefore, a complete policy on decentralization begins with full support of the constitutional committee's recommendations on decentralization and a commitment to implement them. A more functional allocation of governmental powers will benefit all regions. The committee proposes an expansion of provincial powers in such areas as income support, criminal law, marriage and divorce, educational TV, taxing powers and international arrangements. The committee supports limitation of federal powers with respect to appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court and with respect to federal spending in fields of provincial jurisdiction. Correspondingly, greater centralization is necessary in the regulation of the economy. Hence, there should be a transfer of some existing provincial powers to the federal parliament; for example, an increase in federal jurisdiction over air and water pollution, international and interprovincial trade and commerce, incomes, securities regulation, financial institutions, unfair competition and foreign ownership.
The constitutional committee made a major recommendation concerning decentralization in the field of social security: the federal government should determine over-all spending in such programs as old age pensions, supplements and family allowances, and the provinces should determine how this total should be distributed within limits to preserve national standards and maintain the principle of redistributing income.
There is today a great deal of confusion over jurisdiction, and increasing political rivalry in promoting bigger social benefits. Integrated economic-social planning between the federal and provincial governments is imperative to prevent the escalation of universal benefits into a welfare state. Strategies for growth, housing and transportation are but three of the items in which the people will best be served by the three levels of government working closely together.

February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
In considering ways to decentralization it should be reaffirmed that the federal parliament must retain the primary responsibility for general economic policy in the country. Thus, decentralization does not rule out centralization in primary areas. The federal parliament must have sufficient economic powers to regulate and influence the economy. However, in fulfilling this constitutional responsibility of centralization the federal government should explore more ways of decentralizing its operation so that federal policies can be regionally adapted. Decentralizing the decision-making process is of far more value than redistributing a handful of civil servants. The joint committee on the constitution of Canada recognized this and stated:
Most Crown corporations could have their headquarters outside Ottawa, as many already have. Federal departments like agriculture, energy, mines and resources, environment, national defence and transport could have their principal offices elsewhere, and many other departments could give their regional offices more authority. Even when Ottawa must remain the effective centre of administration, a greater effort can be made to encourage regional input.
Surely this was the thrust of the message of Newfoundland which we heard the other night from the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). To go to another part of the country, the western premiers, at the western economic opportunities conference, called for the establishment of industrial "centres of excellence" throughout the various regions of Canada. These centres would be based on natural and human resources, supported by research and marketing assistance to develop a vital economic unit capable of serving national and international markets.
Such a program concept suggests clear initiative on the part of the federal government in the establishment and support of new centres of industrial activity in Canada. It would involve decentralization of the technical expertise of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to plan and support the development of such centres, and the major funding of research activities and new industrial enterprise in co-operation with other departments of the federal government.
We can see, now, the necessity of the federal government permitting the provincial governments and various local organizations to participate in the planning of broad economic development policies, in establishing regional industrial priorities, and in the development and implementation of programs. There should be, in short, decentralization of decision-making power on assistance programs, and strengthening of regional offices. True decentralization calls for massive changes in the financial system of Canada so that municipalities can provide the public transportation, housing, water and social services demanded by urbanization. Grants by senior governments that want the political credit for handing out money are not the answer; today there are so many millions of dollars of transfer payments being issued from one government office to another that it is impossible to keep track of it all, let alone provide accountability to the people.
In summary, I do not see decentralization as a cure-all for Canada's problems and I am certainly not suggesting it as such, but it is an approach which will enable us to find the detailed answers Canada wants this place to find at this very
[Mr. Roche.)
critical moment in our history. It is time for us to assert our will to succeed as a people, for a nation is primarily constituted by its people's collective will to live together. In every region of Canada people have common aspirations for a truly human life. It ought to be the function of government and parliament to help all Canadians deepen faith in their own country.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate, although sometimes one feels there is a certain sense of unreality because we cannot face up to the fundamental issues behind the bill just by the mere statistics and details of the legislation. While we defer consideration of the precise terms of the bill to a later stage, I was thinking as I glanced over this fundamental document that it might be something of an inadequate response to the challenge to confederation to look at something like	as one
of the formulae whereby we can work out the arrangements between the provinces and the dominion. That complicated formula cannot, of course, be the full and final answer, nor can we consider the clauses of the bill as sufficient discussion about the problem before us.
I have been impressed by those hon. members who have applied themselves to what I believe is the spirit of the law, as Montesquieu might say, and to the fundamental principles lying behind and beyond the law. I was notably impressed by the speeches of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the (Mr. Wagner). I was glad the Globe and Mail this morning showed the wisdom of reproducing his very helpful, very cognate and useful remarks. I cannot use her language now, but I thought the hon. lady made a masterful review of the situation, setting out fundamental truths and basic principles. I thought the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe made a moving statement of his credo on federalism. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands-and this has been referred to by an honourable, distinguished and learned gentleman, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-was profoundly correct when she pointed out the importance of this forum for discussion of great national issues.
As the House of Commons through the years has become something like a glorified sausage-mill of legislation we have tended to lose an understanding of its principal role. The House of Commons does not run the country; that is the job of the government. However, the House of Commons must, and should-and at its best, does-represent the country. So it is very important that in this body, which represents all the people and which is freely chosen by those people, we apply ourselves to fundamental questions. 1 was proud of the hon. lady for bringing forward that issue, and of the hon. gentleman for dealing with it.
This is the first time since the election in Quebec that there has been serious attention paid to that event. Without being an alarmist, I can say that Canada is in crisis. We are not asking just how we are going to be governed, or who is going to govern us-although that is important-but we are asking whether we will have a country tomorrow or at some not too
February 24, 1977

distant date. While the shock, uncertainty and anxiety which followed November 15 is the most serious crisis in our country's history, it is well for us not to regard it as the first one. We have had threats before-threats galore-and we should always remember that not all the threats to this nation have been uttered or written in French. We learn that in some parts of the western domain people are a little annoyed if they, too, are not counted in what is called alienation. We should remember that in fact our whole history has been a series of threats. As one of my professors used to say, there is this constant interplay between the centripetal and the centrifugal forces, one which would draw us together and the other which would pull us apart.
Before we began as a country, but after our forefathers began the discussion on the creation of a country, one province-New Brunswick-voted against it. It took clever manipulation to get them on the track so that by 1867 they were willing to come in. In Nova Scotia, the premier made sure that the people did not discuss the issue, did not vote on the issue, nor did the legislature vote on the issue. When confederation came in 1867, Nova Scotia sent a raft of members of parliament to the confederated capital, all but one of whom were dedicated to breaking up confederation. Long after that people in the maritimes could win elections on an anti-confederation plank. So it is not a new situation. But the country pulled together then to resist the storms and weather the anxieties and attacks.
At that time we had very wise men who saw that after you made a country, you had to do something to keep it together. Sir John A. Macdonald saw what I am afraid many people today are not seeing, and some of them bear the same party label as I do. He believed that the whole was greater than the parts and must be greater than the sum of the parts; that a strong central government with reserved power was absolutely necessary because that was the only critical mechanism which represented all the people of the total entity and which had at best the ability to inspire the ideals and patriotism of the people. He did more than that; he launched us on a program whereby we challenged our problems, our difficulties, our history and our geography. He did not mope and grope about internal strains. He set out a broad area of challenge. Perhaps today we are a little too inward-looking.
I have mentioned the past, Mr. Speaker, not because I am so old or old-looking, but I believe we ignore it at our peril. It has been said that a true Conservative derives lessons from the past and the reactionary is bound by them. We are not bound by the past, of course, but we serve ourselves ill if we forget it. I am not here to pretend that I am back in my university classroom. I am not here to administer a history lesson. 1 am here to express my concern about some of the developments in this country, and often I am a little more disturbed about the reactions to the events than to the events themselves.
I have read where it is said it is not inevitable that Quebec leave; that everything is going to be fine and all will be well in
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements the palsy-walsy world. I would say simply that it is not inevitable that they will not leave. There is no unwritten law that decrees we shall stay together. Much worse than that reaction is the reaction of those who say, "Let them go". That is a shocking, dangerous and, indeed, evil attitude for any Canadian to take. If there is no feeling of togetherness of people who have lived together and shared a country for over a century, then surely there is something terribly wrong.
Another suggestion we get is that Quebec cannot go. This is also dangerous. A state of Quebec would be no mean member of the community of nations. There are many perhaps a hundred-at the United Nations less capable and less viable economically than the province of Quebec. We should not build up illusions, nor should we foster narrow, bigoted attitudes that could be crippling and dangerous. 1 think it is important that we keep a sense of balance and a sense of moderation.
Another thing one hears is that if there is successful separation of Quebec, it will be followed by withdrawal of other units. This I find to be the lowest common denominator of national faith. Surely, if it should happen-and pray God it will not-that one of our prime members should leave, should not, and would not, all the other members draw more closely together instead of flying off into different areas? So I am not impressed by the suggestion that that would shatter our national dream still further in respect of others following the example. I cannot believe that patriotic Canadians, whether east, west, centre or farther, would believe in such an unworthy suggestion.
We cannot stand idly by and see separatism manipulated or stumbled into by demagogues or ill-advised zealots. It is our duty, to use an old-fashioned word, to keep this country together. I would not for a moment suggest that I am a better Canadian than anyone in this chamber or anyone in this country, but one of my great honours is to represent the cradle of confederation. I represent the place where it all began in 1864-Charlottetown. I do not want to see the dreams of those forefathers shattered in my lifetime. 1 do not want to see the great entity which they created destroyed in my lifetime or the lifetime of my children.
On the plaque of the confederation chamber in Charlottetown is a typical Canadian attitude, part of a verse from an American writer and part from an English writer, which reads:
Providence being their guide.
They builded better than they knew.
I have spent much of my life decrying the denigration of our founding fathers, the unwillingness to recognize them as among the greatest nation-builders in the world. With all the gravity at my command I would like to give my humble views on how we, as Canadian legislators dealing with the matter of federal-provincial relations, which is the essence of the federal system, can deal with something which is so important to us. First, we cannot do it by force. That would be unthinkable and probably impossible, if we were foolish enough to think of it. We do not have to look any further than to Lebanon or

February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Northern Ireland to see the criminal folly of fratricidal blood-letting.
We cannot do it by fear. We hear it said, "They will never make it alone. They cannot do it economically." That will not help. It is a delusion. I think we can no more solve this situation by balance-sheets than we can by battalions. We cannot do it by confrontation, either. I differ strongly with those who say the best thing is to have a national referendum and let the whole country vote. That would polarize one against the other. We do not need polarization; we need accommodation; we need agreement.
The final thing that concerns me is that we cannot save this country by so diminishing the central government that there is nothing left but a loose alliance of dominion states. To so weaken the central government as to make it meaningless would be a defeat by default. We need to recognize mutual problems.
When I first came to this chamber 20 years ago, the fourth edition of Beauchesne's had been printed. Mr. Beauchesne was not a Scotsman. Members of the House who spoke French only and became involved in procedural arguments-they are difficult enough even when you know the English language- could only use the English version of Beauchesne because it had not been translated into French. It was not translated until 1964 although it was written in 1922. Also, at that time we who were not wise enough or fortunate enough to understand French could not understand what our French-speaking colleagues said because there was no translation system. And all this took place nearly 100 years after the country began, a country which began by saying clearly, as the British North America Act said, that the two languages are equal in the parliament of Canada. If they are equal in the parliament of Canada, would it not be logical to make the whole apparatus on which parliament rests reflect that bilingual equality? There have been great anxieties over the Official Languages Act and its implementation. But part of our trouble today is that we have tried to put right in ten years that which has been neglected for 100 years. We who are Anglophones in this House must remember these things and take cognizance of them.
I agree with much that has been said previously about the need for less bitterness in dominion-provincial relations, about the need for greater accommodation on many matters. 1 agree with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said a couple of hours ago, that the British North America Act is a pretty fine document. I think it is capable of great flexibility. Nova Scotia, through Joseph Howe, had it changed in a matter of months. Certain subsidies were written in. As I say, great accommodation is possible. 1 think the old document is fine. But if it be necessary to change the constitution in order to keep the country, let us change the constitution. A certain Protestant French prince once said that Paris was worth a Mass.
I think the British North America Act is a fine document, repatriated or not. But surely the country is far greater than the BNA Act. If in the process of bringing about new beginnings and deeper understandings it needs to be changed, so be it. In these days of instant communication, easy transportation, electronic media and sophistication, surely it is easier for us to keep this magnificient, modern country together than it was for our forefathers to structure a union between dissociated, dislocated, remote communities in a primitive age, when there was little certainty as to how great our future would be in material terms. I say our job should be easier. I believe that if we fail in that, if we become wreckers of confederation instead of fathers of confederation, we shall be unworthy of them and unworthy of ourselves.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-37, an act to provide for the making of certain fiscal payments and of establishing programs covering financial contributions to the provinces. I particularly welcome the opportunity to speak immediately following my esteemed colleague for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) for, like him, on June 10, of this year I shall have served this House for 20 years. In that time I know both of us have seen many changes in the country and in the House.
This bill is important and complex and comes before the House when there is much soul-searching in Canada. Scarcely a day passes without members of parliament, presumably of all parties, receiving letters from their constituents asking, "What has gone wrong in Canada? Where did we take the wrong turn in the road? How did we lose our way?" For example, our senior citizens are worried and concerned because the purchasing power of their savings has been eroded to the point where they may be unable to provide for their own physical needs in old age. Our young and middle-aged citizens are frustrated and perplexed by their inability to pay high interest and mortgage payments, by the inadequacy and high cost of housing and by the fear that no matter how hard they work they will never get out of debt. Our young people, to use the vernacular, can no longer "get with it," for the youth of our country represents the largest percentage of unemployed on our unemployment rolls.
We must ask ourselves, what does Bill C-37 do for them and what does it do to alleviate the present crisis in our nation, a crisis which is eating at our very vitals morning, noon and night? Unfortunately, it does little. This bill represents an agreement made between Canada's first ministers last December and attempts to bring about substantial changes in fiscal responsibilities and government programs applying to our two levels of government without seeking any formal amendment of our constitution.
As was said so ably by my leader and other colleagues, especially the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the premiers have been quoted as being in agreement with these proposals. But what else could they do? When you have a gun at your head and you need financial help, what else can you do? There was no way the premiers were going to throw their weight around and refuse the bone thrown to them. Since

February 24, 1977

1 realize that Nova Scotia, my own province, needs every cent it can get, I intend to vote for this bill. But the manner in which it was conceived leaves much to be desired. To be frank, it seems to me that more problems of national import are examined and finalized in Ottawa's old railway station than in the House of Commons by Canada's elected representatives.
Apparently this is the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) concept of co-operative federalism. Unfortunately, the concept has failed and a new approach to our problems must be found if we are to go forward in unity as a nation. Perhaps the Prime Minister's greatest failure in this, our hour of crisis, has been failure of communication. For far too long this elitist, selfseeking, overindulgent government has been practising a policy of confrontation rather than of consultation. We have had confrontations with labour, business, management-with just about every segment of society, in which 1 include our provincial governments. Today our provincial governments are confronted with a "take it or leave it" attitude in revenue sharing. Our provincial governments are being asked to reduce the cost of their administrations by our pyromaniac Prime Minister who, having ignited the inferno, now asks the premiers to dampen the fires of inflation. This "con" artist has developed a lifestyle at public expense which would put an Arabian oil sheik to shame-a swimming pool, massive staff, Cadillacs- you name it, he's got it! After emptying the public purse to the tune of some $5 billion this year alone, he has the gall to ask the premiers to practise restraint. Some members of parliament seem to be unaware of this government's waste and extravagance. However, a short review of the record will soon establish the facts. According to the tables the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury) presented to this House in 1974 when he was president of the treasury board, tables contained in the pamphlet entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent", in 1967-68 when the present government was elected under the leadership of our present Prime Minister it took less than $10 billion to look after the needs of 20 million Canadians, or about $1 billion for every two million citizens. Now, ten years later, there are some 23 million Canadians. Using the same yardstick of $1 billion for two million citizens our budget should be in the order of $12.5 billion or, if I allow for inflation, about $13 billion. However, as we are all painfully aware, the budget is not $13 billion, $20 billion, $25 billion, $30 billion, $35 billion or even $40 billion-it is in excess of $45 billion.
Is it any wonder that Canadians of all ages are worried, or that the bonds which unite us have become frayed and torn? No nation, no matter how strong, can long survive this type of internal pressure. Just as families start feuding and fighting and breaking up when problems of money, or lack of money, become a central issue, I believe the same is true of the nation.
With the tabling of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, it is now obvious that it is not the intention of the government to treat the provinces fairly or justly or with due consideration for their economic needs. To realize the truth of that statement all one needs to do is compare the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements amount earmarked for public works in the Atlantic region with the amount which is spent by the Department of Public Works in the national capital region of Ottawa-Hull. The Atlantic region is to receive some $14.5 million, while Ottawa-Hull is to enjoy the benefit of approximately six times as much-some $87.9 million. Incidentally, Quebec is to receive around $128 million.
The federal energy department and its agencies are to have its total spending trimmed by some $500 million. But how is this to be accomplished? Most of the so-called saving will be the result of a projected $612 million cut in oil subsidy payments to the five eastern provinces. The federal so-called savings will thereby be financed by the people of Atlantic Canada who will be paying more for energy. This is the end result of the government's freeze on expenditures. The only ones who may freeze next winter will be the people of Atlantic Canada suffering under the policies of this administration.
In addition, the citizens of Atlantic Canada will be paying more next year in health and welfare costs since this government plans to cut its contribution to our region by around 2 per cent. It is interesting to note, also, that our unemployed have not been forgotten. The cut in the budget of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is bound to wreak more hardship on an area already suffering from a hopelessly high rate of unemployment. So what will happen? If neither jobs nor benefits are available for our people, we cannot, in all conscience, let them starve. They will have to turn to the local welfare rolls, thus placing a further burden on our municipalities, an elected level of government which has the lowest level of tax sources available to it.
Granted, the government plans to set aside around $286 million for a project designed to create jobs and train those who are out of work. I submit the announcement is not impressive when viewed in the context of what has happened in the past in the field of job-creation and training. In my opinion, what is needed is an entirely new approach to economic growth. In the past, grants have been made to business by a government department following an assessment of the future of the firm concerned. This assessment was carried out by public servants. In effect, the government has decided that public servants can take better decisions in the business world than can the businessmen themselves. This, of course, is nonsense, for if public servants really possessed this kind of expertise they would hasten to establish their own businesses. All the system has done is build up a bureaucracy while adding to the burden placed upon successful business ventures which in the end must provide the tax dollars to the government.
I believe the government should provide encouragement for businessmen to start new enterprises without direct government interference. One way to do this would be to establish a standard grant formula under which any firm setting up or expanding an enterprise would be entitled to assistance amounting to a certain percentage of the costs up to a fixed maximum. The government's role would only be to determine that the criteria specified in legislation were met by the

February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements participating firm. The grants would then be automatic. There would be no need for an army of bureaucrats trying to assess business factors. The evidence that a businessman, or a group of businessmen, showed willingness to risk capital in an endeavour would be taken and accepted as an indication of a favourable business assessment.
There is another method which might be used. The government could provide a tax incentive, something which would require even less bureaucracy. What 1 have in mind is a proposal that any person investing equity capital in a new or expanding business could write off a certain percentage of that amount against tax liability. The government would share the risk, as it does now, with a grant but under my plan the business decisions would be left to the private entrepreneur. Such an approach would be even more helpful to our young people with new ideas. They would be able to attract equity capital from other citizens, each of whom would make his own assessment of the viability of the project. Additional business judgment would thus be brought to bear on each new enterprise, adding to the probability that the business would be successful.
There are, undoubtedly, other equally valid proposals that could be made, but the key element in my suggestion is that the government would no longer be making business judgments and assessments. I submit that business assessments are not the function of government. This is, and must, remain the function of private enterprise if our system is to survive. 1 am not saying that the government should wash its hands of the entire matter and get out of the field of economic growth. What 1 am suggesting is a change in the government's role. The government can create the environment in which private enterprise, big and small businesses, can flourish. Experience over the years has shown that businessmen, if given half a chance, will start a new enterprise or expand an existing one if they can see a profit in so doing. I know, because I am speaking from experience.
The government can help by providing information on markets foreign and local. In fact, businessmen respond to opportunities for making a profit, and profit is only possible if goods or services can be sold. The federal government could provide some of this market by moving more of its government offices to areas of high unemployment such as the Atlantic region. In addition, the federal government, with its vast, persuasive powers, could help encourage the large labour-intensive administrative head offices of our insurance companies, trust companies, banks and labour organizations to locate in slow growth or high unemployment areas. This was not feasible in the past, but today we can communicate within seconds with men on the moon, or a spaceship on Mars-so modern communication systems make it possible to locate head offices anywhere in Canada.
In addition to these proposals, the federal government simply has to continue its equalization and transfer payment programs. These have been the main instruments for improving our business environment in the past. In my opinion, these

programs should not be reduced at least until more positive economic conditions in our area have been created.
Throughout my remarks I have endeavoured to relate our present national plight to our economic plight. I believe that if steps are taken along the lines I have proposed to strengthen our economic situation we will at the same time strengthen our national unity. From the letters I receive from my constituents, it is obvious that they and the vast majority of people in Canada are concerned about the current political health of our country. There is pessimism throughout the land that I find unrealistic and defeatist in its attitude.
It was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who said that the twentieth century belonged to Canada. I, for one, believe he was right. However, if we are to get on with the task of nation-building, we must rekindle our faith in our national destiny. Our very survival as a nation has been because of our diversity. Each of us has inherited, and has been enriched by, the contributions made throughout Canada by a number of cultural groups. Today, I believe that each of us as individual citizens must develop a new sense of personal dedication and participation in the future of our country. The preservation and the development of Canada must be beyond political parties, beyond factions and beyond selfish interests. In my view, it must be done through the wholehearted co-operation of Canadians of all political views, all languages and racial origin.
Without this commitment on the part of the individual Canadian for his country, and for the ideals for which it stands, without the direct participation of individual Canadians in the decisions that will seriously affect this nation's future, the decisions unfortunately will be made by competing provincial governments, self-seeking politicians and a few powerful special interest groups. This simply must not happen. The job of reaffirmation to Canadian ideals, the job of reconfederation-that is the task that faces us-will have to be done within Canada and by all Canadians. It is a job that cannot be done by the temporary managers of our society. It is a job that will be done, a job that must be done, by the owners of our society, namely, the citizens of Canada.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I shall confine my remarks on this complex bill to two or three phases which I believe are the most important, at least in principle; namely, what the government is doing in terms of financing in the health field. In a general way we support the thrust of the government's legislation in this regard. Since I came to this House I have been of the opinion that the federal government should by and large not be involved in the financing of health, welfare and post-secondary education, at least to any massive degree. Rather, this should be done by the provinces and returned to them at the earliest opportunity, with appropriate tax concessions.
I think this practice is a monster which has been built up largely at the instigation of the federal government. I remember that in 1969 the Weir government in Manitoba, the last Conservative government in the province, tried to negotiate
February 24, 1977

with the federal government some type of control over medicare which would not be onerous to its citizens, yet were rebuffed by the federal government. We now have a quite massive program which has to be curtailed. I also believe that these financing programs have been one of the main causes of the threatened break-up of confederation because of their economic effect.
Before the advent of shared-cost programs in the field of health, welfare and post-secondary education Canadians lived with a great deal of national identity. In view of the affluence of the times it would appear that these programs should have brought Canadians closer together, whereas in fact they have separated them. Having been given vast sums of money to spend on health, welfare and education-and since 20 years ago each community has been largely responsible for its own level of education, medical and hospital care-this has now become the responsibility of the distant federal government. Even 25 years ago 80 per cent of local education costs up to university level was raised from property taxes, and virtually all Canadians paid for their own doctor and hospital care either out of their own pockets or under a plan from which they could draw no more than they had paid in by way of premiums. The shared-cost programs under which the federal government paid 50 cents on the dollar encouraged great expansion of the health and welfare fields, as well as education. Indeed, if the amount spent on health and welfare by the federal government were taken out of the budget, the budget would be quite manageable.
It is often thought by Canadians that their economic problems are unique, whereas in fact they are largely problems experienced in the English-speaking world. They are problems largely invented by Canadian public opinion and policy in the frequent and fallacious Canadian attempt to arrive at a national identity by perpetuating mistakes made by the two larger nations that we most envy and resemble, at least in our social structure, namely, Great Britain and the United States.
The central problem is the runaway welfare state whose Canadian identity is closer to that of Britain than the United States. One of the main problems was the adoption by the Canadian government of the Marsh report, a report written by Leonard C. Marsh in 1943 on social security in Canada. It was patterned after the Beveridge plan and it rested on the assumption that "cradle to the grave" social security would not undermine but would, instead, reinforce the traditional personal and social values of self-reliance and devotion to hard work. It was not realized that as new generations replaced the old and as people became used to the welfare state they would regard social security as their due; that work was only a means of qualifying for such, or a source of discretionary income and that in fact this discretionary income would increasingly not be worth working too hard for since it would be heavily taxed for the benefit of others.
Along with the social benefits of health and welfare, the commitment of the government to maintain high employment assumed that people would remain grateful for the employment and would not take advantage of the guarantee to seek
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements higher wages, either by exploitation of monopoly power by powerful unions or by shifting part of the burden of taxes to other shoulders.
Inherent in this legislation is a discussion on where education is tending to go. The emphasis on the democratic right to free higher education has meant keeping a large part of the population in school during the period of young adulthood, where previously it would have had to start a career with reasonable lifetime prospects. This would not be so bad if school is serious hard work which drives a student to acquire useful productive skills. But in the three English-speaking nations I referred to, the self-fulfilment ideas of the teacher and the minimum effort objectives of the students combine to produce an incipient labour force that is well prepared to consume income and well-schooled in administering a job but has frequently missed the experience of exerting one's abilities to the limit in mastering the work involved. There is an important difference in the conception of the old idea of working and the modern idea of having a job.
The extension of the generous state-financed pensions to the retired is most widely acclaimed on the basis that it was the least objectionable aspect of the welfare state because it recognized that many old people could not work and could not fend for themselves. The advent of the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada pension, plus the scourge of the elderly-the great fear that a man would be unable to care for himself, to pay for his drugs, for hospital care and for his doctor-has removed from the citizen the requirement of savings, retirement funds and pensions which have contributed substantially to the inflationary pressures that are now upon us.
I have often said that it is not necessary to have nearly the personal savings now as it was a few years ago, and the consuming portion of old age is not nearly as important as it was. For these people the problems of health are paramount. Earlier retirement and increasing attention to young adults programs are increasingly dividing the population into two groups of consumers, one young, one old, supported by an in-between adult group of producers carrying a heavy burden of taxation.
The most important features of the enormous government increase in expenditure are in the field of health, welfare and education. With the advent of the government-sponsored plans, costs have escalated enormously. Certainly, the government of the sixties that instituted these plans must bear a great deal of criticism for the state of our economy. Much of the thinking on entering these state-run plans was misdirected, but entirely understandable. I cannot help thinking of a clause or manifesto of the British Labour party which suggested that all sickness was the result of inadequate medical care. The paper debated by the Labour party permitted the idea that through better medical care the need for hospitals would gradually dry up and they could be closed. Indeed, modern medicine that reduces death and illness in earlier life only prolongs the

February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements lifespan so that the degenerative diseases of heart, cancer and plain old age bring the medical problems of the individual to much greater importance, and the financial obligations of the state are immensely increased.
The BN A Act, as I understand it, gave to the provinces health, welfare and education, and they should return there as quickly as possible. In my opinion, the so-called equality of medical and hospital care is highly overrated. An analysis of hospital care shows that it is becoming rigid. Hospitals are being run for the staff and the administration, with the patients being of secondary importance. They are only necessary to keep jobs for the staff. If one studies the hospital policy, it is obvious that the number of people actually involved in the care of patients is not a great deal more than what it was when patients paid for their own care. The great expansion has been in the ancillary and the administrative spheres. Many jobs in the periphery of hospitals are hard to justify. Mostly the problem with these programs is that there are no guidelines, no limits that may be reasonably imposed on medical, hospital and educational institutions. There are always new and endless programs that will benefit some in the community and certainly some that one has to consider as very worthwhile. It is very difficult to give up a program once instituted. It is always easier to try to start another program.
With the provinces having to finance and run their own programs, we can expect to have more efficiency and more innovation. There should not be the same drive to innovate new programs merely because some other province had them and that province needed them in order to save face. Perhaps the provinces, in turn, will involve once more local governments and even voluntary groups in the administration and financing of hospitals and medical care. The smaller the political unit, the much better the spending power used. It seems to me that municipal government gets more "bang for their buck" than the provincial government, and the provincial government seems to spend better than the federal government, at least in productivity for the amount of money spent. I believe that the federal government must negotiate in good faith. It must return these programs to the care of the provinces. I come from a province that receives some money. I understand that on balance the province of Manitoba neither gains nor loses much in the exchange.
The question of unity has been touched on in this debate by many people, most pointedly by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). The election of Mr. Levesque has once more brought the country to considering the constitution and the make-up of confederation. Now that Quebec has forced the issue, the country cannot go back again. Suffice it to say the new mood in Quebec and in the other provinces has shifted dramatically against the federalism of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Now, in 1977, if the issues are debated more calmly I think they are more dangerous. For the past number of years the government's very narrow and bilingual policies, which was the approach to Quebec nationalism, have increasingly come to be disputed and distrusted by English Canada, and growing skepticism of the value of Ottawa's bilingual

policies and the independence of Quebec has become a subject of consideration. If the country is to avoid political disaster, it needs the good will of English-speaking Canada.
It is doubtful if this government has the capacity to meet this crisis. If they had a policy and if it was aimed at anything, it was at preventing the Parti Quebecois from coming to power. However, the Parti Quebecois is now in power and Mr. Bourassa is studying arrangements for the Common Market in Brussels. Obviously, Ottawa's Quebec policy has failed. How can it be expected, unless that policy is changed, to overcome the PQ in power, and can this government, with its tight commitment to the central role, shift its faith and perspectives sufficiently to meet the changed circumstances? If there is to be a national policy capable of coming to terms with Quebec nationalism, it must be one which represents and asserts the will of English-speaking Canada to live for itself also as an independent community. If Quebec is to be granted the choice over its destiny, there must be a collective future awaiting the provinces and territories that remain. Will these diverse provinces be able to live together? The government has been in office a long time and it has a massive federal bureaucracy to back it up. If a federal government, made up of half of its members from the province of Quebec and one-third of its cabinet ministers from that province is unable to prevent the election of a Parti Quebecois government, then one has to conclude that the electorate, in electing Mr. Levesque, represents strong feelings on the part of the Quebecois.
There are those in the federal cabinet, including the Minister of Finance, who have suggested that provincial premiers who join Quebec in a united front during federal-provincial conferences make themselves accomplices to the PQ cause. The Prime Minister has said that the federal system is untouchable-"to abandon it now would be a sin against the spirit, to sin against humanity". These are hardly words by which politicians would be ready to enter an open and reasonable discussion on constitutional changes.
The province of Quebec has set its sights on independence, while Canada seems to be failing to search for the appropriate language, constitutional devices and the mechanism of change that will guide us. We have to respond to the challenge of Quebec with prudence and thought. All seem agreed that the new shape of things must envisage more independence for the province of Quebec. But what forms remain for the rest of the Canadian confederation?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in the debate on Bill C-37. However, having listened to hon. members put forth their views and then using the bill as a springboard to discuss the whole question of Canadian confederation, and what has taken place in the last two days, I am moved to at least say a few words on this question. I can promise Your Honour that it will not last six hours.
We in this party oppose Bill C-37. We have argued that, in effect, once it is implemented, the poorer provinces in this
February 24, 1977

country will suffer as a result of it and will feel the effects even more severely than the wealthy provinces which can sustain that sort of impact. But more than that, since this bill comes at a very important time in the development of the history of Canada, one thing that concerns me greatly is the colonialist mentality which we as Canadians still seem to have.
I recognize the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was following the long tradition of potential actors and performers who have to go to the United States to become successful and who then bring back their success to Canada. While 1 recognize the quality of his speech, I would have appreciated it far more had it been made in Canada to Canadians, because in effect the problems facing us as Canadians today must be solved by Canadians. We are the ones who will have to solve the problems, instead of running to Big Brother in the hope that Big Brother will help us in this game to solidify Canadian unity. It seems to me to be betraying a colonialist mentality which we have not yet outgrown. 1 refer in particular to the comment made by the Primer Minister at the press conference when he said:
The greatest threat to the United States is the disintegration or the break-up of Canada.
It struck me immediately, as I read it, as being a tacit invitation to Big Brother. Here is the Prime Minister, the leader of a country, saying in effect to our neighbour that their security depends on Canada being united. So if, for example, Mr. Levesque and the Parti Quebecois are seen as endangering that unity, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that all sorts of agents, agents provocateurs, CIA and other characters will want to invade this country in an effort to destabilize the situation in Quebec. Indeed, it is an open invitation to American investors to stay out of the province of Quebec, thus creating a situation of hardship in Quebec so as to bring the people of that province to realization of the error of their ways and so as to convince them not to support separation in any referendum.
I say that the people of Quebec made their choice, and they had the democratic right to do so. I think it really puts me down as a Canadian when the leader of my country goes to the capital of a foreign country and makes a press statement in which he says, in effect, "Boys, the greatest threat to the United States of America would be the break-up of Canada".


Mr. Malone:: Speak on Bill C-37.


John R. Rodriguez: Since we are discussing the whole question of Canadian unity in Bill C-37-and the Tories have done it also, in spite of their catcalls-it seems to me it is only fair for us to put our comments on the record. I believe, since other members have expressed their views on what they want for Canada, that I should express mine-as a naturalized Canadian who was not born in Canada-namely, that 1 stand for a free Quebec, just as I stand for a free Ontario, a free Manitoba or a free Saskatchewan. The only way that can come about is for Canada to be free. From my ideological perspective, we should have a free socialist Canada because, in my view, that
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements is the only way in which Canada can guarantee the cultural rights of all groups within Canada and of all provinces.
I hear giggling on my right, but the fact remains that foreign ownership in Canada is still a great threat. What is the good of coming through the other struggle as a united Canada when, in effect, we have no control over our consumer patterns and no control over our own culture, when the culture we have is by and large a foreign culture and when our standard of living is based on what is happening in the United States so that when they have a tough time we have an even tougher time. We must be able to say to Canadians that we want a free and independent Canada, but that to achieve it we will have to make some sacrifices. Yes, we will even have to be prepared to accept a lower standard of living as we try to achieve some economic independence and, we hope, the cultural independence which will follow.
What we have done is, in effect, to give up that whole fight. There was a great froufra about foreign ownership in this country, so we brought in the Foreign Investment Review Act.
I have received reports which state that six out of seven applications for take-overs are approved. As parliamentarians, we never see the basis for an approval or a rejection of a take-over. We see the spectacle of provincial premiers running to the boardrooms in foreign countries begging them to invest in their provinces.
Coming, as I do, from a colony and having seen the republics in the south and how they develop, I know that the investors will come in, but they will come in for a price, which is the loss of sovereignty. You lose the right to direct the way your country will eventually develop. To me, that is very important. That is an argument which we have to make in Canada, and the Prime Minister and those of us who are committed to an independent, united Canada must attempt to convince Canadians that there is a benefit in being in Canada which is united and independent, in spite of what it might cost us in terms of our standard of living.
I wanted to put those few remarks on the record because I think they are very important. They have been running through my mind since the Prime Minister's speech in the U.S. Congress and his press conference in Washington, and because everybody is basking in some sort of aura, saying to themselves, "The American senators love us. Aren't we just great? We have really come of age." Quite frankly, what the American senators think and do is their business and they have the right to run their own affairs, but I think we should balance out the picture because we are getting carried away and are basking in the euphoria of the success of the great speech made in Congress.


Mr. Blackburn:: It was not great. It was good.


John R. Rodriguez: But everybody is saying it, so we should look at it in a critical way and see it for what it really is. I would have been much more impressed had the Prime Minister set aside a day and made such a speech in the House of Commons. The House could have agreed to bring in the television cameras and it could have been televised in prime time across

February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Canada. Of course, we would have had to be careful that it did not conflict with "Sanford and Son", or "Chico and the Man"-but we do not have control over that. The Prime Minister could have led off the debate in the House on where we go from here and how we go about ensuring independence. From our own perspective, we would have argued for an independent socialist Canada because that is the only political entity which can guarantee Quebec or any other province its cultural rights and other aspirations.
[ Translation]



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
February 24, 1977 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable R. G. B. Dickson, LL.D., D.C.L., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 24th day of February, at 5:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be. Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly dc Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-37, to provide for the making of certain fiscal payments and of established programs financing contributions to provinces, to provide for payments in respect of certain provincial taxes and fees, and to make consequential and related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words. I want to congratulate the hon. member

for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on his remarks. His remarks can be echoed by all hon. members from northern Ontario. We do not have quite the same attachment to our provincial government that there may be in other parts of the country. The hon. member indicated that he chose to be a Canadian. Many of us did not have that opportunity: we were born here and perhaps we look at things differently.
I suppose in a parliamentary system I should not have been surprised, but I was yesterday when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the leader of the Liberal party, returned to this House. I was surprised because the Liberal members separated themselves from the rest of the members of this House. The Prime Minister did not go to the United States as the leader of the Liberal party; he went as the Prime Minister of Canada. Therefore, he was also my Prime Minister in that function. While I disagree with him on many matters, he did represent me and spoke for me and I was proud of the ability he has to speak for me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Our parliamentary system is an adversary system, but there are times when we should be united. Perhaps this is one of the problems we have. For years the various provinces have been getting back money which the federal government has collected in various ways. During the war the federal government put a lot more money into its coffers than the provinces would have been willing to give it at any other time. Since then the government has been giving some of it back. But it is sad that when the federal government gives money to the provincial governments, the provincial governments are always expected to accept that money as if it were theirs alone. We have never really told the people of Ontario, Quebec or any of the other provinces that half the money which operates hospital plans is Ottawa money. That is federal money collected from all the people of this country and it is distributed to the various provinces. Fifty per cent of it comes from the federal government.


Arnold John Malone: Which taxpayers?


William Arnold Peters: All the taxpayers. That is really the point. I presume the hon. gentleman would like to separate the taxpayers of the various provinces. They make contributions to Ottawa and the government goes back to an arrangement. Through discussions, those arrangements are agreed to by the parties. This time they were not.
There has been a desire on the part of the federal government to limit such things as hospital costs, medical costs and post-secondary education costs. The federal government pretty well took a unilateral position. It is true that the provinces were there and agreed, but most of them did so because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said that the deadline was March 31. He told the provinces that the federal government had to have this agreement by then or they would not get any, and that from then on they would get only what the federal government wanted to give them.
February 24, 1977

1 talked to a young French Canadian chap the other day and asked him if he really felt he was a Canadian or if he felt his nationality was that of a Quebecker. He said that he was a Quebecker. However, he said that it was funny, but his mother does not feel that way. I asked him why, and he said it was for the simple reason that his mother gets her old age pension cheque from Ottawa, that she looks to Ottawa as being the central government and that she has a relationship with it. I asked the young fellow whether that meant his mother has a Canadian attitude. He said, "No, just Ottawa, because the money comes from there." However, that money is Canadian money, put in by all the provinces and redistributed. That is really what federalism has been all about: the strong areas help the weak areas.
I come from the richest province of Canada, the province of Ontario, and yet the area I come from has some of the most abject poverty in the country. The poverty in northern Ontario is worse than the poverty in many of the smaller provinces which we consider to be have-not provinces. We have that poverty because there is not really any redistribution. In areas like that we count on redistribution by the central government operating on behalf of all the people. However, we should tell everybody that. We should tell them so they know Canada has some meaning to them and so they can relate. They would then know when they drive over the Trans-Canada Highway that half its cost is paid for by people in other parts of Canada. We should tell them that when they go to the hospital, half the expenses are paid by the federal government. The federal government also pays half the cost of all medical plans.
We should not have a situation where there is a Quebec Pension Plan and a Canada Pension Plan. We should have one pension plan, and that plan should be for the benefit of all Canadians regardless of where they live. As long as there has been a Liberal government or a Union Nationale government in the province of Quebec there has always been a willingness on the part of the federal government to treat Quebec differently. My party has been no different. We have considered the idea of a special status; we have considered the two-nation theory; we have tried them all. What we should really have been trying to do was develop Canadianism. That idea has never really been adopted because of the way money is given to the province of Quebec.
Many times in this House the former leader of the Social Credit party of Canada, the late Real Caouette, spoke about the educational system. He used to say that our educational system should be directed toward developing a Canadianism which would enable all Canadians to feel at home in all parts of the country. He agreed with the suggestion which was made by other people-a suggestion I agreed with for a long time- that the only way to promote unity in a bilingual sense would be to put money into the elementary school level in Quebec and every other province.
That should not be done by force, however, because if it is we are going to lose one province or another. It should be done in such a way that everyone at the elementary level in Canada could have the advantage of learning two languages. That is
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements the only difference there is between Canada and the United States. The United States adopted the melting-pot system whereby everybody became American and spoke English. We have had two languages in Canada for 300 years. We have allowed the use of those languages, where possible, in all government departments. But, Mr. Speaker, we went further than that; we allowed a lot of other languages. In Ottawa schools probably four or five different languages are taught. I know many young people who have gone to public school after the regular hours to learn the language of their parents, and there is nothing wrong with that. It has helped us develop our Canadian identity. There is nothing wrong with the bilingualism program itself-just the slavish position taken by the government on providing bilingualism by force to civil servants when it should be voluntary and available to everyone.
I watched a program in Ottawa recently about a fight over bilingualism in an Ottawa school. The fight was not about bilingualism in the particular classroom but about whether there would be an influx of other children to that school and then the bilingual children would have to be removed and sent to a school a mile and a half away. It should be easy to solve that problem by making bilingualism available in all schools, surely. The price may be that the federal government should put up the money for bilingual education.
I would also want to make bilingual education available in every school in Quebec. I am not in favour of asking everyone else to be bilingual and leaving Quebec unilingual, and I do not think that is the wish of the majority of the people in the province. It has certainly never been the practice in Ontario. The people I represent are 30 per cent French-speaking and about only 100 of them are not fluently bilingual.
The federal government should co-operate with the provinces and provide the money for bilingual training. It seems to me that, as one hon. member said, the government has always treated this matter in the old "union station" manner rather than in parliament. It is like one horse and one rabbit; when the government starts negotiating with the provinces, what weapon have the provinces got? The federal government has the money, and the provinces ask for their share but they have to take whatever is given to them. Over the years they have been able to get a few concessions, but all of a sudden the government says, "We do not have that kind of money now to meet all the 50-50 plans for health, medicare, post-secondary education and some other projects, so we are going to put on a ceiling and change the rules." How do provincial premiers or ministers of finance go to the old Union Station and say, "There is no way you are going to do that to us?" In the last round of negotiations they were told to take it or leave it, and if they did not take it by the end of March a decision would be made for them.
I would not object to the federal government making that decision unilaterally provided they said so and were willing to designate what they were paying the money for. We have to develop an attachment to the Canadian idea, to the Canadian

February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
people and to the Canadian government, Mr. Speaker. The kind of exercise we saw yesterday is divisive. It is not designed to unite; it is designed to divide.
When a cabinet minister gets up in this House and says things have to be their way, or no way, that the only salvation we have is one particular individual and he cannot see any other solution to the Canadian fabric remaining as is, then it seems to me we really should look at where we have been, because we obviously have not been in the right place or the problem would not have developed.
There have been a number of good speeches in this debate, except my own-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


William Arnold Peters: -on what all of us feel very strongly about. 1 think it is true that, like myself, many Canadians do not have a provincial attachment. I come from northern Ontario and I have no attachment to the province of Ontario. 1 usually dislike Ontario-if you call it Toronto, I dislike it very strongly. There are a number of people I can speak for in northern Quebec who feel exactly the same way about Quebec City as I do about Toronto. It seems to me there are common bonds- places where we are stronger as Canadians than we are as provincials. We should be working toward that end. There have been a number of good speeches and I think that indicates that not all the wisdom is on one side. Although our Prime Minister may have had 20 people writing the speech which we all congratulate him on, he might have done better if he had taken the ideas of some of the other people who feel as strongly about this matter as he does, and represented a Canadian position, not necessarily the position of the Liberal party.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker in joining in this debate I should like to touch on three basic themes.
I should like to touch, first of all, on the fact that I believe- and many of my colleagues believe-that it is important in Canada today that there be a restructuring of the levels of government and their responsibility. Second, I should like to touch on the unfortunate urban transit reneging that has taken place at the federal government level. The commitment given to the Canadian public in 1974 to spend $290 million to assist municipalities and provinces with their urban transit needs has been reneged. I should like to give some further details of the implications that has for certain provinces, in particular my own province of Ontario. Third, in this general discussion I should like to look at what has happened with respect to federal government expenditures, what has been the restraint shown at the federal level, and to what degree has the federal government simply loaded on to other jurisdictions a still heavier load as far as financing needs are concerned in future than has been the experience for those municipalities and provinces up to the present time?
Dealing first with the topic of restructuring, 1 believe that most members of the House would agree that the day is coming when the Canadian public, Canadian taxpayers-who,
[Mr. Peters.J
after all, foot the bill whether it is municipal tax, provincial or federal tax-will insist that there be less duplication, less overlapping of governmental services than exists today. I think the federal government could take the lead in inviting the various levels of government to some type of conference where this overlapping could be reviewed.
Let me cite some examples where, surely, it would be fruitful to have discussions between provincial and federal governments to see, for example, if the overlapping cannot be restructured by either leaving a program or department at the federal level or leaving it at the provincial level-but, in any event, not allowing the programs to be duplicated at so many levels of government as is the case at the present time. In talking to municipal and provincial officials I have found that the situation is at the point where it is literally counterproductive. For example, officials of the Department of the Environment in Ottawa draw up plans and make pfoposals for solving environmental problems, but they find that there is a similar bureaucratic structure at the provincial level. The two sets of bureaucrats seem to spend most of their time debating with each other whose plan is correct. In the meantime, nothing is done to solve the environmental problem. We find that the hiring at the federal level of relatively senior bureaucrats at relatively high salaries triggers the hiring at both provincial and municipal levels of high price bureaucrats who do jobs similar to those of their federal counterparts, the idea being that the two levels of bureaucracy can deal with one another on an equal footing. But the sad part is that the taxpayers of the country, whom we have the honour to represent, must pay for this relatively non-productive activity.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I say we ought to examine certain programs with a view to seeing what structural changes are needed. Surely we do not need similar structures at both the federal and provincial levels. I have in mind, for example, research and development programs relating to agriculture. There must be less overlapping of such programs. Is it necessary year by year to increase the size of the federal Department of Agriculture when that bureaucracy must oversee and direct ever decreasing numbers of farmers? Surely that is another example of Professor Parkinson's dictum about the growth of bureaucracy.
I could mention other programs in which there is considerable overlapping at federal and provincial levels, programs to do with insurance, loan and trust companies, corporations and securities. Bill C-16, now before committee, deals with the so-called better protection of this country's depositors and borrowers; yet we are finding in the committee that many of the provisions of that bill are nothing but poorly-worded versions of laws already standing on the statute books of most of our provinces. We are proposing to subject business to these further regulations and costs. Why? Why can we not clear away this underbrush of legislation, do away with this overlapping of jurisdictions and provide Canadians with efficient
February 24, 1977

government? The same point can be made with respect to matters of culture, heritage and sports. Why can we not streamline our methods and avoid duplication and overlapping?
I come now to the question of housing. Surely our high cost of housing stems from the fact that four levels of government, four jurisdictions, are involved in deciding whether a house can be built on a certain lot. Those jurisdictions are the municipal jurisdiction: sometimes, in some areas, the regional jurisdiction, the provincial jurisdiction and, finally, the federal government. The federal government has some say with respect to housing developments which may be under consideration. We must direct our attention to these questions and I am disappointed because there has been so little debate in this House on the important subject I am raising.
I raise another point. This government often pays lip service to the need for greater productivity in industry. But could we not increase our productivity by making the government less non-productive? For example, in the field of industrial development and trade promotion do we need overlapping activities? Do we need, in our international activities, the sort of duplication in consulting, information services and direct lending which now exists? Surely it is worth taking a fresh look at the subject with a view to seeing if we cannot simplify our procedures.
There is considerable overlapping of activities in the field of energy conservation. Actually, the activities of one department of government may run counter to the activities of another. Such lack ot co-ordination is counterproductive. As well, one level of government may do something that from the viewpoint of another level of government is counterproductive. Certainly, the efforts of various levels of government to conserve energy are often counterproductive. In addition, we must streamline our programs of manpower training, unemployment insurance, services to immigrants, communications, research and statistics. I choose those programs since in those areas the federal government could well take the lead in providing more efficient services for the taxpayers we represent.
My second point is this. If we are to create a climate of confidence as between provincial and federal governments, a climate which is essential if there is to be a meaningful restructuring of programs, we must make certain that there is a greater degree of trust between provincial and federal levels of government. Here I raise something which is absolutely shameful. The federal government gave the provincial government of Ontario an undertaking with respect to the purchase of urban transit equipment. The Ontario government, on the strength of that undertaking, went ahead and arranged for the building of that urban transit equipment. Now that provincial government finds that the federal government is reneging on that commitment. That is absolutely unacceptable.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), but there have been some discussions among the parties on this matter. Since private members' hour would be shortened by the royal assent at a quarter to six,
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
I wonder if there might be agreement to dispense with private members' hour today, to continue with the present debate and allow the hon. member for York-Simcoe to continue his speech this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Does the House agree unanimously to dispensing with private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 40, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)- External Affairs-Cuba-Suggested reconsideration of relationship in view of support of Rhodesian guerrillas; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Manpower-Practice of supplying workers to companies whose employees are on strike-Government position; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-Environmental Affairs-Arsenic pollution in Yellowknife-Discussion between minister and health minister prior to establishment of study group.
Does the House give unanimous consent to continuing the debate which was just interrupted by my announcement concerning the adjournment debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-37, to provide for the making of certain fiscal payments and of established programs financing contributions to provinces, to provide for payments in respect of certain provincial taxes and fees, and to make consequential and related amendments, be read the second
[Stage Direction]
February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was touching on the government's reneging of its promise with regard to the purchase of certain urban transit equipment. That question, I suggest, merits some further investigation in this House. May I also touch on the extent to which the government's estimates as tabled in this House early last week show evidence of government restraint, or to what extent did the government create the illusion of restraint which is non-existent? To what extent did the government transfer a great bulk of its expenditures to other levels of government? Hon. members will no doubt recall that the former minister of finance, Mr. John Turner, said on June 23, 1975:
The government proposes to set an example of restraint... by imposing strict control over its activities and programs.
With those words, the former minister of finance began a publicity offensive designed to convince Canadians that the federal government was serious about reducing the growth rate of its expenditures and was leading the way in restraint. On Wednesday of last week the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) tabled the main estimates of federal spending for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978. These estimates were the second set of main estimates tabled since Mr. Turner's statement. The effectiveness of the restraint program since then is best indicated by the fact that proposed federal budgetary spending, as measured by the main estimates, will be $8,934 million greater than at the time of Mr. Turner's statement-an increase of 27.7 per cent in two years. If restraint has been practised, it has not been apparent.
The latest set of main estimates appears to be a model of moderation, in them the government proposes to increase budgetary spending by only 7.1 per cent over the main estimates of fiscal year 1977. But as the figures will show, once again restraint has been more cosmetic than real. Once again, the positive signs of spending moderation are awash in a sea of extravagance.
The greatest single item of what the administration calls restraint has been achieved in the area of grants, contributions and transfer payments. This area of expenditure is forecast to grow by only 1.1 per cent compared to the 1977 main estimates. I point out that it was to these areas of expenditure that ministers formerly appealed when pleading that further restraint was impossible. The record shows, however, that restraint is indeed possible here, for reasons which I shall describe.
As a matter of fact, all transfer payments, subsidies and public debt payments show a considerable moderation in growth. These items formerly deemed uncontrollable, together grew by 3.5 per cent between the main estimates of 1977 and 1978. But where expenditures are more readily controllable, no such moderation is in evidence. The operating and capital expenditures of all departments and agencies are forecast to increase by 14.5 per cent over the same period-a rate more
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
than double that about which the President of the Treasury Board was gloating last Wednesday when he brought these estimates down. When the former minister of finance argued that federal spending controls would be "giving a lead to others in the exercise of restraint", apparently what he meant was that others outside the federal bureaucracy should bear the burden of restraint so that the bureaucracy could maintain the profligate style to which it has become accustomed.
In percentage terms, the planned increase in the number of people employed in the federal public service appears quite small. The number of man-years authorized by the Treasury Board, which excludes military personnel and employees of Crown corporations, will increase by 0.6 per cent from the main estimates for 1977 to 1978. While a marked reduction from the spectacular rates of growth of previous years, a 0.6 per cent increase still means that an additional 2,081 man-years have been authorized for 1978. Further, the rate of increase of planned continuing employees-permanent employees-is 1.1 per cent over the same period, so 3,137 permanent employees will be added in fiscal year 1978.
The discrepancy between the rates of personnel expansion for permanent employees and those for authorized employees reflects a declining proportion of part-time and casual employees as well as a greater ability and willingness of departments to allocate more salary funds to permanent employment. The development is the continuation of an established trend. On a main estimates basis, in fiscal year 1974 the proportion of permanent employees to authorized employees was 90.2 per cent; in fiscal year 1975, 91.6 per cent; in fiscal year 1976, 92.6 per cent; in fiscal year 1977, 93.0 per cent: and in fiscal year 1978 this proportion will rise to 93.4 per cent.
The number of employees involved in this shift to permanent employment can be illustrated by one example. If the fiscal 1978 proportion, 93.4 per cent, were replaced by the fiscal 1974 proportion, 90.2 per cent, 11,238 fewer employees would be allocated to permanent employment. I mention this because when such steps as these are taken by the federal government they generally end up with a counterstep being taken at the provincial government level. Bureaucracy at the federal level begets bureaucracy at the provincial level and the financial implications are significant.
In addition to the fact that greater proportions of authorized man-years are certain to be used up, full-time employees are eligible for the benefits of public service employment, particularly that of an indexed pension. As well, if the federal government ever should decide to make a concerted effort to reduce the size of the public service, it will be much more difficult to lay off permanent employees, who have a sort of tenure, than to simply discontinue the hiring of casuals. Wages and salaries within the public service, excluding Crown corporations, are forecast to rise by 10.7 per cent between the main estimates for 1977 and 1978. Some part of this increase is accounted for by the increased size of the public service, but still on a per-capita basis wages appear to be forecast to rise at a rate greater than that permissible during years two and three of the anti-inflation program-8 per cent down to 6 per cent.
February 24, 1977

It is unlikely that the federal government would be so blatant as to contravene its own AIB guidelines. If the public outcry against excessive federal spending has taught the present administration anything, it has taught it to be subtle and cunning in the ways in which expenditures may be raised. The reason per capita salary increases are likely to exceed 10 per cent may be traced to the continuation of the trend toward a greater proportion of higher echelon employment. While conclusive evidence cannot be supplied until the completion of a comprehensive study of the new estimates, a survey of departments indicates that a greater proportion of executive, professional and senior administrative persons are being appointed than technical, support and operational staff. In other words, the federal public service is becoming more and more top-heavy. The trend has been conclusively established for the period from fiscal year 1974 to fiscal year 1977, and it appears as if it is continued into 1978. Insufficient data is published to reveal the precise financial implications of the shift; however, the general implications of it are clear. Even excluding wage increases and staff increases, the average cost to the public purse of a civil servant is rising.
Another component of the cost of the federal bureaucracy is to be found under the heading "Other personnel costs", and again I draw attention to this because it is bound to provoke a like response at the provincial level. These costs, which include government contributions to pension funds as well as allowances of various kinds, have risen by 14.3 per cent from the main estimates 1977 to 1978. This category of expenditure has grown very quickly over recent years. Whereas government budgetary expenditures grew by 27.7 per cent between the main estimates of 1976 and those for 1978, "other personnel" costs grew by a remarkable 47 per cent. Yet the government dares tell the Canadian public it is showing restraint.
The inability of the present administration to control the size and cost of its bureaucracy is well illustrated, I suggest, by the Figures I have cited. However, one sidelight which sets the tone for this inability may be added. The number of man-years authorized under Treasury Board control has increased by 2,081 between 1977 and 1978. The number of man-years authorized not under Treasury Board control has remained stable, and even decreased.
Another category of federal expenditure where restraint is not in evidence is that of "Purchase, repair and upkeep", the term used in the estimates, which grew by 19.7 per cent between the 1977 and the 1978 main estimates. This category does not include all the repair and upkeep costs of the government. Those which are undertaken by a department directly are accounted for elsewhere; this item only includes repairs and upkeep that is contracted out. Since the present administration began its restraint program, either breakages have been very high or departments have been less willing to perform repairs themselves. From 1976 to 1978 this category of expenditures is expected to increase by 69 per cent. I said repairs and upkeep are contracted out. It will be interesting to see to
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements what extent they have been contracted out to friends of the Liberal party.
A further example of immoderation in spending is found under the heading of "Utilities, materials and supplies". Money expended under this heading is applied to the more prosaic "necessities" of the bureaucracy ranging from the gas bill and supplies for indigent Indians to mail bags and even paper-clips. While one might have hoped that significant restraint could have been achieved here, expenditures are forecast to grow by 13.9 per cent from the main estimates for 1977 to 1978; and by an amazing 40.1 per cent between 1976 and the upcoming fiscal year.
Other areas of significant increases in government expenditure are those of construction and acquisition of land and buildings-up 10.6 per cent-and machinery and equipment, up 15.6 per cent. Also of note is that the cost of funding the public debt has increased by 15.1 per cent, although this cost would only be controllable by bringing the rest of government expenditures under control. As mentioned previously, controversy over federal spending increases has taught the government to be cunning in the ways spending is increased. Not surprisingly, then, the single greatest spending increase in percentage terms occurs in the category for which there is little accounting: the term is "All other expenditures". All other expenditures include payments to Crown corporations and what the Treasury Board calls "Sundries". From main estimates 1977 to 1978, these expenditures increased by 30.3 per cent; from 1976 to 1978, by 49 per cent.
Crown corporations account for nearly 70 per cent of spending in this category, and spending in these corporations is forecast to average an increase in excess of 35 per cent. Crown corporations are those entities about which minister after minister stands in this House and tells us they will not respond to questions concerning their activities. How often are we told that these corporations have their own boards and that the boards are to be left as laws unto themselves, with no proper supervision by the House or those who are responsible to the House?
Large spending increases in this category are not confined to Crown corporations. Indeed, the very department that stands in the vanguard of the restraint program, the Treasury Board, is guilty of rapidly increasing spending in this area. The "All other expenditures" category of the central administration of the public service program of Treasury Board-meaning "Sundries" at the departmental level-is forecast to increase by an astonishing 978 per cent between main estimates 1977 and 1978.
Turning to areas of expenditure where restraint apparently has taken place, one may note an expenditure increase of 1.5 per cent on information, of 6.5 per cent on rentals and of 8.7 per cent on professional and special services. In these cases, however, it should be noted that restraint is forecast to take place in fiscal year 1978 only after a mammoth spending spree in fiscal year 1977. Since the announcement of the restraint program, taking main estimates 1976 as a base, spending on information has risen by 26.6 per cent; on rentals, by 43.3 per

February 24, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements cent; on professional and special services, by 28.6 per cent. While it may be appropriate to applaud reformation in these categories, the conversion took place from a base of excess rather than normalcy.
I have mentioned that the principal area of expenditure restraint was in the category of grants, contributions and transfer payments. These payments, formerly called "uncontrollable" by the present administration, are forecast to increase by about 1 per cent between main estimates 1977 and 1978. Because expenditures here account for 56 per cent of total federal budgetary outlays, near to zero growth in this category has the effect of halving the over-all budgetary impact of increases in other areas.
Although the former minister of finance, John Turner, argued in his speech on June 23, 1975, that economy measures will prove to be very painful, the present administration has found that the pain of restraint can easily be lessened by good luck, and by transferring the burden of restraint to others the present administration can take the credit for economy measures while achieving very few economies on its own. In short, Mr. Speaker, as we discuss fiscal relationships with the provinces at the federal level it is clear that the federal government has been less than fair to its provincial counterparts.
Payments to other levels of government are forecast to increase by 1.4 per cent from the 1977 to the 1978 main estimates. Proposed changes in the fiscal arrangements between the federal and provincial levels, and the transfer of the former shared-cost programs to the provinces, account for much of the reduction in expenditure growth. Transfers to persons, including family allowances, the federal contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and old age security and the income supplement, will increase by 3.6 per cent.
Subsidy payments are forecast to decrease by almost 28 per cent. A reduction in the cost of maintaining the national oil price is the principal contributor to the spending decrease in this category; the reduction results from a higher national oil price. Reduced costs of maintaining the two-price wheat system also assisted in the spending decline. Other transfer payments are forecast to increase by 20.3 per cent, led primarily by spending on job-creation projects, regional economic expansion projects, and foreign aid payments.
Clearly, federal spending restraint is more illusory than real. If Canadians were to follow the example of the federal government in its 1978 main estimates presentation, the message to them would surely run thus, "Spend more and more, but hide it well. Make sure that others pay the bills. Above all, dissemble and deceive".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) ask a question?
[Mr. Stevens.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the criticism the hon. member has made of the way the government is treating the provinces, would he indicate how he is going to vote on this bill?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I would not want to end prematurely the suspense the hon. member is obviously in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Before recognizing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) I must advise the House that he will automatically be closing the debate on Bill C-37.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, just before the question is put, may I just deal with a number of points which have been raised in the debate. Firstly I should like to reply to the point made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and repeated by a number of other members, that, in effect, the arrangements made between the federal and provincial governments in some way shut out any role parliament may have in this regard.
I certainly recognize that there is a contradiction or conflict between the situation of the House of Commons and the Senate on the one hand which have to enact the bill and the arrangements that had to be made between the two levels of government to provide the substance of it. I am not sure how this can ever be resolved.
One can be quite certain that if the federal government had brought forward these propositions first, not by presenting them to the provinces but presenting them in a debate in the House of Commons, one would have heard from the provinces, objections that they were being called to comment on a set of proposals that had not yet been presented directly to them and upon which they had not had the full opportunity of consultation. Inevitably, the process has to start somewhere. It seems equally inevitable that a federal-provincial agreement of this kind should be preceded, as this was, by extensive consultation, recognizing of course that the House of Commons must ultimately pass judgment on the proposals put forward.
One of the points raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), and repeated by a number of members by that group, is that the transfer of taxation benefits to the provinces as arranged under the established programs financing would provide an actual deprivation for the particular province. I point out that the arrangements here not only provide in favour of the provinces a transfer of taxation room which, of course, will mean a difference in the ability to recover costs from province to province depending on the relative income in each province, but in addition provide for an equalization factor.
Not pnly is the province with a lower income getting the benefit of the tax resource, but the federal government pays a special equalization payment to bring the transfer payment up to the national average levels. In that sense, it is quite true that one of the provinces with a higher range of income, such as Ontario, will have the benefit of growth over time of taxation
February 24, 1977

points. At the same time, the less well-to-do provinces will be protected by this additional form of equalization.
One of the members who spoke this afternoon said that the federal government had approached these discussions on a "take it or leave it" basis. If that had really been our approach, if that had been the formula, we would hardly have spent 18 months in official, finance ministerial and prime ministerial discussion with the provinces. After the meeting of December 13, certain premiers came away from that meeting-Premier Davis was one-saying that it was a tough negotiation and, like every negotiation, they did not get everything they wanted; but on the whole it was a pretty fair deal worked out for the next five years. It was far from being a "take it or leave it" proposition. There was extensive negotiation and extensive adjustment by both parties. It can fairly be said it is a bargain that has been struck between the two levels of government, the agreement arrived at, and not in any sense imposed on the provinces.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and other members as well, referred to the so-called conditions that will apply with regard to the transfer for post-secondary education and with respect to the existing established programs for medical and hospital care. My colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), dealt with the circumstances surrounding post-secondary education. The fact is, as hon. members know, that the field of education is being jealously guarded by the provinces. There are at stake national interests in education such as the ones referred to by the hon. member, the ability of students to move from province to province without financial impediment and the meeting of certain national goals in education. The provinces have resolutely insisted on making this decision in the absence of any direction and, until recently, any participation by the federal government. We agree with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that it would be desirable to achieve these national goals in education. However, she should recognize that it is difficult to meet these goals when the provinces insist that the federal government should not have a substantial say in certain aspects of the program.
With regard to medical care and hospital care conditions, the famous four points that were in the basic program, we would anticipate that the program is being well established; it really requires no enforcement by the federal government to make sure that the four points are adhered to. The electors of the individual provinces will ensure that the level of hospital and medical services to which they have become accustomed and to which they are entitled will be maintained by the provincial governments.
We have had an extensive discussion not only of this bill, which I concede is a difficult bill, but on a broader basis. I anticipate that myself and my two colleagues will be participating at some length in committee on more detailed questions. Therefore, at this point I will let the debate rest as we move on to the next stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: There having been some indication that a message may arrive from the other place for Royal Assent it behoves those hon. members who are anxious to participate in that important parliamentary experience to wait here, and those others who are not so inclined might feel free to carry on some other endeavours.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
[ English]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Statute law relating to income tax-Chapter No. 4.
Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act-Chapter No. 6.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-25, to extend the present laws in Canada which proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, when we were debating this bill and before ten o'clock arrived I had just managed to mention the case of Bill Buchanan, the former chairman of the AntiDumping Tribunal, who was treated by the government in a very shabby way. The record indicates very well the approach the government has taken in the past to the protection of personal privacy.
Perhaps I should recapitulate Mr. Buchanan's history very briefly. He had been chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. He had done some private work for glass companies when he was in private business. Consequently, he did not sit on the hearing which dealt with the subject of imported glass being dumped in Canada, feeling there might be a conflict of interest. However, following some conflicting legal advice, he joined with the other two members of the tribunal in signing the final judgement when it came out.
Two years later, in 1972, federal tax investigators swooped down on Mr. Buchanan claiming to be carrying out a tax audit, searched his files and took away some documents related to his previous dealings with the Canadian glass companies. It was the former minister of justice, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the person who introduced the last bill which was ostensibly designed to protect individual privacy, who then moved in the courts to overturn the tribunal's decision. He also passed the file to Mr. John Turner, who was then minister of finance, and Mr. Turner demanded Mr. Buchanan's resignation. Mr. Buchanan submitted his resignation. Subsequently the case was taken to the Supreme Court
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).J
February 24, 1977

and the justices unanimously threw the case out. I think it worth while in discussing this case to quote Chief Justice Laskin's ruling. It read, in part, as follows:
I resist the temptation to expatiate on the way in which records were obtained from Buchanan and on the attempted use of the appellants' documents against Buchanan, although obtained on a confidential basis for the purposes of the Combines Investigation Act ... or of the Income Tax Act. 1 say only that unjustified tactics were employed.
I mention this case because it demonstrates graphically the difference between the rhetoric of the government and its performance. It was the minister of finance at the time, Mr. Turner, who made the statement in the glowing phrase which I read into the record when last I spoke on this bill strongly in defence of the principle of protecting human privacy. And it was of course his colleague, the minister of justice, the predecessor of the present minister, with the responsibility for piloting human rights legislation through parliament, who was also responsible for this. Consequently, Canadians have every right to doubt the sincerity of the government.
I have already mentioned that no one really knows how many computerized data banks there are at the federal level. What is clear, however, is that both the number of files about individuals and the amount of information stored in them has grown daily. Let me give the House some examples. In 1974 I put two questions on the order paper asking what sort of computerized data banks there were in existence at that time. Although the information now is dated, I think it is worth while to take a look at some of the answers.
First of all, all government employees have files kept on them, most of which are computerized. Some departments make provision for their employees to see the files; others do not. The Department of National Revenue reported that a record is maintained for each individual required by law to file a T-l return. At the present time records are maintained for approximately 12.8 million employees. There are some 250,000 corporation tax returns, and some 770,000 lists of employers who are making payroll deductions from employees. The Ministry of Transport has a computerized data bank for some
75.000	pilot licence holders.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has a computer data bank of families with children entitled to family allowances, including parents and children up to 19 years of age. There are some 3.5 million families and some seven million children who have personal files in that data bank. There are some 1.8 million recipients of old age pensions and some 1.1 million recipients of the guaranteed income supplement recorded in a computerized data bank. The department also holds files on some 10.3 million contributors to the Canada Pension Plan.
The Department of External Affairs has a new data bank which was established in 1974, which at that time had only
600.000	names, but which was planned to include some 3.5 million people by its fifth year. Also some 30,000 people whose passports are being processed at any one time, and some
20.000	people who are not to be issued passports or whose
Canadian Human Rights
passports have been reported lost or found, are recorded in the data bank.
The Canadian Wheat Board keeps computerized files for some 240,000 producers whose names appear on Wheat Board delivery permits. The names of some 43,000 children of up to one year of age born with birth defects in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia since 1967 are also recorded, as is the following information; the hospital number and serial number, the name, date of birth, sex, the birth weight, the gestation period, the place of admission or death, the residence code, the place of residence, and types of abnormalities. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, in the past two years many new data banks have been created, and the numbers of people who are on files have grown enormously.
I want to deal briefly with one other file system that the government maintains, and this is the one at the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, which became operational on July 1, 1972. At the present time there are over 850 terminals in Canada. CPIC is also tied into the National Crime Information Centre, NCIC, in Washington, and NCIC has over 40,000 terminals around the United States.
There are a number of different categories of personal information which are listed at CPIC. The most interesting and potentially dangerous ones are in the observation category, described by CPIC as follows: "A person who is suspected of committing an indictable offence but sufficient evidence is not available to prosecute". Note, Mr. Speaker, that these are people who have not been charged with any offence, and all that is needed to open up a computerized file on an individual, which can be kept open indefinitely and made available to police agencies throughout Canada and the United States, with no provision for the person concerned ever to know that he is in the computer, is the claim by an authorized police officer that he suspects that the individual may have been involved in a crime with which he has not been charged.
In that particular computerized file the sort of information that is kept includes a description of the person's activities and a list of people who are seen associating with him. I was concerned when I learned that there were 6,556 people included in this category as of April 20, 1975. However, I had my office check today and learned that in less than two years the Figure has grown by over 50 per cent, and that as of today 10,046 people are listed in this particular category. No one would quarrel with the assertion that our police in Canada deserve the most modern and efficient weapons to Fight crime. But we must also ensure that the rights of our citizens are protected.
What are some of the provisions, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to see included in the right to privacy legislation? First, I should like to see the portions of the bill dealing with privacy severed from the rest of the bill and reintroduced in amended form in the context of an information package dealing both with the question of freedom of information and that of privacy. The guiding principles behind the bill should be that information is the property of the citizens of Canada and not of the government. When the government wishes to coerce

February 24, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
personal information from an individual, or when it wants to deny him information about how public policy is made or about how his money is being spent, the responsibility should be upon the government and not upon the citizen to prove its action is warranted.
Second, the substance of the legislation should be contained within the bill itself, so that parliament knows exactly what it is voting upon. It should not be left to the government to legislate by order in council.
Third, the dangerously broad discretionary powers given any minister to create data banks, whose very existence is secret, simply by exempting them from the provisions of the bill, should be ended.
Fourth, specific provisions outlawing the gathering of certain types of information about individuals, requiring the destruction of files once the purpose for which they were created has ended, providing for an individual's access to his files, and allowing him to challenge the contents of his files, must be included in this bill.
Fifth, there should be an information auditor, similar to the Auditor General, who should be charged with reporting to parliament on how completely departments are complying with the spirit of the act.
Finally, there should be recourse to the courts if an individual feels that he has been unfairly treated. This legislation before us now would allow the government to be judge and jury in its own case.
The development of the computer, like any other advance in technology, brings with it both a promise and a threat. If properly used, the computer will enable us not only to provide services for a growing population more quickly and efficiently, but it will also allow us to build safeguards into the system that will go further toward protecting individual privacy. But, if the government reneges on its responsibility to draw up tough rules for its own conduct, the future of our citizens at the hands of an evergrowing and ever more intrusive government is bleak.
In this bill the government asks parliament and the people of Canada to trust it to regulate itself and not to abuse its enormous power. On the basis of its record, this government has become the most distrusted and disliked in the history of Canada. But even if its record were different and it had proven itself worthy of Canadians' faith, a further question would remain, and that is whether democracy can function on faith alone. In a dictatorship there is little left for the citizens except faith and hope. But in a democracy we know that there should be statutory guarantees to protect the rights of our people.
As a Conservative I know that the interests of the state and the interests of the individual are often in conflict and I know that the bigger government becomes, the smaller each and every citizen becomes. I implore the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to prove that his professed intentions of giving adequate protection to all our citizens are real by allowing the portions of this bill relating to privacy to be substantially

amended at the committee stage. If he will do that, he will have the full support of the members on this side of the House.
But if the government refuses to keep faith with parliament and the Canadian people, one of the first actions of a new government led by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) will be to introduce tough and comprehensive legislation to ensure freedom of information and the right to individual privacy. That is a commitment we make to the Canadian people and, just as this administration will be judged on its record, we are prepared to be judged on ours.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am very proud to have the opportunity to debate in this House a bill presented by our government which is clearly well conceived and well attuned to the needs of a modern, civilized society. It is not surprising that the government should see fit, through the human rights legislation that we now have before the House, to guarantee the rights of all Canadians to fair and equal treatment from each other and to the utmost sensitivity from their government.
Briefly I should like to review some of the major innovations contained in this bill which underscore its relevance for present day Canada.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Put your notes aside and see if you can still remember them.


Frank A. Philbrook: Take your own advice and tell that to your previous speaker. It is nice to see you in the House for a change.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) is rising on a point of order.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might be excused in view of his recent introduction to this Chamber, which will be for only one term anyway. However, under the Standing Orders he cannot cast a reflection upon the attendance of any member. If he checks the record, he will see that I match his any day.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, I think both interruptions were unfortunate. 1 would like to continue on the point I was making.
First, this legislation will entrench once and for all, with the teeth of the law, specifically prohibited grounds of discrimination-race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, conviction for which a pardon was subsequently granted, and physical handicap in relation to employment.
Here, I believe, is a large and very significant step forward from the set of ideals that has protected our rights until today, the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Second, I view as evidence of the government's sensitivity to the real needs of the day the categories of prohibited grounds
February 24, 1977

for discrimination included in this legislation which cannot be found in the Canadian Bill of Rights. These are ethnic origin, age, marital status, conviction in the case of a subsequent pardon, and physical handicap in matters related to employment. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are these considerations mentioned, yet we hear daily of men and women in their fifties who cannot get hired; of the disabled who are considered mentally deficient just because they do not look "normal"; of wives who cannot get work because they are expected to get pregnant instead.
A third innovation which should prove to be a landmark in the history of civil liberties in Canada is the provision for a federal human rights commission. Here, finally, we would have the mechanism required to ensure that our anti-discrimination laws are applied, and applied effectively.
Currently, enforcement of human rights is a highly fragmented process. The provinces each have their own commissions to take care of their areas of jurisdiction, while Part 1 of the Canada Labour Code and a disparate sprinkling of antidiscrimination statutes provide a modicum of protection at the federal level.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, protection of privacy is another area where the government is charting new paths for Canadian society.
On the one hand our citizens will be given the right to see personal information about themselves contained in government records and to correct it if need be. On the other, meanwhile, the government will curtail its own informationgathering activities so that citizens need not be swamped with requests for information irrelevant to their particular case every time they must deal with the government. Moreover, with provision for a privacy commissioner to act as an ombudsman in overseeing the implementation of this aspect of the bill, I believe the Canadian public will be more adequately protected than ever before from invasion of privacy and possible harassment by the government.
I would like to make a few remarks on three special areas- women, the handicapped, and language or linguistic rights. 1 would First like to comment on the subject of women.
To begin with, there is probably no group of individuals in our society more deserving of this legislation than the women of Canada. They have lobbied long and hard for legislation such as this, and it is high time they got it, particularly with reference to their participation in the labour force.
This legislation, when passed, should herald the end of female job ghettoes and unjust pay differentials between men and women. When the effects of this legislation take hold in the labour force, women in managerial positions and the service industries will no longer be earning less than half of what their male counterparts make; women in clerical occupations will no longer have their average earnings exceeded by approximately 50 per cent by men; women in sales occupations will no longer Find themselves earning 150 per cent less than men.
Furthermore, the current trend toward greater participation by women in the upper echelons of government departments
Canadian Human Rights
and the Crown corporations will be strengthened through the encouragement of affirmative action programs, as provided for in this bill.
As hon. members should know, this draft of the bill currently before the House has been revised from the previous human rights bill which died on the order paper last session. Included in this revised version is the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, as opposed to the conventional notion of equal pay for equal or similar work. In the words of the Woman and the Law Association of Ottawa, one of several organizations responsible for inclusion of this principle into the new bill, "it is time women were paid what they are worth".
I can foresee that, in fact, this aspect of the bill may well encounter strong opposition from employers claiming that implementation of such a principle is not practicable. I concede that this could indeed raise problems and that it should be looked into thoroughly when the bill is in committee. In the meantime, however, I would refer those concerned about this problem to a publication prepared by the Department of Manpower and Immigration entitled "The Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations".
This formula is not perfect, as my colleague, the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), has indicated on a previous occasion in this House, but it is certainly a healthy beginning.
Since 1970 the Royal Commission on the Status of Women has been seeking legislative action by the federal government on some 122 recommendations. This bill, incorporating about 30 of those recommendations, would bring our record of implementation up to approximately 103 of 122 proposed by the commission. This record, I believe, indicates the government's serious desire to make up for lost time and provide women with every opportunity to gain an equal footing with men in our society.
The other area I would like to touch on, Mr. Speaker, pertains to protection of the handicapped. As a physician, and one concerned about this country's problems in the field of health care, I am especially pleased to note the extra provision included in this draft of the legislation designed to protect our handicapped citizens from discrimination in the work place.
Like the vast majority of women in Canada, most of our physically handicapped are financial dependants. As they have emphasized repeatedly, however, they do not want, nor do they need, simple handouts from the government or any other source. What they desire is the opportunity to secure a good job and fend for themselves. What has gotten in their way are old-fashioned attitudes and innate prejudice on the part of employers that an individual who does not look "normal" on the outside is necessarily "abnormal" inside as well. On top of this I would suggest that, to date, these people have not been given adequate help in trying to locate jobs which would be suited to their particular talents.
For these reasons, therefore, I believe that the protection extended to handicapped people through this bill should have profound repercussions on how we view these people in the future. Moreover, the sooner we can change employers' atti-
3402

February 24, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
tude the sooner we shall be able to draw upon the talents and productive capacity of these people as they contribute more fully to the general prosperity of the country.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the impact of this bill on the issue that in the eyes of all Canadians is undoubtedly the most important at this time-national unity.
In 1908, on the occasion of the tricentennial of Quebec City, Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated:
"We are proud to say that Canada is the freest country in the world, that all civil and religious liberties are recognized here."
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that such pride is no longer enough today. We can no longer be satisfied with judging the quality of our freedom by comparing ourselves to other countries because there is no doubt that compared to the U.S.S.R., Chile or South Africa we are a free nation but that is not saying much. So we must aim for a higher ideal, an ideal based on our own set of values and reflecting those moral values.
In the Canadian context language rights are a basic element of both individual liberties and national unity. Such rights must therefore be guaranteed and recognized by legislation similar to that which is now before us. In that sense it gives me great pleasure to see that Bill C-25 provides for the creation of a Human Rights Commission which:
(a)	shall develop and conduct information programs to foster public understanding of. .. the principles described-
-in the Act and-
(b)	shall undertake and sponsor research programs relating to its duties and functions-
-under the Act.
I share the opinion that, in most cases, bigotry and racism are caused by ignorance. The act, by allowing us to know one another better, will therefore play a very important role. I cannot stress enough the importance of the task entrusted to the Commission and the need for the latter to be able to count on the full support it needs to fulfill it. In this area we can no longer afford the luxury of failure.
On the other hand, I would also like to stress that the legislation as it now stands does not include language as a prohibited ground of discrimination. If any true significance is to be attached to human rights, as this bill apparently suggests, and if we really want to ensure that every Canadian has a right to deal with the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I ask hon. members to listen to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook).
[ Translation]


Frank A. Philbrook: -as the bill seemingly suggests, and if we really want to ensure that every Canadian has the right to deal

with the government in either one of our official languages, I would then feel that such a ground of discrimination should also be included in the act.
The air controllers issue for one amply demonstrates the extreme difficulty of the language rights issue. But if we are to safeguard national unity, there is no choice. We must tackle that problem.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.


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


Mr.   De Ban@: Mr. Speaker . . .

Mr. Speaker, I was most disgusted to see that when the hon. member switched to the French language, members on the other side laughed. I cannot stand that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.   De Bane@: I have been watching for some time those who interrupted the hon. member only when he spoke French.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   De Bane@: Let there not be hypocrisy here. 1 will not stand for it.


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


An hon. Member:: Cheap shot.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The remarks of the hon. member should be addressed to the Chair.


Frank A. Philbrook: As far as I am concerned, my belief is it will be much easier, once linguistic rights are enshrined in the human rights bill, to deal with this issue in a quiet, courteous and legal way.

These then, are the observations I would make with reference to Bill C-25 at this time, Mr. Speaker.
As I said earlier, I believe it is an excellent piece of legislation which will go a long way in righting some of the wrongs which have plagued our society in recent years. I have taken the opportunity, meanwhile, to suggest areas where perhaps the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs would do well to focus its attention and recommend additional improvements. In its entirety, however, I have no hesitation whatsoever in voting for passage of Bill C-25 through second reading, and indeed I congratulate the minister on his fine efforts in this area.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker indicated the necessity for passing this bill on Canadian human rights because the underlying base of this bill is tolerance, but we saw a display of intolerance in the last few minutes, especially when the hon. member for Halton (Mr. February 24, 1977

Pbilbrook) spoke. I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and I say to him that we must not be intolerant of intolerance. It is very important to be tolerant of those who are intolerant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: I hope that we will approach some of the problems of national unity which we are facing, in a very tolerant way, otherwise we will have a divided country.
I promised that I would speak for only a few minutes because most of us want to pass the bill tonight and send it to committee to be examined in detail. I might say that all the lead spokesmen of the different parties have praised the main principle of the bill, which I think is a worth-while bill and which all of us welcome. I might say that all the provinces have passed similar bills, and this one is the final bill to give human rights to all Canadians. Therefore, it is a very important bill.
If I were to use a text, I would use the text that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. From the commencement of time we have seen the trampling and violation of human rights, but in the last generation we have seen serious violations of the liberties of man. I cannot help but think of what happened during World War II and subsequently, and I cannot forget what we in Canada did to the Japanese Canadians. I think it behooves all of us to remember this. In a few months a conference will be held in Belgrade on the Helsinki Agreement. We should keep in mind the trampling and violation of human rights which the people in eastern Europe have suffered, and we should keep in mind some of the terrible discrimination suffered by our black friends in the south. We should also keep in mind the necessity for eternal vigilance because it is the price of liberty.
I hope that this is the first of three steps. When I read the speech of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweath-er) I noted that he said we had the Canadian Bill of Rights but that it was not enshrined in our constitution. It was his hope, as I am sure it is the hope of many of us, that we will reach the stage when we can enshrine the Canadian Bill of Rights in the constitution. It is something for which the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) should be remembered. I share the thoughts of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and his hopes that we will finally enshrine our Bill of Rights in the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: There is one other matter that we should remember, that is, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was passed by the United Nations on December 16, 1948. The main thrust of that Declaration is that all human beings are born free and equal, in dignity, and with rights. We in Canada have not seen fit at this stage to adopt a countrywide declaration of human rights. It seems to me that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the government should give leadership in Canada and move toward the adoption of such a declaration. It should go hand in hand with the
Canadian Human Rights
Canadian Bill of Rights, and it should go hand in hand with the Canadian human rights legislation we are studying at the present time.
I think the main purpose of this bill is to define the prohibited grounds for discrimination, which are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, physical handicap in relation to employment, or conviction for an offence where a pardon has been granted.
As set forth, the types of discriminatory practices covered in this connection are refusal to employ, a differentiation between persons with regard to promotions, discrimination in advertising of jobs or in questionnaires to be filled out when applying for a job, the exclusion of individuals from membership in employee organizations or segregation of members, refusal to employ the physically handicapped whose handicap does not interfere with performance, and differentiation in wages based on jobs of equal value in the same firm. These are some of the things covered by the legislation, and the setting up of a human rights commission would be for the purpose of enforcing these provisions.
It has been said before, and it should be repeated, that we hope the approach of the commission will be an approach of conciliation rather than prosecution, because in the final analysis conciliation is the proper approach. We cannot legislate freedom; we have to persuade people to be free and to allow freedom for all persons.
I feel that I represent a riding which is a microcosm of the United Nations. The Broadview riding embraces all the races and nationalities of this world. When I moved into the riding in 1948, it was 98 per cent Anglo-Saxon, but as of today it is about 45 per cent Anglo-Saxon, and the rest is made up of the different races and nationalities of the different parts of the world. Hon. members can appreciate the stresses and strains which are imposed on a constituency like Broadview. However, those stresses and strains can be multiplied throughout the city of Toronto and in some of the other, main cities across the dominion.
In recent months we have seen some forms of racism in the city of Toronto. Most Torontonians are not proud of the acts of a small number with regard to the treatment of minorities there. There has been an attempt to reduce the amount of racism in Toronto by trying to bring about a change of attitude in the people who live there. This bill gives some strength and force to the protection of human rights for all persons of all nationalities. Therefore it strikes me as a bill which is very important, and I think all have said that it is important to have as its underlying basis the process of conciliation instead of prosecution.
In a city like Toronto there is not much to be gained by a large number of prosecutions for violations, but I can see a great deal to be gained by the approach of some churches, schools, and social organizations within the communities in an effort to learn the different cultures, languages, and backgrounds of the different people. I am proud to say that within
3404

February 24, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
my riding a group has organized which has held meetings which were attended by people of different races and nationalities. They have shared their common heritage and their differences in language and culture, and the results have been very encouraging. That is an educational approach, and with a change of attitudes the spirit of conciliation will bring about a fulfillment of basic human rights.
If there is one part of the bill which needs study it is the part dealing with the protection of personal information. My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), was very critical and harsh with regard to those provisions. Tonight the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) told us how many organizations are compiling data with regard to persons and their activities across Canada. The compilation of records is massive, it is mountainous, and in some ways it is quite scary.


Mr. Friesen:: And secret.


John Gilbert: And, as the hon. member says, possibly secret.
I hope the minister will review these parts of the bill, that when the bill gets to committee he can defend his position, and that there can be some assurance that there will be full protection of personal information, because this is important.
Those are the main comments I wanted to make on this bill.
I hope Canadians are the most tolerant people in the world. I hope we can be tolerant about intolerance. I hope we can move forward with an expression of conciliation and with a change of attitude so that we can have a united Canada rather than a divided Canada. 1 hope this measure strengthens the bulwark of liberty within Canada and strengthens basic human rights, and that we as Canadians will dedicate ourselves and our work to the full acceptance of the principles set forth in this bill.


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in this debate at second reading of Bill C-25, to be known as the Canadian Human Rights Act. All hon. members are aware that this legislation is not new and that it has been around for some time in one form or another. During the last session it was Bill C-72. In spite of that, however, Bill C-25 does represent, as far as I know, an original effort on the part of the government to provide some form of human rights protection at the federal level.
We in this party have no real quarrel with this legislation. Other spokesmen for our party have said earlier that we are prepared to allow the bill to proceed through the House at second reading as quickly as possible, so my remarks will therefore be brief.
The areas of discrimination which this bill will proscribe, and the fundamental human and civil rights which it would protect, are very necessary, worth-while and long overdue measures for enshrinement in a federal statute. Certainly the federal government lags far behind all the provincial governments in the area of civil or human rights legislation.
Part I of this bill would make it an offence to discriminate on most of the usual traditional grounds such as race, ethnic origin, skin colour, sex, and also adds a few innovative ones. Of

course age discrimination is not new, but it is a very common discrimination today against which protection is necessary. Marital status as grounds for discrimination in relation to employment is also something which I am pleased to see included in this bill. Most of us are aware, I am sure, of instances in which a job applicant was discriminated against because he or she was single, or in some cases because he or she was married, or widowed, or divorced.
Also in relation to employment this bill would make it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of a physical handicap. Unfortunately, however, the bill seems to be more concerned here with actual physical disabilities, such as blindness, or paralyzed or amputated limbs, and although epilepsy is specifically included it does not seem that a disease like diabetes, for instance, is included as a grounds for discrimination in employment. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members are aware of the rather celebrated case which occurred up in Pembroke, I think it was, a few months ago, in which a telecommunications clerk was fired because he was a diabetic. Here is an example of discrimination taking place practically on parliament's doorstep. How can we as Canadian parliamentarians defend ourselves against the frequent charge made today that parliament is irrelevant in the modern, contemporary life of this nation, if we cannot address ourselves to a situation like this involving discrimination? The physical handicap clauses of Bill C-25 should be given some more attention in committee.
Making it an offence to discriminate against anyone who was convicted of a crime for which a pardon was later granted is a worth-while protection against a certain type of discrimination. I think, though, that discrimination against convicts who have already served their sentence or otherwise paid the penalty is a far more common type of discrimination against which some protection should be provided in law. Maybe some would say that the percentage of convicts trying to go straight is not very large, but nevertheless this is still discrimination when it occurs. Broadening this part of the bill in this way would seem to be the only logical extension of the type of human rights protection which is envisaged in this particular clause.
I think that the general tone of this bill in the area of proscribed grounds for discrimination is quite progressive on the whole. Perhaps it is too bad that the drafters of the bill could not also have included a few other categories of discrimination such as certain types of unpopular or dissenting political views, as well as religious ones, plus certain types of what are known as alternative lifestyles, that is, interpersonal relationships, and perhaps also sexual orientation, as proscribed grounds for discrimination. These things today are, after all, only in accord with contemporary reality and modern schools of thought or opinions on these subjects. They no longer shock us the way they once did, Mr. Speaker, and extending legislation into these areas does not have the same radicalism about it that it once had. Certainly the only true concept that can underlie any genuine human rights legislation is that social or
February 24, 1977

public discrimination based on one's privately-held beliefs or on one's private life, which is not society's business to begin with, is just as unjust as discrimination based on race or skin colour.
The other provisions of this bill do seem to be real attempts to deal with some contemporary discrimination problems. We have the usual prohibition against discriminatory signs and notices. This would make illegal the notorious "No Englishmen need apply'' type of signs which were common in western Canada a half century ago. Of course discrimination today is much more subtle than this. As well as signs and notices, this bill also deals with the use of the telephone to spread racism and discrimination. The universal and automatic telephone has today become an easy tool for the racist hate mongers, and this bill addresses itself to that problem by making the use of telephones for racist hate campaigns an illegal act, subject to fine or imprisonment.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, proscribing certain practices as discriminatory, and protecting in law certain fundamental human rights, are useless unless the law can be enforced, and for this purpose Bill C-25 provides for a Canadian human rights commission. It is interned that the independence of this commission will be ensured by having the eight members of the commission appointed by order in council and removable only on an address of the House of Commons and the Senate.
1 think it is interesting that the bill does not limit the human rights commission to an enforcing role but also gives it an educational, or what should perhaps more accurately be described as a public relations role. Human rights in Canada would be furthered through public education programs, although it is hard for me to envision how these programs would take place in practice. As part of its public education role the commission could conduct research into discrimination. This is an interesting power to give to the commission. However, it is one which I think could be easily abused. The research would have to be of a hard, practical nature. The nature and scope of prejudice and discrimination have been thoroughly studied by now by various social scientists, and any research which the Canadian human rights commission might do would have to be useful and original and not just chasing after some will-o'-the-wisp.
In addition to this power to undertake research, the commission would also be able to review and comment on federal regulations, rules and orders, to ensure that they are consistent with the principles stated in the bill. This is a very unusual power, with the possible exception of the Anti-Inflation Act, Bill C-73. I think that this is one of the very few times that a bill sets up an internal mechanism for reviewing its own application and enforcement.
It is the latter part of this act, the privacy or protection of personal information provisions of Bill C-25, which our party does not like, Mr. Speaker. These provisions would give an individual access to personal information about himself which is contained in information banks maintained by certain federal government departments or agencies. Bill C-25 in this part makes a weak gesture into the area of freedom of information,
Canadian Human Rights
but that is the best that one can say about it. I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) think that this particular aspect of this bill is a tremendous and progressive innovation in Canadian legislation and, given the closeted secrecy which for so long has characterized this government, I suppose that is probably true. But this is not 1940 or 1950, Mr. Speaker. The examples of other countries, particularly the United States and Sweden, show us what can be done in the area of access to government files.
I know that Bill C-25 is not meant to be freedom of information legislation, but the Prime Minister himself suggested at a press conference a few weeks ago that the protection of personal information provisions of this bill might be some sort of substitute for it. This is absurd. It is just another example, similar to the so-called gun control bill of last year, of the government trying to give the impression of doing something about a situation while not really doing anything substantial about it at all. The exemptions attached to this right of access to personal information banks in the federal government are so widespread and comprehensive that in practice this whole part of the bill will be worthless. For instance, 1 see in the schedule attached to this bill that one of the federal government agencies which the individual would presumably have access to is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. However, one of the exemptions provided against access of the individual is, and I quote:
... information or matter . . . obtained . . . in the course of investigations pertaining to the detection or suppression of crime generally.
But by definition a police force's very function is the detection and suppression of crime, and all of the information which it possesses will be obtained through such investigations. In practice this means that nothing in RCMP files will be accessible to anyone. Mr. Speaker, this matter is not just academic, in light of the Prime Minister's statements in this very House only a few days ago that the RCMP probably has files on millions-and those were the words he used-millions of Canadians. This part of Bill C-25 is a good example of how not to approach the whole issue of giving the individual greater access to some government information.
Hon. members are aware that our party has advocated a true freedom of information act for some time. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has spent a great deal of time and effort on this, but his tremendous efforts do not seem to have had any effect on the government. 1 wonder how long the government can go on denying the Canadian public what the citizens of many other democratic states now take for granted. The denial of something which has become such a populist public issue is a position which is, for any government today, almost indefensible. There has not been a time in our recent history during which the public has been so suspicious of government. I am amazed that the present Liberal government, which is already facing such a crisis of confidence among the Canadian people, would adopt such an intransigent attitude with respect to the freedom of information issue.

February 24, 1977
Canadian Human Rights


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The hon. member is against television in the House.


Peter Paul Masniuk: 1 said earlier that my comments tonight will be brief. 1 will not say any more about Bill C-25 at this time. As 1 indicated earlier, in spite of the many reservations which we have about clause 4 of this bill, our party supports the principle of Bill C-25, the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in speaking this evening on Bill C-25, the Canadian human rights bill. I think members of all parties support the principle of this bill.
According to archaeologists, human civilizations date back at least 50,000 years. For most of that time the law of civilized societies dealt with commodities, commerce and property. Only recently in human history has the focus of attention shifted to human rights, to a person's feelings which are not part of the external, objective world, but which are most important to every human being.
I am pleased to be a member of the political party which brought forward the Bill of Rights, the cornerstone of our human rights legislation. I say that although my party will vote for the bill, it will by no means end the discussion on human rights in Canada. This bill is only the beginning of the whole debate on human rights which must take place in this country. We have embarked on a new era for human rights, because really for the first time we are passing a law which has to do with a person's feelings, not with trade, commerce, commodity or property rights.
All this being so, is it not ironic that at this very time when the parliament of Canada is debating this human rights legislation, the government refuses to give a strong rebuke to the government of Uganda for its involvement in the death of an archbishop of that country and two Ugandan cabinet ministers, deaths which occurred under conditions of great secrecy and grave doubt? Surely our human rights philosophy must be extended, must be projected to govern our international relations with other countries. In other words, it will not be sufficient to establish fundamental human rights in this country without paying attention to the question of human rights generally in the world.
Historically we have come a long way. We are to enshrine in law the rights of persons. We are passing a law which does not deal with trade, or commercial relations. However, let me point out that passage of this bill will not give us assurance of adequate human rights in Canada. We must recognize that other laws and regulations must be amended if we are to advance significantly our concept of human rights. Perhaps I can give hon. members one or two examples of what I mean.
This human rights bill will not, by itself, assure all of equal opportunities. Why do I say that? At present a farmer is allowed to claim a deduction of $1,830 for his working farm wife. Mr. Speaker, we all know that you cannot hire help on the farm for that sum. But the farmer's wife works on the farm; she may be hauling bales, milking cows, or doing any number of farm chores. Under our tax laws the farmer is not

entitled to claim her as a hired employee-although this difficulty is partly overcome if he incorporates the farm. As matters now stand, the farmer is not entitled to treat his wife as a hired employee for tax purposes; he is entitled to claim a deduction of only $1,830 for his wife who may work full-time on the farm. Such laws must be changed in the name of equity.
Full human rights must be granted to all, and all must be treated fairly. Unfortunately many of our laws treat our native Indians as if they are of second-class status. I am aware of the provisions of the Indian Act and the historical background to that act. Unfortunately, the law abuses our native peoples. The unemployment rate among native peoples is high, as high as 95 per cent on some Indian reserves. At present our national labour force statistics do not include native Indians among the unemployed. Why not, Mr. Speaker? If we are to provide adequate human rights for all our people, we must change many of our laws which presently restrict human rights in Canada. I see no reason for not counting among the unemployed our unemployed native citizens. They should be included in unemployment statistics when those are put forward.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) spoke about the handicapped, and I wish to draw to the attention of the House the existence of regulations which discriminate against certain disabled people. I suggest that such regulations must be corrected if we are to ensure human rights for all. At present those who are blind, confined to a wheel chair, or completely bedridden are allowed a tax deduction of $1,400 a year over and above the normal tax allowance. My quarrel is with the way in which the categories of the incapacitated are defined. The three categories mentioned are entitled to the full tax deduction. Unfortunately other people who are totally incapacitated for health reasons are not included under those provisions of our tax laws.
Last fall when 1 was in British Columbia I met a number of people in Kamloops who were seriously ill. One of them had had a heart attack, another was wearing a metal brace because of a severe back problem. These people wanted a tax deduction equivalent to that available to the blind, bedridden, or those in wheel chairs. Their request was turned down. As a matter of fact I received a letter on this subject just today. Surely those people are entitled to be treated in the same way as those in the first category I mentioned. I am citing these examples to show that we must amend many of our regulations and laws, otherwise some of our citizens will be denied their human rights. As I said, passage of this bill will not, by itself, bring full equity to all Canadians. Unless we change our other laws and regulations, we shall not see full human rights in Canada.
This bill should establish the broad parameters of human rights in Canada. I believe the bill should place a high degree of trust in the courts. Its interpretation will, no doubt, be subject to variation in accordance with our changing Canadian culture.
It would be naive to assume that legislation could ever be written in such a way as to ensure human responses in all
February 24, 1977

circumstances. Perhaps I might give some examples in this regard. It is stated in the bill there is not to be any discrimination on the ground of age. The fact is that, in the absence of opportunities for the courts to make judicial decisions in this regard, discrimination in this sphere will continue to take place. One must certainly question what appears to be happening at the present time-the concept of forced retirement which is so often approved by labour unions as well as by management, business people, and government institutions.
People are considered to be useful and employable at the age of 64, and somehow fit only to be passengers at 65. It seems to me this is not only a tremendous waste of talent and skill but that it is really an affront within the context of this bill. It is an affront to all our human rights because to remain meaningfully involved in our country's affairs is the prerogative, surely, of any citizen. Nevertheless, given the manner in which society is structured at present, the bill before us will not alleviate the situation.
People over 65 who want to work and who have the capacity to work will not be given the opportunity to continue. I am speaking now about the discrimination in respect to age. The bill is not sufficiently specific to be useful in this regard. We read that among citizens over 45 years of age, 37 per cent of the unemployment is long term, while for men of all ages only 27 per cent is long term unemployment. Again, we can turn to the analysis of the data relating to the job retraining program which clearly indicates that citizens over the age of 65 are denied the advantages available to younger people. What we find, then, is personal discrimination in Canada based on age. The bill before us, of itself, fails to take adequate steps in the direction of removing this discrimination.
I should like now to talk for a few moments about the concept of equal pay for equal work, specifically as it is applied to women. The words themselves are, of course, poetic rhetoric. Most women are cast into job ghettoes which are cemented by tradition. The nurse, the telephone operator, the secretary, the bank teller and the waitress can all enjoy equal pay for equal work and still be undervalued. In recent years, according to Statistics Canada, the gap between wages paid to men and wages paid to women for similar work has widened.
The real test should not be "equal pay for equal work'' but rather whether the person who is being paid measures up in terms of skills expected, effort exerted, responsibility demonstrated, and. training or experience required. Conditions of work are a further factor which should be taken into consideration. To take any other view is simply to say that those jobs which have traditionally been reserved for the female part of the population will continue to be so, and that those engaged in them will receive lower salaries and wages than are paid to others employed in work to which different forms of measurement are applied when estimating its value to Canadian society.
I turn now to other aspects of the bill which ought be examined carefully, both here and later in the committee. I refer first of all to Part I, clause 11(1), which states:
Canadian Human Rights
It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.
The question is: why is this principle limited only to pay discrimination by sex? Why are the other prohibited grounds of discrimination such as race, religion, and age not included in this clause?
I turn next to another clause of the bill which also needs to be reviewed, in my opinion. I refer to clause 3 in part one which sets out the proscribed grounds of discrimination as follows:
For all purposes of this act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour religion, age, sex, marital status, conviction for which a pardon has been granted, and, in matters related to employment, physical handicap, are prohibited grounds of discrimination.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this list is much less inclusive than is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. That 1948 Declaration was ratified by the federal government in 1976, after provincial consultation and agreement. Article II reads:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, religion, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
While we have taken a step forward, the government has failed to go even as far as the United Nations in this regard because the definition 1 have just read in connection with prohibited discrimination suffers from being a closed list in the legal sense that anything not included within it is automatically excluded.
A bill of rights is a bill of principles, not a catalogue of acceptable behaviour. What we really find in the bill placed before us is a catalogue of behaviour rather than an acceptable set of principles subject to a judgment which is left to the courts. The government has sought to anticipate all the possible behaviour of human beings and to determine which kinds of behaviour are acceptable and which are not, without recognizing the fact that it is not possible to predict the changing conditions of our culture. What would be acceptable today might, therefore, not be acceptable at some future time.
The purpose of Part IV of Bill C-25 is to protect the privacy of individuals. While it has been well stated by many members of this party that this part of the bill is one of the most offensive parts to the members on this side, the bill at most gives citizens the right to inspect their files which are held in government information banks. The truth of the matter is that the bill does not define the limits or conditions within or under which the government or any other agency may collect or store information on persons. It is not enough just to be able to inspect individual files in this country; what is more important is that there should be limits placed on the kind of criteria establishing such information banks on individuals.
Far more important than this kind of restriction on the right to inspect files is to impose strict conditions upon the government establishing, either on its own behalf or through any

February 24, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
other private agency, a data bank on human beings in this country. This provision is not made in the bill but 1 hope it can be discussed in committee and amendments made to the bill, so there is not only the right to question the kind of data that are kept on individuals, but so the law itself spells out clearly the limitations placed on the keeping of information on the citizens of Canada. To do otherwise, I think, would be a great affront to Canadian freedoms and human rights.
1 should also like to point out that while the bill provides the right to inspect our files, it does not give us the right to appeal any misjudgment that we believe exists on those files. As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said a couple of days ago when he was speaking on this measure, there is no right of appeal provided; the only recourse is to a bureaucratic tribunal, not to the non-partisan judgment of the Canadian courts. So in a case where there is a file kept on a person and the person is not satisfied that the information on the file is accurate or that there should be a file, he does not have full access to the Canadian court system. This kind of biased perspective should not be in a bill that embraces the concept of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Bill C-25 provides that the privacy of individuals should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with public order and well-being. Compare this modest statement with the wording of the principle enshrined in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which states as follows:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his (or her) privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his (or her) honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
While the government has taken a step forward, it is not as significant a step as we would like to see. To say that we have the right to inspect our files is certainly admirable. But what the bill does not provide is even more important, and that is the setting down of conditions under which any agency in this country can collect data and, file that data away. If we are truly interested in the protection of individual and human rights in this country, that protection would be narrowly defined and cast into the cement of the law. Then agencies would not be able to collect data on people unless they fell within that definition. It is often difficult to find out who has the information, let alone go to the file to see the information for ourselves.
It has been a privilege to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to congratulate the House for having come this far, where we are not only talking about commodity rights, the rights of commerce, trade and property, but also are starting to talk about the rights of human beings. But this bill has not taken the complete step forward. Many changes will need to be made as well to other pieces of legislation. I hope the minister will be amiable enough in committee to make a number of amendments which will tighten up the bill in certain areas, so as to move away from the concept of cataloguing human behaviours. Rather, we should establish the broad principle of the bill and a framework to work within, from which we will develop a proud Canadian act that protects the human rights of all Canadians.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to listen to the speeches made on this bill. As the previous speaker has said, we have come so far as to talk not only about protection of the rights of commerce and other fields of endeavour, but also about human rights. A few years ago the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and we in this country passed an act having to do with a Canadian Bill of Rights. We are now talking about placing a code of rights into our constitution, so it seems to me we have come a long way.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) pointed out very clearly that the bill has many good parts, and that it places in federal legislation provisions that appear in many pieces of provincial legislation. But what the bill does not cover, certainly according to representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, is the protection of personal information and the right to privacy.
It is all very well for lawyers to tell us that we should examine the information on which the government assesses us as individuals, but I am sure most Canadians would ask what business it is of the government to collect such information in the first place. What business has the government to collect information which is not collected to protect the security of the nation? If I were a bank robber and crook-


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Then you would be a Liberal.


William Arnold Peters: Not necessarily. While I have not engaged in the activities I named, I once did have an RCMP file for some time containing information that I knew about. It also had some information dealing with my small part in a very major strike in the gold mining industry, and some difficulties I had had with the Ontario Supreme Court. There was also information on some small matters, like a little case of assault and battery in which I was involved in some court case. But then the information went on to disclose that I was a rabble rouser, a dangerous character because I had engaged, innocently, as Your Honour would be well aware, in some small disagreement with the government over a veterans' school. The government did not have a very big majority at that time and was very upset about the way that certain discussions had been carried on. There were number of little things like that which were not significant to the security of the nation. However, I have no objection to that being collected because it may lead to something the country should know about. Certain agencies should be established to collect that information.
However, under no circumstances is it important how much money my children receive in family allowances. What business is that of anyone's? The government has to keep an account in order to make a payment. The fact that I receive so much for each child is an accounting detail. Why should that information be put into a computer bank? This is particularly important when you have grandchildren, or possibly great grandchildren. What is the significance of collecting that kind of information? However, that is the kind of information the

February 24, 1977

government collects. In fact it collects a lot of information we do not even know about.
There are now television cameras on Parliament Hill. They scan the area and, if it is desired, pictures are taken of anyone who comes here. These people could be here for peaceful purposes, or for a demonstration. If anyone walks in front of the parliament buildings, the RCMP can take a picture of that person. That can be related to anything else. They then start a file on that individual.
The public are well aware that the bureaucracy is being increased every day. I am sure that to collect these pictures, label them, and identify them will involve dozens and dozens of people. It is done for no specific reason.
Whenever there is a demonstration, the RCMP take pictures. That has always been their little game. Now it is being played in an economic field. It is being played with regard to credit arrangements. We will soon reach the point where it will not be necessary to ask your bank manager whether you can borrow $1,000. All he will do is take your social insurance number, feed that into a computer, and he will know about every debt you have ever owed. He will know whether you owe the income tax people $50 or whether you have a loan with another bank. Some smart kid with a little black box will also be able to get that information on anyone in this country. If it served a purpose, that would be all right. We must be developing a psychotic attitude when those in government believe they need that kind of information. I do not know why they think it will be of any value.
These people must have been watching the movie on television "2001" where big brother in the form of a computer had all the information and knew everything about everybody. I do not see why we need all these computer banks. If the general public knew the extent to which information is collected, they would revolt against it. Do the civil servants require this information because they are going to run this country? The general public would certainly object to that.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) is a learned member of the bar. I understand he had a distinguished career in that field. Therefore, his personal thinking must not be too far removed from the Canadian Bar Association. That association says that if we are to have a well developed country, there must be a disclosure of personal information. If this information is disclosed, I believe that less and less will be collected.
The Bar Association is not my favourite organization. I have no connection with it. My background is that of an underground hard rock miner. Any relationship I had to the law was always on the wrong side of it. However, the Bar Association is violently opposed to this legislation being passed without personal protection. Its members are so violently opposed, they have in effect become apolitical. They have gone so far as to say that, if the minister wishes, they will draft legislation that is in keeping with that of other countries where there is a full disclosure. I suggest the minister consider that offer and bring that before the committee as well.
Canadian Human Rights
I was surprised at some of the explanations given by members of the Bar Association with regard to United States legislation respecting disclosure. The example was given of a person living near an airport. If that person wanted to object to that airport on the basis that there would be too much noise in the vicinity, he could ask the government to disclose to him all documents prepared by the government in relation to the noise surrounding that airport. Then that information could be used by him to prepare a case against the government. The theory is that the information obtained by the government was paid for by individual taxpayers. Therefore all information in the hands of the government should be available to the individual, as well as to the government, in preparing his case.
I was very interested, because normally when lawyers get involved in legislation by regulation they confuse the matter. It usually makes it worse. However, I understood from a representative of the Canadian Bar Association that under United States law you can make an application for disclosure of information which affects you. The agency has ten days to present that information. If it does not present it, it must have good reason. If the information is not made available, the decision can be appealed and the appeal must be heard within ten days. If the appeal is not successful, you can then take the matter before a judge who has another ten days in which to make a decision. I know that is hard to understand because judges do not work very fast.
What happens in the United States is that the matter goes to the top of the docket and it is the first thing the court hears. The judge then receives the document for which the individual is asking. All this is done without lawyers being involved. The judge then looks at the information, considers the arguments that have been made, and decides whether the information is to be made public. If he decides the information is to be made available, it is then released to the individual. If he decides not to release the information, the matter can then be appealed to the highest court. All this must take place within a period of 30 days.
Under that law, it is not necessary to have lawyers on both sides arguing the matter. If the information is to be produced, it is done quickly. For all three stages of the law to be carried out in 30 days is very quick. That disclosure of information means something to the general public and certainly means something to the individual.
I think the minister will be hard pressed to say that the information, whether it is in a computer or in the form of a document concerning the individual, should be disclosed to the individual involved just as it is to the agency, which in this case would be acting as his adversary. But it seems to me that that information should be made available to him. To a layman like me who is not a lawyer it seems only logical that such a disclosure should be made, and there is no reason for not doing so.
I agree that in the case of information affecting national security and also information on criminal activity should be
3410

February 24, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
restricted. But in other cases, why should public servants put a stamp saying "Confidential" on every document they handle, or stamp "To Be Seen By The Minister Only" or some other foolish statement? Are they doing it just to protect themselves against having their work seen and being judged incompetent? In 99 per cent of the cases the document is stamped confidential only to protect the incompetence of the person who produced the report. If that were not so, the author of the document would be proud of producing it and would want it seen.
In other countries people like to see their names on the documents which they prepare. In the United States, for example, many documents are tabled because someone wants his name seen by the public. But in this country everyone is stamping "Confidential" on documents, which are then put away some place where no one can see them, and the only reason for doing so is to hide the incompetence of the person who has prepared them. I am sure it is not the ministers who say that a document should not be released but public servants.
We took a very small step forward when we passed the Canadian Bill of Rights. Many other countries have gone far beyond what the minister is suggesting in the legislation before us, and they have passed their legislation a long time ago. We move very slowly. This legislation has been around for some time. For some reason or other we do not have the proper machinery to update our legislation. The minister has put forward legislation which originally was prepared two or three years ago. Since that time it has not been updated because we do not have the proper mechanism with which to do it.
I hope the minister will agree to accept the offer of the Canadian Bar Association to assist him. I suppose it is the only time in history when they have been prepared to do something for nothing. They are offering to supply the services of some people for free to help the minister. It would be the minister's legislation, but they would be pleased to give him any help he wanted. They were asked what they will get out of it, and they replied, "Nothing. We believe in the rights of the individual, and we want to enshrine in the legislation every possible protection for the individual against the technology that is developing which makes all kinds of information on individuals available to governments and agencies, information about which the individual may know nothing and which he cannot check to ascertain whether or not it is correct". The Canadian Bar Association believes that this is fundamental justice which should be contained in the human rights bill, and that it is absolutely mandatory.
Perhaps I have been misled, and perhaps the minister could indicate some reason why there should be all this secrecy. Perhaps he could go even further and give me a good reason why public servants want to keep so many documents confidential. Let me tell you that in my view there are 20 per cent too many of them, and everybody in the country will agree with that.


Mr. Nystrom:: 25 per cent.


William Arnold Peters: If we got rid of the top 25 per cent-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When do we do it?


William Arnold Peters: There is an interesting comment which I should like to make about this.
This afternoon I was reading about the chairman of the Bell Telephone Company. Apparently when he came to Canada from IT&T his first order to Northern Electric was that they should get rid of their sales people. He said, "We must stop making all the sales we are making and we must get rid of many of our people. We must get down to the point at which we can compete, the point where everyone is hungry and everyone wants to keep his job, and everyone is scared that, if they do not, they will have no job". Perhaps some hon. members know something about Northern Electric, because that is exactly what he did. He trimmed the organization from the top. The managers went first, then he got rid of some of the sales staff. One salesman on the staff was making $1 million worth of sales. Anyone might think that the chairman was crazy, but in the thinking of IT&T if you eliminate a certain percentage from the staff at the top and you increase the efficiency of those who are left, you get a bettter organization. Those who expect an increase in their pay in accordance with their productivity are rewarded.
Everyone will agree that there are many people in the civil service in the top bracket who are just staying in their jobs awaiting their pensions, and who certainly do not want to rock the boat.
The minister knows full well that he has a great opportunity to move forward and not have to follow someone else. He should take the offer of the Canadian Bar Association with regard to the clause relating to the disclosure of personal information. He should accept their kind offer, their generous offer to pay a number of people to provide the government with assistance. We should move forward in this direction as fast as we can.
As my last remark I would like to say that I would be surprised if our country, which believes in the rights of individuals, does not withdraw our ambassador to Uganda. I believe that this legislation would have no teeth unless we agreed to attend the next Commonwealth conference only on condition that Uganda is not invited, because if there has ever been a country going in the opposite direction to what we want to achieve through this legislation it is that country.
If the government really believes in this legislation, then we will withdraw our representative in Uganda, and we will not sit with the representatives of that country at any international conference until their regime is changed. It might even be wise for us to talk to our CIA friends and ask them to put out a contract to eliminate that unsavoury situation so that people in Uganda can again have some rights such as they had under their previous leader, Milton Obote.
February 24, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. minister, I must inform the House that in speaking now he will close the debate.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few minutes in which to close the debate so that this bill can be referred to committee this evening. I appreciate the debate we have had, and the co-operation we have had from all quarters in the House. We had a sufficient debate to deal with the issues of principle involved in this bill and still get it referred to the standing committee this evening.
Just at the tail end of this debate, however, we heard a most outlandish proposal from my friend who just spoke. He went on about freedom, human dignity, civil and human rights, the need to curb police power, and the need to put proper restrictions on the police and on governmental authorities. However, he suggested that somehow we should employ a foreign police force to go out and assassinate someone.


Walter David Baker: He is just a simple socialist.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hope, for the sake of himself and his party, that he was being facetious. 1 would not want to call what the hon. member said a joke because it was so silly. 1 trust he was not even trying to make a joke.
1 wish I had time to deal with a number of misunderstandings and misconceptions which arose in this debate about certain provisions and intentions of this bill. Obviously that is something for the committee, when the bill gets there.
The struggle for human rights is an ongoing, ever-present and never-ending one, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said. In this debate we heard discussion of the international scene and, in particular, discussion about Uganda. I am not drawing attention only to the reference just made; references were also made in earlier speeches. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has just returned from Washington where the Helsinki Agreement was discussed. It was on August 1, 1975, that through our Prime Minister our country signed the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation at Helsinki, and among the principles with which the 35 governments concerned themselves was the determination to respect and put into practice Principle 7, namely, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.
In subscribing to these principles each government, including the Canadian government, undertook to promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other freedoms. I think this bill represents a concrete step, in Canadian legal development, toward giving additional legislative expression to our commitment to the Helsinki Agreement because it extends the existing Canadian human rights laws, both federal and provincial, still further. I
Canadian Human Rights
therefore hope that before the up-coming conference reviewing the Helsinki Agreement we will be able to have this bill passed and become part of the law of the country.
I cannot and will not deal extensively with Parts I, II and III of the bill relating to discrimination. There was much reference in the debate to the Canadian Bill of Rights, and in my introductory remarks I mentioned it myself and paid credit to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). However, some hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), seem to think that we do not need a human rights commission; that we could just legislate, take a legalistic approach, and have all these problems solved in the courts.
I was glad that there were other hon. members, for example, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) who recognized that there must be, in addition to a Bill of Rights, and in addition to a legalistic and judicial approach to this question, a human rights commission which not only has power to investigate, examine and, if need be, impose penalties, but also power to educate and promote or, as the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk) said, engage in P.R. on behalf of the issue of human rights and anti-discrimination. To solve some of these problems we need a commission with the power to conciliate between parties. I am glad that need was recognized by a good number of speakers representing different parties because this aspect has been criticized by some. Undoubtedly that approach should be recommended.
With regard to Part IV of the bill there is immense confusion, it seems to me, about two subjects. One is freedom of information or freedom of access to government documents, and the other is the right of privacy. These are two quite different subjects.
We made it clear in the Speech from the Throne that we would be tabling before the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, through the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), a set of proposals on the first of those subjects, namely, freedom of information or the right to government documents, and to the information upon which the government makes decisions-and this bill does not deal with that issue. Part IV of this bill though deals with the right of individuals to protection of their privacy in terms of government information, the right of an individual, and no others, to see his file and to correct that file. While hon. members can be critical of any proposal, I hope they will make sure they are making that very fundamental distinction, a distinction which is recognized in Sweden and in the United States. There are two things we are talking about, and in Part IV we should be talking about the right of privacy.
With regard to exemptions, every act of this nature has some exemptions. I hope hon. members will examine the exemptions in this bill, not with rhetoric but with care. 1 thought the hon. member for Portage made an excellent speech tonight, but he attacked the exemption for information
8O010-10V2

February 24, 1977
Adjournment Debate
used in the course of investigations pertaining to the detection of suspicion of crime. Surely, however, we cannot give drug traffickers the legal right in the course of a drug investigation to apply to the government and obtain the police file on that investigation. If that is to be the case, there will be literally no drug prosecutions or drug convictions in the country. I implore hon. members to look at these exemptions carefully and study them carefully. Obviously it is my job to justify those exemptions in committee. 1 submit that I will be able to do that.
There is much more I would like to say, but I will have to say it in committee. I appreciate the remarks of hon. members. I appreciate the concurrence with my opening statement that I hope we can have the bill passed by June 30. There seems to be general co-operation and support for that proposition. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is immensely busy right now, and I hope all hon. members will co-operate with that committee to see that we achieve that objective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the parliamentary secretary for making it possible to return to this subject. The department somehow became confused in the returning of answers the last time I raised this question during the adjournment debate, and the parliamentary secretary was good enough to insist to the Clerk and the department that we return to the subject as soon as possible.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), in the closing minutes of the debate on Bill C-25, displayed what I think we could call some mock shock when the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) suggested that perhaps the Canadian government should hire the CIA to investigate the activities of Idi Amin. I do not think I am stretching the point by saying

that perhaps we are doing somewhat the same thing in our relationship with Cuba.
A year ago a question was raised in this House about the use of our facilities at Gander by allowing the Cubans to land planes there. On that point the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) said that we had made it clear we would not tolerate any such use of Canadian facilities for military purposes, if indeed that was the case. A year later we have the shocking declaration that Cuban officials have been using facilities on Canadian soil to train guerrillas to be operatives on the continent of Africa.
Two or three weeks ago newspaper headlines were screaming about the assassination of seven missionaries in Rhodesia. There are allegations and suspicions that the missionaries were assassinated by guerrillas who had been trained by the Cubans. When I posed the question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) two weeks ago he said he thought the question was based on a non sequitur. The very fact that we are giving some form of economic aid to Cuba does not seem to impress the Prime Minister, and it is probably allowing Cubans to carry on furtive activities in other countries in a way they could not if we did not give them the aid. I said in that question that some of the aid is very extensive, and 1 want to put on record some of the figures involved. It strikes me that if we are giving Cuba aid by way of Cl DA almost to the tune of $23 million to $100 million at 3 per cent interest, that is a relatively extensive boost to its foreign aid. I am not speaking of foreign trade but foreign aid. I know there are thousands of people in Canada who would love to have a 3 per cent loan to pay off their mortages. That could be a good war on poverty. Right now the Cubans are waging war, but it certainly is not a war on poverty.
The figures tell us that Cuba has up to 7,000 troops and advisers in the Middle East, 4,000 in Syria, 3,000 in Yemen, and 2,000 in Africa apart from the 12,000 they had in Angola. If we can lend Cuba up to $100 million at 3 per cent interest perhaps that releases some of their other resources for the kind of activities going on in Rhodesia at the present time, so I cannot see why the Prime Minister would say my question was based on a non sequitur. The Canadian people are faced with the dilemma of trying to find out what is the foreign policy of this country. Are we against this kind of activiy being carried on by the Cubans in Africa? If we are, why are we continuing with aid that allows them to carry it on?
The Prime Minister has just come back from Washington saying we ought to be friends with our best friends, who happen to be the Americans in his eyes, at least for the time being. If that is the case, presumably we are thinking of principles of democracy and self-determination, but if at the same time we are allowing the Cubans to carry on guerrilla activities, we cannot be espousing the principles of democracy.
I should like the parliamentary secretary to give us a clear statement of the policy of the Department of External Affairs and of the Prime Minister.Does he in fact espouse democracy as we usually think of it, or does he intend to continue the kind of economic activity with Cuba that will allow them to carry
February 24, 1977

on those activities and let them rape the sanctity of Canadian soil in the process?
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the question asked by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) concerning the advisability of reconsidering our relationship with Cuba because of that country's support of Rhodesian guerillas.

The government's position on foreign intervention in Africa, and particularly in Angola and Rhodesia, has been clearly stated on a number of occasions. We are completely opposed to foreign military intervention into these countries. This opposition as it then related to Angola was reiterated on a number of occasions in this House, as well as in a public statement made on January 20, 1976, by the then secretary of state for external affairs, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen). It was also brought to the attention of Premier Castro by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during his trip to Cuba early last year. This opposition to the introduction of troops and material is still the policy of the government of Canada, and the Cuban government has been made well aware of it.
With regard to our relationship with Cuba, 1 do not think it would be in the best interests of Canada to reconsider it, as it has served us well in the past. It is not our policy to tie the provisions of our development assistance to any given country to the suitability to Canada of that country's foreign policy. We offer our assistance on the understanding that aid will not be used for political purposes but rather for bettering the standard of living of the people of the recipient country. We apply this approach fairly to a number of countries with different political, economic, and social structures. We believe that pursuit of the goal of long-term betterment of the standard of living of the peoples of the developing world is in our best interests, as it is in theirs.
In the case of Cuba we do not believe that the best way to ensure that our advice is followed is by going back on commitments made-or for that matter by tampering with our commercial relationship. Rather, we shall continue to urge them and any others involved to refrain from intervening militarily in the affairs of other nations.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-ARSENIC POLLUTION IN YELLOWKNIFE-DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MINISTER AND HEALTH MINISTER PRIOR TO ESTABLISHMENT OF STUDY GROUP
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked both the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) who is looking into the Yellowknife arsenic pollution problem? The Minister of National Health and Welfare said in part, as reported at page 3190 of Hansard,
Adjournment Debate
that the Canadian Public Health Association has been asked to set up a work committee. The minister, in his customary sarcastic manner, suggested that I had failed to understand the nature of the exchange which had taken place between the minister and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) on the previous day, February 17. I understand exactly what was said.
In his exchange with the Minister of National Health and Welfare the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby referred to the Clean Air Act. On February 18 the Minister of National Health and Welfare was referring to the Environmental Contaminants Act, as is evident if one reads the exchange reported at page 3190 of Hansard. The minister said:
. . . The question of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby dealt with a very specific matter, namely the setting up of standards under the Environmental Contaminants Act.
If the minister had read the question of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, he would have seen that it referred to the Clean Air Act, not to the Environmental Contaminants Act. Nevertheless, the Minister of National Health and Welfare finally admitted after that long exchange with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that a joint committee had been set up under the Ministry of the Environment and, one must assume, the Ministry of National Health and Welfare. Its purpose is to consider every aspect of the issue currently confronting the people of Yellowknife.
On the face of it two separate committees have been established, the one established by the Ministry of the Environment and the other by the Ministry of National Health and Welfare, under the auspices of the Canadian Public Health Association. Yesterday, when I asked the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment questions, in an attempt to determine if the Environmental Contaminants Act was being invoked, the minister failed to understand the thrust of my question. Previously, the Minister of Health said I should consult with the Minister of the Environment:-"He knows what I am talking about, ask him when he returns to the House; I am sure you will get this matter clarified."
It was clarified by the Minister of the Environment yesterday when he said to me, "Maybe I did not understand the hon. member's question", and when I put it to him again, he said, "We have a special committee in place under the Canadian Public Health Association".
The point is that parliament passed a bill called the Environmental Contaminants Act, a bill which comprises a schedule of contaminants clearly laid out and which must be investigated by the Department of the Environment. Arsenic is one of the substances listed in that schedule. On reading the bill I find that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Health and Welfare may jointly appoint advisory committees to review any data collected pursuant to the act, more specifically with reference to environmental contaminants. Obviously such a committee is not in place. There appears to be some sort of joint committee which has not been

February 24, 1977
Adjournment Debate
defined, though it could have been defined in the response the Minister of the Environment gave yesterday. But this he failed to do. We have that committee, we have a Public Health Commission, and protection under the Environmental Contaminants Act which the minister has failed to implement.
The Environmental Contaminants Act is not a lengthy bill. It is interesting to note that it went into force on March 1, 1976, and that to date no charges have been laid under the statute. I am pleased, of course, that we should have such a clean environment and that everything is moving so smoothly. But when I consider that we also have on the statute books an Ocean Dumping Control Act which was assented to even earlier, an act which really pertains to the same objectives, though in the oceans and inland waterways, 1 become somewhat doubtful since no charges have been laid under that act either.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Ministry of the Environment has totally and completely failed to implement anything in the Environmental Contaminants Act, to exercise any of its rights under that act as well as under the Ocean Dumping Control Act. I suggest that the Minister of the Environment in his response to me yesterday clearly showed that he does not know what is going on in his own department with reference to an act which is of paramount concern to that ministry.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) presumably refers to section 3(4) of the Environmental Contaminants Act in which it is stated:
The Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare may jointly appoint advisory committees to review any data collected pursuant to subsection (1) and paragraph (3)(a), to receive representations from interested parties or concerned members of the public and to advise the Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare respecting measures to control the presence in the environment of any substance or class of substances.
The Department of Fisheries and the Environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Department of Indian Affairs have been addressing the Yellowknife arsenic problem for some time under their respective legislation. These considerations have included federal government authority under the Clean Air Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Northern Inland Waters Act. It is doubtful whether establishing an advisory committee at this time under the Environmental Contaminants Act would have contributed anything more to the solution of this problem than is already being done.
It should be emphasized that the focus of the Environmental Contaminants Act is upon the widespread contamination of the environment associated with the commercial use of problem substances. I might add that arsenic is included in the list of priority substances under consideration for major investigation under the Environmental Contaminants Act.
A priority setting exercise has been under way for some time in an attempt to establish short lists of problem substances. The two departments are now reviewing responses from across the country, greater than 100 replies to date. It is planned to distribute a summary of this survey for further comment.
|Mr. Brisco.]
No advisory committees under the Environmental Contaminants Act have been appointed as yet. We have had working groups and task forces to examine the technical issues about such chemicals as PCB's and fluorocarbons. Formal advisory committees may be required to examine in detail the wider issues of acceptable risk and social-economic impact once technical issues are resolved.
With respect to the specific Yellowknife arsenic problem, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) supported the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the appointment of the special Canadian Public Health Association committee to provide an independent appraisal of the risk to human health.


MANPOWER-PRACTICE OF SUPPLYING WORKERS TO COMPANIES WHOSE EMPLOYEES ARE ON STRIKE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, a week ago the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) told this House that when it came to strikes his department was neutral. He made that comment in response to a question I had raised concerning the fact that the Manpower Department was referring workers to work in legally struck plants, specially at the Ottawa Journal and Wyandotte Chemicals in Scarborough. Manpower has referred unemployed workers to both these plants. Mr. R. Lapointe of the Manpower Department stated in a telegram, in relation to the Wyandotte plant:
Wyandotte Chemicals Limited has had a standing job order for storemen since December 10, 1976. To date 26 referrals have been made by C.M.C. resulting in six placements.
There are two questions involved in this particular issue. One is impartiality, and the minister's answer touched on the question of impartiality. The minister says that what has taken place is all right. He said last Thursday in response to the question I asked in the House, as reported at page 3137 of Hansard:
If an employer, who also pays substantial taxes, wants to make use of Canada Manpower Centres to indicate a job vacancy, we tell the workers that there is a vacancy but that the plant is on strike. If the individual opts not to go he is not penalized.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the workers pay taxes too, and thanks to the way that the government has handled our tax structure, they pay a great deal more in taxes than employers do. But that is not the question I want to raise tonight. What benefits do they get from the minister's department during a strike or lockout? As for the question of impartiality, the very nature of the Unemployment Insurance Act forbids their receiving unemployment insurance during a work stoppage as a result of a labour dispute. The act is very clear in this regard. So they do not get unemployment insurance.
The government claims that if it paid these people unemployment insurance it would be taking sides in the dispute, and no one will argue with that. That is a quite correct position to take. It is not taking sides in the dispute when it funnels people to jobs formally held by other people involved in labour disputes. This is what the minister would have us believe. But I
February 24, 1977

suggest it is taking sides when it allows a Canada Manpower centre to be used as a referral centre for jobs at a legally struck plant.
It seems to me that on the one hand the government says it is not taking sides when it lets the Manpower centre be a referral centre for jobs at a legally struck plant; on the other hand, the government says it is not taking sides when it comes to paying the strikers unemployment insurance. It cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. It cannot have its cake and eat it too. If the government is to be neutral, it has to be completely neutral. The Manpower centre ought not to be used at all by either employer or employee during a legal strike.
The government says that people involved in labour disputes can go to Manpower centres to get temporary work. This at this time in our history is a sick joke. The government knows that there are about one million people out of work in this country today. It knows perfectly well there is a big difference between finding a new job and filling one that is advertised.
The second point is even more serious than the whole question of impartiality. When the government and the Manpower Department allow Manpower centres to be referral centres for jobs at legally struck plants, they pit brother against brother, worker against worker. In this economy there are desperately few jobs being created and a very large number of people are unemployed. It is obvious that people want to work. Manpower makes these jobs in the struck plants public to all people who frequent Manpower centres. In fact men and women looking for jobs will jump at the opportunity, even though it states in the fine print that a legal strike is in process. It is most dehumanizing placing brother against brother, sister against sister, in the scramble for jobs.
The government's practices in this regard are even more evidence that when it comes to a difference between business and labour, the government's neutrality is pretty one-sided.
What does business get out of this? It gets a large pool of unemployed people. The private sector gets a guaranteed supply of scab labour to fill its plants every time there is a strike or lockout. It gets it from a government agency paid for out of the taxes of Canadian workers. Those on strike pay taxes and their taxes go to support a Manpower centre that is participating in an effort to replace them in a legally struck plant.
What do the employees get? Nothing. They cannot get unemployment insurance benefits while the government is sending scabs in to fill their jobs. That would not be neutral. That is why workers at The Journal were denied unemployment insurance. Their jobs were filled by workers referred by the Manpower centre and escorted to their jobs by the police. These workers are on a legal strike. While they are out on the pavement, their jobs are being filled by scab employees referred by the Manpower centre. These people are being denied relocation grants because Manpower says there is a strike in process.
The jobs are not there for the workers, thanks to the government's deliberate attempts to wreck the economy in the
Adjournment Debate
name of fighting inflation. If people doubt that the government works only for business, they will sure have their noses rubbed into that fact if they are ever forced into a strike or lockout situation. This is the situation as it exists.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Manpower and Immigration does not participate in any activity aimed at breaking a strike. On the contrary, it tries to keep its neutrality in all labour conflicts.
Nevertheless, the placement services of Canada Manpower Centres are available to all employers and employees affected by a conflict and who want to use them. That is how Manpower Centres register striking employees and present them to other employers. They also receive job opportunities offered by employers who face a labour conflict and try to fill them. However, before offering a job, Manpower Centres inform workers, orally and in writing, that the employer in question is involved in a labour conflict. Once they know this, workers are then free to accept or refuse the offer. That way, employers and workers can both decide whether they will avail themselves of the placement service of the department if a labour conflict arises. By keeping its neutrality, the department tries not to cause any prejudice to either party.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will certainly understand that although department officials may observe the strictest neutrality in this type of situation, they will always be criticized by both parties involved, each claiming that they are acting against its own best interests. If it offers the employer the workers he needs, the unions will accuse the department of helping management to break the strike. On the other hand, if it does not, both the employer and his organization will accuse it of helping the union stop the operation. Although each of the parties will generally consider the minister is favouring the other, any impartial observer will find that he is really neutral.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission also remains neutral in cases of employer-employee conflicts. Should a recipient refuse to fill a vacancy resulting from such a conflict, he will not be prevented from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, because such a vacancy is not deemed as a normal working opportunity under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Under our collective bargaining system, employers and employees negotiate freely, without governmental interference. The Unemployment Insurance Commission maintains its objectivity by refusing its financial assistance to workers who are unemployed because of a working conflict. I am sure that the hon. member for Nickel Belt will recognize now that the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission are doing their utmost to remain impartial whenever industrial conflicts arise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:29 p.m.

Friday, February 25, 1977