1977-03-29

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION -THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 26 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority ol the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 29, 1977


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Today the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and the Canadian Major Junior Hockey Association in a joint brief to the government requested the government to assist in bringing the two major professional hockey leagues to the bargaining table as a result of inadequate compensation being provided by them for the development of amateur hockey in Canada. Because of the fact that amateur sports as a whole including hockey, figure skating, tennis and so on are suffering mainly as a result of professionals draining established talent from these ranks without compensating for the development of amateur sports at the grass roots level and because this government has already established a precedent of being able to interfere with professional sport for the purpose of preserving fitness and amateur sport as an integral part of Canadian community culture I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) be instructed to initiate a program forthwith whereby all professional leagues, teams or shows hiring or acquiring talent from the amateur ranks be made to compensate the respective amateur sports organizations accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 presentation of such motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED POSTHUMOUS RECOGNITION OF BRAVERY OF JEAN GERMAIN-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: 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 this House can see fit to congratulate beauty queens, Irishmen on St. Patrick's Day and other such occasions, and in view of the
fact that a coroner's inquest last Friday ruled that Jean Germain, an employee of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited, gave his life to rescue his fellow worker Bill Allan, in the very hazardous mining industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House posthumously recognizes the extreme bravery of Jean Germain, and extends to his family its sincere condolences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On the occasion that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) proposed a motion in respect of Miss Teen Canada and when an hon. member from the Metropolitan Toronto area proposed a motion of congratulation to the Metro Police in respect of the recent hostage taking in Toronto I expressed some clear reservations as to whether this Standing Order ought to be used in this way. Perhaps for the last time I will resolve that doubt in favour of the hon. member and put the motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from some concern that there may be a major change in oil pricing policy in Canada. Given that the minister said the other day that Canadian domestic oil on July 1 may rise by more than $2 per barrel, and since the U.S. Federal Energy Agency has suggested that that price increase would mean that the price for oil delivered in central Canada would be higher than the price of oil delivered in Chicago, would the minister state unequivocally and directly whether the government is changing its often pronounced policy of keeping the Canadian domestic oil price at or below the price of U.S. domestic oil?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question put yesterday by one of the hon. member's colleagues in almost precisely the same terms. I made it clear that 1 did not say the federal

March 29, 1977
Oral Questions
government would be moving its oil price up by $2 per barrel on July 1; nor had 1 advocated it. I had observed that if the price were to rise by $2 per barrel on July 1 of this year, it would be below the U.S. price. Let me be precise on this. I was comparing, as of July 1 this year, the U.S. price in Chicago and the Canadian price in Toronto, after due allowance has been made for the prevailing rate of exchange of the U.S. dollar.


FINANCE
James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. According to the United States Federal Energy Agency the prices, with the 95 cent Canadian dollar, would be exactly equivalent; if the rise were to be over $2, the price would be higher in Canada than in the United States. May 1 direct the following question to the Minister of Finance? Given that there is likely to be an increase in oil prices which will have an important effect on Canadian domestic manufacturing and make it less competitive in international trade, is the minister considering giving any advantage of any sort, through the introduction of any measures, to offset this rise in price and so help to keep Canadian manufacturing more competitive?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are anticipating the introduction of a budget within several days and it would obviously be difficult for me to respond to that question at this point.


Mr. Stevens:: Why?


OIL-DATE DRILLING REGULATIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS AVAILABLE
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I return to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for a final supplementary question. If the new price is to have any effect, it must operate within the regulations. Can the minister tell the House if the government's drilling regulations applying to federal lands-this has nothing to do with the provinces-will be available by September, this year.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 answered in some detail a question to that effect in the Standing Committee this morning, and I recommend to the hon. member a reading of my answer.


FINANCE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? In view of the surplus the oil subsidization program is currently running will the minister tell the House whether, if oil prices go up to a point where the gasoline excise tax is no longer required, he will consider a reduction of the tax, independently of any action he may take in the budget? I point out to the minister that in committee this morning the Minister of National Revenue said that since the ten cent tax was imposed on July 1, 1975, it has generated $1,025,570.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that such a question, will I do something if a certain price goes up, is purely hypothetical.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to undertake an investigation of the effect that the anticipated oil price rise will have on our international competitiveness and, if so, will he report his findings to the House, or have the whole matter referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the economic effect of an oil price increase is always estimated.


MANPOWER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has been giving liberal advice to students at the recent Liberals' thinkers conference, since this year summer employment opportunities for students will be non-existent, let alone full time employment opportunities, and since the Young Canada Works program will provide only 12,000 jobs, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he is prepared to increase the Young Canada Works funding, to provide a far greater number of jobs, or what leadership he is prepared to give this country with respect to the serious problem of student unemployment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been indicated before that the budget which is coming later this week will attempt to attack all of Canada's evils, including that of unemployment.


SUGGESTION STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT SURVEY BE REINSTITUTED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious I am not going to get any answers from the Prime Minister. I will therefore go to the Minister of Manpower and
March 29, 1977

Immigration. In view of the fact that last summer the Canada Manpower Centre cancelled the student summer employment survey which was done by Statistics Canada, and as a result we have no figures for comparison purposes, is the minister prepared to reinstitute the student summer employment survey this summer?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Be quiet over there. In view of the fact that the lack of summer employment for young people will result in many youths from low income families being prevented from taking advantage of post-secondary education, is the minister prepared to enter into discussions with the respective provincial authorities whereby a system of grants can be established to assist this particular group of young people to go on with their education?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the elements of the student loan plan is to make an adjustment in relation to summer employment.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
[Stage Direction]
EFFECT OF STRIKE AT j£R6ME LE ROYER SCHOOL BOARD ON MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM AND PAYMENT TO PARTICIPANTS
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is the minister aware that nearly one hundred unemployed attending manpower training courses cannot continue to do so as a result of a strike by the teachers of the Jerome Le Royer School Board and that some of those unemployed come from outside Montreal? Since the manpower centre authorities have decided to suspend both courses and allowances, can the minister tell the House whether his officials have found a solution to that situation, for example, by handing back the cheques to the unemployed so that those students may pay their board?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, because of the strike the individuals are, of
Oral Questions
course, not taking training. On that basis, they will not be paid, nor will their living allowance be paid.


OIL-MEASURES TO STIMULATE EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN FRONTIER AREAS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. EastCan has announced that it is suspending its offshore drilling program on the Labrador shelf, one of the three main frontier areas of Canada, because of unresolved jurisdictional disputes between the Newfoundland and federal governments. The Arctic Islands exploration declined severely and in the Mackenzie delta the same has occurred. In view of these facts, how is the government of Canada to meet the target set in "An Energy Strategy for Canada" made public in April, 1976 to double, at a minimum, exploration and development activity in the frontier regions of Canada over the next three years?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a lot more difficult. I very much regret that the jurisdictional dispute and one other fact which the hon. member did not mention prevented this particular project from going ahead. What the hon. member did not mention was that more than the jurisdictional dispute between the Newfoundland government and the federal government, which we have agreed should be referred to the Supreme Court, was involved. The Newfoundland government was not prepared to give guarantees with respect to the permit rights of the EastCan group, permit rights in an area in which they had already spent $100 million, one of the most difficult parts of the world. The hon. member can probably accept some of the responsibility for that decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY BERGER REPORT RECOMMENDS AGAINST CONSTRUCTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the minister's last remark and ask him this. Can the minister confirm or deny the story that has leaked from a translator of the Berger report on the Mackenzie oil pipeline that Mr. Justice Berger recommends against permitting the building of an oil pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley for at least five years? If the minister cannot now confirm or deny that report, will he check it out and report to the House so that further uncertainty will not be created in the frontier areas by this story?


Alastair William Gillespie: It is very difficult to see the connection between the Berger inquiry and the EastCan situation. However, I can

March 29, 1977
Oral Questions
understand that the hon. member might wish to divert public attention from that particular decision by the group, given his very close association with it. As to the question of a leak of the Berger Commission report, the hon. member should know that Mr. Justice Berger does not report to me.


OIL-MEASURES TO CREATE SUITABLE CONDITIONS FOR EXPLORATION ON THE LABRADOR SHELF
John Carnell Crosbie: In view of the intransigent stand taken by the government of Canada that Newfoundland has no right to the mineral resources which lie under the continental shelf of Newfoundland and Labrador, brought into confederation by Newfoundland on March 31, 1949, may I ask this question: if the minister does not now agree to recognize the Newfoundland claim, what steps does he intend to take to create a stable climate for exploration and development on the Labrador shelf?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure that if the minister were to attempt to answer that question it would take him longer than the time available for this question period.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT TO BUY OIL FROM MEXICO WHICH PETRO-CAN MIGHT REFINE AND DISTRIBUTE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question, also is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the suggestion which was made during the recent meetings of Canadian and Mexican parliamentarians held in Mexico that the president of Petro-Can, Maurice Strong, was going to Mexico to negotiate a transaction whereby Mexico would export some 20,000 barrels of light crude a day to Canada. Can the minister confirm that this will be taking place?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am not in any position to confirm that this will take place. I must say, though, that it is an interesting possibility and 1 would hope it might lead to other energy trades. For example, there is a great deal of coal on the west coast of Canada and some on the east coast which we might be able to exchange in a trading relationship with the Mexicans.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In the event of Mexican oil being imported by Petro-Can can the minister advise us whether Petro-Can would be responsible for the distribution, refining and marketing of oil imported from foreign countries.


Alastair William Gillespie: As the hon. member knows, Petro-Can does not have a refining or marketing organization at the present time, nor is their creation among its priorities. So if it were to act as an agent in the purchase of Mexican crude oil it would have to deal that oil off to other companies for refining and distribution.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH NEWFOUNDLAND ON OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question too, is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it relates to the series of questions by the hon. member for St. John's West. I understand that negotiations with Newfoundland broke down because the government of Canada took a firm position that the government of Newfoundland could play only an advisory role in any joint administration. Can the minister tell the House whether the government is prepared to soften its position and enter into serious negotiations with Newfoundland which would lead to some kind of agreement?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member is talking about the arrangement negotiated between the federal government and the maritime provinces for the creation of a maritime resources board. There was a feeling in the minds of some people, including, I believe, the hon. member's colleague, that this was no more than an advisory board to the federal government. I made it clear before the standing committee this morning that it was not an advisory board to the federal government but that it would have power and discretion to act for the minister and that it would be composed, as far as Newfoundland is concerned, on the same basis as for the maritimes; that is, equal representation as between the provinces and the federal government: only in the event that there is no agreement between the members of the board would final authority rest with the minister. Clearly, then, there is an opportunity, if the province of Newfoundland wishes to take it up, to negotiate an offshore deal, but on the same basis as that which was accepted by the maritime provinces.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is prepared to consider that Newfoundland might be a special case by virtue of the terms of union and the arguments that the provinces are prepared to make to the Supreme Court, would he be prepared to take this into account and to enter into some kind of special arrangement with the government of Newfoundland other than an agreement with the maritime provinces?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker. We have made it quite clear that we are prepared to enter into an agreement with the province of Newfoundland on the same basis as we have with the maritime provinces. I acknowledge the right clearly of the province of Newfoundland to claim that it has some kind of special status or that there should be a special arrangement regarding offshore resources, but that is not something I am prepared to accept. That is why we have mutually decided to refer the issue to the Supreme Court.

March 29, 1977


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say what response, if any, Canada has made or intends to make to the implied threat made at a news conference at Brussels yesterday by the European Common Market energy commissioner that Canada's political and commercial relationships with the European Common Market countries will be damaged if bickering over the upgrading of our nuclear safeguards with the EEC countries continues?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the news report of that particular statement but I have not yet had an opportunity today to get an official report on it. If that is the position being taken, then I very much regret it. In so far as Canada is concerned, I have made it perfectly clear that we will not resume the export of uranium or other nuclear-related products to the European community until such time as the countries to which we are making those shipments, or have made them in the past, are prepared to accept our nuclear safeguards policy as I outlined it in December. I think they understand our position clearly and it is regrettable, if these news reports are correct, that they have taken that posture. I will be able to report more fully on the official report when I get it later today.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE TO UPGRADE NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the minister's response to this unsolicited comment by the European Common Market energy commissioner and that he will make it known to members of the House. May 1 also ask the minister at the same time, as a further aspect of this matter, what approach has been made to the government of France in an effort to have France upgrade its safeguards arrangements to meet the standards outlined by the Canadian government both in December 1974 and December 1976; in other words, to allow inspection of all nuclear installations in that country, and to prevent the transfer by France of Canadian nuclear fuels and technologies to third countries which are not willing to meet Canadian standards? What specific approach has been made to France?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there have been two avenues of approach on this matter. Bilaterally 1 have talked to the French foreign minister and made perfectly clear to him and to the government of France what our attitude is and our hope that the government of France will accept the Canadian standards or their equivalent. In addition to that, Canada along with France-we are both members of the so-called
Oral Questions
"London suppliers club"-the United States and other countries, meet periodically and during those meetings the same kind of representations are being made. I presume that there will be another meeting of that group in the immediate future-that is, within a matter of weeks-and once again Canada will make its views known at that time and will urge other countries to meet the Canadian standards.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister state specifically what progress is being made in these negotiations with France? What seems to be the cause of the hold-up here?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to identify very specifically what progress has been made. I can only say that since the kind of discussions I have referred to have taken place the government of France has made to my knowledge two separate announcements in which they have moved considerably toward a stronger safeguards regime. But, of course, in the last analysis it is up to the government of France to make the decision. I do know, as I suspect the hon. lady does, that other countries, including the U.S., are hopeful and are indicating to France, as we are, that it and other countries will improve their standards.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Yves Caron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the press release published in the March 25, 1977 edition of the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil to the effect that the government is importing powdered skim milk from New Zealand, while we have enormous surpluses in stock here in Canada, could the minister advise the House whether there have been imports of powdered milk from New Zealand or other industrialized countries in 1976 and 1977? In case this information is not readily available, could he inquire within his department?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this was made through trading agreements with New Zealand. They have a long history of importing not skim milk powder but powder made from buttermilk. In fact, about two million pounds of that has been imported since that time per year. They were given that right at that time. We do not think they should have that right with the surplus problems we have in Canada, but that has been historically their market for years and years for this product.
4422
Oral Questions AIRPORTS

March 29, 1977


MIRABEL-LOW RATING OF EMERGENCY SERVICES- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the International Federation of Airline Pilots has established a rating system for international airports regarding efficiency, emergency services and safety, and that only one international airport in Canada has a bad rating, it is second from the bottom in the rating, namely, Mirabel airport, what action has the department taken regarding the upgrading of the safety and emergency services there in view of the fact that that airport has a record of six incidents of loss of separation, meaning one plane coming too close to another, its personnel requires 34 minutes to get simulated accident victims to St. Jerome Hospital, and its emergency firefighting equipment does not work off tarmacs or runways, as well as the fact that there is no airport personnel trained in paramedical services?


An hon. Member:: That is terrible.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not seen the date on that report nor have I had a chance to have comments on it. I know that after the opening of Mirabel there were a number of problems in developing some of the specific services, but I want to look at the report, its timing, and have some comments on it. I would be surprised if we had not made a good deal of progress in correcting the problems cited.


LACK OF EMERGENCY SERVICE AT NORTHERN AIRPORTS- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that report is today's and it is from the International Federation of Airline Pilots. On non-international airports in Canada the Canadian Airline Pilots Association has been conducting surveys and has, of course, been working closely with the ministry. I am advised that northern airports that are outside the main corridor from Halifax to Vancouver lack sufficient instrument landing systems, namely, the VASIS system which provides pilots with the capability to make a quick decision as to whether or not to land or keep on going in bad weather, or whether or not anything is being done about the inadequate emergency and paramedical services at northern airports. Would the minister tell the House that he can guarantee the adequacy of these kinds of services at all airports in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: That would take literally hundreds of millions of dollars and obviously is not possible overnight. We have been making very important strides in improving our airport facilities all across the country. We have indeed some of the highest standards in the world in terms of safety, convenience and equipment, and that must be remembered. But obviously our vast priorities present a tremendous challenge in terms of airport facilities required. On the other hand we must appreciate as well that that costs a

great amount of money and we have to look at that with a question in mind as to what we can do in any particular year.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact that the ministry and the government have continually placed budgetary considerations ahead of the safety and lives of passengers in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -in view of the lead time that is required to order emergency equipment, improve the system and train paramedical people, can the minister assure the House that the government in the budget being announced this Thursday night or in a statement which will be made shortly thereafter will announce a substantial increase in the funding and the ordering of the necessary systems and equipment for training at all airports in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have a very important program of airport improvements in the budget and it is an ongoing one. In view of the fact that we have among the highest, if not the highest, standards of safety and efficiency at our Canadian airports, I can only characterize the hon. member's "in view ofs" as nonsense.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As gold auctions are now being held regularly every Wednesday once a month and the United States have hinted they might be selling some of their gold which they hold in their reserves, would the Minister of Finance indicate if any consideration has been given to Canada selling a portion of the gold held by the government of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Can the minister say whether any consideration has been given to valuing our gold upwards which is now held in the foreign exchange reserve fund?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The bank customarily records the gold in terms of volume rather than value. As the hon. member knows, the value goes up and down on what is now a free market. It seems that that is probably the most sensible basis on which to account for it.
March 29, 1977


RESOURCES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the highly volatile monetary situation in the world today and the fact that we are the third largest producer of gold as a mining operation, would the minister indicate if any thought has been given to a stabilization program to ensure that our gold mining can be expanded from its present level?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, a number of submissions were made a short while ago when the world price for gold dropped below what was the then economic price for a number of mining properties in Canada. At that time we received submissions from the mining industry, and a task force was formed to examine the proposals of the mining interests. During that period of time, however, the world price for gold was firmed, and indeed exceeded the level which was previously considered to be the economic level, so that the need for consideration of a stabilization plan was, very happily, overtaken by events.


LOSS OF AMATEUR ATHLETES TO PROFESSIONAL LEAGUES WITHOUT COMPENSATION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Because of the fact that professional leagues, teams and shows continue to drain talent from amateur ranks without any compensation whatsoever for the development of amateur sport as outlined to the minister this morning by representatives of amateur hockey, can the minister advise the House what immediate and positive steps she intends to take in this regard?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have requested and received the assent of the chairman of Hockey Canada to promptly convene a meeting with a representative of the National Hockey League, the World Hockey Association, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, and the Canadian Major Junior Hockey Association. This meeting's first item of business would be to agree to pay outstanding draft fees. In this regard we have something of a labour disagreement which can only be resolved at the bargaining table.


Otto John Jelinek: In view of the fact that CMJH and CAHA both insist that the very existence of junior and amateur hockey in Canada is being threatened, would the minister and the government consider taking some long reaching initiatives? Would the minister consider initiating as soon as possible a program whereby all professional organizations benefitting from the talents of Canadian amateurs be made to contribute
Oral Questions
to the respective sports bodies accordingly, something on a long range basis rather than ad hoc?


Iona Campagnolo: It has been the position of this government not to interfere directly in the decisions of the sports governing bodies. We hope that in this regard it will be possible for an example to be set by these participants in the present negotiations. Failing that, of course, other initiatives will be taken.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. It arises out of the fact that weekly newspapers in my constituency have been receiving letters from subscribers cancelling their subscriptions because of the late arrival of the newspapers. After a protest was lodged with the Edmonton branch a note was sent from the post office saying that it takes four or five days from the time newspapers are published to arrive at the post office, and also that the File on that particular complaint is closed. Does the Postmaster General agree with such shoddy service from the post office for these weekly newspapers?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular circumstances the hon. member is bringing to my attention.


Mr. Forrestall:: It happens all over Canada.


Mr. Blais:: The hon. member should know that in large measure weekly newspapers are carried by the post office free and that they are not priority items.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Since when?


Mr. Fairweather:: You are in the wrong portfolio.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is our intention to maintain that particular subsidization, and I will look into the circumstances which the hon. member has brought to my attention.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that the minister would say that this is not a priority item. In view of the fact that on this note it says that the file is closed, will the minister personally intervene with these regional offices to see that weekly newspapers which service the small communities of this country receive the adequate service to which they are traditionally accustomed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.
%00\7-2'/2

March 29, 1977
Oral Questions


MEASURES TO IMPROVE SERVICE AND AVOID DEFICITS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Postmaster General. In view of reports that an ever increasing number of businesses, including one of Canada's largest companies, are resorting to private mail service, can the minister tell the House what measures are being taken to maintain the volume of mail handled in order to avoid ever increasing deficits in the postal budget?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question. The post office is attempting to establish labour peace in order to encourage increased volume. We are conducting all the studies which are required to ascertain how best to provide that sort of service, which will justify the monopoly which the statutes have provided the post office relating to first class mail.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport, who has been loudly touting the virtues of international airports in Canada. Is the minister aware that on at least two occasions officials in his department have recommended that radar be installed at the Victoria International Airport? If he is, would he indicate why he has turned down the recommendation, and if he is not, would he look into his department and check on his facts because I am sure of mine?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in any case officials in the department and in the different regions will very frequently make recommendations in terms of the next steps to be taken in their particular regions. Those recommendations have to be weighed having regard to the finances which are available, and by no means can all of them be carried out in any sense of fiscal responsibility. Notwithstanding that, I can repeat to the hon. member that we have maintained an extremely high standard of safety in Canada.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF LABOUR ON POSSIBLE BUSINESS-LABOUR AGREEMENT ON ENDING CONTROLS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the refreshing and courageous statement made this morning by the hon. member for Vancouver South in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration that a question he asked in the House yesterday was based on erroneous media information, could the minister set the record straight and give this House the correct situation in relation to the possibility of an agree-

ment between labour and business with regard to ending the controls?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was impressed that the hon. member for Vancouver South in the finest parliamentary tradition did check his sources and did indicate that I was misquoted yesterday. I think that was a real service inasmuch as I would not want the parties who met in the Prime Minister's office to feel that what took place did not in fact take place and attribute the authorship of that misinformation to myself.


POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTANCE TO LOWER GULL ISLAND
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St.George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it is supplementary to those asked by my colleagues. In view of the fact that the answers given to my colleagues certainly indicate evidence of delays in oil exploration, I wonder if the minister is prepared to offer further financial assistance to develop the Lower Gull Island site to take advantage of the known potential hydro power there to serve Newfoundland and Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it quite clear on a number of occasions in the House that we are very anxious to enter into discussions with the province of Newfoundland with regard to the development of the Gull Island site. The next move is that of the premier.


CONDITIONS ON PERMITS GRANTED TO EASTCAN GROUP FOR EXPLORATION ON LABRADOR SHELF
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In connection with the activities of the EastCan group which has received permits from the government of Canada covering approximately 28 million acres off the Labrador shelf, could the minister table a resume of the conditions applying to these permits, and have assurances been given EastCan which differ from the conditions which apply to other oil exploration groups on the Labrador shelf or in the frontier areas generally? If so, what are the differences in the assurances given or the conditions imposed?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps that question is in the nature of an order paper question. I would be very pleased to try to deal with each aspect of it in a written submission to the hon. member. However, to the best of my knowledge no particular assurances have been given which are different from those given to anybody else. In other words, we have not singled out EastCan and said that we are going to give EastCan a better deal than anybody else. We have said to
March 29, 1977

EastCan that its permit rights are valid under the federal permits. In the same way we have made the same declaration to other companies, so we have dealt with all companies on the same basis.


IMMIGRATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It has to do with defecting communists who seek refuge in Canada. Is it the policy of the government-and I hope it is-that where there are no security implications those who come here for the purpose of getting away from the conditions under which they live and for the purpose of finding a land of freedom will be made welcome in Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, given the caveat the right hon. gentleman has indicated my department does try to assist in every way possible the individuals to whom he is referring. We do have some difficulty with people who come here from Eastern Europe as tourists or visitors and seek to remain in the country. If we allow that to happen, I am somewhat concerned that we might shut off the flow of visitors who legitimately want to visit relatives and then go back home.
I have received representations from Ukrainian and Polish groups which have suggested that some thought be given to a quota system allowing perhaps 50 or 60 a year. I am considering that, but again it is a question of what criteria should be used. Should the first 50 be allowed, or should we call out certain numbers and put some value judgment on it? There are many difficulties, but we are trying to accommodate as many as we can given the caveat which the right hon. gentleman put in his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I brought a case to the minister's attention, and he very benevolently said that consideration was being given to it. I refer to the case of Ivan Charalambij, the Romanian canoeist who defected to Mont real last summer. For eight long months there have been !i kinds of excuses raised. There are no security implications, bu' this person has found himself in the last few days still in a uncertain position in which rules change, documents get losi and there is double talk and red tape. There have been eight months of indecision. I am speaking about a person who legitimately seeks refuge here. After eight months is the minister able to say that after all those delays this man will be welcome in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is often easy to put the blame for delays on the department rather than on the individuals themselves. As far as my department is concerned, however,
Oral Questions
they feel the delay was not so much caused by them. I have been informed that this person has met the medical requirements and an order in council will authorize that he should be landed.


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Now that the jury has returned its verdict about the winning design for the new National Gallery, does the government intend to proceed with the specific architectural drawings and other arrangements for the gallery so that no time will be lost between the preparation of these drawings and the call for tenders a couple of years hence?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the future of the gallery will have to be assessed in view of the financial restraint program. No decision has yet been taken to cease the normal progression of events that would occur after this stage. The design which has been presented is an excellent one with which we are extremely pleased. At the present time I have no further comment to make on the situation.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have been informed by the chairman of the National Capital Commission that it is continuing its policy of land acquisition in Hull for the construction of the other museums in the national system. How can the minister reconcile his answer to me with postponing the plans for the National Gallery while going ahead with land acquisition for the museums?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I did not say we postponed the plans to go ahead with the National Gallery; I said no decision had been taken not to proceed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
/ .BUSES OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and involves diplomatic immunity in Canada. According to the Ottawa police, no prosecutions were made on the 4,788 traffic tickets issued to members of the diplomatic community during 1976, and no charges were laid for 13 traffic accidents and 82 traffic violations because diplomatic immunity was involved. Would the minister indicate what measures he has taken to impress upon the abusers of diplomatic status that they have not been given a licence to ignore Canadian law?

March 29, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the conclusion of the hon. member's question, that is, that obviously there should not be abuse of privileges and Canadian law. As to the first part of the question, I must confess that I have been too busy looking after a few parking tickets of my own lately. This is not a matter that has come to my attention.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Those figures are available from the Ottawa police. In view of the fact that when the government previously reported to me the number of times diplomats invoked immunity in 1975, Uganda topped the list with 611 violations and in view of the fact that there are only five Ugandan diplomats listed in the diplomatic corps handbook as living and working in Ottawa, could the minister indicate whether he has communicated with the Ugandan High Commission to impress upon them their obligation to respect Canadian law and if so, would he indicate what response he received?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I may be big but "Big Daddy" is bigger, so 1 am handling it through the usual diplomatic channels.


MANPOWER
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and immigration. On Monday, March 28 an article in the Globe and Mail stated that 40 or 50 per cent of the maple syrup crop in Quebec could not be harvested because of a lack of workers. May I ask the minister if the article is correct and that a shortage of workers does exist? If it is not correct, would the minister say so in the strongest possible terms in order that Canadians not be misled into believing that jobs are going begging in the province of Quebec?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I read that article and I had it checked out. I understand that a request was placed with the Canadian farm labour pool in St. Georges, and the CMC's in Plessiville and St. Jean. We have an order for five in one area and one in another. So far as I know there is no shortage of workers.


Mr. Clark:: That is six who do not have to leave the country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Beliechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Following the terrible air disaster which occurred in Santa Cruz and which caused 576 casualties, including some Canadians, and in order to reassure the Canadian population about the critical problem of air-to-ground communications which we are facing in Canada at the present time, could the minister tell the House what language was used in air-to-ground communications when this tragedy occurred?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member a formal answer to that question. Since there is an investigation underway I am sure he would understand that I would prefer to get an official answer before replying to him. I undertake to do that as quickly as possible.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of statements by J. Carvel, chief labour negotiator for the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, that the Canadian lock at Sault Ste. Marie will be phased out of commercial operation by 1982, will the minister confirm that this is his government's policy and if not, just what are the future plans for this lock?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no final decisions have been taken concerning the future of this lock or indeed the possibility of an alternative lock in the area. The Seaway has indicated that the costs involved in operating the lock on a 24-hour basis are exorbitant. I have approved a plan whereby the time during which the lock would be open would be reduced in order to economize. That plan is being implemented while consideration is being given as to the long-term future of that particular area.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statements of the city council of Sault Ste. Marie and other interested groups, would the minister review the decision to reduce the hours of operation of the lock. If the 24-hour operation is reduced and the lock therefore downgraded to a part-time facility, this would pave the way for its eventual phase out on the grounds that it is not commercially viable. Surely this important juncture in the system demands that the lock be expanded, not reduced?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, just as obviously the reduction of expense in connection with the lock renders it closer to being commercially viable than the contrary. The volume of vessels presenting themselves at this lock has been reducing to such an extent that this seemed to warrant such action, even while further consideration was being given to the future of the area and the question of whether a Canadian lock is needed at this site.
March 29, 1977


MANPOWER
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that his officials in the riding of Kootenay West and in Vancouver have directed inquiries to the department here regarding the very low funding for Young Canada Works programs in Kootenay West is it the minister's intention, after twice refusing my applications, to review the contention of his own officials that the figures for Young Canada Works in Kootenay West are in error?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct to say that the hon. member's representations were ignored. They were not in fact ignored. 1 believe as a result of his representation 1 wrote him on the figures indicated by my officials. If he has not received the letter I will check it out.


MEASURES TO IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it obviously takes three or four months to gear up the new program of employment for youth and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated there will be new opportunities for youth in the budget, is it his intention to further the Young Canada Works projects or has he some new initiative in mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the budget is only a couple of days away so perhaps the hon. member could hold his breath until then.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to the question I asked last Thursday concerning the position his department is taking with respect to the submission by foreign service secretaries in Ottawa who protested the appraisal promotion system used by the department. The minister indicated then that he had not had a chance to discuss it with his under-secretary. 1 wonder if he has had an opportunity to do since and if so what were their resolutions? If not, when will the discussion take place?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have had a response, not from the undersecretary, but from the appropriate officials with whom I
Bill C-27
discussed it. I must confess to the hon. member that, apart altogether from the time it would take, it would be difficult to answer orally a complex question of this sort. If he is agreeable, I will ask for a letter to be drafted for him which will deal with the matter he has raised, and I would have no objection if he makes the letter public, if he has any reason to do so. But it is not a matter 1 could answer easily in the question period.


Walter David Baker: That would be agreeable to me, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-410, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (class action).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide the facility of class action to the many, many thousands of small consumers of this country who cannot individually afford to take any of the large corporations to court to obtain justice and who may come together as a class to bring such suits in the courts, share the cost and, of course, share the results of the suit.


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

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That, in relation to bill C-27, an act to establish the department of employment and immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That, at the conclusion of the fifth such hour, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then before the House, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the Bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 29, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being five minutes after three, and two hours for debate being ordered by the Standing Order, it is evident that if the debate runs its full course it will extend into the evening hours. I wonder if in the circumstances there may be some disposition, since only questions on the order paper remain to be dealt with, to dispose of routine proceedings before embarking on debate on the motion. Is this agreed?	Calgar5,


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,457, 1,823, 1,825, 1,962, 1,963, 1,964, 2,050, 2,058 and 2,059.
Edmonton


Mr. Neil: 1.	For each year 1960 to 1975, what was the (a) amount of profit or loss for each government elevator located within the Canadian Wheat Board area (b) number of bushels handled by each elevator (c) number of cars loaded with grain cleaned to export standards and their destination?
2.	Since the utilization of unit trains, how many have originated from each elevator?
3.	Has a cost comparison study been done with respect to producer hauled grain to a government elevator and/or grain carried by rail from a country elevator to a government elevator for cleaning to export standards and shipped
by unit train for direct loading on shipboard, as opposed to shipping from a Lethbridge country elevator to export position for cleaning and loading and, if so (a) what were the results (b) were the costs of transporting screenings and other foreign material taken into consideration?


Eugene Whelan: 1.		
Fiscal	(a)	(b)Year	P & L	ReceiptsMoose Jaw 1959-60	$ 212,310	164,9351960-61	147,449	31,7681961-62	227.726	1,786,0511962-63	44,821	135,4921963-64	5,900	68,3591964-65	-184,607	1,0531965-66	-194,164	238,1161966-67	- 114,250	4,735,8761967-68	231.496	1,019,0251968-69	181,706	1,731,4341969-70	288,196	4,442,4111970-71	48,283	915,9831971-72	-78,856	1,194,4801972-73	173,920	4,856,2541973-74	202,628	2,018,1761974-75	35.841	7,572,11 11975-76	252,414	2,826,576Saskatoon 1959-60	60,229	1,455,9381960-61	296,207	3,366,7711961-62	229.829	3.938,0531962-63	3,092	188.2231963-64	-76,496	1,003,4211964-65	-81,802	1,437,8391965-66	-178,144	870,9621966-67	-82.486	4,355,547
Prince Rupert
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1959-	60
1960-	61
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1959-	60
1960-	61
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1959-	60
1960-	61
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1959-	60
1960-	61
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
137,678 106,263
215.519 97,306
-110,501
193,370
249,862
600,291
711,141
43,014
-54,158
-84,422
51,389
-49,826
48,299
20,506
36,576
23,315
70,236
76,627
27,927
15.641
129,737
66.519 133,844
23,322
26,868
98.552 -90,145 -64,179
-	103,326 104,957
59,405
-143,350
-117.244
60.295
-9.120
70.553 31.092
243,063
179.715 127,269 223,449
-22,984
-22.595
-51,673
-72,026
-130,398
-59,359
-50,982
-83,902
-56,192
-126,435
-90,839
-	104,982 -130,891 -188,737 -118,546
363,810
-95,544
7,759
-	12,483
129.715 -129.991
50,540
118,871
260.194
243.982
105,634
-	60,407 197,559 307.680 395,509 789,393 466,530 787,676
1,406,577
1,609,574 2,552,068 3,804,077 962,273 1,126,076 6,979,385 4,060,375 13.442,917 7,821,135 2,916,000 3,157,579 2,141,650 1,993,246 2,572,485 1,669,703 2,066,554 3,042,539 2,051,617 3,129,122 3,365,587
2.342.319 2,668,186 4,446,270
3.590.521
6.202.337 3,631,975 1,382,190
2.893.521 1,972,195
690,285
2,296,660
2,407,764
2.146,733
1.206,533
451,188
2.429,344
2.280.320 2,187,854
246,300
3,973,451
1,800,443
8,259,621
4,375,637
90,448
441,471
104.646
1.509
946,844
32,910
613,868
934,316
110,907
.121,291
923.071 152,727
134.072 110,838
2.366.337 9,735,009 1.175.208 9.286,717 5,674,817
15,228,031
3,243,645
8,642,924
10,063,394
14,895,641
13,388.593
7,621,474
7,706,702
7,426,438
11,699,792
14.388,470
23,985,342
17,259,520
25.196,376
21.555,140
[Mr. Speaker.)
March 29, 1977

Order Paper Questions
(c) Fiscal Year	Calgary	Car shipments from interior terminals 1959-60 to 1975-76 Edmonton Lethbridge Moose Jaw Saskatoon	Total1959-60	1,861	1,500	145	61	1,191	4,7581960-61	1,053	1,161	274	830	2,256	5,5741961-62	1,039	772	140	1,123	1,814	4,8881962-63	1,241	697	217	117	958	3,2301963-64	698	320	9	1,536	1,225	3,7881964-65	814	1,775	236	53	481	3,3591965-66	1,752	1,320	584	135	844	4,6351966-67	798	506	24	289	93	1,7101967-68	841	216	64	76	673	1,8701968-69	2,442	1.819	502	3,265	3,097	11,1251969-70	861	511	74	282	541	2,2691970-71	1,159	1,246	79	1,739	1,706	5,9291971-72	1,678	1,749	404	726	1,514	6,0711972-73	1,528	1,504	54	1,995	2,303	7,3841973-74	406	1,623	1,845	810	3,604	8,2881974-75	1,150	1,876	1,587	2,713	3,062	10,3881975-76	781	1,969	171	1,020	3,522	7,463Total	20,102	20,564	6,409	16,770	28,884	92,729
The destinations were not separately identified, however, as the grain was cleaned to export standards, they were shipped to either Vancouver, Thunder Bay or Churchill.
2.	Canadian Government Elevators-Unit Trains Shipped: Moose Jaw, 7; Saskatoon, 20; Calgary, 8; Edmonton, 14; Lethbridge, 40; Prince Rupert, Nil.
3.	No.


Mr. Smith: 1.	Will funds be made available to the Northern Flood Committee in Manitoba so that they can continue their negotiations regarding the Churchill-Nelson River Diversion Project and, if so, will the Committee receive a guarantee that adequate funds will continue to be provided until their task is achieved?
2.	On what date can the Committee expect an official response from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the proposal submitted on September 18, 1976?


Mr. Smith: Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have a policy whereby Indian bands that choose to operate certain programmes for themselves must do so within the budget allotted when the programme was administered by the Department?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No. However, the transfer of programs to Band Councils must be within the limits of the assigned budget. Occasionally new money has been received for such things as band core funding, band work programs and band administration cost. Budget increases have also been granted to cover price and volume increases and we have been able to make some budget adjustments by dropping other low priority activities. Nevertheless, the impact of budget ceilings has effectively placed a limit on the extent to which bands can be given more money for an activity than was available to the department when it managed the same activity.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Approximately $1.5 million have been made available to the Northern Flood Committee from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to enable the committee to develop and negotiate its claim regarding the Churchill-Nelson River Diversion Project. Adequate funding will be continued as long as meaningful negotiations exist between the parties concerned.
2. The Northern Flood Committee completed an extensive set of proposals for consideration by the mediator and the other parties in seeking an agreement on compensation, remedies, alternatives and mitigation measures for the five communities represented by the committee. The proposals were in response to the current and forecasted impacts of the Churchill-Nelson River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg Regulation projects. Those proposals were submitted to Mr. Leon Mitchell, the mediator in these negotiations, in mid-September with copies distributed to the Province of Manitoba, Manitoba

March 29, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Hydro and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. On March 3, in a meeting held with all four parties, the mediator presented a draft agreement and requested the parties to review the draft. Discussions on Canada's position on the issues have taken place with the Northern Flood Committee, and further discussions will be held shortly.


Mr. Herbert: Have any departments been refused approval to fill all authorized positions for the current fiscal year and, if so, which departments and to what levels has authorization been given?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: No departments have been refused approval to fill all authorized man-years or positions for the current fiscal year. However it should be recognized that central control of the size of the Public Service is by means of man-years authorized rather than positions. Only the senior management complement of executives or equivalents is centrally controlled by numbers of positions authorized.


Mr. Herbert: By department, how many authorized positions in the Public Service were not occupied as of December 31,1976?


Robert Knight Andras: The size of the Public Service is measured by man-years and not by positions. Included in authorized man-years are provisions for continuing full-time, casual, seasonal and term employees. Classified positions provide only the authority for the level of pay for continuing full-time staff and in normal circumstances departments would have a slightly greater number of positions than man-years to provide flexibility, therefore a report on the number of positions not occupied would not reflect the true number of vacancies within authorized man-years.


Mr. Herbert: In comparison to the number of occupied positions in the Public Service as of December 31, 1976, what will be the percentage increase in the number of positions of the senior management complement for the 1977-78 fiscal year when all authorized positions are occupied?


Robert Knight Andras: Authorized positions in the senior management complement stood at 1,716 December 31, 1976 and are forecast to reach 1,734 by March 31, 1977 at which point they will be frozen for the 1977-78 fiscal year. Thus the percentage increase in the number of positions will be zero for 1977-78. It is impossible for all authorized positions in the senior management comple-

ment to be occupied since incumbents are constantly retiring, being promoted or leaving for other reasons and their replacement by competition takes time. The vacancy rate is not expected to be substantially different this time next year. There were 1,448 senior executives occupying senior management complement positions December 31, 1976. It is not likely this figure will exceed 1,500 by March 31, 1978.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How many pounds of butter were in storage as of December 31, 1976, and of this amount, how much was produced in Canada?
2.	If any was imported (a) for what reason was the government participating in a programme of importing butter (b) was this in excess of Canada's needs (c) what effect did this have on the income of Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: 1. 58.2 million pounds. 100 per cent produced in Canada.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Schellenberger: What was the number of feeder cattle shipped to Ontario from western Canada in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 to date?


Eugene Whelan: (a) 357,413; (b) 266,100; (c) 2,949.


Mr. Schellenberger: How many persons in the Department of Agriculture, Research Branch, are working on methods of control for wild oats at the present time?


Eugene Whelan: Seven persons in the Department of Agriculture, Research Branch, are working on methods of control for wild oats at the present time.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you please call starred question No. 1,685?


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Has the Red Head Homeowners Association of Woodlawn Park-Harbour-view subdivision requested letter carrier service and, if so, how has the Postmaster General responded to this request?
2.	How many group box holders are in the subdivision?
3.	Is this service considered adequate by the Post Office Department?
March 29, 1977


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. Yes. In response, a reply was sent December 2, 1976 to Mr. A. J. Reid, Treasurer of the Association, by the Manager, Customer Service N.B. and P.E.I. Postal District. The member for Fundy-Royal was also advised, in a letter dated January 10, as to the federal policy on restraint in spending which deferred until further notice extensions of letter carrier service into areas that are beyond existing route boundaries.
2.	Two hundred eight.
3.	Group box service is the only delivery system that the Post Office is able to provide, pending relaxation of the limitations imposed upon the department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On January 24 I placed starred question 1453 on the order paper. This is the second time I have had to raise this matter. Starred questions are supposed to be answered within a reasonable time, say about two weeks. My question has been unanswered for two months. It is not a difficult question. Has the government bought a new Grumman Gulfstream executive jet or not? Surely it does not take two months to find out. I am entitled to an answer, Mr. Speaker.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as I undertook earlier, 1 have been pursuing the particular matter raised in this question. 1 simply point out that the hon. member's interpretation of the rules governing starred questions is not entirely accurate, but we endeavour to answer such questions, and others, as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to the earlier understanding, the House will now revert to motions to consider the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with respect to which the question has already been put. The minister has been recognized.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may we call it 3.08 p.m.?


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen:
That, in relation to Bill C-27, an act to establish the department of employment and immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
Motion under S.O. 75C
That, at the conclusion of the fifth such hour, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then before the House, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the Bill.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the longer one spends in the House of Commons, the more often one is reminded of the lament of Cecil Rhodes: "So much to do; so little time."


Walter David Baker: And so little competence to do it with.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: This is not a new concern of mine. Indeed, in moving the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne in 1969 1 quoted with approbation an editorial appearing in the Sarnia Observer which read in part as follows:
The real threat to parliament isn't the possible danger of cutting off productive and informative debate on a measure, but the steady erosion of prestige by the tiresome speeches, lack of decorum, obstructionism and poor attendance in the House. The House of Commons is its own worst enemy and every time it aids its own weaknesses it chips away a little more of its own fabric.
As I said at the time my concern about the passage of legislation was that we were taking too much time, rather than too little, with our legislation. When we spend too much time and have so many speakers, do the speeches themselves lose significance? Invariably it is a judgment call that must be made about the amount of time that should be spent at any stage of a bill. For this particular bill I note that we have spent some 13 hours on second reading debate and we have heard 26 speakers from all parties argue for and against its proposals.
It seems to me that in order to approve or disapprove of it in principle, as we are doing at second reading, the time already spent and the time to be allocated under Standing Order 75C should be adequate. We have heard the opponents of this bill make the same arguments against its content, and those of us who favour its passage have stressed the good aspects of the bill. But surely there comes a time when a decision must be taken on the principle of the bill.
Close clause by clause scrutiny of Bill C-27 will take place at committee stage, there will be further debate on any amendments proposed by the committee at report stage and then we will have final reading. Many of the points raised by hon. members would most appropriately be dealt with at one of these other stages in the procedure.
In addition to the amount of time that has been, and will be, spent on consideration of the bill, we have the statements made by the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) that if all changes he wants are not made he is prepared to filibuster the bill at all stages. Given the time we have already spent on the bill, the time to be made available, one hon. member's threat to filibuster and continue a monologue, 1 feel it incumbent on me as the minister to take my responsibilities and ensure that this piece of legislation continues to move fairly and reasonably through the parliamentary process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 29, 1977
Motion under S.O. 75C


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the minister in his all too short speech on an important matter has indicated that there is too much time spent on bills rather than too little. But he conveniently forgot to tell the House that on two successive Fridays this government had no legislative program to present and, accordingly, the House had to adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I blame the incompetence of the government, particularly that of the gouvernment House leader. It is up to him, in consultation, to bring about meaningful negotiations in order that legislation may move forward. There has been some confusion with regard to the position of my party on this bill. 1 would think it has been conveniently ignored. Therefore, I will read the last paragraph of the speech I made on February 1:
The minister may not have to accept this amendment, but in the long run the onus of proof is on him. So, subject to the several reservations I have mentioned, we will support the bill at second reading in order to get it into committee where many questions can be asked and answers given, hopefully to make this bill a much better one than it is at present.
For some reason the minister comes in with closure. Why? 1 read a statement in this morning's paper. The minister said, "Why should we be subject to the tyranny of a minority?" What the minister is stating, in effect, is "Damn the opposition. We are the masters of this House". This is further evidence of the arrogance of this government and highlights its usual complete disregard of the role of the opposition. This government has as its view and its principle, in terms of the opposition, that it is a rubber-stamp. We do not accept that. If that is what the minister is trying to convey, we totally disagree with him. In my humble estimation, I believe that is his conclusion.
Why should we be subject to the incompetence and stupidity of this government? The minister brings in an extremely controversial and highly inflammatory bill at a time of high unemployment. It is unprecedented. He brings in this bill when there has been no indication whatever from the treasury benches with regard to what they are going to do in terms of job creation. How naive can this government be, in particular the minister, to believe that when discussing the UIC bill members would not refer to the dismal failure of the government with respect to job creation, unemployment, growth and problems of regional economic expansion?
The government has brought in closure, or allocation of time, because it has been embarrassed by its own members who have criticized, not in this House but by running to the press and screaming loud and clear that they are not going to vote for this bill. The minister became worried and he panicked. The minister said that closure should be used more often to get bills through the House. I admit there is a right on behalf of the government, but it should only be used when there is evidence of a filibuster, of unreasonable time being spent on debating a bill. I respectfully suggest that the minis-

ter has not met this criterion in terms of bringing in this motion for closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What are the facts? We have had four days of debate, two of which were short days. Notice the scenario, Mr. Speaker: the bill was brought in on February 1, a long day; it was brought forward again on February 2, a short day; then we had a long absence of ministerial interest in this bill. It came up again on Friday, February 25, a short day, and again on Monday, February 28, a long day. We have had four days, two of which were short days.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: How many speakers?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There were four Liberals in the House, and many outside the House. Four Liberals spoke on this bill of such interest and concern and so contentious. There were eleven Conservatives, six NDP and two Social Credit. Contrary to what the minister states, that is 23 speakers out of 258, given the fact that there are six vacancies.


Walter David Baker: That is only 10 per cent.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I read it, and we are not going to quibble about minutes, we have had 12 hours and 50 minutes debate on an extremely important and very contentious bill. Only four Liberals spoke on a bill of such significance. Notice the breakdown, Mr. Speaker. We have 135 Liberals, of whom four spoke; 96 Progressive Conservatives, of whom 11 spoke; 16 NDP, of whom six spoke; and ten Social Credit, of which two spoke. You can see the trend. The Liberals were muzzled even before they brought in closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Because of the embarrassment this government is faced with in terms of its own members, in order to shut them up, to muzzle them, they bring in a blanket clause under which not even the opposition can speak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) had a good time in Mexico. I do not know what he did there. I hope he will continue trying to play a meaningful role in the House of Commons, rather than travelling around the country on some junket. This place will work as long as we have meaningful negotiation and co-operation, not confrontation. I am the first to admit there is something wrong with this place in terms of debating time and the number of speakers. However, the way to correct it is not by bringing in closure.
The Minister said we had discussed this matter under Standing Orders 75A and 75B. There was no discussion except for them to say they wanted to allocate time, and we said no. That is confrontation with respect to parliamentary democracy. Speaking for my party, we totally reject the government's reasons for closure or allocation of time.
March 29, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We resent the guillotine approach. Is this going to be the pattern of this government? This is the third time in this session and, as I read the statistics, the thirtieth time since confederation. You can see the pattern of this government. They say, "We are the masters of this House. We will do what we want, when we want and how we want, and damn the opposition who represent the attitudes of the Canadian people."
In closing, let me say that the minister had to meet the test. He had to show where there was an unreasonable delay. He failed in that regard. The minister had to show that there was a pattern of filibuster. He failed in that regard. I hope that this government, in particular the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the members of the Treasury benches, will not bring about this type of confrontation until there has been complete discussion as to how we can bring about changes in the rules in order to make this place work much better. However, we resent the minister, after 12 hours and 50 minutes debate bringing in allocation of time, or closure.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, every time the government brings in a closure motion, by whatever name it is called, we get the argument by assertion from the government side of the House that this place talks too much and is downgrading itself because its debates are too long.
I want to express my opposition once again to the speeches that we get from the government side of the House about the House of Commons losing its standing and losing its prestige. There are improvements which could be made in our rules and procedures.
Despite comments made recently about me by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), I have participated in the making of a good many rule changes. With regard to some of them I think we have probably given away too much from the opposition side. Nevertheless, I am prepared to admit there is room for improvements in our procedures. But 1 want to state as emphatically as I can that there is nothing wrong with the House of Commons which could not be corrected overnight by the government bringing in legislation to meet the needs of our times.
What is wrong today is not that the members have lost their ability to debate, or are bored or suffering from malaise: what is wrong with this place today is that we are in a country which is facing a very serious situation, but we have a government which is doing nothing to cope with it. We have a government which tells the country, as it did in Toronto over the weekend, that the Liberals have the answers. But they do not vouchsafe to us what those answers are.
It is the same old story. They have been in power for most of this twentieth century. They think Canada belongs to them and that it is somehow a violation of the principles of democra-
Motion under S.O. 75C
cy for members of the opposition to wish to debate the issues which are before us.


Mr. Faulkner:: Sophistry, pure sophistry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) says "sophistry". I do not know which of my statements he is calling sophistry. I repeat that the difficulty this country faces is that we have a government of arrogance, a government which believes the country is its possession and that it can somehow keep control without really trying to meet those difficulties. I could go on to outline a number of them. One of them is the unemployment situation which faces us today. Does the government have an answer? No. Its only proposal is to tighten up the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I could discuss the statistics and review the number of hours we have spent in this debate. I could repeat the arguments which have been used in the past about closure-whether or not it is justified. But the issue before us today is not how much time we have spent, or how much time we are going to spend, on Bill C-27. It is the attitude of the government toward the burning issue of unemployment.
This attitude was well demonstrated in Toronto last week when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told unemployed students in that city, "My heart bleeds for you", and so on. Then he turned around and said he was more concerned about certain other groups. He mentioned, in particular, unemployed women in Newfoundland. Well, it is hard for us to swallow that, because if there is any place where better provision is needed in the Unemployment Insurance Act than this bill is proposing, it is in Newfoundland. The government has no answer to these people at all. More than a million Canadians are out of work, and all the government can propose is to tighten control over the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Some of us have pleaded with all the vigour we can muster for improvements in the field of social security. The answer we get is: There is only so much money to go around. Mr. Speaker, it is not money that is in short supply. It is goods and services. We could provide a better standard of living for all our people if we produced more goods and services. That is what we need. At the same time, there are a million people in Canada who are not working. A government which cannot put these two things together, unemployed workers and unmet needs, does not deserve to have the running of the country.
It does not matter whether we have spent two days or ten on this. The issue is the government's attitude toward unemployment. On the question of unemployment insurance, many arguments have been put forward from both sides of the House, some out in the open and others, no doubt, in the caucus discussions of the Liberal party. The government's answer to the dilemma of unemployed students is to say: Go to some other country.
The government's answer to its own Liberal dissenters who want to do something more is "closure". I know that the word

March 29, 1977
Motion under S O. 75C
"arrogance" is one which oppositions traditionally throw at governments, and I realize that in the case of the Liberals we have been throwing it at them for years. Today the government has demonstrated that it deserves this appellation.
As I say, it does not matter to me how much time we have spent on this subject. What matters to me is that we get legislation which will deal with unemployment, and an Unemployment Insurance Act which has in it some understanding, some compassion, some concern for the unemployed, for the human beings in Canada who are unemployed. We are not getting this. The government sits in power expecting that somehow it can manage to stay there, so it can do whatever it likes.
When it comes to this argument about the House of Commons being its own enemy, about the opposition talking too much, about the government accepting its responsibility, and so on, I will simply repeat that the country is faced today with an unemployment situation which is serious for the million who are out of work, and for their families, as well as for all of those other millions who could enjoy a higher standard of living if those who are now unemployed were producing goods and services.
But the government provides no answer. I have seen a good many cases of bankruptcy on the government side. I have seen few greater or more serious than the bankruptcy which is being shown today. When we oppose this motion today, the one which has been moved by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, we are not only opposing it because it is closure; we are opposing it because it is a symbol of a government which thinks it runs the show, that it exercises control and is master of the House but does not really care for the plight of the unemployed people of Canada.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why the government House leader is not in the House today to introduce that motion? I find it quite significant. Mr. Speaker, I have attended as much as possible the meetings of House leaders and the matter has never been proposed under the form of this motion.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, so far the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada have never misused the time of the House on a matter as important as Bill C-27. I think it is our privilege as members to consider this legislation thoroughly. While we are discussing that bill, one million Canadians are seeking jobs and perhaps hundreds and even thousands more will join them in the near future if the state is not in a position to intervene and does not present measures providing compensation to private entreprise which is unable to offer enough jobs to the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening religiously a while ago when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) stated that we have much to do and not enough time to do it. I agree that time passes very quickly, that solutions must be found to the problems, and that parliamentarians must strive

to find them, but it is the government's responsibility to introduce legislation.
Although we should like to put forward measures to remedy the situation, we are prevented from doing so in an intelligent way by the Standing Orders, for ministers of the Crown are the only ones who can introduce money bills. Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we often devote too much time discussing lesser issues with which we could deal more quickly. I remember, however, that on a number of occasions other hon. members and I have introduced motions for the purpose of obtaining a schedule of sitting days, and I think that if ever the government decides to provide House leaders with a schedule indicating in advance all session periods and recesses, as well as the legislative measures Parliament is expected to deal with during such and such periods, we shall be willing and eager enough to co-operate and understand that the government must of necessity give priority to its most important pieces of legislation and provide Canada with the best possible administration.
Mr. Speaker, to date some hon. members have spoken to this bill, a few of them government members, and on looking over their speeches in Hansard one realizes that they are not in complete agreement with the proposals of the bill. That is to say then that even on the government side it would be indicated to have backbenchers speak to the bill to induce the government to amend it and bring it more into line with the aspirations of the workers and the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to accept such a motion if really we on this side had shown a lack of seriousness, if we had talked at length for the pleasure of talking, without discussing thoroughly the principle of the bill. This bill will have serious consequences and deserves to be looked into exhaustively. 1 know there will be the committee stage after second reading, the report stage and third reading after that. I know all that! Still the principle of the bill is now being examined and, to my mind, the government would be ill-advised to limit the freedom of expression of parliamentarians on principles as important as those of the right to work, the right to some form of compensation in times of unemployment or hardships, and the possibility for this act to be applied intelligently.
That is precisely what should be discussed on second reading, that is, how the present Unemployment Insurance Act has been implemented, how the regulations were enacted, and whether they still reflect the intentions of the legislator? All of us who are here have had to deplore the fact that the regulations did not correspond essentially to the intent of the legislator, that they often bear prejudice to the rights of the workers. I am speaking here of workers who want to work, not those who want work for a few weeks to be unemployed most of the time. I am not thinking of them. I am talking of the group of serious workers who want to contribute something to the country through their work, to build a country that is more prosperous and give the people a standard of living that is worthy of Canada.
March 29, 1977

Mr. Speaker, I am squarely against such a measure because it violates the rights of members of parliament and because in the future it will allow the passage of other pieces of legislation in the same fashion. The rights of members of parliament are violated in such a way that Canada can no longer be called a democracy but rather a dictatorship. And as we are against dictatorship, and as we really are democrats, not the kind who abuse their liberty but the kind who know how to use it in an intelligent way, I would like the minister, whom I appreciate a lot, to hear me. He may have been forced to introduce this motion today. We have to understand that we are going through a very difficult period, that unemployment is a cruel situation and that we have to expect the state to take action to offset this lack of jobs in the private sector.
Therefore I would like to mention again that it is a good thing to launch programs such as Canada Works and Young Canada Works but that sufficient funding should be available to make these projects real and to implement them to create jobs, to lower the unemployment level and to restore the hope that the population as a whole will be able to get work one day among the Canadian people. A country where many people work is bound to be peaceful and secure. There is no other formula, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT]	(1530)


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly 1 wish to make two points regarding what the opposition has said on this motion under Standing Order 75C. First of all, they have referred to it as a motion of closure. It is not closure at all. One cannot see the word "closure" in Standing Order 75C. The motion does not close off debate; it allocates time for debate. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), should know that closure procedures come under Standing Order 33, not 75C. So it is not a motion to close off debate; it is a motion to allocate time for debate so the House of Commons can pronounce itself as to how much time should be devoted in the future to second reading of Bill C-27.


Donald W. Munro: Not so. It is closure.


Herb Breau: I ask the hon. member to refer to the Standing Orders and to show me the word "closure" in Standing Order 75C. If he can do that, I will concede that he is correct. The hon. member should spend a little more time reading the rules, and less time trying to make political points.
The second point is that the opposition have said that the government is bringing forward a motion under Standing Order 75C to muzzle its backbenchers and to stifle debate on the Liberal side of the House. That is not true. In fact, the contrary is true: if there is a group that muzzles backbenchers from the government side, it is the opposition by their frustration of debate.
[DOT]	(1540)


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Four days?
Motion under S.O. 75C


Herb Breau: The hon. member asks "Four days?" as he is walking out of the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a committee meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: I would like to remind the hon. member that in the "mother of parliament" in Great Britain on second reading it is very rare that a debate goes over one day. Second reading on debate in this House should be the place where there are philosophical clashes, political clashes and where points are effectively made by spokesmen of the opposition and by the minister proposing legislation or supply. That is why we have clashes. Then one studies the effects and the details of legislation elsewhere. One does not necessarily have to take the time of the whole House of Commons to discuss for hours and hours, extending to days, second reading of a bill, report stage or third reading.
It is the opposition that really frustrates the backbenchers of this House and muzzles them from debate, because they know, in the modern society in which we live, there is a lot of legislation that has to go through this House. The government has to have a legislative plan. The only thing that stops backbenchers participating more in debate is that it is not possible to know exactly when debates will end. It is impossible to know exactly when the opposition will want to stop speaking. They just want to go on and on and on. They have the notion of the last century, when the only way to bring something to the attention of the public was to have a filibuster in the House and to frustrate the legislative plan of the government until the public found out about it and, hopefully, pressured the government into changing its mind. They should know that we do not live in that kind of society any more. They should know that it is possible very quickly to muster public opinion support of legislation. It is possible for backbenchers, for members of the opposition and even for groups outside this House very quickly to muster public support and bring pressure to bear on the government to change its mind.
Only one Liberal Atlantic member of parliament has spoken on this bill. Already there have been indications, after hearing speech after speech from the opposition for four days, that the Liberal members on this side of the House have been more effective and more efficient in getting the government to change its mind. There already has been indication that the government has looked at some of the provisions of Bill C-27. I wish the Conservatives, particularly those from the Atlantic provinces, had been more clear when speaking in this debate.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: I have read the speeches very carefully.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That does not mean you understand them.


Herb Breau: I do not think hon. members understand the implications of Bill C-27 in terms of the benefit structure changes for people on unemployment insurance. Very little has

March 29, 1977
Motion under S.O. 75C
been said. For example, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), a very prominent member and a very excellent spokesman for people on low income, did not mention one word about the effects of changes in the benefit structure. It was we on this side who saw that those in the minor attachment section of the labour force would be affected to the point of losing benefits for up to three months. By the fact that the opposition never agreed to a legislative timetable, they are the ones who muzzled the real kind of debate or the real kind of clash that the House of Commons should see. In order to make a point you do not need to have ten speakers.


An hon. Member:: One good one!


Herb Breau: One, two or three good, well-researched speakers from the opposition should be able effectively to bring forward a point of view. The fact that they have to put forward five, six, ten or eleven speakers means they are incapable of bringing forward a point of view. In this kind of society it is possible to muster public support and political support for an idea, for an opinion and to bring pressure to bear on the government. The fact is that the Liberal members on this side of the House have done that without necessarily having to make speech after speech after speech. I look forward to some changes in Bill C-27 before it comes back to the House from committee.
Liberal members on this side do not feel muzzled by the allocation of time. Quite the contrary, we are now assured that we can speak in the debate without frustrating the legislative plan of the government. Allocation of time gives members on this side of the House an opportunity to speak. I would like to speak on many legislative items, but because the opposition in the House of Commons generally is incapable of reaching agreement on a legislative plan, we do not want to delay legislation that this country needs.
Since I came to this House in 1968 the opposition has been totally irresponsible in that manner. They have never agreed to a legislative timetable. They never want to say that by a certain date we will pass legislation. It is not the notion that you have to filibuster the government and that you have to filibuster legislation to get your point through. In the kind of modern society we live in, that philosophy is very outdated and obsolete. Within a matter of days it is possible to muster up political support in this House or elsewhere in the country to get the government to change its mind if one is sincere, well-researched and capable of putting your point through.
In the "mother of parliaments" in Great Britain, on debate to enter the European Economic Community they spent four days. In this House we spend four, five or six days on any piece of legislation. This is a total waste of time. It is unnecessary. It is possible in our society to muster public support to get legislation changed if it is not good legislation. The majority of the House is not muzzling speakers on this side by bringing forward a motion for allocation of time. It does guarantee us an opportunity that we can speak without frustrating the legislative plan of the government and without frustrating the

legislative program that has to go through this House within the next two months.


An hon. Member:: It is shameful!


Herb Breau: My views on Bill C-27, are known inside and outside the House. I look forward to speaking in debates. I can make my point without having to take one, two days or three days in debate. Hon. members on this side of the House already have made their points known. We do not need five, six or ten days of debate to make our point of view known to the government. There is indication already that the government has looked at some of the provisions of Bill C-27 because members on this side of the House went to work on it, researched it and brought it to the attention of the government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to participate in this debate. It was refreshing to listen to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) because it is quite obvious from his attitude that he considers any opposition to be outdated and outmoded.


An hon. Member:: They really want to destroy the institution.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is really what is at the root of this question. The hon. member opposite would like to see no opposition in the House; then the government backbenchers could have a fine time. It is the same kind of attitude that caused Mrs. Indira Gandhi to do away with the opposition in India. It is the same attitude that is illustrated by "Madame Indira Trudeau" every day in this House, as illustrated by the hon. member opposite.
The hon. member stated that this is just an allocation of time bill. Yes, it is only allocating time; it is the guillotine. The minister who introduced the motion to cut off debate is the same minister who wants to cut 16,500 people off unemployment insurance in Newfoundland. He is Canada's great "guil-lotiner". Bring them to the guillotine. Guillotine the debate. Guillotine the unemployed. Do not provide them with jobs- guillotine them. Take them off the rolls. That is why I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak in this debate today.
If this motion allocated time and stated that we could only speak another 15 hours, or something reasonable, that might have some sense to it. To allocate just another five hours, when there have only been 13 hours of debate on the most important piece of legislation now on the order paper is, in view of Canada's unemployment situation a travesty and a tragedy. This motion is further evidence of the fact that this House is completely emasculated and is eunuchised.
This House has no powers left and the ordinary member of the House has none left. In the worst days of the Smallwood tyranny in Newfoundland, when I was not allowed a place to hang my hat and coat in 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971, closure was never imposed upon us in the House of Assembly. We
March 29, 1977

were allowed to speak all we wanted. Debates on the estimates were unlimited. But what has happened in this House? Today the estimates go to committee. Sending them to committee is as good as sending them to Timbuctoo.
There is a rule that you can only ask questions and receive answers for ten minutes, which means you never get answers and therefore you have no way of putting pressure on the government. So that right has gone. If estimates get to the House, there is allocation of time on interim supply and supplementary supply. You cannot get any answers at that time, either. Now, with this contentious issue before the House, the minister wants to cut off debate on that matter also. What a sad spectacle is this House of Commons! I have only been five months here, but this is not the House of Commons I was led to believe we had in Canada. Perhaps it is true that the people of Canada do not hear what is happening here. More is the pity.
All this chamber is now is an appendage to the press gallery. Once the question period is over, that is it, and what happens in the House in the rest of the time does not matter to the public or to the press. That is the only reason hon. members opposite dare bring in this closure motion. It is because they feel no one in Canada hears whether or not the House is debating an important issue. They believe the media is interested only in the question period, and they believe they can get away wih anything. That is why they brought this motion before us.
I have been waiting now for six weeks to have my turn to speak on this piece of legislation. It first came to the House on February 1. The debate continued on February 2. The bill did not come back until February 25, and then it was again before the House on February 28. Only one of the seven Newfoundland members has had a chance to speak on this bill. Is there a Newfoundland member who will not speak on this bill, who will not attempt to change the provision, to change the eligibility from 8 weeks to 12 weeks? All seven Newfoundland members of parliament will speak on that and I hope they will be heard whether in committee or in the House on third reading.
Seven days were spent on the income tax amendments. Two half-days, a full day and three half-days were spent on old age security. Three full days, plus Friday and Wednesday, were spent on the immigration bill-but no closure was brought in on the immigration bill.


Mr. Maine:: There will be.


John Carnell Crosbie: That tells us the story. The minister says closure will be brought in.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was not the minister who said it; it was I who said it will be brought in.


John Carnell Crosbie: In that case, the coat-tail is telling us what the coat will do. There will be closure on all these other bills.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Motion under S.O. 75C


John Carnell Crosbie: On the human rights bill one full day and two half-days were spent. There was no closure on that. I thank the minister for naming me as one of the reasons for his closure motion. If this is not the weakest excuse that has ever been given, then I do not know one. This really takes the cake. To clinch his argument for closure he said the hon. member for St. John's West has threatened to filibuster the passage of the bill. It is wonderful for a fellow like me, the most junior member of the House, to be known like this. I did make that statement on February 10 at the time I was admiring the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in his struggles for his beliefs. I did happen to say that if the hon. gentlemen opposite did not accept some reasonable amendments, I would do all I could to see that they did, and I would filibuster if necessary. I repeat that statement. But 1 have not even spoken in the debate. How could 1 be the excuse for the closure motion?
I see in the Globe and Mail of today that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said he will delay passage of the human rights bill unless we get substantial improvements to it. Does that mean that, automatically, closure will be introduced on the human rights bill because the hon. member for Peace River is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying he will delay things until there are improvements? What kind of thin excuse is that? The minister says that this is not closure, that it is just the guillotine, an allocation of time. The only time, he says, we will give MPs to debate this bill on second reading is another five hours to add to the 13 hours they have had. Those are the Indira Gandhi tactics. Indira Gandhi comes before the fall. In our system we still have an election to come. We do not have to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to let us have an election, although it may come to that. But we are not doing so yet. We still have that election coming up, and the electorate of Canada will emulate what has happened in India, and "Indira Trudeau" is going to go the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: This bill takes $28 million out of the pockets of some 16,500 Newfoundlanders who will be dropped from the rolls in an area that has an unemployment rate of at least 25 per cent, an area where it is difficult in many cases to find work for eight weeks of the year. Many people there will not be able to get that work, and there is no assurance that the $28 million, or anything like that, will be put into manpower programs or training schemes in the province because objections have been raised to it by the government of Newfoundland. In the midst of our tragic unemployment, the minister wants to do this to the unemployed in Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces. I quite agree to being strict with regard to who is eligible and who is not, and to cutting off from the rolls those people who are not entitled to be on them, and to tightening up the administration. But to arbitrarily drop this guillotine on the maritimes and in Newfoundland at a time of tragically high unemployment and a waste of human resources, with a government that is doing nothing to improve the situation, is something I cannot accept.

March 29, 1977
Motion under S.O. 75C
For the government to turn around and give us only 13 hours to discuss this bill is shameful. The government does not want the bill properly discussed because they know there are members in their own ranks who will not tolerate the passage of the bill in its present form. It is an insult to the 30,000 unemployed Newfoundlanders-that is, the official unemployed-and the many other thousands who are no longer trying to get work because they know it is hopeless, and to the 932,000 unemployed in Canada, for the minister to have moved this closure motion and to have allowed such a short period of time for debate of the bill.
We are to have only five more hours to speak on this bill. I agree with the closure device which the opposition has the right to oppose. The opposition has the right to oppose to the government, and the government has the right to govern. But surely a bill of such importance should be debated for two or three weeks before closure is introduced and before it could be said that the opposition is unnecessarily obstructing the progress of the government.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: You have had two or three weeks on every bill.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not every bill has been as important as this one.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hon. members opposite do not care about unemployment.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame on you.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: That is untrue.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: What could be more important than a bill which affects one million unemployed? I do not want to interrupt anything. The minister said the other day that this was tyranny of the minority. He said he was subjected to the tyranny of the minority. Tyranny is the despotic or cruel exercise of power. Has anyone seen this opposition exercising power since 1963?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: How could it be tyranny of the minority, a cruel exercise of power. The oppressive and cruel ruler is the minister, and he spells out his colleagues and the Prime Minister who are going to shove this through the House of Commons. The minister has a heavy burden. His senses are leaving him altogether when he pulls out a chestnut of this kind and says he is being subjected to the tyranny of the minority. That is a dangerous attitude. Apparently the opposition is the tyrant and the government considers itself to be fighting the tyrant. The government considers itself to be the one which is weak and under attack and it is prepared to do anything to preserve its position. That phrase illustrates a dangerous attitude on the part of ministers opposite. They do not know even today where the tyranny is. All they have to do is to look at their own benches. I will be happy to vote against this tyrannous piece of eunuchism.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to speak on the motion brought foward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) exercising Standing Order 75C to limit the balance of debate that will take place on this bill on second reading. Since 1968 I have been a strong advocate of introducing some degree of order and proper planning into the procedures of the House. When this time allocation procedure was introduced into the rules, I welcomed it.
The only limit to my joy with respect to that provision is the few times that it has in fact been used. I think it is reasonable and proper, in the modern world, when governments have many legislative measures which they have to bring forward, to use a time allocation procedure. There is no question that the allocation of time is viewed by the opposition with a great deal of abhorrence, but I think it is very much misunderstood by the press. For instance, today's Montreal Star says on the front page, "Closure axe poised for UIC debate". Today the Globe and Mail refers to closure being used in this debate. I can understand the opposition wanting to use the term "closure" for political reasons-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is the Montreal Star your opposition?


Norman Augustine Cafik: -but it seems to me that it should at least be the responsibility of the press to call this measure what it is: time allocation. There is a distinction, and it has some meaning. I do not think it is reasonable to call it closure per se. Nonetheless, it does have a limiting effect on debate, and that is the very purpose of Standing Order 75C.
I support this measure, particularly at second reading of a bill which is agreement in principle. Second reading sends the bill to the committee stage and there hon. members from all sides are free to bring forward amendments, reasoned or otherwise, in the hope of adjusting the bill to accommodate their own particular objectives. The sooner bills get to that stage of deliberation in the legislative process, the better it is for everyone in this House because we are then given an opportunity either to support or reject bills in whole or in part, or to amend them.
Frankly, I have never really tried to hold up bills I have not supported at second reading. I can understand having a more substantive debate at report stage if hon. members feel that they have not got their way in committee and want to register their objections by filing amendments for the second time at the report stage and to carry on the debate at great length at that time. I can also understand hon. members being frustrated because they do not achieve their objectives at the report stage or at the committee stage and trying to tie up a bill at third reading. But to tie up a bill at second reading-at its very beginning of the legislative process-in my view does not make any sense.
Hon. members opposite talk about the small number of members who have participated in this debate. I believe the number so far is 26. If my calculations are correct, and if there
March 29, 1977

are an additional five hours of debate, that will mean 36 members will be allowed to debate this bill on second reading. Many more will be allowed to participate at other stages, and the committee debate is often unlimited. Hon. members seem to think that every member of parliament ought to exercise his right as a member and speak on every bill in which he has an interest.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If he wants to.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If this were done, because we have 264 members of parliament it would take four to five weeks to go through the first stages in this House, and even longer at the report stage because if a number of amendments were filed there would be no limit. This would mean that one bill could take four or five months of the time of the House of Commons. There are only 12 months in a year, and everybody is constantly clamouring for changes and adjustments in legislation. We cannot have it both ways. As members of parliament some of us have to be responsible and sometimes limit our whims and our desire to put our remarks on the record in the interest of the common good of society.
Surely, the public is not expecting too much when it expects parties to organize themselves in such a way that the divergent views within them are properly and adequately expressed at all stages so they can be considered by the government and all hon. members, but 1 do not think anyone-as subjective or objective as he might be-who sits in our galleries day after day and listens to the debates which take place in this chamber would really come out of here thinking he is well served by the rhetoric to which we are forced to listen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: A good example of this is found in committees where everyone presses for meetings on estimates. We wait 20 minutes before we can even open these meetings because the members who wanted the meetings do not show up. These members are to be found in all parties; I am not being partisan on this point. When we have a department before us in a committee we find four or five members representing four parties in this House there to discuss these all-important estimates. Then they come back here and complain that they did not have an opportunity to express themselves. It seems to me that we have to be in the House and we have to be in these committees before we have a right to complain about not being heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Let us look at this question in terms of other legislatures. In the "mother of parliaments", the British parliament, debates in most stages do not exceed one day's duration. About a year and a half ago, or perhaps before that, I was listening to the CBC one morning and 1 was surprised to learn that it was anticipated that one of the longest debates in British history was about to take place on the question of whether Britain should enter the European Economic Community. That was a very substantive question, and it was expected
Motion under S.O. 75C
that the debate would last about four days, one of the longest debates in British history.
We spend that much time deciding whether we should even debate at all, never mind the debate! The way we orchestrate business in this House is absolutely absurd. To some extent it is the fault of hon. members on this side because we do not have the courage to limit debates as often as they ought to be limited. I am critical of the government for that. However, the British system works differently for a very substantial reason, and that is that in Britain there are two major parties, both of whom have a reasonable expectation of getting into office and forming the government. Therefore, they are prepared to allow governments to function as governments because they think they will get a turn at it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Neither of those parties is Liberal.


Norman Augustine Cafik: That is right. But in this country the Conservatives have been in office so seldom that they never seem to act as if they will ever get there, and they are preoccupied with trying to ensure that governments cannot govern. Judging by their actions, I suggest they will never form a government. They will not form a government until they begin to exercise some degree of self-control and responsibility as an opposition and allow the government to put forward its legislative proposals. They should speak freely, openly and often, but not in a repetitious way. They should deal substantively with these questions. When these things happen, everybody will want to hear them and give them an opportunity to be heard, but the debate we hear after the first couple of speeches is just repetition. Therefore, I think this motion to limit the debate is a reasonable step for the government to take. With all due respect, I suggest that if hon. members opposite were on this side at this moment, they would do precisely the same thing and they would not be honest with themselves or with this country if they did not publicly admit that.


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


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) has perhaps put his finger on one of the difficulties which face us all as parliamentarians. He can make the accusation that it is the fault of our system that one party has been in opposition for a long period of time and therefore does not understand the difficulties which face the government. He can certainly do that, but I think the other side of the coin is also true. We in this House have not been blessed by the tenure in office over a long period of time of one party and I think this has adversely affected our parliamentary system in terms of the other party understanding the demands which are on the opposition. In a country as broad as ours, it is the duty of the opposition to show the other side of the coin, and that is what we have tried to do.
In the course of four days of debate of which two were short days, only 10 per cent of the members of this House have spoken on an issue which could affect the structure of our

March 29, 1977
Motion under S.O. 75C
country, and under those circumstances, and having regard to the traditions of Canada-never mind the "mother of parliament"-claiming that there is here a situation which demands the imposition of closure, is sheer nonsense. The fact that has developed the nature of our parliamentary system and the nature of this country is that this country is populated along a narrow perimeter, and even with modern means of communication it takes a long time for the other side of the coin to be seen. We saw that in the gun control bill earlier, when finally the force of public opinion was brought upon the head of the government as a result of long debate which caused them to withdraw the bill. That is the only weapon the opposition has, unfortunately, and we do not relish using it.
It is all right for hon. members to talk about rules and reform, but what happens in parliament is that the weight of the bureaucracy and the weight of the executive has lowered itself more heavily on each turn of the wheel of parliamentary reform. We talk in terms of shortening debate, of lessening discussion, of cutting out opportunities to deal with estimates to the point that our system has become unbalanced. What is left for the opposition but to argue the point and hope that the people of Canada will see the other side of the coin?
I would be the last to argue that there is no place in our system for closure, for cutting off debate or for setting a time limit on debate, but I would be the first to argue that the imposition of closure on this bill is wrong. It is obvious that there is a real question about this bill. Members of the government have spoken against the bill, and this is the essence of debate in the House of Commons.
We talk about maintaining our heritage, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that is part of our heritage is the opportunity to examine the issues of the day at reasonable length. There is another obligation upon parliament, and this time it falls upon the government. There is an obligation on the government to listen to the opposition once in awhile. When we talk about legislative experience, everyone harks back to earlier in the session when we dealt with Bill C-19 which had an inordinate time in debate. We put it to the stubborn Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) that if they would delete two sections of the bill the debate would be short. The colleagues of the Minister of Transport leaned upon him and were able to get him to agree to our reasonable request, and the debate ended.
I raise that matter, not to draw a parallel but that it not be forgotten there is an obligation upon the government to consider the nature of the legislative program, to consider the nature of the country and to consider the advice it gets from the opposition from time to time. I do not want it to be said that we are not interested in seeing reasonable legislation go through the House.
If hon. members would check the order paper of March 28 and note the progress of bills before this parliament, they would see that the opposition has dealt fairly with the govern-

ment. Bill C-ll, the Pension Act, has been referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Bill C-24, the Immigration Act, had a short debate because the issues were discussed openly on a white paper basis before the bill came to the House, and now the bill has gone to committee. Bill C-25, the Canadian Human Rights Act, is still being discussed in the newspapers but after debate in the House it went to committee. Bill C-35, the Old Age Security Act, has gone through in all stages, and Bill C-37 the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and established programs financing act, 1977, has gone through all stages.
The opposition has no choice in the legislative program-the government proposes, and parliament disposes. I must say that the record of this parliament is not bad. There has been reasonable consultation about some things, at least. The criticism levelled at parliament by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) ought to be levelled at the government House leader. He was not criticized, but he has taken a lethargic attitude toward parliament. Unfortunately, he is not here most of the time; his heart is still with external affairs.


An hon. Member:: That's a cheap shot.


Walter David Baker: It is true. The other matter that we might as well go into now is that the government has refused, week after week, to give us an idea of what it wants to deal with. It changes its mind all the time: it tells us we will deal with a particular bill one day, then changes its mind and brings in a different one. The fault lies in the management of the affairs of the government on the floor of the House of Commons, and not with the opposition. I do not say these things about the government House leader unkindly, but I say them professionally. We have a lethargic House of Commons, for many reasons, and one is the leadership of the government with respect to the business of the House.
Shortening speeches will not make the essential difference in this House. What will make the difference is if members of parliament are provided with reasonable information, and not just in the question period. Perhaps the government should look at how we deal with estimates and ensure that members on all sides of the House have an opportunity to examine the expenditures of the government to see if they meet the needs of the country. Perhaps we ought to use the white paper approach to all major bills so that before the lines are drawn there is an opportunity for people to participate, as there was with the immigration bill. That was, in general, a good bill. Extensive committee hearings were held across the country and debate in the House was short. Members of parliament should be given some access to the public service of Canada so that they can examine the advice given to this government. Do not always blame the opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson).
March 29, 1977


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) with great interest. Let me set the record straight, since I am sure the hon. member would not wish to mislead the House. He suggested that the government withdrew the peace and security measures because of the strong position of those noble members opposite.


Walter David Baker: I did not say that.


Hugh Alan Anderson: That is not why the measure was withdrawn. We had begun a new session and legislation previously on the order paper or in committee died, as the hon. member knows. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) alluded to Indira Gandhi and, comparing our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to her, referred to him as "Indira Trudeau". The hon. member has his own point of view, no doubt, and recognizes the difference between the leader of my party and his. I prefer a leader who adopts a position to one who goes around crying, "The sky is falling." Comparing the hon. member's leader to "Chicken Little" may not be much of a compliment. 1 say this because it is well recognized in this country that at least my party takes a position. I wish the opposition would adopt a position on a bill like this. Having listened to 13 hours of debate, I am still not sure what they are saying. What is their position on this legislation? Some hon. members opposite have agreed with the 12-week qualifying period. Others think it should be 8 weeks in one part of Canada and 12 in others. Before this debate ends, I hope the official opposition will take a definite position on this bill so that we may know where they stand.
As the maritime member on my side of the House suggested, allocation of time with respect to most legislation could be beneficial for backbenchers on my side. We have been told ever since 1974, "Don't disturb the people on the other side; don't get them aroused. It looks as if two or three more will speak, after which debate on the bill will end. Therefore, you sit down and be quiet." This is what we have been told when the House has considered legislation. As the hon. member said, a time allocation motion gives us one of our few chances to speak, for then we know we shall not hold up the debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Who stops you?


Hugh Alan Anderson: We all know this is so, even though the official opposition may not think so. We can participate in debate on a closure motion. Generally, members on my side suffer by being constrained. It is not that we do not wish to participate.


Mr. Johnston:: You don't suffer. Don't give us that.


Hugh Alan Anderson: We wish to participate in debate, but are told to be quiet. People in the gallery and people across Canada may not know this. As a rule we cannot participate because there is so much talk emanating from the side opposite me.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Come on! You are muzzled on that side.
Motion under S.O. 75C.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Which is why you talk that way now.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Keep quiet, and you'll be made a parliamentary secretary.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Standing Order 75C provides for allocation of time, not for closure, if I may echo the words of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). I hope what is happening in this House will be reported responsibly. The bill must still pass the committee stage. To be honest, I sometimes wonder about the committee stage. For example, this morning approximately 20 members attended the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) appeared before the committee, and we spent 20 minutes questioning him and 1 'h hours arguing procedural matters. For the better part of IV2 hours the committee debated a motion moved by an opposition member while the minister just sat there. We had no opportunity to obtain information from him. That is why I wonder about the committee system. Sometimes it seems as if we spend more time arguing about procedure than questioning witnesses or ministers.
In future, when ministers appear before committees I hope the members on my side, as well as in the opposition, will make full use of the opportunity to ask questions. Let there not be a repetition of this morning's situation, for we wasted 1V2 hours of the time of the minister and his officials while we argued points of procedure. One can see why the people of Canada suspect we do not use our time well. I could cite many examples to show how we waste our time.
Hon. members opposite seem to object most to the clause of the bill which will extend from 8 to 12 weeks the qualifying period of employment. Let me quote some statistics contained in "Highlights and Information Papers on the Employment and Immigration Reorganization Act." At page 6 the following statement appears:
A survey indicated that 64 per cent of all insured persons with eight to eleven insured weeks in 1974 had dropped out of the labour force by March, 1975. This drop-out rate, significantly higher than for any other group of insured persons, indicates the unstable pattern of labour force attachment of 8-11 weekers.
It goes on to say at page 7:
Analysis of the characteristics of the eight-to-eleven week group of claimants shows: 80 per cent have no dependents; approximately 50 per cent are under 25 years of age; many are secondary workers (working wives and youths living at home) who belong to families with incomes in the middle to upper range.
Let us compare our system with the American system. In the United States the average qualifying period is 25 weeks. Nowhere in that country is it as low as 8 weeks or even the proposed 12 weeks.


John R. Rodriguez: But they do not have our high unemployment, either.


Hugh Alan Anderson: As well, maximum benefits in Canada of $133 a week escalate automatically with inflation. I wish hon. members would examine the United States system. I ask hon. members to consider this important question: If we increase the qualifying period from 8 to 12 weeks, will we help to cure

March 29, 1977
Motion under S.O. 75C
our unemployment? Surely hon. members realize what we have done by way of pricing ourselves out of the market. I know hon. members talk about the 900,000 unemployed. Have they also considered why people are not employed, why businesses are not expanding, why some businesses are even closing down? If one examines the Canadian economy, one will find that in many areas of economic activity we are pricing ourselves out of competition, not only in the markets of the United States but in the markets of many of our neighbours.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would like to see more and more money spent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this debate is to determine precisely whether there should be a time limit imposed. I regret that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) used half his time discussing the merits of the changes to be made in the bill. In other words, half of his speech was totally irrelevant. The question is whether debate at this time should be limited.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) who spoke earlier this afternoon does not have a proper appreciation of the nature of this institution. Some members who have sat only in one place, and some for a relatively short time, have come to the conclusion that this is a legislative sausage-machine. I repeat that phrase and I repeated it the other day: this is not a legislative sausage-machine. This parliament is a forum for the exchange of ideas and comments. 1 have as much right to speak as the member opposite. He has as much right to be heard on behalf of his people as 1 have.
Some seem to think that the world of this parliament is concentrated in central Canada. They think that because a speech has been argued, and they are rarely well reported in the morning press that circulates in central Canada, that people in the further reaches of the country are as fully informed. I suggest that is totally wrong. We in Ottawa tend to become surrounded by this gilded cage, living in an artificial atmosphere. We think that because something has been seen over local television or in the local Ottawa papers, and perhaps in the Globe and Mail, the Gazette, Le Devoir or La Presse, it is known in the rest of the country. However, that is not so.
To say that extended debate on this side has not been effective indicates that the hon. member for Gloucester is fully unaware of the effects of the opposition to Bill C-70 of a few years ago, a thoroughly bad agricultural bill. The opposition that has been taking place with regard to western agriculture has been misplaced. Of the total country, these efforts saved the industry because the government, inept and trying to implement bureaucratically generated solutions, had little or no comprehension vis-a-vis this opposition. I could get into the nature of this bill. Certainly there are parts of the country where there are even stronger stands about periods of attach-

ment, longer ones than advocated in the bill. However, there are other parts of the country equally as important as some of the industrial constituencies in central Canada where it is felt it is wrong. Why should these people be steam-rollered? They have representatives who must stand up here and protest on their behalf. Therefore, this idea of 13 hours of debate being something that is beyond reason is wrong.
Let us not say, as some have said, that these things can be examined in committee, that people should attend committee in full strength. We have a minister for an hour and a half. Not everybody is there on time so that we can get started. There are 19 operating members on a committee. How much time does that allow? I recognize the right of participation by members on both sides in committee. If one member is entitled to ten minutes, another member is entitled to the same ten minutes. With the best of will and the best of intentions there can only be nine potential participants in discussion in a committee session. During the period of study of estimates a committee is most fortunate if it has a minister for three times during the period.
Let members on both sides of the House examine their own conscience. For the past two or three weeks both government and opposition attendance in committee has been down to about one-third of its strength. Those who attend get a far better performance out of it: there is much greater continuity in the questioning. The ones who attend are those who are really interested. I have participated in committee hearings where I was the only one who really questioned on behalf of the opposition. However, a proper theme may be established. We can get questions and reasonable discussion going with the minister or his senior officials.
This bears out my thesis submitted as recommendations for changes in the committee structure last summer. Our committees should be cut back in number. The membership of committees should be cut to about two-thirds of what it is now. We should have separate legislative committees. This House is now having problems of bills going to committees. I suggested to my colleagues that we ban legislation until the end of May, that we boycott all legislation until the end of May. Our job in committee at the present time is to study the estimates. This afternoon there are all sorts of people away. Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon, Tuesday evening-it is ridiculous to have this duplication. However, as is all too often the case, the least common denominator prevails. He who knows least about the rules, has the loudest voice in caucus, and does not want to make changes, insists on the other side there shall be absolutely Draconian cutting-back of speeches.
It should not be necessary to bring forward a motion of this type on the ground that it was brought forward at this time. Maybe this is to be some sort of a trial and the immigration bill and a few others will be dealt with in the same way. 1 say to the minister that even if this bill does get to committee, it is not going anywhere. Estimates are the priority until May 31.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Threats!
March 29, 1977


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not a threat. The minister should know better. Possibly the minister can devise time utilization for committees. What does he think he is going to accomplish by crowding out discussion on the estimates? Is he going to insist on his legislation going through? I have faced far more sessions year after year than the minister ever dreamed of where the committees did a poor job on legislation and the estimates. Last year there was the nonsense of the competition act, Bill C-2, It went to the finance committee along with five other bills at the time of the estimates. Sheer nonsense!


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


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say a few words on this closure motion. It seems to me that in the last three or four months closure has been used three times. I want to look at this in the light of my 16 years experience as a school teacher. I always felt in that period that on every occasion when a teacher had to revert to corporal punishment or to some act of violence in order to exert control over a classroom of a school he was admitting failure to create an environment for learning. It was an admission of failure every time a teacher or principal resorted to some form of violence, whether shouting or some kind of punishment.
This, it seems to me, is what we are being presented with today. The government has, in effect, admitted it has lost the skill to compromise, that it has lost the skill of appealing to the common sense of the members of the House. My experience in parliament is relatively short; I can only compare this parliament with the minority parliament. There were no closure motions introduced during the minority period. Why? Because that government was suckholing every single day of the week to make sure it stayed in power. It constantly consulted with the opposition. It was in touch with individual members. Their concern about staying in power was obvious. Today, they are in majority. They do not need to consult with anyone any longer. There is no need to be concerned about the reaction in other parts of the country as they put legislation before parliament. They are behaving once more like their old, arrogant and lazy selves.
The committee system is an absolute farce. If any member can tell me that it is serving the people of Canada, then they have to be out of their coconuts. So all that is left to members is to use the House of Commons when they wish to raise questions concerning the aims and principles of the legislation which the government is putting forward. I can understand why the minister wants to get this piece of legislation passed quickly. The longer it stays on the table, the greater is the likelihood of the rift within his own caucus developing; there is that much more time for the sore festering within the government caucus to spread.
What this legislation, together with the closure motion, has done is to say to the unemployed: We don't care two figs about you.
Motion under S.O. 75C


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


John R. Rodriguez: There they are, Mr. Speaker. They come out from the woodwork like ants only when it is safe for them to speak. They stay in the woodwork and then they stand up to vote. I understand how bored they must be with that process. Some of them have good ideas, and if they would share them with the House maybe their influence with the ministers might grow and heed would be given to the advice they have given.
Unemployment is the issue today. It is not a question of whether or not we have spent 13 hours on this bill, but whether hon. members are prepared to face the fact that unemployment is more serious now than it has been since the depression days. No one can tell me that with more than one million unemployed we can expect productivity and that we are all going to live good lives. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. They have a majority government. They have their hands on the gears of power. And they are abusing power, not using it.
That is what the bill is all about. It is not whether the period is extended from 8 weeks to 12 weeks. It is whether the government is prepared to put before parliament thoughtful, creative measures to solve unemployment, not only for the young but for the women, the middle-aged. The government is not prepared to do it, and that gets me mad. Now that I am in the mood, I am going to tell the minister-


An hon. Member:: Louder!


John R. Rodriguez: I am going to speak loudly because your ears are blocked. I don't care what comes of it. His estimates are presently before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I can assure him that this bill will not go before that committee for consideration until after May 31. So he thinks he has scored a victory today. I have news for him. We are going to find so many questions to ask about unemployment insurance and all the votes under that particular estimate that we are going to keep it there until May 31. I am doing it purposely because the government's performance on unemployment has been disgraceful. I do it with malice aforethought.
Don't insult me by bringing me a bill which talks about manipulating the Unemployment Insurance Act. Bring down challenging bills, legislation to deal with the problem facing so many people in the country. Don't bring us these band-aid approaches and cosmetic programs to fix up your image in the corporate sector. I know what you are responding to-the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the chambers of commerce-small business. They all came trotting before the minister. They all said the Unemployment Insurance Act was a disincentive to work. What does that need? It needs the support of the corporate sector politically. You have got to find a scapegoat. And who is your scapegoat? It is that which the public sees, and the business people, as the people who are ripping off the Unemployment Insurance Commission. So extend the qualifying period from 8 to 12 weeks. Then you start telling us you are saving $100 million. Isn't that just

March 29, 1977
Motion under S.O. 75C
dandy! I challenge the minister and his fellow cabinet ministers to tell that to the unemployed. These are the scapegoats they have picked on. Go down to those parts of the country where they cannot defend themselves. What do you replace it with? The Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program? What a travesty! A saving of $100 million, and you are putting out $300 million for nothing! That is the game they are playing, and it is why they have to bring closure to get the thing shuffled off to Buffalo. That will not rub. They also run around using certain terms. They say this is not a closure debate but allocation of time. Unemployment is not unemployment any more; it is called surplus employment capacity. I recognize all these "Liberalisms", but we must call a spade a spade.


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


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed and disgusted at some of the nonsense that I have heard in this House from people who are supposed to run this country. The members of this House are fiddling while the country is burning. Most of the comments that I want to make have already been made by the hon. members for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and Ontario (Mr. Cafik), so I will not waste the time of the House by repeating what they said.
In the United Kingdom, with roughly 630 members of parliament, they have realized the ludicrousness of saying that all members should have the chance to speak on every bill. Therefore, they allocate one day as the average time for the reading of a bill at any stage. When are we going to wake up to the fact that because we are so slow getting things done in this House the House is being bypassed?
There is a backlog of two years of legislation which has not been brought to the House. More and more decisions are being made by order in council and bureaucrats because the members of the House are not in the twentieth century. We have not realized how complex this life has become and that we have to make decisions more rapidly than we did in the past century. Most of the members of this House are simply contributing to the mess we are in by not doing anything to correct the situation.
To say the government is not concerned about unemployment is absolute nonsense, sheer rubbish. 1 am disappointed in the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He usually leads a very high level of debate in this House, but what he said was sheer, utter rubbish and he should know better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Oh, come on! I think we have got to get serious. We have had a couple of attempts at trying to reform the rules of this House. The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has had a crack at it. Two private members' hours have been devoted to that subject. We had the motion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), so

at least one member in this House is trying to do something. I ask that more effort be put into trying to update our rules and regulations.
The comment that we are a majority government, that we are arrogant and can do what we want, is sheer rubbish. We are a party to the middle, with a party to the left and a party to the right of us, so no matter what we do we are going to make someone unhappy. That we cannot satisfy everybody is a fact of political life that should be realized by hon. members, instead of trying to make cheap political points all the time, accusing the government of all kinds of things that it is not doing.


John R. Rodriguez: That's the trouble; they're not doing anything.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: That is not true at all. So 1 will finish my brief intervention, Mr. Speaker, by imploring the members of this House to get serious about reforming the rules of this House and to get out into the twentieth century.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset I was quite pleased to hear the previous speaker make his representation. For a parliamentary secretary, he did an admirable job and 1 am sure it will be brought to the attention of the people in control of things and the hon. member's name will be put in a very high priority position for one of the cherished positions within the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: A cheap shot.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was a slap-shot, not a cheap shot. I want the members of the government to understand what 1 am trying to do here. The motion which has been brought forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has been commented on astutely by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), who said that we should now be considering precisely why the motion was brought forward at this time and whether it is appropriate or inappropriate. 1 would simply suggest to the minister, who may wince a little as I do so, that the reason he is now bringing forward this motion is that he is a "nervous Nellie" with respect to the remarks that will be made in the debate if his own members are allowed to participate.
For him to come forward and suggest that it is the opposition which has somehow caused him and the government to cringe and to bring forward this motion so we can get on with the business of the House is simply ludicrous. The minister knows that his own members are very, very unhappy about the unemployment situation in this country. They are very sensitive about it. They know that this is the most important debate that should be before this House. When we talk about the relevance of parliament we should talk about the relevance of the issues that we are discussing. The fact of the matter is that we have in excess of one million people unemployed in this country, and that is the issue to which parliament should be devoting its attention. It should not be devoting its attention to the Lands Surveys Act or to the Historic Sites and Monu-
March 29, 1977

ments Act; it should be devoting its attention to important and relevant matters if parliament itself is to be relevant.


An hon. Member:: What do you think the budget is?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I hear an interjector talking about the budget. That is preordained. The government has made its decision. It is not for me, as an opposition member, somehow to control the business of this House. That interjection illustrates precisely what is the problem with this parliament. We complain about parliament not being relevant. I suggest that members who make that complaint read the remarks of my esteemed colleague from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who pointed out very accurately that the problem with this parliament is the completely inept way in which House business has been brought before the House. For example, we see from time to time on the part of various ministers complete disregard for this institution. Most of the major discussions today are initiated by ministers outside the House. Most of the major pronouncements of great concern are made by ministers-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills:
Bill C-44, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977.
Bill C-45, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1978.



ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House House
March 29, 1977 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 29th day of March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Criminal Records Act
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Health-Report on Connaught Laboratories-Action to make Canada self-sufficient in biologicals; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-Reason for failure to create number of jobs predicted in last budget and increase in implicit price index; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Industry-LearStar jet program-Number of orders financed by Canadian Export Development Corporation.

It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North) moved: that Bill C-212, to amend the Criminal Records Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-212 is to provide pardon for first offenders of minor offences. This bill asks for a pardon after two years that erases entirely the previous minor conviction. It is interesting to note that the Ouimet commission in 1969 recommended that minor offences, where there had been a conviction, should be erased after two years if no further offences had been committed. I want to draw to Your Honour's attention that that was in 1969.
I first brought this subject to the attention of the House on July 20, 1973. On that date the then parliamentary secretary
4446

March 29, 1977
Criminal Records Act
to the minister of justice, Mr. Raynald Guay, spoke about the seriousness and very grave consequences of having a criminal record, particularly when it was for a minor offence committed during an individual's wisdom-forming years. Maturity progresses at different levels and different speeds in people. Some mature early, and some mature late. Some have more spirit and exuberance than others. The livelier they are, the more supervision is needed.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice at that time stated that the individual should have the right, automatically, to a pardon without having to make application to a parole board, which is a cumbersome procedure at best. I think that is worth repeating, Mr. Speaker. That was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, at that time. He stated that an individual should have the right, automatically, to a pardon without having to make application to a parole board which is a cumbersome long draw-out procedure at best.
Often the one affected feels a little upset at his teenage foolishness and, if married, perhaps his wife and family has no knowledge of his offence. It is like opening an old wound. Surely this is not the way we should treat our young people in this country. The individual has to make an application to the parole board for a pardon. The police are then advised in order to check into the individual's behavior since the time the offence was committed. He must also obtain character references from people in his community. This immediately brands him as a law offender. Rather than do this, the individual lets everything lie quietly. I am sure many of us in the House would take the same attitude. However, if he does not clear his record and if, by chance, he gets into further trouble for which he is in no way responsible, he will have the previous charge as a mark against him. I think most of us have to agree that this is completely unfair and is discriminatory. A very high percentage of first offenders are never seen or heard of again in the courtroom.
I would like to refer to an article in the Globe and Mail which has been referred to before. This is a quote from a Vancouver prosecutor who said:
One thing I hate to see is young people getting involved in something that will have a serious effect on their lives for years. Lots of young people don't know what they are getting into and a criminal record could mark them for years. It could keep them from going to the States for a job or for post-graduate studies or from getting bonded or from a job, period.
Of course, a lot will depend upon the region of the country where the offence was committed. We all know there are various areas of Canada that are strongly religious, and their discipline is excellent. We know that in those areas the young people are well disciplined and very few of them ever get into trouble. The homes they are raised in are of strong character and are Christian homes. When we go to other parts of Canada we see areas of permissiveness where young people are raised under circumstances which do not discipline them and do not warn them of the problems they could face. In those areas we see a much higher percentage of problems and offences.
I recall two fellows who were always raising the devil. On many occasions the police had to look after them, take them home and give them a scolding. They had a police magistrate in that town who was a colonel in the army, and neither of those two fellows ever faced an indictment. One of them today is a top surgeon in the United States, and the second one went into law and is one of the top lawyers in the United States.
I would like to ask members of parliament: How many of us, having been mixed up with the wrong crowd, could have faced an indictment if we had been pulled into court by a policeman and had a charge laid against us? That is the position you could have found yourself in. The philosophy is compassion for your fellowman. I am a little surprised and a little disturbed when I hear it said, "We know the bill is all right. We know that something has got to be done about this. In the next few months we are going to bring it before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs."
In 1963 the solicitor general at that time assured us in this House that in the next six months this question would be taken before parliament. He said that the matter would be considered and correction made. The words are there. He spoke at length on it and spoke well on the subject. He knew about it. I want to go a little further and say that this marks the third occasion this bill has been before the House, and I am hopeful the government will see fit to send it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The bill, as I have said, concerns young people who have committed a minor offence because of lack of wisdom and immaturity which does not point out to them the seriousness of a prank or ordinary devilment. These people may be slow maturers, or it may be because of the company they keep or the crowd with whom they run. Few of them are criminals in any way. I am disturbed because of the effect this immaturity will have on their future behaviour. All many of these young people need is to have the riot act read to them and, by so doing, install in them some wisdom. If it is a first offence, then let them go on their way. Otherwise, a basically good boy or girl may be turned on the downward path. An indictment for him or her may ruin them for a future in a professional field or any field of their choice; if they wanted to go abroad for post-graduate studies or even in the ordinary job market. Would the government hire these people? Would a provincial government hire them for its police force? Would a provincial government hire them for any position?
I have a stack of letters that are rather pitiful in their outlook because of the attitude government takes against citizens who have a minor conviction. I can recall many cases of people who have applied to the federal government and to provincial governments. Has the law been changed? Have the federal government or the provinces done anything about this problem? Where are all the promises of the solicitors general since Mr. Justice Ouimet brought in his commission report suggesting that these cases be pardoned? Not a thing has been done in that respect during a period of eight years. No wonder this government proceeds like a tortoise which only quickens its movements when it says it will accomplish something in the fall. But it has not got around to it yet in a period of two years. I wonder where the tortoise is now.

March 29, 1977

In some cases very lenient views are taken of crime, while in other cases the courts are much less lenient. Courts vary from place to place, as do the opinions of judges, not purposely but because of differing personal standards. The same is true from parent to parent in the homes where young people are raised. We have all seen minor offences committed. As I have said before, I have known policemen take a boy home to his parents rather than charge him with an offence. A good lecture and a talk to his parents was enough; there were no more problems. If they did go to court, a stern reprimand from the judge in the vast majority of cases was all that was necessary. These young people eventually became useful citizens.
But what about the great number of young persons who are taken to police headquarters, charged and convicted of a minor first offence? Many individuals apprehended for a minor offence go scot-free. When I speak of minor offences I am referring to young people who have stolen a bicycle, a radio or, perhaps, have smoked a marijuana cigarette.
In lowering the drinking age we may be indicting someone who has had his first beer. I have a letter to bear this out. This has actually happened. It happened to an 18-year old who, after watching a hockey game on TV and watching beer advertisements in the company of four other boys and a teacher, had his first beer. He had two beers and then drove the car home because the others thought he had had less beer. A policeman stopped them because a couple of nights before a stone had been thrown through the windshield of a police cruiser. They were suspected. So he was apprehended and charged for driving too close to the centre of the road. The police took a breathalyzer test and found him just over the mark. We allow alcohol advertising to be directed at young people, and we have lowered the drinking age. That boy was 18 years old. We put on the commercials. We glorify sport. Those boys wanted to see the final hockey game played in Montreal. We do not want to take the responsibility for it; we want to wash our hands of it. That boy was taken to court and now has an indictment on his record.
There is discrimination in different areas, and different views of crime are held. In one area most inhabitants may hold strongly religious views and have a high moral code. They may be strict disciplinarians and the young people in that area may rarely get into trouble. I am sorry to say that since 1945 permissiveness has developed across this land. I ask: "Are the young people responsible, or are the homes in which they were raised, the churches and schools they attended, responsible?" Parliament does nothing about this, even though it admits that something should have been done. It said it would be done in four months or six months and we would get it over with.
In 1969 nobody listened to the Ouimet commission that we paid for. I will go back to this matter because it is very serious. You might say, "I will get away with it", but you do not think of the other poor fellow who is caught. I have seen them caught and I have seen them ruined, and I have felt sorry for them. Not only did I see young boys ruined, but I have also seen girls in that state, and this makes me very sad. This bill
Criminal Records Act
has come up three times and I am sure that it is understood. What is the trouble? Is a member who brings in a private member's bill not entitled to have it passed?
What is the problem with this parliament? Is that the malaise; is that the sickness we have? I heard it said today in the House that only so many people can speak. Every one of us in the House has the right to speak. We are elected and we represent our constituents?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: To hear them say that makes me flinch. I know the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) is not here today. I talked to him yesterday and he said there is need for a complete revision of the Criminal Records Act. The minister believes that serious consideration should be given to automatic expunging of criminal records related to minor offences. Why has that not been done? I like the Solicitor General; he is a nice fellow. I wonder, however, why he is not here today. I wonder why he does not want to face up to this problem, because when I was talking to him yesterday there was no word that he would not be here today, or at least I did not hear him say so, or I misunderstood him. He said, however, that perhaps this could be more properly accomplished by means other than a pardon. Well, how long does it take? We have one solicitor general telling us it will be done in four months; we have another one telling us it will be done right away-and the present Solicitor General says that criminal records for minor offences should be automatically expunged. It is the old story; it drags on.
I have here a letter from a girl who inadvertently took $6 and now cannot get a job. Those are the things that make you really feel sorry for these people. In that case both the father and the mother drank. Consider the problem if you were raised in a home like that. Is there not any sympathy; is there not any love and compassion for those poor young people raised in these circumstances? They are our product, our kids, our young people. They are the people who will be sitting in this parliament in a few years. Are we going to show them the milk of human kindness? When their turn comes, I hope they will not say, "No, you cannot speak; that is the law". This is the law we make here. Only so many of us can speak-the chosen few. Everything in me that is Christian reacts against that attitude. I hope everyone here will consult his or her conscience as to whether this bill should or should not pass. I do not expect it will. Again it is revulsion, a throwback to the private member's bill which has been brought up three times. Every time it has been treated excellently by my fellow members of parliament. They have spoken very highly of it. But every time the government has chosen to ignore it.
Over a period of four years one begins to wonder about private members' bills, regardless whether one is a Liberal, Conservative or a member of any other party, whether one has any ideas at all or whether it is just a chosen few whose bills are passed. I say to the House that I sincerely hope that if this bill is passed we can be assured in the next six months, as the minister said in his letter, that its provisions will be carried out.
80012-37/2

March 29, 1977
Criminal Records Act
I want to thank my fellow members for listening to this problem for the third time. It is not my fault they have had to listen to it three times. But let us remember that when a private member brings in a bill that is a good bill on which there is agreement, it should be passed. Why waste the time of parliament going over it again and again? I leave that thought with hon. members.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I must say that I agree with many of the ideas put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). I agree that many good ideas come out of private members' bills, and if those ideas can carry themselves they should go to committee and find a place somewhere in the law.
Having said that, I want to share a few ideas about this particular private member's bill. I hope I can convince some hon. members of the House that this matter should be discussed further in committee.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a legislation which, once in force, would entitle any person convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction to be granted a pardon. The only condition attached to the granting of such a pardon is that this person should not have been convicted of a criminal offence during the two year waiting period following his conviction. As this person would be entitled to a pardon, clause 2 of the bill would make it mandatory for the Parole Board to issue a favourable recommendation regarding all cases meeting the aforementioned condition. The previous speaker has shown the near administrative impossibility of implementing such a provision. This impossibility relates to the fact that the persons eligible for a pardon according to the condition developed by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) are not likely to be identified by the Parole Board in most cases.
Indeed, the indexation of conviction records very closely follows the Identification of Criminals Act, an act which as you know authorizes people concerned with the search for criminals to take fingerprints and other descriptive information and to publish them for the benefit of people responsible for the enforcement and administration of the law.
The authority to take fingerprints and other measurements is granted only in cases when the indictment has to do with a criminal offence. That authority does not extend to offences punishable on summary conviction. So there is no record card in the case where the hon. member for Simcoe North would want to grant an automatic pardon. That is why I suggested earlier that it would be impossible for the board to recommend granting a pardon to those people whose identity would not be known.
The same difficulty arises when determining whether the individual repeated during the two-year waiting period, whether he was convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction. To implement the provisions put forth by the hon. member in his bill there would need to be established a
mechanism similar to that to be found in the Identification of Criminals Act and police forces would have to be given authority to take fingerprints and release record cards for minor offences. So we would find ourselves in that paradoxical situation where to eliminate criminal records we would authorize a list to be established of police records that would not otherwise exist. I do not think that is the result sought by the hon. member for Simcoe North.

On this particular point, if the police were able to take fingerprints from people who have summary convictions and make information available to the public about these people, I think that could result in very serious repercussions because members of the general public would not even know about the particular crime. I think we might be inviting repercussions, which I do not believe the hon. member for Simcoe North would want to happen. I take it the hon. member agrees with what I am saying.
In this connection I was talking earlier with the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) about a case which came up in his riding. There was a minor problem in that a person was erroneously identified as having committed a crime. The hon. member for Restigouche was involved in trying to correct that situation. I can see where this might happen again and again. I, for one, would not be in favour of such a thing happening, and I do not think the hon. member for Simcoe North would be.

The idea of automatically erasing a criminal record for the offences I listed is nothing new. It was recommended by the Ouimet Commission that was set up to look into the correctional area in Canada. It indeed recommended that the criminal record be erased for summary offences after a period of two years if the person convicted did not get a subsequent conviction. It should be noted that the commission did not recommend that criminal records be destroyed because it was fully aware of the necessity for police forces to continue to have access to them to facilitate their search for criminals.
The commission recommended rather that they be separated from other records. Moreover, it did not consider the granting of a pardon to achieve this control of records. This is important because the granting of a pardon under the Criminal Records Act goes further than the simple interdiction to divulge contents of the records, since the pardon cancels the conviction. If automatic granting of a pardon was not seriously considered in 1970, during the discussion on the criminal records bill, it is not only because of the administrative impossibility to give out pardons to unidentifiable people, but also because of the reluctance to cancel automatically the judicial effects of the conviction without having ensured first that the person involved has shown himself worthy of this by his behaviour.
The requirement suggested by the hon. member, that is a period of two years without any conviction, does not necessari-
[Mr. Rynard.)
March 29, 1977

ly mean that someone has an acceptable behaviour. For instance, there is the case of those who plead guilty or are found guilty of a criminal act and who, instead of being officially convicted, are freed unconditionally or paroled under section 662.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
People accused of serious crimes but not yet convicted would, according to the bill, be not only eligible for but entitled to a pardon. The Parole Board, as we are all aware, has access to the confidential files of the RCMP and other provincial police agencies. Sometimes it is known that such or such a person is associated with elements of organized crime or even that he is involved in organized crime himself. As in the case mentioned earlier, could it be said, as it is written in clause 3 of the bill proposed by the hon. member, that the Board is satisfied that the applicant has been of good behaviour? This could not be, and it is certain that the public or a future employer would have precious little faith in such a pardon. Moreover, in the case of a person accused of a serious crime for example, according to another amendment suggested by the hon. member there would no longer be a motive for the annulment of the pardon, even after official conviction for this crime. We could have in front of us an individual convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary, with an official document from the federal government vouching for his good conduct. This would result in limitating or removing any of the credibility or value of the pardon provided by the law.
If we wanted to give the same legal effect to clause 3 of the bill, what would be needed at least would be a summary investigation by federal or municipal police and only if the results were favourable, I think, could the board be satisfied that the individual has a good conduct record.
However, I do not consider, and many members will share my own views, that a complete and comprehensive investigation would be required in every case. On the contrary, a number of years after the conviction or in case of minor offences, it would be enough to make simple inquiries from law enforcement agencies.
It is also important that the person asking for a pardon be protected as much as possible against the divulgation of his criminal record at the time of investigation and that pardon not be granted to people who do not deserve it because of the continuity of their criminal activities. Someone also mentioned certain difficulties of the administration of the Criminal Records Act that will be substantially amended in a bill to be presented soon by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox).
Other criticism was made against this legislation since it has been passed. Let us take, for instance, the provisions about unconditional and conditional release that I mentioned previously and that were incorporated in the Criminal Records Act in 1972. Those provisions have been criticized and interpreted differently by courts and legal counsels. Does a person released unconditionally or paroled under the Criminal Code have a criminal record? It is a question we must ask ourselves.
Some people say yes, others no. Pursuant to the Criminal Records Act those people are eligible for pardon. Is it neces-
Criminal Records Act
sary or even useful? The amendments that the Solicitor General intends to propose should answer those questions which are very specific and which we must answer.
We have seen that it was almost impossible within the present law to grant a pardon automatically. We, mentioned the case of people who have summary convictions and who are not identified, and the judicial difficulties that would result from such a pardon. Nevertheless too many people, mostly young as the hon. member said earlier, know about the bad consequences and the problems caused by the existence of a criminal record for minor offences, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, minor offences out of proportion with their repercussions. A fair answer should be found. I think particularly of those who are only liable to a fine. They should benefit from a pardon without waiting five years as do those convicted of shoplifting which is a criminal offence and not an offence punishable on summary conviction. Perhaps waiting periods should be based on the sentence imposed instead of on the distinction between a criminal offence and a minor offence.
In summary, we need substantial amendments to the act. Therefore, I feel a little sorry for having to disagree, not in all cases but at least in some, with the hon. member for North Simcoe with respect to the administrative difficulties he raises. However, it is undeniable that the underlying problems are there, those expressed earlier by the hon. member for North Simcoe and by myself, to which only a thorough review will bring satisfactory answers.
It would seem that many of the points of the hon. member for Simcoe North are well taken and I am not opposed to them in total, Mr. Speaker. I think they should be presented to the minister, studied in depth, and a decision made as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock you indicated that we will shortly be summoned to the other place for a Royal Assent ceremony. I regret that this has the effect of shortening the hour for consideration of this bill, but I shall apply at least part of that shortening to my remarks.
I want to commend the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) for bringing in this bill. In spite of the speech we have just listened to, I feel that this House would do itself proud if it were to refer the bill, or at least its subject matter, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Even with all the criticism he made, the previous speaker still sought to align himself with the basic position of compassion and understanding taken by the hon. member for Simcoe North. I commend the sponsor for having brought the bill in today, as he has done on previous occasions, and I urge the young member to stay with it until he wins.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted in a personal way to say that this is

March 29, 1977
Criminal Records Act
a good opportunity for us to say in this House how high is our regard for the hon. member for Simcoe North. He talked today about compassion and the milk of human kindness; these are qualities that he has demonstrated through all the years we have known him in this place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We cannot use personal names on the floor of the House but I think I can say that most of us know him affectionately as "Doc", and we are happy to pay this tribute to him today. I am sure when hon. members applauded my remarks a few moments ago they remembered the experience through which the hon. member has been recently. He was very much in our thoughts. I commend him for doing something in keeping with his own personality. I wish the House would complete its tribute by sending either his bill or its subject matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to say much. In view of what the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) said in the last part of his speech, and because this is a good private member's bill, I hope the matter can be brought to some decision.
It has been my privilege to support the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) on two other occasions. I supported him completely and wholeheartedly in what he was trying to do for young offenders. That is typical of the compassion he has shown all his life. I have known the hon. member for a long time, and I knew his son before I knew him. It would be a tribute to his life of service to parliament, and to the community as a practising physician, which he still is, if we could allow this bill to go to committee, particularly since the matter will come before it in any event soon. I do hope hon. members will allow the matter to be considered in that committee.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on the substance of this bill let me say that the preyious speakers, including the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent), spoke of the worth of the private member sponsoring this bill. His worth was made even more evident by the kind words the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had to say about the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). I wish to add to what was said. Having prepared some remarks on this bill, and having read some of the previous debates on this subject and previous comments of the hon. members for Simcoe North, I can say that the hon. member has demonstrated a genuine concern for young people. He is concerned about reforms in our criminal justice system. That being so, I join others in this House in congratulating the hon. member for Simcoe North for introducing the bill. It has given us an opportunity once more to discuss this subject.

When the Criminal Records Act was introduced, it was pointed out by the solicitor general of the day that it did not necessarily represent the best legislation which could be devised on this subject. It was envisaged that after some experience with the new act, modifications of substance might be found desirable. As the former solicitor general mentioned last year in debate on a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Simcoe North in substantially the same form and content, the ministry has recognized the need for a complete revision of legislation, and only other priorities in the legislative program delayed the introduction of substantial amendments during the last session.
The proposed legislation, prepared by the ministry, is in its final stages and should be introduced during the next session. Unfortunately the details of the bill cannot be revealed at present, but the principal areas in which the department is working can be discussed today. I want to assure the House that some of the comments made here today, particularly those by the hon. member for Simcoe North, will be taken into consideration by the minister, because they will help us to improve this important legislation. It goes without saying that the minister agrees with the hon. member for Simcoe North and others who have spoken that the Criminal Records Act has been inadequate and that amendments are necessary.
When this act was passed on June 11, 1970, it was the first occasion on which a Canadian parliament had passed a law to relieve specifically convicted persons from their criminal records. Before that date there were the provisions of the Criminal Code, section 683, which authorized the governor in council to grant pardon, whether free or conditional. There were also the provisions of the letters patent establishing the role of the Governor General of Canada; they empower the Governor General to grant pardons. But there was no legislation dealing specifically with the criminal records of those pardoned convictions.
The Criminal Records Act has been a first attempt to continue and to limit acccess to judicial and criminal records. It was recognized at that time as a major step forward. On the other hand, it was also recognized that this law, like most new laws, would meet unforeseen difficulties and contain unforeseen deficiencies which would only come to light with practical experience. Many of these difficulties and deficiencies have now been identified, and members opposite have mentioned some of them.
Since its implementation the Department of the Solicitor General has been conducting a complete review of this legislation and working on amendments to the act. Moreover, the previous minister and departmental officials have discussed these proposals with the provinces, as they do affect the provinces very closely. I know that it is the earnest hope of my minister to have our proposals with respect to the legislation finalized very shortly, with a bill to be introduced into this House in the upcoming session this fall. I want to assure hon. members that their suggestions and comments here this afternoon will be examined by the minister, and I am confident that they will prove useful in preparing that bill.
March 29, 1977

Experience with the Criminal Records Act during the six years since its passage has indicated a number of deficiencies. First of all, a pardon granted under the act has not been effective, as we had hoped, in protecting an ex-inmate from discrimination and in helping him to reintegrate into society. That was the principal goal of the bill.
As a member of the subcommittee on penitentiaries, I can certainly confirm this conclusion, and in fact it may well be one of the major contributors to recidivism. One of the principal challenges facing the ex-inmate is finding a job. Very often he is faced with closed doors due to his criminal record. While the law that is in force now provides help to the ex-inmate in respect of employment by the federal government, and employment in areas which fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, it does not help in areas that fall within the jurisdiction of provincial governments. As most hon. members know, the greater proportion of jobs and employment in this country falls within the jurisdiction of provincial governments' labour legislation and general legislation. Although a person is holding a pardon, he cannot deny his pardoned conviction or criminal record, so that right from the application for employment he is almost in no better position than a convicted person without pardon.
When the present statute was passed in 1970, it was hoped the provinces would follow our example by passing similar laws to protect ex-inmates. Little has been done in that area. I believe British Columbia and Ontario have legislation limiting access to criminal records of pardoned persons, or on discrimination which could be practised against ex-inmates. As a result, under the amendments we are now preparing, we hope to make pardons applicable at all jurisdictional levels, federal and provincial. So far we have put proposals to the provinces and they are generally in agreement.
Another deficiency was found in the present legislation with respect to its effectiveness. While a pardon in accordance with the act renders a conviction void, and while it removes any disqualification attached to the conviction of those affected in society, and that is what the statute says, it does not prevent provincial or municipal authorities from revealing the fact of the conviction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



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.
Motion under S. O. 75C
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
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-44, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977-Chapter 7.
Bill C-45, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1978-Chapter 8.
Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act-Chapter 9.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen:
That, in relation to Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, Five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and
That, at the conclusion of the Fifth such hour, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then before the House, if required for the purpose of this order, and shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the bill.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock, I was making reference to a matter about which I think most members in the Chamber will agree. I was saying that part of the problem we have had in this parliament is not with the institution itself but with the incompetence of the government in bringing forward its legislative program and the way it conducts its business in the House. This is a motion moved under Standing Order 75C. My esteemed colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), has often raised points regarding the operation of the rules. He is a man who has brought to the attention of the House on different occasions the fact that Standing Order 75C, regardless of what you want to call it, is a form of closure. There is no use calling it something else; it is closure because it limits further debate. In this instance, after a further five hours the second reading debate .j to be terminated.

March 29, 1977
Motion under S.O. 75C
Hon. members have to read Standing Order 75A and 75B before they read 75C. But with the way this government does things, it thinks C is A and A is C. During the existence of this parliament how often has the government come forward with any meaningful negotiations with the House leaders of the opposition parties so as to arrive at some reasonable agreement on the allocation of time? The only kind of negotiation that the government enters into is for the government House leader to stand in his place and to put a proposition to the opposition, to which they have only the alternative of saying yes or no on very short notice. There is no negotiation on the part of the government. It is incapable of understanding what the term means. It is the most arrogant, self-centred cabinet which thinks it has only to account unto itself, and sitting behind the cabinet is a bunch of people who do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What is preventing these members getting up, if they feel strongly about legislation, at any time during the course of second reading and saying where they stand on the issue? Where do they stand, for example, on this piece of legislation? We now have Standing Order 75C brought in and they know what that means.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think it is a good thing for some of us occasionally to get away from this institution for a few days so that we can put this place in perspective. I have had the opportunity recently to be away from here as part of a parliamentary delegation and having returned I think that some objective perspective of this place is necessary.
I am afraid government backbenchers are simply not being candid with us when they proclaim that they do not have an opportunity to speak. This legislation deals with the most pressing social issue in our country today, namely unemployment. I am just amazed when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) says that we have had 19 members or that we are going to have 30 members talk about this issue of unemployment. I hear hon. members opposite wailing, and gnashing their teeth, but in all seriousness if any member on the other side feels that unemployment is not the most pressing social issue in the country today I would like him to stand up in the House and say so, instead of hooting and howling.
I want to conclude by saying that government is not parliament and parliament is not government. We have the right and the responsibility, as members of parliament representing every part of the country, to speak out on the important issues facing us. When the minister comes forward and throttles that opportunity, he does a disservice not only to this institution but to his own office.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I take the floor at the invitation of the previous speaker and say to him

that it is with pride that, as a democrat and legislator, I shall support this motion because I feel that the subject has been debated enough to allow responsible people, whose purpose is not to filibuster but to pass laws, to take a stand on the bill now before us.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the two objectives of this bill are matters of priority and that it is urgent that the bill be passed. I think the integration of the unemployment insurance and manpower services is necessary and urgent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe should perhaps refer to the motion before the House and the time limit imposed on the debate ...


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my opinion precisely in the sense of the motion for putting an end to the debate; it is imperative that we should put a stop to the debate and discussions, which are controversial, I agree, but which still delay the eventual implementation of an act as important as that through which unemployment insurance and manpower services would be fused and new unemployment insurance standards would become more equitable for the population as a whole.
Mp Speaker, I feel that after several hours of debate, time has come to move second reading of the bill to allow all hon. members to make suggestions for making the bill more favourable to the majority of citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for us, as members of parliament, to come to a consensus. On both sides, there is talk this evening of consensus . ..


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 8.14 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75C have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
[ Translation]
The House has heard the terms of Mr. Cullen's motion. 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.
March 29, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, to establish the department of employment and immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on February 28 when I spoke briefly on this bill I mentioned the high unemployment and the sums of money being dumped into make-work programs which are not giving the relief to the unemployed that they should. The unemployment problem has to be attacked on a long-term basis. All the make-work projects are doing is giving band-aid treatment to the festering sore of over one million people unemployed in Canada today.
The minister has stated that if this bill passes there will be a saving of $200 million. I want to know if the government will use this money to pay agents for the sale of nuclear reactors in some country still unnamed, or if it will use the money to stimulate the economy, especially in high unemployment areas, by establishing industries there.
The government has tried to encourage people from one area of this vast country of ours to relocate to the west and north where jobs for skilled tradesmen are available. This program has failed completely. In many cases it has resulted in broken families because the bread winner sometimes does not have the funds to return home when the job is finished. This state of affairs has existed for quite sometime and the government has spent vast sums of money to relocate people right across the country through a program that is just not working.
The federal government has an annual buy of $8 billion, yet some of that money is spent outside Canada. I feel that if more
4454

March 29, 1977
Employment and Immigration
of it were spent in this country for goods produced here, as well as some of the $200 million that the minister claims will be saved by changing the qualifying period for unemployment insurance from eight weeks to 12 weeks, then industries could be established in high unemployment areas to produce the goods required by the government.
The change in the qualifying period from eight weeks to 12 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance will not make any difference to many people who live in remote areas of Canada. It is compulsory for everyone who is gainfully employed to pay unemployment insurance. In many cases, however, people in remote areas who have gone out to work on pipelines or hydro projects and then returned to their isolated communities have found themselves discriminated against. They have to make their contribution to unemployment insurance, but when it comes time to collect they are left out in the cold because there is not a manpower centre in their area to which they can report.
I should like to refer to the case of a constituent of mine whose claim was turned down by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. A letter from the commission said that a person who lives in a remote area and has not made himself available for a job does not therefore qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. I believe this is discrimination. Whether people live in Montreal or Shamattawa, Manitoba, if they contribute to unemployment insurance they should be able to collect. Apparently the department does not agree. My constituent appealed his case on the grounds that Shamattawa is an isolated village accessible only by air. The nearest unemployment insurance office is in Thompson, Manitoba, over 200 miles away. The Unemployment Insurance Commission found that my constituent had not been actively seeking work. Mr. Speaker, for him to report to the Manpower centre in Thompson to see if there were any jobs would cost around $200 or $300. This is only one case that I cite tonight. Mr. Speaker.
In other cases when someone has made their way to the Canada Manpower centre they have found that the jobs available were for skilled workers only. Skilled or unskilled, contributions are compulsory, but there is no difference in the amount of benefits.
Considering the complaints of people in remote areas whose applications for unemployment insurance have been turned down flat, even though they have contributed to the program handsomely, I suggest it is high time the government examined seriously the legislation before the House, since changing the qualifying period from eight to 12 weeks will put people in remote areas in an even worse position than they are in now.
We are debating this bill under the guillotine, and I never guessed I would speak on the unemployment insurance bill with the gun of closure pointing at my head.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame!
(Mr. Smith (Churchill).)


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, people are concerned about this question and they have no voice except that of their member of parliament. That is why I wanted to draw attention to the plight of people in remote areas, people who will not benefit from unemployment insurance.
Let me mention the complaints of another constituent. Having contributed to unemployment insurance for ten years, this chap was laid off on December 9, 1976, owing to excessive loss of time from illness over which he had no control. On December 1, 1976, he decided to move from the city to the country, since housing was cheaper and living costs lower in the country. But he decided to remain on the roll of those actively looking for employment in order to remain qualified for unemployment insurance. When he applied for unemployment insurance, he was turned down because he had moved from the city without first contacting the UIC office. This chap was unemployed for approximately two months and could not obtain benefits because he had not notified the people at the UIC office that he was moving out of the city. In the meantime, he had no income and, with a wife and child to feed, he found ends hard to meet.
Ultimately he appealed to the unemployment insurance commission in Winnipeg. He felt he had been discriminated against. He had contributed to UIC, but had not informed the people at the UI office of his move, and therefore was disentitled. This experience left a distasteful impression with him. He was out of a job until January 25, 1977. I ask, is there one rule for country folk and another for city dwellers? It seems to me that urban and rural contributors to the unemployment insurance fund make essentially the same sort of contributions.
At present, if people happen to move from the city and do not notify the UIC counsellor or satisfy him, they can be disqualifed at the stroke of a pen. I bring this to the minister's attention as one small example of what can happen. I am sure many hon. members, especially on the opposition side, could refer to letters showing how concerned our people are about unemployment insurance.
It has been said that some people, through a variety of means, have ripped off the unemployment insurance fund for many years. I was appalled to learn that some Canada Manpower offices with respect to which there have been complaints of fraud have been trying to cover up these frauds. I understand that at many Canada Manpower offices the manager has said to the employees, "Let us keep the lid on; we do not want any more complaints about overpayments because such complaints embarrass the minister". I know in one instance instructions were issued to counsellors to the effect that they were to keep quiet about any discrepancies they found and not bring them out in to the open. This is wrong. If the unemployment insurance program is in a mess, that should be exposed. Changing the eligibility period from eight weeks to 12 will not cut down on cheating. If cheaters found a way to cheat under the eight week system, they will find a way to cheat once the qualifying period is 12 weeks.
I raise another point. I find it appalling that many people who can hold down big jobs during the summer, when they
March 29, 1977

may earn perhaps $1,200 or $1,000 per month, can, once they leave a job, automatically collect unemployment insurance. That is totally against my concept of what unemployment insurance should be. I think the program was set up to be an insurance plan. It was not a plan to which one contributes and from which one withdraws one's contributions when one is not unemployed in the traditional sense. In other words, certain people contribute to the plan, and some people try to rip the plan off. It should not be this way.
I am sure the minister will agree when I suggest that there is no proper unemployment insurance counselling in many remote areas of Canada. In order to qualify for a job, even on a make-work program, you must register with a Canada Manpower centre. But it is impossible for people in remote areas such as northern Manitoba to register. I asked the minister to consider this when make-work projects in remote areas are contemplated. The criteria should take such considerations into account.
We have quite a number of make-work projects available to us. I refer to the LIP program, LEAP, the Canada Works, and Young Canada Works programs, among others. Many of these projects are governed by separate guidelines, and separate project officers are in charge of them. I draw the minister's attention to this fact, because this situation has created difficulties in the remote areas of Canada. Many communities which qualify for programs like Canada Works, Young Canada Works, and LIP are in the remote regions of the country, sometimes well over 200 flying miles from the nearest urban community. Project officers in charge of each make-work program are forced to make separate trips to these communities and the net result is that the people of the communities are not given the service they should get. They become confused as to which program any program officer may represent. All they know is that he works for the government and has money to hand out in areas of high unemployment.
In some instances unemployment runs as high as 20 per cent. If you include communities not covered by unemployment insurance statistics-I am thinking of native communities-unemployment can run between 70 per cent and 75 per cent. The increase in the qualifying period from eight to 12 weeks really will not affect certain northern communities, because many who live on reserves will not qualify for unemployment insurance. However, those who hold permanent jobs and have contributed to unemployment insurance over the years will, I am sure, welcome this type of legislation. Once the proper amendments are made to this legislation during the committee stage, I will have no problem supporting it.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate on Bill C-27, which I feel is one of the most important pieces of legislation with which we could deal as parliamentarians.
Employment and Immigration
Throughout the years, we have come to realize the serious defects which result from the totally unacceptable division between the manpower services and the unemployment insurance services. Mr. Speaker, the two objectives of this bill can easily be summarized. The first one is to integrate the Department of Manpower and Immigration with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and the second is to amend the unemployment insurance scheme. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Manpower and Immigration has developed considerably over the past few years or, I should say, over the past 15 years or.so.
It will be easily recalled that at that time, during the 60s, the vocational, employment and mobility programs and most of all the new job creation schemes like the Local Initiative, Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs did not exist. These new programs and this new policy have given a tremendous importance to the Department of Manpower. The unemployment insurance program has also taken a tremendous expansion since 1970.
Besides, in my opinion, and I say this as a government member as well as a private member, we then made an error which seems rather serious to me. We felt that it was normal that unemployment insurance benefits be granted to as many people as possible and at the highest rate possible, while forgetting that the basic objective of this unemployment insurance benefit program was to help genuinely unemployed people, those who had held a regular job and not temporary work. In any event, I will come back a little later to my comments on this second part of the unemployment insurance legislation. I would like first of all to revert to the first objective which is to join the services provided by the Department of Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Mr. Speaker, I think there is basically one main reason warranting this new integration.
I hope this integration will considerably improve some services which are, we must admit, very deficient in many cases. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think that those services can and must be improved because, first, this integration will enable us to rationalize the present system of local UIC and Department of Manpower offices. Second, I hope this integration will change most service offices into integrated centres which will provide the public with all the services of both organizations. Third, Mr. Speaker, I hope this measure will make for faster and more systematic information about available employment services. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do hope this measure will simplify the paperwork requested from the client. It is important, in my opinion, to point out that this integration will result in a unified administration and ultimately in offering under one roof services which are related.
If I may mention a case which concerns me more particularly, for it is the case of my own riding, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the constituents of Lapointe are fortunate enough to have a Canada Manpower office, but when they have unemployment insurance problems they must go to the next municipality which is at least ten miles away from my riding.
80012-4l/2

March 29, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Of course, this entails substantial disbursements which people who draw unemployment insurance benefits or who are unemployed are not able to cope with. In the constituency of Lapointe, we had an unemployment insurance and a manpower office a few years ago but owing to the centralization of unemployment insurance services and to automation, two separate offices were established. I am very happy that this bill provides for the reunification of these services not only in the same town but in the same building, which eliminates the injustice my constituents had to suffer.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that most of the time those who have employment problems also have unemployment insurance problems which cannot be solved by telephone calls. Many people communicate with UIC officials and obtain answers which in some way are not translated into facts. But when a citizen has the opportunity to meet UIC or Canada manpower officials and submit his problems to them I think the individual would be liable to obtain better service and could hopefully solve his problems in a more appropriate manner.
Mr. Speaker, I think this first objective does not meet with too much disagreement among members of the House, whatever their political stripe. I think we have come to accept that integration and harmonization of services even if it must be recognized that it is going to represent in fact perhaps an adaptation that will take a few months, if not years, and perhaps outlays for the location or the integration of services that may temporarily require outlays that could be substantial but that would be justified by the objectives sought.
Mr. Speaker, the second part of the bill generally contains more controversial aspects and I think the second aspect of the bill which concerns changes in unemployment insurance as such is also justified. I would like to say a few words about it because it is easy to take refuge in silence, to say once the bill is passed that one voted because one was on the government side because one had to follow the party line, and people often try to go and get votes on both sides of the fence, believing that the opinion of someone who tries to be on both sides is better than someone who tries to take a clear stand against a bill. I consider that as a legislator, a representative of a constituency in Canada, my first responsibility is to express my point of view on this bill and if my views at times might not to be shared by some of my voters or some of my colleagues on either side of the House, I think my colleagues will have a lot more reason to blame me for not expressing my opinion than trying to put my view before the House.
Mr. Speaker, first I think that the bill which provides for an increase in the number of weeks from eight to twelve can be justified, and I will give a few reasons of my own.
I know it is so, Mr. Speaker, because I come from a riding where the unemployment rate is substantial, much too high, unacceptable, so everyone says. But we must ask ourselves if we will solve the difficult and complex problem of high unemployment by reducing benefits.

I believe the difference between eight and 12 weeks could not affect to a considerable extent the person who is really out of work and especially those who are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. My idea of unemployment insurance and the relevant legislation may not necessarily be shared by all my colleagues but I am not reluctant to state that I think it is somewhat abusive, if not worse, for persons to work eight weeks and then draw 52 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. It is very well for the person receiving such benefits to accept them, to claim them and to resent those who are trying to take them away. But on the other hand, I must not represent only the unemployed in my riding, who are going through hard times and who need my help, I must also protect the worker who must contribute often excessive sums to unemployment insurance funds which have become totally out of proportion. It is a matter of S3 or $4 billion. It is the worker who must pay, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, as the member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) mentioned, he is indeed lucky to be working but when his salary is almost equal to the benefits of someone else who draws unemployment insurance, he does not seem as lucky, as fortunate. We must also consider the many representations made by workers who say they sympathize with the unemployed; the government must not give him money for not doing anything but rather get him a job, establish job creation programs, training programs; in other words, the government must see to the retraining and reintegration into the labour market of the person who, for some reason or another, not necessarily of his own doing, is out of a job.
I think we made a serious mistake in 1971 because under the pretext of helping those who had problems, we created more serious problems. And we realize today that instead of increasing unemployment benefits in such an extraordinary way, we should have adopted the solution we are proposing today to reallocate the funds of the Department of Manpower to the creation of new jobs, to training and to some other solutions which do not maintain unemployment but help the unemployed worker find a new job.
I admit it is a hard position to take vis-a-vis such regions as Gaspesie, the Atlantic area or even my own riding, Mr. Speaker, but given the present situation we are forced to recognize that despite the fact that idle workers generally benefited from the 1971 legislation it did not bring about valuable solutions because instead of declining the unemployment rate has a tendency to rise. In this context, I submit that as legislators we should try a different approach, always with a view to helping the worker, or rather the unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, every member in the House would recognize that in the unemployed's view, unemployment insurance is a form of social welfare he is entitled to. And since there are social help programs where the federal government and the provinces now contribute 50 per cent each, it is to be expected that, instead of using those perhaps less profitable programs,
March 29, 1977

the unemployed think of the UIC as a source of funds where they often get much more.
Mr. Speaker, we must indeed recognize that there is some basic imbalance when someone who worked for eight weeks can get UIC benefits for up to 50 weeks. Admittedly he may not be responsible for his problem in a number of cases, and society must help him. However I feel that puts quite a burden on the worker, the regularly employed, those who have to pay taxes and consider the situation as somewhat bizarre. They blame us as legislators for finding easy ways out, giving away the money we collect and telling people: Listen, we give you money, but finding jobs is too difficult. I submit the tougher alternative, the one we chose, is our commitment to create jobs. This is not easy because we have programs such as Canada Works, Young Canada Works, the LIP program. The latter has been criticized by some, but to me it is essential and must not only be maintained but increased. The money we will be able to redirect should go to make job programs in slow growth areas such as ours.
So in my view the approach we are considering, however belatedly as I said, appears to be the best. I recognize it is the most difficult and the unemployed may have some difficulty in accepting those four extra weeks, but there is nothing to prevent us from trying. Nothing prevents us from seeing how this legislation will work. There is nothing to prevent us later on from making representations to ministers if we were to find that those four weeks taken away from the unemployed caused irreparable loss, that the unemployed could not indeed find another job, and that he was in a worse situation because this legislation had been enacted. I am not saying at all, Mr. Speaker, that we should absolutely accept this law and enforce it until the end of this parliament. We are here to pass laws and introduce the necessary changes when we realize that they fall short of the aim we had in mind when we enacted them. That is why we are here. If statistics can prove to me that this law is prejudicial to people in financial need, I would be the first one to rise in the House and say: This law, Mr. Minister, does not meet our objectives. Don't listen to the bureaucrats who are saying that it should be amended. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I see this bill as a sincere and real effort by the Minister of Manpower to reintegrate these people on the labour market, to give them some motivation and a sense of work I hope they will be able to recover.
The solution proposed by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) when he speaks about work sharing projects is quite original, Mr. Speaker, because workers often tell us: You are not listening to the unemployed. Find an answer to their problem, find them work! And today, in this new legislation we are saying to the worker: You work 40 hours a week, you are protected by your union, by various considerations; you are a good employee, the employer will keep you on a 40 hour basis. Due to economic circumstances, the employer is compelled to lay off a number of workers and he will ask those who work to share with others, instead of working 40 hours a week, they will work only 30 hours and
Employment and Immigration
receive unemployment insurance benefits as a compensatory measure.
Mr. Speaker, this is true socialism which I accept. He who asks those who have more to share with those who have less instead of urging the government to spend the money it has levied from taxpayers or at least who does not rely only on the government to find a solution. I have confidence that the worker will realize that he will be able to help his unemployed workmate and find a solution to his problem. At any rate, this solution seems original to me and I think it is desirable to give it a try.
Mr. Speaker, there is also in this legislation a nonsense, if I may use that word, which will finally be eliminated. During the extended period of unemployment insurance, those who had the guts and the wit to work during four weeks were rewarded by forfeiting all unemployment insurance benefits. This was in my view a most stupid and unacceptable reward since it encouraged those who worked not to do it because they were penalized for so doing. Mr. Speaker, this amendment which would remove the penalty for those who are working for four weeks will certainly be approved unanimously by all hon. members of this House.
However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this bill is an important step, a retreat from the unemployment insurance legislation which we passed, perhaps too quickly, in 1971. I have the impression and I hope that it will establish a new balance between the worker and the unemployed and that the integration of unemployment and manpower will enable our society to benefit more from the government services which are now available and sometimes badly used.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill deserves some loyal effort on our part, and I must say to those of my colleagues who have some reservations concerning the increase in the number of weeks from eight to twelve that I will be very happy to listen to their arguments in the committee, and if they have acceptable compromise suggestions to solve this problem, which seems to be perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill, I am not saying that I will not be prepared to consider them. However, I believe that we must together look for solutions, that we shall find them and that this bill will, at least I hope so, help the population, but most importantly, that it will help find employment for the Canadians who need it, who deserve it as much as those in large centres, and I appeal to the government to find, in the short term, solutions such as Canada Works, for which the budget should be increased because, whatever some people may say, whatever the abuses that we know and deplore, those programs are really useful to the community since they bring a certain well-being to the community and, most important, give back to certain people the incentive to work before finding the permanent employment that they would like to find and that I hope we will be able to offer them as soon as possible.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, it is a special pleasure for me to take part in the debate on this bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I say that

March 29, 1977
Employment and Immigration
because 1 served on the committee in 1971 when the present act was brought into being. We argued long in committee, under the leadership of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), that what we are doing today should have been done when the act was originally drafted, namely, that the qualifying period should be 12 weeks instead of the present eight weeks. We argued that we felt it provided a disincentive to work, which in many cases over the years has proven to be true. What we advised then, it has taken the government exactly six years to learn.
Having said that, it seems to me that the timing of the introduction of these amendments to the bill we are now debating could not have been worse. Unemployment in Canada today is high enough to be a crime against humanity; some 932,000 or more people are out of work, the greatest number in the history of Canada. That figure is the equivalent of a city the size of Montreal or Toronto without anyone working. Lives are being disrupted and hopes smashed. It does not help for our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to tell students that if they cannot get a job here they should leave the country. The timing could not have been worse. While we agree with what the minister is trying to do, we think he has certainly picked a time which brings into focus all the objections that are being raised on his side of the House and on our side of the House. There are differences of opinion.
The minister is on the horns of a dilemma. He is damned if he does; he is damned if he does not. It seems to me there is a very easy way out of the minister's dilemma, that is, if he would simply agree or indicate that he is prepared to accept the principles laid out in the amendment which the hon. member for Hamilton West suggested we introduce at the proper time. He would then serve the interest of those who think the eight week period should be as it is and of those people who feel that the eight week contribution period is too short.
What did the hon. member for Hamilton West have to say? I would like to read a paragraph of his speech as reported in Hansard of February 1, 1977, when he stated the following:
So as it stands now, because of this government's insensitive and ineffective performance we feel that regional differences must be recognized not in words but in deeds. Accordingly, because of our concern and because of the lack of response by the government, I now advise the House that my party will move an amendment to clause 17. This is in general what we intend to do. We propose the following amendment:
In high unemployment regions, the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations.
-lowering from 12 weeks down to a minimum of 8 weeks the number of weeks referred to in subsection 16(1) and 17(2)(a);
-defining high unemployment regions, delineating the boundaries thereof and determining residence and eligibility within such region;
-setting a date of termination for any such regulations-
It seems to me that this is a practical, sensible solution to the minister's dilemma. This is the reason why we in our party are sensitive to the very wide variations in economic conditions across this country of ours. To say there must be one hard and fast set of regulations or an act of parliament, or a section of

an act, to apply rigidly throughout Canada, just does not make any sense. We are trying to argue that for those people who need it, let us make it available to them in the way it should be made available.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: There is a necessity for unemployment insurance. Nobody can argue against that. In today's world it prevents much of the hardship that would otherwise fall on the person who loses his or her job. However, I am concerned that the program should not be of such a magnitude that it becomes an undue financial burden on the nation. It seems to me that is exactly what it is becoming. Therefore it becomes self-defeating in terms of employment. I am concerned that it should not become a disincentive to work program. Neither can it be denied that the unemployment insurance program brings relief to municipalities which otherwise would be paying out large sums in welfare payments to keep those people who have no means of earning an income. The then minister of manpower and immigration who at that time piloted this bill through the House, the honourable Bryce Mackasey, argued that, and we agreed it would certainly help.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't mention his name.


William David Knowles: We must not lose sight of the fact that unemployment insurance is not a welfare program. As the hon, member who preceded me said, so many people have a misunderstanding of what unemployment insurance is. They feel it is a government annuity, that because you pay into it, therefore somewhere down the line you are entitled to withdraw from it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A good point, Sir.


William David Knowles: That is not the case at all. It is this misunderstanding that has led to a lot of the difficulties with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Another good point the minister is introducing in this amendment is the remarrying of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Another one of our policies.


William David Knowles: That is right. That is another one of our policies, as the hon. member for Hamilton West says. They should never have been separated in the first place. The original act was administered in this very way. This enabled Manpower centres to keep track of those people who were drawing welfare. At that point in time they came to the Manpower centres to pick up their unemployment insurance cheques. If there was a job for them to do, they certainly did not receive their cheques. They took the job or went without unemployment insurance. It seems to me that the minister should look very seriously at reinstituting some such program, especially in urban centres or in rural areas where the density of population warrants it.
March 29, 1977

He should look into instituting a program of distributing unemployment insurance cheques through the Manpower centres as they once did. That may not be an efficient way of doing it, but it would be a way of policing the program. Do not tell me that it does not work. At the time of the mail strike several months ago when the mails were not moving and the unemployment insurance cheques were not getting out, the cheques were delivered to the Manpower centres in various towns and municipalities across the country. They were distributed to the people. They came and picked them up. Another important aspect which came to light at that time was that there were a lot of so-called unemployed who did not come to pick up their cheques. I have a strong suspicion that they were the ones who certainly did not deserve them.
The present program and the regulations under which it operates lack something in efficiency. It employs many, many hundreds of public servants who are doing an excellent job. I have no quarrel with any unemployment insurance officer. When I go to them with a problem, if it is reasonable they listen to me and try to help me out.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Unlike the minister.


William David Knowles: I would not say that. The minister is a good fellow. He is a good friend of mine. As I said, he is on the horns of a dilemma here. I have pointed a way out of that dilemma. I hope the minister takes note of the amendment we are suggesting. While there are hundreds of people doing the work that I have mentioned, there also are over 260 members of parliament, as well as their staffs, to make this program work. I do not know how many times over the years we are plagued to death with people coming into our constituency offices or writing to us or phoning us with unemployment insurance problems. It is time to look at the way the regulations and the administrative procedures are set up. We are acting as ombudsmen for the program.
There are many examples of discrimination in the program. I do not know how to correct them. It is not my job to find out the way, but I will point out some of the things that are wrong about it. Often I find two people doing the same kind of work-working for the same farmer in this instance-who are laid off at the same time. Both apply for unemployment insurance. One draws it without any question, but the other one is called in for an interview and there is some excuse found for disentitling that person. It is most frustrating to try to explain why one draws it under the same conditions while the other is denied benefits. I do not know what the answer is, whether it is a more solid administrative program, but that is what is happening.
The appeal procedures require some changes. 1 am pleased to see that claimants now have a right to appeal to the umpire, regardless of the number of the board of referees who rule against the claimant. As it now stands, if there is a unanimous decision to withhold unemployment insurance, that person has no right to appeal to the umpire. Under the bill that is to be changed, and that is good.
Employment and Immigration
I want to draw to the minister's attention and to the attention of his officials the case of a young woman living in Cayuga by the name of Mary Termorshuizen. She appealed her case and went to the board of referees. She was given only five minutes' time before the board to state her case. As a matter of fact she was given no opportunity to make a statement and no opportunity to ask questions of the board of referees as to why the insurance officer made the decision in the way he did. In this case the lady in question had her employer agree to come to make representation on her behalf. The date had to be changed. The employer was not informed of the change of date and, as a result, was not able to support her before the board of referees. She was exceedingly frustrated and terribly upset by the offhand manner in which her case was heard by the board of referees.
One other point that has arisen and has been drawn to my attention many times is with regard to the sickness benefit claim. It seems that when the sickness benefit claim is established first, it continues to run continuously until it expires, whether or not the claimant draws on it. I have heard of instances of claimants being sick, having a doctor's certificate and filing for unemployment insurance. One claimant received payments for two or three weeks, whatever it may have been. When she felt better, the doctor allowed her to go back to work, but he warned her that her illness might flare up again and she might have problems. In fact a month or two later she was sick again and had to be hospitalized. She was off work for a considerable period of time. Later she was most frustrated to find that her claim had expired, even though she did not draw on it continuously since her first sickness. I wrote to the minister about it and I understand his officials realize that this is an injustice that should be corrected. I sincerely hope it will be.
Now I want to draw to the minister's attention some of the strange disentitlement procedures to which my attention has been drawn from time to time. First of all, there is a group of people who are of a certain age at which they find it most difficult to find work, people in their fifties and sixties.
I have a letter here from a lady who lives in Delhi, Mrs. Elizabeth Kora. She is 59 years old. She has been told that she must go out and hunt for work each day or make so many searches a week or a month, which she does. But in no way will anybody hire a woman who is 59 years old. It is ridiculous even to ask for this in the first place. However, she fulfils the conditions, and yet they say she is not looking for work seriously enough and she does not qualify. This has happened to her for four successive years. Each time this person is harassed by the UIC people and told she is not looking for work seriously. I do not know on what basis these people are sought out to be investigated. I will return to that later. This is one area where I think the program should be reviewed. 1 am referring to the method of disentitlement.
Another class of people who are having difficulty drawing benefits and keeping their claims active are people who drive

March 29, 1977
Employment and Immigration
school buses. They are in a special category. They work during the school year, but when the school is on holidays, they do not work. Because they have been paying into the plan, they file for unemployment insurance benefits. Like everybody else, they must make a search for work. But who will give work to a school bus driver who, they know, in two months time will be back on the job driving the school bus? So I wonder whether or not these people should be forced to pay into a plan when they have no hope of collecting from it. Should there not be some means by which they might draw minimal benefits for a certain number of weeks?
Another matter that concerns me is retroactive disentitle-ment. I am referring to claimants who file for benefits, draw benefits, and then suddenly receive a letter saying, "Sorry, you are disentitled" after having been interviewed and it having been found that they were not looking for work or are disentitled for some other reason. These people are often disentitled not at the time when they were discovered to be not looking for work but retroactively, starting a month or two before then. The claimant then finds that not only is she not receiving the benefit but she is being asked to pay back benefits that she had received until that time. It seems to me that there is something the matter with a system that does that. I can go along with a program that disentitles a person for proper reasons, but to disentitle a person retroactively does not make sense because in all that time the cheques have been drawn in good faith, cashed, and spent, and the person has no funds from which to make the repayment.
Another group of people who require special attention are those who work seasonally in agriculture. They are disentitled most often. They are on their own. They have no union to represent their complaints and to plead their case before the insurance officer. They are easy to disentitle. Many of the same persons in this kind of work are disentitled year after year while, as I pointed out earlier, their co-worker on the job draws benefits without any questions being asked. It is discouraging, to say the least, and many people leave or refuse to take seasonal agricultural work because of the difficulty they have in collecting unemployment insurance and because they are forced to pay into the fund in any case. As a result, that type of worker is rapidly disappearing as a source of labour to harvest farm crops.
I suggest to the minister that we revert to a procedure which was used under the old act under which there was an opting out provision. The worker had the privilege of signing a paper saying that he or she did not wish to make contributions and therefore to draw benefits. All they needed was to sign the paper and the privilege was granted. Believe me, that could remove a lot of headaches and problems for the unemployment insurance program which arise in the area that I represent. I have mentioned this problem before in other speeches in the House, and I have spoken to the minister and to his parliamentary secretary. It seems to me it is worth considering, especially in the case of temporary employment.
I wonder also what directives are sent down through the pipeline to the unemployment insurance officer regarding the

disentitlement of certain people. How is person A selected for disentitlement while person B doing the same job is not? Is it done on a random basis? How do they select those people? When it happens to the same person year after year, as I pointed out in my example a few minutes ago, it becomes frustrating and most difficult to understand. How are claimants selected for investigation?
Before concluding I should like to suggest most strongly to the minister that certain trades, professions or occupations be given special treatment under the act. I refer this time to fishermen. I have colleagues in the House who come from the east and west coasts of this country. I, however, represent a fairly extensive freshwater fishing industry. Fishermen in my area can only fish during a certain time of the year, and they have difficulty qualifying for unemployment insurance under the rigid rules of the present program. At the time the act was passed in 1971 the then minister showed us that consideration was being given to a special type of program tailored to meet the fishing occupation. I ask the minister now whether consideration is still being given to that matter, and why in the world this program has not been implemented after six long years? It seems to me that the proposal should be resurrected and considered to see if we cannot put it into effect because some of these people are suffering.
I began my speech by condemning the unfortunate timing of this bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act when unemployment is so high and the cost of the unemployment insurance program is ruining the country because of the extensive amounts of money that have to be put in the fund from the public purse. It is simply not actuarially sound. The fact is that too many people are not able to find work and, as has been said over and over again in the House, the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the government.
Those are some of the thoughts I have on the program, and I sincerely hope that the minister and his officials will pay some attention to the complaints I have registered with respect to the disentitlement procedures.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate on a bill that could have important repercussions on our economy as it will affect many people. This bill contains some positive aspects, and in the five or six minutes that are left to me tonight I would like first to deal with the positive aspects of the bill and tomorrow, or the next time the bill will be debated, I shall mention some effects that some provisions of the bi|l could have on a sector of the population in slow development areas with a high unemployment rate.
Of course, the most positive aspect of the bill is the integration of Canada Manpower services and unemployment insurance offices. I think this integration is essential to any radical change in the administrative structure of unemployment insurance. I think that what we are trying to correct and to re-establish in the unemployment insurance system is the
March 29, 1977

credibility of the program. The minister mentioned it several times and I must say that when we talk about restoring balance between what is paid into the unemployment insurance fund and allowances paid by the program, it seems sound in principle, but when you want to put it into practice you realize that there are some distortions and there might be bad effects in some areas of the country.
But I consider that the integration of those two services might be the basis of any important reform. I think that to re-establish a balance between the amount paid in unemployment insurance premiums and the benefits paid under the program, in other words, if we want to re-establish the credibility of the system, we shall not do it by eliminating people from the rolls or changing the qualifying period or the benefit structure. What happened in 1971 when the two programs were amalgamated is that we could not issue the cheques.
And since it is a complex program dealing with a great number of people, the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in 1971 and at the beginning of 1972 was standing on the defensive before public opinion, because there were some obvious cases in the country, in some areas, especially in my constituency where some nasty demonstrations took place because some people had to wait two or three months for an unemployment insurance cheque.
An effort was made to have a much more effective delivery of cheques and services to customers. What happened is that by making unemployment insurance effective, some extraordinary cases of abuse were made possible and not only abuse but also misuse. In other words, the program is misused. The employers as well as the unemployed or workers are responsible. I say that anyone living in an area such as mine knows that not only since 1971 but for a long time the unemployment insurance program had given rise to abuses by employers and employees from a theoretical point of view. I shall return later on during my speech to what I think generally, that this scheme is not more abused than others where public and private moneys are also involved. But while trying to improve the scheme, we have made it easier for those who want to abuse it. There has been a progression and a multiplication of efforts, so that we must now deal with an entirely new clientele which depends on unemployment insurance benefits.
This clientele includes a number of people who I feel have a legitimate right to receive these benefits, at least in the sense that they are needy. The fact that they are needy is not too serious, provided they can get public money. This clientele includes also a group of people who could have been otherwise integrated into the labour force but who, because of a program such as the unemployment insurance program, together with the other social legislation which was introduced in the late sixties and early seventies, have found it impossible to secure stable employment within far away communities and regions.
But whatever happened, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to go back to 1971, we are in 1977, and when we have given something to certain people and we try to take it back, this has political and sociological consequences that should be closely examined. And in my opinion, the major problem of unem-
Adjournment Debate
ployment insurance at the present time is one of credibility, and I am ready to say that such a problem exists, even in high unemployment regions like my own. People see the program as a means which can allow people who do not want to work to depend on the public for their living. But the problem is administrative, not only in the sense that we should change something here and there, but also that we need a radical change in the whole administrative structure of unemployment insurance. This is why I believe that Bill C-27, at least in the sense that it aims at integrating both services, is important, because in my opinion, we would need, in specific manpower areas, an employment catalogue which would be up to date, perhaps with a review every two or three months, to show the claimants when they come to ask for unemployment insurance benefits. There is no reason not to have a system telling us immediately whether or not there is employment in that area. There is no reason for not having invented until now a sensitive and humane administration which could tell the claimant as soon as possible: We think that there are jobs available in the sort of work you do. We are close to such a system with the administrative changes made about two years ago. The bill will be helpful if we want to go further in this direction. Mr. Speaker, I note that it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is by preventive medicine and proper health care that the economic burden of illness will be lightened, and the tragedy and waste of disease and death reduced. In the past, federal governments have taken courageous initiatives and demonstrated wise leadership in sponsoring ambitious programs and projects in the field of health care, and recently the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has professed the importance of preventive medicine to fight disease and its high costs.
In the effort to practice preventive medicine various immunizing agents and biological products play a very important role. The increase of favourable results in protecting the health of Canadians and others, and in practising good preventive medicine by providing effective, reliable, and sufficient quantities of immunizing agents and biologicals was in great measure thanks to the great work done at the Connaught Laboratories of the University of Toronto. For many of us who had the privilege of studying medicine at that university, our visits and lectures at Connaught were particularly edifying experience, especially when we observed at work the dedicated scientific

March 29, 1977
Adjournment Debate
staff and learned about their many discoveries which contributed so greatly to the protection of health and the fight against disease. Tonight I should like to pay tribute from this place to the dedicated staff and the wise administrators of Connaught Laboratories.
Connaught's history reveals that close co-operation with government produced benefits at all times, not only to the institution but also to Canadians in need. Understanding and co-operation brought excellent results. Unfortunately, since Connaught Laboratories was purchased in 1972 by the Canada Development Corporation, the supply of biologicals in Canada has been found deficient.
As stated by a special committee of the Canadian Medical Association studying the plight of Connaught, the awareness of the dichotomy of purpose which occurs when profits are sought from a purely "biologicals" facility is of major importance. It is a shame and a tragedy for Connaught and for Canada that today health ministries of our country have to turn to foreign suppliers for necessary biological products, whereas in the past Connaught has supplied not only Canada but the world with many necessary biologicals.
Today Connaught has not only failed to make profits for the Canada Development Corporation's shareholders but also is unable to provide Canada with necessary biologicals and many immunizing agents, especially in emergencies. The provincial and federal governments, professing their commitment to preventive medicine, must come to realize the urgent need to provide our country with a self-sufficient biological industry. This, Mr. Speaker, is a national need and not just luxury.
I would therefore like to hear this evening from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McRae) whether the minister has already made a study of the special report of the Canadian Medical Association committee recommendation that more funds be made available for research and development for a biological industry, especially for Connaught, and that the motive of profitability not be a priority with the CDC which today controls Connaught Laboratories.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member in his support of Connaught Laboratories. As Canadians I think we should all feel a great deal of pride in Connaught and be pleased that the Canadian Medical Association report gave them a good bill of health. The report has been studied in a great deal of detail. I refer particularly to the three national recommendations made by this special committee. It is the general tenor of the recommendations that the government should underwrite the cost of producing biologicals which are essential but which may be financially unprofitable, and that it should also undertake the stockpiling of these items. The recommendations require extensive analysis because of potential long-term impact on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector which up

to now has been allowed to function in a free market environment.
The federal government has on a number of occasions acted to support the biological industry. For example, the federal government has instituted export controls on beef pancreas glands to insure that Canadian supplies of insulin are available for the production of pharmaceutical products like insulin which are essential for Canadian public needs. The federal government also has programs in which industrial firms producing biologicals are eligible for financial assistance from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and additionally the federal government has worked with provincial governments in developing programs to promote an indigenous biologicals industry by undertaking preferential purchasing policies.
The federal government has also undertaken a health care sector study in which the role of the manufacturers of biologicals will be examined in some depth. Our department has been working closely with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on this study which, it is expected, would form a thorough base for the development of long range policies governing the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector. In addition, our officials have been requested to examine the report with a view to determining if there is a need to undertake any more immediate short-term action in order to maintain and foster an indigenous capability to produce biologicals.
One should recognize that the federal government is not a major user of biologicals such as vaccines and that any proposals developed could require extensive consultation with provinces which utilize vaccines in their preventive health programs and may elect to pursue independent policies.
The CMA report also contains recommendations relating to the bureau of biologies and the need to increase staff for the purpose of undertaking both inspection and research. The federal government has recognized the need to maintain regulatory controls over biological products, and in both 1976 and 1977 additional man-years were granted by the Treasury Board for this important function. There have been in addition internal transfers to bolster the biologies control programs. Thus, significant strides toward meeting the concerns of the CMA committee have already been undertaken, and biologies control will continue to receive a high priority in subsequent years. I will of course be pleased to announce any further developments concerning government policies relating to the biologies industry when our studies are completed.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-REASON FOR FAILURE TO CREATE NUMBER OF JOBS PREDICTED IN LAST BUDGET AND INCREASE IN IMPLICIT PRICE INDEX
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I put two simple questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on March 15. I asked first why, the minister having predicted, as reported in Hansard, during his May 25 budget speech last year that 250,000 jobs would be created, were so few actually produced? In the same budget the minister indicated that inflation, based on the implicit price index,
March 29, 1977

would be at 9 per cent in 1976, whereas it actually turned out to be 9.3 per cent, notwithstanding the government's so-called anti-inflation program which included controls. Second, 1 asked why the increase in the implicit price index, not the CPI, should have occurred when growth was disappointingly slow, as reflected by the poor employment record of this administration? As a rule, if the government fouls up growth in the economy, it can at least boast that inflation is lower. But this bunch of amateurs have combined increasing unemployment with rising prices.
When the Minister of Finance introduced the May budget, we challenged the government's inadequate job creation projections and pointed out that a goal of 250,000 new jobs was no goal at all, considering that there were 350,000 known new entrants to the labour force last year. At that time, on May 27 last year, as reported at page 13,898 of Hansard we predicted, and I quote:
... that the government is following a budgetary policy which may well add 50,000 more people to the unemployment rolls which are already at the highest level of the last 15 years.
That was last May. Today we know that one million Canadians are out of work, the actual number of new jobs created was less than 50 per cent of those anticipated, and prospects of the jobless for finding work grow dimmer day by day. Why, Mr. Speaker?
The government is fond of blaming external circumstances, international conditions, for its problems at home. We are told that the reason for our soaring unemployment and disappointing levels of job creation is the economic slowdown common to all OECD nations. On the other hand, it says that those very same countries are causing Canada's inflation. That is utter balderdash. Just look at the facts.
Take the United States, for example, the biggest of the OECD countries and our main trading partner. Last year their gross national product increased in real terms by 6.3 per cent, compared with our paltry 4.6 per cent. The Conference Board in the current year predicts that the American increase in terms of real growth will be 4.8 per cent, compared to Canada's increase of 2.9 per cent. Also, consider inflation. Last year the American implicit price index went up a mere 5.1 per cent, as compared with the 9.3 per cent in Canada, the increase to which I just referred. In the current year, according to Conference Board projections, the Canadian over-all inflation rate will be 7.2 per cent, compared with the American rate of 5.3 per cent.
Let us consider the most important question of unemployment. The Conference Board anticipates that in the current year average unemployment in this country will be at 7.9 per cent, as compared with the anticipated American unemployment rate of 7.1 per cent. The United States not only has less national unemployment than in this country, but less regional unemployment. In our eastern provinces we have levels of almost 10 per cent to almost 15 per cent. However, when we compare the New England states to the eastern provinces in this country, we find that the New England states have sustained consistently lower unemployment rates than their
Adjournment Debate
counterparts in Canada. Even if slow growth was international, the response to that slowdown is a matter of domestic responsibility.
One of the New England states, New Hampshire, is sustaining an unemployment rate in the 3 per cent range, well below that of our eastern provinces, including Quebec which has an unemployment level of almost 10 per cent. Surely this proves that government's response to external or other pressures does in truth make a difference, contrary to what the Minister of Finance may claim.
New Hampshire is a state that is noted for its tight fisted control over government spending, low taxes, reasonable labour costs, and a hospitable climate for business, not hostile as we have developed in this country under the Trudeau administration. The result is jobs for their residents, not people walking the streets without jobs and a UIC cost of $4 billion to $5 billion per year such as we have in this country.
Why have we not done better? Is it really because of so-called international phenomena over which we apparently have no control, or is it because we simply have not taken the right steps at home? It would appear really to be because this administration has adopted fiscal and financial policies which have put a stranglehold on the economy, weakened confidence, and penalized economic expansion, with the resultant high unemployment.
This brings us to the second question. Why has our implicit price index for 1976 risen to 9.3 per cent despite the efforts of the AIB and the other so-called anti-inflation programs? Again we find that we have fared much worse than our neighbours. The GNP deflator, a more all-encompassing index of price movements through our economy, is nearly twice as high as it is in the United States, which has no controls. I ask the same question again: why?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has of course enlarged his question considerably. I wish to make just one or two points. The hon. member realizes that even though there was a better growth factor in the American economy last year, for the past three years the Canadian economy has shown better growth rates. Taking it all together, Canada's performance is better.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not true.


Paul Edmund McRae: The hon. member had his seven minutes. I would like my turn. The hon. member said there are 112,000 more jobs between end of February and end of February. The minister did not say what the figures were end of February to end of February. He talked about the average growth of jobs in the economy between the year 1975 and the year 1976.
In the year 1976, the average employed was 9,572,000. In the year 1975 it was 9,363,000, a difference of 209,000, not 112,000. In other words we go from 44 to 84 per cent. That is

March 29, 1977
Adjournment Debate
not a bad performance considering three or four factors that were involved. Export demand was definitely down.
Rather than refer to all OECD countries, the hon. member chose the United States. The expected rate of growth in the OECD countries did not materialize, and remember we are not talking about the difference of 112,000 and 250,000 but 209,000 and 250,000.
The second problem the hon. member constantly has referred to was that government spending was a great factor in our inflation. One of the factors that resulted in somewhat decreased business activities was a cutback in government expenditures that resulted in the cutback in purchases of goods and services, as well as unemployment. The third matter had to do with activities in the business community, particularly in the third quarter of 1976 when there was a significant number of strikes in the construction area.
The point that offset these three factors was the fact that consumer demand was well maintained throughout this whole period. That says something about our internal economy.


INDUSTRY-LEARSTAR JET PROGRAM-NUMBER OF ORDERS FINANCED BY CANADIAN EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question as reported at page 3572 of Hansard was only part of an opposition attempt to find out the details of the actions taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) concerning the government's purchase of Canadair, its subsequent venture into the manufacture of executive jet planes and the conclusion of sales agreements for such planes.
During the short history of this Lear jet venture the minister has established a pattern of obfuscation and deception which I particularly regret because I have had a high personal regard for the hon. gentlemen up until these recent events. The story started on October 18 last when the minister answered a question of mine, as reported at page 142 of Hansard, concerning the intentions of the government in this matter, by saying:
We have taken no decision yet concerning this proposition which seems extremely interesting and which does not require direct financial intervention by the government.
On November 19, in a semantic dodge, the government, according to an answer given me by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), had guaranteed a loan of $50 million to Canadair although the question of security for the loan was left unanswered. His words were:
The government decided to make this commitment to guarantee in order to stimulate what we think would be a beneficial venture for Canadair and Canada.
Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce began to get a little careless with the truth. In a speech to the House on February 10, reported on page 2934 of Hansard, he first misled the House by saying, with reference to the Lear jet contract:
Some people felt I was taking a gamble going into that. I remember replying to some questions in this House. I stated that the prospects were not too bad and that I thought we had a good chance of selling 25, 26 or 27.
As I could find no evidence in Hansard to support the fiction of this quotation, I asked him on February 15, having given him notice:
Could he now inform me as to when he made the remarks he claims to have made? The alternative for me will be to assume that he was indulging in witless boasting last Thursday and has attempted to mislead the House.
Not having the parliamentary courage or courtesy to admit an honest mistake, the minister indulged in obfuscation. His answer was:
To be exact, it was on November 2 in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. But I did not say then that we had 25, 26 or 27. I was right when I said it was 53.
The truth of the matter, of course, was that on February 10, as reported at page 2934 he had, wittirlgly or unwittingly, misled the House.
On February 15 he not only tried to conceal his misleading of the House but gratuitously offered another untruth, to wit:
... we have already had over 65 orders, and in his intervention of October 18 he said the program was stupid.
He was referring to me at that time.
For a stupid program, I think we have been quite successful.
Neither in my intervention of October 18 nor on any other occasion did I use the words he ascribed to me. A careful examination of my intervention of October 18 would show that the unkindest thing I said then was:
If the cabinet is softheaded enough to approve this funding, can the minister assure the House that he will, first, bring forward supplementary estimates for debate to cover the provision of the funds...
There is no reference there to the program being stupid. To call this government softheaded in business affairs is not even unusual, considering that this is a government which counts it as an example of shrewdness when it only loses $25 million on a reactor deal, or that this is a government which pays agents up to $20 million without knowing who they are or what they do, or that this is a government which, in the Lockheed LRPA deal, showed its maladroitness by continual dickering until it managed to drive the price of the plane up $60 million and get less aircraft for the money. So it is really a truism to apply the word "softheaded" to this government.
The minister has refused to admit his self-evidently misleading statements in the House while ascribing to a member a remark which was never made. As to the financing of Canadair and the LearStar jet 600, we now know that in this deal, one in which there was to be no direct financial intervention on the part of the administration, the government has paid $38 million for Canadair. It has guaranteed a loan of $50 million to Canadair with no security, and it has guaranteed some $114 million to Federal Express, an American would-be purchaser. So we finally have a taxpayer involvement to the tune of $200 million where there was to be no direct financial involvement. That, coincidentally, is the amount I mentioned at the start of all this on October 18.

March 29, 1977

I think it is time that the minister reverted to his former habits, stopped this ill-suited deception and obfuscation, and gave us some straight answers about the current status of the Lear jet deal.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I might mention in commencing that Canadair has done rather well with this aircraft. There are now 71 orders for it, and another 15 are expected shortly.
The Crown purchased Canadair Limited from its United States parent, General Dynamics Corporation, by exercising an option which had previously been negotiated recognizing a purchase price of $38 million. This payment was made for all notes and shares and was established following a lengthy assessment of the value placed on assets. The sale was closed on January 5, 1976.
The acquisition of Canadair was made at the time that it was decided to proceed with the long range patrol aircraft, a program significant to Canadair on account of the substantial manufacturing offsets which had been negotiated on its behalf. The occasion was therefore seen as a timely one to continue the measures to restructure the Canadian aerospace industry, and followed the earlier purchase of the only other primary airframe manufacturer in Canada the de Havilland company of Toronto.
With these expectations of significantly improved business, the Canadair management took initiatives in seeking a suitable aircraft development program which would exploit more fully the company's potential in design, development, and production. On April 1, 1976, Canadair entered into an option agreement with Mr. William Lear, the designer of many internationally successful products including the Lear jet series of business aircraft. Under the terms of the ensuing agreement, Canadair acquired all the Lear rights and interests in a new multi-purpose business jet identified as the LearStar 600.
Exercise of the option with Lear was made following government approval on November 1, 1976. During the intervening period Canadair had undertaken three fundamental tasks; first, to accumulate sufficient design and engineering research data to define and verify the predicted technical performance
Adjournment Debate
of the aircraft; second, to secure a number of firm sales orders sufficient to justify the launching of the program; and third, to establish the basis upon which the program would be financed.
The Canadair CL-600 Challenger is a twin-engined, multipurpose jet transport aircraft of advanced design. It features a supercritical wing combined with high bypass ratio, turbo fan engines, and a wide body fuselage. This provides for a unique combination of speed, range, fuel economy, payload potential, and passenger comfort, collectively superior to all competing business jets in this class.
Design and development activities are now fully under way at Canadair. Key equipment suppliers have been identified and firm agreements are in place for the initial phase of production. Aerodynamic tests are proceeding satisfactorily and results to date, including those from work conducted in U.S. facilities and subject to independent verification, are confirming the final configuration of the aircraft. A well established market exists for business jets, and expand:ng sales continue to be in evidence even during a period of economic recession. As I have said, Canadair now has firm orders for 71 of these aircraft, with prospects for a further 15.
A recently concluded purchase agreement by Federal Express, a U.S. express cargo carrier, provides for the purchase of 25 cargo version CL-600 Challengers. The value of this order is $131 million, and financing for up to $118 million was approved by the Export Development Corporation during December, 1976.
The Crown is guaranteeing $50 million of the required $128 million debt financing estimated as the peak exposure during the program. Of the balance of $78 million, $20 million is being guaranteed by the Quebec government and the remainder is secured as a pledge on all the company assets. The money is being provided by the Canadian Bank of Commerce and the Provincial Bank of Commerce and the Provincial Bank of Canada in an 80-20 ratio.
Steps are also being taken to reduce the level of risk and financing to be borne by seeking a foreign partner in the program to an approximate level of 20 per cent participation. Air Italia has emerged as the most promising prospect, and has approved an agreement in principle with Canadair as a basis for establishing the program sharing arrangements.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Wednesday, March 30, 1977