1977-02-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Waiter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which I hope will meet with the approval of all members of the House in view of its subject matter. In view of the government's desire to distribute material which will promote pride in Canada's traditions and history, as shown by the decision of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) to expand the flag program to allow every member of parliament to distribute free 50 large Canadian flags, 200 small ones and 500 lapel pins, and in view of the importance to Canada's political and legal heritage of the concept of a Bill of Rights, I move, seconded by my distinguished seatmate the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That in the opinion of this House the Department of Supply and Services should continue to supply the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) with free 18-inch by 24-inch copies of the Canadian Bill of Rights for distribution to Canadian institutions and citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation of such a motion for debate cannot be done without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: Ron Basford said no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD EFFECT OF BOARD DECISION ON PAY OF FLOUR MILL EMPLOYEES ON CONSUMERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the serious situation which has developed in the province of
Quebec over the non-delivery of bread. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

That this House express its strong disapproval of the decision made by the Anti-Inflation Board to cancel the agreement between Quebec flourmills and their employees, because as a result of that decision many stores can no longer offer bread to Quebec consumers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[DOT] (mo)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity related to imminent criminal proceedings in the U.S.S.R. against Professor Nahun Salansky-I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could ask the House to be quiet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South will realize that the difficulty is caused just as much by those who are close to him as by those who are far away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Realizing that the difficulty was coming from both sides, I felt it appropriate that Your Honour should intervene.
I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity related to imminent criminal proceedings in the U.S.S.R. against Professor Nahun Salansky, an internationally respected Soviet scientist who desires to emigrate to Israel. In view of the fact that a letter to the Ambassador of the U.S.S.R. from myself concerning Professor Salansky was delivered in Ottawa on January 31, 1977, but has been neither acknowledged nor answered, I
2962

February 11, 1977
Bank Interest
move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That this House request the Secretary of State for External Affairs to immediately ask the Ambassador of the U.S.S.R. in Canada to respond to the said letter and to inform the government of Canada what action, if any, the government of the U.S.S.R. is prepared to take to review the circumstances under which Professor Salansky and his wife and son are presently denied permission to emigrate to Israel.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As this House is no doubt aware, thousands of volunteers across this country have designated next week as Canada Food Week to discuss the related issues of food and agriculture. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the government contribute to the discussion by making public its plans for a comprehensive food policy that will include recognition of the importance of agriculture to the Canadian economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, having been successful in getting the House to support a motion of mine under Standing Order 43 yesterday, I hope it will happen again today.


Mr. Dionne:: I was not here yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member identifies himself as Mr. No. In view of the blackmail threatened by the Canadian Bankers Association in its assertion as to the steps the 12 chartered banks it represents will take if

they are required by law to calculate interest every day and credit their customers every month, and in view of the fact that this threat represents obvious collusion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs be urged to launch an immediate investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into the collusion of the chartered banks in their threat against certain provisions of the proposed Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The other day in the House I directed a question to the minister about the government's inflation targets for 1977. At that time the minister stated that his hopes of achieving their targets, and I think I quote him, were tempered by some of the difficulties of the economic situation. Since we now have a CPI increase of almost one per cent in January, the largest jump in some 13 or 14 months, is the minister prepared to give the country and the House some clear indication of the inflation targets for 1977 of the government of Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that on the year-over-year basis, the rate is at 6.1 per cent. As I indicated in my speech yesterday, and have on many previous occasions, we would anticipate that through 1977 there may be some increase in the consumer price index, but we are confident that we can bring that level down to the target which has been set out for some 15 months of 6 per cent by the end of 1977.1 have to say that the prospects of getting below the 6 per cent rate in the current calendar year are difficult, but of course that does remain a target. We anticipate that there will be some increase in food prices, and other price elements in the consumer price index will not be coming down as quickly. But the target, which I have stated a number of times, of 6 per cent by the end of 1977 remains attainable, and depending on economic circumstances we are still hopeful we might go below that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, clearly one of the factors upon which that will depend is government policy. Will the minister give the House some indication of when we can expect to have a budget from the government, and if it will not be in the next
February 11, 1977

two to three weeks, will he tell us why he is delaying the introduction of a budget in a period when the CPI is going up, when unemployment is going up, and when the controls regime is clearly forcing a diversion of investment out of the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that the last comment is without substantial foundation whatsoever. The government has indicated very strongly its policy with regard to inflation, that is to restrain the increase of expenditure at the public level, in support of the Bank of Canada to restrain the growth of the monetary mass in Canada, and, above all, to maintain the program of controls for the purpose of bringing down the increases in the consumer price index. I am now in the process of preparation and am indeed in pre-budget consultation and I will be indicating to the House, probably within a couple of weeks, the time in the next several months when we propose to make a budget presentation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Did I understand the minister correctly to say that part of the program of the government is to maintain the controls, and if that is what the minister said, can he give the House some indication of how long the government intends to maintain the program of controls and when we might have a specific indication in that regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have responded extensively on this point. The intention would be to maintain the controls for the year 1977, unless we can expect from major decision makers in the economy some strong commitment and support to restrain the kind of inflationary increases which might occur if the control program were taken off prematurely. This is the statement I have made on a number of occasions both in and out of the House.


REASON FOR PERMITTING GROWTH IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES-REASON FOR FAILURE TO REDUCE SALES TAX
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. As the minister has indicated that it is government policy to restrain spending at the government level, which this week was indicated to be up again by 11 per cent in the coming fiscal year, would the minister indicate, if his target of a 6 per cent inflation in the current year is to be met with a real growth at 3.5 per cent, why is government spending contemplated to go up by 11 per cent, which would appear to be 1.5 per cent greater than the growth in the GNP?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have systematically set for ourselves a program over a period of time to reduce the percentage of the GNP that the government of Canada takes. I expect we will meet the target for the fiscal year 1976-77. We have set a lower target for 1977-78 and we expect to be able to meet it. Obviously, economic circumstances may vary within a year. It is important in expenditure planning to have longer term targets and systematic planning.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is again for the Minister of Finance. As a reduction in the federal sales tax would be
Oral Questions
clearly deflationary in that this tax, being placed at the manufacturers level, triggers a pyramid of price increases, and in view of the fact that the tax is one of the most regressive of all taxes, hitting the poor relatively more than higher income people, would the minister indicate why his department has been so reluctant to reduce this tax?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman may not be aware that the manufacturers' level sales tax is not applicable on very many of the basic commodities which make up the demands of Canadians, and I am referring here to food, clothing and other articles. The manufacturers' level sales tax is applied very substantially elsewhere throughout the economy, as I indicated in the budget debate. If I recall the figures,
I think to eliminate the manufacturers' level sales tax would require the equivalent of a 25 per cent increase in personal income tax.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Or cut your spending.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman says we should cut spending. Presumably, he would advocate a greater increase in unemployment, which is something we would not like to have at this time.


REASON FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES RATES OF INFLATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister referred to the current CPI figure in Canada. Would he indicate why, with controls, we are not doing as well in controlling inflation in Canada as they are in the United States without controls, where the over-all price increase based on total expenditures is 4.8 per cent compared with the 9 per cent increase in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman will recognize, I hope, that contrary to what has been said at some points, the controls program has not been restrictive in Canada, particularly on the wage side. The goal is to bring the rate of inflation down slowly. We have succeeded in doing so to this point without having to go to the levels of recession to which the United States' economy went several years ago.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They have less unemployment than we do.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member is recommending for the Canadian economy a 6 per cent recession, as the American economy had, then I think hon. members would wonder about his judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 11, 1977
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF FOOD POLICY AND ACTION TO DEAL WITH ITEMS RELATED TO FOOD PRODUCTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since the major reason for the increase in the consumer price index is the 1.2 per cent increase in the cost of food, including almost all food items, and since the cabinet received a recommendation, I understand, from its D.M.10 group at a cabinet meeting which took place in the first week of June last year that the government should prepare a comprehensive national food policy, I would like to ask the Prime Minister when we might expect such a comprehensive policy announcement from the government.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we do not contemplate any announcement. We intend to enact our policy as it is decided.


John Edward Broadbent: Could the Prime Minister inform us when we might expect these particular enactments from the government? I am thinking of the fact that the controls program does not apply to most of the components which make up the consumer price index as it affects food, so I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the detailed announcements to which he refers will cover such items as energy costs and the cost of the implements which are used in the production of food. Will they pertain to farm income, which dropped 20 per cent recently, and will the Prime Minister have something to say about competition policy as it affects the cost of food?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some of the elements mentioned by the hon. member are controlled now. Energy, farm implements and the whole distribution and processing process are under the antiinflation guidelines now. As far as other policies are concerned, they will be announced from time to time.


John Edward Broadbent: Given the very real need for a comprehensive approach to food policy both from a consumer and a producer point of view, and given the need to meet in an honest way the difficult trade-offs which are involved, would the Prime Minister explain to the House why the cabinet turned down the recommendation it received from its senior group of civil servants last June to come forward with a comprehensive national food policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware that we turned down anything. We have been examining policies put forward by various departments and deputy ministers, and we have been adopting or modifying various elements of them.


KITIMAT PIPELINE-CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO APPROVAL
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Canadians will receive no initial oil supply from the currently

proposed Kitimat pipeline, and British Columbia will develop a domestic shortfall of oil from Alberta in the early 1980's. Can the government assure parliament that before any approvals are given for such a pipeline condition, tied to such approval will be surety of supply to Canadians from such a pipeline, longtime economic benefits not just to the United States but also to Canada, and secure environmental safeguards?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is anticipating the kind of considerations that the National Energy Board would give to the application before it now. I have indicated in the House that the government would of course consider the recommendations of the National Energy Board. They would also wait to receive the environmental impact studies which are to be undertaken before making a decision.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of a former Liberal member of parliament and leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party that the United States authorities believe our environmental legislation both at federal and provincial levels is inferior to United States federal and state legislation, and therefore a Canadian tanker terminal and pipeline could be built without the studies and safeguards that would be insisted upon in the United States, will the Prime Minister assure the House that supplemental legislation that will make Canadian environmental legislation not only equal to but superior to United States legislation, will be introduced and implemented in Canada before any approvals are given for pipelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I will have to take notice of the question. Perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can help on this.



KITIMAT PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DISCLOSURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES

Robert Lloyd Wenman: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that environmental hearings proposed by the Minister of the Environment will include the right of all interested parties to participate in the hearings and that all information gathered in environmental assessments will be made available to parliament and the public in order that full public debate and disclosure will ensure environmental safeguards rather than that the Kitimat pipeline will be chosen only because it is the proposal of least resistance?
February 11, 1977



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to whom questions were put yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I believe the minister wanted a day to bring himself up to date. Can he tell the House whether it is the Canadian position that there be a single tanker port on the west coast or that we will accept multiple or more than one supertanker port on the west coast?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me an opportunity to answer. There is no declared policy with regard to either a single port or multiple ports because the issue is still being examined by all parties concerned, including myself and the premier of British Columbia as recently as yesterday. The whole issue is being explored. I am not in a position personally to judge whether a single port would be the best alternative but if it turns out that is the case, then that is the position we will advocate.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister was talking to the premier yesterday, and in view of allegations or specific statements in the British Columbia Energy Commission report of last September that the Kitimat proposal was generally acceptable to cabinet, which the Prime Minister described yesterday as being grossly misinformed, is the minister in a position to tell the House whether he has been able to determine the source of that information? In other words, who in the cabinet grossly misinformed the British Columbia Energy Commission?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it must have been the same person who grossly misinformed the hon. member.
Oral Questions
[DOT] (U30)



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. A preliminary report entitled "An economic pre-feasibility study" has recently been released by the minister dealing with the production of methanol from surplus wood. Intergroup Consultants of Winnipeg in their report foresee a major new Canadian industry creating up to 49,000 new jobs and producing up to five billion gallons of methanol annually, worth $800 million. Could the minister advise the House what steps the government will take to verify the preliminary findings, and has he consulted with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about this exciting breakthrough?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly found that the briefing on this subject offered exciting prospects. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and my department support continued research in this area which can offer interesting prospects for Canada.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 return to questioning the Minister of Finance? Since this has been a week of record announcements, record unemployment and record inflation-


An hon. Member:: And record questions.


William Heward Grafftey: -may I ask the minister this question? Although the inflation and unemployment rate in the United States is lower than in Canada, and since President Carter had hardly put his feet under his desk than he put before Congress a comprehensive package to tackle the same problem facing Canada as well as the United States, I ask, why does the minister, when the situation is worse in Canada than in the United States where they are acting, sit on his hands and wait for an indeterminate date while his officials prepare a budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday, and I refer the hon. gentleman to my remarks, the government of Canada through the various measures which are now operative put forward a greater percentage program for stimulating personal disposable income than did President Carter.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not correct.

February 11, 1977
Oral Questions



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since, according to our analysis on this side of the House, our consumer price index takes into account only a very small percentage of the increase in prices, as compared with the index in the United States, and since the system here does not give us a comparable rate, when will a new index be used by the Canadian government, to show the people really how bad the situation is? And, in answering the hon. member for York-Simcoe, did the minister really believe that by controlling government expenditures and properly stimulating the private sector we would be increasing the inflation rate in this country? In other words, when are we going to have action from this government in the middle of a cold, sad winter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, effective as at the beginning of this year there has been, in substance, a $3 billion transfer in the direction of personal disposable incomes.


An hon. Member:: Oh! It was $1.7 billion yesterday.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suggest to the hon. gentleman that the kinds of measures which his leader was suggesting yesterday are now operative in this economy. In percentage terms they are greater than those put forward by President Carter. The suggestion that the hon. member has a new consumer price index, or a new statistical system which we should follow, I find interesting. It might be useful if he were to submit his findings to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Statistics Canada might have something to say about it.



ALLEGED HARDSHIP CAUSED SENIOR CITIZENS BY INDEXING PENSIONS ON BASIS OF CONSUMER PRICE INDEX-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Having toured this country to learn the quality of life of our senior citizens, and noting that the food component of the consumer price index jumped upward 1.2 per cent in January, which caused the over-all consumer price index to rise by 0.9 per cent, the largest monthly increase since November, 1975, and noting as well that senior citizens of Canada will still lose part of their buying power for bare essentials, despite indexing, I ask if the minister is aware that old age security benefits as indexed through the consumer price index really do not assist senior citizens who are primarily interested in costs of food, clothing and housing? Will he admit that, for these people, the formula used is creating a hardship?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is difficult in a general consumer price index to make certain that it measures the demands of every-

one in the economy. I do not imagine that even the personal indexing system as proposed by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi would be able to satisfy that. The fact is, there will be some differences between the impacts on different groups in the community. I think it is fair to observe that if the food component is particularly important to this group, and it is important to all Canadians, that they have really been very much the beneficiaries of the very substantial drop in food prices which has occurred over the last ten months.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the minister's unacceptable answer and his belief that it is impossible to derive some formula which would assist our senior citizens, will the minister explore all avenues, in order to determine whether it is possible to introduce a better formula for indexing old age security pensions and thereby give our senior citizens a break?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss this with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As for the food component, may I point out to the hon. gentleman again that it is below the level of one year ago.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister consider making representations to the government of the U.S.S.R., urging it to abide by the agreement signed at Helsinki and protesting the imprisonment of certain persons and the violation of human rights in recent months in the U.S.S.R., as has the United States secretary of state in the last couple of weeks.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, yes. I answered that question in a different form earlier in the week. Certainly, there will be periodic representations made on the question; they will be made not merely to the U.S.S.k. but to other countries as well which we feel are not living up to either the spirit or the letter of the Helsinki accord.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider making representations to the government of the U.S.S.R., urging the release of the people imprisoned recently, including Mykola Rudenko and Oleksii Tykhyi, Alexander Ginzburg and Amnur Zavurov, to mention just a few of those imprisoned in recent months.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I answered that question previously and the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.
February 11, 1977



REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIONS TO SOVIET UNION TO RELEASE NAHUN SALANSKY

John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? It arises out of my motion moved earlier this morning and the letter which I delivered to the ambassador of the U.S.S.R. in Ottawa on January 31 concerning Nahun Salansky who is presently being denied the right to emigrate from the U.S.S.R. to Israel. 1 gave the minister notice of my question.
May I ask the minister to use his good offices, get in touch with the ambassador of the U.S.S.R. here, in Ottawa, and ask what action, if any, has been taken with respect to the letter; also, could he impress on the ambassador that any action he could take or any review which the government of the U.S.S.R. might make in this matter would be a humane and compassionate act and go a long way toward being a symbolic act in favour of the principles of the Helsinki accord?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I have also read the comprehensive letter to the Soviet ambassador. I will make inquiries immediately as to whether we have already made representations in this case. Certainly, I will do everything within our power to call this matter to the attention of the appropriate Soviet authorities.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Is the hon. gentleman aware of the challenge issued by the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association, to the effect that they can deliver their papers faster by pony express than by mail?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: All the way to Sturgeon Falls.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is the Postmaster General willing to bet on the outcome of the challenge and will he accept the invitation to be present at the climax of the contest?
[DOT] (M40)


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that although they have issued a challenge they want to wait until spring. They do not want to have the race in the wintertime. I shall be pleased to accept that challenge. This is a contest which undoubtedly the Post Office will win. I know the quality of the horse flesh in Manitoba, having seen some pretty fine performances there, but I am sure the Post Office has no competition at all from
Oral Questions
the pony express or any other express which is in vogue in this country.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the continuing tarnished public image of the Post Office, as demonstrated by this incident in Manitoba, and in the interest of freedom of information and helpful public discussion, would the hon. gentleman table the Hays Report on the post office which, according to press reports, contains constructive criticisms and excellent recommendations on reforms to be carried out in order to restore Canada's mail service to its former high level of efficiency?


Mr. Blais:: A large measure of the recommendations in that report have already been implemented. The report has received a great deal of publicity and evidently it is available to the press. I shall consider his recommendation very seriously.



RESPONSIBILITY FOR COST OF MAILING LOTO CANADA FLYERS

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Postmaster General. Can the hon. gentleman tell us who paid for the flyers being distributed to support the purchase of Loto Canada tickets and who paid for the mailing of those flyers?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: I did not receive notice of that question but I will look into it for the hon. member's information. I am very pleased that Loto Canada has looked to the mails as a means of informing people of this worthwhile program. I would hope that all governments, whether at federal, provincial or municipal level, will do the same.


John Raymond Ellis: Provided they pay for it.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister since it concerns a question of government reorganization. In view of the fact that the current edition of Farm and Country reports that the federal government may be giving serious consideration to transferring the National Farm Products Marketing Council and its agencies, plus the Canadian Dairy Commission, to the jurisdiction of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and states: "Farm groups have not been consulted and agriculture minister Eugene Whelan may still be in the dark", can the Prime Minister assure us that the report is unfounded and that no consideration has been given to such a proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have never heard of it, so I doubt whether anything is proceeding in that direction.

February 11, 1977
Oral Questions
[ Translation]



INDUSTRY


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-IIes-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I will put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the threat of massive lay-offs in the shoe industry in Canada, does the government intend to take measures similar to those it took last November 29, I think, to protect the Canadian textile industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question and discuss it with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. However, I thank the hon. member for his notice.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question, also, is for the Prime Minister. In his answer to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra on December 22, 1976 at page 2244, with reference to subsidies for west coast ferries, the right hon. gentleman said: "There is an element still to be decided". Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has yet decided that element, how much money he is prepared to allocate to the west coast ferries to ensure that the gross imbalance in the subsidy as between the east and west coasts can be rectified in a manner which is fairer to the taxpayers of British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is a question for the Minister of Transport. I will take notice of it on his behalf.



WEST COAST FERRIES-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTERS EXPLAINING FEDERAL VIEWPOINT ON SUBSIDIES

Allan Bruce McKinnon: The Prime Minister has informed the House that the federal point of view is explained in letters exchanged between the Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia. Will he kindly table these letters so that the rest of us can be privy to his rationalization of the 100 to one imbalance between east coast and west coast ferry subsidies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I cannot table the letters, at least I will try to persuade the hon. member, through argument, that his figures are grossly unbalanced.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In 1976, a permit to export 150 metric tons of crude cesium ore to the U.S.S.R was refused by ITC, although trade had taken place involving this commodity for the previous seven years. Is a ban now in effect on cesium exports and, if so, has action been taken to stockpile this valuable material in order that domestic research into its use as a catalyst to prolong the life of fossil fuel can be undertaken, thus creating employment, and especially allowing mines such as Tantalum Mines at Bernic Lake, Manitoba, to continue operations?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): I recall hearing some months ago about the prohibition of this particular export. I am not in a position at the moment to say whether shipments have been resumed or whether the material is still on the restricted list but I will make inquiries and see what, if anything, can be done. My recollection is that cesium is regarded as being in the category of strategic materials but I will have to look into the matter more deeply.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: A question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. On October 14 last year the right hon. gentleman and his cabinet colleagues indicated in the Speech from the Throne that the government intended to set up a youth corps. Since that time we have heard little about it, other than a comment by the Minister of National Defence to the effect that it might be environmentally oriented and that he did not know whether it would be under the jurisdiction of his department or not-perhaps it would be under the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or the Minister of the Environment. Has the government yet decided, some five months after the announcement, which minister will be responsible for the youth corps?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member checks the record he will find we have already implemented a great many of the programs set out in the Speech from the Throne and we intend to implement a great many more before the end of the session.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Which minister will be responsible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You will see.


Paul Wyatt Dick: In view of the fact that more than five months have gone by since the government made the announcement-
February 11, 1977

and obviously before making the announcement they did not think it out-is it the intention of the government to wait another five months before taking action on youth unemployment generally?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member should realize that the Speech from the Throne addresses itself to the program for the entire session. It is not abnormal that in the first half of the session we should only implement the first half of what is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. What does he expect us to do in the next half-adjourn the House?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I should like to address my question to his parliamentary secretary. In doing so, may I say that this party wishes the minister a speedy recovery. In addition, we are even willing to support him in bringing in legislation which should have been brought in many years ago. Can the parliamentary secretary report to the House on the minister's position with regard to introducing legislation to do away with the glaring discrimination against widows whose veterans husbands died when receiving a disability pension of less than 48 per cent?


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: First, let me say I was speaking to the minister yesterday and expect he will be leaving hospital today. He is doing well, and will not be long away from the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Samuel Victor Railton: As far as the widows are concerned, a letter has just come to the department from the widows of prisoners of war, and I know that this question of the widows to whom the hon. member referred is under consideration, together with other matters which were left over from last year. I am quite certain that the minister will have something to announce by way of legislation within the next two or three weeks.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also have to ask a question of the Prime Minister, in view of the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has been about one year now since the Mallen report told the government that excessive concentration by
Oral Questions
supermarket chains cost Canadian consumers an extra four cents on every food dollar which they spent. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what are the results of the investigation which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs promised to conduct into this situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of the minister when he returns to Ottawa.



PROPOSED MONITORING OF SUPERMARKET CHAINS- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I try a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in case the Prime Minister is aware of the answer? In June, in a memo to cabinet, DM's 10 group said that the government should admit that important concentration and market power problems exist in food processing, distribution and retailing, and recommends that the competition bureau make this sector a priority for monitoring under stage two of the Competition Act. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he knows this will be done.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne has stated that phase two of the Competition Act will be introduced this session and that is still our intention.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board arising out of a report to the board of directors of Polysar on certain invoicing and payment practices in Polysar International. I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration is being given to introducing standards of business conduct similar to the 17 which were proposed to the board of directors of Polysar, excellent ones I might say. Would the minister indicate whether it is his intention to consider those codes in addition to the announcement which he made to the House on December 16 involving corporate codes of conduct in regard to Crown corporations doing business within Canada and outside Canada.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines which I announced on behalf of the government in December the hon. member is already familiar with. The whole question of better financial control and management of Crown corporations is under intense examination, but there will be some announcement in the fairly immediate future with regard to this.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the fact that the board of directors has been forced to impose these new standards of conduct, could I ask

February 11, 1977
Oral Questions
the minister whether he is actively investigating any other corporations with a view to determining whether in fact such similar codes should be asserted as well with respect to other corporations? Is this going on as part of the investigatory process which he is undertaking?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would not call it an investigatory process but an awareness that there has to be a general improvement in the financial management and control of Crown corporations. We are also doing this in consideration of the very serious problem of accepting the accountability factors which we have established in parliament over many years. All of those considerations are going into this intense examination to which I have referred.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that ample time has passed in order to complete any remaining Olympic coin orders, would the minister now advise the House as to the number of silver Olympic coins which are left unsold, and what plans does the government have to dispose of them?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. gentleman would like us to have completed all the sorting out and tying of loose ends in the coins program. Unfortunately, we have not as yet done this. As he knows, we have had some difficulties relating to orders which were computerized and which eventually were lost, and which we are now trying to recoup. I am not at this time in a position to indicate to the hon. gentleman how many coins will be left after all of the orders have been filled.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There have been some reports leaked from the Mint to the effect that there exists an over-run of several hundred million dollars worth of unsold silver coins. I should like to ask the minister whether he is denying this allegation, and at the same time would he advise the House whether or not the over-run, whatever it may be, will be melted down in due course, and who will bear the cost?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on a leak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe I overlooked a final supplementary from the hon. member for Vegreville.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate your indulgence. I simply wanted to point out to the minister that I appreciate the fact that the investigation is under way into the financial management and control and accountability aspects, but my question really concerns more the matter of business conduct, morality and ethics rather than the broad question of financial management and control. I am simply asking the minister whether he has engaged in an investigation of that kind in addition to the one to which he alluded.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can elaborate further on the guidelines which were announced in the House. All Crown corporations, either directly or through the ministers responsible, have been advised of the significance which we attach to the conduct of Crown corporations in this whole field, and the guidelines have indeed been conveyed to them and to all ministers. At the time I announced the guidelines I indicated to the opposition that we would very much welcome their suggestions on how they could be further improved. So in that general sense I do not think we are in disagreement.



NATIONAL BUILDING CODE


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the minister responsible for DREE, I will direct my question to the Minister of Public Works whose department is involved in the substance of my question. The National Research Council has recently changed the building code putting serious restrictions on the usage of plastic bathroom fixtures. This is seriously hindering the development of Boeing of Canada Limited in Winnipeg and other plastic manufacturing firms across Canada. This is ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, as DREE has made a substantial grant, not a loan, to Boeing to expand their facilities and to create jobs. I would ask the minister whether he would investigate and have this restriction removed from the national building code.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to draw this representation to the attention of my colleagues.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister also investigate why the National Research Council has not accepted the invitation of Boeing to visit their plant so they can gain firsthand understanding and knowledge that these plastic products will not catch fire?


J. Judd Buchanan: Again the same response, Mr. Speaker.
February 11, 1977



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary, I shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the Minister of Urban Affairs admitted barely ten days ago on television that the government had erred in its dairy policy; as that policy has led to in the last year the disappearance of hundreds of dairy producers, specially in Quebec, and as the government has not agreed to absorb the cost of export costs as does the European Economic Community in the case of its dairy producers, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, under those circumstances and bearing in mind the hardships of the dairy producers, he is willing to comply with the recommendations of the federation to the effect that the government absorb export costs which, in the main, caused most of the dairy producers' problems. Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to add that among the dairy producers who were forced to give up dairying and who are having problems, there are a few Liberals for they are not all PQ members.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have with me what the minister may have said, but I should be surprised if he did not point out that the federal government pours hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the dairy producers. The only matter to be settled now is that of the order in which those subsidies should be paid. Surely, the hon. member knows that we cannot continue indefinitely to pay subsidies to every sector of the population. In the case of dairy producers, we have a policy based on quotas. It is imperative that all parties concerned, producers as well as the board, respect those quotas. If they are not respected, I ask that the government not consider itself responsible.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At the beginning of the sitting today I moved a motion under Standing Order 43, the purpose of which was to ask the unanimous consent of the House to continue to supply the right hon. member for Prince Albert with copies of the Canadian Bill of Rights, in accordance with the past history of the Canadian Bill of Rights which I think has been an important instrument in terms of our country and its legal system. Unfortunately, an hon. member said "no". 1 immediately checked the blues and, as Your Honour will recall, I accused the Minister of Justice-in a rather loud voice, I am afraid-of having said "no". I have found, and it has been confirmed by my colleagues, that I was wrong, and I wish to withdraw that imputation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: -and to express my regrets through you, sir, for having imputed that "no" to the minister. I have subsequently found, and it has been confirmed by my colleagues and admitted by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), that it was he, in fact, who shouted "no", and I think that the record should be corrected.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I appreciate the hon. member's gracious withdrawal and correction of the record. I can appreciate that he may have been confused. In fact, I indicated yes to his motion. I did so because in five minutes' time, in the course of a speech I will be making in the House, I will be paying a very handsome tribute to the Bill of Rights and the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I did, indeed, say "no" to the hon. member's motion, for the simple reason that his motion asked for a special privilege for a single member of this House. If the hon. member wants some time to again ask the House to give the same privilege to all members, I will not say no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is easily seen that in its basic nature this is a point of order as opposed to a question of privilege. I am not even sure whether it is a valid point of order. The difficulty we get into in attempting to elaborate on considerations in the minds of hon. members with regard to the giving or withholding of unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43, of course, gives us difficulty. It does not constitute a question of privilege. It might make a very interesting discussion which might go on for some time, but I feel that with our precedents and standing orders we ought to terminate the discussion of the matter on this basis, at least at this moment.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this question in a somewhat different way. I hope the House will bear with me for a moment or two. I am pleased that the Prime Minister is here.


An hon. Member:: He is here every day.


Robert Carman Coates: It is very important for all members of this House to give serious thought to the specific problem facing us, in the hope that we can solve it in a non-partisan, nonpolitical way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: If hon. members will bear with me for a moment, they may discover what I am trying to do. I am very concerned about my country, as are all members of this House. It is important that we try in a positive way to do all we can to keep Canada together.
The Bill of Rights is one of those instruments that guarantees to all Canadians a degree of freedom that did not exist

February 11, 1977
Oral Questions
before 1960, when it was conceived, no matter what jurists and legal experts felt about it prior to that date. The Drybones case in the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed for all time that the Bill of Rights is a special protection for Canadians and we should have it enshrined as part of our constitution for all time. We are very fortunate that we still have in this House the father of the Bill of Rights, the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: At his age, the right hon. member does not have to look for votes in order to stay here. Therefore, whatever he does with the time he has left, whether it be signing a copy of the Bill of Rights for a school, court, individual or group of individuals, it is something very special. Rather than saying it is a special right for a special member, if the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi were to think about it for a little while, I believe he would see that it is a wonderful thing for people, groups and schools to have a copy of the Bill of Rights signed by the person who conceived it and brought it about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: At the same time, hon. members may wish to have some helpful information that is being produced by the management and members' services committee. Following the proposal of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West we are considering the production of Bill of Rights certificates in English and French, and flag proclamation certificates in English and French. They will be available to all members of this House at a very special rate-at cost. The committee is considering producing 25,000 copies of the Bill of Rights certificates in both English and French, a total of 50,000, and 25,000 flag proclamation certificates in both English and French. This will total 100,000 certificates. The certificates will be available in two sizes. The 9 by 11 size will cost 12 cents, and the 18 by 24 will cost 17 cents. This is a substantial reduction in the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize, as I am sure all members do, the best intentions of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North who is serving in a very distinguished way as chairman of the important Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. However, there are some confines to a point of order. There is other House business. I therefore invite the hon. member to complete his remarks.


Robert Carman Coates: May I just finish by saying that at our meeting next Wednesday we will pass a motion that will be turned over to Mr. Speaker. It will then be sent to the commissioners of internal economy. Rather than having a charge of something like $1.25 each, I hope there will be a reasonable charge for the certificates in question and that all members will take advantage of this opportunity.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, I noticed in yesterday's Hansard that the hon. member for Moncton raised a point of order with regard to my remarks as reported in Hansard for

Wednesday, February 9, at page 2896 referring to inscriptions on a plaque in the city hall in the city of Moncton. Let me state that the remarks which are attributed to me as reported on Wednesday, February 9, at page 2896 of Hansard are correctly attributed to me. I stand by those remarks. The statement which I made is correct and requires no change on my part. I therefore stand by this statement as recorded in Hansard.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Breau
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, two reports: first a report respecting nylon fabrics and filament polyester fabrics, from the Textile and Clothing Board and, second, a supplementary report respecting doubleknit fabrics, from the Textile and Clothing Board.


FOOD SAFETY INFORMATION ACT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: for leave to introduce Bill C-395, respecting the release of scientific information dealing with the content of any substance found in the food system.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make available to other levels of government, independent scientists, consumer groups or interested persons any scientific information gathered by the government of Canada in the course of the analysis of any new substance introduced in the food system intentionally or by accident, or any scientific
February 11, 1977

information existing in relation to a substance already introduced in the food system.

This legislation would protect the public by enabling them to secure any scientific data-confidential or not, old or new- concerning any substance incorporated into the food system, with a description of any contaminant or additive contained in that substance.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
February 10, 1977-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to consider the Standing Orders of the House and Procedure in both the House and its committees;
That the committee be authorized to include in its reports drafts of proposed permanent or temporary Standing Orders drawn to give effect, if concurred in by the House, to any permanent or temporary change or changes proposed by the committee; and
That the evidence adduced by the committee in its consideration of the aforementioned matters during the First session of the thirtieth parliament be referred to the committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 827, 828, 829, 1,176, 1,188, 1,316, 1,340, 1,386, 1,415, 1,460 and 1,557.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Yewchuk: What is the maximum theoretical sustained yield at which all rough fish might be Fished from Canadian lakes now open to commercial fishing, if the economics of a Fishery for these species were favourable?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: The management of rough
Order Paper Questions
fish as a resource is a provincial responsibility. Potential harvest of rough fish was obtained by summing up the individual estimates submitted by each province and the Northwest Territories. The data indicates the potential harvest exceeds 87 million pounds.


Mr. Yewchuk: What is the maximum theoretical sustained yield at which cisco might be fished from Canadian lakes now open to commercial fishing?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The management of cisco as a resource is a provincial responsibility. Potential harvest of cisco was obtained by summing up the individual estimates submitted by each province and the Northwest Territories. The data indicates the potential harvest at 11,500,000 pounds.


Mr. Yewchuk: What tonnage of rough fish was caught by commercial fishermen in (a) Alberta (b) Saskatchewan (c) Manitoba (d) the Northwest Territories in 1975 but spoiled for lack of a market?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The following figures outline the approximate poundage of rough fish caught by commercial fishermen but not marketable due to low prices or marketability. (a) 300,000 lbs. (b) 1,600,000 lbs. (c) 5,500,000 lbs. (d) 400,000 lbs.
Note: This figure is to be considered as the estimated incidental catch presently harvested by fishermen in the western region. The total figure is dependent on variables such as mesh size and specific type of fishery. The poundage caught is not to be considered as the potential harvest.


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


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Separations of Employees under the Public Service Employment Act.
1969	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976Discharge for misconduct	57	64	53	78	141	95	71	112Release for	incompetence or incapacity	71	131	130	141	129	168	140	114Rejection on probation	481	450	461	469	535	695	685	681* Revocation of appointment	49	2	15	39	26
* Note: Comparative data not available for 1969, 1970 and 1971.

February 11, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2. The information requested is not available from the records of the Public Service Commission. In view of the workload that would involve all the departments, the Government does not feel justified in undertaking a review of all individual files.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Have any measures been taken by the Department of the Environment to limit the number of vessels permitted to fish shrimp in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and particularly in the Constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and, if so, what are they?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the members of the Shrimp Fishery Committee in the Province of Newfoundland?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1. In June 1976 control measures including a freeze on the number of licences to be issued was implemented for the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Following this, a Shrimp Fishing Advisory Committee made up of fishermen and others was established in Newfoundland to develop guidelines for the effective management of this fishery. The formation of a similar Committee for the Maritimes is now being proposed. The Newfoundland Shrimp Advisory Committee has held three meetings and under the guidelines developed it is expected that some fishermen all from the constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe will obtain shrimp fishing licences.
2. The names and addresses of the members of the Shrimp Fisheries Committee in the Province of Newfoundland are as follows: John Goodman, Port Saunders, Nfld.; Gene Gould, Port aux Choix, Nfld.; Dwight Spence, Port aux Choix, Nfld.; Chesley Genge, Anchor Point, Nfld.; Clyde Smith, Manager Fisheries Products Ltd., Port aux Choix, Nfld.; Lester Riche, Dept. Fisheries & Environment; E. Sandeman, Scientific Advisor, Biological Station, St. John's, Nfld.; Clar Fisher, Economic Advisor, St. John's, Nfld.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	With the exception of routine attendance at Cabinet meetings and meetings of subcommittees of Cabinet, what is a full and complete description of the special responsibilities given to the Minister without Portfolio by the Prime Minister as of December 10, 1976?
2.	Since his appointment as Minister without Portfolio, has the Minister ever used government aircraft for travel and, if so, what were (a) the dates of the trips (b) the points of departure and arrival (c) the government business requiring the Minister's use of the aircraft?
3.	What additional staff is the Minister without Portfolio entitled to, if any, as a result of his appointment to the Cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. The Minister without Portfolio is a member of the Ministry. As such, he

shares with his colleagues collective responsibility for all policies of the Government. This general responsibility of the Minister without Portfolio follows a long established tradition that enables a particular Government to benefit from the advice of one of its members without that member being required to undertake specific departmental responsibilities.
2.	No.
3.	All ministers are entitled to an exempt staff. The Minister without Portfolio has appointed two employees under Section 37(1) of the Public Service Employment Act.


Mr. Howie: Has the Post Office Department a policy permitting no extension of letter carrier service and, if so, on what date did it commence?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Effective November 18, 1975, the Post Office Department, in line with Federal policy on restraint in spending, deferred until further notice extensions of letter carrier service into areas that are beyond existing route boundaries.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	How much mercury has been imported into Canada for industrial organic processes over the past five years?
2.	What controls exist to regulate the discharge of this mercury into the (a) air (b) water?
3.	How much methyl-mercury has been used in Canada as a catalytic process over the past five years?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1. Approximately 90,000 pounds of mercury have been imported into Canada over the past five years for industrial organic processes.
2.	We do not anticipate that the uses under which mercury is being utilized in the organic chemical industry are causing a significant pollution problem. These uses however, are presently under review through the Environmental Contaminants Act. The general provisions of the Fisheries Act could be utilized anytime a problem with mercury discharges from an industry is found.
3.	We are not aware of any use in Canada over the past five years of methyl-mercury catalysts in the organic chemical processing industry.


Mr. Beatty: In what location is each post office in the Constituency of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo and what is its classification and group or grade?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: February 11, 1977

Location	Classification	Group	GradeAlma	Revenue	5	Arthur	Semi-Staff	5Ayton	Semi-Staff	2Bel wood	Revenue	5Clifford	Semi-Staff	4Conestogo	Revenue	4	Conn	Revenue	3	Drayton	Semi-Staff	4Dundalk	Semi-Staff	5Durham	Semi-Staff	6Elmira	Staff	7Elora	Semi-Staff	5Fergus	Staff	7Flesherton	Semi-Staff	5Floradale	Revenue	2	Grand Valley	Semi-Staff	5Harriston	Semi-Staff	5Hawkesville	Revenue	3	Heidelberg	Revenue	3	Holstein	Revenue	4	Hornings Mills	Revenue	1	Kenilworth	Revenue	4	Laurel	Revenue	2	Lin wood	Revenue	4	Markdale	Semi-Staff	5Moorefield	Revenue	6	Mount Forest	Semi-Staff	6Neustadt	Semi-Staff	1Orton	Revenue	3	Palmerston	Semi-Staff	5Priceville	Revenue	3	Proton Station	Revenue	5	St. Clements	Semi-Staff	2St. Jacobs	Semi-Staff	4Shelburne	Semi-Staff	6Singhampton	Revenue	6	Wallenstein	Revenue	5	Wellesley	Semi-Staff	5West Montrose	Revenue	3


Mr. Herbert: How many positions in the (a) Canadian Pension Commission (b) Pension Review Board (c) War Veterans Allowance Board (d) Bureau of Pension Advocates (e) veterans services, treatment services and administration services of the Department of Veterans Affairs are designated bilingual?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (a) 128; (b) 11; (c) 29; (d) 26; (e) 1,175.


Mr. Marshall: Of the 841 on staff in the Department of Veterans Affairs, how many are between (a) 20 and 30 (b) 31 and 40 (c) 41 and 50 (d) 51 and 60 (e) 61 and 65 years of age?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Eight hundred forty-one was the head office staff strength as
Canadian Human Rights Act
of March 31, 1976. (a) 257; (b) 120; (c) 116; (d) 253; (e) 65. Thirty were under 20 or over 65.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-25, to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of satisfaction that I see today the end of a period of frustration for me and other supporters of this bill as we open the debate on second reading of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Bill C-25. It is timely that we discuss this bill at this time and that we pass it as expeditiously as parliamentary procedures will allow. Throughout the country there has been considerable discussion of human rights matters. In this chamber the discussion has raised the broad issue of the rights of a citizen to have access to the personal information about himself or herself that is held by government departments or agencies.
Elsewhere, away from this House, there has also been voiced deep and urgent concern in various parts of the country about the extent of racism and other illegitimate forms of discrimination being practised in our country, and we see in the news media from time to time reports of nasty racial incidents which have occurred to an extent where one provincial government has found it necessary to appoint a royal commission on certain aspects of the problem. It is, therefore, a matter of some satisfaction for me to be able to rise and state that there is now a bill before parliament which addresses both these and other issues connected with human rights within federal jurisdiction and addresses them in a comprehensive legislative way.
I suspect there are many people in the country who imagine that there is no discrimination in Canada and no need to act. Sadly, however-I know members on all sides will agree with me-it is a fact that there are some among us who are prepared to subvert our basic values by denying the basic rights of others. Their activities are deplorable. But it is not enough for us in parliament to deplore. We must also act, and act so as to ensure that the confidence of minorities in the protection afforded by the law is honoured and upheld.
Of course, no single piece of legislation can automatically, at the stroke of a pen, wipe out racism and discrimination overnight or change deepseated social attitudes, prejudices or hatreds. But without this bill at the federal level, victims of racist activities or of discrimination can point to the absence of a federal law and ask: Where is this country's, or this parliament's commitment to uphold tolerance, and where is this country's, or this parliament's legal protection that we need?

February 11, 1977
Canadian Human Rights Act
The purpose behind this bill is clear. It provides protection by giving effect to the following principles explicitly set out in clause 2 which reads:
Every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices-
Then, as well:
(b)	the privacy of individuals should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with public order and well-being.
These are principles which rest upon the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. These are principles as fundamental as freedom itself. The freedoms for which liberal western societies strive are set out in well known landmark documents: the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the American Bill of Rights, and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man. Each of those statements was the result of historic struggles to defend dignity and freedom. Each of those statements sets forth the principles and standards by which all free societies stand ready to be judged. Those standards include equal entitlement to all rights and freedoms including equal opportunity for self-realization and the enjoyment of life. It may surprise hon. members to learn that at present there is no over-all protection of these freedoms at the federal level. There are no comprehensive guarantees against infringement within federal jurisdiction by corporations, citizens or government of many basic egalitarian rights Canadians should enjoy.
The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 provides principles for courts and officials to follow in interpreting federal laws. I pay tribute to a former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who passed the Canadian Bill of Rights which is now being given increasing force and effect by our courts. However, that law does not set standards for behaviour or impose any sanctions. Right now, a Pakistani who was refused service in a dining car on the CNR because the waiter disliked his looks would probably have no legal avenue of redress.
There is partial protection at the present time against discrimination in employment in that part of the private sector which is under federal jurisdiction. Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with fair employment practices, applies to employment by organizations such as banks, railways and others under the jurisdiction of parliament. I pay tribute to the valuable work which successive ministers of labour and officials of the Department of Labour have done under the existing provisions of the Canada Labour Code.
However, that code does not include employment by the Crown in right of Canada. It does not cover these public servants in any way. Nor does it cover discrimination by age, sex, marital status or physical handicap. There is some protection against discrimination in government employment. As yet, however, there is no act of parliament which provides over-all, comprehensive prohibition of discriminatory conduct by offi-

cials and private individuals within the federal domain. These are significant lapses in the legal protection to which Canadians are entitled and which they deserve. These are significant gaps in the legal protection offered, for example, to the many women of Canada whose careers are seriously limited by sexism on the job, or to members of many minority groups for whom the relentless pressure of discrimination is too often a reality. In a free society like ours, in a multicultural and open society like ours, in a country made up of two founding peoples but which has also been built and peopled by those who have come from all over the world, and of all races and colours, to build their lives and their families, it is essential that we put into law and into practice within the federal jurisdiction a clear commitment to equality of opportunity and to protection from discrimination. The Canadian human rights bill is designed to provide that clear commitment and to provide, at long last, the comprehensive body of law now lacking at the federal level, a body of law to which all Canadians will be able to resort.
The anti-discrimination provisions of the bill declare the following to be prohibited grounds of discrimination: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, a conviction for which a pardon has been granted, and physical handicap for employment, where the handicap does not affect job performance. In choosing these grounds we have concentrated on major issues which have already been the subject of human rights legislation in Canada and the United States, on which a substantial body of law has emerged and upon which the proposed human rights commission can build. These prohibitions against discriminatory conduct will apply to all federal departments and agencies and any business or industry under federal jurisdiction.
As a further protection again racism, the bill contains a measure proscribing the dissemination of hate over the telephone. I think those of us who were here in parliament at the time, felt that we had dealt with this issue in the amendments to the Criminal Code which were passed relating to hate, but new practices have emerged. Under this bill the sending of repeated hate messages over federally-regulated telephones would be prohibited. The measure is more rigorous than section 281.2 of the Criminal Code, but it avoids-or I have endeavoured to draft it in such a way as to avoid-interference with legitimate expression of opinion.
These measures dealing with telephone hate messages are designed to provide an effective supplement to the provisions of the Criminal Code to combat the calculating traffickers in hate whose foul activities subvert the confidence of racial minorities in the protection that they are entitled to feel under the law. I might say in passing that the introduction of this bill seems to have attracted the attention of those hatemongers who use the telephone in this way, in that they have at least been diverted from the dirt they have disseminated about black people or people of the Jewish faith and have now instead directed their messages of hate to Roy McMurtry and myself-so at least we have provided protection for two minorities.
February 11, 1977

The bill also contains measures to combat sexism and sex role stereotyping at the workplace. About 30 recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women would be wholly or partially implemented or made easier to implement by the passage of this bill. Upon passage this will bring the number of status of women commission recommendations implemented, partially implemented or whose implementation has been facilitated to 103 of the 122 recommendations directed to the federal government in the commission's 1970 report.
Besides including grounds for discrimination such as sex and marital status which are not covered by the Canada Labour Code, the bill also requires that equal pay be given for work of equal value. This is the first time the language "work of equal value" has been used in Canadian law to express equal pay requirements. The Canada Labour Code, the earlier version of this bill and provincial statutes in this regard required only that equal pay be given for similar work. There was no consideration of value. In the course of the preparation of this bill and the consideration of the earlier one, I consulted with and listened to various women's rights organizations who are involved in this matter and who contend that under the previous formulation women employees could be hived off into low-paid "job ghettos" where they would never have a chance to do work similar to that of men. In these job ghettos women can be paid less even though the jobs are of equal value.
Let us consider, for example, a hypothetical trucking firm engaged in interprovincial or international activities. Perhaps all the women employees are office workers, while the male employees are dispatchers. Since these are similar jobs, equal pay would not be required under the old formulation. Under this bill, it will be possible to compare the effort, the skill, the responsibility and the conditions of work in the two jobs and to determine if they are of equal value. It is for this reason that the women's rights organizations wanted the equal value concept embodied in the law. That is why the International Labour Organization included this concept in its convention which Canada ratified in 1972. That is why I have included it for the first time in Canadian law through this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: In connection with this new formula, I want to pay tribute to those in the advisory committee on the status of women, and the various organizations concerned about women's rights, for their work and their advice to me on this subject, and I want to pay particular tribute to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) who was a member of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and whose advice has been very helpful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would like to pay tribute also to the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) who has spoken on the subject with great knowledge, interest and conviction in this House since her election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canadian Human Rights Act


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sure that before this bill is passed we will be told by some that this concept of equal value will place an intolerable burden upon employers. I do not accept that and I would like to make it very clear right now, beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, that as a parliament we would be wrong to accept that the economy of this country can survive only on the basis of unequal pay for women doing work equal in value to that being done by men. Enforcement of these and other provisions will be carried out under the proposed legislation by a human rights commission. The commission will have wide powers, including the power to establish tribunals able to impose severe financial penalties.
Besides initiating and seeing to the investigation of complaints, the commission would be able to issue guidelines interpreting the application of the act. The commission as it gains experience will, I hope, under the provisions of the legislation consider and recommend to parliament that the prohibited grounds of discrimination be broadened or added to as circumstances warrant. As benefits a body one of whose tasks will be to sit in judgment on government conduct, the human rights commission because, for example, of all the provisions that relate to the federal public sector as well as the private public sector, would unlike those in some other jurisdictions, will be independent of government and responsible only to parliament.
In preparing the bill, I have noted the comments of people like Mr. Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who generally have supported the bill but who have made the valid comment that the real test of this legislation and of our commitment to act against discriminatory practices is whether the commission will have the personnel and the budget to carry out its mandate effectively. When the bill reaches committee we are going to examine the question of resources and a proposed budget. It has been planned, in conjunction with Treasury Board, to give the commission the personnel and resources to carry out its mandate. I agree with those who say that the question of resources is crucial to the real effectiveness of the commission and I am satisfied that what we will be proposing will meet with approval.
Turning to a different aspect of the bill, that is, part IV, Mr. Speaker, I noted in my introductory remarks that apart from the question of discrimination, the question of individual access to government records is not a uniquely Canadian issue. It is a problem faced by most highly developed societies. My officials and I have carefully studied the experience of these countries. We believe the provisions in the human rights bill provide the widest possible access and the firmest safeguards consistent with our parliamentary system and the interest of the public as a whole. I believe that the provisions of this bill, taken as a whole, will give Canadians more effective protection against administrative misuse of personal information in government files than that now enjoyed by citizens of the United States.

February 11, 1977
Canadian Human Rights Act
The United States privacy act and part IV of Bill C-25 have the same basic objectives. Both acts have basically the same approach to providing access through the creation of a federal index of personal information banks. Both acts provide for an individual to see his file and to propose changes if the individual feels that errors exist. Both acts provide for administration procedures to warn users of the file that the subject of the record objects to particular information in the record if an institution refuses to make corrections.
There are, however, certain differences which lead me to believe that the protection afforded under this bill of the rights to Canadians with respect to abuse of their personal information in government banks is effectively greater than the rights of Americans. Under the United States act, the non-elected head of any agency can decide whether an information bank is exempt from access. Under Bill C-25, it is not a bureaucrat but an elected minister who, in the case of a whole information bank, must first obtain the approval of the governor in council before any exemptions from access can be granted. Moreover, under the United States act there are certain blanket exemptions. An entire information bank can be exempted just because it belongs to the Central Intelligence Agency. In Canada, access to the data banks of the most sensitive agencies is not automatically excluded.
As a further safeguard against administrative or other abuse of personal information in government files, the bill requires that a member of the human rights commission be appointed privacy commissioner, with the power to review at public expense any complaint by any individual that he or she is being denied rights under this part of the act. Like the Auditor General or the Official Languages Commissioner, the privacy commissioner would be independent of the government and would report at least annually to parliament, and could include-and under the act is empowered to include-in his report accounts of individual cases where an error or injustice is not rectified. This approach is consistent with our parliamentary system of responsible government. It rests the ultimate responsibility for decisions concerning access to personal information upon the minister responsible to parliament. Establishing the office of privacy commissioner will make the government more accountable to parliament and, through parliament, to all Canadians.
I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I share the frustration of those who are disappointed at this point that the bill has not yet been passed into law. We are now on second reading and I hope we will make good progress. There are members of this House who have deep knowledge of the matters raised in the bill and who will want to make a contribution to debate and to the committee proceedings. There are other groups in the community involved with this issue who I know, from correspondence and discussions with them, will want to make suggestions to the parliamentary committee for changes in the law. All of that is welcome and I hope we will be able to agree in a non-partisan way that this bill be passed by this House and the other place and made the law of the land by June 30 this year. I hope that those who

want to come to parliament and make suggestions about the bill will make them in a constructive, non-partisan way in order to help us reach that objective of enactment by June 30.
Nearly 30 years ago Canada and the other members of the United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of the Rights of man. About 17 years ago we passed the Canadian Bill of Rights. In the meantime, Canada has acceded to two further international instruments on the subject of human rights: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is time we met the urgent need for a domestic charter against discrimination recognized by all as a commitment to building a nation in which denial of equal rights and opportunities is totally unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, first may I thank the minister for the shortness of his speech. I am not sure whether I can be as brief. I have the problem, at twenty minutes to one, that unless I can finish in twenty minutes my train of thought might be interrupted. I do not think the minister need worry too much about his June 30 target. From the point of view of my party, I can tell the minister that we welcome the bill and will be anxious to see it progress as rapidly as possible, given the fact-as the minister himself said-that it is important that not only ministers but others speak to this bill at this stage. I do not see that there will be any disposition to hold it up, although there will be a disposition in committee to suggest and recommend, in the non-partisan way the minister asked for, some amendments that may improve the law. That is an undertaking which I gladly give on behalf of the party of which I am proud to be a part.
For many years I have been carrying around a little quotation. I think it puts the matter in perspective. The quotation is from a Russian emigre to Paris, a philosopher and theologian called Berdyaev. He said that the law may compel men to be just, but it cannot compel them to be brothers. Pity, mercy, love-these are works of grace in freedom and not works of a compelling law. 1 think the minister agrees with that sentiment. It is not enough, as the minister admits by introducing this bill, to have before us such injunctions from splendid philosophers. There is a duty on us, as legislators, to put in place a code or frame of reference which would allow those elements which philosophers want to be part of our citizenship to come into play.
I was not in this House when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced the Bill of Rights. The common law lawyers of this country universally condemned that concept-and I am not being partisan; I am trying to put this question in its historical perspective. The common law lawyers said that the bill was an unnecessary frill in our jurisprudence. I remember my own misgivings, I having been brought up in that tradition which was concerned about
February 11, 1977

these things being set down in statute form. Yet, as the minister says, not all in this country are of the common law tradition. We are of many traditions, and it is important to have the human rights commission in place and to have the Bill of Rights. I hope to serve here long enough to see us enshrine the Bill of Rights as an inviolate part of our constitutional arrangements when we patriate the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: The minister may remember that the common law lawyers objected to the Bill of Rights. There was some debate about it. I will not comment on how the Bill of Rights has been used over the years. I happen to think it has been a useful code for those who otherwise might have strayed, and my remarks apply to those acting within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada.
I also happen to think that we have very few commonly shared heritages. Obviously, a Bill of Rights of some 17 years standing and a flag adopted in 1965, I think, are not yet enshrined in the minds of all Canadians as part of their shared heritage; but they will be, I am sure. Similarly, I hope that the proposed human rights commission, the establishment of which, after all, follows that of the ten human rights commissions now in place in the provinces, will give Canadians the feeling that in this land they can move about and participate without fear of discrimination.
It is curious that within five days of ten years ago, on February 16, 1967, the government established the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Three and a half years later, on September 28, 1970, the commission tabled its report and recommendations, including the establishment of a human rights commission. In July, 1975, the then minister of justice introduced Bill C-72. In November, 1976, the present bill was introduced. Perhaps it will interest those who read the reports of our debates to know that I was fascinated, as a member of parliament, to watch the by-play-that may not be an accurate description-to watch the nervousness among members of the public service with regard to the privacy part of the bill.
I was privy to one or two secrets, if I may say so. You cannot live in this community without at some time rubbing shoulders with some of the first-rate public servants who serve our country. I know that the privacy provisions of the bill underwent at least 15 drafts. I do not think there were any cardiac arrests during that period, but there were some pretty nervous people in the public service who thought that at last the government was going to bell the sacred cow of secrecy. That will not come about; it is not part of the bill. I think the Canadian Bar Association told the minister what has to be done in the area of secrecy. Nevertheless, it is amusing and somewhat worrying to note that many who serve the country in the public service are worried about information being freely available.
As I have said, the present bill was introduced in November, 1976. It has two main purposes. The intention is, first, to prohibit discrimination on certain grounds within federal jurisdiction; second, to establish certain measures to protect the
Canadian Human Rights Act
privacy of individuals. I hope hon. member will not mind if I quote a paragraph or two from the 1970 recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. At page 65 of the report the commission recommended:
-that (a) federal... human rights commission be set up that would
(a)	be directly responsible to parliament-
The minister proposes to do this. I continue quoting:
(b)	have power to investigate the administration of human rights legislation as well as the power to enforce the law by laying charges and prosecuting offenders;
(c)	include within the organization for a period of seven to ten years, a division dealing specifically with the protection of women's rights; and
(d)	suggest changes in human rights legislation and promote widespread respect for human rights.
Presumably, once the commission has been set up that last recommendation will be included in its ongoing obligations. I listened carefully to what the minister said. Fie suggested that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women during the years since 1970 has been commenting, urging and recommending. I think this is the appropriate time to compliment it on its restlessness about this legislation. The council has been positive in its views. As far as I can tell, it has been quite non-discriminating-if I can use that word-about its requests. It has been free to come and give recommendations to opposition party spokesmen, and so on. I agree with the minister that although the bill in its present form may not meet all the council's urgings, at least the legislation has been launched. In 1975 the Advisory Council on the Status of Women made a statement which recognized:
-the crucial need for federal involvement in the human rights area, not only from the point of view of the status of women but in the context of the increased racial and other tensions manifest in our society-
It recommended the immediate tabling of the human rights legislation, and here we are at last. I am sorry to note that one part of the advisory council's statement is brutally, demeaningly true, sorry that there is indeed an increase in racial and other tensions manifest in our country. We will not serve our constituents or our country if we fail to recognize this fact. It is not only confined to one or two of the great metropolitan areas. I think of the evil jokes spread across the country. Perhaps somebody has done a study.
It seems to me that if you could trace the racial joke or the ethnic joke, it would follow the waves of the settlement of this country. In other words, historians could pick out the jokes which were told about one minority 100 years ago and find them recurring as the waves of immigration took place. To put it in another way, the Newfoundlander today is all too often the recipient of the same type of demeaning comment as the Polish Canadian would have been 50 years ago, and presumably the Irish Canadian 100 years ago. Perhaps somebody has done a study on those lines. I am not a behavioural scientist, but I know that this form of humour is still very demeaning to the part of our society which is the butt of these jokes.
The minister was right when he spoke of the use of the telephone. It is curious that these bullying cowards do these things using our technology. They paint out the signs at night.

February 11, 1977
Canadian Human Rights Act
Nobody would paint out a bilingual sign in the daytime. Few people would dare to perpetrate the type of language they use on the telephone if they had to do it face to face. But unsigned letters come to all of us and, of course, the telephone is used for the same type of thing. Unhappily, there are some who, because of the length of time during which they have been in the country or the disability from which they might suffer or, if I can put it this way without being arrogant, from a lack of serenity or assurance with regard to their acceptance in society, are put off by this type of thing. It is unfortunate, in my view, but legislation is the only solution if it is to be stopped.
I was curious to Find a reference to a friend of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp). I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton knows the works of Thomas Carlyle. Carlyle said we have no duty of tolerance to the intolerant. At one stage of my life I would have been overcome by a statement like that, but I do not think Carlyle was right. It was very nice in the leather-bound books of the day, but we cannot be satisfied with that type of aphorism. We have to be intolerant and that is why in the ultimate resort the technology of the telephone hate campaign has to be interrupted by a statute. It will not end it, but it will be evidence in the statute books of the country.
Really, what the government is attempting in the human rights legislation might be likened to lighting a candle toward respect for each and every human being. I suggest that the cultivation of such respect requires more than law. It requires a fundamental commitment to the worth of human kind. I do not mean to preach, but it occurs to me that to respect, you have to work at it. It is often not easy for those of us who are democrats to respect everybody at all times. It requires a fundamental commitment on our part. I am not sure, but I suspect that respect for one's brother is not innate in our psyche; it has to be nurtured and worked on. Surely the minister and others who will be participating in this debate and who are committed to human rights would agree that a wound to my brother wounds me, and that the outrage in the subway, whether it is to somebody in Toronto, Vancouver or Fundy-Royal-because none of us is immune-is wounding ourselves.
I have been fascinated by the phenomenon in the United States of the television program "Roots" which was seen by more Americans than any other program since the invention of that technology. There was an example of a group of American citizens for whom a large part of their history was unknown. The fact that the program took a family through from its origins in West Africa until the present day must have been compelling for both black and white Americans.
Lastly, on this point, because it is about one o'clock, I might say that the small "1" liberal "schtick" of inviting a black to break bread with you might not work out the way you expect it to. He may not share one's own aspirations with regard to material things, for instance. Jules Feiffer pointed this out in a powerful cartoon. The answer is, if you ask one black to lunch, ask two in case it doesn't work out.

May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I did complain about having my speech interrupted by the lunch hour, but I find now I have to withdraw a couple of things. One is my complaint about that. Then to my horror I find I was much too tough on Thomas Carlyle. In any race for immortality between myself and Thomas Carlyle, Carlyle would obviously win, and he has done so again. What I was trying to say was that we could not be tolerant of intolerance. I have had discussions with certain people who find that even with the most liberal editing they could not make head nor tail of my attempt to savage poor Carlyle, so the only thing to do is what the lawyers call confession and avoidance. I make it clear that the hon. member for Eglinton is not a contemporary of Thomas Carlyle.
In getting some thoughts together for this speech today, I came across another curious paradox. It has to do with Eldridge Cleaver who ten years ago was sought in the capitals of America and the world as being an outrageous radical, as undoubtedly I think he was. Among other things, Eldridge Cleaver went to Cuba and found his radicalism tested there because the generals in Cuba are white and the foot soldiers black; at least, that is what he said. So a lot of things happened even in American society to tell people that discrimination has no boundaries in the world, and no matter what the ideology, discrimination and racism can creep in. To Cleaver's credit, in this regard in any event, he saw the error of earlier days.
Another paradox I want to cite is a peculiarly Canadian phenomenon. I refer to people who sing brotherhood songs at service clubs on Monday and then busily go to private clubs which discriminate on the basis of colour, creed, and so on, on Tuesday. This is in no way an indictment of the service clubs, because I think they have contributed immeasurably to Canada. But in 1977 there is, surely, no place for any club, private or otherwise, the membership of which is affected by racial origin, colour or what have you. I must say that there is a high degree of hypocrisy in this aspect of our contemporary life. I assume that discrimination and prejudice have their origins in fear and threat, a threat to what people think of as their own little piece of earth, because there can be no other basis,on which such cruelty is founded. I should like to end the philosophical part of these few remarks with the thought that one definition of "man" surely is that he is a hoping creature. Once man gives up hope, he gives up everything. Hope is an essential condition of our very humanity.
I should like to compliment the minister and others who have had a part to play in this bill. The bill is an expression, in legislative form, of the hope that we have that practices that are outlawed will end some day in Canada. The greatest hope
February 11, 1977

we could have, of course, is that the commissioners themselves could, in that utopian day, work themselves out of a job. I do not believe that would ever happen, but it would be the ultimate of man's feelings about man.
As I said earlier, there are human rights commissions now in place in all ten of the provinces. This bill will apply to the federal jurisdiction and also to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The minister was quick to confess that it will not in itself end discrimination. There is a fascinating book on the whole subject of discrimination and prejudice written by an expert, Gordon W. Allport, entitled "The Nature of Prejudice". He writes:
Legislation, if enforced, may be a sharp tool in the battle against discrimination. Legal action, however, has only an indirect bearing on the reduction of personal prejudice. It cannot coerce thoughts or instill subjective tolerance. Law is meant to control the outward expression of intolerance. But outward expression, psychology knows, has an eventual effect on inner habits of thought and feeling. For this reason legislative action can be listed as one of the major methods of reducing, not only public discrimination, but private prejudice as well.
In a way, that is what I was trying to say this morning about the Bill of Rights, that its eventual effect on people will be that they know that they and others have rights, and the eventual effect on people in the human rights field will be the same.
There are, of course, some criticisms. Because the House has been rather generous to me about time, I will not go through all of them. I will save that part for the committee stage. Here I want to say how helpful the Canadian Association of University Teachers have been. They think that political views, family relationships and sexual orientation should be included as grounds. They are also concerned about physical handicaps, the restrictive way in which the legislation is now drafted. They feel that the matters related to employment, that is the phrase in the statute, appear to exclude the physically handicapped from the protection of clauses 5 and 6.
There was another very interesting comment. I heard it spontaneously. I think another member will be raising it later, so I just note it in passing. Most of the comments about age are with regard to pension and retirement. Actually, age is a prohibited ground of discrimination. Clause 7 states that employment cannot be denied on the ground of age, but clause 14 refers to normal age of retirement. Therefore, it would not be illegal to fire an employee because he has reached retirement age. In committee we will have to consider whether the bill condones systematic discrimination in the form of compulsory retirement, or possibly even a statement from the minister at the committee stage will suffice.
Others have commented, including the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, that there is not sufficient protection in this bill for the handicapped in matters other than employment. The minister spent a good deal of time on the new phraseology "work of equal value". I was particularly interested in what he had to say. We have to confess that many employers have taken advantage of this sort of grouping throughout the years. Presumably the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), who will be speaking, will address herself to
Canadian Human Rights Act
this matter. We have had some very interesting conversations with people who have reflected on this aspect, including the Ontario ministry of labour which put out a pamphlet in October of last year entitled "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value". They discuss some of the dilemmas. Again, I am not going to read into the record that long discussion. However, the House should be reminded of some of the difficulties.
To the extent that formal processes for comparison of jobs would be required by government, rather than merely encouraged or assisted, equal pay for work of equal value would carry with it a presumption of increased intervention by government in the collective bargaining and wage determination process. The question arises whether this is desirable or acceptable. Reactions to the federal government's heightened role in this area since the anti-inflation controls took effect in October, 1975, suggests that no consensus presently exists on the question. Despite the minister's comment about it, I hope that perhaps from this debate and what other people will say some of the dilemmas can be laid to rest.
Countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, West Germany, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and The Netherlands have also attempted to deal with the removal of sex discriminatory pay situations and have generally accepted the principle that pay rates be established using a single set of criteria for both sexes. However, there seems to be quite widespread recognition that progress toward equal pay for work of equal value has been slow. Just because I make this gloomy comment- it is actually a gloomy comment from the Ontario government's paper-does not mean that my party or anyone else who has thought about this matter does not support what the minister is trying to say. Perhaps I had better withdraw those comments. I would expect that a large part of the work of the new commission will be trying to make this part of the law applied fairly.
There are one or two further comments I would like to make. In clause 12 there is another definition of a discriminatory practice. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women feels that this clause is far too limited because it applies only to published notices and signs. The advisory council feels that advertising in other media should not be overlooked. The clause does not seem to attack the problem of, for example, stereotypes that are rampant in the advertising world about women.
Others in my party, particularly the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), will be dealing carefully and thoroughly with what I might call the second part of the bill dealing with privacy. I think it is fair to make this comment, and I do it without any particular partisan feeling. Had this bill been part of the law of Canada, the type of activity that we witnessed in the last couple of weeks, the so-called blacklist, would in itself have been an infraction. If not, then this law is not very effective.


Walter David Baker: It is an infraction of natural justice.

February 11, 1977
Canadian Human Rights Act


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: My colleague says it is an infraction of natural justice. Natural justice is one thing. I want it to be an infraction of statutory legislation. If it is not, the bill does not do what many of us had hoped for. I have given a lot of thought to the list, as have many members. I presume that this is a place where we can offer gratuitous advice and not be considered self-righteous. Anyway, we will try it out on hon. members. The problem of the list was that it was not stopped where it started. It was elevated into an evil thing because it was not stopped by the minister whose desk it came across. It was given credence because it was trotted around into various other offices.
I must say that had the solicitor general of the day been fulfilling the responsibility I would have expected of him, he would have destroyed the list. I am one of those outrageous people who welcomes the funding of some of the groups the government has been funding. The government was hoist with its own-


Walter David Baker: Petard.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Well, I wanted something better than "petard". I am hoist with my own cliche, really. However, the government seems to be nervous about risks. It takes risks once in a while by funding organizations and then seems surprised that some of the people who attend conferences say things the government does not particularly like to hear. This becomes elevated into some sort of a documental state warning the ministry that so-and-so may eventually bring about the downfall of western democracy. I have never been as nervous about western democracy or about the Canadian government as this government seems to be, and I hope that in future this type of thing can be stopped where it should be, in the hands of the minister-I suspect that it will be, and I mean this as a compliment to the new minister-or else that public servants will have a right to deal with it under the legislation.
The House has been very indulgent. When I started I said to the minister that this party understands the timetable. It has been ten years almost to the day since the royal commission was established. The bill has been drifting around Ottawa for some time in one form or another, and although other people will want to make their contributions the bill will be supported by this party at second reading. However, we will be expecting, particularly on the privacy part of the bill, substantial amendments at the committee stage. But neither the minister nor the government need have any doubt about the feelings of the Progressive Conservative party about the need for Canada to fall in line with the provinces with regard to having human rights legislation.
One last thing: the fact is often overlooked that sometimes we can do things in this country rather well. One place where some things are done very well is the province of Ontario, where the human rights commission and the operation of the act are among the best in North America. I hope nobody runs for cover or gets out a red covered partisan manual refuting

that. In other parts of the world Ontario is looked upon as a bellwether in the human rights field. I hope that this government, being the national government, can supplant in excellence what Ontario has been able to do.
Just a few moments ago I had a discussion with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). He may be wanting to speak, but he said something very wise and it provides me with a neat ending. He said he hoped that most of the work-and I am paraphrasing him-of the commission will be in conciliation and not in prosecution. I believe very deeply that the fewer prosecutions and the more conciliation, the better it will be for the human rights commission, because that will mean that slowly there shall be public acceptance for the concept.


Mr. Brewin:: I wanted to use that in my speech.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I hear the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) saying that I am using his speech, too. I am sorry. Perhaps the two hon. members met, and perhaps it is time I sat down. However, I want to say, with no reservation, that the concept of human rights, so long being born, is enthusiastically supported, generally speaking, by the Progressive Conservative party.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) that I was not complaining about his quoting something said to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). What I did say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North was that I had also intended to quote his remarks, so perhaps I will do so later in my speech. I certainly have no objection to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal doing so.
I can set the mind of the minister at rest very quickly on one score, and that is that this party will support this bill at second reading. We have no desire-whatever to hold it up. If we were going to comment in terms of time, we would be likely to comment that we should have seen the bill sooner. However, we are certainly not going to be in any sense responsible for its not passing quickly. There are matters which have to be examined thoroughly. This is a very important bill and we propose to do our duty, but we think that can be done without taking a great deal of time in this case. Those parts of the present bill which proscribe discrimination have been supported by this party for a long time and we will continue to support that principle by voting in support of the bill at second reading.
Those kind remarks in no way refer to part IV of the bill which is entitled "protection of personal information". We regard that part of the bill as being a farce and we think that the Canadian Bar Association rightly described it as totally inadequate. I shall deal further with that matter later. There are some matters which will have to be discussed in committee, of course, but there is no purpose in holding up second reading by dealing with any of those details.
February 11, 1977

We certainly approve extending the prohibitions against discrimination to discrimination on the grounds of age, sex, marital status or physical handicaps. To us, this bill-which might have been produced before now-is timely because it is obvious that there is a serious danger of the poison of racial feelings being expressed in a way which is entirely damaging and harmful to our community. Most of us who have been around a little while can recall the immense burden of human suffering which was caused by racial discrimination flowing from so-called racial superiority, and we certainly support provisions to prohibit the various forms of discrimination which are mentioned.
I would also like to join with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal in commending the excellent contribution made in this field by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, which made recommendations along these lines in 1970, for the persistence with which it has carried them out. I commend that because I think it is important to know that although things in this parliament sometimes go slowly, if people are persistent in good causes they can sometimes get results. This is a cheering illustration of a case where results have followed a very persistent, informed and reasonable presentation of a case.
I single out the women's movements of this country, and the special committees upon which they have worked, for special notice because I think they deserve it. Even at this hour I have a copy of background notes on this bill which were prepared for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and only made available in January of 1977. I hope that the committee, when it gets the bill, will have, not a vast number of witnesses, because that would delay the matter, but some experienced witnesses to deal with the act who will make their suggestions and give us their advice.
A problem is raised on the question of retirement. The phrase used is that there shall be no discrimination in regard to age, or the normal age of retirement, in dealing with that type of discrimination, but my recollection is that that is not well defined and is left to the impersonal operations of the market. So that if it becomes customary in some industries to retire people at the age of 30 or 40, then presumably the bill has no application. I think that should be looked into very carefully.
There is another factor which we think should be looked into very carefully. That is, as has been mentioned already by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, that-as I think is the case in nearly all the provincial acts dealing with this subject matter-stress should be laid on a process of conciliation. It is all very well to have sanctions and prosecutions in the courts, but I am not at all satisfied that the courts, which sometimes lack experience in this type of matter, are necessarily the best instruments in which to seek enforcement of the bill. They may have their part to play, but there is a process of conciliation, a process for seeking to get a change of mind, an attitude as well as merely formal compliance with the act. We think the bill
Canadian Human Rights Act
requires to be carefully looked at to see whether adequate machinery is provided encouraging that type of conciliation which has been proven useful in other jurisdictions.
There is an exception which we think is dangerous; that is the one which exempts action which can be described as a bona fide occupational requirement. There is no definition of this so-called bona fide occupational requirement, and we are fearful that that expression might well be used as a loophole through which some people can escape from complying with or obeying the spirit of the legislation. We know that in England the sex discrimination act, dealing with a similar matter, clearly defines what is meant by a bona fide occupational requirement, and we think it is necessary to put that in this bill.
Now I want to deal with part IV of the bill which is called "protection of personal information". In our view, as I have mentioned already, this is utterly inadequate. I think it is a good example of what good legislation should not be. The minister, in the usual fulsome way in which he refers to his own proposals, has described this part of the bill dealing with personal information as an improvement on previous legislation and as establishing a legislative framework for protecting the individual right of access to personal information.
We do not see it in that way. Part IV is full of exemptions and exceptions that are so sweeping that in all likelihood, even if they had any virtue to begin with, they would turn out to be unworkable because they are so broad. The exemptions are all in the hands of the minister who is declared to be the appropriate minister to deal with this act. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has even suggested that somehow or other this part of the act would take the place of a freedom of information bill such as exists in the United States and some European countries.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I never suggested any such thing.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I listened very carefully, and the minister certainly did say it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I did not.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Make yourself clear some other time. I am sorry I was so complimentary of the minister in what I said before. I will try to improve my style so that he will understand exactly what I am saying.
This suggestion-I thought I heard him make it, and certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is reported as having made it in discussing the freedom of information bill-is a total misconception. The committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, as the Minister of Justice knows very well, has been struggling with the freedom of information bill. The committee travelled to the United States and some of its members travelled to Europe. We have spent a great deal of time on it. I am sure that if he had thought for one moment it was worthwhile consulting that committee, he would have been told that there is no relevance in the statute we are dealing with now to a proper freedom of information bill.
2984

February 11, 1977
Canadian Human Rights Act
We were impressed, and I think that is true of all members of the committee, with the practicality, the clear, forthright and, indeed, successful manner in which the freedom of information act is administered in the United States. But I ask hon. members to take a look at part IV of the bill and note some of the exemptions. I will not attempt to go into all of them. Practically the whole part consists of exemptions. The bill deals only with federal information banks which are defined in the definitions section. It entitles an individual to see the records in these federal information banks. But the appropriate minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, exempt or restrict the information when he determines that it might be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, federal-provincial relations, or when it is likely to disclose information obtained or prepared by the government or any part of the government in relation to national security, detection or prevention of crime generally, or in the course of the investigation of offences against any act of parliament. So if in the course of investigation they collect any information of an alleged infringement of any act of parliament, the information can be exempted.
The minister also may exempt all material detailed by him to be detrimental to the custody, control or supervision of any person under sentence. That is another fairly large exemption. Further, the appropriate minister can prevent the disclosure of information which is described as confidential to the Queen's Privy Council of Canada, or any information relating to investigations pertaining to the enforcement or administration of any act of parliament.
Anything we investigate that is related to the administration of parliament can be exempted, or which might reveal personal information concerning any individual, or any information that impedes the functioning of a court of law or other tribunal, or which might disclose legal opinions or advice provided to a government institution. Mr. Speaker, since when have legal opinions become sacrosanct? I know the rules of confidentiality-that is, the confidence of the client-but this is a sort of general theory. The Minister of Justice knows about this because a parliamentary committee was refused permission to find out what was the basis of information being handed out wholesale by his department. A blanket of secrecy is put down by the minister himself on the efforts of members of parliament to find out what is being done in government. This provision is on a par with that. I think it is time we got rid of the myth that just by putting something in a legal opinion it is exempt from disclosure.
There is an even stranger provision. If, in the opinion of the minister, the harm of the disclosure would outweigh the benefit, then it could be made exempt. This bill says, in effect- and I put it in general phraseology-that anything the minister thinks should be disclosed, can be disclosed, and if there is anything the minister thinks should not be disclosed, it will be exempt. From the way some of the ministries have been behaving, I am quite sure much material would be exempt.

In our view, the act is a perpetuation of the reliance of the government on secrecy and its determination that we should not have an open system of government. By putting forward a measure that on its face requires something to be disclosed, and then it is eaten away by exemptions, makes the measure meaningless in practice. This is the government's method of holding on to the pattern of secrecy which characterizes its attitude in these matters.
The freedom of information act in the United States may not be perfect, but I think it has made useful and valuable changes in their law. This is not a light issue, Mr. Speaker. There are no doubt many reasons why the people of Canada and this parliament should not have confidence in the government. To me it is clear that this practice of general secrecy is a good enough reason for the people of Canada to get rid of this government as soon as possible. We are tired of a method of operation which conceals from the people of Canada and the parliament of Canada what the government is doing about various things.
Part IV of this bill is an illustration of how they seem to think we are eternally gullible enough to thank the great government for saying, "You can look up a freedom of information bank if you do not fall within some of the wide exemptions that are illustrated." An open society is important because you cannot have a participatory democracy-in which this government believes in theory-without information. To pretend that part IV of the bill is a real step forward toward making information available to people is a farce. In committee we shall do whatever is appropriate to have this clause removed from a bill which is certainly valuable in other parts which deal with discrimination. In its so-called protection of information it is a worthless piece of paper.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: job. This particular case raised very considerable concern among working women and has resulted in an increased sensitivity to the whole question of remuneration for women in the marketplace.
The bill before us today is, indeed, as the minister has said, a greatly improved version of the human rights bill, Bill C-72 which was before us in the last session, and to me one of the most significant improvements is that this bill establishes the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. The average female worker in Canada earns 40 per cent to 45 per cent less than the average male worker, and the gap between the two is widening. This massive earnings differential is due in part to the evident failure of our present equal pay legislation. It also results from the fact that women tend to be segregated in lower paying jobs-particularly in secretarial, clerical and service work.
Contrary to public opinion, this occupational segregation of women has increased during the past decade. "Equal pay for equal work" legislation which has been in force in Canada for over two decades compares the rate of pay of women and men in the same establishment on the basis of the same or similar work. In practice, however, comparison of similar jobs has often been avoided. Different job titles, or slight differences in work schedules enable, for example, a male janitor to earn more than a female cleaner. The argument has been made that employers undervalue women's work simply because jobs are staffed by women.
It can also be shown that when men and women perform jobs requiring comparable levels of skill, education and responsibility, men are usually better paid. This discrimination often comes as a great surprise to fair-minded men. A friend of mine who, in his own university, had studied the jobs, pay and skills of men and women on the non-academic staff, confidently expecting he would find no inequity because his university was progressive and followed good personnel practices, found to his great surprise that women in administrative support jobs by and large had two years more formal education than men and were paid about $1,000 a year less. He also found, as one might expect, that the title of the job was different, depending on whether it was performed by a man or a woman. These kinds of inequities, hopefully, will be dealt with by using the concept of "equal remuneration for work of equal value", rather than that of "equal pay for equal work".
The notion of "equal pay for work of equal value" allows for the comparison of unlike jobs, or of jobs that are not precisely the same on the basis of objective criteria of skill, effort, responsibility and conditions of work. We are not talking, in the bill before us, of a massive intervention in the marketplace. We are talking about guidelines for agencies, whether they be government departments or Crown agencies, which already have fairly sophisticated personnel departments, job evaluations and descriptions. Really, it is a matter of doing this differently and perhaps weighing some factors differently.
Canadian Human Rights Act
Men as well as women should benefit in the long term from an equal pay amendment. A gradual elimination of sex role stereotypes linked to occupations offers more possibilities for both men and women to make vocational choices based on their own talents and skills, as opposed to choices which are limited by stereotyped expectations. Once experience has been gained in applying this kind of legislation, it should be possible to develop a body of expertise in its application.
In 1972, the government of Canada, with the concurrence of provincial governments, ratified the 1951 International Labour Convention No. 100 which was concerned with the principle of "equal remuneration for work of equal value". In his announcement, the then minister of labour stated that "the basic obligation of a ratifying country is the pursuit of policies aimed at the achievement of the objectives stated in the convention". A number of years have gone by during which the implementation of this basic obligation has been studied. I have been interested to note, at meetings of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, that officials have gradually changed their initial position, of thinking that there was no way in which this idea could be implemented, to one of finding that the idea had possibilities.
I note, with interest, that the commission is to be empowered, among other things, to play a role in public education and research. I should like to see this idea applied narrowly and immediately in the development of mechanisms which will ensure compliance with the intent of this legislation, particularly in the public service. Unfortunately, a number of blocks to the advancement of women exist not because of bad intent but because old rigidities have not been modernized. This applies, for example, to job qualifications. Until recently, one of the qualifications for investigative jobs with the ministry of consumer and corporate affairs was five years' police experience. That was the qualification needed for the investigation of misleading advertising practices. Since few women in Canada have experience in a police force, the effect of that requirement was to introduce a male-oriented bias to selection. Obviously, for this kind of job some experience in investigative techniques is necessary. Surely, however, with careful selection of people and adequate in-service training it should be possible to find some equivalencies which would not have the effect of excluding women.
Similarly, until recently there was an absolute requirement of experience in labour administration for many jobs in the Department of Labour, experience which up to this point in our lives has not been generally available to women. Again, one finds few or no women at all in some of these positions. Given an intelligent assessment of equivalencies and an insistence on in-service staff training, it should be possible, surely, to include some women in such jobs. It has been the experience of those who have worked in large organizations, whether in the public service or in the private sector, that good staff do not fall like manna from heaven. They are generally the logical product of intelligent staff development and in-service training.
80008-511/2

Canadian Human Rights Act
Another program which was designed to find "promotable people" and develop their careers, but is not doing this for women, is the data stream system. Again, certain rigidities have crept in here. The "buzz" words which describe the needed qualifications tend to exclude women. For example, a master's degree in business administration tends to be much more highly regarded than perhaps a master's in social work or in nursing. Actually, the latter kind of specialization has often been seen as a handicap. Surely this is not reasonable, because although for certain types of jobs financial and business expertise are essential, there is more than one kind of administration. One thinks of an administrator as somebody who can create a climate in which people can work to capacity and as somebody who knows how to enable people to work effectively. The application of interpersonal skills in a task-oriented way is not necessarily something for which the M.B.A. is the only possible kind of preparation.
I hope that with the introduction of this new legislation and the requirement that equal pay be given for work of equal value we shall also find attention given to some of these mechanisms which will reduce the rigidity.
Another important element in this legislation is the inclusion of unions. The record of the unions in promoting the status of women has not been impressive. Flowever, some very encouraging resolutions were passed at the last annual meeting of the Canadian Labour Council and one must hope that this represents a change of heart, one which I am sure will be helped by the existence of the legislation before us.
When I was in Washington last September I met with an American unionist who told me that some of her associates had successfully sued her union for a large amount of money on the grounds of inadequate representation. Her comment was that the result had been to create in that union and in others a greater sensitivity to the needs of women members. But she added; "I really hate to see our union hit with a great big fine because, after all, it is our own money." I agree that union funds could probably be used for many more constructive purposes than the payment of legal fees and I would hope that the existence of the law, together with changing social attitudes, will result in more effective representation by the unions of the needs of their women members.
The fact that the commission has been created with a considerable degree of independence, and that it is to report directly to parliament, is important precisely because the commission has the power to review and comment on federal rules, orders and the like, and if these are found to be inconsistent with the principles set out in the bill, to include such matters in the report to parliament. This aspect of the commission's work will be extremely significant because the barriers to the advancement of women in the public service and in Crown corporations are often constituted less by overt prejudice and deliberate exclusionary tactics than by rigidities in old-fashioned hiring practices.

Two major criticisms of the bill have come to my attention through the mail and also by telephone. The first is that it places too much emphasis on negotiation, that it "lacks teeth", that it does not go quickly enough to court action. The other side of that criticism I heard, in Washington, in September when women in the women's rights movement were talking about big settlements which one corporation or another had been obliged to make as a result of a decision under the equal rights legislation. They told me that these court actions dragged on for so long, and large corporations were so well able to wait matters out, that the individuals concerned rarely benefited. One disheartened person said to me that perhaps equal rights legislation should have been called the "lawyers and economists social security act".
The emphasis on negotiation in this Bill and on attempts to reach a settlement before resorting to punitive action is one which fits the Canadian situation better. I think we have more taste and talent for negotiation and trying to reason matters out than for engaging in fierce fights. Moreover, we are smaller. We are dealing with organizations which are less entrenched. By and large we are dealing with situations where there is good will rather than otherwise, and I think that to use the heavy hand prematurely would probably not be in our interests. Nevertheless, it is well to have it in reserve, and I like the balance of the bill in that regard.
Turning to the second criticism, there are some who feel that questions having to do with employment should still be under the Canada Labour Code, that we are dealing here with a commercial transaction between a woman and an employer and that one ought not to be obliged to go to a human rights commission to get what is a basic right of that kind. I feel that this objection is met in the bill before us in several ways. First, there is the possibility of group action. A woman does not have to complain on her own; her union or group can lodge a complaint on her behalf. In the second place, there is the commission's power to initiate and examine. Then there is the fact that the inspection right under the Canadian Labour Code is retained. Inspectors in the Department of Labour retain the obligation to look for inequalities in pay. The accumulated expertise in the Department of Labour is retained and made use of.
I am sure that as with any bill some improvements will be made in committee, but I believe we are starting off with a bill which has many good features in it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In the course of a speech I made earlier this afternoon I spoke about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) having referred to the American freedom of information act. He has told me that he was in fact referring to a quite different American bill known as the privacy act. I misunderstood his reference, and on the basis of that misconception I attributed something to him which was quite inaccurate. I withdraw it and I apologize.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Further to that question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for his interven-
February 11, 1977

tion. It is a confusion which easily arises and I was speaking very quickly-the difference between a freedom of information act which refers, of course, to general information, and the protection of personal privacy and personal information, which is what this bill deals with.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-25 which is an act to extend the present laws of Canada which proscribe discrimination and protect the rights of individuals.
I believe the Canadian people should know exactly what we are establishing here. This is a bill to provide for a Canadian human rights commission, and the powers and functions of the commission are described. It is provided, for instance, that full-time members of the commission are persons deemed to be employed in the Public Service of Canada for the purpose of the Public Service Superannuation Act and for the purpose of the Government Employees Compensation Act and any regulations under section 7 of the Aeronautics Act. Also the commission is to provide for the payment of witnesses' fees to persons appearing before tribunals, and a tribunal may award compensation in the manner prescribed to a victim of a discriminatory practice.
I am not a supporter of establishing another government department or of expanding the bureaucracy, but certainly 1 support the establishment of the human rights commission. I want to read into the record this afternoon some of the reasons why we need such a commission and also to relate some of the discriminatory ways in which some employees are being treated by Crown corporations.
The enforcement of human rights legislation has always been weak and difficult. The Canadian human rights commission will have the exclusive power to turn away a complainant if it thinks the problem can be solved elsewhere. It could shortly become the last resort for a complainant as a result of overwork. The individual may be forced to turn to other agencies or even the courts.
The cases I am going to discuss this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, are cases that have gone to the court but the individuals have still not been informed why they were dismissed by the Crown corporation concerned. The individual or group has no right of appeal should the commission refuse to take a complaint or decide it is without basis. Nowhere in this provision does it state that the complainant has the right to information collected by the commission during the course of the investigation. The enforcement of a person's human rights is entirely in the hands of the human rights commission. I think there should be some check on what they do or refuse to do, and I hope this aspect will be thoroughly discussed at the committee stage.
In terms of enforcement, the commission has no powers. It can at any stage after the filing of a complaint appoint a tribunal which will hold meetings to determine whether the act has been breached. If so, it issues binding orders which are enforceable in the same manner as an order of the Federal
Canadian Human Rights Act
Court of Canada. It will take at least two years or more before this commission is established. One wonders whether the new federal ombudsman will have problems with the bureaucracy in terms of their resenting an outsider's authority to poke into their procedures.
I have received a letter from the Canadian Telecommunications Division of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. They have taken up the plight of one of their colleagues who has been dismissed by CN Telecommunications. The union has done everything it possibly can to find out why this person was dismissed, and the matter has been to the courts. Unbelievably, Mr. Speaker, even after going through the courts the courts did not demand that CN Telecommunications give a clear cut explanation of why this individual was dismissed. I should like to read the contents of this letter into the record.
On July 7/75 an employee of Canadian National Telecommunications in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, named Bernie Maguire was called into the office of the Superintendent and was handed a letter which read:
"We regret to advise that subsequent to your being accepted for technical employment it has been determined that you do not fully meet entrance qualifications for such employment with our company. In view of this we must terminate your services immediately."
Mr. Maguire had been employed for eighteen months as a technician in the testing and regulating department and he was not allowed to return to his shift but was paid two weeks wages in lieu of notice.
The company refused to give Bernie any specific reason for being fired. He had passed both the company technical examinations and the company medical. He completed the probationary period which is six months, and his immediate supervisor, Mr. Bruce Lodge, stated that he was quite happy with Bernie's work. Bernie Maguire to this day has not been given the specific reason for his dismissal.
It was not until the case was heard by an arbitrator that the company finally offered a partial explanation. Bernie Maguire had failed to pass a security clearance.
It should be pointed out at this point that prior to his service with CN Telecommunications, Mr. Maguire served in the Canadian Army in the "cryptology" department and he was security cleared to a very high level.
So the House can see that this is a strange case. This man could not pass the security test of CN Telecommunications, but he was not considered a security risk for the army, which had a higher priority over CN Telecommunications. Continuing with the letter:
The case was grieved by the union representing Mr. Maguire, which is the Canadian Telecommunications Division of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. It was grieved on the grounds that the collective agreement was violated and that an employee must be given a specific, valid reason for being dismissed. The case went through the first three stages of the grievance procedure with negative results. During this time MP John Reynolds brought the matter before the House of Commons and certain members and ministers promised support should the grievance procedure fail to bring satisfactory results, among them the Hon. Jean Marchand, hon. Ed Broadbent and hon. Erik Nielsen.
The case was heard by an arbitration board headed by Justice J. C. Anderson on November 14, 1975. The company stated that due to a contract with the Department of Supply and Services for the provision of communications facilities for the Canadian Police Information Circuit, all employees concerned must be security cleared.
In his decision Judge Anderson declared that the company had the right to set security as a standard of employment and that they were right in terminating the employment of Mr. Maguire. He ruled also that the company "could only do so upon paying the employee in lieu of reasonable notice, a sum of money at the rate of pay he was receiving at the time of his termination, equal to seventeen

February 11, 1977
Canadian Human Rights Act
(17) weeks of pay." He did not rule that Mr. Maguire should be told the specific reason for his dismissal.
I am going to give the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) a copy of this letter and I hope he will launch an immediate investigation. 1 find it very stange that the courts did not insist that CN Telecommunications provide a full and clear explanation of why Mr. Maguire was dismissed.
In view of this the union decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario to reverse the decision of the arbitrator. This court upheld the arbitrator's decision. On December 21, 1976 the case was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal and was dismissed on that day.
Legal counsel for the union has advised against further action in the courts but advises that the case be pursued in the "political arena".
So we are now pursuing this man's case in the political arena this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly hope that the Minister of Justice will take some action on it.
We appeal to the members of parliament to correct this injustice. We are asking only that Mr. Bernie Maguire be given the specific reason for being denied his security clearance.
If CN Telecommunications has a clear cut, logical explanation why this man was dismissed, then he is certainly entitled to hear it. One reason we need this kind of bill and a commission is to investigate cases like this. The letter concludes:
Do we live in a country where the rights of an individual can be so trampled on that a person can be fired from his job and be branded for life as a "security risk" with no reasons given and no avenue of appeal?
The matter is in your hands. Please don't let us down.
This letter is signed by a number of his colleagues in the union, and the case is one example of an individual I should like to see helped. It is unfortunate that this human rights commission will not be established until about another two years, so I hope that the Minister of Justice will take some appropriate action.
I should like to give the House another example of what happened to some employees in another Crown corporation, Air Canada. Five Air Canada employees were wrongly charged in connection with the theft of gold at an airport in the state of New York. They incurred legal expenses amounting to $18,000 and the airline refused to compensate them for their financial losses even though they did in fact receive their back pay lost during their four months' suspension.
This is not an isolated incident, Mr. Speaker; rather it is one that seems to occur quite regularly. Perhaps there are many Crown corporation employees who do not fully realize the position they are in, and I will just explain why. We had another case of a gold theft at the Ottawa International Airport in April, 1975. Although this case has now been solved, Mr. Speaker, Air Canada employees who worked at the airport were under suspension. The same thing happened to them as happened to the Air Canada workers in New York.
The crux of the problem is the lax security measures at Air Canada terminals. This is not the fault of the employees. If Air Canada expects its employees to guard valuables, Air Canada should make the task easier by first stepping up its security measures and then it should take on the responsibility of paying the legal fees of those falsely accused of theft. If

they are placed in this vulnerable position, they should certainly be protected. There has been no decision with regard to paying the legal fees of these Air Canada employees falsely charged with theft. This is another group that can appear before the Human Rights Commission because they have been treated unjustly.
There are others who wish to speak on this bill this afternoon. Therefore I will not take any more time. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) stated, our party fully supports this bill. There are details that can be worked out in committee, and some improvements made. I welcomed the opportunity to enter this debate this afternoon.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when basic individual rights are constantly jeered at in most countries of the world, the spirit if not the letter of the International Declaration on Human Rights remains ineffective, in spite of the nobility of the feelings by which it was prompted. I am grateful to the minister for that legislation which will legally ratify what is already found in the provincial jurisdictions and will enable Canada to join the unfortunately select club of nations which are not satisfied with pious and hollow words when time comes to deal with discrimination.
It is not sufficient, Mr. Speaker, to endorse the principle of a national, interjurisdictional or even international statement of rights, since concrete pledges to which it gives rise often contain pointless restrictions which deprive those rights of any real meaning and governments can then with impunity under the guise of national security or another wrong or hyperbolic reasoning cast them aside, alleging their temporary character. However, that feat of strength shows the weakness of those rights and the necessity of incorporating them in a statement and explaining grounds for discrimination while establishing an enforcement body to act as watch-dog ready to detect possible abuses by governments or individuals.
Therefore, principles and statements of intentions are important, but experience clearly shows that they are not enough and that solid structures must be developed to translate them concretely into facts and that solid tools must be developed to ensure that they are respected. That is the objective of Bill C-25, an Act to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals.
This is an important step in the total process involved in implementing an articulated Canadian policy for the protection of human rights, but it is not the ultimate expression of this process since human activities related to this area are innumerable and the list of the abuses involved nearly endless. I hope that this is only the start of a dialogue which will find its extension in the study by the human rights protection commission and future discussions in the House, since the House will periodically evaluate any change in the situation. In this context which is somewhat vague, I admit, but neverthe-
February 11, 1977

less very tangible in what directly affects certain Canadians who are now the victims of discrimination, Bill C-25 will aim at correcting the weaknesses which are the most obvious and the most socially unacceptable in discriminatory practices without ending completely all discrimination among human beings.
Unfortunately, and in spite of the beauty of the concept of human brotherhood, as long as there will be a humanity, there will be discrimination. But it is precisely the role of society to protect itself from it and eventually eliminate it by establishing general policies from which it must not deviate while strictly defining the limits of its intervention and action so as to protect effectively, without interfering with, the expression of the most basic of rights, that of freedom of thought, individually and collectively.
Bill C-25, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) have said so well, is a valid working paper with technical aspects that can eventually be reshaped and refined during the detailed study by the parliamentary Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I will therefore postpone at this point some hopefully constructive criticisms that can better await the committee stage, in the light of the minister's commitment to reconsider the details of this proposal.
The bill is in five parts with a preamble stating the purpose of the legislation and its basic principles. These are that every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or by discriminatory employment practices based on physical handicap. As I said, there is a recognition of the need to strike a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and those of the community, in the statement that the privacy of individuals should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with public order and well-being.
I am somewhat astonished that in his speech the minister avoided any reference to the protection of the individual's language, because this is a basic right deserving special protection, as indicated in Section 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I find no mention of it in the proscribed grounds of discrimination as stated in Bill C-25. I very much expect the minister can explain in due time to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the Canadian public why he rejected that right, at least in this bill to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals, and what he envisages as a substitute to the protection embodied in this legislation.
I realize that sufficient protection might be afforded by the insertion, in the preamble to the Canadian constitutional statutes commonly referred to as the Canadian Constitution, of a specific reference to the right of Canadians to communicate with the Canadian government in one of Canada's official languages. But what about the many Canadians whose mother
Canadian Human Rights Act
tongue is neither French nor English? There is something to think about although in every day practice it would be very hard to distinguish between outright discrimination on purely linguistic grounds and normal linguistic restrictions necessary to the orderly operation of Canadian society, more specifically of course in the area of unemployment.
Finally, let us remember that several members are expecting explanations and alternatives in this area from the minister. The creation of a Canadian Human Rights Commission is the natural extension of the statement of proscribed grounds of discrimination. Indeed, it is primordial to provide for the formation of a politically and administratively independent body whose object would be to sanction the contents of this legislation by looking for and into patent cases of discrimination. It was also very important that this commission should have extended powers, and clause 22 in that respect overwhelms me since in addition to the nearly police like aspect of its action in its role as a watch dog against proscribed discriminatory actions as set forth under Part I it may also undertake any action likely to promote collectively and socially the just cause of respect for all basic rights.
I hope in that sense that the commission will have great public exposure and that it will build around its work an aura of justice and equity, a sort of a secular arm of the equalitari-an social aspirations of our community. I will go quickly over Part III which also takes a look at discriminatory practices such as depriving an individual in Canada of government services to which he would normally be entitled, or adverse differentiation upon the provision of services.
Part IV deals with the protection of personal rights. This is an area about which a lot was written recently as it is related to the broader area of the right to information. The only thing covered here is an individual's access to government files compiled on him, and as many others I will be looking forward to an explicit line of conduct on what should be a unified and coherent policy on the right of the people of Canada to information and, correlatively, the classification of papers and documents produced by the government.
As for the protection of privacy of individuals, it is another of these fundamental rights that modern society has rediscovered after decades of systematic hesitation by governmental, semi-public, private and even sometimes secret agencies. Time has come indeed for us to issue, within the limits of the government's responsibility for collecting and processing individual data for federal information banks, strict rules enabling individuals to consult and, when required, correct the information stored about them. It is a very commendable objective whose sole foreseen restrictions, which I think will be very far reaching, would eventually inhibit its realizations by creating problems and conflicts of interest between the individual and the community in general.
In committee I intend to explore with the minister the extent and application of the anticipated restrictions and the right to information in order to establish with him and with our colleagues if, yes or no, we might be recognizing this right and at the same time strangling it by imposing overly severe

February 11, 1977
Canadian Human Rights Act
restrictions. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will simply add that the bill is very valid and that its objectives are no doubt shared by all Canadians and a fortiori by all members of the House. As for the different clauses, they will be studied where we discuss such things, in committee. For the moment we are discussing the principle behind the bill and, like everyone else here, I consider that this principle has already been established.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been ldng awaited and, as hon. members have said, there may be some difficulty in getting it to a level which we think would answer the best needs of Canadians as a whole.
We know that in the various provinces there are acts covering human rights, with some of the provinces, if not all, having human rights commissions. We have heard of some rather sensational cases and we have heard of others where, frankly, the commissions have got themselves in a snarl. I am concerned here about the danger of overlapping and that we would get varying standards between the federal legislation and that applicable to the provinces. I do not think one could say that it would be in any way tolerable, even less logical, to have differing standards of human rights in this country, regardless in which province the citizen or the resident may be located.
I would like to look briefly at some of the problems which I think must be encountered in some of the applications of human rights legislation by some of the provincial commissions. I think there is a very grave danger of discrimination in reverse. We have seen, particularly in the service industries, employers who have a particular purpose and who have a particular type of business in which a certain type of person must be employed, being denied the right to advertise, for instance, for a French chef. That is a no-no. Presumably one has to do it by way of advertising for a chef, either male or female, with a knowledge of French cuisine, and regardless of who may come up, in that particular type of establishment that person should have the right to that position. He may be completely unsuitable in the atmosphere or the type of restaurant or hotel that might be contemplated.
I was discussing this matter with manpower officials in Alberta with regard to the introduction into Canada under a work permit of, say, a Chinese chef of a particular type, whether he is skilled in Mandarin Chinese or Cantonese Chinese, whether he is a pastry cook, or what have you. One runs into the difficulty of saying you cannot specify that, you cannot say that you are going to put a Chinese cook in a Chinese restaurant. I say that is all a lot of poppycock because if the establishment is a Chinese restaurant, then in the kitchen there will be Chinese who understand the foods and who understand one another. To say that one should admit a person of other racial origin, who would be introduced, bulldozed or ramroded into one of these establishments, is totally wrong. That is one difficulty. It has already occurred and it
(Mr. Lachance.]
might, unfortunately, happen under legislation of this kind which in itself is very well meaning but which in its application is sometimes less than logical. Thus we get negative results. All that this can be called is discrimination in reverse, or inverse discrimination.
The third difficulty-and here I come back to the Department of Manpower and Immigration-is that in our present regulations the point system is discriminatory and certainly in principle and in spirit is contradictory to this act. Hon. members know that under the point system a person up to the age of 35 has no disabilities imposed upon him or her by reason of age, but any prospective immigrant over the age of 35 has one point deducted from the points obtained up to a maximum of ten. In other words, persons 45 years of age and over to the age of 65 have ten points deducted from the point score they have obtained, all because of age.
I say that the government of Canada in its application of its own immigration rules is engaged in a blatant form of discrimination with regard to the age indicated in this bill. Of course it may be that some of the purists or, to be more accurate, some of the legalists, will say "But in the act under clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 immigration is not a subject in which discrimination is prohibited." I will say that perhaps it is something we should discuss in committee. Clause 8 reads:
It is a discriminatory practice ...
(ii) to make any written or oral inquiry that expresses or implies any
limitation, specification or preference based on a prohibited ground of
discrimination
I suggest to you that maybe the insistence on the point system with regard to age in a written or oral inquiry is a prohibited ground of discrimination. This is something that I will not discuss with the minister but he might want to take a look at it and inquire from his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), as to the existing and intended practice in the devising and application of regulations relative to the point system under the Immigration Act.
The next point I want to talk about is that perhaps one can justify it and say there is no discrimination in the two tier system of post-secondary education fees. It is said that this applies to all known Canadian residents whether they are landed immigrants or Canadian citizens. However, we should face the fact that the public clamour in some areas of Canada seeking to impose higher levels of fees on foreign students is nothing more or less then outright racism.
Far too many people have told me that they have seen people going around our university campuses who are not white, and it is for that reason that Canadians are being excluded from what they would consider easy admission to university courses, whether their averages are worthy of it or not, or whether their scholastic performance is worthy of it or not. Usually if a close inquiry is made, it is found that the academic standards were simply not high enough. However, these self-same people lump in as foreign students many Canadian born students who are of second or third generation
February 11, 1977

but whose skin does not happen to be white. They are all lumped together as foreign students, and the attitude is that they must be kept out. I say shame on all of it. I think that is a wrong principle. Where it has been used I think it has been wrong, and it has been used by the government of the province where this is being done.
After all, 85 per cent of the cost at university level is borne by the public purse. About 10 per cent of the cost is covered by tuition fees, and 5 per cent by grants, bursaries and scolar-ships. However, of that 85 per cent-and this is where some of the provincial legislatures are loath to come clean with the people-50 per cent comes from the coffers of the government of Canada. Granted, it comes from Canadian taxpayers all across the country. One of the reasons this country is suffering in this particular regard is the absence of a national educational policy. There are many reasons-but that is another subject-why there should be a national educational policy. However, this is one of the consequences of its absence.
Three years ago the universities were crying because they did not have enough students, but now when there is a problem of some crowding I do not think we should impose a two tier system of fees. The fact that it is done in some jurisdictions in the United States does not make it any more right. Perhaps I am subjective because it was my privilege to spend three years at a university in a country outside Canada. There was no distinction as to where I came from with regard to fees. I hope that the university life there was better for that policy. 1 certainly benefited from the presence of many foreign students, and I know that in Canadian universities the presence of foreign students benefits both the student body and the faculty, in the same way as does the use of foreign teachers. The alternative is intellectual incestuousness.
I am wondering whether the two tier system of university fees is not in contravention of at least the spirit of clause 5 of this bill, because it seems to me that the provision of education is the provision of a service. There is a differentiation "adversely in relation to any individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination", and that is of national or ethnic origin or race. I hope that those who seek to impose two tier systems of fees at universities will be dealt with in this bill. I will admit that there have been some arguments made, but in essence they must yield to the other arguments for treating all applicants to universities alike, whether they are at the under graduate or post graduate level.
Then there is a final area, and that is the area of labour relations. The hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) made reference to unions. Many years ago I proposed motions, and I actually proposed an amendment to the Canada Labour Code which would prohibit the firing of a person who held bona fide religious beliefs against participation in a labour union. There are thousands of these people here in Canada, and there have been desultory efforts in Manitoba and Ontario-and there may now be in Saskatchewan-to bring in provisions to allow these people to engage in their chosen employment notwithstanding the fact that there is a closed union shop; that is, that those people who have a bona fide belief, as I indicated, will be
Canadian Human Rights Act
able to continue in their employment, notwithstanding that there is a closed union shop agreement, by paying the equivalent of full union dues to a charity which is mutually agreed upon by the union local and the individual concerned. There is no free ride in so far as non-payment of dues is concerned, but I suggest that there has been blatant discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs as a result of the implementation in many provinces of clauses under closed shop agreements.
The formula 1 have suggested has been tried. There may be other suggestions, but let it not be said that because of any type of labour agreement a person in Canada shall be kept out of his or her chosen employment by reason of religious beliefs.
The last point I wish to make refers to the Immigration Act. Persons presently in Canada under a minister's permit so that they may be able to work and get medicare and other benefits, are issued a social insurance number in the series nine. That is a clear indication to employers today that the status of this person as a citizen or immigrant is unsure. I have been advised by persons holding such cards that they must take jobs at lower than the going rate and that there are various forms of victimization as a result. Why must they have that series nine designation? As soon as the landing is cleared a new card is issued with a non-identifiable number. Mr. Speaker, that identifiable number is like the mark of Cain, and it should not apply.
There are many other areas of concern. We could talk about prejudice and so on, but these are the areas in which there is discrimination by reason of race, ethnic origin, maybe colour, religion, age and other things. I hope we will be able to discuss them with a degree of objectivity with the minister and his officials. If there is anything that will help passage of this legislation it will be the flexibility of the minister and his officials to accept ideas from the opposition and backbenchers. The front bench and its immediate advisers has no copyright on commonsense, logic and justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).


Mr. Paproski:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre De Ban6 (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Conservative Whip would like to participate also, but as he is here on a permanent basis he can do so at any time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Wait until May, 1978.

February 11, 1977
Numismatic Counterfeits
think are weak and I hope will be corrected when the bill is considered in committee.
The First point which strikes me, concerning the Solicitor General, is the second part of the bill, which deals with the federal information bank. For the first time since the completion of studies it commissioned in 1971 and 1974, the federal government comes directly to grips with this extremely complex problem, namely the information which the state is allowed to gather for various administrative purposes. The bill before us provides for the appointment of a Privacy Commissioner who is responsible for the enforcement of this part of the legislation. He will act as an ombudsman reporting to parliament on any possible problems relating to specific bodies-more than 90 of them-government departments or Crown agencies which must gather some information about citizens under their current activities.
It is an ombudsman as the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) has reminded us, who will carry out in the privacy area the same functions as the Official Languages Commissioner. The problem here-and I am quite sure the Solicitor General will deal with it-is the following: every minister will be allowed to exempt those institutions which come under his jurisdiction from the requirement to disclose all information obtained about individuals in Canada. This exemption which I call a loophole will enable any minister-and sometimes a Cabinet meeting will have to be held- to refuse to explain, for reasons which he will not be compelled to state, the exemption granted to a government institution. This is understandable when matters of national security and intelligence are at stake. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is four o'clock.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall orders preceding Order No. 56 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Kaplan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent in the Chamber to proceed under private members' bills with Bill C-256, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada (counterfeit of rare coins and notes).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I believe we are moving in that direction.


HOBBY PROTECTION ACT (NUMISMATIC) EXTENSION OF CURRENCY COUNTERFEIT LAWS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: moved that Bill C-256, to amend the Criminal Code (counterfeit of rare coins and notes), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have often seen the Chair come to a very rapid understanding of matters in the House and I want to congratulate Your Honour for reading the mind of this Chamber and knowing we had agreed to proceed at this time with Bill C-256, an act to amend the Criminal Code (counterfeit of rare coins and notes).
I intend to be very brief, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to take the time of hon. members to outline the background of the bill and tell members about the support it has received.
Currently it is legal to buy, sell and own counterfeit copies of obsolete coins, non-legal tender coins. The Criminal Code in section 406 defines counterfeit moneys to mean counterfeits of current coins and current paper moneys that are the lawful coin of this country or elsewhere. Under present Canadian law a counterfeit coin may be produced if the government which issued it has expired, for example the Third Reich in Germany, or ancient Rome, or if in the country of origin that money is not received any longer as legal tender.
Part X of the Criminal Code, which deals with offences relating to currency, is intended to protect the money circulating in this country, whether foreign or Canadian. When the relevant section was enacted, the intention was not to protect the value of rare coins. However, Mr. Speaker, some coins have acquired a very high value and it is difficult to convict a counterfeiter or someone buying and selling counterfeit coins, because at present it is legal to own, buy or sell such counterfeit coins.
A lawyer who administers the hobby protection act in the United States when testifying at the hearings before that act was passed said that some fraudulent coins have been sold as originals. He gave as an illustration one importer who, in a few years prior to 1973, sold 40,000 coins as originals. All his shipments consisted of imitation coins, none of which was marked as a replica. Inexperienced persons are particularly easy to dupe when dealing with counterfeit coins. This practice causes problems for generations, and threatens the historical and exchange value of the originals.
It should be illegal to manufacture counterfeit coins without the word "copy" on them. This would protect collectors, investors, speculators and hoarders. With the word "copy" clearly embossed, it would be obvious that the coins are not meant to be used as currency. The market in gold and silver coins is estimated to be many millions of dollars. What is needed, and what is proposed, is a law to protect collectors from fraudulent non-current coins.

February 11, 1977

It is common practice in Italy and Lebanon, and was until recently in Germany and some other places, to counterfeit coins as long as they are not current coins. Mints in those countries are actively engaged in manufacturing such coins. With modern technology and methods, the counterfeiters are turning out copies of very valuable coins which cannot be distinguished from the originals; these are copies not only of obsolete coins, but even copies of Canadian $5 and $10 gold pieces of 1912, 1913 and 1914, as well as of Canadian silver dollars of the 1930's and 1940's. These are listed in price lists as counterfeits, mailed all over Canada and the United States by counterfeiters, if I may call them that, and sold at just over the metal value. These counterfeit coins are so good that is often impossible to tell the difference between them and the legal ones. In fact the counterfeit ones quite often look more authentic. Although they are advertised as counterfeit coins by the manufacturer, unscrupulous buyers can pass them off as originals, and this is being done frequently. These counterfeit coins also find their way into bazaars in Europe and then into our own country. There are literally millions in circulation.
In 1973 the United States passed its hobby protection act which made it unlawful to manufacture, import, introduce into business or distribute any imitation numismatic item, coin, paper money, token or medal, which is not plainly and permanently marked "copy". The act is both criminal and civil. It permits any person to commence civil action for an injunction and damages wherever the defendant has an office or home. It makes it illegal to bring a counterfeit coin into the country unless it is stamped "copy". This legislation was enacted ten months after being brought to the attention of Congress. I am told it has worked very well.
West Germany in January, 1975, enacted a similar law which prohibits the manufacture of unmarked reproductions. This law was passed a few months after members of the Vancouver Institute of Coin Enthusiasts and the Montreal Numismatics Society presented petitions to the German ambassador in Canada. This organization in Canada can take much credit for the enactment of the law by the West German government.
Mine is a short bill, Mr. Speaker, and has already been widely circulated in the country. It was referred to in the trade magazine, the collector's magazine and the numismatists' magazine. I have also received letters, which I should like to present to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, from the Canadian Association of Numismatic Dealers, signed by Mr. A1 Bliman, executive secretary; from the Canadian Paper Money Society, signed by Mr. W. H. McDonald as past president; and from the Canadian Numismatic Association, signed by the president, Mr. Alex L. Munro. As those letters show, those three organizations representing the major numismatic associations of Canada support the principle of the legislation. In one letter it is suggested that the size of the word "copy" should be somewhat different from that proposed in my bill. In any event, the technical aspects of the bill, matters of size, type, etc., can more properly be con-
Numismatic Counterfeits
sidered in committee. I look forward to having the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken for bringing forward Bill C-256, a bill which is endorsed by the numismatic associations to which he referred. May I say that although the present bill has come forward today in the hon. member's name, it is not a new proposal; but that does not detract from the importance of the legislation. If my memory serves me correctly, this matter was first advanced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). I think that is the case. However, I wish to make it clear that my remarks are not to be taken as in any way detracting from the merits of the bill and the good sense of the hon. member in bringing forward the bill in its present form.
In order to allay any suspicions the hon. member may have about our intentions, let me say that the opposition does not intend to talk the bill out. I would not want the hon. member to think that I shall speak for the maximum time allowed under the rules. Members of the opposition recognize the importance of this hour, for good ideas are put forward during private members' hour not only by members on the government side but by those in the opposition as well.
I should like to see the bill referred to the appropriate committee. Having said that, I ask hon. members on the government side to remember the importance of this hour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Many good concepts are advanced by private members, by those on the government side as well as on the opposition side. I suggest that it is good to allow committees to examine private members' proposals. When, from time to time, the House adopts a private member's bill, or allows the subject matter of a private member's proposal to be studied in committee, the law of the country is enhanced and, because the work of the private member has been given recognition, the legislation of this parliament is enhanced.
I am afraid, and I do not say this in any partisan way, because this is not a partisan hour, that there are many times, I must say, through design rather than accident when private members matters are talked out, so they can never have the question put. I know the committee on procedure and organization has considered a change. I am sure the hon. gentleman who is nodding his head so vigorously on the other side is going to raise that matter, but I think we need much more than a change which would allow one item to go forward out of so many-for example, a draw.
I think we need a change in attitude toward the private members' hour, an attitude which will ask the House to consider very carefully the matters which are brought forward if there is some merit in them, even for the purpose of having a question looked at and, regardless of the side from which the
80008-52%

February 11, 1977
Numismatic Counterfeits
matter comes, private members will still be encouraged and the initiative of the members in terms of legislation would be encouraged.
Too often an indiscriminate no, an indiscriminate number of speeches, can destroy a good idea, and I do not think we should be destroying good ideas almost by design. The private member should be encouraged.
I think we should go far beyond even the suggestion which I know the hon. member opposite is going to put forward in good faith, in terms of the consideration of business. We could change the hours of the House. We could do other things. But I think we have to change our attitude, and that is perhaps the most important thing. I say this with some personal knowledge gained in the last week or so. I advanced a private member's bill which I admitted was really the first word rather than the last in terms of legislation in the hope that the subject matter at least, would go to a committee. But it didn't. 1 will persist, but it can become discouraging from time to time. 1 do not think good ideas should have to be pressed again and again. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has been here since 1940, with a short break-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since 1942.


Walter David Baker: Since 1942, with a short break, will acknowledge the difficulty faced by private members.
In saying I approve of this bill I am not asking for a trade for someone else's bill. I am asking for a rethinking of the principle by government, really, because I think the principle is a sound one, and I congratulate the hon. member for bringing it forward.
One other thing. I hope the hon. member will forgive me for importing it into the debate but I believe it is relevant to the subject matter. Members of parliament, including members of the Senate, now travel rather widely under the auspices of the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate. We visit other countries. We receive many delegations from other countries. This year I think the habit has been that we present those delegates with souvenirs of the 1976 Olympics. It has been the habit for us to give Olympic coins.
It happened yesterday when the Speaker presented the Speaker of the Venezuelan House of Representatives with a gold Olympic coin, a very treasured thing. But if that is a treasured gift to give and to receive, I think we ought to consider the striking of a parliamentary medallion which would be reserved for use by the Speakers and the heads of delegations visiting foreign countries under the auspices of one of our parliamentary associations. Such a medallion could be given to the other delegation, perhaps replicas or miniatures to members in the House, and we would also do the same to visitors to our parliament who come here under the auspices of other parliaments to visit in an official capacity as parliamentarians.
I have been in this House since 1972. There are some in this Chamber who were in the House before that time. Some were
here a long time before that time. Some have been here only since 1974. As a Canadian, I am very proud to be a member of this parliament. I know that all members in this House are proud to be members of parliament. Whether we sit here for a long time or a short time depends on a number of factors, but we are all of us proud to be members of parliament. We are proud of these buildings.
We are proud of the traditions which are part of this institution. It is an institution which is changing, but I do not think it is too much to suggest that we could exhibit that pride by some striking medallion which could be presented in the way I suggested, and under the auspices which I suggested, and which would be a visible reminder to our visitors, a visible reminder to our hosts, of our pride in this institution. I hope this idea will gain support from members on both sides of the House of Commons and in all parties and that Your Honour would convey my feelings to the Speaker of the House of Commons and that he, in turn, would convey them to the Speaker of the Senate.
I know we would have to examine the technical details and a host of other things, but in principle I believe it is important that we exhibit as members of parliament, in the broad sense in which we use the word parliament, our pride in belonging to this institution, our pride in taking part, for a long time or a short time, in the national life, and participating in debates in this place. And given the fact there is a certain importance attached to this authorized travel, in having the world understand our country, and in understanding the rest of the world and people in other parts of the world who are engaged in exactly the same practices, people who are now, hopefully, under free and democratic parliaments, but perhaps even some who are not so free and democratic, we should adopt this bill being put forward by the hon. member today, and consider in the long term sending a message to the Speakers of both Houses asking them to study my suggestion in consultation with the House leaders. I think this is a very important thing.
I hope I have not impinged on the courtesy of the hon. member in discussing his bill and that he will not feel hurt that I import this into a speech, but I want to congratulate him on bringing forward his bill and let him know he has my support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the sponsor of the bill first started to speak I cautioned him not to talk it out, and I can assure him I have no intention of doing so either.
As I looked at the bill I was reminded of the fact that as members of parliament we do learn about most of the things that are wrong in this country, the social ills and all the things that plague and bother our people. I have to confess, though, that I had never heard of this one, so it is nice to be participating this afternoon in action to correct a social evil even if I did not know it existed. I understand that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) knew about it. He said he had heard of it because one of his colleagues had presented a similar bill. Maybe I had not heard about it because no one had informed me about this legislation. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of


Finance (Mr. Kaplan) made a good case for it, and I am happy to know that even on his side of the Flouse there will be no talking out but that the bill will be given second reading and sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The next part of my speech I really should not take the time of the House to make, because it is really a carbon copy of the speech made by the House leader of the official opposition.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Why don't you table it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend, who was not here yesterday, for which I am very grateful-I did get a motion through under Standing Order 43 in his absence-does not realize that private members cannot table anything. Therefore if I have an idea that I want to present, unfortunately my hon. friend has to listen to me. I simply want to support the position taken by the hon. member for Gren-viile-Carleton that private members' hour is an important hour. Although some of us feel it is important even if all we can do is to press ideas year after year until we finally win their acceptance, it also helps to establish the importance of the hour if every once in a while a good idea which has been brought in by a member on either side of the House is accepted.
Perhaps it is time we added up the score to see what has happened in this session. I think the number of bills which have been allowed to go to committee is adding up a bit, but I cannot recall that any of those that got through came from this side of the House.


Mr. Landers:: Yes, one from the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) two months ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that a bill or a motion under Standing Order 43? Yes, my hon. friend is right, it was a bill. Then that is good. So the score must be about five or six for the Liberals, one for the Social Credit, none for the Conservatives, and none for the most important party in the House, the New Democratic Party. One of these days perhaps we had better take steps to bring the score a little more into line with the proportions of the seats we hold in the House.
Having said that, I emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that what really should count is the merit of the idea, no matter where it comes from.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You get more 43's.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had three parts to his speech. 1 have joined with him in the first part. I have offered a carbon copy of the second part, and I just want to say that I enjoyed the third part of his speech. In particular I enjoyed the way he stood up and expressed his pride in the heritage that we have in this country. I wish to goodness that my friend and his
Numismatic Counterfeits
friends would let us express that pride by letting the bill for Heritage Day pass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Bring on the bill.
Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice): Mr. Speaker, before I commence, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) has suggested that a medallion to commemorate the second 100 years in the House of Commons of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should be struck! However, the problem he and I were both faced with was: what type of material should the medallion be made of?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The problem is that the hon. member might not be here.


Mike Landers: Hopefully I will not be. Hopefully I will be in the House of Commons in another place. Before entering into a discussion on the merits of Bill C-256, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my seatmate, the hon. member for York Centre and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) for his initiative on behalf of numismatists and other coin collectors who have been defrauded in the past. At present the Criminal Code definition of counterfeit money does not include numismatic counterfeits. This is so because section 406 as it relates to coins requires that the coin in question be "current". "Current" means that the coins must be lawful currency in Canada or elsewhere by virtue of a law, proclamation or regulation in force in Canada or elsewhere, as the case may be.
Section 406(a) provides that a false coin is counterfeit if it resembles or is intended to resemble a current coin. The numismatic coins that the proposed amendment is designed to cover do not resemble "current" coins. They are designed to resemble genuine rare coins that may have been current at one time but no longer are. In fact it has been argued that the "fake" numismatic coins are not false in that they have as much if not more gold, silver or nickel content than the original coins have.
Section 406(e), likewise, does not apply. It provides that a coin cased with gold, silver or nickel is counterfeit if it is intended to resemble or pass for current gold, silver or nickel coin. Again, this section does not apply since the authentic numismatic coins are not current. The same reasoning applies to counterfeit paper notes. They must also be current.
There is no specific provision in the code to cover numismatic counterfeits. It may be that a criminal fraud or an obtaining by false pretence charge may be laid if the vendor of these coins or notes represents them to a purchaser as authentic. The Crown would be required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the vendor actually knew that the coins were not authentic. Subjective knowledge is extremely difficult to prove.
It clearly is not an offence if a person manufactures a replica coin or note that is not current.

February 11, 1977
Numismatic Counterfeits


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member for Athabasca is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member who is speaking rule 144 of Beauchesne. It deals with the matter of addressing the House orally. I should like to quote this rule:
It is a rule in both Houses of Parliament that a member must address the House orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech-
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have an example here of a total breakdown in the hon. member's ability to follow the rules of the House, and I should like to have that corrected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Athabasca is quoting an authority which the Chair would not challenge. However, I have said this in the past, and even today I have seen people reading speeches. Nevertheless they have expressed themselves verbally without reading or quoting from notes. I hope the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers) will speak in this way.


Mike Landers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually I was quoting from a memo which I received from the Department of Justice, and in view of the fact that I am speaking on behalf of the Department of Justice I thought I should refer to notes occasionally. If I may continue quoting from my memo, it clearly is not an offence if a person manufactures a replica coin or note that is not current. However, if the word "copy" is not printed thereon, then this omission creates a temptation to deal with these items as being authentic. If the code were to be amended to prevent this temptation from arising, then the number of frauds involving counterfeit numismatic coins or notes should be substantially reduced.
Therefore, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) recommends that the proposed amendment be supported as it is designed to correct this serious problem.
In view of the fact that my whip wants to catch a plane, I will now sit down.
[ Translation]


Mr.   Claude-Andr@: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. Very seldom in this House can a
private member's bill or motion reach that stage and be referred to the committee. I would like to answer quickly the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and tell him that I totally agree with what he said about the attitude of the House and of the members toward the private members' hour. Once again he was here himself.
The Committee on Procedure and Organization wanted to review the Standing Orders so as to give more substance to the concept of the private members' hour and so that a greater number of motions or bills can reach all the stages. This gives us something to think about. The private members' hour can be very important and, indeed, today's example shows that it can really be the case. We will have to study the amendments proposed by the Committee on Procedure and Organization. These are not final propositions, they are a matter for discussion, but I think once again that we should study this question and make the necessary improvements. I will not forget to throw the ball back to him saying simply that there should also be a change of attitude as far as the other hours we spend in the House are concerned, especially when the government introduces motions, and I hope that it will be the case.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. next Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.33 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 14, 1977