1977-02-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the clear medical danger arising out of exposure to arsenic, and in view of the recent revelations of elevated arsenic levels in Cobalt, Red Lake, Moira Lake and Gloucester township in addition to the previously publicized Yellowknife levels, and in light of the failure of the government to establish safe standards for arsenic exposure despite its having knowledge of the dangers for over two years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House empowers the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to conduct an investigation into the dangers of arsenic contamination and the adequacy of existing standards and efforts to deal with the problem.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the urgency of this matter I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to take immediate steps to achieve the implementation of the recommendations made in the report of Dr. Noel Hall on Canadian railway pension plans, dated in September, 1976 and published in January, 1977, particularly the recommendation that all railway pensions be indexed in accordance with the rise in the cost of living, and that special consideration be given to the case of all older railway retirees without delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESEARCH
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Since Canadian researchers are now in a distressing situation because of the government restriction program and the freeze on funds for scientific research and as the federal government policy on that matter has been disastrous so far and that scientific research is, in scope and in nature, the best long term investment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House call upon the federal government to take immediate necessary action so that all agencies concerned, including the National Science Council of Canada, the National Research Council of Canada and the Medical Research Council may benefit from the assistance which is needed by all Canadian researchers to further their scientific work for the betterment of man's condition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

February 17, 1977
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 might begin by saying that we checked this morning and learned that 14 ministers of the Crown are in Ottawa today


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and, although we certainly understand and approve the idea of ministers getting around the country, we are concerned because, while 14 ministers are in Ottawa, there are only seven in the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is to one of those, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question relates to the departure-


An hon. Member:: Here's Lalonde.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Paproski:: The minister of nothing.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I think the minister of nothing just said something.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we would all do well to start again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for overlooking the presence of the minister "without".
My question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs relates to the departure of Ambassador Jake Warren from Washington. It appears that the announcement of that departure was made inadvertently by the minister and, as of this morning, it appeared that the minister's position had not yet been officially communicated to our embassy in Washington. In light of the damage to Canada's international reputation, the personal embarrassment to an outstanding public servant in the person of Ambassador Warren-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and the damage that this whole comic opera atmosphere can do to the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs take the opportunity to tell the House of Commons what is going on?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You keep quiet, Lalonde; you are nothing but a corporal now.


Walter David Baker: Lalonde, stick to your pills.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -I welcome the opportunity to indicate to the House exactly what happened. Let me begin by saying that the questions of the Leader of the Opposition were clearly drawn, for the most part, from a newspaper story which appeared this morning in the Montreal Gazette.


An hon. Member:: No, it came from Ivan Head.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I doubt if they could have come from any other source. But, if they have, let me go back to the fact, namely, that the story to which I am referring and which contained, basically, the substance of the question asked by the hon. member, the story written by Mr. Ben Tierney, is totally groundless and without foundation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, about an announcement having been made by myself, let me emphasize again that I made no such announcement. I did what I think all members of the House would expect me to do in the circumstances. I was asked a question by a newsman who, from his own sources, had heard of Ambassador Warren's pending departure from Washington. He asked me a question and in conformity with what I think is my reputation, I did not try to be evasive. I told him the facts of the situation.
The facts of that situation are these: Ambassador Warren advised me in October of last year of his desire to be moved from Washington at some mutually convenient time. Certainly, it was not to be beyond the two years which he had indicated initially he was prepared to serve, which would be up to the middle or end of June, as I recall it, of 1977. At that point, and it was an informal discussion, I suggested that he talk to the appropriate people in Ottawa, which he did prior to Christmas. I think this is reasonably common knowledge, certainly among the parties concerned.
Prior to Christmas, the arrangements were concluded for Ambassador Warren to terminate his terms in Washington at the appropriate time, namely at the end of the two-year period. There was no relationship to the Prime Minister's visit to Washington. Indeed, in October when we discussed this, we did not even know that President Carter would in fact be the President of the United States at this time. I want to emphasize again there is no relationship whatsoever. I repeat that it is a total fabrication. If there is anything further I can add to this, because I agree that it is a most unjust embarrassment to Mr. Warren who has been an extremely good public servant of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 17, 1977


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -I can assure you I will do that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the record is now clear, although I do not think that the House will accept the suggestion that we should blame Mr. Tierney entirely for the embarrassment this affair has brought to the country. When does the Secretary of State for External Affairs expect to announce the replacement to Ambassador Warren? Will that announcement come in the near future? We would also appreciate knowing whether the replacement will be a career diplomat or whether the appointment will follow the pattern of ambassadorial appointments by this government to London, Paris and Brussels.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, once again I can say without qualification that the matter quite literally has not been discussed in terms of replacement because there was no anticipation nor is there now that Ambassador Warren will be leaving, as I believe some of the stories state, immediately, or anything of that nature. The position is that Ambassador Warren's term does not expire until June. I think I am right in saying June, certainly mid-year. There has not been consideration of a replacement. Therefore, I cannot answer the second part of the question because I have not discussed it with anyone as yet.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already indicated that he has been seized of this information since October. It did not break to him yesterday as it did to the rest of the country. Surely, there has been some consideration of the question of a replacement in the three or four months that have intervened. Since the matter has now broken, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he intends to make an early announcement as to the nature and the person of the replacement to Ambassador Warren and when that might occur?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, may I again explain that there has not been consideration of this matter even though I have been aware of it since October. Hon. members opposite who are familiar with the public service will know that there is an annual review of ambassadorial transfers and appointments which takes place about now, in February and March of each year. It involves a very large number of transfers. Therefore, it would normally be considered and will be considered in that context. That is the reason for not answering the hon. member. On the second part of the question, I am sorry I have forgotten the precise nature of it.


Mr. Fairweather:: Whether you are going to be the new ambassador.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not have any nominations at the moment, but I know of certain members opposite who would not be opposed to being approached.


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


POSSIBILITY OF CAREER DIPLOMAT REPLACING AMBASSADOR WARREN IN WASHINGTON
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that rather off-hand remark by the Secretary of State for External Affairs raises the question whether the government has any disposition regarding the appointment of a career diplomat or some other type of person to this position. Can the minister indicate whether there is a disposition to appoint a career diplomat to replace Ambassador Warren in Washington?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, without in the least seeking to be evasive, the hon. member knows I believe personally, and hon. members on both sides of the House agree, that there are occasions when it is appropriate to choose someone other than a career diplomat, but in this particular case absolutely no consideration has been given to who will be the next Canadian ambassador to Washington. I can assure the hon. member and the House of this.


ALLEGED FAILURE TO ESTABLISH PROPER STANDARDS FOR LEVEL OF ARSENIC IN AIR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the hon. gentleman inform the House why two years after the letter from the head of the air pollution control section of the Environment Protection Service in the Northwest, warning his colleague in Yellowknife of pending drastic reductions in arsenic permitted in the workplace, and one year after a request from the Director of the Bureau of Chemical Hazards in Health and Welfare that the Department of the Environment take steps to control arsenic air emissions because of the clear dangers from arsenic poisoning, nothing has been done to establish acceptable standards of arsenic levels in the air by his department?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: For an excellent reason, Mr. Speaker: because it is not my department that sets the standards.


John Edward Broadbent: In the absence of the minister who is certainly co-equal in responsibility, I am directing this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since his officials will play a central role in the establishment of such standards and since the warning to which I referred is more than a year old and came from an official within his department, I would like to ask him, as the man who is responsible at the national level for health standards in Canada, why he has done nothing about it.

February 17, 1977
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Once again the hon. member is totally wrong and incorrect. There is in the House now the acting minister of environment. He should therefore direct his question to the minister responsible, not to me.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the minister undertake in this serious matter, which should not be dismissed by quibbling debating points and which affects in a fundamental way literally the lives of Canadian workers, to make a statement tomorrow, in the House to tell us why, after more than two years, no action has been taken by the government of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, had the leader of the NDP had the common sense to ask his question of the right person, he would have learned that, following this letter, a joint committee has been set up by the Minister of Environment to consider every aspect of this issue. So far as I know, appropriate standards will be determined through consultation between the industry, the workers concerned and the government.


MANPOWER
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering that, according to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate for January and the beginning of February is the highest we have had since 1953, and considering also that the funds provided for the Canada Works Program, particularly for the first phase of it, are clearly inadequate, would the minister tell the House whether the government has been planning to increase the budget of this program?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Not at the present time, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at the applications which have come in. It is a new and innovative program which has found great acceptance in the country and I want to look at all the applications to see what we should be doing in this area.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I have given his office notice of the question. The hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for St. John's East, and I think I could say all of us, are associated with the

posing of this question. Will the minister express to the Ugandan authorities the distress felt by members of parliament and other Canadians at the tragic deaths of the Anglican archbishop of Uganda and two cabinet ministers; and will the minister urge the Ugandan authorities to have an independent inquiry into these deaths under the aegis of the United Nations or the Commonwealth?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in saying that his question reflects the views of many members of this House who have spoken to me since my arrival here just half an hour or so ago. I think all of us are appalled by the incident, which I have to confirm to the House has been reported and is indeed factual, in which the Anglican archbishop and two others were killed in the manner reported. We will, of course, make the necessary representations which the hon. member has asked for, and I would hope sincerely that there will be a disposition on the part of the Ugandan authorities to accept the independent investigation to which the hon. member has referred, whether through the agency that he has mentioned or in some other way.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Since one of the more disturbing aspects of the estimates is that while Canadians who receive transfer payments are being cut back, and while the bureaucracy has slowed the growth of its wage bill to a still excessive 11 per cent, Crown corporations are having their share of the public purse increased by nearly one-third. In light of the restraint which has been imposed upon the Canadian public, would the President of the Treasury Board advise the House why such disproportionate increases are necessary for this particular sector, which is supposed to be increasingly able to stand on its own two feet?


Mr. Stanfield:: It is obvious why they need it.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Without commenting on the intervention there, Mr. Speaker, one would have to go over the individual cases. I can give some general examples of further capital for operating budget, approval in regard to increased exports by EDC and things like that, but I think-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Agents' fees have gone up; they are now indexed.


Robert Knight Andras: Well, I suppose they are subject to inflation like everything else; we will try to do something about that. I would have to go into more detail than time would permit in the question period. You would have to look at each one individually and do a subtotal on it.
February 17, 1977


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the public accounts committee, which has just spent some three months investigating the operations of AECL, has discovered a great deal of financial maladministration and ineptitude on the part of AECL, and having regard to the Auditor General's report which concludes that financial management in this particular corporation is completely inadequate, would the minister tell the House how he justifies the doubling of the expenditures of AECL from $200 million to $400 million?


Robert Knight Andras: I would be glad to deal with that report of the committee, Mr. Speaker, but it would also be a question to be addressed to the minister responsible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the continuing testimony that has been received by the public accounts committee to the effect that these Crown corporations are not accountable to parliament, would the minister outline to the House whether he intends to take immediate steps to increase accountability of these Crown corporations to the committees or to the House of Commons, and thereby to the people of Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will review Hansard and my replies to the very same questions which were addressed to me by the hon. member for-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You were dealing with control, not accountability.


Robert Knight Andras: I was talking about control in my response to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am asking about accountability.


Robert Knight Andras: If the hon. member would read the answers in Hansard he would see what I said, but I will repeat it. The answer is yes, we are going to seek very quickly more financial control for government and for-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am asking about the accountability factor.


Robert Knight Andras: The accountability factor I touched on yesterday, and the hon. member knows very well that this is a very much more complex issue in that-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You did not. You talked about controls.


Robert Knight Andras: If the hon. member will read Hansard of yesterday, he will see that I raised the very question that in the interest of getting financial control we had to face the issue of whether we were going to go further and take over policy control of those corporations also.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not only did I read Hansard, I listened to what the minister had to say.
Oral Questions



ALLEGED REDUCTION IN EXPENDITURES ON COST-SHARING PROGRAMS-TRANSFER OF COST TO PROVINCES

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Would he explain how he can legitimately use the word "restraint" when referring to a cutback in federal expenditures of approximately $970 million in cost sharing programs, when in reality the minister knows there is no over-all reduction in the cost of these programs but simply a bookkeeping entry to transfer costs to the provinces. I should like to ask the minister whether it would not have been more straightforward if he had made his comparison of this year's estimates on the same basis as last year's to reflect the true increase in government expenditures rather than ignoring the transfer of costs to the provinces, thereby giving a misleading picture of restraint which, I suggest, has been done for political purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: May I say, with the greatest respect to the hon. member, that it is rather curious to hear her referring to the use of certain expressions and statements for political purposes after her question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



POSSIBILITY OF APPOINTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: My question is again to the President of the Treasury Board. Given the fact that this will be a record level of expenditures by the government, and the Auditor General has said that the control of expenditures is effectively out of control, is the Auditor General contemplating appointing a comptroller general to administer the expenditure of these programs in a more effective and efficient fashion?


Robert Knight Andras: It would not be the Auditor General who would appoint a comptroller general if that decision were taken, and no such decision has been taken.


James McPhail Gillies: Perhaps the minister misunderstood my question. I asked him whether he would appoint a comptroller general on the recommendation of the Auditor General to look after a more effective control of the expenditure of these funds.


Robert Knight Andras: No such decision has been taken.

February 17, 1977
Oral Questions



HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In this year, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of Canada, in view of her intended stay among her Canadian subjects during the month of October, will the government follow the course that was taken by the then prime minister in 1957, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who invited Her Majesty, as he stated, so that Canadians on the whole would understand and appreciate that the Crown is an integral part of the parliament of Canada, and invite Her Majesty, as is being done now in Australia, to open parliament or, if the session is still in process, that it be concluded and she be asked to read the speech which is normally given at the conclusion of a session?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the right hon. gentleman, may I say that I referred to the incident he has mentioned in my statement on television, that during the right hon. member's period as prime minister I believe Her Majesty did open parliament and the occasion was televised. If we succeed in having television implemented in parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -it would be a certain way of bringing the presence of Her Majesty in parliament within the view of all the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I make this point because I think it is quite relevant to the question asked by the right hon. gentleman. To my knowledge, the final arrangements with respect to the visit of Her Majesty to Canada have not yet been made, and certainly the suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman will be considered and related, if possible, either to the opening or closing of a session of parliament. I think it is a suggestion that is well worth considering.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman ended his reply in a way he usually does, with a suavity that quietens all opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him this: The excuse that we need to implement the recommendation to televise parliament in order to carry out my suggestion leads me to believe that he has forgotten that in 1957 when I came to office the Queen was here and the occasion was televised. Ever since, the opening of parliament has been televised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Why is it necessary to add such extraneous matters as the excuse he has now raised? All that has to be

done, as I suggest-and I hope the hon. gentleman will agree with me-is simply to carry on what has been done in the past, namely, to televise what happens in the Senate when parliament is either opened or closed by the Governor General.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thought I was paying the right hon. gentleman a well deserved compliment by mentioning the fact that during his period as prime minister the presence of Her Majesty in parliament had been televised.


John George Diefenbaker: And ever since.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I look forward to an improved system of television-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and that would make the event even more spectacular than the one to which he referred when he was prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ACTION TO IMPROVE DIET OF CANADIANS- POSSIBILITY OF STUDY SIMILAR TO ONE CONDUCTED IN UNITED STATES

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A Nutrition Canada report released by the minister this week shows the general diet patterns in Canada to be similar to the ones identified by a major U.S. study released earlier this month by Senator McGovern which linked diet to six of the ten leading causes of death in that country. In light of the seriousness of this situation, as revealed in both this report and Senator McGovern's report, can the minister tell us what new initiatives he is planning to improve the Canadian diet?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, several initiatives are now under way. In the very near future we will be publishing a new Canadian food guide to replace the old one which will have been revised and brought up to date in terms of desirable eating habits for Canadians. In addition, there is a whole series of activities in the field of public information and education within the framework of my department's program "Vraie Vie". May I also ment:on the efforts made through leaflets and inserts put at the disposal of the public, leaflets sent with old age pension and family allowances cheques. There are also a number of publications made available to educators if they wish to use them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
February 17, 1977

In the report of Senator McGovern in the United States, mention is made of the fact that the foods most advertised in the United States are those which contain the most fat, sugar, and salt, in other words those that are the most harmful to one's health. According to that report, people in the low income group and the aged are the most affected by that publicity. Is the minister going to make another study on the impact in Canada of that publicity on Canadian eating habits?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member on the quality of his French. I wish to add that I shall take his suggestion into consideration. I shall discuss it with my officials and see whether such a study should not be undertaken, or whether we should merely transpose the study made in the United States to the situation in Canada.



SOCIAL SERVICES


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding his new policy affecting adult care. His new policy means that he will now give the respective provinces some $21 per person in order to provide adult care services, thereby doing away with the cost-sharing program. I would like to know if the minister is re-assessing this proposed new financial arrangement with the provinces. This new arrangement will penalize provinces like P.E.I., Saskatchewan and Manitoba which have pioneered programs offering the best adult care services in the country. This policy would inhibit the improvement of services and reduce the quality of existing services. Is there no flexibility in the minister's mind at this time?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that there is so much flexibility that his information is out of date. As a matter of fact, the proposal will come before the House tomorrow for second reading. Legislation has been introduced in the House to the effect that there will be a $20 per capita grant rather than $21, and the federal government will continue to share the cost under the Canada Assistance Plan for a whole series of services provided to persons in need. It is a proposal which is different from the one the hon. member referred to, and it will be of appreciable benefit to the low income provinces.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I appreciate the minister giving me that information, but let me ask him this: do Manitoba and Saskatchewan approve of the policy as it now stands? In light of the fact that the deadline for the new proposals passed one or
Oral Questions
two days ago, can the minister assure me now that all the provinces are in favour of the proposal he just enunciated?


Marc Lalonde: No. Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that as far as I know the province of Saskatchewan has neither accepted nor approved the proposal I mentioned. I have yet to receive the reply of the province of Manitoba. However, I can say to the hon. member that five provinces representing over 75 per cent of the population have already agreed to the proposal.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the lead question of my leader and ask a question by way of a supplementary of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I listened very carefully to his replies to question regarding the termination of the duties of Ambassador Warren. Given the fact that the announcement of the termination of Ambassador Warren's tenure at this time could only reflect poorly on the ambassador and could in fact cause embarrassment on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, could the minister explain why this announcement would be released or leaked on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to Washington?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of leaks, that is something over which I obviously have no control.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Things are worse than we thought.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am, of course, speaking in a totally nonbiological sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: However, I have explained to the House that indeed this is a rather good example of the dilemma which faces a minister or any other member who is anxious to be forthcoming with the media. Initially, the media got the story and asked me to confirm it. I did what I felt was the appropriate thing, which was to say "Yes, it is true", and then to go on to explain the situation, which I have done in the House today. I want to emphasize that it was not a formal announcement, and clearly it would not have been the most auspicious time, to say the least, to make such an announcement. It was simply a confirmation on my part of a report which had been obtained by the media.

February 17, 1977
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: In spite of the fact that the minister has no control over non biological leaks-and we readily concede that-obviously as a minister he has to take responsibility for his department and for leaks which emanate from within that department. Given the announcement and the embarrassment this has caused the government and the ambassador, will the minister at least undertake an investigation within his department to see who is responsible?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, and let me assure the House that if I find out, there may very well be some biological leaks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General a question. There is now evidence coming from members of parliament serving on a special committee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with regard to penitentiaries which shows that these places are almost horror chambers. Men as young as 15 years of age are being subjected to disgusting sex acts. Is the Solicitor General now going to take a step, or is he going to wait for the report before getting rid of these horror chambers in Canada?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that one of the reasons why we set up a parliamentary committee was precisely to shed more light on the conditions in Canadian penitentiaries and try to educate some members of the official opposition who have always been reluctant-to endorse some improvements which we would have liked to make in the penitentiary system.
It is certain that criminal acts perpetrated in our penitentiaries and brought to our attention will always be prosecuted. In this case, the facts reported by the hon. member will be drawn to the attention of the British Columbia attorney general.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect to the minister, I appreciate that there will be a report, but there are reports appearing in the media about witnesses who are giving evidence-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder why the hon. member would laugh at this; it is very important. I wonder why the Solicitor General would wait and not take steps to clean up what I call horror chambers.
[Trans lation[


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, not long ago in the House the colleague of the hon. member, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), asked me to delay any change and any new penitentiary construction program until the House committee made its report. Hon. members of the official opposition could perhaps agree to take a common position. As for myself, I do not intend to delay the proceedings of the House. As I said earlier in reply to a question of the hon. member for Yukon, we intend to carry out our construction program and close at last some of those fortresses in the country.



THE ESTIMATES


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Privy Council. With the tabling of the estimates yesterday, when can the House anticipate the motion allocating the various departmental estimates to the House committees? There are less than eight working weeks before the guillotine falls to close the study of those estimates. May we have the motion tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will be put to the House either tomorrow or on Monday, but certainly at the earliest possible moment.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to one of the 15 ministers present in the House; with 14 others being in Toronto. I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council when he intends to call item No. 10 on the order paper, respecting the national anthem of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already announced to the House the legislation which will be before the House for some time, and I do not see a moment in space or time in which I would be able very soon to call this bill.



MANPOWER


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Canada Manpower offices are referring scab

February 17, 1977

help to companies where workers are on legal strike, such as in the case of Wyandotte Chemicals in Scarborough, Ontario and the Ottawa Journal, and in view of the fact that with unemployment at close to 8 per cent Manpower can virtually guarantee a steady supply of desperate workers as scabs to companies whose employees are on strike while at the same time denying striking or locked out workers UIC benefits under a guise of neutrality, is the minister now prepared to instruct his Manpower offices across Canada no longer to refer scab workers to plants where legal strikes are in process?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the industrial dispute policy of the department is to maintain a neutral position in these matters and that is what we are endeavouring to do. We indicate to individuals who are looking for jobs that a particular plant is on strike. If they take it on their own initiative to report, that is up to them. They are advised in advance that the plant is on strike.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the UIC is bound by clear legislation not to support workers on strike and maintains this supposedly impartial position, is the minister willing to recognize that Canada Manpower Centres which are supported by the taxpayers of this country from all sectors, are acting in violation of the spirit of impartiality and should review the regulations with a view to changing them?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think the stance we have taken is correct. If an employer, who also pays substantial taxes, wants to make use of the Canada Manpower centres to indicate a job vacancy, we tell the workers that there is a vacancy but that the plant is on strike. If the individual opts not to go he is not penalized.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Acting Prime Minister which relates to comments made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on opposition day in the House when he mentioned me in dispatches on several occasions for pursuing the government to get rail order contracts for the Sydney Steel Corporation. Knowing the minister's interest in this matter and his active participation, particularly with reference to the possibility of securing orders from Venezuela, may I ask if he is in a position today to at least give some encouragement to the Cape Breton area? I do not have to explain to the Acting Prime Minister the unemployment situation at the Sydney Steel Corporation plant.
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, I am aware of the situation at the Sydney Steel plant. Not so long ago, in company with the Minister of Transport, I had a meeting with the then president of the plant with a view to searching for possible ways to augment the order books of the Sydney Steel plant. All I can say by way of encouragement today is that the problem is very much before us and every step we can possibly take will be taken in the short term to assist the steel plant to secure orders.



THE ESTIMATES


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. When tabling the estimates yesterday he indicated the percentage increase over the previous year. I wonder if he could indicate what he anticipates the increase for the fiscal year 1979 will be-in other words, one further year. He gave that percentage last time when the estimates were introduced.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, any such forecasting was done by the Minister of Finance in his budget statement last May and not by the President of the Treasury Board when tabling the estimates. I will check on it but I am not prepared to make such a forecast now.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In answer to a question on January 25 placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, it was indicated a commitment had been given to the CBC for the coming six years for a 5 per cent real increase in their estimates, plus inflation. Could the minister indicate if that commitment has been given and if so, could he explain why there was a 16 per cent increase in the current estimates with respect to the CBC?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would want to check the exact formula arrangement with the CBC but I am aware that there is a real growth-a commitment there for a period of time. I believe it to be 5 per cent. Since that is real growth it also probably reflects inflationary growth. I will check on it and make sure my answer is completely correct.

February 17, 1977
Oral Questions COAST GUARD



OPERATIONAL DATE FOR NEW EQUIPMENT

Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the concern that exists on the west coast for the general condition of the coast guard capability in regard to the $63 million equipment program that was announced last May by his department, can the minister advise if there has been any change in this program and can he tell the House when this new equipment will be operational?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the M.V. Bastien City will be available for assistance to the fishermen during the herring roe season. In addition, the program which was outlined with regard to our coast guard facilities in total and our search and rescue facilities in total will be put in place. That means some additional search and rescue tasking will be given to vessels which are otherwise available. There will not be additional new equipment apart from that this year.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? On Tuesday, February 8, I requested a report from the minister on the boundary dispute between Canada and the United States. He stated that a series of meetings was held on this matter in Los Angeles and that further meetings will be resuming before the Prime Minister meets with President Carter on Monday next. Since the settlement of this boundary issue involves jurisdiction over the fisheries resources as well as national sovereignty over possible under water oil, gas and mineral development, has the minister any further information to give the House which will ensure there will be no disruption of Canadian fishing activity on the Georges Bank area as of March 1, especially since Ambassador Warren has returned to Canada and I understand he was one of our negotiators on this matter? At the same time will the minister indicate the progress being made by another group of the Department of External Affairs which is working on the maritime boundaries dispute between Canada and the United States.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the precise way in which the question was phrased, relating to Georges Bank, I could answer briefly that these negotiations are progressing very satisfactorily. That would not tell the total story, however, in the sense that there is also some problem with regard to negotiations on the west coast relative to salmon stocks. This is for the short term or the interim arrangement which we are seeking to obtain for 1977.

The further talks to which the hon. member referred began on Friday last week and continued into Sunday. The members of the Canadian delegation, who returned home, have already reported and will probably be going back again. In other words, it is a continuing negotiating process. It is still my expectation, and I believe I can say it is the hope and expectation of the United States authorities, that we can have in place by March 1 an interim arrangement on fisheries for 1977. The objective of this will be to ensure there is no significant change in traditional fishing patterns. This would be put in place with a view to obtaining a period without difficulty for fishermen in 1977 during which the longer term negotiations on the boundary might take place.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the economic importance of this whole matter to Atlantic Canada as well as the west coast, can the minister assure the House that it will be discussed when the Prime Minister meets with President Carter on Monday?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have not the slightest doubt it will be. As I think the hon. member knows, I will also be in Washington at that time. It is my intention to see it is dealt with at the official level also.



RUMANIA AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA-SUGGESTED PROTEST OF ARRESTS MADE IN VIOLATION OF HELSINKI AGREEMENT

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have two simple questions for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which refer to the disregard of the human rights aspect of the Helsinki agreement by a number of east European countries. Can the minister explain to the House why his government is afraid-gutless would be a better word-to voice its concern and dismay to these countries without depending on the motion of an individual member? Second, why is the government limiting its objections to one nation only, the Soviet Union, as was witnessed yesterday by the refusal of government members as well as ministers to accept my motion extending this parliament's concern to the governments of Rumania and Czechoslovakia for similar breaches of the Helsinki agreement?


An hon. Member:: You were told that.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time in a long time that I have been referred to as gutless. Let me say to the hon. member that I would refer him to Hansard. I saw the response of the Acting Prime Minister and I thought it quite reasonable in the circumstances to suggest that the matter be discussed upon my return to the House today. I will be very glad to do that. There is no reluctance on our part to denounce the kinds of activities in various other countries to which the hon. member has referred. It is a question-and unfortunately I have to say this in public-of looking at this matter on a mutually agreed basis so that we can have a satisfactory result, as indeed we did have on Monday.
February 17, 1977


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I always assumed that a motion presented under Standing Order 43 was for parliament and not for one minister. I ask if he will assure the Elouse that a message will be sent to the governments of Rumania and Czechoslovakia similar to that to be presented to the Soviet government regarding this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to have assurances that we will record our disapproval, as has been done in the case of the motion presented on Tuesday-I said on Monday-by the hon. member for Eglinton, he has that assurance. But I would also refer the hon. member to the much more skilled parliamentary approach of the hon. member for Eglinton, with which he might go further.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I rise on a point of order to ask the government House leader his intentions for today and tomorrow and if he will bear in mind my request to allocate Wednesday, February 23, as an allotted day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to reply to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton may I advise the House that today we shall continue debate on the bill in the name of the Minister of Justice to do with privacy and discrimination. Tomorrow, regardless of what happens today, we shall begin debate on the fiscal arrangements bill and we shall probably continue it on Monday if necessary. This will be followed by amendments to the National Transportation Act. If it can be worked in to the satisfaction of all parties perhaps we could consider the Air Canada bill. Wednesday would be an allotted day. Therefore, at the suggestion of the hon. member I should like to designate Wednesday, February 23, as an allotted day.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader mentioned first the amendments to the National Transportation Act, then Air Canada. Judging from his tone, he was not saying that those two bills would necessarily be called in that order. Can one assume that he would be willing to discuss the order of the calling of those two bills?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Quite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader with respect to the business of the House? Last Thursday, in an attempt to get him to bring forward Bill C-30, I offered him two badges, one of which said "Heritage has its day" and the other "Le patrimoine 9a se fete." The minister's reply was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member provides the badge in Gaelic, I will consider bringing it in.
External Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I should like to present the minister now with a badge in Gaelic. It is worded on the authority of two Gaelic scholars in Cape Breton and it reads, "Tha m'ag aontachadh la m'oighreachd."


An hon. Member:: What does it say?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It says the same thing. If the minister wears it, he will be saying, "I support our heritage." Now that I have met his condition of last week, may I ask if he will bring in Bill C-30 so that we can have Heritage Day next Monday.


An hon. Member:: And you will wear a kilt?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the badge. It is Gaelic, I see it is Gaelic, but when the hon. member pronounced it it sounded like Swahili. The hon. member uttered these words. I am encouraged by his interest in the language; it encourages me to give further consideration to Heritage Day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in English and French, a number of international agreements which recently came into force for Canada.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if among the agreements tabled there is included the recent agreement on pipelines between Canada and the United States.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but there are between 40 and 50 agreements in this batch. Perhaps I could send a list to the hon. member. I do not think the one he mentioned is in this particular lot. I shall see if I can send a copy to the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, will the pipeline agreement with the United States be tabled?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

February 17, 1977
Health and Safety Committee Act WORKER-INSPECTOR ACT, 1977


MEASURE TO ESTABLISH WORKER-INSPECTORS IN THE WORKPLACE
John Edward Broadbent: for leave to introduce Bill C-397, respecting the establishment of worker-inspectors in the workplace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, and of the two others which I hope to present later today, is simply to give recognition to certain rights of Canadians. It seeks to do something with respect to health and safety hazards which are increasing daily in our places of work. Specifically, the intention of this bill is to establish worker-inspectors for health standard purposes in places of work.


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

John Edward Broadbent: for leave to introduce Bill C-398, respecting the ensuring of rights of employees to refuse to perform work that is dangerous to their health or safety.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give Canadian workers the right enjoyed by working people of certain other countries, the right to refuse to perform work which in their view is dangerous to their health or safety.


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

John Edward Broadbent: for leave to introduce Bill C-399, respecting health and safety committees in the workplace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is perfectly straightforward. It would establish health and safety committees for working people in their places of work.


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

John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-400, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, (benefits to adopting parent).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, since working women contribute to the unemployment insurance fund, it is felt that they should be entitled to the benefits of the act. The purpose of the bill I am introducing is to correct certain discriminations and would allow women to collect maternity benefits no matter whether they adopt their children or bear them by natural birth.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 204, 214, 1,257, 1,266, 1,270 and 1,502.
\Text\


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to build four new lifeboat bases in Shippegan, New Brunswick, Souris, Prince Edward Island, Louisbourg and Sambro, Nova Scotia and, if so, what is the estimated cost of (a) the bases (b) each new lifeboat?
2.	In determining the strategic location of the bases, was any consideration given to the wide gap of coverage on the west coast of Newfoundland between bases CG-114 in Burgeo and CG-109 in St. Anthony and, if not, for what reason?
3.	(a) What is the capability and operational coverage of the four 44-foot self-righting steel-hulled lifeboats, particularly insofar as their capability under ice conditions is concerned (b) can the government confirm that the capability of the lifeboats is restricted to a few inches of ice, which in fact severely limits their capability?
4.	With reference to a letter of December 5, 1975, from the Minister of Transport to the Member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, is any reconsideration being given to deployment of new lifeboat bases in the Atlantic region to cover western Newfoundland between lifeboat bases CG-114 and CG-109, a distance of 400 miles?
5.	How is it expected that the area between lifeboat bases CG-114 and CG-109 will be covered, when the coverage of each base is operational only up to fifty miles?
6.	Is any investigation planned into the basic and fundamental lack of appreciation of the objectives of search and rescue exhibited by those responsible for the neglect of a 400-mile strip of seaboard on the west coast of Newfoundland?
February 17, 1977

7.	Is the destroyer escort Annapolis still designated under international agreement as a fisheries inspection vessel?
8.	Are any other Canadian ships being designated by the government of Canada for fisheries inspection under bilateral agreements with foreign nations, viz: USSR, Spain, Portugal, etc.?
9.	What departments are involved in the apprehension and boarding of foreign vessels under bilateral agreements?
10.	As a result of a DOT release of May 16, 1975, have any of the new proposed lifeboats been delivered and, if not, what is the expected date of delivery?
11.	What are the details of the electronic aids to navigation and the complete range of life saving and rescue equipment to be incorporated into the lifeboats being provided?
12.	What agency of DOT is making arrangements to provide search and rescue capability in the Atlantic region?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by Transport Canada and Environment Canada as follows: 1. The lifeboat base at Shippegan, New Brunswick, was established in October, 1975, and at Sambro, Nova Scotia, in April, 1976. The bases at Louisburg, Nova Scotia and Souris, Prince Edward Island, became operational at the beginning of June, 1976. (a) Estimated cost of operation and maintenance of these four bases is expected to be $508,786 for the fiscal year 1976/77. (b) Each lifeboat costs approximately $300,000.
2.	Areas where lifeboat stations will be of use to a maximum number of vessels are given priority.
3.	(a) The capability of 44 foot self-righting steel-hulled lifeboats has proven satisfactory for search and rescue purposes. They operate within a 50 mile radius from their bases, each has 400 horse power and is capable of towing vessels up to 50 feet in length, (b) These boats are designed to operate only in very young ice.
4.	At present, in addition to the lifeboat bases which have already been decided, no new bases are under consideration.
5.	The fact that there are no lifeboats based on the west coast of Newfoundland does not mean that area is without SAR protection. Search and Rescue coverage on this coast of Newfoundland is provided by other vessels operating in the area which are tasked for SAR when required and by the CAF Rescue Squadron at Summerside, P.E.I. The stationing of additional search and rescue helicopters in Newfoundland and the establishment of a Canadian Coast Guard Marine Search and Rescue Emergency Centre at St. John's, Newfoundland as announced recently will greatly improve the protection available to all fishing vessels and other shipping on the west coast of Newfoundland.
6.	No such investigation is planned. The operational area of a lifeboat is 50 miles from its base and it was never intended to have such a base every 50 miles on the Atlantic Coast but rather in areas where these boats could be of maximum use.
7.	Yes. In addition to the HMCS Annapolis, all 11 other DND destroyers on the Atlantic are designated as fisheries inspection vessels. These have been so designated since December, 1974. They are HMCS Algonquin; HMCS Assiniboine; HMCS Athabaskan; HMCS Fraser; HMCS Huron; HMCS
Order Paper Questions
Iroquois; HMCS Margaree; HMCS Nipigon; HMCS Ottawa; HMCS Saguenay; HMCS Skeena.
8.	No, there are no other Canadian ships other than the 24 ships now designated by the government of Canada for fisheries inspection under bilateral agreements with foreign nations viz: U.S.S.R., Spain, Portugal etc. As such, the bilateral agreements do not require Canada to designate specific vessels for enforcement purposes. The agreements simply recognize that upon extension of fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles by Canada all foreign fishing in the zone will be governed by Canadian regulation and be subject to Canadian enforcement procedures. The designated fisheries inspection vessels in addition to the 12 destroyers are: Fisheries and Marine Service Department of Fisheries and Environment CGS Chebucto; CGS Cygnus; CGS Golden Bay; CGS Nonia; CGS Arctica; CGS Baffin; CGS Dawson. Ministry of Transport CCGS John Cabot; CCGS Bartlett; CCGS Sir Humphrey Gilbert; CCGS Alert; CCGS Daring.
9.	Department of Fisheries and Environment, Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport.
10.	The four lifeboats were all delivered in the latter part of 1975.
11.	The following equipment is fitted on board: Radar, magnetic compasses, radio direction finder, LORAN, first aid equipment, search lights, towing lines, line throwing apparatus, pyrotechnics, power chain saws, inflatable liferafts, inflatable boats, outboard motors, stretchers and portable pumps.
12.	The Canadian Coast Guard.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has Statistics Canada or the Superintendent of Insurance any estimated figure, for any recent years, of the gross amount of share capital and the gross market value of such share capital of all Canadian public companies and, if so, what are they?
2.	How much in terms of percentages and/or dollars of the shares of Canadian public companies are now held by (a) private pension funds (b) mutual funds (c) non-profit foundations?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: No official estimate of the market value of share capital for Canadian companies exists. However, figures are published of share holdings of trusteed pension plans and mutual funds at market value. No estimates, either official or unofficial, exist for holdings of non-profit foundations. On the basis of the net worth of Canadian non-financial and financial companies, other than government enterprises, it has been possible to derive a very rough approximation of market value of shares. At the end of 1972 this figure stood at approximately $74 billion. The book and market value of shares held by Trusteed pension plans including their investment in pooled pension funds, as published in "Trusteed Pension Plans Financial Statistics"-Catalogue No. 74-201 were $4.6 and $3.8

February 17, 1977
Order Paper Questions
billion respectively in 1974. The corresponding figures for mutual funds as published in "Financial Institutions-Financial Statistics"-Catalogue No. 61-006 were $1.3 and $1.1 billion. It should be emphasized that the total figure is only a proxy for the market value of shares outstanding and that because of the volatility of the stock market, the above totals are subject to substantial year-to-year changes.
In so far as the Department of Insurance is concerned: No further information is available.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	In each year, to date, since the inception of the Fitness and Amateur Sports Programme, how many athletes have received grant-in-aid awards from the Fitness and Amateur Sports Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	In each case (a) who was the athlete (b) in which sport(s) did he or she participate (c) how and for what reason was he or she chosen (d) by whom was he or she chosen (e) what was the form of award and amount received?
3.	In each case, what was the athlete's standing on the International Federation's list?
4.	In each case (a) what competitions did the athlete compete in (b) where did the competition take place and what was his or her final standing in each event?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): 1.	Number of Athletes who have received
Year	grants in aid
1970-71	68
1971-72	305
1972-73	579
1973-74	576
1974-75	386
1975-76	525
Total	2,439
2.	(a), (b) and (e). The hon. member has been personnally advised as to the voluminous nature of the information requested (i.e. the names of 2,439 athletes, the sports in which they participated and the form of their awards). It was agreed that requests for such information should be made directly to the Program Operations Officer, Programs Operation Directorate, Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch at 365 Laurier Street West, Ottawa. K1A 0X6. (c) and (d) Upon the advice and recommendation of a selection committee of each of the various national sports governing bodies, the National Selection Committee and the Game Plan Technical Committee of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch recommends to the minister, for approval, the names of those student-athletes best qualified for a grant-in-aid.
3 and 4. Information concerning the international ranking of athletes involved in the Olympic disciplines, as well as information regarding the competitions, their locations and the athlete's final standing in these competitions is not available

from the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch. Enquiries of this nature should be directed to the national sports governing bodies and to the athletes' respective national associations.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Did the Orangedale Alcohol Project of Orangedale, Nova Scotia, qualify for a grant from the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so, under what programme was the grant awarded?
2.	What was the amount of the grant and for what purpose was it given?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the project's sponsors?
4.	How many people will be employed as a result of the project?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): 1. The project qualified for a contribution under the Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Resource Fund Contributions Program of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate (Health Protection Branch).
2.	The project received approval for funding in the amount of $43,200 for the period September 15, 1976 to August 15, 1977. The project will attempt: (a) to refine data collected in the summer of 1975 on teenage alcohol consumption at the community and country levels; (b) to develop a model alcohol education program, based on locally perceived alcohol and drug issues, and integrated into a school-based health education program; (c) to present the information gathered on local teenage drinking to small community groups and to discuss possible responses. These would reflect the degree of local concern and take advantage of as many available local resources as possible.
3.	The project sponsor is; Board of Directors, Orangedale Alcohol Research, c/o John Fuller, President, R.R. No. 1, Orangedale, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
4.	Three people will be employed: one full time; two part time.


Mr. Epp: Was a calendar published by Agriculture Canada entitled "Agriculture Goes Metric" and, if so (a) what was the cost (b) how many calendars were printed (c) who designed these calendars (d) were tenders called for the design and production of the calendars and, if not, what method was used to award the contract and/or contracts for design and production?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: Yes. (a) $106,846.60; (b) 354,000; (c) Miln-Bing-ham Limited; (d) Contracts for design and production were awarded by the Department of Supply and Services.
In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: (d) Yes, competitive tenders were called for design and printing separately.
February 17, 1977


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is there a shortage of insulation material for residential use?
2.	What percentage of the domestic production of wool batts and loose wool insulation material is exported?
3.	What percentage of the domestic consumption of wool batts and loose wool insulation material needed for residential use is imported?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. By its nature, insulation cannot economically be transported long distances. For this reason localized shortages can occur from time to time in various parts of the country when local demand exceeds local supply. Currently, there is no general shortage of insulation in Canada.
2.	Statistics Canada does not publish export statistics insufficient detail to provide this information on Canada's exports of insulation.The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce estimates this figure to be quite low on a year-to-year basis.
3.	Import statistics for mineral wool batts and loose wool insulation lack the detail required to provide a definite figure, which one can relate to domestic consumption. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce estimates the percentage of domestic consumption provided by imports is currently about 8 to 10 per cent.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 173 and 1463 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The answers are presented in this way because they are very long.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Forrestall: How many lawyers have been retained by the government and its agencies in (a) Dartmouth (b) Halifax County, Nova Scotia, since January 1, 1970, to date and, in each case (i) what are their names (ii) how much were they paid?
Return tabled.


Mr. Murta: 1.	For each year 1972 to 1975 and by country, what food aid in the form of grains was supplied by the Canadian International Development Agency and, in each case (a) what was the number of bushels shipped (b) what was the total dollar value?
2.	In each case, what ships carried the grain?
Canadian Human Rights
3.	In each case, who were the governmental agencies in the recipient countries that CIDA dealt with?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 16, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
Mr. Pierre De Ban6 (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned yesterday certain categories of discrimination which are not covered in the bill before us. I mentioned among other things the "freedom of conscience" which is not provided for as such in the bill in the provisions on religion; I feel this is a much very wider extension of the freedom of any individual to practise the religion of his choice or to decide not to have any religion. I also talked about expanding the provisions in the sexual area to cover homosexuals who are still discriminated against in spite of the fact that we amended the Criminal Code several years ago. I also mentioned other categories like the political beliefs and the social or economic conditions of people.
Today I would like to insist on one area of discrimination which is not mentioned as such in the bill and which, in my humble opinion, should have priority if we consider the political context in this country, its history and its problems: I refer to language. Of course, the bill does mention national or ethnic origin as well as race but, Mr. Speaker, I think that the word "language" should absolutely be included in the bill.
We are all aware, I hope, of the acuteness of the linguistic issue in this country, and I find it absolutely strange and astounding that the bill fails to mention this motive which, for a large part of the population, namely Francophones, constitutes in our view a discriminatory practice which has been investigated in depth, among others by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) who introduced this bill will have to agree to add this motive, not to lessen the others that are already in the bill, but to recall that, given the number of Francophones in Canada, this problem is of prime importance for French-speaking
3144

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
people. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultur-alism has shown to what extent French-speaking people, or Francophones, are discriminated against. For instance, how in the province of Quebec, in spite of the fact that they are in the majority, they are at the bottom of the income scale. I think that by trying to skip this question, which is fundamental for us as well as for a good part of the people, namely Frenchspeaking Canadians, we are not being fair to them in this bill.
To explain my view, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to clauses 9 and 10, which affect both unions and employers, and see to what extent those clauses, in their present wording, could have spared us, for instance, the crisis which we are now experiencing at Air Canada. Given the wording of these clauses, I do not think that they would have prevented the discrimination suffered by French-speaking Canadians, particularly mechanics in Air Canada's workshops in Montreal.
Here, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to quote some findings from the Official Languages Commissioner's report published two weeks ago and submitted to Air Canada's chairman regarding the situation of Air Canada's French-speaking employees. I am quoting from page 5 of the report: "Although Air Canada has made visible progress, particularly in its eastern region operations, at the moment of our review the situation was generally unacceptable for the corporation's French-speaking employees." English was the almost exclusive working language within the services of the head office and the employees in the eastern region had to use it when communicating with the head office.
The study stressed more particularly the following defects: lack of a dynamic policy promoting the use of French; lack of French working facilities which are essential to employees; deficiency in the recruiting policy and laxism in the staffing of bilingual jobs; lack of bilingual senior officers; insufficient technical training in French; negative attitude of some senior officers with respect to the use of French for operational communications.
Mr. Speaker, after reading this excerpt, I must again say with renewed emphasis to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) that the recognition of the language as a reason for illicit discrimination should absolutely be included in this bill if we really want to give justice to those groups which the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism considered as the other majority.
So, I repeat that clauses 9 and 10 in their present form have not dealt with the situation which was described by the Official Languages Commissioner and which we all know. I think that this demonstrates most eloquently that, as concerns reasons for discrimination based on language, the bill as drafted falls far short of the present situation.
Clause 14 of the bill provides, I think, an easy way out as it stipulates that refusal, exclusion and expulsion are not discriminatory practices if they are based on a bona fide occupational requirement. This is the pretext always used by Air Canada to justify the exclusion of French-speaking people

from that Crown corporation. If we leave to the employer total discretion to declare when exclusions, refusals or expulsions are based on a bona fide occupational requirement and he is the only one to establish it, I think it is an easy way out of observing the objective of the bill.
Another provision that, I think, should be amended is clause 19 of the bill providing that the cabinet can, in a contract with a third party, demand that the provisions of this bill be observed. I do not understand how this clause 19 gives such discretional powers in a field like this one, as it means that companies contracting with the government will be able, unless otherwise provided, to discriminate and engage in practices that are considered in this bill as contrary to public order and justice.
1 think that clause 19, by not forcing the government to demand that companies contracting with it refrain from discriminatory practices provided in this bill, represents a dilution of principles according to which we believe that nobody in our society should be the victim of a discriminatory practice. Another provision I find quite strange is paragraph 13(2) where, after it is provided in the first part that it is forbidden to communicate telephonically to expose a group of people to hatred, it says that there is no offense when it is done through a broadcasting undertaking. If it is forbidden to expose a certain group to hatred telephonically, I think it should also apply to the use of broadcasting.
The Solicitor General reminds me that we passed a section on that subject in the Criminal Code a few years ago when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was minister of justice, which is true. But I do not think it is a good legislative approach to stipulate in a bill on discrimination that it does not apply in the case of communications on radio or television and I am convinced that the Solicitor General will agree with me.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the United States went much further by creating the Commission for Equal Employment Opportunity. Indeed, it is forbidden in the United States to engage in discriminatory practices, not only within the government itself but also in the big corporations to whom the government contracts out. Moreover, they must take what is called "affirmative action", that is dynamic action to compensate and remedy an unacceptable situation. I do not think this bill does as much since it does not stress what the Americans call affirmative action and what I would call dynamic action.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are wrong in thinking we will solve our problems if we simply go on saying it is forbidden to discriminate against Indians without making it mandatory, as did the United States with the Commission for Equal Employment Opportunity, to establish positive programs to correct the whole situation within a few years.
Finally, I would like to mention that this bill gives too much importance to regulations that the governor in council may make in future. When comparing this bill, especially the second part dealing with privacy, to The Privacy Act adopted in 1974 by the American Congress, we realize that it is much
February 17, 1977

shorter than its American counterpart, mostly due to the fact that we refer too many decisions to the governor in council. Recently, a committee made up of members from all the different parties came to the unanimous conclusion that all too often when civil servants are allowed to enact regulations, they cause abuses and breach the fundamental rights in which we believe.
Finally, in respect of the language problem, it will no doubt be referred in the course of this debate to a provincial statute, namely Quebec's Bill 22, which grants some sort of precedence to the French language in Quebec. My impression is that, in opposition to that act, there will be allegations that it discriminates against the English language in Quebec. In answer I would call attention to clause 15(1) of this legislation, where it is provided that:
It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program ... designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate ... disadvantages that are suffered by, any group ...
My intention is not to discuss here the pros and cons of Bill 22, this would be irrelevant anyway. I would simply submit the following reflection to my hon. colleagues: French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec would be quite happy if they were granted in their provinces the same rights that are recognized under Bill 22 to the English-speaking minority in Quebec.
I simply want to remind them that no group of Frenchspeaking Canadians outside the province of Quebec enjoys the same rights as those recognized through Bill 22 to the Englishspeaking minority in Quebec. One must wonder how we can speak of equal and symmetrical measures when 98 per cent of people in North America use the English language currently with a French-speaking minority of about 2 per cent. If one thinks that it is the English language that is threatened in Canada and in North America where 98 per cent of the people use it, I would say that the blindest of all is he who does not want to see.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments which come to my mind at this stage of debate on this bill. I hope that in committee each of us will be able to suggest amendments to strengthen the bill so that the basic intent of this legislation will be the primacy of the individual, the primacy of the human being over institutions, which should be our first concern, I believe. This purpose could be better served than in the present bill, which of course represents a step toward the improvement of the situation, but which does not go far enough, in my opinion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity of debating what I consider to be a very important bill. I am pleased that my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) set the tone of the debate by indicating that there are problems which must be attended to, hopefully by way of amendments to the bill, to ensure the emergence of satisfactory legislation which at present is not satisfactory.
Canadian Human Rights
My hon. friend for Matane (Mr. De Bane) has indicated that there are some problems with respect to the "hate message" provision. He wondered, as I do, why broadcasting is an exception. I will have something to say about that, as well as about the awarding of contracts under, I believe, clause 19 and about the protection of personal information.
I think the debate on this bill is timely. I become a little dismayed when I pick up newspapers across the country and read that we have been relatively silent at the federal level about the verbal and physical assault and harassments which the visible minority in particular have been experiencing in the past few years. Therefore, it is about time we in this House realized that there is a role we can play, an interest that must be shown and a concern that should be registered. That is why, if I seem to be a little off target with respect to this bill, Mr. Speaker, you will understand because I want to bring forward some thoughts that I have, in the very short time at my disposal, in regard to what is happening in Canada and what I think Canada should be all about.
Since my election to the House of Commons I have had the opportunity on many occasions to travel the width and breadth of this land. Because of this opportunity I have been reminded continually of the greatness of this country, not so much because of its size but because of its way of life which has evolved and continues to evolve through the talents and cultures of peoples from various backgrounds.
In Canada we are overcome by the consciousness of the enormous task that needs doing. We all know that Canada takes in the northern half of the North American continent, involving a huge mass of real estate within which lies some of the world's richest resources. We have the responsibility, first, of maintaining our ownership and, second, of developing these resources for the benefit of mankind. This responsibility and development is a challenge for all Canadians regardless of race, creed or colour. This is a challenge of enormous implications, and to meet this challenge all people need, and deserve, the understanding and accord of each other and the assistance of enlightened government policy.
We are a nation of some 22 million people living together, involving various cultures, lands and heritages, all working together in dedication and with common purpose, the ultimate aim being a greater Canada in which all can share its wealth through equality of opportunity. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that statesmen, politicians and economists are only incidental in the pursuit of the building of Canada. It is the people who will make or break this nation's life. What of its people? I am reminded of the comments of a citizenship judge who said:
This nation has been enriched by the loyalty and sacrifice of persons who have come from many lands, heritages and traditions. To each this nation has given a chance to live and grow and share in the Commonwealth. From each Canada has accepted the gifts of different cultures and made them into an enduring heritage from sea to sea. This rich heritage is yours, as it is mine, because we are Canadians.
80008-61 Vi

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) in a speech some time ago paraphrased a sentiment which I thought was put so beautifully. I should like to say that I maintain that our country has been enriched by the beautiful and noble culture of the first Canadians; by the gaiety and passion of the French Canadians; by the measured dignity of the Anglo-Saxons; by the stern efficiency of the Teutonic races; by the vivid tones of the Celts; by the moving processional of 1,000 years by the Baltic peoples; by the diligence of the Italian community; by the beauty and age-old mystic of Asia and Africa; and by the grandeur and pathos of the Jewish pilgrims.
As Canadians, we have rejoiced in and have been strengthened by all of these different and varied qualities of enrichment. No Canadian race, no melting pot, no fashioning all into one mould, but, rather, we are pursuing the attainment of an identity which is based on intelligence, tolerance and decent, neighbourly attitudes. We are in the midst of the great Canadian experiment, that is to say, freedom to pursue our legitimate aspirations and evolving further: equality of opportunity; greater appreciation of different cultures, heritage and customs; and last but not least, bringing about racial accord.
In light of the fact that we are still in the midst of this great Canadian experiment, and because some are not even aware of the same, it is necessary from time to time to reflect again on what it hopes to accomplish. When I speak of the great Canadian experiment, I am speaking about a very simple principle which is the elimination of inter-group prejudices which disfigure and distort religious, business, social and political relations, with a view to the establishment of a social order in which the religious ideals of government and justice shall become the standards of human relationships.
This legislation gives us an opportunity to dedicate ourselves as individuals to the basic ideals of respect for people and human rights, which are essential to our way of life and, further, to dramatize the practical things which people can do to promote understanding and realization of these ideals at the federal level, thus giving leadership to all Canadians on human relations. Although there has been considerable improvement in attitudes, one must admit there are still too many who have kept, and do keep, people down or let them stay down by using powers either openly or subtly in discriminatory ways. For centuries many have fought for equality and although, as I have said, things have improved, it seems to me we still have work ahead of us. Indeed there has been progress, but nevertheless in Canada and throughout the world there still remains a degree of social and economic injustice based on colour, religion, language and sex.
The special needs and requests, and even demands, of those affected by discrimination because of colour, religion, language or sex are treated with apathy and indifference by too many people, such as those in positions of power, including members sitting in this chamber. There can be no doubt that the legitimate aspirations of these people to achieve recognition or redress are at times ignored completely, or even met with outright hostility. Accordingly, notwithstanding improve-

ment, there is a backlog of social and economic problems that can no longer be ignored if for no other reason than people have refused to remain patient in the face of injustice or settle for token measures that placate but do not remedy.
Many of us have been the victim of racial discrimination and have suffered grinding poverty and eventual degradation, a serious disability in facing the world. People of colour, in particular, have faced these horrible odds and obstacles and have kept alive their traditions and hopes notwithstanding. It seems to me that all the various stigmas and restrictions imposed on people, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether derived from colour, form of religious worship, degree of education, language, sex, and all the rest, are simply impediments to the advancement and development of an expanding society.
The tragedy in Canada is not only that many of those classed as visible minorities have not been completely accepted or recognized in a white society, but as well our human resources, a priceless social asset, are not permitted to make or are restricted from making a maximum contribution to Canadian society. No one in Canada should have to limit themselves socially, politically, culturally or economically. Yet by the actions of some, whether consciously or not, many of our people have been limited.
As a member of the Senate and House of Commons Joint Committee on Immigration, I travelled across this country and noticed that there still remains in varying degrees and in different locations in Canada racial and religious discrimination. Let me assure hon. members that despicable hate letters and hate messages are still around, and insidious social discrimination continues to rear its ugly head. But what is most important, I found that the vast majority of Canadians find these attitudes and actions despicable, distasteful, not wanted and not needed, which to me is certainly very encouraging.
Myths and untruths were prominent during these hearings, but the committee, after deliberation subsequent to the hearings, attacked many if not all of the myths and certainly emphasized truths. For example, quoting from the report of the joint committee, section 20 thereof:
A persistent theme of submissions, hostile to immigration, was the view that immigrants crowded cities, exacerbating housing shortages, increasing the crime rate, bringing infectious diseases, taxing the welfare rolls and government services and causing unemployment by taking jobs from Canadians.
In this regard the committee reached the following conclusion:
The committee recognizes that all these problems are faced by rapidly growing cities but concluded they are caused by economic, social and cultural dynamism of cities and their attractiveness to Canadians and immigrants alike.
The committee further concluded:
Canadians worried about the quality of life in our cities should took elsewhere than to sharply reduced immigration for a solution to the problems of city living.
I would refer again to the report. Section 22 continues:
Similar misconceptions also abound regarding the impact of immigration on social services and benefits and health care. None of the testimony supported
February 17, 1977

with facts the popular notion that newcomers are using these services more than the native-born. If anything, the committee has the impression that the use of such services by immigrants falls below the national average for the obvious reason that many come from countries where such services are traditionally provided by the family. Indeed, it would appear that interprovincial and rural to urban migrants make greater use of government support than persons from abroad.
Section 23 has an interesting conclusion, and I quote:
Nor do immigrants participate less actively in the work force than long-term residents.
Another myth was exploded, and in this regard I would refer to section 24 which reads in part as follows:
Some submissions contained allegations that immigrants, especially the nonwhite, contribute proportionately to the crime rate-
Expert testimony did not support this charge, and I emphasize that. It continues:
-and in a study prepared for the ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada in 1974 statistics indicated that the crime rate for immigrants was approximately one-half that for native-born Canadians.
Another section which I believe is worthy of your consideration is section 26, which reads:
The committee recognizes that it has been through the contributions and efforts of successive generations of immigrants that Canada has grown to be the relatively secure, prosperous and satisfying place it is. About four million immigrants have come to Canada since World War II. Their skills, their energies and their enthusiasm have added immeasurably to every facet of Canadian life and have created a vibrant multicultural mosaic. The committee firmly believe that the settlement of post-war immigrants alongside the founding cultures is one of the most positive chapters in Canada's post-war history. It looks to immigration to continue to contribute to the economic, cultural and social well-being of the country.
I would like to read another commendable section in the report, section 39, which reads as follows:
There is a danger of creating second-class citizens of many foreign-bom who have made their homes in Canada. It is evident that the ability of newcomers to adapt readily and successfully to Canadian life is in large part contingent on the esteem in which they are held by their chosen communities and on the existence of non-discriminatory treatment in employment, housing and services. The committee makes this assertion in the confident belief that the majority of the Canadian people are tolerant and generous, and not prepared to condone racial hostility and discrimination.
The committee also reported, in effect, that Canada has become to a large extent a multicultural and multiracial society, and it further stated that in order to promote intergroup understanding the committee recommends public and school education as well as legislative action to protect Canadians and immigrants alike from racial and ethnic discrimination. This society of ours, of course, must become greater, and in order to achieve the ultimate in greatness we must be prepared to understand that in our diversity lies a tremendous asset and that intolerance, injustice, discrimination and hate can only bring us to ruin.
As Thomas Curtis Clarke stated: "Let us no more be true to boasted race or clan but to the highest dream, the brotherhood of man". Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote Stephen Vincent Benet who said:
Grant us brotherhood not only this day but for all our years. A brotherhood not of words but of acts and deeds. We are all children of the earth; grant us that simple knowledge. If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed; if they hunger, we hunger; if their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure.
Canadian Human Rights
Canadians must stand against prejudice, Canadians must stand for justice, and they must stand for equal opportunity for all. We as Canadians, have, I remind the House, a commitment to that end. Since December 10, 1940, when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there has been an increasing awareness in many countries of the need for enactment of domestic laws and the creation of internal mechanisms to deal with discrimination. In this regard, all provinces have enacted statutes respecting human rights and I believe all those statutes have provisions for the establishment of a human rights commission. Of course, the provinces have taken the lead in this field because discriminatory practices have tended to be more prevalent in matters under provincial jurisdiction in the areas of employment,, accommodation and services, and because so many more Canadians are involved with matters under provincial jurisdiction.
What about the federal government? At present the federal government and its existing anti-discrimination provisions, federal statutes and regulations, are fragmentary. For example, within the Canada Labour Code, which deals with fair employment practices, certain provisions apply to the employment practices of organizations such as banks, railways, etc., under the jurisdiction of parliament, but do not include employment by the Crown in right of Canada, which is certainly unacceptable. I hope that will be rectified now.
I mentioned taped messages earlier which in my view, reflecting on the arsenal of hatred involved in which the taped voice is included, spilling forth malice and tolerance on the telephone, is the most insidious. After discussion with the provinces, and particularly with the attorney general of the province of Ontario, we now have a provision within this act regarding hate messages. But, as I pointed out earlier, it should include broadcasting. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the House will ensure that this provision is accepted. The federal government is involved with a multicultural society; let us make no mistake about that. Although we do have much legislation which attempts to protect human rights and the dignity of man, more is needed. In asking for more, it is sad to reflect that our society is so warped that it continually needs to introduce legislation to bring about racial accord. Accordingly, a Canadian human rights act was introduced. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit discrimination in all matters within federal jurisdiction on the grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, etc. The bill also provides for a Canadian human rights commission at the federal level.
Because of this act there will be an over-all body of law at the federal level to which persons may resort when they consider themselves harmed by the discriminatory practice of organizations, Crown corporations or persons whose activities fall within the legislative authority of parliament. As well, there will be legislation providing for the establishment of standards on the basis of which personal information and government records are accurate, accessible to the individual, and used only for authorized purposes. When we look at this

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
matter of the protection of personal information, we find that part of the preamble of Bill C-25 states that:
The privacy of individuals should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with public order and well-being.
Compared to the universal declaration of rights section dealing with privacy, this is vague, weak and limited. Clause 52 and the noble sentiments of the preamble sound good. However, with the exceptions outlined in clauses 53, 54, 55 and 62(l)(d), all of clause 52 is made, or can be made, potentially useless since records can be withheld from the proposed information bank, or only partially listed at the discretion of any minister in charge of an information bank. Accordingly, the intent of clause 52 is completely emasculated and becomes useless. The whole section on privacy is like a game of definitions in which the individual has most of his right to information to lose. For instance, subclause 52(2) provides that individuals must be consulted before records are made available for any non-derivative use.
Note, however, that in defining "derivative use" the legislation hinges it upon the minister's opinion, that is, a derivative use is one that in the opinion of the minister is consistent with the use for which the record was compiled. This, in effect, means any use, since we all know that word games are the easiest to play.
Another instance is clause 55 which, in effect, is a blanket discretionary clause cloaked in terms relating to public benefit and the cost of applying the clauses or provisions. Any provision will not apply if the minister feels that the public benefits derived from the application of those provisions will be outweighed by the costs. This clause alone could reduce the information available to strictly trivial information collected about an individual. The cost of many rights in monetary terms may outweigh the public benefit, but this does not mean we should not be willing to bear that extra cost. I read somewhere that this clause of the bill was rewritten 15 times. I am sure that was to make certain that the bill was couched in such terms that the government would not have to reveal anything it did not wish to reveal, while at the same time appearing to have a comprehensive personal information policy.
If this legislation is passed as it stands, people will not have access to many records because they will not be listed in the government index which supposedly is compiled to inform us and aid us in obtaining information. People will not be able to ascertain accurately to what uses those records have been put since knowledge of the existence of secret records and partially listed records will be beyond the access of the individual. Of course, even if a record is available, one could never be sure that it is complete since the minister has the discretion to restrict the information published. The principle behind these exemptions seems a little absurd because, in effect, they counteract the underlying purpose of this part by preventing an individual from seeing information collected about himself on herself. In short, the protection of personal information is very inadequate and this part should be scrapped completely and rewritten.
Another major objection to the bill is that there is no explicit clause dealing with the manner in which government contracts will be awarded, that is, a contract compliance provision. Granted, clause 19 states that the governor in council may-which is permissive-make regulations with respect to this matter, but it is not clearly and effectively delineated and it is too important to be stuck away in the regulations. In my view, the legislation should be rewritten and the commission specifically empowered to give certificates of compliance to all prospective bidders on government contracts. For example, every department or agency awarding contracts for construction, alteration or repair of public works must employ direct methods of ensuring that minority group persons are employed to a significant degree on all such projects-and this goal must apply wherever public funds are expended.
The obligation thus placed on an employer to provide employment opportunity requires more than his willingness not to discriminate, more than a posture of neutrality. For this reason compliance laws, is most cases, are accompanied by affirmative action programs. I could go on with respect to that matter, Mr. Speaker, but my time is running out and I did promise to conclude very shortly.
In any event, by a direct and visible effort we are attempting to support the original objectives of the United Nations proposed decade programs which are to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, colour, descent, national or ethnic orgin, especially by eradicating racial prejudice, racism and racial discrimination; to arrest any expansion of racist policies; to eliminate the persistence of racist policies and to counteract the emergence of racist policies and to counteract the emergence of alliances based on mutual espousal of racism and racial discrimination; to resist any policy and practices which lead to the strengthening of the racist regime and which contribute to the sustaining of racism and racial discrimination; to identify, isolate and dispel the fallacious and mythical beliefs, policies and practices which contribute to racism and racial discrimination; and to eliminate racist regimes.
The cancerous sore of racism, prejudice and discrimination which devours reasoning, love, compassion and tolerance is a problem for which education alone in the schools, the churches and the home is not enough, and therefore calls for other treatment. In this regard I place emphasis on the political scalpel-in other words, legislation-which can ensure that all of us in this multicultural society will have a meaningful future. It seems to me that many of us believe that the winds of change affect underdeveloped countries only, but I point out that in Canada also there is a wind affecting the attitude of all peoples and groups in their day-to-day relationships. Attitudes are affecting the thinking of the United Nations, the dogma of churches, the decisions of courts and the legislative programs of governments. There is a new social awareness and there are new attitudes calling for action.
I am not saying that the government should assure the survival of every ethnic group, but I am stressing that it should

February 17, 1977

give everyone a reasonable opportunity to survive by seeing to it that the necessary climate for survival is in effect and is maintained. Such action must result in helping to assure that there will be an equal place in all aspects of life in this country for everyone without regard to race, origin or religion, failing which I am immediately reminded of a comment made by a former United States secretary of state when speaking about the American administration. He said:
If no one will listen, the lack of communication will cause more frustration and fear, and fear leads to hate and hate leads to violence.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to become involved with this bill. I would like to see its quick passage so that we can determine how best to contrive methods to make the bill even more meaningful. I am particularly interested in the hate message aspect of the bill because we will need the co-operation and the expertise of Bell Canada. I hope we are making some significant strides in order to see that there will be no hold-up, when this bill is passed, with respect to the installation of the necessary equipment to reduce, if not eliminate, hate messages.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on second reading of Bill C-25, legislation to extend the present laws in Canada which prohibit discrimination and which protect the privacy of individuals. It is also known by its short title, the Canadian Human Rights Act. At the beginning of my remarks I would like to commend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) for bringing forward this legislation and also to express our appreciation to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and to all other associations for their contributions to this bill.
Canadians have waited a long time for this legislation in the federal field, not only because of their personal interest and concern about civil liberties and Canada's commitment to human rights declarations and covenants at the United Nations but also because the federal government has been lagging behind provincial human rights legislation. It is timely that we in this House enact the provisions of this human rights bill, especially during this period known as the decade for action, to combat racism and racial discrimination, a program officially launched by a special United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1973. Canada supported the adoption of this UN program, and it is only proper that the federal government has ratified the human rights convenants and conventions and continues to bring in legislation to help eradicate discrimination and racism, to increase understanding between the various groups which make up the multicultural and pluralistic society of this country and to promote respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of people both within our country and universally.
That is why I warmly welcome the purpose of this legislation, which is that every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she wishes to have, consistent with their duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
Canadian Human Rights
religion, age, sex or marital status, a conviction which has been pardoned, or by discriminatory employment practices based on physical handicap.
The bill is also intended to protect the privacy of individuals to the greatest extent consistent with public order and wellbeing. This bill, therefore, upholds the universally acknowledged fundamental principles of inherent dignity and equal rights to all members of the human race, the same spirit that this House unanimously has demonstrated during the past year or two in voicing its concern wherever human rights have been violated.
However, to be effective and of benefit, human rights legislation must be put into practice and really enforced. The high-minded human rights principles embodied in the constitution of the Weimar republic did not prevent Hitler manipulating those very principles to secure the power to abolish the principles, and today, alas, the human rights principles in the constitutions of many countries are ineffective because they are not enforced. We welcome, therefore, this Canadian human rights bill because of the comprehensive guarantees against infringement of many basic egalitarian rights and the provision of measures to enforce those rights.
Prior to this bill before us today there was only limited protection of egalitarian rights at the federal level in specific areas such as employment practices, fair wages, housing and immigration. Additional protection for federal employees was offered by setting up the anti-discrimination branch of the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commission appeals branch. However, apparently these protective measures were inadequate and the proposed prohibitions in this bill against discriminatory conduct will apply to all federal departments and agencies and any business or industry under federal responsibility. However, I am puzzled by the absence in the schedule of this bill of Crown corporations such as Air Canada and the CNR. I hope that further speeches on the bill, and the minister's reply, especially at committee stage, will provide answers why these and other questions have been exempted from the schedule.
This bill is timely because it will help defuse racial tensions to which hon. members have already referred and which seem to be increasing in our country. We also welcome the provision which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status, especially the proposal to require equal pay for work of equal value. Above all, the strength of this proposed legislation lies in the provision of enforcement by an independent human rights commission, responsible only to parliament, with wide powers to set up tribunals and to impose financial penalties. To enable this commission to be really effective and progressive, adequate funds must be provided for research and public education, and the government-especially the minister-should make sure that all sectors of our society are represented.
In our complex society which is often overgoverned and frustrated by bureaucratic red tape there is a need to protect

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
individual privacy and prevent administrative misuse of personal files in government information banks. We must also give our citizens unfettered access to their personal files and the opportunity to propose corrections where errors exist. The proposal in Bill C-25 to establish the position of a privacy commissioner to review any complaint by any individual that he or she is being denied rights under the act makes some progress in meeting the need of citizens who fear that information about them is incorrect or misused.
This bill does not cover everything in the field of human rights. We must admit, however, that it is a step in the right direction and, indeed, an improvement over previous attempts to bring forth human rights legislation in the federal field. Though we do not have a utopia in this country, a parliamentary committee will study the bill clause by clause and interested ethnic groups and civil liberties experts will have every opportunity to study it.
It is urgent, in our present constitutional and national unity crisis, to develop a comprehensive, constitutionally entrenched Canadian charter of human rights. Many people have voiced the same opinion. One such charter, which I believe should be recommended reading material for those studying the bill, was produced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when as minister of justice he inspired many Canadians and the delegates at the 1968 federal-provincial constitutional conference. At that meeting he proposed a constitutionally entrenched bill of human rights for Canada guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms of the individual and equal rights for all Canadians-namely, political, legal, egalitarian, economic and linguistic. I should like to quote from a document entitled "A Canadian Charter of Human Rights", especially the section on linguistic rights, page 27, which reads as follows:
Education-guaranteeing the right of the individual to education in institutions using as a medium of instruction the official language of his choice.
The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) made some remarks about linguistic rights. I want to reiterate that all of us have heard complaints that specific sections of Quebec's official language act do not comply with either the spirit or letter of the Canadian charter of human rights nor the international conventions, covenants and declaration on human rights which Canada has thus far ratified. I therefore appeal to the Minister of Justice, often regarded as our chief ombudsman, to examine these complaints and come to the assistance of those sectors of the Quebec population-especially the parents and children of minority ethnic groups-who feel that their linguistic rights in education have been abrogated.
Another complaint to which we should give our attention is the under-representation in parliament and federal agencies as well as the underutilization in industry, especially at senior executive levels, of the skills, talents and experience of members of the minority ethnic groups in Canada. Some progress in this matter has been made, especially in recent years, but more remains to be done to level out the vertical mosaic.
There should be no need for any Canadian to become culturally assimilated or to change the family name in order to obtain a high position in government or industry. I believe the

federal government's total commitment to multiculturalism and human rights will lead to harmonious relations in Canada and contribute immensely to national unity which we must strengthen and pass on, enhanced, to future generations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has already pointed out on behalf of this party, we welcome this bill for the good that is in it. We hope that the portions that are not satisfactory will be corrected or improved when the bill gets to the standing committee. In particular, we welcome the declaration of equality of rights amongst all Canadians and the declaration that certain things which are identified as discrimination are to be prohibited. The section of the bill that disappoints us is that having to do with the privacy commission. As I have said, the hon. member for Greenwood has already stated our position with regard to that portion of the bill.
I propose to address my few remarks in this debate exclusively to one aspect of the bill and I hope to say a few things that are specific within that context. I am sure that we all welcome the attempt of this legislation to take us further down the road in terms of equality between men and women in Canada. Other speakers have paid their tributes to those who have participated in the production of this bill. I should like to add to those who have been named such persons as the late Agnes MacPhail, the Hon. Therese Casgrain and others of bygone decades who did their best to establish women's rights in this country. We are grateful to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, which was chaired by Mrs. Florence Bird, and we are appreciative of the work done by the Advisory Committee on the Status of Women and also by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
Establishing this kind of equality is a slow process and we all recognize that there are problems. As I have already indicated, however, I wish to speak of a few things in relation to the equality of women with men which have not yet been achieved. As a matter of fact, I am going to get even narrower in my interest than I have suggested. One could talk about the differences that exist between men and women in rates of pay, despite our equal pay legislation; one could talk about the discrimination that still exists in employment; one could talk about the particular problems that face women who are single parents-all those things where we may declare the rights are equal. But there are countries in other parts of the world who give the answer that the constitution says everybody is equal when it really is not so. My point is, it is not enough to say that women's rights are equal with men's rights, although it is good to say it. It is worth while to have that declaration in this bill, but my point is, we must not stop there.
I said 1 would limit my remarks to the question of the equality of women, and I will narrow them still further. It will not surprise hon. members to know that I am concerned about inequalities in the field of pensions. First, I mention the Canada Pension Plan. The government, in this very session,
February 17, 1977

plans to bring in amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, amendments which it says are to extend to women rights which now apply to men. I point out that no matter how much one says that those pension provisions are open to either sex, the fact is that most men in their working years are in the Canada Pension Plan, but a large number of women are not. Until we recognize that a woman's contribution in the home is just as much a part of the production of goods and services as the work any person does in an office or factory, we will not establish equality. You can say all you want about the Canada Pension Plan being equally open to all, in the sense that any employee, male or female, contributes to and participates in the plan, but the fact is that by far the largest number of persons between the ages of 18 and 65 who are not in the Canada Pension Plan are women. I suggest, in practical terms, that is a case of gross inequality.
Let me draw a parallel. Membership of the House of Commons is equally open to men and women, but in the 110 years in which the Canadian House of Commons has existed, about 3,000 men have been elected to this place, but only 28 women. Sir, there is equality in the sense that men and women have equal rights to become members of this House, but in practice it does not work that way.
Mir. Woolliams: It sure does not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Incidentally, the statistic I mentioned of 28 women having been elected to this place in 110 years ought to shame us. I heard a comment, but I did not catch it.


An hon. Member:: Most of the women were elected fairly recently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Actually, all 28 women have been elected in the last 50 years. In the previous 50 or 60 years none was elected. During the past 110 years we have had 30 elections; therefore, on the average we have not elected even one woman per election. The Canada Elections Act says that everybody 18 years old and over can run for parliament. The human rights bill says that we are all equal. Yet unless something else is done, that equality will not exist.
Women have equal rights with men for the top posts in the public service, private industry, the boards of directors of banks, and so on. But how many women ever make it there? It is a miracle if women ever make it in certain professions. On the other hand, other professions seem to be left primarily to women. I do not expect the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to correct all this in this bill, but I urge that it is not enough just to declare equal rights. Other things must be done.
I wanted to deal specifically with pension matters and I began by talking about the Canada Pension Plan. That, ostensibly, is legislation applying equally to men and women. It is true that under the law a man who dies leaves certain rights to his surviving widow, and the woman contributor who dies leaves the same rights to her surviving husband. That is supposed to be equality. But that equality is gained on death.
Canadian Human Rights
Unfortunately, a woman's chance for participating in the Canada Pension Plan during her lifetime is denied, is limited, not by law but by the structure of our society. Those who designed the Canada Pension Plan failed to make provision for housewives or homemaker spouses, as we sometimes call them, to obtain pension benefits equivalent to benefits obtainable outside the home. That is a clear denial of equal rights.
I move to another pension area and suggest that some of the things one could say about pensions in the public service and pensions in the private sector can also be said about the provisions we make for widows. I know that this is a little speech I often make in this House. Hon. members have heard me say this a good many times, and I do not apologize for it. You can only get some things done around this place by repeating what you have to say time and again.
The pension system in the public service and private industry is for the most part based on the idea that the husband is the contributor; therefore, when it is time to retire and the husband and wife are both alive, they get 100 per cent of the pension-the pension which has been earned from employment either in the public or private sector. So all is well; they have both contributed in their ways, made their lives together and when they retire and both are alive they get the full pension. If the wife dies first, the husband's pension carries on at 100 per cent. But if the husband dies first, in most cases the widow's pension carries on but only at 50 per cent. In a few cases 60 per cent, although in some cases it is less than 50 per cent or there is no widow's pension at all. You cannot contend with success that there is equality in pensions paid either in the public sector or the private sector when such situations exist. Sir, I am not so naive as to think that the Minister of Justice can with the passage of this bill do away with all those inequalities, although I can tell you that there are Canadians out there who have heard of this bill and are hoping it will pass and bring about greater equality as between men and women so that some inequalities which work to the detriment of women in the field of pensions will be corrected.
I move to another topic with which many are familiar, that of widows of public service personnel, in which I include personnel of the RCMP and the Canadian armed forces. If the marriage took place after the husband retired from employment in the public service or any of the other services I mentioned, there is no pension for the widow. As long as the marriage took place before retirement, she can get a pension. Sir, this bill says that there is to be no discrimination, no difference on the basis of marital status. I do not know how one can say that this is being practiced if pension status depends upon the date of marriage. I have already objected to the inequality which results from widows getting only 50 per cent pensions when they ought to get a 100 per cent pension. Unfair though the payment of a 50 per cent pension to widows may be, I point out that some widows get no pension at all because their marriage did not take place before the magic date required under the law.
I refer also to veterans' widows, to the case in which the pension to the widow is based upon the level of the veteran's
3152

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
pension. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) a moment ago referred to the schedule to the bill. I notice that the Canadian Pension Commission is in the schedule to the bill and is listed as one of the entities which is supposed to determine these matters under this law. This law states that there is to be equality. However, a veteran who is on a disability pension in some cases leaves a widow with a pension and in some cases leaves a widow without a pension.
I am very familiar with how these pensions plans were built up; I know the pension theory that is involved in them. In this legislation we are trying to establish a new concept. It is not brand new; it has been pushed for decades. We have been making progress in this field but we still have not got to anything that can be called real equality in the pension field.
I seem to be listing all kinds of pensions where there are these inequalities. We at least have one where there is equality-old age security. A man or woman gets the pension because he or she meets the age requirement and the residence requirement. There is no question about marital status. This bill has something to say about discriminating against age, but it makes the exception that you do not have to pay a pension to everybody. It is perfectly proper to put down an age at which pensions are payable. Apart from that, there are gross differences and gross inequalities that affect women at the time when they would be pensionable.
I alluded a few moments ago to all the other differences that women have to face in employment, wage levels, services available to them if they have children they need to care for by themselves, discrimination in terms of housing accommodation, and so on. I mentioned earlier a few organizations which have done good work in this field. I should like to thank the Canadian Council on Social Development for a publication it put out recently giving statistics in all of these various areas affecting women. It is an interesting booklet. It probably came to all members as it came to me a few days ago. I recommend that hon. members study it. It is good for us to read this kind of material at a time when we are patting ourselves on the back and saying we are laying down in glowing language and in choice rhetoric that women are the equal of men in this country. Women may be the equal of men in constitutional terms, they may be equal before the law and before the courts; but in practical terms they are not. Why add to the difficulties that they face during their working years these inequalities which face them when retirement time comes?
There is one other piece of legislation I want to mention in this field the terms of which are probably contrary to one of the provisions in the bill now before us. I refer to the spouse's allowance. The minister says this is an equal piece of legislation, anybody, man or woman, can get that allowance between 60 or 65 provided he or she meets certain conditions. The conditions include two in the main. One is that you are married to and living with a spouse who is 65 or over. The other is that your means do not exceed a certain level. Therefore, it is equal. However, the fact is that women in that age

bracket who are in need but who are spinsters or widows do not qualify. Yet clause 17 of Bill C-25 provides:
The establishment of separate pension funds or plans for different groups of employees does not constitute the basis for a complaint under part III that an employer is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice if the employees are not grouped in those funds or plans according to age, sex or marital status.
I suppose the "out" for the government on this is the reference to an employer. However, we are talking about pension plans. I submit that the spouse's allowance portion of the Old Age Security Act is directly contrary to something that is prohibited by this piece of government legislation in that persons are grouped according to age, sex or marital status. I submit that not only is this happening with the spouse's allowance contrary to the spirit and the letter of that law as I just read it, but that it is totally and grossly unfair.
That is, as I have indicated, the contribution I wanted to make to this debate. Like my friend, the hon. member for Greenwood, I do not like the provisions relating to the privacy commission set up by this bill. I think they are inadequate and can be dangerous. However, I do like the parliament of Canada enacting a law which declares:
-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-
Even if that is clumsy construction in our language, I am glad that it is spelled out as "he or she". It goes on, as my friend read it a moment ago:
-consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or by discriminatory employment practices based on physical handicap-
I am glad parliament is passing this; I am glad we are having this debate, standing up and expressing with great pride that we in Canada have come a long way. We have come a long way since Agnes MacPhail first stood in this House of Commons, the first woman to come here, and said that she asked for no quarter. We still have a long way to go. I am glad that other bodies such as those I have named are giving statistics and pointing out what needs to be done in areas of employment, housing, wage levels, availability of legal services, and all the rest.
I am grateful to you, sir, for letting me make the point this afternoon that we are a long way from equality of men and women in terms of pension rights. If this bill does not correct those rights, I hope we can at least persuade the government that when we have a statute that says these things about equality we ought to put them in effect. That will mean substantial amendments to the Old Age Security Act, the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Canadian Armed Forces Superannuation Act, and quite a few others. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that parliament, having made this ringing declaration about equal rights, we will follow through with specific improvements. Let us make women equal, at least in pensions.
February 17, 1977


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I was inspired by a number of statements in this debate which are worthy of the very best traditions of the House. I listened to some on the other side as well as some on this side. They show how fundamental, deep and very important this legislation is. As I listened to the proceedings in this chamber today I could not help but feel the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in the question period, the violation of human rights in Uganda, another part of the world. I want to associate myself with the matters he raised and the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). We hope that legislation like this will make our country a much better place, and I am proud to support it.
Having said that, I want to refer to two clauses in the bill that give me a great deal of concern. I hope that some hon. members on the other side, especially the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will give heed to what I have to say because I think I have an important point concerning this bill and other statutes. I refer to clauses 21 and 57. Let me quote from the statement made by the minister, as reported at page 2977 of Hansard of February 11, when he introduced this measure.
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 penalty.
He went on to say:
As befits 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 which relate to the federal public sector as well as the private public sector, would, unlike those in some other jurisdictions, be independent of government and responsible only to parliament.
My concern is with regard to the proliferation of agencies and bodies responsible to parliament, and to the mechanism by which parliament exercises, or fails to exercise, jurisdiction. I hope that when the bill is referred to the committee hon. members will examine these clauses and, hopefully, modify some of them. Why should such a body report directly to parliament and not be responsible to the executive? The Advisory Committee on the Status of Women asked for it. The minister has told us that those who sit in judgment, as it were, on government conduct should report to parliament rather than to the executive. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this argument about independence a great many times. I maintain that the affairs of these bodies are conducted, not better but worse as a result of the absence of government supervision.
It is important that the executive arm of government assume responsibility not only for the matters raised by the Auditor General-and these are serious enough-but that it should answer for the policies carried out by independent agencies or bodies. The Auditor General tells us he cannot even supply a complete list of all the Crown corporations which exist. He appended a list to his report but he says he keeps finding new ones. I ask myself how many agencies report directly to
3153
Canadian Human Rights
parliament. The Auditor General does so himself, but he has a special committee of the House which considers his report; there is usually a standing reference giving the public accounts committee the responsibility of considering the report and calling the attention of the House and of the nation to the matters contained therein.
The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible only to parliament and the committee on privileges and elections usually assumes responsibility for dealing with the questions he raises. The Public Service Commission is similarly responsible only to parliament. The plight of the chairman of the Public Service Commission is something of a scandal. When the report of the Public Service Commission went before the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons almost two years ago, the chairman said, in effect, "Please, we want an examination of what is going on under the Public Service Employment Act". Eventually the government did make an announcement, some two weeks ago, that it would name a body whose duty it would be to carry out the inquiry requested. But there is no automatic referral to a committee of the report of the Public Service Commission.
The Commissioner of Official Languages reports to parliament and his work, too, is important. But which minister assumes responsibility for giving direction to him in terms of policy? My hon. friend might say a minister should not do that. The fact is, though, that there is no mechanism by which the House is exercising supervision, and I submit that when no effective supervision is exercised something unhealthy finally takes place. I call attention to the situation presented by the bill before us. Not only is the human rights commission responsible directly to parliament, but so is the privacy commissioner to be established under clause 57. He is a member of the human rights commission, but he has been given the responsibility of making a direct report to parliament.
I ask this question: what is the mechanism by which a member of this House can deal with one of these independent bodies? I do not know how many are on the list. The librarian of parliament is on it, and I am sure hon. members on reflection could add others who report directly to this place. Someone is going to say that the first thing that happens is the presentation of an annual report. Look at clause 47 dealing with the annual report; it states:
The commission shall, within five months after the 31st day of December in each year, transmit to the Minister of Justice a report of the activities of the commission under part II and this part for that year including references to and comments on any matter referred to in paragraph 22(1 )(e) or (0 that it considers appropriate and the minister shall cause the report to be laid before parliament within fifteen days after receipt thereof or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
Earlier today I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) ask the House leader to refer to a committee, as soon as possible, the government's estimates for expenditure in the coming fiscal year. The hon. member pointed out that there were only eight working weeks before the expiration of the time during which those estimates can be considered before the committee is required to report back. An annual report which need not be presented until the end of May will

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
always be more than a year in arrears when a committee comes to examine it, if it does at all.
Why should not this type of body report within 60 days of the end of the calendar year so that members might have an opportunity to examine it? On those rare occasions when those bodies appear before parliament, at least we would then have a current annual report before us. The suggestion that a body of this kind should have five months after the calendar year ended in which to present its report is an act of contempt of this place: it deliberately invites a situation in which members who try to interest themselves in what is taking place are unable to do so in any real sense.
I hope that when the bill goes to the committee it will be possible to reach general agreement to change clauses 43 and 60 which are parallel clauses. Five months is too long a period. There is no reason in the world why such an agency should not report by the end of February, thus giving parliament time to deal with any supplementary estimate if one were presented. Then the regular estimates would have some timeliness about them.
I should like to turn now to the question of appearance before committees. I know the standard answer of the ministry is, "Well, of course, you can always call people before a committee". But which committees, and how often? If an agency does something really wrong, the Auditor General will comment adversely and the matter will come before the public accounts committee. But how many of these independent agencies are called before the public accounts committee every year? I take my hat off to the current Auditor General who is looking hard at this area and especially at the operations of Crown corporations. He is doing a job which should have been done many years ago. What I am saying to hon. members is that we are adding two more bodies which will report directly to parliament and which will receive an absolute minimum by way of supervision.
What is the other mechanism by which such a body will come before parliament? It might appear at the time of the supplementary estimates which go before the miscellaneous estimates committee. Those of us who sat on that miscellaneous estimates committee know what a log-jam that is; everything is thrown at you. The steering committee meet and decide to call one or two, or perhaps a few more, of those particular agencies and groups who are especially interesting, but by no means do they call them all.
If there is no supplementary estimate, then the body does not even get called before that committee. Then we are dealing only with regular estimates, and the regular estimates are referred to any one of a number of committees of this House in the course of events. I suggest that the human rights commission might be called once every three or five years for half an hour before a standing committee of the House of Commons, and that is the degree of supervision that it is going to get. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

I want hon. members of the House to think about this problem: how does parliament exercise supervision over this new family of agencies that we seem to be creating every week, which report directly to parliament when, in effect, parliament has no mechanism by which it exercises supervision? I suggest that there are worse things than having a minister responsible for such an agency-much worse things. If the agency were responsible to a minister, the minister would have to answer for it in the question period. He could not get up and say, "Well, that is an independent body and I am not responsible for it".
If it were responsible to a minister, Mr. Speaker, when the minister appeared before the committee dealing with his estimates or his supplementary estimates in every case members would have an opportunity to raise questions. It seems to me that the theory of responsible government is that the executive is responsible to the legislature. What we are trying to do is evade the very concept of responsible government itself, all in the name of virtue, all in the name of saying that we are creating something which is above and beyond parliament, so far beyond that the hands of politicians cannot touch it.
If we name bodies which are to be independent, immediately someone says, "Just like the judges are". But the judges are in a different position. The courts have a tradition and an established profession within the country that looks at everything they do. There are means by which those who are named to the bench and who fail to perform have to answer directly or indirectly. The independence of the judiciary is not in any way affected. I am suggesting that there are no comparable mechanisms in respect of this new family of agencies that we are creating if this bill is passed in the form in which it is presented to this House.
To me, one of the sadder things about Crown corporations- I see some other members here, such as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who are concerned about Crown corporations-is that they learned how to do things, such as setting up old boys' clubs, lunches, and so on. They get their estimates through and everything goes smoothly if it is done the right way. I would not suggest that perhaps the human rights commission should set up an old girls' club. Perhaps it would be nice if they could, but the number of women at the higher, responsible levels of the public service is so few that this is just not possible.
What is more than likely to take place, Mr. Speaker, if parliament does not consider this matter in some detail, is that we will create an agency which will manage to stay out of trouble and will not offend the Auditor General. It will avoid supplementary estimates and it will submit nice reports. It will conduct a few prosecutions, but not that many, and it will become an ineffectual body, in fact, escaping the immediate attention of anybody in terms of answering for its own actions. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this will not be the case.
I want to conclude by saying that I do believe in this bill. I think it is a tremendous bill. The principles behind it are very deep and profond, and in no way do I want what I have said to be a reflection on what the bill attempts to do. I have listened
February 17, 1977

to other members who have spoken from all parts of the House, and I know how deeply they feel about the bill. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), one of my colleagues, but with all due respect I could not agree with everything that he said. When I hear a member of a majority language group telling us what great rights the minorities have, I am always a little concerned, especially when the minorities come up to you and tell you that they do not have those rights.
I hope this bill will be passed and that the spirit that motivated it will be transformed into agencies which effectively can administer the bill. But I have major reservations about independent bodies which report directly to parliament, because I do not believe that parliament is equipped in the way in which it is structured and in the way the committee system functions, to give any supervision.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on a most vital subject, a bill that is, on the one hand, terribly important and, on the other hand, of such far-ranging scope and import that I fear it may be discussed in whispers and held up as something almost beyond criticism, when there are many penetrating questions to be asked about it on a whole variety of levels.
Whether one admires the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) or not, I do not think that the bill makes him the ombudsman, as someone recently said. In a way, I regret that the federal government has not moved to bring in that post and that individual, and I doubt whether the passage of this bill will in any way make unnecessary the role of ombudsman. I would hope that would still be considered and that that legislation will come before us very swiftly.
As the bill is spelled out, it is full of ringing words which have been mentioned by other speakers. For example, 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. One wonders whether that will end the closed shop, for example. This bill will have consequences which we cannot predict and interesting results will come from its passage. I, too, hope it will be passed and passed swiftly, but when some of its implications are fully understood I hope some of the people who are supporting the bill now will still support it.
The bill gives every individual equal opportunity without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, or conviction for an offence in which a pardon has been granted, or by discriminatory employment practices. Brave words; noble words! The reference to "race" pleases me, because by passing this bill we should never again witness the experience of World War II when one particular racial group, or one part of a particular racial group, was singled out for one of the most serious discriminatory offences ever perpetrated by a government in this country. For Canadians of Japanese descent this bill, I
Canadian Human Rights
trust, will be seen as some guarantee to them, as something of their Magna Carta that nothing of that nature would be permitted or would be possible again in this country.
Mainly, I should like to concentrate on the aspects of the bill that deals with women's rights, with equality based on sex. I have heard people, both men and women, say to me within the past year, when talking about job mobility and professional access, that a woman can go as far as she wants if she wants to badly enough. I do not believe that at all. Men say it with pride; women say it with bravado. But we have not arrived at that situation yet.
I feel that there is a long way to go still, and I trust that the passage of this legislation will help. However, it will not be enough, and I suspect that one of the dangers in passing the bill is that some of the people who are prepared to fight the battle may feel that the battle is won. There are still areas of discrimination possible, and they are so subtle that the bill does not cover them. Let me give an example from outside the country. I attended for a year the Institute of Education in London, England, and while I was there the child development program was headed by an extraordinary woman who was remarkable in many respects. Yet she could never become a full professor because that department was not raised to a chair at the university. Eventually she retired and the post was filled by a man. Immediately afterwards it was constituted a chair and he became a professor at the university. How could anyone prove discrimination there? Everybody would have the finest regard for the work that Miss Gardner did throughout her years in that post, and I am sure that the senate and the board of governors would say that the elevation had nothing to do with the sex of the person filling the post. They would say it had everything to do with the new importance being attached to education, particularly to that branch of education.
There are areas of male dominance in this country, which the bill will be hard put to attack. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has referred to this chamber as being somewhat of a scandal in terms of the equality of women, if not of women's rights. Since the years when women were first permitted to vote and were first elected as members of parliament much progress has been made. But I wish he had mentioned some other great names, such as Ellen Fairclough, Mrs. Black, Tilly Rolston, and so on, and had broadened the catalogue a little by mentioning some of the people who established a role for women in the House in the pioneering days. Also, I should like to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for having appointed more than one woman to his cabinet. This is a great step at the federal level. At the provincial level, W. A. C. Bennett, when he was premier of British Columbia, took the revolutionary step of appointing three women at once to his cabinet.
Again, there are subtle areas of discrimination that are possible here and I felt that the cause of women's rights was set back a long way. I am referring to the time a couple of years ago when the main commissioner of the minister of

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
education of British Columbia was publicly fired by the premier on a television show when the minister was in Montreal. When she returned she did not resign immediately. The premier would not have been able to do that to a man. It would have been unheard of and unacceptable. Some of these things have to be fought at the highest level. One of these days I hope we will find a woman serving as a cabinet minister who will be prepared to resign if she felt she had not been treated properly, instead of accepting the situation. I wish the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) had not flirted with the idea of resignation in the last few days. It is part of the problem rather than part of the solution to one aspect of what can still be an area of discrimination.
As we go through the act, we find aspects of it that should be questioned. The bill goes beyond the traditional basis for discrimination, that is, colour, religion and national or ethnic origin, to include age. It is an interesting factor, not totally removed from the question of women's rights, and it is one of the great paradoxes in the country today because age will no longer be a factor in discrimination from birth onwards, but I gather it will still be a factor in the first nine months of life. Or does the passage of the bill mean that the practice of abortion will end in this country? Because there are racial groups in the country which count the age of the child at birth as being, the age of one. That is an interesting aspect of the hope that there will be no more discrimination on the grounds of age. It is a strange situation where life is preserved by statute.
Since we have abolished capital punishment it is difficult to take away a person's life without committing the crime of murder, yet it is possible to prevent some 50,000 Canadians from being born annually. That says something about this country, because I am sure that as soon as we have passed the bill many people will be applauding, clapping each other on the back and saying, "That is the kind of people we are who can pass this kind of legislation". But when we look at the statistics for abortion in this country, they also say something about the kind of society and the kind of people we are at present. There is a great paradox there which will be heightened rather than lessened by the passage of this statute.
I have been dealing with a private case which involves age and the way in which the government calculates it. I am awaiting the passage of this bill, following which I will raise it again with some of the officials of the Department of National Defence who will know what I am talking about. It involves the matter of a pension. There is certainly discrimination there because of what seems to me to have been an error made some years ago. It is one of the cases where the services of an ombudsman would be required. However, the passage of this bill might help to nudge the department into action or make possible the introduction of a private member's bill on this issue.
I am very interested in the question of equal pay for work of equal value. Here is a large area where women should benefit from this bill, although again we will have to know much more about the definition of "equal value". The principle would require employees to evaluate all jobs and determine pay rates
[Mr. Johnston.)
on the basis of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions of each job. One suspects that there may well be too many loopholes there.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Government Administration-Request for committee study of all government controlled corporations; the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)-Trade-Guidelines to companies with regard to international boycotts-Request for explanation; the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek)-Industry-Date of announcement of proposals to aid small businesses.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 11, in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 14, in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
February 17, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government.


REQUEST FOR REPORTS OR REVIEWS RESPECTING NATIONAL FOOD POLICY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That an order of the House do issue for copies of any reports or reviews with respect to a national food policy prepared by or under the direction of the group known as the DMs Ten.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on November 24 I put down a notice of motion for the production of papers concerning the group known as DMs Ten and the reports or reviews which have been done for the cabinet. I did so for a number of reasons. First, I believe in openness in government, and when a group such as the DMs Ten prepares a paper with background on a possible food policy for this country I think that should be made available to the Canadian people so they can be part of the discussion of our food policy. I do not need to remind the House that this is national food week in Canada; the interest shown in it by people from coast to coast is evidence of the fact that they would like to participate in a national food policy.
Second, various parts of that document have been leaked to the press over the past seven or eight months, and without seeing the complete document there is a possibility of distortion. Unfortunately, this also creates in a community the pitting of producers against consumers and the building up of bogey men on both sides of the argument. When we draft a national food policy, we know that there will have to be some trade-offs between producers and consumers. These leaks have also had the effect of spreading certain rumours and creating hard feelings in the farm and consumer communities. I also have very strong suspicions that the discussion of a national food policy has caused sensitive feelings within the cabinet itself. I have the impression that there is an internal power struggle going on between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), on one side, and other ministers such as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott), on the other. I am asking the government to make public the DMs Ten report and all the background papers and study papers the DMs Ten looked at and made available to the cabinet, because I believe there should be openness. I believe the Canadian people should not be faced with a fait accompli and all of a sudden have a policy dumped upon them without their input.
I have before me a document which is alleged to be a copy of the DMs Ten report which was made to the cabinet on June 4, 1976. I want to spend what little time I have today referring to parts of that document which I have reason to believe is the report I am seeking in the House today. It is called "A Conceptual Framework for Food Policy in the Post-Controls Period". The object of the document is as follows:
This paper is intended to place before Ministers some of the elements at issue in the food sector and to obtain guidance as to the approach to be followed in the further elaboration of national food policy for the post-controls period.
National Food Policy
The introduction to the report reads in part as follows:
The first section, "Basic Food Policy Decisions", presents major questions (underlined for easy reference) on which officials feel they require guidance from Ministers prior to proceeding to draft, if they agree, a more definitive policy statement. The second section, "Conclusions", describes (in the interest of pointing out some practical results of the discussion) an outline of the elements of one possible food policy for Canadians in the post-controls period.
They go on to say:
Even though it would appear that the sufficiency of nutritional food supplies or the income-price relationship are not major issues facing consumers, one of the key requirements of a national food policy is maintenance of consumer confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the marketing system and of government policy in this area. In the same breath, the confidence of primary producers in a stable return on their large long-term investments in the relatively open agriculture and fishing industry must also be maintained.
After that they go on to outline some basic food policy decisions. I do not have time to cover those in detail, but they refer to the scope of a national food policy and what areas it should cover. They refer to the question of the role of market forces in a national food policy. They refer to trade and aid programs as they affect food. They refer to primary producers, the Fishermen and farmers of our country. They refer to processors, retailers and distributors in the food industry. They refer to consumer concerns and nutrition. When they talk about nutrition, they make the comment that Canada really provides very little to promote nutrition, and what we do provide as a nation is done in a very indirect way. They talk about the problems of federal-provincial relationships and they talk about the public information which should be part of a national food policy.
They go on to outline a possible food policy for Canada, and I gather this is what is being considered by cabinet ministers at this moment. I will read various parts of this document to the House. They begin by saying the following:
Canada's supplies of essential food products are adequate for the foreseeable future and there are resources to spare in some important areas. It would appear consumers need not worry unduly about the sufficiency of nutritional supplies. But, taking into account the world situation and the fact that Canadian agriculture and fisheries are open to the vagaries of climate, disease, etc ... . there is at once the opportunity to earn foreign currency (mostly through grains and fish), and the danger of excess pressure on domestic supplies and prices from abroad.
The policy of the federal government is, therefore, aimed at exploiting production strengths and moving into other effective areas of production in a consistent manner to ensure the adequacy of nutritional food supplies at competitive prices for the domestic market and for export.
The concentration of government efforts on those limited key areas where the consistent and balanced protection of the interests of all participants in the food marketing system is required and will have the desired result of:
(i)	shoring up consumer confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the
marketing system; and
(ii)	restoring producer confidence in a stable return on their large long-term
investment in the relatively open agricultural and fishing industries.
They then go on to outline various concerns with regard to a national food policy and they talk first of all about consumer concerns. This is where I have some questions, and I think many Canadians will have some as well. They say, first of all:
1.	The federal government recognizes that consumer interests must be given increased weight until there is a balance with the interests of producers in food policy formation and programs.
2.	The federal government rejects:

February 17, 1977
National Food Policy
(a)	statutory import quotas and tariffs providing relatively high or permanent protection (and, therefore, artificially high consumer prices) for some food products;
(b)	permanent or long-term consumer subsidies or two-price systems or export controls which can be expensive and distort the market, although short-term temporary subsidies might be effective for some basic commodities in specified situations.
3.	The federal government believes:
(a)	general income assistance programs already in place (U.I.C., pensions, indexing) are sufficient to provide average Canadians with the opportunity to eat in a nutritionally satisfactory manner;
(b)	the marginal or low-income consumer in Canada faces special income problems which will be solved by special means developed in the context of a social security review.
They go on to talk about the implications for action on these various consumer concerns, and here is where we get into some interesting debate. First of all:
Make administered pricing systems for dairy, eggs, poultry more compatible with consumer interests;
consumer representation on all national food boards or regulatory agencies-
When we start talking about issues like that, surely to goodness the government could at least allow a public debate before making decisions affecting the livelihood of many Canadians which would create a lot of acrimony in the community. The least we should ask for is a national debate. This report goes on to talk about the elimination of conflict of interest in the management of boards and agencies in these words:
-possible reorganization of departmental responsibilities. -Over a reasonable period of time, to review the import control list and all specific rates of duty on food products with a view to their eventual elimination;
-remove import ban on margarine;
-possible automatic destroy clause for Export and Import Permits Act with respect to need for individual import permits;
-eliminate two-price system for wheat-
It would be of considerable interest not just to producers but also to consumers if we were to eliminate the two-price system for wheat in this country. The other thing which I am sure would be shocking for consumers is the elimination of the skim milk subsidy and the comment about Canadians having adequate income assistance programs such as unemployment insurance, etc. They say this is in hand and we do not need any more revision of those areas. Then they talk about producer concerns and how government funds for investment in research and development of new and better varieties of product maintaining protein levels adaptable to Canada are needed. They go on to say that the federal government will work with the provinces in programs to preserve and promote a national market and that primary food production and its upgrading have been, and are, instruments of regional development.
Some of the implications of the producer concerns are: the total research and development outlay in Canada is $100 million, of which $70 million is salaries and wages; national

health and quality control programs are necessary; a national transport policy for foods for domestic use and export will be needed; we will also need an appropriate commercial policy, national income assurance programs, etc. Further on the memo refers to land use and the need to accelerate the national land use policy of this country. They refer to the need for amendments to the foreign investment review agency to accomplish those aims, and they say we need restrictions on foreign labour to encourage progress and mechanization in the agricultural field. Continuing with various producer concerns, the report talks about the need for a comprehensive production and marketing information system and the need for farm income stability. They seem to reject marketing boards as a form of income stability; the report seems to be geared toward lessening the influence of marketing boards.
They say that the general solution to income instability for average crop producers will involve crop insurance, income assurance plans of the producer-government contributory type, and income averaging annuities under the Income Tax Act. They make an interesting comment about the dairy industry, saying it is a special problem which in view of the $600 million treasury impact for the fiscal year 1976-77 has to be resolved in the context of the post-controls era, and that there should be a review of long-term dairy policy and possible federal-provincial financing of an independent inquiry into the industry.
On eggs and poultry, they say that a review of the acceptability of supply management-administered pricing under the auspices of a national farm products marketing act is required. There are a few other things they refer to which probably are not quite as important. Under the heading "Marketing", the report reads:
The federal government believes marketing boards are not synonymous with supply management or administered pricing and should not be used as instruments to stabilize or raise incomes directly. Some marketing boards have a positive impact on the food system, but their activities are in direct conflict with supply management mechanisms.
The federal government will work with the provinces to continue to minimize impediments to interprovincial flows of food products.
The federal government will work with foreign governments to reduce the international barriers to food trade.
They then suggest a whole series of implications in the area of export and import permits and the trade area. They suggest the need for reviewing, clarifying and possibly expanding the role of the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. I do not know what is happening about that in cabinet, but there was an interesting rumour about two weeks ago in one of the farm publications that the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act would be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If that is the case, it is no wonder the Minister of Agriculture is becoming more and more grumpy when responding to questions in the House. There seems to be a conflict of opinion on marketing boards. The Minister of Agriculture is a staunch defender of them, but the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has taken feed grains away from the authority of the Wheat Board, a move which concerns very many prairie farmers. It is good for the grain exchanges and for Cargill
February 17, 1977

Grain and all the corporations. Meanwhile, the Minister of Agriculture is saying that we need more orderly marketing. I wonder what the government's policy is.
I notice that the government leader in the Senate, Senator Ray Perrault, said during the Christmas holidays that he thought transport was too big a job for one minister and suggested it be divided. I suggest the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should begin the process by putting the Wheat Board under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture, where it belongs. I should like some clarification of the government's intentions in regard to marketing.
The memo goes on to discuss another very important aspect in part IV, under the heading "Processing, Distribution, Retailing Concerns". It says that some important market concentration and market power problems exist in Canada. That does not come as a great surprise. They talk about the implications of dealing with other problems concerning processing, distribution and retailing in the context of stage two of the Competition Act when it comes before parliament. The report says that the programs of incentives to enhance productivity and upgrading have been reviewed and that the federal government has directed that these programs be applied, on a priority basis, to the processing, distribution and retailing sector. They refer to the possibility of more incentive grants and more depreciation allowances as they affect retailing, processing and distribution in this country.
It is just about a year since the Food Prices Review Board reported that the retailing of food in this country is done by the large corporations which are very concentrated, and that as a result of lack of competition consumers pay more than they should. The government seems to imply they need more incentive grants and depreciation allowances in order to have a good food policy. I think we need an explanation of that, Mr. Speaker.
The memo says that the possibility of institutional change has been considered, but that the government does not believe that the creation of new institutions to deal with a food policy has a high priority. The formulation of policy and co-ordination of programs can be significantly improved without going the route of new institutions. It is said that the government has made certain decisions in this regard. Incidentally, this matter had led to conflicts within the cabinet, to some of those late-night quarrels one hears about between the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers.
I hope the government will make public the papers for which I am asking. I suggest that the Canadian people have the right to know. Various newspapers and members of the public have witnessed aspects of the DMs Ten-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.
National Food Policy


Mr. Ir6n6e Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in all our discussions on a food policy, we should keep in mind that no two individuals, excluding groups and associations of any kind, think exactly the same way on this matter. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that we face a situation where we recognize some kind of failure in agriculture. The subject of a food policy for Canada comes up again and again. More than this, it is often brought up by people who do not know or prefer to ignore that the bases for such a policy have been established for some time and that they already operate effectively.
It might be worthwhile to recall that the idea of such a policy was brought forward eight years ago, namely in 1969. The prime objective of the Department of Agriculture which has been approved by cabinet, was and still remains to make agriculture in Canada an economically effective and independent industry. After further inquiries and several meetings and discussions, two special workshops were established in 1971. They had to determine the best ways to achieve these objectives. They made an excellent job and proposed the concept of a food system based on the market, and requiring therefore a good co-ordination between some 300,000 Canadian farmers and the various links of the food chain.
To meet the most essential food needs of Canadians, the farmer must not only be an efficient producer, but also be on very good terms with every level of his products marketing system-wholesalers, carriers, distributors retailers and, of course, consumers. Therefore this concept was shaped into a policy which is now working very well. Incidentally, there were four objectives reiterated in the Speech from the Throne of February 27, 1964.

Let me remind the House of these objectives. They were, first, to assure Canadians of high quality food at reasonable prices; second, to assure farmers a decent living; third, to provide food aid to countries where people cannot adequately feed themselves; and fourth, to produce products in which there would be a competitive advantage for domestic products for commercial export. In general terms, those objectives have been met, are being met and will continue to be met. They provide the broad basis for a food policy which makes Canada a world leader in this area.
In some countries farmers are making a hand-to-mouth living and food is cheap. In others, the farmers are on easy street but for the consumer the price of food is out of sight. A policy must maintain a balance between the primary producer and the consumer. That is what our policy is doing, and in response to changing times and patterns of consumerism it is changing and getting better all the time.
Look at the objectives one by one. The first, to assure consumers of a continuing supply of high quality food at reasonable prices, is one which, however successfully it may be realized, will constantly be taken for granted or overlooked by those who are quick to criticize. It is only taken for granted because it is working so well. When was the last time food was

February 17, 1977
National Food Policy
rationed in Canada? Not since World War II. If the average buyer found that the local supermarket was out of milk, meat, butter, vegetables, fruit or any of the 101 things we all take for granted, there might be some reason to get excited about a so-called new food policy. But because wide choice, high quality and stable prices are the norm, we all take food for granted. That would not be the case if, as happens in many countries, price, availability and quality were to fluctuate, or deteriorate as a result of a poorly organized agricultural industry. Canada's agricultural industry is probably the most efficient in the world. We do not have to import anything to keep ourselves well fed. We import because we want variety in our diets or because it makes economic sense, not because we need to import.
In the first objective high quality is mentioned. Mr. Speaker, Canadian food is the most wholesome anywhere, and our health and food inspection regulations help to keep it that way. The Department of Agriculture inspects and grades just about all the food we eat. The buyer knows, on buying it, not only that it is good to eat but how high is the quality of the food his or her food dollar is buying.
The first objective also makes certain that the food dollar is spread as far as it can go. Reasonable cost does not mean "cheap"; it means that food costs are maintained at reasonably stable levels in relation to producer-processor input and take-home pay. The average Canadian spends about one-fifth of his income on food, and the Americans-who are a little lower on that than we are-do not provide the same level of social assistance as we do in Canada. About 30 years ago a pound of butter cost just over an hour's wage-that is based on the minimum wage. Today, an hour's wage at the same level will buy you over two pounds; yet people complain that butter is being priced into the luxury class.
There is a popular notion that cheap food is a right. But why should one sector of society feed on the misery of another? If farmers are not given incentives to stay in business, to produce efficiently and at least earn a relevant return on their investment, there is no reason for them to consider staying in that line. If this country loses its farmers and relies on imports, the quality, abundance and, most importantly, price of food will change from one day to the next. We in this country will not be able to control those aspects; we will be too busy negotiating for sufficient quantities to feed our growing population.
That is where the second objective of the policy comes in. It assures the farmer of a decent living. But that does not mean that farmers benefit from an over-all security blanket. The assurance is there in the form of incentives and development programs for efficient farmers, but there is not too much for the farmer who will not keep up with the times. I do not see why farmers who are good at their job, who carry the multiple risks of their profession, who give the country its "staff of life", should be expected to take a loss and just survive. The rest of society expects a comfortable standard of living, modern conveniences, reasonable hours of work, educational and career opportunities for their children and the occasional holiday. Why should farmers have to take any less? The

commitment in terms of both money and time is a great deal larger in farming than for the average white collar or blue collar worker. Farmers should get the same return for their labour and investment as those in any other sector of the Canadian economy. If they find that they are at a dead end they are not going to encourage their children to follow their career path and they may very well quit themselves.
Farming is essential to this country. The food chain starts with the farmer. Food production has to be made attractive and kept stable if there are going to be farmers left on the land in Canada.
The third aim of the food policy is being achieved so successfully that, once again, not too many people bother to think about it. It is to provide food aid to the world's hungry population who cannot feed themselves. Canadians on a per capita basis are the biggest food donors in the world. We are the largest donor to the United Nations World Food Program in absolute terms. Our annual contributions for food aid are now up to $230 million.
Getting food accepted for food aid programs is not nearly as easy as it sounds. We simply cannot use food aid as a safety valve that we can turn on and off to deal with whatever surplus situation comes up. It has to be a product which can be used in recipient countries, which is acceptable given the dietary and religious restrictions prevalent in a country, and which is digestable given the diet patterns followed by the people in that country. That is not all.
Any food aid program has to take into consideration the economic stability of the food producers of a recipient region. There is no point in providing large quantities of a product which, in a short time, will be coming up for harvest from the country's own farmers. Whatever food aid we give must not interfere with the existing balance of their economy.
Lastly, the policy aims for an agricultural industry that can export food to earn foreign currency. Income from exports is what keeps the economy healthy. In 1975 agricultural exports amounted to approximately $2.9 billion.
All the four objectives are being achieved, but to keep the agricultural food relationship a happy and a productive one it is only reasonable to look to the start of the food chain to see what can be done to make sure that the supply does not dry up.
Farmers look for income stabilization, they look for some sort of power to take on the corporate giants which can effectively hold their industry to ransom. With the introduction of marketing boards, backed by both federal and provincial governments, they have, in many cases, the edge they need. Government programs through the Agricultural Stabilization Board have helped maintain the farm price for many products. Recent legislative changes have expanded the number of protected products, and increased the flexibility of support to farmers.

February 17, 1977
Agriculture Canada backs the Canadian farmer not only with hard cash, but with a variety of programs designed to give him the resilience and ability to stay in business.
Such things as production research, inspection and grading of commodities, market information and protection of animal health go to strengthen the farmer's competitive position. Crop insurance, compensation programs for lost livestock, and development of hardy, disease resistant strains help protect the farmer against natural hazards.
The Canadian Dairy Commission, the National Farm Products Marketing Council, the Agricultural Stabilization Board, the storage assistance program are examples of some of the tools the farmer has working for him when it comes to fighting the effects of short-term market distortions. Agricultural markets are constantly being explored, extended, and often improved by the work of such government sponsored agencies as the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
All in all, this government is proud of the food policy platform it has laid down, and made to work over the years. Unfortunately, as I have said before, the reason that it has been ignored is simply because it has worked so well. That is not to say that the policy is conclusive. Exactly the reverse is the case. We have a base on which we can build, and this is happening all the time. Any policy, to remain current and relevant, must keep up with changing times. Our present policy is no different. To make it relevant with the context of today, and keep it that way for tomorrow, it must be constantly reviewed, renovated, adapted and expanded.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that in doing so one should take criticism into consideration. Besides, coming from those who know the facts and the problems, criticisms are often a positive element. But from those who understand nothing of the problem, who only want to make headlines and who are constantly on the look-out for leading causes, that is another matter.
I am always surprised to see how often media give special recognition to subjects related to food policy. But again, I must recall that headlines seldom reflect reality. It is not unusual to see big red headlines which fade out or are shelved for good when it comes to facts. In this day and age, with all that gibberish about food policy, some think that the situation is definitively dreadful. It is most unfortunate since changing for the sake of it might bring us to an even worse situation.
The principles of the present policy are entirely logical and quite useful for all Canadians. However, they are constantly questioned. It is absolutely necessary to update it constantly and remove the weakest points as soon as they are detected. The consumer must be assured of the best value possible for each dollar allotted for food. The farmer must increase his efficiency through marketing procedures, processing costs established in relation to the cost of the finished product and he must be very closely supervised. Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is closely connected with each of the numerous links in the food chain. There is plenty of room for various programs meant to improve the process.
National Food Policy


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask whether the parliamentary secretary will answer a question?


Mr. Pelletier:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I simply ask the parliamentary secretary whether he supports or does not support the motion that is before the House today? He spoke at length about a food policy. Unless I missed it, I still do not know whether he supports the motion before the House.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member listened to my speech. We have a food policy which is working quite well. I said about the middle of my speech, and again toward the end, that that does not mean we cannot improve the food policy that we have in Canada. We are making, at least in the Department of Agriculture, every effort to improve that policy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my motion does not ask for a food policy. My motion asks:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any reports or reviews with respect to a national food policy prepared by or under the direction of the group known as the DMs Ten.
I am asking that the government make public the document prepared by the DMs Ten group. That is all I ask. I want to know whether the parliamentary secretary is for or against the motion. That is all I am asking.


Mr. MacFarlane:: What is this? An inquest?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Let it be down on the record.


An hon. Member:: No!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we came here today with a motion asking that the government make public certain documents, and the parliamentary secretary is refusing to answer a question pertaining to the motion itself. In the 20 minutes he has taken up in the House he refused to refer for even one minute to the topic referred to in the motion, and I simply ask the parliamentary secretary whether he is for or against the motion.


Ralph Goodale: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Pelletier) whether he would permit a question. The parliamentary secretary permitted a question and replied to the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: He did not answer it.


Ralph Goodale: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville obviously did not appreciate the answer given to him.


An hon. Member:: What answer?


Ralph Goodale: The point is that though the hon. member may disagree with the answer given him by the parliamentary

February 17, 1977
National Food Policy
secretary, to voice his disagreement in the form of a point of order is by no means in order and I think the House would be better served if we went on to hear the speech of the hon. member for Hastings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Pelletier) has made his speech and he is not required by the rules to produce the paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, when that noisy bunch opposite has quietened down I will do exactly what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) did.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Sit down?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Raymond Ellis: As far as the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) is concerned, I am taller sitting down than he is standing up.


An hon. Member:: Not wider, though!


John Raymond Ellis: The parliamentary secretary obviously did not answer the question directed to him. He made a dry statement seeking to justify government policy, and he really did not do a good job of that. He talked about all kinds of things but he did not answer the question. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville obviously has in his possession some very interesting documents. I would not be at all surprised if there has not been a plain brown envelope given to my hon. friend from Central Nova-


An hon. Member:: He will get one now.


John Raymond Ellis: I have not received a copy of this document but it appears to be very interesting and I should like to have a look at it. It seems to be critical of government policy in certain areas. It is refreshing to see a document put together by the bureaucracy at the top level which is critical of government policy.
I do not want to get too closely allied with the hon. member who speaks for the New Democratic Party on my left. He took a typical socialist stand on certain issues which I would find difficulty in supporting. Nonetheless, I can say that my hon. friend from Peace River has been trying for years to get a freedom of information bill through the House, and this is just the kind of information he has been trying to get. Obviously, it is not too hard to get. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville got a copy in this case, and I think all of us should have a chance to read it.
It seems to me that debate during the many supply days, better known as opposition days, would be even more valuable if it could be spent discussing such documents as this. The government might learn something from the views of all the members in that regard. If this document has in fact been prepared by a group of deputy ministers, it is time the govern-
[Mr. Goodalc.J
ment had the benefit of the thinking of some practical members of parliament on the subject because not infrequently they have some good ideas as to what policy should contain. I am not at all sure that those ten deputy ministers have all the answers. In fact I would go further and say I am quite sure they don't.


John R. Rodriguez: Read that document and you will know for sure.


John Raymond Ellis: I should like to read that document. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Pelletier) talked about marketing pyramids and competitive objectives and things like that. He did not get around to talking about the fact that there was no policy until last Friday on the import of Taiwanese tomatoes that pretty near put out of business all the tomato farmers in Prince Edward County this year; there are warehouses full of canned tomatoes in Prince Edward County and without some tariff, as was finally imposed, they will stay full. This is the kind of protection which lost us the Ontario strawberry processing industry, and which is presently losing us the soft drink industry in Ontario.
The hon. member spoke about dairy policy. My hon. friend from the Cornwall area-I have forgotten the name of his riding-knows as well as I do that there are cheese factories in his riding which could produce far more cheese than they do at present if there were not at least 50 million pounds of cheese coming into Canada, a country that produces the best and finest cheese in the whole world. It is being brought in at cut-rate prices supported by foreign governments. My hon. friend knows that with few exceptions these cheeses could be produced in Canada. I think it would be worth while to have an opportunity to see what these deputy ministers have put in that document to determine whether there has been a change in policy, to decide whether the trade-off which took place, I am sure, between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), which allowed so much cheese to come into Canada ought not to be looked at in some detail.
While the parliamentary secretary went to some length to outline the aims of the food policy, many of which I am sure my hon. friends would agree with, nonetheless he did not answer the question. I am going to sit down-


Irénée Pelletier: Answer what question? He already has the document.


John Raymond Ellis: The motion asks that an order of the House do issue for copies of any reports or reviews with respect to a national food policy prepared by or under the direction of the group known as the DMs Ten. If the parliamentary secretary would support that motion and there were a House order that those documents be brought into the House, I am sure we would get the kind of debate I have been speaking about and there would be some real interest, not only from members of the House, whose numbers, granted, at this time of the afternoon are rather slim, but also from the press gallery which similarly is rather slim in number.
February 17, 1977


Mr. C6t6:: Your party is pretty slim at the moment.


John Raymond Ellis: How you can you call me slim? Well put together, but not slim! I contend that the parliamentary secretary did not answer the question and he should have the courage of his convictions, if the Department of Agriculture has nothing to bury or hide, to support the motion unequivocally so that these documents are brought into the House. I think that this would be good for the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The parliamentary secretary is rising on a question of privilege.
[ Translation]


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
In relation to the question raised by the hon. member, the government's policy has always been that when a document is prepared, it is studied in depth and submitted to cabinet, and when cabinet takes a decision, it becomes government policy and is then introduced in this House.
I find it totally irrational that the government be asked all the time to table documents while it is making a careful study of the situation. Hon. members have no need to ask for documents, they have their own sources over there. They are always leaking documents here and there, from most departments, so they have no reason for complaint. This includes the hon. member that is now yelling over there. That kind of interjection has always been his own policy. From time to time he makes yelling appearances before the Committee on Agriculture, but otherwise he does not contribute much to the proceedings.
As regards the eventual policy to be proposed to Parliament, the government will bring documents to support it. For the time being, the motion brought forward by the hon. member has no relevancy whatever to this speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It seems to me that this is a question for the House to decide, and in due course the House will make a decision.


John Raymond Ellis: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if it is indeed a question of privilege, 1 merely want to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture in those few short sentences said more about this question than he did in his whole speech. He was explained a few matters. If the government does not want to give us the documents, that is fine, but let it say so instead of giving us 20 minutes of drivel about policies, and so on, and not giving us an answer at all.


Mr. Claude G. Lajoie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to contribute a few words to this debate as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
National Food Policy

Consumers in Canada are becoming more and more concerned about food. In recent years they have seen people in countries overseas suffering from food shortages or famines. Canada is one of the world's main agricultural exporting nations. They wonder how she can help to reduce these shortages. Some even wonder if Canada itself might be facing food shortages some time in the future. They realize, of course, that there is little or no chance of that happening today.
The consumer has had to accept higher prices for food in recent years. Indeed it is fair to say that consumer interest in a national food policy is due directly to the food price explosion of 1972 and 1973. Between 1971 and 1975 food prices rose by about 60 per cent. By contrast, prices of all goods and services as measured by the consumer price index increased less than 40 per cent. The higher food prices are a burden to low income Canadians. Many Canadians cannot afford to eat well, even though they may be spending 40 per cent of their income on food. It is true that food prices did not increase through 1976. An increase of 1.2 per cent in January, 1977, coming after a small increase in December, 1976, seems to show that the upward trend may be back with us again.
Consumers are also concerned with what they are eating. They worry about the long-term effects of the many chemicals that are added to processed foods. They see children and teenagers eating junk foods. They know that many Canadians are poorly fed. Others-as one sees all too often-are eating too much. A shortage of essential foods and an excess of others can cause health problems or even death for the individuals concerned. This adds to the cost of our health programs.
Finally, consumers are questioning some of the marketing practices and power of the large food chains. As is well known, a few firms dominate the food retailing system. Consumers question why prices seem to vary from store to store for no obvious reason. They wonder how much all the promotions, "free" offers and advertising add to food costs. They feel that the food they buy lacks quality. In short, consumers are losing confidence in the food system. This explains why they are so interested in having a national food policy in Canada.
A food policy is of vital concern for Canada. We need a national food policy no less than we need a national energy or transportation or defence policy. Such a policy must be an integrated one. It must cover all parts of the food system. It should reflect the very real concerns of consumers. It should also respond to matters of concern to agriculture and farmers. It should be concerned with the industries which provide farmers with their fertilizers, chemicals and machinery. It should relate to the industries which process and distribute to consumers food products after they have left the farm.
In our food policy we must be fair to consumers. Some people think that a few of the farm programs we now have may result in higher costs for consumers. These are programs which stabilize and support farm prices and incomes. Marketing boards are a good example. It is important, however, to distinguish between different types of marketing boards. Some of them negotiate contracts on behalf of producers, others

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
assemble and offer products for sale. There is no quarrel here. There are other boards which have the power to set prices. They may also control the quantity which is produced. They may even control imports as well. It is these boards that people are worried about. Perhaps we should consider if there are other ways of achieving stability in agriculture that avoid giving monopoly powers to producer groups.
Of course any national food policy which is developed must be based on a strong and healthy agriculture. No one wishes to see the demise of Canadian agriculture. No one wants to see-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr.Speaker, when I commenced my remarks this afternoon I mentioned that people sometimes say that we have advanced to the point where a woman can reach any objective that she sets for herself if she wants to get there badly enough. I do not think that is the case. In fact I am inclined to believe, if I may paraphrase the remarks of a former mayor of this city, that a woman has to work twice as hard to get half as far.
I find myself interested in the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Probably one of the most important phrases in the entire bill is "work of equal value," and I hope we will see the day when the underpaid feminine secretary who is running the whole show, turning any profits that may be turned, and holding the entire thing together, at a salary a fraction of the person's who is the titular head of the organization, will receive a remuneration equivalent to the value of the work that she is doing for the business or the profession in which she works. It is only then that we will have taken a great step forward. It is interesting to note that if women actually achieve that and are paid equal pay for work of equal value,

then the goal set by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of seeing a greatly enlarged number of women in this Chamber will not be met simply because to get here politically-and the law will not change that in any way-a woman still has to be twice as good and work twice as hard. Of course the representation that we have here is remarkable.
One of the things that most encourages me about the potential success of the bill is the way in which the women's movement in the last 10 or 15 years in North America has forced changes in the languages so that one must be very careful now. I was speaking at an inaugural session of the city council in my constituency during the Christmas break. It is a council which at present, regrettably, has no women on it at all. I was making a run-through of other towns and municipalities in my constituency, pointing out the women who had been elected or re-elected aldermen and mayors in those communities, and I almost fell into the trap of describing them as able and charming, or able and beautiful. Then I realized that one would not describe a male alderman that way and that I had better be circumspect in my language, so I was reduced to describing them simply as able. That adjective certainly can be applied to the women representatives that we have here in parliament. They have come through a finer screen than any of the men who are here in order to be representatives, but when they go out to their constituencies advising the sisterhood to run for office, they are going to be told by those sharp business people that when the pay scale is considered, there is not enough in it. If women are going to get equal pay for work of equal value, the pay scale would not tempt people to come here, so I suspect the bill will not advance the cause which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put forward so ably and excellently as long as the pay scale for a member of parliament is as uncompetitive as it is with anything equivalent anywhere else in the business or professional field in this country. However, I hope that can be changed.
I find the little exception with regard to age and retirement to be interesting. I suspect that will be one of the first clauses of this bill to be appealed because we are approaching the time when this business of automatically retiring at an earlier and earlier age will be challenged, and that will be seen in the not too distant future as a discrimination which cannot be tolerated. I think it would help women most of all if there was a flexible retirement age because I have seen too many who, by the time they are 55 or so, Find that they can no longer attain any employment, and at that time they have to go on welfare. It would be more practical if they could retire on a pension at that time, if they should choose to do so, and if others, along with males who are vigorous at 65, could continue for somewhat longer if they should wish to do so. I suspect that we will have to move to something of that nature following passage of this bill.
One of the regrettable aspects of our times is the increased crime rate, but this bill excludes inmates who have served their sentences. It protects a person who is granted a pardon as if his
February 17, 1977

crime had never been committed, and he is totally absolved of it, but one despairs for a country which will not accept the rehabilitating nature of a prison sentence, nor even the punishment aspect of it.
One of the reasons we have a parliamentary committee touring this country is to see what is wrong with our prisons. One of the things which is wrong is that almost everyone in them knows that after the sentence has been served a person has to pay and pay for the rest of his or her life. There is a discrimination there because we do not basically believe that a person has paid for his crime when he has finished his sentence. I realize how very difficult it would be, however, to extend this clause further than it goes at the present time.
There are important questions we could ask about the commission and its power to turn away a complainant if it thinks the problem can be solved elsewhere. If the commission refuses to hear a case, there is no provision for appeal, and people would then be thrown back on their own resources to the courts or other agencies. Whether there should be some check on the power of the commission in that way, I suppose we will have to wait and see. We will have to wait to see what regulations will govern its operation.
I realize that there are many things which bother the Advisory Council on the Status of Women about this bill. One prime objection is the exclusion of protection for Indian women against the discrimination which exists and which is embodied in the Indian Act. On this aspect the bill as it stands is no help at all. I do not think we should leave a growing portion of the population outside the law. There should be equal rights across the country.
I think we should seriously consider the Indian Act as it relates to this human rights bill because we cannot say that our aboriginal people are any less worthy of equal treatment in these areas.
We need some concrete suggestions as to the standards of skill, effort, responsibility, and conditions of work. The proposed human rights commission should establish effective standards to define these matters clearly so that we will know what they are, and so that the mass of litigation and appeals to the commission can be reduced. One would hope that that would serve a persuasive purpose in terms of hiring practices. Unless there is some definition or some guideline clearly set out, then the proposed human rights commission will be more swamped than the Anti-Inflation Board has been, and it will have to take unto itself a staff of enormous size in order to deal with the multitude of complaints which I am sure will be presented.
I hope that when this bill becomes law there will not be very many parts of it which will be disallowed or found to be inoperative because changes were not made in the Interpretation Act, and again the proposed human rights commission should concern itself with monitoring all the legislation which has been passed which has made it difficult for women to have their rights upheld in the courts.
Canadian Human Rights
I recommend for anyone's reading an article by Marguerite E. Ritchie entitled "Alice Through the Statutes" which appears in the McGill Law Journal, volume 21, No. 4 of the winter of 1975. That was not very long ago, and yet the writer found it necessary to sound a warning about the inability of women to find that they can be given the rights which are assumed to exist for men. I know that the bill before us refers to an individual; it does not use the word "male". The bill assumes that women have the same rights, so that may be taken care of, but I hope the minister will address himself to the concerns which have been presented to me by women who have had lengthy experience in Ottawa and who are familiar with some of the difficulties involved in taking a case to court in an attempt to remove discrimination.
The closing words of Marguerite E. Ritchie's article are interesting, and I quote:
For over a hundred years it has been clear that legislation drafted in terms of the male exposes women to denial of rights granted to men. Even legislation drafted in neutral terms has often been used to exclude women from rights and privileges. The whole structure of the law with respect to women rests upon judgments of men who regarded women as inferior. Women who seek even the smallest hope of equality must demand express legislation, written in the clearest possible terms. Yet legislation, however clear, has often failed at the hands of antagonistic male judges.
What is the answer? What should women and those men who sympathize with them do? Would it be better to ignore the Interpretation Act and to concentrate on other statutes which appear to promise equality? Will the promise of these statutes be any better than the illusion of the Interpretation Act?
Examples are cited with regard to the failure of that act to protect, and finally, in conclusion, the writer says this:
What we do know is that words can be made to mean many different things. It all depends on who is drafting the statutes and who is deciding upon their meaning.
Lewis Carroll said it all in "Alice Through the Looking Glass":
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's
all."
And that is the question. Not for dogs and cats, but for women and men who are concerned about something called justice.
As we prepare to pass this bill in which we can all agree with so much, there are still questions to be raised. I do not think there is anyone here so optimistic he would not see the bill failing to take its full effect until it has been used and faced with the challenges that will inevitably arise and which must be carried through to the Supreme Court of Canada for the final decision on whether the bill truly achieves the high aims set out in its magnificent and revolutionary preamble.
If I might make a final point, it is that this bill will be distinctively Canadian in its scope compared to practically every other nation in the world. We will have something that many people who come to this country will not have experienced in other parts of the world-a kind of freedom, a kind of mobility in the society forecast in these bright areas that I hope we can achieve. But we must realize that there are

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
many countries in the world that, by their very nature and their long history, have not provided equality on all of these bases the way this bill will do for this country. We will be moving into a class that is distinct, separate, and special.
It will be to the credit of this country to pass the bill, but we must be warned that the struggle is not over the moment the legislation is proclaimed. It will have to be monitored by every group interested in preventing discriminatory practices whether by race, ethnic origin, colour, sex or marital status. Only by that kind of eternal vigilance can it be made part and parcel of our life and culture, something which we accept and in which we believe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has already indicated it is our intention to support this bill at second reading stage. We do that because we recognize the importance of putting a bill on the statute books which at least begins to outline the rights of Canadian citizens-which begins to delineate the human rights to which Canadian citizens should be entitled.
We support that kind of bill because we know that while many Canadian people like to think that this is a country which does not discriminate, in which people are not prejudiced and people are not adversely affected because they belong to a racial, religious or ethnic minority, such is not always the case. We have had the most glaring illustrations of prejudice and discrimination in every part of the country. I could start on the east coast or the west coast and take it province by province-the way we dealt with Japanese Canadians in British Columbia during World War II, how we moved them from the homes they had lived in for so many years, hundreds or thousands of miles away; how the Hutterite groups have been dealt with in Alberta, and how the native people have been mistreated in every province and territory.
Knowing our record and knowing how necessary this bill is, we give general support to it. We recognize there are some good things in it, and for them we give credit to the government. The bill consists of a number of important clauses which deal with some separate fundamental issues. Let me list a few of them.
I believe the bill spells out the right of all citizens, men and women, to receive equal pay for work of equal value. I know that is a difficult provision to implement. Countries in all parts of the world that have tried to implement it-and it is part of the International Labour Organization Convention No. 100- have had difficulty in doing so. We at least have it as part of this bill.
I believe this bill will permit the government to take affirmative action to help disadvantaged groups, people who have been discriminated against for various reasons. It will help them through special programs to attain improvements they have not been able to get until now.

This bill also includes a provision to help the physically handicapped and prohibit discrimination against them.
For these reasons, and for the general thrust of the bill, we want to commend the government and give our support.
We have had experience in the federal jurisdiction and in all provinces with legislation whose purpose is to prohibit discrimination because of race, colour, religion, etc. I refer to the Fair Employment Practices Acts of the provinces and federal government, and the Fair Accomodation Practices Acts of the various provinces. These acts are on the statute books but unfortunately in some provinces, if not most, they remain essentially a dead letter. The provinces have done little if anything to publicize the legislation, have done little if anything to let the people discriminated against know they have rights, and have done little in the form of education, and practically nothing in the form of investigation, and so in some provinces the laws have been singularly unsuccessful.
On the other hand, in some provinces such as Ontario, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and, to a lesser degree, Manitoba, there have been attempts which have been quite successful. Having passed the legislation, the governments of those provinces have established agencies and given them funds at least to begin to get the message contained in the legislation to the people, particularly those most directly and adversely concerned.
I hope I am wrong when I get the feeling that this legislation has been drafted almost exclusively-and I do not mean in just the legal and technical language-by lawyers. I have a feeling that the concept of the people who drafted it is that the whole thing is to be a legal operation. Someone complains. The complaint is investigated. The board, holds a hearing, makes a finding and issues an order. If the experience of the provinces in this field is any guide, we need fewer court cases and quasi judicial hearings and much more discussion involving those who have been discriminated against and those who have discriminated.


Mr. Basford:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Only through such discussions can a solution acceptable to both parties be found. I hope, once this legislation passes,- that the minister will consider an operation of that kind, instead of purely legalistic prosecutions to enforce the law. Having said that, I hope the minister will consider my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered. I meant to be complimentary.
I now wish to deal with the clause which, in my opinion, ought to have been left out of the bill, the clause purporting to deal with privacy. Mr. Speaker, privacy involves extremely complicated questions.
Every country of the world, by which I mean every democratic country-in totalitarian and authoritarian countries citizens have no right to privacy, have no freedom, and I will not discuss them-every democratic country in recent years has had to give much thought to the rights of individual citizens, to a citizen's right to believe what he wants, say what he wants,
February 17, 1977

and think what he wants without interference by government. There are no easy answers to this complicated question. I hoped the government would introduce a freedom of information bill as a companion piece to its human rights bill. 1 believe a bill of that kind is a must for a modern-democratic society. We have seen no indication that the government accepts this idea. Even if it can be said that the government accepts the idea in principle, it has, as demonstrated by this bill and the minister's speech, so hedged its acceptance of the principle of privacy with so many reservations as to suggest that it does not intend to give the people of this country the right to privacy and the right to freedom of information.
Last Friday, after the minister had introduced the bill on second reading, the hon. member for Greenwood disagreed with some of the things the minister had said.The hon. member for Greenwood told the minister what we, in my party, think is wrong with the bill. To make my point clear I shall quote part of what the minister said last Friday, as reported at pages 2977 and 2978 of Hansard for February 11, 1977. Fie said:
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 the 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.
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 subjects of the record objects to particular information in the record if an institution refuses to make corrections.
Let us compare what has happened in recent years in the United States with what is happening right now in Canada. Those interested in the Alger Hiss case were able to obtain virtually all the records and materials accumulated by the FBI during its investigation of the case, as well as all the records pertaining to the prosecution. It does not matter to my argument whether Alger Hiss was guilty or innocent. The point is that American citizens could get that information. Similarly, the children of the Rosenbergs who were electrocuted for giving atom bomb secrets to the Soviet Union were able to see the FBI files concerning the Rosenberg case. Can the minister suggest for a moment that Canadian citizens have similar rights? I do not want to flog a dead horse, but let me say this: I have before me a copy of a letter dated June 15, 1971, written by the former solicitor general to other cabinet colleagues. It is marked "personal and secret." The contents of the letter were not revealed to the 21 people about whom the minister wrote. Talking about the report he had received, the minister said in his letter:
The report also draws attention to the activities of various persons and groups, some of them employees of the federal government, who support the EPO
Canadian Human Rights
concept and who appear to have as their aim the destruction of the existing political and social structure in Canada.
That is a most serious charge.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I'll say it is.


Mr. MacKay:: I thought there was no list.


David Orlikow: The letter goes on to say:
Through such institutions the New Left seeks to organize and radicalize the underclasses of society and mould them into a revolutionary force capable of overthrowing the present socio-political system ...
Of more concern, however, is the presence within certain government departments and agencies, particularly CMHC, of a small group of former campus revolutionaries...
And so on. As I say, those are serious charges. If the government stands by what the minister said last Friday, it should at least give those people notice that they have been accused by somebody. They ought to be told what they are charged with so that they may have the opportunity to enter a defence.
In this connection may I refer to another case to which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) referred earlier in the present debate. A man called McGuire worked for CN-CP Telecommunications, an organization which is partly owned by the Crown. That corporation entered into a contract with the Department of Supply and Services for the transmission by the RCMP of certain information. Under the provisions of that contract, Mr. McGuire and a number of other employees had to pass a security check. Mr. McGuire was told by his employer that he did not pass it, that he could therefore not work for the company any longer and he lost his job. Mr. McGuire was never given a bill of particulars. He was not told why he lost his security clearance, nor was he given an opportunity to defend himself and explain why, in his view, the decision to remove his security clearance was unfair.
The union felt they could not accept this action. If the employer could do this to Mr. McGuire, the employer could do it arbitrarily to other people. They exercised what they thought was their right to grieve the matter. The case went as high as it could to arbitration. The union lost at every stage.
The union eventually took the case to the Supreme Court of Ontario where it applied for an order quashing the arbitration award on the ground that the grievor, Mr. McGuire, has been denied a fair hearing, that he could not adequately defend himself not being aware of the reasons why he failed security clearance. Mr. Justice Robins sympathized with Mr. McGuire, but dismissed the application. He said in part, and I quote:
While one may sympathize, as I do, with an individual's wish to know why he has been refused security clearance and with his desire to have the opportunity to contest allegations against him and confront those responsible for the allegations, proceedings before an arbitration board arising under a collective agreement between a company and a union do not provide the forum for vindication against such governmental decision. Recourse must be found elsewhere.
Where is that elsewhere? One would have hoped it was in this bill, but it is not. Under the provisions of clause 4, about

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
which the minister spoke so glowingly, there are so many exceptions that we know in advance that no one will get any information that a government minister or bureaucrat does not want a person to have. We know from experience that individuals never get information about themselves to which they are entitled if the government does not want to give it.
The hon. member for Greenwood listed all the exemptions which this bill includes in Part IV. I will not do that again. I will merely refer to one. If, in the opinion of the minister, the harm of the disclosure would outweigh the benefit, it could be made exempt. Surely that makes the minister the judge, jury and prosecutor. That kind of principle is one which we in Canada would not knowingly admit is part of our system of justice. However, that is the kind of provision the minister wants us to accept.
In conclusion, I want to remind the minister of a policy with regard to the rights of individuals suspected of being security risks. The policy was enunciated by a former Liberal prime minister, Mr. Pearson. To my knowledge it has never been repudiated or modified. If one looks at the cases, it is obvious that it has not been lived up to. I refer the minister and hon. members to Hansard of October 25, 1963. I will read just a couple of paragraphs of the statement by the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson. I quote from page 4044:
The first of the new requirements is to inform the person involved when his security or reliability is in doubt and may have to involve his dismissal. Employment departments and agencies will in future be required to tell an employee everything that is possible of the reasons for the doubt, if there is a doubt, and to give him an opportunity to resolve that doubt.
There is no question as to whether the 21 people listed in the appendix to the letter from the former attorney general were given that opportunity. Mr. McGuire was never given that opportunity. Mr. Pearson went on to say:
The second new requirement is to ensure that a second look is always taken by a separate body before dismissal is finally decided upon. Once the individual is told of security doubts he will have the opportunity to give his side of the case. The employing agency will consider it, consult the staff of the government security panel, and arrive at a conclusion. It may be to accept the person as reliable, in which case no problem arises. It may be to transfer him to a less sensitive employment, as has been the case certainly more than once in the past-
None of these procedures was followed by the government in the cases that I have mentioned. I mentioned those cases because we know about them. Because of the way in which the government conducts its business, because of the secrecy which the former prime minister said would no longer be the policy of the government, and because of the failure of the government to enact regulations or legislation to protect the rights of individuals, we do not know how many other cases there have been. However, we have every right to believe that there have been others. In fact people have been accused, tried, convicted, and penalized without ever knowing it.
We have every right to call on the minister to re-think his position, to call on the government to re-study the question and to give Canadian people a law which will give them the same rights and protections which are embodied in legislation in the United States and other countries. Without that, many of the
[Mr. Orlikow.J
rights supposedly included in this bill will not be given to the citizens of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to incorporate many of the arguments that were outlined this afternoon and those that were given on the previous occasion in my speech. I am one who sometimes questions it when you spell out our inalienable rights in a statute. I believe that out of the growth of the common law, which is really the crystallization of customs and traditions that grew up through our social being, flows all real true freedom, and it is a matter of interpretation. When that doesn't work, of course, people crushed by law have no hope but from power, and if laws are their enemies they will be enemies of the law. Those who have much to hope for and nothing to lose will always be dangerous, and it is only when they are dangerous that sometimes we bravely get progress, because man climbed out of the slime because of discontentment.
We need a human rights bill. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the battle for human rights never ceases. We go back to the days when Cicero said the natural law was unchanging and everlasting, that it was one eternal and unchangeable law for all nations and for all times. In the Middle Ages, of course, Thomas Aquinas emphasized that natural law was superior to manmade law and that, as a result, all rulers were themselves subject to it. Of course what really grew out of that thought was that freedom, in our understanding of the word, flows from the rule of law, not from people.
The Reformation, of course, brought sharply to the fore the need for the protection of freedom of religion. It is interesting to note that we got freedom of religion in Canada before the Mother Parliament adopted freedom of religion in the United Kingdom.
As the concept of the social contract theory of government developed in the 19th Century, still greater emphasis came to be placed on the rights of the individual. If the government failed to respect natural rights, wrote Locke and Rousseau, disobedience and rebellion were justified. Thus was born the modern notion of human rights. So responsive were men to this notion that the greatest social revolutions in history took place in the western world, one in America and one in France, in order to preserve for individuals the rights which they claimed belonged to them.
This deep-seated desire for the recognition of human dignity-and human dignity, of course, is what we are talking about when we are talking about human rights-is reflected in the words of the American Declaration of Independence. I will only spell out a few of its thoughts in that regard. It says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal-
We have to remember that that was composed in 1776 and 1783 but it took them a long time, even when they had spelled out everything-and this is what I want to emphasize-before men were recognized as equal in the United States of America.
February 17, 1977

-that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government-
Of course that can be done in a democracy very easily because in a democracy, thank God, people can ask us to leave this job very nicely. There is that one law for all, namely, the one law which governs all law, the natural law which is known as the law of wisdom, and which is sometimes known as the divine law meaning, of course, the law of humanity, justice, equity and equality. All this is found in our common law and, if not found or enforced by the use of common law, I fear it may not be enforced by rights spelled out in the statutes. However, let us try. I say this, however, with some reservation, because of my own experience.
The common law of Canada which is a heritage we received from the United Kingdom, as did the United States of America, may in some cases, with some reason, guarantee all those freedoms outlined in the bill much more effectively than a statute can do so. For what a statute gives by guaranteeing freedom and equality may sometimes subtract from others the same amount of freedom and equality. I pause there. That is the one weakness of this bill.
There is to be set up a tribunal, which will be a bureaucratic administrative tribunal, to make decisions. That frightens me. It frightens me because I have had some experience in reference to administrative bodies and how they operate and what kind of evidence they listen to, because they can listen to hearsay or other evidence, direct or indirect. And I would say that one of the first amendments which should be proposed to this bill is that the right of appeal to a Superior Court should always be spelled out in the statute. Failing that, this bill could take away more rights and freedoms, and do more harm to equality, and create more discrimination than it gives, because you have a bureaucratic board administering it. Therefore the very spirit of the bill, which I endorse, could be lost in the wording of the statute.
Let me make some suggestions. I am in favour, of course, of human rights-like motherhood. As the bill sets out in clause 2:
The purpose of this act is to extend the present laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, to the following principles:
Others have quoted this, and perhaps I might just do so.
(a) every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or by discriminatory employment practices based on physical handicap;
I would bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry he is not here this evening, the achievement of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, in 1960, brought in the Bill of Rights. When you look at the
Canadian Human Rights
wording of the Bill of Rights and at this act, you find they are synonymous. But one thing about the Bill of Rights is that the rights set out in that statute are enforced by the judiciary, an independent body, not by an administrative group or board appointed by an order in council or some government which might have some political influence or patronage behind the scenes. The Bill of Rights states:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms-
This is exactly like the first clause of the bill. The words are the same.
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, the security of the person, enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.
Note, it says, "an individual" it does not say "male". "Individual" means both male and female. The Bill of Rights goes on to speak of the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association and, above all, freedom of the press. I am not going to get further into that. I shall merely say that this Bill of Rights does not apply only to bills which are passed now but to bills which have already been passed. The Supreme Court has upheld that contention as good law. What I am saying is that the man who set the tone on the subject of human rights is a former prime minister, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I mention once again that the implementation and application of the Bill of Rights are done by the judiciary of Canada and not by some group of unknown people who may form some tribunal without the right of appeal.
Another matter I want to discuss for a moment is the privacy of individuals, which should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with public order and well-being. I was shocked this week when 1 read the annual report to His Excellency the Right Honourable Governor General of Canada, which is required by the Criminal Code of Canada, section 178.22. I am talking about wiretapping. I am happy indeed to see the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) in the House; he made a great contribution in the committee when these sections were going through. I was rather shocked to see this statement at page 6 of the report:
The number of persons arrested-
Not looked at, Mr. Speaker, but arrested, which means put in jail.
-whose identity became known to a peace officer as a result of an interception under authorization was 1,062.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that these people were locked up. They were just not talked to but locked up. Then paragraph
(2) says:

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
The number of criminal proceedings commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in which private communications obtained by interception-
I will leave out the rest, but out of the 1,062 persons, 13 were found guilty.


Francis Fox: Read the next paragraph.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will read the next paragraph. I am glad the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) came across and spoke to me, because I am going to say something about his answers today. He told me that some cases had not proceeded, and I said that perhaps they were left over from last year.


Francis Fox: Read the rest of it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, if the Solicitor General wants to make a speech he can make one. If he says that I am wrong, then let him say so. But if he is going to endorse this kind of law, and if he and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) want to repeal the 90 days' notice clause in regard to people who have had their telephones wiretapped, then if 1,062 people were put in jail and there were only 13 convictions with notice, God help us when they abolish notice. This is why we took him and the Attorney General of Canada on in committee. They are members of the party which is supposed to stand for freedom. It is the party that is supposed to say it believes in civil rights. I would ask them to take a look at their own legislative clauses and to clean them out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Just read the next paragraph.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: According to the Montreal Gazette of today's date:
Canadian bureaucratic procedures, it appears, grind on irrespective of the liberties of citizens. Justice F. U. Collier's 29 writs are the latest case in point.
These writs of assistance-search warrants-were issued to the RCMP for customs and excise work. They are extremely broad, directed against no person or crime and without time limit. They allow an officer to enter any building at any time, even breaking down doors, and to seize goods.
The government has allowed these writs to stay in use for 35 years. Do hon. members like that kind of law? Would they like it in Quebec? They remember what the Supreme Court of Canada said about the padlock law of Duplessis, and I am sure they would not like that sort of thing.


Miss Begin:: You should raise it in the question period.


Mr. Beatty:: You were not in the cabinet then.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will be saying something about the question period in a minute.
Justice Collier, believing he had no choice, issued them "reluctantly and despairingly." It is true that in 1965 the court ruled it had to bow to Parliament's wishes and so issue the writs.
But what are Parliament's wishes? Article 145 of the Customs Act says a federal judge may grant such writs.

They went out with the Star Chamber court.
The law, which expresses Parliament's intent, seems to give the court discretion. Indeed, if it did not, there would hardly be cause for the procedure. There must be some means of checking police power under the law, and the courts are a logical instrument for that function.
The RCMP says it needs the writs, because it is difficult to find judges on off hours.
Yet they used these writs for 35 years, Mr. Speaker. That is a great excuse. I am surprised that the Solicitor General backs this kind of nonsense.
Maybe so, but it is not impossible, and police convenience is just one factor to consider. And why 29 writs, without time limit, when more can be had any working day?
So this editorial proves that what I said in reference to wiretapping was correct.
I asked questions about this in the House. I asked what was going on in the prisons. I called them horror chambers. I dared to raise my voice this afternoon to the Solicitor General and the government in regard to a report that a young fellow 15 years of age, who has been sent to a penitentiary in British Columbia, has been forced at the point of a knife to have oral sex with senior inmates. If that is not a horror dungeon there never was one. We have talked about civil and human rights, and when I asked the minister this afternoon to clean up the mess he said he had only waited for eight years and he was going to wait some more until he got a report. What does he need before he takes action, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: You keep pegging away.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right, I will look after your hearts over there. I am always glad to see the party whip in the House because he takes a register every day of who is in the House. I hope he registered those who were absent on his own side.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: He was a football coach. He had to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) is rising on a question of privilege.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: The hon. member is always talking about rights and I hope he will not infringe on mine. Unless he comes over here and checks that this has been done, I hope he will not make a remark of that nature, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The former whip said that he kept one, so maybe the hon. member is getting lax in his duties. However, while on the subject of answers that I have been getting, I thought he would like to hear a quotation from Chesterton because it illustrates the kind of answers that we have been getting. Chesterton said:
It is a deadly error (an error at the back of much of the false placidity of our politics) to suppose that lies are told with excess and luxuriance, and truths told with modesty and restraint. Some of the most frantic lies on the face of life are told with modesty and restraint; for the simple reason that only modesty and restraint will save them. In one sense, truth alone can be exaggerated: nothing else can stand the strain.
I hope that the minister listened to that quotation.
February 17, 1977

I now want to come to another situation. May I refer to the second report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. Like other bills the government brings in, Bill C-25 spells out a lot of provisions, but much of what is going to be done will be done by order in council. What does the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons say about this? It says:
The Committee desires that, in principle, all subordinate law and rules made by the Crown and by those put in authority under the Crown, or by any other delegate or sub-delegate of Parliament, should be subject to Parliamentary supervision, unless specifically excluded.
In other words, regulations and the rules implemented by order in council are turned out by the government like an assembly line. In every bill the government is enlarging the right to legislate outside of parliament. Legislation should be debated in parliament, scrutinized, and voted upon. I see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) shaking his head, but I know he has been flying around with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and has been getting into bad habits.
The report goes on to read:
Any exceptions from such supervision should be made explicitly and be justified on such compelling grounds . ..
All subordinate laws and rules should, unless again there are compelling reasons to the contrary, be registered centrally and published.
My point is that I hope that when the bill gets to committee those provisions that are to be set down by regulation can be written into the bill.
In the matter of human rights, it seems to me that education is the best way to persuade and to ensure that humanity and equality flourish throughout the land. I am not being critical of the government at the moment, but let me say that I was rather shocked to find that the very first Canadians, the Indians, were excluded from the provisions of the bill because their rights and privileges come under the Indian Act. Having at one time represented the old constituency of Bow River in which the Blackfoot and Morley reservations are located, I know that the Indians are skeptical because some of the treaties and rights are spelled out in the Indian Act, and therefore they are reluctant to see the few rights they have appear even in a bill called the human rights bill.
' Leo Tolstoy said the following, and I think he put it very succinctly:
It is very easy to take a child away from a prostitute, or from a beggar. It is very easy, when one has money, to have him washed, cleaned and dressed in good clothes, fed up, and even taught various sciences; but for us who do not earn our own bread, it is not only difficult to teach him to earn his bread, it is impossible; because by our example, and even by those material improvements of his life which cost us nothing, we teach the opposite.
In other words, you can legislate this type of bill, but as long as there are economic differences in Canada-and there are great economic differences today because of the high rate of unemployment which exists in the maritimes, in Quebec and in other parts of Canada-you cannot legislate against economic
Canadian Human Rights
discrimination. No legislation will help, unless we achieve economic equality in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I always appreciate when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks on pensions in the House- and I mean this sincerely-because of the inequality which exists between pensions paid to males and females. This bill will not correct this situation unless there is other legislation to ensure that the intent and purpose of this bill are carried out.
I should like to make one comment about the equality of the sexes. We have heard a lot about that. It is easy to say and believe, but it will not occur overnight because of preconceived ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friend laughs. I do not know why. Let me give an example. I saw this in my own city. One female is hired as a telephone repairer. She is one woman among 100 men, but that does not guarantee equality. It means more than that. Such an example is merely hanging drapes over an untidy and unsightly window. My hon. friend laughs again. I am sure the ladies do not laugh. This is in the bill. We are not talking about the kind of sex the hon. member is talking about. I know that he is talking about. All I am saying is that there will be no equality between males and females by legislation if it only means that you hang out the drapes over an untidy or unclean window, and you hire one or two females and give them equal pay. That means nothing. It is merely an apology, merely an excuse for the bill.
I want to say again that the setting up of a tribunal or a commission to enforce the terms and sanctions of the bill creates a firm bureaucratic body with absolute power which could destroy freedom if a wrongful decision is made regarding race, national or ethnic origin, religion, age, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or conviction for an offence in respect of which pardon has been granted. There should be included in the bill the right of appeal, and I say that right must be granted from a decision in any superior court in any province. An independent review is a must, because if someone lays a complaint and if, for one reason or another, the tribunal says that discrimination has been exercised, under the terms of the bill the man is liable to have his business closed, and to many other actions.
It is the unalienable right of every Canadian to have the right to appeal the decision of any administrative body which will accept evidence. Having said that, let me say that I think that is the most important contribution I can make to this debate.


An hon. Member:: What was all the rest of it?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You would not understand it, and I feel sorry for you.
Let me end on this note, Mr. Speaker, with reference to this bill, to the wiretapping legislation, and to other acts. I should

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
like to read a poem which I have quoted previously. It is my favourite poem. It reads:
Eternal spirit of the chainless mind.
Brightest in dungeons, Liberty, thou art,
For there thy habitation is the heart-
The heart which love of thee alone can bind;
And when thy sons to fetters are consigned-
To fetters, and the damp vault's dayless gloom,
Their country conquers with their martyrdom,
And Freedom's fame Finds wings on every wind.
Chillon. Thy prison is a holy place,
And thy sad floor and altar-for 'twas trod,
Until his very steps have left a trace Worn, as if the cold pavement were a sod,
By Bonnivard. May none those marks efface!
May they appeal from Tyranny to God.
To me it is within the spirit and soul of man and woman whether we are going to have human rights of not. You cannot legislate morality. You can legislate kindness. You can legislate against bigots. You can only educate and try to enlighten people. It is in the flow of education and enlightenment, and in the soul of men and women, that you can bring about real equality and end discrimination wherever it exists.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Francis):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Thank you. I would like to begin my bachelor speech-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: -by congratulating Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker on their chairing of the debates of this House. In my three short months here I have come to realize that the spirit of impartiality and good humour that radiates from their presence is vital to the functioning of this great Chamber.
I suppose that every politician likes to think of his or her constituency as being a microcosm of the nation. In the case of Ottawa-Carleton, this claim is correct. Ottawa-Carleton is partly urban, partly suburban, and partly rural. The riding contains more public servants than the average, it is true, but in most other respects it is very typical. Most important, perhaps, the balance between French-speaking and Englishspeaking Canadians is about the same as in the nation as a whole.
In such areas as urban planning, housing, transport, bilingualism, decentralization, and the withdrawal of farmland from production, Ottawa-Carleton is a cross section of Canada. In my three short months here the telephone calls, the constituency visitors and the letters are all beginning to show a pattern of people who are human and who feel caught in the machinery of big government, big companies and big trade unions. They sense a faceless, remote power which is not concerned about
[Mr. Woolliams.J
them as people. We need more listening posts where people can find concern, humanity, and justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: In the years to come my riding will be a critical testing ground for the ability of the government of Canada to come to terms with the serious problems facing our country today. But overriding each of the difficulties before us now is the larger more human concern about the well-being of Canadians. It is in regard to the problems of individual people that I wish to speak on the proposed human rights legislation.
We welcome the bill. We are anxious to see it proceed as quickly as possible to a point where Canada can claim the entrenchment of human rights legislation exemplifying the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights as approved by the United Nations. There are, however, certain points in the bill where some amendments might improve the law. Ultimately, of course, Canadians will make the guarantee of human rights a reality in our country. Proper legislation and education, however, can be very effective agents of this process.
No mention of human rights in Canada can be made without the recognition of the leading role of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in pioneering legislation in this important area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I would like to join the minister and other hon. members in paying tribute to the right hon. member for his significant contribution to the area of human rights and to the spirit of that concern which carries forward today.
I am by occupation a businesswoman. You and I, Your Honour, as bakers, come from the same business background. For many years I have operated an enterprise employing hundreds of persons. I know the necessity of encouraging and maximizing the optimum use of every asset, and human resources are still the most vital asset of any company or any country. There is a need for governments, through leadership, example and prudent legislation, to establish a climate within which individuals can pursue their own goals. It is the responsibility of the federal government to encourage the various elements of our complex society to work in harmony for the well-being of all Canadians.
One of my favourite stories relates to Michelangelo when he was carving the beautiful statue of David. A young boy sat watching as he chipped away the stone, and the figure of David began to emerge. Finally, as he was putting the finishing touches to the work, the lad came up, pulled Michelangelo's sleeve and said, "How did you know he was in there?" As the economic, social, and cultural forces in our national life chip away at the large stone called Canada, I pray there will be many Davids emerging to take roles in business, politics, and labour to slay the Goliaths of mistrust, greed, intolerance, waste, and fear which keep us from maximizing the human potential of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 17, 1977


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: One area of concern in the human rights bill is its provisions for dealing with discrimination aimed at the handicapped. We in Canada are still guilty of cruel discrimination against the 15 per cent of our people who, through no fault of their own, are physically handicapped. That equals half the population of Quebec, or the total population of the three prairie provinces. We have victimized them through our ignorance, oppressed them through our laws, or lack of them, hidden many of them from our sight and kept them from our communities by constructing buildings which make it all but impossible for the handicapped to exercise their basic human rights. For years now the handicapped have tolerated public insensitivity to their situation, but we live in an age when the level of knowledge in medicine, science, technology, communications and other Fields has reached an advanced stage, and the "Forgive them for they know not what they do" attitude of the handicapped must go.
Disabled people have the same needs as the rest of us-a good job, an adequate income, a choice of housing, an opportunity to take part in recreational activities, personal independence and a chance to contribute to their society. These are not privileges; they are their basic human rights.
The newest developments in medicine are aimed at restoring the cardiac, the stroke, and the severe accident case to as normal and meaningful a role as their impairment will allow. I am concerned that the environment these people are coming into should be prepared and ready to take them on a fair basis.
How have we denied these rights to the handicapped? Buildings in Canada are monuments to our thoughtlessness. The catalogue of our obstructions is almost endless. Steps, whether one or a long flight, are a great obstacle to the handicapped. In my own riding during this past month I have been unable to find a place in an office building that could take care of the handicapped. I had to go to a second floor, where there are stairs.
Awkward, heavy or swinging doors, hard to manage door knobs and handles, narrow entrances, elevators in which the buttons are placed too high to be reached by someone in a wheelchair, and numerous other constructions effectively say "keep out" to the handicapped. The majority of our buildings in Canada, both public and private, restrict access to thousands of Canadians who are wheelchair bound, to those who use crutches or other walking aids, who have diseases such as arthritis or heart conditions, who are elderly, blind, or disabled in some other way.
One of the strong points in the proposed bill is that it aims at prohibiting discrimination in employment on the ground of physical handicap. We hope that under this bill an employer will no longer be able to argue that his office is inaccessible to wheelchairs, which thereby denies employment to a handicapped person. The alternative for a handicapped person who is denied employment on such unfair grounds is the kind of government assistance which, in financial terms alone, forces poverty level living.
The very strength of the proposed legislation in dealing with employer discrimination toward the handicapped is also one of
Canadian Human Rights
its weaknesses, since problems other than employment are not resolved. One of the greatest needs of paraplegics and other wheelchair users is proper housing. The design of most Canadian housing is discriminatory to the handicapped. We need buildings with units for wheelchair users distributed all across our cities so that handicapped people can live wherever they choose.
Implicit in the goals of human rights legislation is the nurturing of a quality of life for Canadians which promotes the individual citizen's search for dignity and a meaningful control of his or her own existence. Only through the use of one's capacities can satisfaction and a genuine sense of worth be achieved.
The quality of the environment is a factor in the quality of life. A large gap exists today between the possibilities offered to the able-bodied and those available to the handicapped. If the environment in Canada is to serve the whole population equally, it must take into account those who are handicapped, one person in seven, and allow for their development and self-expression.
The image which our society assigns to the handicapped becomes the self-image of each handicapped person. It affects their expectations and their behaviour. By our negative view of the handicapped we not only limit their prospects but also deny ourselves the benefit of their many talents. Through our thoughtlessness we have turned what would otherwise be a medically identifiable condition of physical impairment into a handicap. We have turned a physical disability into one which can often place the handicapped in a mental wheelchair as well as a physical one. We have done this by maintaining an attitude which magnifies the individual's perception of his or her disability. No matter how physically disabled a person may be, inside the body is a human being that has enormous potential to live and contribute. We must work to build an environment which sustains people's morale and provides an impetus to pursue goals.
Sadly, we have also created a handicap from another physical situation-age. We stereotype into a universal category anyone over the age of 65.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Chronological age, degree of biological aging, and personality are all lost in a blurred image which denies individuality. The stereotypes of old age lead to negative expectations.
As the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has pointed out, physical handicap is defined in clause 20 of the bill and includes any form of congenital or accidental infirmity. Two important restrictions limit protection to handicapped persons. First, discrimination prohibited with regard to the handicapped person only applies in matters of employment: in matters of services, facilities and housing, nothing is foreseen for the protection of the handicapped persons to benefit from these services normally available to other Canadians.

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have one short story. Recently a legless pilot of the Battle of Britain was in Ottawa. Charlotte Gobeil interviewed Sir Douglas Bader, DSO, DFC, on television. During the interview she referred to him as "disabled". "My dear girl", replied Sir Douglas, "I'm not disabled. I've just got a set of different abilities."
I urge the minister to consider that implicit in the term human rights is the right of "human potential", to be recognized and developed to the advantage of all Canadians. In the handicapped and the aged, we have such great human potential.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honour for me to follow the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I want to pay tribute to her. I think those of us in the House who had a chance to listen to her very moving, eloquent, and compassionate address on the subject of Bill C-25 could not help but be struck by the tremendous contribution that is going to be made by the hon. member to public affairs in Canada.
Any of us who watched her career as a business person and knew of her public service in this community expected that when she came to parliament she would make a contribution to public life as well. In the three months she has been in this House the hon. member has justified the high expectations we had of her. She has proven in those three months that she is as able a representative as any in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in the four and a half years I have been in parliament one of the most difficult problems I have had to face is in cases where legislation is put before the House which is flawed in many respects but which has also many good aspects, and to decide whether we should allow the bill to go to committee and possibly become law after making amendments to improve it, or decide to recognize the flaws as so significant that the bill should not be allowed to go further.
The legislation before us replaces Bill C-72 which sat on the order paper until the end of the last session. The fact it is no longer on the order paper is testimony to the government's belated recognition that the public would not stand for such poor legislation. If the government had resurrected Bill C-72 in different form and brought it before the House, my recommendation would have been to vote against it. It was so poor that it would have been worse than no legislation at all. The legislation before us is flawed in many respects but it is better than nothing, in my judgment, and deserves to go to committee.
When we deal with the bill in committee I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) will prove he is flexible and willing to listen to argument made not only by members on his side but

on the other side as well about improvements that must be made if the bill is to fulfil his intentions.
A number of my colleagues have spoken about the human rights provisions. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton was very eloquent and moving in her remarks, and other colleagues have pointed out that basically the bill is good where it deals with human rights although there are amendments we would like to see made.
I should like to address my remarks particularly to clause 4 which deals with privacy. Let me start by saying that this clause does not comply with the rest of the bill. Bill C-25 is a hybrid of two reports-the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and the 1972 report on Privacy and Computers. The forced marriage between those two reports has resulted in a piece of legislation which in many ways is grossly inadequate. It is an unhappy marriage between poorly matched partners.
There is no need for us to debate whether action should be taken to protect individual privacy in Canada. Surely that case has been made long ago; surely there has been public acceptance of the need for action to protect personal privacy.
In 1972 when the excellent privacy and computer report was brought down, Canada was in a position of world leadership, recognized over the globe as being in the forefront of the recognition of the right to privacy and the need for legislative protection of that right. In the five years since, the government has squandered the lead that the privacy and computers report gave us. Already in other jurisdictions meaningful action has been taken. In Sweden legislation has been brought in which protects personal privacy and enshrines the concept of freedom of information in the public statutes. In the United States legislation has been brought before Congress and signed into law by the president, which deals with both questions of freedom of information and protection of personal privacy. In Great Britain strides have been made to protect the fragile right to personal privacy.
It is in Canada, where we had a lead in recognizing the problems, that there is today a need for action on the part of the government-not for cosmetics or smokescreens but for meaningful action. That is why this bill is a fraud in so many ways and is so deficient in attempting to live up to the expectations created by the government.
Two hundred years ago William Pitt described the rights of the citizens in those colonies still under English rule this way:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storms may enter but the king of England cannot enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.
What Pitt said 200 years ago was that even at that time British law recognized the need to protect the right of the individual from encroachment by the state. I think if Pitt had been able to foresee the technological and governmental changes in the 200 ye Vrs following his speech he would probably have mentioned a number of other areas where any poor man in his shattered cottage had a protection which we do not have today. He might have mentioned two centuries ago that
February 17, 1977

the king's forces could not bug private telephone conversations. Two hundred years ago we could not coerce information from individuals to fill statistical data banks. He would have mentioned 200 years ago that those clothed with authority could not burst into a citizen's home in the middle of the night under the authority of a writ of assistance; that the government could not establish blacklists based in part on information obtained from burgled private files; and that the forces of the government could not collect vast amounts of information from individuals to satisfy the voracious appetite of computer data banks.
In the 200 years which have elapsed since William Pitt's time the enormous growth of technology and the intrusiveness of the government have put in question the rights of the individual. The individual's standing in relation to his government is reduced, and our human rights are vastly diminished.
Let me deal specifically with a number of flaws in the bill. Before I do so, may I allude to the American privacy act of 1974. I think it is well worth while comparing the proposed legislation before us with the vastly superior legislation passed by the United States Congress. I wish to put on record the remarks of President Ford, made at the dedication ceremonies of the Stanford University Law School, Stanford University. The speech was delivered on September 21, 1975. Let me put on record what President Ford said with regard to retention of privacy. He said:
Among the very first things we learned was that one of the worst offenders is the federal government itself.
I don't mean improper or illegal invasion of people's privacy or constitutional rights by federal agencies or individual officials, which nobody condones, and which I will not tolerate as long as I am President of the United States. Rather, I mean threats to privacy which have resulted from laws duly enacted by past Congresses for very laudable purposes having wide public support and appeal.
Many of these laws, with today's technology, cumulatively threaten to strip the individual of his privacy or her privacy and reduce him to a faceless set of digits in a monstrous network of computers. He has not only no control over this process but often has absolutely no knowledge of its existence.
When President Ford signed the privacy act of 1974 White House officials pointed out that it was then possible to identify some 6,000 separate American federal record systems which kept data about American citizens. We do not know how many personal record data systems containing information about individual Canadians operate at the federal level. The government has never catalogued them. I have attempted to secure such information by putting questions on the order paper, but the government has never published a comprehensive list of data banks in Canada.
I now wish to quote a short passage from "The New Despotism", by Lord Hewart of Bury, former Lord Chief Justice of England. The book was published in 1929; nevertheless, what the learned author had to say is still relevant. The author points out how a parliamentary system can be turned into a despotism. 1 wish to quote two of the points he raises, as follows;
Two main obstacles hamper the beneficent work of the expert. One is the sovereignty of parliament, and the other is the rule of law.
Canadian Human Rights
The author then explained how the beneficent bureaucrat can turn the parliamentary system into a despotism. He must:
(a) get legislation passed in skeleton form; (b) fill up the gaps with his own rules, orders, and regulations; (c) make it difficult or impossible for parliament to check the said rules, orders, and regulations; (d) secure for them the force of statute; (e) make his own decision final; (f) arrange that the fact of his decision shall be conclusive proof of its legality; (g) take power to modify the provisions of statutes; and (h) prevent and avoid any sort of appeal to a court of law.
I invite the minister to examine that prescription for turning the parliamentary system into a despotism. I suggest that the learned author's remarks could well apply to Bill C-25, for here again we see the government's proclivity for passing legislation which gives power to legislate by regulation without the necessity of bringing those regulations before parliament. The tremendous discretionary power this legislation would give to the executive is shocking. There is power to create secret data banks containing identifiable information about individuals. There is also a provision which would except such data banks from the provisions of the bill, rudimentary as they are, and deprive average citizens of basic human rights.
Other hon. members have mentioned clause 55 which allows any minister to decide at his own discretion whether any particular data bank is to be included within the provisions of the bill. If he feels that the disadvantages of inclusion outweigh the advantages, there could be an exclusion.
Last Friday, when introducing this bill on second reading, the minister said something which I hope he now regrets, because what he said was an abomination. As reported at page 2978 of Hansard the minister said:
There are, however, certain differences which lead me to believe that the protection afforded under this bill of the rights of Canadians with respect to abuse of their personal information in government banks is effectively greater than the rights of Americans.
I can think of no more flagrant example of a statement which can only mislead Canadians about the true nature of the legislation the government is presenting. This bill, unlike the American legislation, make no provision about the sort of information which is to be gathered about an individual. The American legislation specifically defines the type of information about an individual the government's data-gathering machines may acquire. Specifically, the American legislation outlaws information about an individual's use of the first amendment, to do with freedom of speech, to ensure that there is no political surveillance of individuals. Surely, above all, a bill dealing with the protection of the privacy of individuals should define the classes of information about individuals which may be gathered and stored, and proscribe the gathering of information which is not to be used for legitimate purposes or is no longer timely.
Nowhere does this bill provide for the purging of data files, for the removal of information which is obsolete, for the removal of information which can only be damaging to an individual. I think it is important to consider this point.
For the benefit of the Minister of Justice I shall read an excerpt from the publication entitled "Databanks in a Free Society", a project of the Computer Science & Engineering
3176

February 17, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
Board of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, under the directorship of Alan F. Westin. The director is acknowledged as being one of the foremost experts in the world on the subject of protection of privacy. I quote from page 349 of the project as follows:
First, in terms of privacy, a general policy should be to extend the zones of personal and group freedom from compulsory data collection so that matters that ought not to be considered in making decisions about individuals do not become part of the formal records of all. In this sense, privacy is the primary civil-liberties issue, since both confidentiality and due-process questions disappear if the data are not gathered in the first place, or once they are destroyed. Not only should the need for and relevance of specific items of personal data have to be established in positive terms but serious consideration should be given to whether some entire record-keeping programs deserve to be continued at all; this was the basic question raised about the army's domestic intelligence watch over civilian political activity in the late 1960's. A further consideration where the need for collecting data is at issue is whether records should be retained beyond their period of likely use for the purposes for which they were originally collected.
Surely the government ought to have had such considerations in mind before it introduced this legislation.
I have mentioned some of the exceptions in the bill, some of its omissions as well as the sweeping powers granted to the executive branch of government for making arbitrary decisions. It would be worth while to illustrate with examples the problems having to do with federal as well as provincial data systems.
How many Canadians are aware of the fact that the federal government is in the business of compiling and selling computerized mailing lists for use by commercial firms, allowing those firms to send junk mail to individuals served by the government? The Canadian Post Office is in that business.
For every federal constituency which does not have a commercial postal directory available, the federal government will make available for $5 a list of every householder in the constituency, with his or her address and occupation. What sort of record is that for a government which professes to be in favour of protection of personal privacy?
The provincial governments are no better. Most departments of transport sell the motor vehicle registration lists. Anybody can buy an individual's name if that individual is registered as owner of a motor car.
An editorial in the Globe and Mail a year ago pointed out that the Ontario government is selling the driving records of individuals to insurance companies, for example, or any one willing to spend $3 to buy them. This in itself poses a very serious threat to individual privacy.
I want to cite another example which is particularly important in this debate. It illustrates the way in which this ministry has acted in terms of protection of privacy. Some of my colleagues alluded to the incident of blacklisting where secret files were constructed. The government still denies they exist despite the fact that the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has been able to obtain them. These files were collected and used to damage the careers of some civil servants. These civil servants have never had a chance to face

their accusers, never had a chance to have due process in answering the allegations made against them.
I want to cite another example, although the one dealing with the blacklist is very worth while. We should look at that. When you look at the exemptions in the bill, the blacklist and the material leading up to it would be specifically exempted from the provisions of the bill. The blacklist would have remained secret if it had not fallen into the hands of the hon. member for Central Nova.
There is a further example which shows the colours of this ministry. I want to quote from the prince in exile, the hon. John Turner. When he was minister of justice in 1970, he discovered the importance of freedom of information and privacy. He delivered a speech entitled "Twin Freedoms: The Right to Privacy and the Right to Know." What a remarkable record for this minister, who was the most secretive of all the cabinet and would not disclose to the people his plans for the Canadian economy, to have discovered so many years before the value of freedom of information. I want to deal specifically with his attitude toward privacy. I quote from Mr. Turner's speech:
I start from the proposition that the right to privacy is the most complete of human freedoms and that any encroachment on that right should be allowed only if society has proven that encroachment is necessary.
Further he said:
Arbitrary practices, inscrutable executive decisions, can only find acceptance where there is, in fact, no other means or no other way. It must be our constant goal, our continuous endeavour, to circumscribe and eliminate whimsy and caprice in our search for justice.
I hope the Minister of Justice will compare those words which were delivered by his predecessor, the hon. John Turner, with Mr. Turner's actions in office, and with the actions of his immediate predecessor who is now Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in the case of Bill Buchanan, the former chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.
On May 4, 1972, the former minister of justice and attorney general launched a campaign to impeach Bill Buchanan, the government's own appointee to the chairmanship of the AntiDumping Tribunal. On November 27, 1975, the Supreme Court of Canada, without a dissenting voice, threw out the case of the federal government. Let me explain the circumstances leading up to Mr. Buchanan's dismissal.
Prior to being appointed chairman of the board, Mr. Buchanan served in private business and in some cases represented Canadian domestic glass manufacturers. At the end of 1969, a complaint by two Canadian glass manufacturers that sheet glass was being dumped unfairly in Canada from other countries reached the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.
The Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal removed himself from any decision that was made, stood aside and allowed two other members to go ahead and make the decision. After the decision was made that the dumping in Canada should be banned, he approached a solicitor to get legal advice as to how the decision should be signed. The advice he received initially was that all three members should sign the document. For two years, nothing happened. Suddenly in 1972 federal tax inves-
February 17, 1977

tigators swooped down on Mr. Buchanan, seized records dealing with his income tax returns and his personal files, ostensibly to do an audit of his tax returns.
I quote from the Montreal Gazette of December 20, 1975:
On May 4, 1972, Otto Lang as minister of justice and attorney general, moved through the courts to quash the Anti-Dumping Tribunal's glass case decision of two years earlier.
The government alleged that Mr. Buchanan had a conflict of interest in this instance. The article goes on as follows:
The justice department's file on Buchanan was relayed to John Turner, then minister, of finance and the cabinet minister responsible for Buchanan's tribunal. Turner asked for his resignation, effective immediately.
Buchanan complied.
Subsequently this case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was thrown out by a unanimous decision. Chief Justice Laskin, who wrote the decision, pointed out it was a travesty that should not have been allowed to take place.
Perhaps I could call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I would like to renew this at a later date.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have all watched with varying degrees of astonishment the investigations of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts into AECL's foreign dealings-astonishment that such secretive and expensive tactics are needed to lose money on reactor sales, and astonishment that a Crown corporation could operate in such a loose and arbitrary fashion. While we all respect the independence of Crown corporations we must also respect the concept of value for public money, no matter what the status of the agency through which that money is dispensed.
We can be thankful that parliament has an Auditor General with the resources to tell us when something in the system has gone badly wrong, and we sorely need a comptroller general to catch as many potential difficulties as possible before they occur. But for parliament the information supplied by the Auditor General is of little use unless there exists a suitable means of delving into his findings or complementing them with committee hearings.
We have the Public Accounts Committee to allow us to discuss the Auditor General's report, but that committee is not, as it should be, in any position to support the Auditor General in a concrete way, or to provide a forum which will
Adjournment Debate
add to the public's knowledge and understanding. At present the committee's scope seems to be limited by the degree of co-operation exhibited by those being examined and that is more likely to lead to farce than fact. What use is it to a committee of the House if the head of a Crown corporation or a department simply says, this when things get a bit hot, that he does not feel able to release or give the requested information?
I therefore asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if additional powers could be considered for the Public Accounts committee, and received the usual vague brush-off. It should not be as easy as it is now to refuse information to a committee of this House. The Public Accounts Committee should have full powers to call for persons and papers, and there should be an obligation for those persons and papers to be produced.
If documents or testimony involved in a hearing are of a confidential nature, the sessions should be in camera with the minutes of proceedings edited. Committees at Westminster dealing with confidential or secret information sometimes do this. If co-operation is not forthcoming the committee should be able to report to the House, as it can now, but with a guarantee that its report will be speedily and decisively dealt with. The government could still side against the committee as must be its ultimate right, but it would have to do so openly and could not frustrate the committee by inertia.
It would also assist the Public Accounts Committee if the Public Accounts contained more corporate data and a summary of it, as suggested by the Auditor General in paragraph 5.24 of his 1976 report.
We should also devise a better method of examining witnesses to permit proper cross-examination, and the chairman should be empowered to chop off time-wasting and irrelevant answers. The committee has too much to do in a short time to permit a witness to be deliberately long-winded. Moreover, it is a committee with unique responsibilities to parliament and to Canada.
In answering me on Monday, the Prime Minister talked about "the traditions of our parliamentary system". It is marvelous the way spokesmen for government are able to laud the flexibility of the parliamentary system when they want to rewrite the rules to eliminate the rights of opposition parties, but are able to propound inviolable principles and conjure up threats of congressional republicanism when their own infallibility and authority might be questioned. No doubt we are about to hear more of this bunk from the parliamentary secretary. God knows, it should be obvious that if parliament is to remain even as relevant as it is now, my proposal which I intend to advance formally to the government House leader, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister, is not excessive. It is in keeping with the best traditions of parliament in an age that is becoming more complicated and difficult. I want the government to be more forthcoming.
80008-63%

February 17, 1977
Adjournment Debate


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that what I am about to say will satisfy the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He has already qualified what I am going to say as being bunk.
Let me try to situate the hon. member in a proper context. I think he is showing a lot of disrespect for all the members of the Public Accounts Committee. I wish that if he had the time he would come to see what takes place in that committee before criticizing and characterizing what I have to say as bunk. Members of his own party, and of all parties, have spent many hours conscientiously engaged in this work. I should like him to have been present this morning when a code of ethics was supplied to us following questions asked by various members present.
The hon. member complains that the government has been restrictive. He says the tactics it has been using have been restrictive. I doubt very much that he has taken the time to read the minutes of the committee.


Walter David Baker: Every word.


Mr. Trudel:: The question whether the committee has received some of the documents it was seeking should be examined very closely. I think we have been supplied with documents, in some cases with too many documents. We have asked to see certain contracts which are confidential in nature. We have asked the Auditor General. I think the hon. member has shown little respect for the Auditor General in his remarks because he has been co-operating and has been instrumental in helping the work of the committee, not hindering it. All the members have been co-operating and have been seeking some information. There is a report to be submitted to the committee, and I am sure there is frustration on all sides as to certain aspects of the work we are doing presently.
There is one aspect with which the hon. member is concerned. He is seeking to change some of the work which is being done. I will fully co-operate and I hope that all of us will achieve what he is seeking. The fact is that we can proceed in camera at the present time. It has not been done so far, but I am sure we will be doing so in the near future at the call of the Chair, whenever he asks us. The steering committee, as I said, has considered that. We will have to put before the House a report.
This is a very extensive study which has been placed before us. We have encountered evidence that there need to be changes in the rules. 1 feel there has been no hindrance by any member either of the cabinet or of any party at the present time, so I do not know what the hon. member calls "bunk", but I do feel that the chairman and the committee members have co-operated to get what we are seeking at the present time.


TRADE-GUIDELINES TO COMPANIES WITH REGARD TO INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTTS-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on October 21 last year, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) made a statement on the government's policy on international boycotts. It read in part as follows:
The government will take measures to deny its support or facilities for various kinds of trade transactions in order to combat any discriminatory effects which such boycotts may have on Canadian firms and individuals ...
Canadian firms may decide nonetheless to agree to certain boycott clauses and forego Canadian government support for the projects concerned. All Canadian firms, however, whether they accept boycott clauses or not, will be required to report all instances of their complying with boycott provisions. Information obtained from such reports will be made available to the public.
The two measures that the minister said the government would take to implement this policy did not go into effect on October 21; instead it was three months later, on January 21 of this year, that the deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce finally issued guidelines to his departmental officials for their implementation. From a reading of these guidelines, however, it would not appear that the government has done what it promised to do in its October 21 statement. That statement clearly says that all Canadian firms will be required to report all instances of their compliance with boycott provisions. But the guidelines say that only those firms that "request" departmental support for transactions "where boycott requests have been agreed to" will be reported.
Firms will surely know, Mr. Speaker, that they will not get support for such transactions, and they will not request such assistance in the first place. So, as a practical matter, the reporting system set out in the guidelines has no real meaning or substance. What is disturbing is that it would appear that through these guidelines the government has modified, has backed away from, the commitment that it made in its October 21 statement. That statement said all firms, not just those that approach the department and request its help, would be required to report boycott related transactions.
The guidelines appear to narrow down, to draw back from, what most observers thought the government was promising in its October 21 statement in another significant way. They say that government supporting services will be denied only where boycott clauses "have been agreed to". But most government supporting services in the trade area are provided before agreements are made. What the guidelines are saying, therefore, is that, in spite of the government's statement of last October 21, the government will be providing most of its services as before. It will be circulating trade opportunity information requiring boycott compliance. It will provide market information, promotional services, all of the facilities of its trade commissioners, until a contract with a boycott clause is finally signed and agreed to.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, very few of these kinds of government support services come after an agreement has been signed. There is no need for them after that point. This is not what the public thought the government was going to do. The words of the statement last October 21 create the impression that these services would be withheld for activities leading up to the
February 17, 1977

signing of the boycott related transaction as well as those after its signing. Mr. Speaker, unless this is the case that part of the government's statement about withholding services has very limited meaning and value.
If the government is serious about what it said in that statement in connection with condemning international boycotts interfering with Canadian trade with friendly countries, and interfering with business and other relations between Canadians in this country, it must implement the two measures that it announced last October 21 in the fullest possible way rather than in the most limited, narrow, and meaningless way. But, more important, it must act on the findings of the Citizens' Commission on Economic Coercion and Discrimination, a report demonstrating the impact of the Arab boycott in particular in Canada, a report, by the way, to which the government has not yet formally responded. It must put into effect legislation of general application applying to all businesses, whether or not they need government support. If it does not do so, as the report points out, it is undermining its own policy on international boycotts. It is allowing foreign governments to extend their discriminatory law into Canada.
Surely the essential tasks of our national government are to protect our country's sovereignty and to afford the equal protection of our laws to all residing within our borders. Unless it brings forward all the measures necessary to make fully operative its October 21 policy on international boycotts, the government will not be carrying out these responsibilities in the way expected by Canadians generally.
I think that Canadians generally would join me in calling on the government for full and meaningful action to put its policy statement of October 21 into effect in a way that really means
Adjournment Debate
business and protects Canadian rights and Canadian sovereignty.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to respond on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and his parliamentary secretary. I want to begin by commending the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) for the obvious sincerity and conviction with which he expressed his views this evening.
The procedures laid down in the deputy minister's instructions of January 1, 1977, are consistent with the policy of the Canadian government on international economic boycotts.
Through the instructions, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is ensuring that its services are withdrawn or withheld in cases where a Canadian firm or individual has agreed to international economic boycott provisions of a type which contravene the government's policy on such boycotts.
The reporting requirement under which the department would publicize the names of companies or individuals from whom services and support have been withdrawn or withheld for contravening the government's policy on boycotts is a responsible and practical way of reinforcing the government's policy in this area. To go beyond these measures would not, in fact, give any greater consequence to these measures and could jeopardize the development of normal trade which did not contravene government policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.

Friday, February 18, 1977