1977-02-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in accordance with Standing Order 43 to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which 1 believe, given the present disposition of many members on both sides of the House, will receive-wide support. In view of the government's announcement to renege on its promise to provide $290 million of funding for urban transit systems and in view of the fact that many municipalities and provinces had made plans on the basis of this promise, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House calls on the government to provide funds for those municipalities and provinces where planning has proceeded and decisions have been made on the basis of the government's promise for funding and that the government re-imburse all municipalities and provinces for funds that have so far been expended for purposes related to the promise of federal funding for urban transit systems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andy Kogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under a matter of importance and urgency. In view of the fact that the recent conference of defence associations criticized Canada for not having a comprehensive defence policy and in view of the fact that the same conference indicated that various statements by the new defence minister and the Chief of Defence Staff represent reversals of government policy as stated in the past white papers, and in view of the fact that the present minister seems to be wanting to escalate defence expenditures by increasing our fighter plane
capacity, I move, seconded by the hon. member from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That a new white paper be prepared for submission to a special subcommittee of the parliamentary committee on defence.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It being now apparent that in the absence of federal aid as promised, the CN and CP are proposing to raise fares and reduce commuter train services in the Montreal area while the Province of Ontario is unable to continue with plans to increase commuter services in the Toronto area, and since members of this House who support the government have indicated concern over this matter, feeling a promise is a promise and should be honoured, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House instruct the government to honour its commitment to certain provinces with respect to urban transit financing, including, in the case of Ontario, an assurance that federal authorities would finance $38 million worth of commuter equipment which had already been ordered by the province on the strength of the federal commitment.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 as a result of further news reports this morning regarding the drilling operations which took place in the Beaufort sea last summer. The

February 25, 1977
Oral Questions
news evidently revealed the failure to announce at the time, or reveal in the technical review, that containment of the blowout was made very difficult by amendments to the safety drillcasing program which was approved by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the failure to make public at the time, or reveal in the technical review, that drilling was allowed to proceed with insufficient tests and that the absence of those tests made containment of the blowout almost impossible. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development conduct an inquiry into his department's review of the drilling program, and that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.be empowered to conduct a complete review' of drilling in the Beaufort sea that took place last summer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the reports that a Russian scientist who was arrested and subsequently deported was on an exchange visit. Is it the intention of the government to make a statement with respect to this matter, and in particular could the Prime Minister inform the House how such lenient treatment of a person caught in this type of activity-at least to the extent that some action was taken-could possibly act as a deterrent to other people who might wish to engage in such practices? Is this the best the government can do under those circumstances?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the individual involved, Mr. Khvostantsev, was deported last evening under section 18 of the Immigration Act. Indeed, he was deported as the result of an investigation carried out by the RCMP through the co-operation of a Canadian NRC scientist. Following the investigation made by the RCMP, it was clearly established that even if some unclassified material had been delivered, no privileged or secret material was handed over.


Walter David Baker: I want to thank the Solicitor General for telling us exactly what we can read in the

Globe and Mail in any event this morning. The question I will now put to the Solicitor General, since he seems to be the person with knowledge, is, why was this lenient treatment given, and are there any undertakings, any agreements or conditions that scientists are subject to on these exchanges which give them some form of diplomatic immunity or that would allow those people to be treated as if they had diplomatic immunity, and why was the man not prosecuted for offending the law of Canada, because surely that is what happened?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as I said the individual was deported under section 18 of the Immigration Act. As for any criminal offence, I am advised that since there was no delivery of confidential or secret documents, there was no violation of the Canadian Criminal Code.


Walter David Baker: Even the report in the Globe and Mail, which the minister may not have read, indicated he tried to do that. The question I want to ask the Solicitor General or the Prime Minister is, when will these matters start being treated in a serious way? In other words, at what point in time does an activity like this, and activities such as the involvement at the Cuban embassy, cease to be acts requiring only deportation to the homeland of the offender, because the offences are against the laws of this country? In other words, when will the government begin to act in these matters in a serious way.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to see great changes. For the first time in a few months we are getting some support from the opposite side of the House in respect of the RCMP security services and 1 am happy about it. Of course this matter has been well conducted and one of the goals of the RCMP security services is to prevent violations. We are trying to act before criminal acts are perpetrated. Of course some dealings may be wrong when they are made in Canada by foreign agents, but they do not necessarily constitute a violation of the criminal laws of this country. If the hon. member wants to move amendments to the Criminal Code or to the Official Secrets Act, he is at liberty to do so, but at the present time the situation is as I described it and I am told that there has not been any violation of the laws of our country.


NATURE OF CHARGES AGAINST PERSONS WHO ALLEGEDLY AIDED ILLEGAL ENTRY OF ALIENS-INQUIRY IF COMMUNIST PARTY INVOLVED
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my questions to the Solicitor General as well because of activities in addition to the one referred to by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I am referring to the activities which took place at Waterloo, Ontario. Canadians are shocked at the increasing number of incidents of this nature in Canada.
February 25, 1977

Reports out of Waterloo, Ontario indicate that RCMP and immigration officers conducted raids resulting in six persons being charged with illegally aiding aliens to enter Canada and once in Canada harbouring them in contravention of the Immigration Act, one of these six persons being Hardial Bains, Chairman of the Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist.
I would like to ask the minister what the specific charges were. Were they laid only under the Immigration Act? Were they also laid under the Criminal Code, especially in view of the nature of these crimes and in view of the fact that these persons might intend to leave the country? This government has shown a lenient attitude. These persons are presently not in custody, nor was bail set. What were the charges, and why were these people not kept in custody?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to ask for a report on the case mentioned by the hon. member. I do not have any precise information on this for the time being, but it indicates that the RCMP security services are obviously doing their work.
As far as establishing bail conditions, this is a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the courts and not of the RCMP.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the fact that these investigations have been going on since November of last year, I feel the minister should have more information. In view of this shocking development could the minister indicate whether the Communist Party of Canada has aided the entry of illegal aliens into Canada in order to facilitate subversive actions of groups engaged in subversion, intelligence gathering and spy activities?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is anticipating a little on the investigations. If his allegations were justified, the necessary steps and procedures would be taken immediately.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding statements which appear in the Toronto Star of February 23 quoting the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as saying that as far as Radio-Canada is concerned it might as well be called Radio-Quebec and the statement of the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that the French language CBC reflects separatism and nothing else. In an interview the President of the CBC stated that he
Oral Questions
looked closely at the French programming and found no evidence of the bias charged.
In view of the fact that all members of this House want to see fair and unbiased reporting on the CBC, whether it be on the English-speaking section or the French-speaking section, can the Prime Minister not find a more appropriate way to resolve this problem rather than having the unseemly spectacle of cabinet ministers publicly attacking Canada's public broadcasting corporation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC is not under the direct jurisdiction of any of these ministers mentioned by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Wait a minute. This is Friday morning-


An hon. Member:: Yes, and it is Ottawa, not Washington.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is Ottawa, not Washington.


An hon. Member:: Back in the real world.


Mr. Hees:: No more of that "Your Excellency" stuff. You are back in the real world.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member of the New Democratic party can judge from this exchange that nobody is taking his question very seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are the only one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, there may be members who do not take it seriously, but even on a Friday morning I would have thought the Prime Minister would have taken seriously the question of cabinet solidarity and collective responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question with respect to the report which appeared in La Presse of Montreal on February 24.


An hon. Member:: He does not read that any more.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It says that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has said that he has a list-


An hon. Member:: Oh, another list.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -of CBC
French employees who are out to destroy the country. He is quoted in the Toronto Star of February 23 as saying he is challenging CBC president A1 Johnson to "fire the bloody

February 25, 1977
Oral Questions
guys that are working separatists". What I want to ask the Prime Minister, and I hope he will take this seriously, is whether he can assure the House that no individuals will be fired because of the views they hold but only if they have violated the guidelines set down for fair, unbiased and balanced reporting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the New Democratic Party really is knocking down a straw man. He knows the government cannot fire any employees of the CBC.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Walter David Baker: You could transfer them to Inuvik.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am somewhat bemused by the rushing of the opposition parties to the defence of the freedom of speech of the CBC. The government annually votes a very substantial budget to the CBC.


Mr. Baldwin:: I thought parliament did that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I accept the correction, Mr. Speaker. The government puts before parliament annually a very substantial budget for the CBC and we treat it at arm's length as a corporation with which we cannot interfere in terms of its programming. From there to say that cabinet solidarity is at stake because some ministers having viewed the CBC feel it is not showing an unbiased series of opinions, I do not take that step and I disagree with the hon. member. I think members of cabinet or any member of this House is entitled to look at the CBC and to say "that is a lousy story; it is biased and I disagree with it." I will not rebuke any minister for saying that.


ALLEGED PREPARATION BY MINISTER OF LIST OF SEPARATISTS IN RADIO-CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he condones the idea of cabinet ministers announcing publicly that they are preparing lists of people who ought to be fired for attempting to destroy this country. Surely if the government has any evidence of people trying to destroy the country the matter ought to be referred to the Solicitor General. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to see that members of cabinet do not prepare lists-we have had enough lists in the past few weeks by the former solicitor general and others-which can only have the effect of attempting to intimidate and create fear among people either in the public service or in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a very basic disagreement with the hon. member. I think hon. members on this side, at any rate, are very concerned about the possibility of CBC Radio-Canada propagating separatism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not all offended that they think so and that they say so. As for the rest, the matter of proposing estimates and seeking corrections should be and is being done in the proper way. We are dealing with the head of the CBC. He is responsible for defending his estimates in cabinet and questions are being asked of him. He is not being assaulted or persecuted in any way. Some hon. members feel that there is separatist propaganda on the CBC. I believe, if they have that opinion, they are perfectly entitled to state it, and if the hon. member feels the contrary, that Radio-Canada is fighting hard for Canadian unity, I think he is perfectly entitled to say so as well.


RESEARCH
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Since Canadian researchers are uncertain because of last year's reduction in grants and since government expenditures have increased by 16 per cent during that same period, would the minister be in a position to say whether he considers putting an end soon to that time of lean kine for research in medicine and other fields?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the hon. member were to read the blue book he would know there will be an increase this year.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the earlier series of questions concerning the CBC. The Prime Minister was discussing separatism in Radio-Canada which, as he pointed out, is a matter of opinion. But we still have not heard an answer about the list. Is the Prime Minister aware of a list, allegedly made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, of people who work for Radio-Canada and who may not be in sympathy with our federal system of government? Is the Prime Minister aware of such a list? What has been the disposition of that list, and are people on the list able to speak about the list?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What do you mean?


Mr. Fairweather:: Just a moment. If you want to ask questions, you can-

February 25, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had not heard about this until it was asked a few minutes ago.
I have before me a clipping which does not say that Mr. Ouellet is circulating lists or asking the government to act on lists. 1 am told that he has volunteered to give the CBC the names of people he thinks are separatists and propagating their ideas in a way they should not be. I congratulate him for offering his services to the CBC. If they want to take him up, if President Johnson of the CBC-


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh! If President Johnson of the CBC wants to ask Mr. Ouellet or any other citizen-


An hon. Member:: They are not doing their professional job.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who do you think is not doing a professional job? Perhaps we could look at their job. I see no objection to that. It is up to Mr. Johnson to make up his mind.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware the government had been reorganized and that it was the function of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to compile lists of people whose loyalty may be in doubt. I have never seen thinner skins that those exhibited round here in the last few weeks.


Mr. Paproski:: In the last couple of days.


Mr. Chretien:: Look at the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The orchestra is a little blurred, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if people could settle down, because I want to ask another question.


An hon. Member:: Well, ask it.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly serious issue, although it does not appear to be so to some. Will the Prime Minister recall, for the edification of ministers and others, including the opposition, the definitive statement regarding the separation of the publicly-owned corporation from the government which was made eloquently in this House by the late George Nowlan and supported in subsequent statements by Mr. Pickersgill and Miss LaMarsh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in this House, I have, as have other members, sometimes shown impatience with the media, including the CBC. This does not seem to be an offence against any rules of this House or against any conception of freedom of speech. However, hon. members on the other side, for reasons which I respect, are trying to make sure that freedom of speech still prevails. I congratulate them. I assure
Oral Questions
them that I have not asked Mr. Johnson, and I am sure the minister has in no way told him to do anything in particular, to get rid of any members he feels are separatists.


An hon. Member:: Not yet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, not yet. I would think that members on the other side would not try to use their political advantage. There is a very real concern on the part of many citizens, particularly those who listen to Radio-Canada, that that can be a separatist propaganda machine. Indeed, it can be used to get the people of Quebec to believe more in separatism than in federalism. This government is very concerned about that. We are trying to act on that in a proper fashion. I hope we will have the support of hon. members opposite who believe in freedom of speech but still believe it is the duty of the CBC to promote Canadian unity and not separation.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to come back to the question first raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I ask the Solicitor General, having in mind my curiosity was aroused by the suggestion in the story that the scientist from whom the Soviet agent attempted to secure information had access to classified information which would be denied to members of this House or the public, to give a categorical assurance that the scientist from another country did not have access to classified information which would be denied to myself or to other members of the public.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the scientist from the Soviet Union who was recently deported did not have access to classified information.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Solicitor General quite understood the point. The scientist from another country from whom the Soviet agent sought information was alleged in the story to himself have had access to classified information. Apparently the Soviet scientist did not because he would not have sought to buy it otherwise. Did the scientist from the other country from whom the Soviet agent sought information in fact have access to classified information which I would not be allowed to have?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the Soviet scientist's discussions took place with a Canadian scientist employed at NRC. My understanding is that the scientist had access to classified information of a scientific nature.

February 25, 1977
Oral Questions


DEPORTATION OF RUSSIAN SCIENTIST-INQUIRY OF CHARGES RECOMMENDED PRIOR TO DEPORTATION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. I must say I did not fully hear his response to the first question. Will the minister advise whether charges were recommended to be laid by the RCMP prior to this deportation?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the information which was amassed by the RCMP was brought to the attention of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and they thought the appropriate procedure in that instance was to proceed with a deportation order.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to statements made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to Broadcast News with respect to a number of journalists engaged by Radio-Canada, and having regard to the fact he accused these persons of plotting to destroy this country, will the Prime Minister in the interest of protecting the fine reputation of this network and most people there ask the minister to name these individuals of whom he has compiled a list so that they can be made to account for their actions and have an opportunity to defend themselves against these charges, or is the handling of this whole matter to follow the EPO concept of political blood testing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, people on this side can make lists of what they want. I have some lists in my own drawer which contain the names of the politically inept members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now that I have made that information public, I am sure I will be challenged to make those names public so that hon. members can defend themselves. I will give it some thought.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: I can understand the Prime Minister's dilemma. We do not have the same problem because everyone on the other side is inept. Therefore, we do not have to single them out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Fox.l


Frank Oberle: I ask the Prime Minister to answer my question. Will these people be named? Will they be made to account for their actions? In the interest of the survival of this country, will the Prime Minister consult with the minister who made these unfortunate statements, particularly the statement that it is a fact of life that he, as a minister, will interfere with the president of a Crown corporation, smearing by innuendo the reputation of fine civil servants? Will the Prime Minister state here and now whether he will take some action, whether he will consult with his minister, whether we will be told who these individuals are and what action is going to be taken against them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised that the hon. member says they do not make lists. They hire private agencies to spy on the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister request that the state of human rights in Uganda be placed on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference scheduled for June in London?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will convey to the secretariat of the commonwealth the suggestion by the hon. member. I am sure they are getting a lot of suggestions for the possible agenda. I will convey that suggestion.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the Prime Minister missed the full import of my question. I asked, will the Prime Minister request that this item be placed on the agenda.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be communicating with the Commonwealth Secretary General. I will ask him if there are agenda items dealing with this particular subject. If there are not, I will consider putting it on.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In order to give this House, representing as it does all the people
February 25, 1977

of Canada, an opportunity to express its concern over what is happening in Uganda, will the Prime Minister bring forward as a government order a motion reflecting this attitude of the House, either in the form of a formal motion or by allowing a Standing Order 43 motion to be placed before the House without debate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will convey it to him.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. We have already heard how an amendment to the casing procedures permitted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made the shutting off of the blowout of the Dome petroleum well site last summer very difficult. A news report this morning indicates that failure to perform a routine check for low pressure testing made containment of the blowout virtually impossible. 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure this House that no further drilling permits will be granted until the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has had a chance to review the whole question of drilling in the Beaufort Sea?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a technical question which I do not have the knowledge to answer, but I will bring it to the attention of the minister.


AIRPORTS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It has to do with an agreement which has been entered into between the government of Canada in the right of the Department of Transport and the city of Prince Albert concerning the possibility of there being an expenditure of some millions of dollars being made to improve and bring up to date the airport at Prince Albert. 1 ask the minister whether or not Treasury Board has agreed to this expenditure?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I would have to take notice of that question and get the facts for the right hon. member. I do not
Oral Questions
recall from memory what the disposition of the matter was but I will check into it and let him know.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The reason the matter becomes urgent is that two or three days ago the Minister of Transport signed the agreement in Prince Albert and there just happens to be a by-election there on Tuesday or Wednesday, which of course is purely coincidental. Would the minister find out by Monday and let the House know whether or not this agreement is simply padding during an election campaign in order to help the helpless?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much if that would be the case but I will certainly get the information for the hon. member.


TRANSPORT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Since it has been indicated that a 1974 promise of $290 million for urban transit will not be forthcoming, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he is aware that the Toronto transportation terminal project, which is needed to relieve congestion in that area in which federal authorities joined at the planning stage, will not be completed without federal funding and, if so, would the Prime Minister indicate why he feels that this project is not a suitable one for the application of funds pursuant to his 1974 promise of $290 million for such urban development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter of metropolitan urban transportation is before cabinet now. There has been no decision one way or another but we are keeping the various arguments in mind, including the desire in every part of this House to keep expenditures down, as well as an often expressed desire by the provinces themselves that the federal government refrain from continuing to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction, that we should decentralize more, that we should let the provinces do more things. The question of intra-city transportation is one of these dubious cases. I believe there have been arguments put by the Tory party that we should be getting out of housing and out of a lot of areas where we should not be.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just keep your 1974 promise.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But, Mr. Speaker, we learn from the opposition. When they tell us to spend less money we take that seriously.

February 25, 1977
Oral Questions


ALLEGED ASSURANCE TO ONTARIO OF FUNDING FOR TRANSIT EQUIPMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that the previous minister of transport, Senator Marchand, gave an assurance to the province of Ontario that the government would fund the purchase of 80 tri-level transit cars at an approximate cost of $38 million; and if the Prime Minister is aware of this assurance, does he at least intend to see that that commitment is honoured?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
aware of that particular assurance but I do know that the former minister of transport, and indeed the present Minister of Transport, would like to spend more money in helping the cities in their problems of metropolitan transportation. I just gave to the opposition the consideration that the government has to take in mind when it is considering those proposals of the Minister of Transport.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As members of both sides of the House are greatly concerned about the question of urban transit funding, and since it has been indicated that certain supporters of the Prime Minister may vote against Bill C-33, to amend the National Transportation Act when it comes up for second reading, Would the Prime Minister indicate whether, if there is a defeat of his government on that bill, he will regard it as non-confidence?


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns the related subject of urban transportation and promises made by the former minister of transport and the former minister of urban affairs, the present Minister of National Defence, in regard to the financing of long-lead items for the Edmonton subway system, in regard to which it is recognized that all levels of government are participating, although on the basis of engagements of the two ministers certain steps were taken in connection with long-lead items. Is the government of Canada now reneging on its participation in the financing of that system?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to confirm the premise in the hon. member's question in regard to Edmonton in particular. So far as Edmonton and indeed the Toronto transportation terminal are concerned, the hard fact remains that within the blue book, within the budget, and indeed within the financial projections for the next several years, there is only so much room available. As I indicated to the mayors of metropolitan Toronto, it is important to state priorities as to how funds should be used among the various alternatives in urban transportation. As for

the specific Edmonton question, I would have to canvass that further.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the efforts of the government of British Columbia to obtain a rapid transit service through the Fraser valley to Vancouver, would the Prime Minister advise this House as to the efforts he has made to fulfil his election promise to the residents of Fraser Valley East that a rapid transit system would be put in place if his government were returned,in the 1974 election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that particular line was not made the subject of a promise. The government indicated that it would be putting substantial funds into intra-city and inter-city transportation. We have already put $100 million into intra-city transportation. We have made other expenditures of funds. The question before the government, and I think before the opposition, is how fast we want our expenditures to grow. We generally have criticism from the other side when our expenditures grow. I am just reminding them of this now, that we are undertaking in the blue book to keep the growth of our expenditures at a certain rate, and we have to try to meet this objective, which means that we cannot spend as much money as the opposition would like us to.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister completed her investigation into writs of assistance as they apply under the Customs Act, and is she prepared to take the House into her confidence as to her decision? If she has not yet made her decision, would she indicate when the decision will be made?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that may I say there are a number of us reviewing writs of assistance. In the meatime, I have ordered my officials not to request any further ones. Having read the judgment of Mr. Justice Collier, I am sympathetic to the comments that he made about the lack of information with which the court is provided. No further writs of assistance will be asked for, either by myself, or by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare-under the Narcotic Control Act-until the matter is at least reviewed. If writs of assistance are to be continued, the court should be provided with full information.
February 25, 1977

In the meatime, we are continuing our examination as to whether they are needed at all.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I should like to associate myself with the concern expressed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands with regard to Radio-Canada. I do not think it is a question of proving who is the most loyal Canadian in this chamber. We are hearing some of the same kind of charges being made as were made at the time of the troubles in Quebec in 1970, charges which were never substantiated, and fearing very much that there may be some on the other side who might be inclined to demagoguery for their own political reasons, and not wishing to see the CBC or Radio-Canada destroyed in the process, would the Prime Minister please institute promptly a full inquiry, through a House committee or in some other appropriate way, of the charges being made by ministers and others, and in the meantime suggest to his ministers that they retain a reasonable degree of discretion in order that we may not see the CBC English network and Radio-Canada destroyed? It is always popular to attack those organizations but they are set up to serve the country.
Will the Prime Minister please cease the kind of tactics which were followed in 1970, the rumour-based charges which were never substantiated, and will he please have an investigation made to determine whether there is anything in the charges which are now being made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Halifax says it is always popular to attack the CBC. It would seem to me to be more popular to spring to the defence of the freedom of the press at any time and at any place anywhere, and that is what members of the opposition parties appear to be doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Halifax indicates a way, perhaps, of getting to the bottom of some of these suspicions and fears that the CBC French side may be promoting separatism. I think it is a moderate and constructive proposal. I do not see any necessity of drawing a parallel with what happened in 1970. The issue, then, was not freedom of the press; the issue was kidnapping and murder. We dealt with it in the best way we could with the support of the opposition parties. So, I will give some consideration to the hon. member's suggestion. I can assure him that nobody is trying to promote himself as a hero or saviour of confederation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe those are the words the hon. member for Halifax used; I imagine he used them with some intent. But I do want to say to him that if the CBC, a government-owned corporation, were promoting separatism it would be a matter for very grave concern on this side, and I would hope we would have the support of the other side rather than these phoney rushes to defend freedom of speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It would be of concern to all of us, just as it is to some of us, to hear these charges being made by ministers and others without any effort being exercised to substantiate them. I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a short step from this kind of assertion being made to attacks on private stations which, after all, are licensed by the CRTC and reach a far greater proportion of the people in Quebec and Frenchspeaking Canada than does Radio-Canada. It might be quite unnecessary, but can the Prime Minister assure me that the next step in whatever is going on will not be an attack on the private stations for their allegedly unbalanced reporting on the grounds that they are licensed by an agency of this parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Those who are fairly attentive viewers of the CBC and of private stations in Quebec, to mention that particular province, are of the opinion that the private stations seem to carry less separatist propaganda messages than does the CBC. I do not think the opposition appears to be aware, and I am telling them with all the candour I can command, that almost everyone, including the high officials of the CBC, would be prepared to concede that the overwhelming majority of employees in the CBC are of separatist leaning. I have heard them say that. They are just asking: what can we do about it without infringing freedom of speech?
This is the question which is puzzling the government. We do not wish to judge people for their ideas. We want to judge them on the basis of their professional integrity. This is the question which is being brought up by a lot of members on this side, in this caucus, in and out of cabinet. It is a question which I am sure the CBC is asking of itself. I am informed they are holding seminars or groups of inquiry to try to get the opinion of people about the content, separatist or otherwise, of broadcasts from the French CBC stations. This is a matter of very serious concern to the government. I have answered this on other occasions. I am not sure how it could be dealt with because we do not intend on this side to police thought and we have never contended that the separatist ideology was not a legal one. We merely say that the CBC, the property of the Canadian people, should not be used to help destroy the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are people on this side of the House better informed than I am on these matters who know militant separatists who are doing their job at the CBC. They want that to be stopped, and I agree with them.

February 25, 1977
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister as head of the government please try to figure out some way of dealing with the problem which is worrying him and, apparently, worrying others?


An hon. Member:: Are you not concerned at all?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not intend to stand here to apologize for my views as to whether I am a Canadian or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course we want to see the CBC and Radio-Canada give us balanced reporting. We are concerned when we see what appears to be powerful people in the government leaning on an institution. I do not doubt they are holding many meetings with regard to what is going on. All I ask is that the Prime Minister will stop what seems to some of us to have elements of demagoguery about it, but seek some way of attacking the problem which is worrying him without destroying Radio-Canada in the process.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It should be obvious from my previous answers that we are seeking some way to stop Radio Canada from being a propaganda machine for the separatist party, if indeed it is. The hon. member for Halifax has made a suggestion as to one way, in a previous question, and I said I would look into it.


ALLEGED THREAT TO REDUCE BUDGET OF CORPORATION UNLESS SEPARATIST BIAS ELIMINATED
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that the government has a responsibility for preparing the budget of the CBC and submitting it to parliament. A Canadian Press report today of an extraordinary meeting between a section of the Liberal caucus and the President of the CBC yesterday reads as follows:
A number of Liberal MPs who attended the caucus meeting said Johnson was raked over the coals. They threatened to slash the corporation's proposed budget increases unless he took action to get rid of pro-separatists.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has any intention of threatening the CBC with budget cuts unless there is a purge of separatists within the CBC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 missed part of the question during the shouting, Mr. Speaker, but I have beside me the hon. member for Matane who says that this is not true, that is not what happened there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that if I were a member-


An hon. Member:: Get up on a question of privilege.
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -if I were in caucus, I would be very concerned with the subject we have been discussing in the past little while. Before voting the budget for the CBC or any other Crown corporation, I would want to make very sure that it is not acting to destroy Canadian unity, and that does not seem so to me.


ALLEGATION BY URBAN AFFAIRS MINISTER THAT SEPARATISTS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State who is responsible for the CBC. In view of the fact that in the interview with the Toronto Star which was given by his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the minister was quoted as saying the following:
If you're a separatist, you're hired and you're well paid and you get promotions.
Has the minister discussed this allegation with his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and, if so, has the Minister of State for Urban Affairs offered one scintilla of evidence to substantiate the allegation he made?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall having had a conversation with-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: -the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in particular, but I confess I have had extensive discussions with members of the cabinet, with members from the House from all parties, and indeed with many citizens who have expressed to me their concerns about the activities of CBC, concerns which may or may not be justified. So there have been wide ranging discussions. It seems to me that my role as the link between the House of Commons and the CBC does require me to pay attention to those representations which are made to me, and I try to communicate them to the CBC for their information.


IMPLICATION OF PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON ALLEGED LIST OF SEPARATISTS IN RADIO-CANADA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Again I have a question on the CBC for the Prime Minister. In view of the policy of the president of the CBC not to take political blood tests of employees in order to preserve freedom of speech, and the Prime Minister's statement earlier today that he encourages his ministers to forward a list of alleged separatists in Radio-Canada to the president of the CBC, is the implication of such an action not that the president of the CBC should reverse his stand and carry out such a witch hunt?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are back to the lists, and I can assure the hon. member that I know of no such lists. However, to repeat what the Secretary of State has said excellently, it is his job, and perhaps my job



February 25, 1977

as Prime Minister, to make sure that the CBC is aware of certain complaints, some of which might be justified and some might not be. 1 put it to the hon. member: If a well known and militant separatist is in the CBC at the head of, shall we say, some public affairs program, there is something uneasy about that, even if he does not take a blood test. If he is consistently producing programs which are of a separatist nature, it would be the duty of any listener, including members on this side, to convey that information to the head of the CBC, and 1 presume that that is what is being done by some hon. members referred to by the hon. member.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of that answer and the supposed independence of Crown corporations from political interference, would the Prime Minister, before that list is sent to the president of the CBC, personally look at it and look at the evidence to convince himself that it is indeed a valid list, and also, if such a list is sent, that the employees be told of it so they have a chance to defend themselves in view of the paranoia which exists among the ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not do that. If any citizen or any person in this country wants to complain to the CBC, he can do it by picking up the phone and having his message registered. If he wants to do it, I will not try to interfere.


PRIVILEGE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have listened to the debate and heard my name referred to a couple of times. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) spoke about substantiation. I would like to say that in my statement to the Toronto Star 1 said that citizens in my riding do not call Radio-Canada by its own name any more; they call it Radio-Quebec. I reported that. The second point I made was that one night when driving my car I noticed that Radio-Canada was no longer playing the national anthem of Canada. I reported that to the vice-president of the CBC. He confirmed this and said that "O Canada" had not been played on Radio-Canada for there months. He told me that this was a technical error, to which I replied, "My eye".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not believe it, and I do not think this was a technical error in the present climate. At the time the Parti Quebecois was elected in Quebec. I do not think it was a technical error that Radio-Canada had not played the anthem of my country for three months. This is a fact that I reported, and I said it in public. This is not a witch-hunt but a fact which I observed. 1 did not believe the explanation which was given to me. I think it was my duty to report that to the press because there were no complaints in the press that the CBC
Privilege-Mr. Chretien
had not been playing "O Canada". Since that time they have started playing it again, and I am grateful for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think it is a question of privilege really, Mr. Speaker, but my name was mentioned by the minister who just spoke. All I ask of him is that if he has these concerns, would he please get together with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and have an investigation carried out of the sort that I asked for? May I say to him that I and some other members of the House will have suspicions, until this is done and ministers keep making these kinds of assertions-and will wonder what the purpose of the exercise really is. We would like to believe that the purpose of this government is to keep the country together. We would not like to believe that the purpose is incidentally to destroy the CBC.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So long as this kind of attack goes on without substantiation and investigation, some of us will wonder.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on this question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) has risen to participate in a question of privilege. It was not accompanied by a motion. He has been met by an equal contribution on the other side, and as there is no question of privilege within the definition of our rules the discussion should close.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the course of answering questions made the statement that when the government invoked the War Measures Act in October of 1970, this was supported by all parties.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: His exact words were, "by the opposition parties". It was in the plural.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It having been Friday morning, the Prime Minister may not have meant "all the parties" when he said "opposition parties," but I assume that meant all the opposition parties in the House of Commons at that time. I think the record should be set straight, that the official opposition of the NDP, of which I was leader at the time, was in opposition to the invocation of the War Measures Act.

February 25, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Chretien


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, i do not remember if I said "opposition" or "oppositions", but I would accept the plural if the hon. member insists. At least two parties opposite supported the government when we invoked the War Measures Act, and three parties opposite supported us when we brought in the Public Order Act which did exactly the same thing as the War Measures Act.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: For the record, by way of a question of privilege the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) raised a difference of interpretation respecting the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As is well known, that is not technically a question of privilege. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands set the record straight from his point of view. The Prime Minister added a further interpretation. Neither constitutes any indication of a question of privilege, and the matter ought to terminate there.
The hon. member for Abitibi.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has now-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands will realize at once that what was raised by him initially was a matter of disagreement with what the Prime Minister said, or an interpretation of it. That in itself precipitated a debate. To disagree further will only provoke further retaliation. Either it is a matter of discussion on debate or a difference of opinion, which does not constitute a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Abitibi.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you at least hear my question of privilege. My question of privilege is that in the course of answering my previous question of privilege the Prime Minister made a new charge, and that is that all parties in this House voted for the public order bill. If the Prime Minister would take the trouble to look at the record, he would find that at third reading we voted against the public order bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All right, Mr. Speaker; they voted for the principle of the Public Order Act and then changed their minds at third reading. So what?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This, again, obviously would be seen to be a disagreement of interpretation. No suggestion of deliberate misleading was made and no question of privilege exists.
The hon. member for Abitibi.

[ Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege because I am sorry I did not get the floor during the oral question period today to take part in an important debate on the French network of the CBC.
You will surely recall, Mr. Speaker, like all hon. members in the House, the enthusiasm with which the former leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, Mr. Caouette, fought against Radio-Canada in the past, over a period of years. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister, now that he is confronted with the facts, whether he is not sorry he did not follow the advice of the leader of the Social Credit Party and lock-up Radio-Canada which has become an instrument of divisiveness in Canada, not only through the written press, but by fattening up scores of so-called artists who, even with their songs, spread disunity in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Clearly it is now impossible to recognize all hon. members who unfortunately did not have the opportunity of putting questions during the oral question period this afternoon.


Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was an insinuation in this House that the issue of the CBC strictly refers to Quebec. I can tell the House that at the meeting we had the westerners were equally concerned, and it was wrong to make-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This subject is not on the floor for debate. It is not permissible to discuss or debate this subject at this particular time. The matter was raised during the question period. That is one way of getting at the subject- never a sufficient way to explore such a very important subject-but in any case if it was now open to me to allow all hon. members who want to to comment on some of the questions raised during the question period, I am sure the debate would go on for some time. Any point of order at this time has to be related to irregularities during the question period.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to a ruling made during the question period by Your Honour. I refer to the question I put as a final supplementary to the Prime Minister asking whether he would regard a defeat with respect to a bill such as Bill C-33 to be a vote of non-confidence. I felt it was important that we understand beforehand whether such a vote, in the mind of the Prime Minister, would be so regarded, as opposed to having some afterthought in case that bill was defeated subsequently in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Simcoe raises a point of order with respect to a decision I made during the question period. I am sure that despite the importance and impact of his question, he will realize at once that any projection on an action of the government based on an eventu-

February 25, 1977

ality which lies in the future is, in its own terms, a hypothetical question in the purest form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. MacGuigan.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Robinson.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 
COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-401, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to outlaw the predatory pricing practice of selling items below cost, which places a great disadvantage not only on consumers but also on small businesses which are in competition with large businesses.
Order Paper Questions


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

Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville) moved: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, February 23, 1977, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: 673, 701, 765, 1,132, 1,363, 1,420 (supplementary), 1,421 (supplementary), 1,422 (supplementary), and 1,573.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12. 1976, did the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, National Capital Commission and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is concerned: Hired, 9; Dismissed, 0; Transferred out, Urban Affairs, 32; Canadian Habitat Secretariat, 14.
In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: Hired, 4; Dismissed, 0; Transferred, 6.
In so far as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned: The employment practices of CMHC are matters of internal administration which, by statute, are the responsibility of its Board of Directors. Employees of CMHC are not included in the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act, and hence a procedure does not exist through which employees may be transferred to government departments.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What will be the cost of establishing the new sub-ministry responsible for Small Business?
2.	What number of personnel will be responsible to the Minister of State for Small Business and what will be their salaries?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: 1. Expenditures, including salaries of exempt staff

February 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions
members for the Office of the Minister of State, Small Businesses, for the fiscal year 1976/77 are estimated at $127,500, which amount will be accomodated within existing departmental funds.
2. As of the date of this question, the Minister employed four persons through his exempt budget within salary ranges the maxima of which are shown below: three Special Assistants at up to $22,900 per annum. One Private Secretary at up to $17,900 per annum.


Mr. Holmes: How many native women of child-bearing age reside in (a) Repulse Bay (b) Chesterfield Inlet (c) Pclly Bay (d) Gjou Haven (c) Hall Beach (f) Rankin Inlet and, in each case, how many were sterilized between January, 1966 and October, 1976?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: For Canada as a whole, the sterilization rates and live birth rates during recent years for which figures are available are as follows:
	Sterilization rate	Live birth rate
1971	9.26 per thousand	16.8 per thousand1972	12.54 per thousand	15.9 per thousand1973	13.54 per thousand	15.5 per thousand
For the period January 1966 to October 1976, the following information is provided: (a) Repulse Bay (i) Inuit population fluctuated between 148 and 265 over the ten years. The number of native women of child bearing age was 48. (It should be pointed out that because over the ten year period a number of women have entered the child-bearing age range-15 to 50 years of age-and a number have left it, the figure listed above for the number of native women of child-bearing age is therefore calculated to represent the average number over the ten-year span.) (ii) There were ten sterilizations carried out over the ten-year period, (iii) The age of those sterilized ranged from 21 to 43 years, with the average age being 38.1 years, (iv) Those sterilized all exhibited multiparity. Average parity was 11.2. (v) The sterilization rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 0 to 13.3. (vi) The birth rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 44.8 to 72.8. (b) Chesterfield Inlet (i) Inuit population fluctuated between 199 and 254 over the ten years. The number of native women of child-bearing age was 54. (It should be pointed out that because over the ten-year period a number of women have entered the child-bearing age range-15 to 50 years of age- and a number have left it, the figure listed above for the number of native women of child-bearing age is therefore calculated to represent the average number over the ten-year span), (ii) There were ten (10) sterilizations carried out over the ten-year period, (iii) The age of those sterilized ranged from 28 to 44 years, with the average age being 33.3 years, (iv) The average parity of those sterilized was 7.9. (v) The sterilization rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 0 to 12.3. (vi) The birth rate per thousand during the ten

years ranged from 35.7 to 63.2. (c) Pelly Bay (i) Inuit population fluctuated between 138 and 251 over the ten years. The number of native women of child-bearing age was 40. (It should be pointed out that because over the ten-year period a number of women have entered the child-bearing age range-15 to 50 years of age-and a number have left it, the figure listed above for the number of native women of child-bearing age is therefore calculated to represent the average number over the ten-year span.) (ii) There were five (5) sterilizations carried out over the ten-year period, (iii) The age of those sterilized ranged from 27 to 43 years, with the average age being 31.6 years, (iv) Those sterilized exhibited multiparity, except for one with a history of complicated pregnancies and deliveries, (v) The sterilization rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 0-10. (vi) The birth rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 43.8 to 105. (d) Gjou Haven (i) Inuit population fluctuated between 215 and 592 over the ten years. The number of native women of child-bearing age was 90. (It should be pointed out that because over the ten year period a number of women have entered the child-bearing age range-15 to 50 years of age-and a number have left it, the figure listed above for the number of native women of child-bearing age is therefore calculated to represent the average number over the ten-year span.) (ii) There were eleven (11) sterilizations carried out over the ten-year period, (iii) The age of those sterilized ranged from 28 to 41 years, with the average age being 36.1 years, (iv) Those sterilized were all of high parity (i.e. 5 to 13), with average parity being 9.1. (v) The sterilization rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 0 to 10.5 (vi) The birth rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 25.7 to 98.7. (e) Hall Beach (i) Inuit population fluctuated between 148 and 301 over the ten years. The number of native women of child-bearing age was 64. (It should be pointed out that because over the ten-year period a number of women have entered the child-bearing age range-15 to 50 years of age-and a number have left it, the figure listed above for the number of native women of child-bearing age is therefore calculated to represent the average number over the ten-year span.) (ii) There were eight (8) sterilizations carried out over the ten-year period, (iii) The age of those sterilized ranged from 22 to 37 years, with the average age being 31.1 years, (iv) Those sterilized all exhibited multiparity. Average parity was 7.1. (v) The sterilization rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 0 to 6.7. (vi) The birth rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 40.5 to 91.6 (f) Rankin Inlet (i) Inuit population fluctuated between 310 and 664 over the ten years. The number of native women of child-bearing age was 146. (It should be pointed out that because over the ten-year period a numberof women have entered the child-bearing age range-15 to 50 years of age- and a number have left it, the figure listed above for the number of native women of child-bearing age is therefore calculated to represent the average number over the ten-year span.) (ii) There were twenty-six (26) sterilizations carried out over the ten-year period, (iii) The age of those sterilized ranged from 28 to 44 years, with the average age being 33:3 years, (iv) The average parity of those sterilized was 7.9. (v)
February 25, 1977

The sterilization rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 2.2 to 12.9. (vi) The birth rate per thousand during the ten years ranged from 32.6 to 57.5.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Was there a delay in the appointment of the Director General for the Province of Newfoundland, to integrate UIC and Manpower and, if so, for what reason ?
2.	Has an appointment been made and, if so, who was appointed and what are the details of his duties?
3.	(a) What are the organizational criteria in setting up such an office (b) what is the purpose (c) where is it to be located (d) what were the considerations given to that location?
4.	Was any consideration given to decentralization of departments to Newfoundland to places where unemployment is highest and, if so, what are the details?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Treasury Board Secretariat as follows: 1. No.
2.	Yes, the Public Service Commission appointed Mr. Gerry Everard as Director General for the Province of Newfoundland on November 24, 1976. He will be the senior officer of the proposed Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in Newfoundland and will be responsible for the management of all manpower, unemployment insurance and immigration programmes in that province.
3.	(a) A head office for Newfoundland is being established as part of a plan to establish a regional organization for the proposed Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in each of the 10 provinces. The field offices of the present Unemployment Insurance Commission and Department of Manpower and Immigration are organized into five regions, (b) The purpose is to permit the decentralization of authority from the national headquarters and to increase the sensitivity of policies and programs to regional and local needs, (c) St. John's, (d) It is the largest city in the province and, as the provincial capital, the location of the provincial departments with whom the Director General's office will have regular contact.
4.	Yes. All areas of Canada are considered. Both the needs of the communities and the practicality of the relocated unit discharging its assigned task from each proposed location are taken into account in arriving at decisions.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Does any Department or branch of the government scrutinize, investigate and approve grants or loans by foreign governments to firms, individuals and organizations in Canada and, if so, which one?
2.	Does any Department or branch of the government scrutinize, investigate and approve grants or loans by the government of France, indirectly or directly, to (a) the French daily newspaper L'Evangeline in Moncton, New Brunwick (b)
Order Paper Questions
the University of Moncton (c) any other firm, individual or organization in Canada and, if so, which one?
3.	Is the government aware of the purposes of such grants or loans and the conditions under which they are made?
4.	(a) Is the government aware of the circumstances and financial arrangements under which citizens of France are permitted to take up employment as professors, teachers, instructors or members of the staff of the University of Moncton and, if so, how long have these persons been in or coming to Canada (b) is the government aware that these French citizens can do this work instead of going on active service with the French military?
5.	Are investigations and surveillance been conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces with respect to a possible military build-up on St. Pierre and Miquelon?
6.	Is a full French Consulate office located in the City of Moncton, New Brunswick and, if so, for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs and National Defence as follows: 1. Foreign government grants or loans to individuals, firms or organizations in Canada may come to the attention of government departments but they do not require approval and are not systematically scrutinized.
2.	(a) No. The fact of a grant having been given is, however, well-known, (b) No. The fact of assistance in the field of cultural programmes is, however, well-known, (c) No.
3.	The government is aware of the purposes and conditions which generally lead governments to provide such assistance to persons or institutions in countries where they have cultural or business interests. In the cases mentioned, the purposes appear to be analogous to those which have led the Canadian Government to give financial and other forms of support to university centres of Canadian studies in a number of countries including France.
4.	(a) Yes, inasmuch as this is provided for under the terms of the laws and regulations administered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and of government agreements with France. Such persons have been coming to Canada since the establishment of the University for stays of varying lengths, (b) The Government is aware that there is a worldwide programme of the French government providing for employment in a foreign country in lieu of military service. This programme has been functioning in Canada since the mid-sixties, and persons participating in it generally spend sixteen months here.
5.	No.
6.	Yes. The Consulate carries out the functions of a consular office for the area of the Atlantic Provinces, consular representatives of France in other centres in this area being honorary.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,420-Mr. Lawrence: (Supplementary)
For the 1973 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to $100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Year Revenue Canada does not compile statistics relating to Unem- |%g ployment Insurance Benefits by taxable income ranges. However, the information requested is available by total income classes, for the 1973 taxation year, in Table 15 of the 1975 edition of "Taxation Statistics".


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,421-Mr. Lawrence: (Supplementary)	1970
For 1974 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to $100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?
Monique Bégin: 1.
Revenue Canada does not compile statistics relating to Unemployment Insurance Benefits by taxable income ranges. However, the information requested is available by total income classes, for the 1974 taxation year, in Table 15 of the 1976 edition of "Taxation Statistics".


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,422-Mr. Lawrence: (Supplementary)
For the 1975 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to $100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?
Monique Bégin: 1.
Statistics for the 1975 taxation year are not yet available.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Since its inception, how much has been spent, loaned or granted by Manpower Consultative Services in British Columbia?
2.	What are the names of the companies who received financial assistance each year since 1965 and, in each case, what was the amount?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Total amount spent in British Columbia to date by Manpower Consultative Service since its inception in February 1965 is $756,309.60
2. Following are the employers in British Columbia who received financial assistance through Manpower Consultative Service since February 1965:
Year	Name of employer
1965	The Joint Consultative Committee of
the British Columbia Towing Industry
1966	The Trustees of the Mechanical
Industry Promotion Fund of Victoria, B.C.
Canadian Pacific Airlines Imperial Oil Enterprises Ltd. (IOCO Refinery)
1967	Nil
Amount $	5,248.41
650.00
3,798.66
2,947.75
Name of employer	Amount
The Trustees of the Journeyman	10,000.00
Training and Industry Promotion Fund of British Columbia	
The Fisheries Association of British	4.874.23
Columbia	
Bulkley Valley Forest Industries Ltd.	477.82
The Joint Conference Board	2.000.00
Representing: The Masters Painters Association and Painters Union Local 138	
Bulkley Valley Forest Industries	10,000.62
Limited	
The Operating Engineers Joint	6.992.00
Apprenticeship Board	
Vanguard Trailers Ltd.	4,984.72
British Columbia Forest Products	8,198.44
Limited	
Eddy Match Company Ltd.	766.53
Canadian Exploration Limited	1,888.67
Kamloops Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd.	8,275.00
Cominco Ltd.	26,008.18
Bralorne Can-Fer Resources Limited	12,489.65
Dominion Glass Company Limited	139.74
International Woodworkers of America,	4,499.43
Local 1-417	
New Imperial Mines Limited	600.00
Brynnor Mines Limited, Boss Mountain	3,913.39
Division	
M B. King Lumber Company	1,000.00
McGavin Toastmaster Limited	2,702.81
Endako Mines Division, Canadian	548.98
Exploration Limited	
Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited	2,440.46
Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited	92,177.90
Westcoast Petroleum Ltd. (Pipeline	15,986.64
Division)	
Cominco Limited-Pinchi Lake Mine	335.05
Crestbrook Forest Industries Limited	550.00
British Columbia Forest Products Ltd.	940.53
Cominco Limited	27,777.32
Bapco Paint Ltd.	38,179.67
Pacific Coast Pipe Ltd.	800.00
Canex Placer Limited, Tungsten	2.158.20
Division	
The Council of Forest Industries of	7.750.00
British Columbia	
Fitwell Garments Limited	250.00
Fiberfoam	500.00
St. Paul's Hospital	4,966.15
Bradina Mines (Bradina Joint Venture)	906.93
Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd.	721.03
Bradina Joint Ventures	4.612.77
Evans Products Ltd.	1,284.43
Evans Products Limited	10,606.13
Safeco Insurance Companies	5,242.84
Brentwood Trailers Limited	352.47
Seaforth Plastics Ltd.	1,416.88
Underwriters Adjustment Bureau Ltd.	6,620.81
Jordan Wines (B.C.) Limited	138.50
[Mr. Lawrence.)

February 25, 1977

Year
Employment and Immigration
Name of employer	Amount Year	Name of employer	AmountTofino Fisheries Limited	2,429.37 1976	Western National Drugs	1,585.86B.C. Regional Members of the	6,557.25	Yale Developments Limited	1,227.47Canadian Institute of Steel	Sigurdson Millwork Company Limited	676.76Construction	Silvichemicals Division Rayonier	528.86Giant Mascot Mines Limited	2,468.91	(Canada) Limited	Kelly Douglas Company Ltd.	25,926.24	Inglewood Homes Ltd.	3,029.60The Canadian Bar Association	13,712.09	Trident Aircraft Limited	456.05The Council of Forest Industries of	4,889.78	Raymond Salons Limited	2,245.62British Columbia	Canadian Cellulose Company Limited	225.00Okanagan Helicopters Limited	12,285.89	Canadian Cellulose Company Limited	3.769.53Kustom Koach Industries Limited	159.40	Kustom Koach Industries Limited	2.793.10	Anaconda Britannia Mines, Division of	2,212.05	Anaconda Canada Limited	The Mining Association of B.C.	380.00
Canadian Cellulose Company Limited (Pohle Lumber Division)
The Trustees of the Journeyman Training and Industry Promotion
6,500.00
4,130.28


[Stage Direction]
Fund of B.C.
Century Sales and Controls Limited British Columbia Drywall Contractors Association
Quadra Manufacturing Incorporated Uncle Ben Group of Companies Brentwood Trailers Ltd.
White Pass and Yukon Corporation Ltd.
Teleflex (Canada) Limited Canadian Masonary Contractors Association, B.C. Chapter Local No.
1-Bricklayers, Masons and Terrazzo Workers International Union Jordan River Mines Ltd.
745.00
9,917.13
29,895.47
20,000.00
984.82
70,000.00
543.03
10,920.09
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 288 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

. CRTC-SURVEYS INTO ADMINISTRATION OR INTERNAL OPERATION


Mr. Orlikow: 10,000.00 I. For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Canadian Radio
and Television Commission?
Westroc Industries Limited	76.23
West Coast Woollen Mills Limited	1,257.95
Anaconda Britannia Mines	16,742.63
Forest Industrial Relations Limited	10,768.75
Carcoat Engineering Limited	2,015.46
Granduc Operating Company	1,341.20
Granduc Operating Company	1,564.70
Parta Industries Limited	2,950.05
Lornex Mining Corporation Ltd.	50.00
Westroc Industries Limited	2,558.39
Verigan Industries Limited	7,663.20
British Columbia Drywall Contractors	10,082.47
Association	
The British Columbia Independent	32,713.43
Logging Association, agents of the employees of the B.C. I.LA.	
Council of Forest Industries of British	5,878.42
Columbia Northern Interior Lumber Sector	
Universal furniture Manufacture	3,982.00
Limited	
Elkford Square Limited	5,000.00
Johnson and Neven Limited	4,503.51
Citation Cabinets Limited	2,563.43
The Canadian Restaurant	4,807.23
Association-The B.C. Hotel Association, The B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association	
Columbia C.I. Cabinets Inc.	1,912.60
C & S Furniture (1975) Limited	3,981.00
Hayes Trucks Limited	1,547.50
Western Brewing Company Limited	5,000.01
Rayonier Canada (B.C.) Limited	3,519.05
B.C. Forest Products Limited	18,000.00
Lancer (Canada) Limited	4,916.00
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?
Return tabled.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, to establish the department of employment and immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time
3434
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, when this debate adjourned on February 2 I had halfway concluded my remarks. Perhaps it would be useful at this point, since the debate is now being resumed after three weeks, if I were to commence by repeating the suggested amendment that has been placed on the record by my colleague, the hon. member for Flamilton West (Mr. Alexander), which of course will be moved on behalf of the official opposition when this bill goes to committee. The amendment is as follows:
In high unemployment regions, the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations
-lowering from 12 weeks down to a minimum of 8 weeks the number of
weeks referred to in subsection 16(1) and 17(2)(a)
-defining high unemployment regions, delineating the boundaries thereof
and determining residence and eligibility within such region;
-setting a date of termination for any such regulations-
Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend from New Brunswick who is interrupting me will support the amendment because it is very important to northern New Brunswick. This bill will affect northern New Brunswick as much or probably even more than my own province of Newfoundland.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, as I only have limited time I will gladly accept a question from the hon. member at the end of my speech.


Mr. Corbin:: You would change your whole speech if you listened to him.


James Aloysius McGrath: Again, the hon. member from New Brunswick who interrupts should support our amendment which could change the whole course of this bill. I do not see how any member from the Atlantic provinces cannot support the amendment. Unemployment in northern New Brunswick is among the highest in the country and will take a great deal of explaining by the hon. member, more than I suspect he is capable of.
I am glad to know there is concern, as was exemplified by the interjections at the commencement of my remarks by my learned and friendly colleague from New Brunswick. That province is on record as having the second highest unemployment rate in the country-second to my own province. When you get into the northern part of New Brunswick-where the hon. gentleman who continues to interrupt me comes from- then, of course, the unemployment rate is as bad and in some cases is worse than it is in Newfoundland.
Since the debate adjourned on February 2-and perhaps I should underline and emphasize again the importance of this bill-the latest figures have been issued by Statistics Canada referring to unemployment for the month of January. One thing we can draw from those figures is that if we needed
[Mr. Goodale.)
proof, it is obviously here, that the present method of measuring unemployment by Statistics Canada is, to say at least, grossly inadequate. I have referred to the seriousness of that already. It is based on these figures released monthly by Statistics Canada that allocations are made for the government's make-work programs such as the Local Initiatives Program, the Canada Works program and Young Canada Works program.
If we examine the figures for the month of January we find that on a seasonally adjusted basis the figures for Newfoundland were 13.6 per cent, representing a decline of two decimal points from 13.8 per cent from the previous month. Of course, taking into account the seasonally adjusted figures, more people were reported unemployed for the month of January than for the previous month.
The same situation applies to the national figures for the month of January which places unemployment in Canada, on a seasonally adjusted basis, at 7.5 per cent compared to the same figure for the previous month of December. Yet for the month of January we reached an all-time record. There were more people out of work in Canada in the month of January than in the history of this country since records have been kept. That fact was brought out quite forcibly in an article which appeared in the February 12 edition of the Toronto Star. It listed figures that had been leaked by someone in Statistics Canada showing the real rate of unemployment in Canada for the previous year, 1976.
According to these figures, the official unemployment rate in the province of Newfoundland in 1976 was 14.7 per cent, and officially represented 25,000 people. But there are others who were not regarded by this new methodology of Statistics Canada which was adopted a year ago, and they represent another 28,000 unemployed unreported in the statistics, for a total of 53,000 unemployed, or 25 per cent. There is obviously something wrong with our method of measurement.
Let us look at the methodology for the country as a whole, using the same figures. In Canada as a whole, the rate for 1976 was 7.1 per cent, representing in official terms 735,000 Canadians. But another 450,000 people in the country never qualified to be reported in these statistics: these are the hidden unemployed, the unemployable, the unemployed unemployables. These are the people who have given up, who have been on the labour market for so long that they had given up looking for work, either for lack of skill, surplus in a particular skill or through sheer frustration at their inability to find work. That brings the total unemployed in Canada to 1,185,000, or 11 per cent. Yet officially-and these are the figures on which the government bases its programs-the figure was 7.1 per cent, or 735,000 people unemployed for the year.
Let us look at the method of measuring unemployment. I refer to a document released by Statistics Canada last February to explain the new methodology, entitled "Conceptual, Definitional and Methodological Changes in the Labour Force Survey". Under the heading "Methodology" it reads:
Except for the new questionnaire design, the methodology used is obtaining labour force survey data is similar in the LFS and RLFS. However, the revised
February 25, 1977

survey has introduced a number of refinements and some of the more important improvements will be presented in this section.
LFS is "labour force survey" and I presume RLFS is "revised labour force survey". The document goes on to define some of those refinements. At page 3 it reads:
Finally, persons not in the labour force are those who are unwilling or unable, during reference week, to supply labour services under existing labour market conditions.
Obviously, half the total of the unemployed fall into that category. Then we go to the end of the document and find this statement in the summary.
-more precise measures of employment and unemployment and the generation of additional information-
Finally the document reads:
When taken in conjunction with the additional information collected about persons who are classified as not in the labour force, the data users-
Those are people who go into the field one week out of four to gather this information.
-can, and in fact are encouraged to, formulate definitions of unemployment which are best suited to their particular applications.
I suggest this puts far too much discretion in the hands of surveyors, the people who actually gather the data. There is ample evidence of the correctness of my contention. According to Statistics Canada, 29,000 were unemployed in my province in January. However, on checking with the Unemployment Insurance Commission I discovered that in that same month, January, there were 60,000 drawing unemployment insurance benefits-60,000 out of a total work force of 168,000 persons.
You can only qualify for unemployment insurance if you are available for work; availability for work is a prerequisite qualification for the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. If you are available for work, you must be in the work force. Clearly, therefore, the unemployment figures for Newfoundland and for Canada as a whole are misleading. They do not show how serious is the unemployment situation in this country. That is also why I question the judgment-indeed, the humanity-of the government in bringing forward this bill at this time.
I do not deny that the bill contains some excellent features. Obviously, the move to combine the functions of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the department of manpower is long overdue since those two services are complementary. But if the bill passes it will eliminate many Canadians from the unemployment rolls and force them onto the welfare rolls of the provinces. This is not the time to do it. Although this bill may represent a reform, and even though, as my colleague from Hamilton said, it would provide more incentives to work or more disincentives to not work, I submit this is not the time to bring forward the particular amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act embodied in this bill.
The C. D. Howe Research Institute, in a policy paper entitled "New Directions for Manpower Policy" which was released on November 1, 1976, said in part:
Employment and Immigration
The government's main response to cyclical unemployment should continue to be unemployment insurance and fiscal and monetary policies.
I note the words "should continue to be unemployment insurance and fiscal and monetary policies." The C. D. Howe Research Institute is a well respected and highly regarded institute or "think tank", if you like. I quoted the research institute to support my argument, namely, that this is not the time, during a period of critically high unemployment, to tamper with the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Herb Breau: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I am glad my hon. friend agrees. I knew he would because he is genuinely concerned, as I am about the present situation. He, too, comes from one of the Atlantic provinces. Let us consider the effects of this bill. Who will be affected by the provision changing the qualifying period from 8 to 12 weeks? I shall put forward the figures pertaining to my own province. My hon. friend opposite can refer to the figures relating to New Brunswick. Mr. Speaker, my province will be hardest hit because we have the highest rate of unemployment in the country by far. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that 74 per cent of all those affected are male. When you consider that 44 per cent of that group are 25 years old and older, it is obvious that families will be hardest hit because the heads of families will be disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits. I say that, sir, notwithstanding the assurances given in June by the minister's predecessor who said that these reforms would affect, basically, only students and housewives. The fact that heads of families in my province will be hardest hit gives the lie to that statement.
As I have already said, the burden will fall heavily on the low income earner. Let me illustrate. In Newfoundland, 45 per cent of those affected earn less than $90 a week and 30 per cent of the group affected earn up to $129 a week. What do those figures tell you? If you earn $90 a week, it means that you can draw up to $60 per week in benefits.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult enough to live on $90 a week anywhere in Canada, especially in my province where the cost of living is high. Surely it is nigh impossible to live on unemployment insurance of $60 a week. I say this to give the lie to those who charge that we must get people off unemployment insurance. Canadians do not, by and large, draw unemployment insurance from choice. They draw unemployment insurance because they cannot find work. They must fall back on unemployment insurance as a means of supporting their families.
Taking people off the unemployment insurance rolls will do something else in the hardest pressed provinces where unemployment is highest. It will place an additional, heavy financial burden on those provinces, especially Newfoundland. At present, people can qualify for unemployment insurance benefits after eight weeks of work. But if they are taken off the unemployment insurance rolls or disqualified they will fall back on our welfare system. At least half of welfare payments must be financed by the province under the Canada Assistance Plan. It is estimated that if this bill passes Newfoundland this
80010-11%

February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
year will have to bear an additional 16 per cent increase in the cost of welfare benefits.
My colleague from Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) talked about the seasonality of work in the Atlantic provinces. Seasonal jobs are a fact of life in many parts of Canada, certainly in the Atlantic provinces. Bear in mind that work projects under the government's Local Initiatives Program usually last about two months. I do not think that is coincidental. I think such programs have been geared to last that long in order to enable those who would otherwise or normally be unemployed with work for a long enough period to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. Until such make-work programs are phased out-in other words, until we reach a situation in which there is full employment or almost full employment which might be based upon an unemployment rate of 4 per cent or less-I do not think we should tamper with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I say this because at present our make-work programs are geared to the existing provisions of the act.
Obviously, we need a comprehensive employment strategy in this country. We have heard talk in the Atlantic provinces of such a strategy for a number of years. For the last six or seven years the DREE program has been available to us. The DREE program was to be the be-all and end-all of the fight against high unemployment in the high unemployment areas of the country. Unfortunately, the DREE program was not productive. That is to say, it was not successful because as a program it operated in almost total isolation from other government policies. It operated in isolation from monetary and fiscal policies, transportation policies and the government's own tariff policies.
Also, it was necessary to consider all those policies in order to formulate a comprehensive employment strategy. After all, there is not much point in offering industry DREE grants to locate in the Atlantic provinces, on the one hand, and increasing freight rates on the other. One policy, obviously, is counter productive with respect to the other. Until this country has a job strategy or an employment strategy we shall continue to be plagued with high unemployment-and when we have high unemployment in Canada as a whole we have critically high unemployment in the eastern regions of Canada.
There is one other thing we should bear in mind. In the past number of years, going back as far as I can remember in this House-in fact, ever since fishermen were included as qualifying for unemployment insurance in 1956-we have been promised a special income stabilization program for fishermen. The Gill report, which was the last major study into the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1970, had this to say:
Income stabilization is imperative in the commercial fisheries, with particular reference to the remoter fishing communities, and, pending the completion of plans being prepared specifically for this purpose, self-employed fishermen will be covered by unemployment insurance.
That obviously referred to plans which were under way at that time. In the election of June, 1974, in a speech at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)

said, and I quote from "Notes for remarks by the Prime Minister-Liberal party policy on fisheries, June 21, 1974":
And, of great importance to fishermen and their families, we are committed to bring in an income stabilization plan to ensure a reasonable average level of earnings.
I appeal to my colleagues opposite from the Atlantic provinces who come from areas where there is heavy dependence upon the fishing industry, where fishing is a major economic factor, not to proceed with this amendment to the act at this time. Withdraw this amendment until the government brings in its promised and "long under development" income stabilization program for fishermen. Otherwise this amendment which changes the qualifying period from eight to 12 weeks will not only hit hardest the heads of families and low income earners in this country but it will hit also hardest the fishermen, the plant workers, the seasonal operations in this country, whether it is processing, packing, fishing for lobster in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or the more seasonal fishing operations of the northeast coast of Newfoundland where you can only fish for a short period of time. The produce of that very short fishery has to be processed in less than 12 weeks.
All the people in these seasonal fishing operations in the Atlantic provinces, the Magdalen Islands and the eastern part of Quebec, will be disqualified from drawing unemployment insurance. Given the seasonal nature of their work and the limitation of employment opportunities in these regions, they will have no choice but to fall back on the welfare rolls of these provinces. They are proud people. They should not have to go on welfare. These provinces should not have to add to their already overburdened welfare rolls at this time in our history.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This can be done only with unanimous consent, because the time of the hon. member who had the floor has expired. Is the House ready to allow the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the eloquent plea the hon. member has made for changing this bill, could we hear from him whether some members of his party, either in committee, at report stage or elsewhere, will move an amendment which will do what the hon. member would like to do, namely, change the law, not making these amendments part of the law, rather then the phony amendment he talked about earlier in his speech that all we should do is skate on both sides of the issue and say "we wanted this but the government would not give it." Will the hon. member state whether he or someone else in his party will move amendments to do what he wants to achieve?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) is a good friend of mine. He is an experienced member of the House and a former parliamentary secretary. I expected better from him. First, I am sure he knows we cannot move an amendment at this stage. However, we can-and we intend to-move the amendment I repeated which was placed
February 25, 1977

on the record earlier by my colleague for Hamilton West. We intend to move that amendment in committee. 1 suggest that the hon. member for Gloucester read the amendment very carefully. It is not a phony amendment.
The amendment will enable the minister to use discretion and eliminate the abuses which take place in the big cities where unemployment is not the major factor. That is where most abuses occur. It will also enable the minister to continue the eight-week qualifying period in the areas hardest hit due to economic, cyclical and seasonal factors-areas such as the constituency of Gloucester which is represented in the House by the hon. member. I hope that he and his colleagues from New Brunswick will make a speech on this matter. Not only do I look forward to hearing him speak, but 1 look forward to his support on this very worthwhile amendment.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, this can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest that hon. members have agreed to one set of rules for one member. I think there could be agreement to do the same for the hon. member in all fairness.


Ralph Goodale: As long as the question does not last a week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I can understand the reluctance of members opposite to listen to words of wisdom. My question is along the same lines as the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). I listened to the very excellent remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for whom I have a great deal of respect. I also listened to the speech of the official spokesman for his party with respect to the amendment they intend to introduce. I am sure that the hon. member for St. John's East knows how long it takes for the government and the bureaucracy to move on anything. Does the hon. member not consider it unwise to agree to a change in the Unemployment Insurance Act and then later try to force the government into moving the bureaucracy to bring in a change correcting the obviously inadequate situation with regard to certain parts of the country?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member. I tried to understand the purport of his question. Obviously, there are very attractive features in this bill. It is in the best interests of the country to have the two agencies, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Manpower, with their job-creation services, housed once again, as they once were, under one agency. That is a very progressive and useful suggestion, one which is very helpful at this time.
Employment and Immigration
I also believe that given the majority of the government in this House, it is our responsibility to try to improve legislation. I believe the amendment which we have put forward is a reasonable amendment and will commend itself to the House. I hope, at the very least, it will commend itself to individual members of the House and will be accepted.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-27 dealing with Unemployment Insurance, manpower and the integration of the two. If the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) wants to carry on a conversation, he should cross the floor, go outside or try to get the attention of the Speaker so that he can make a speech. The fact that the minimum period for qualifying for unemployment insurance will be 12 weeks perhaps has some merit in view of the rip-offs and the problems resulting from some people misusing or taking advantage of the eight-week period in urban areas and other areas of this country.
I represent an area of Ontario that has some of the highest unemployment in the province-indeed, in the whole country. In one community 20 per cent of the working population is unemployed. For this reason I am concerned about this 12-week landmark that the government has established for all parts of Canada. We frequently hear it said that regions of Canada are affected by various problems and for that reason we should have flexible federalism. I am not suggesting that we need flexible federalism or a balanced federalism, but that federal government programs should be sufficiently flexible to take account of the circumstances obtaining in various regions of the country.
I think there is support among all parties in the House for the proposition that in areas of high unemployment where the situation is markedly different from the low level of unemployment in large industrial areas the period of 12 weeks should be reduced to eight. I realize we do not like giving the governor in council discretionary powers, but we must consider human problems in the various regions of this country. Therefore, I think the best solution is to exercise discretion in favour of people in depressed areas.
If the government carries out all the programs it has announced to improve the employment situation, this particular problem may disappear and we will not have to designate certain regions for special attention in terms of lowering the 12-week period to eight weeks. However, in my own constituency, if the government had carried out the DREE programs that it promised, perhaps we would not have had the crisis in unemployment which may require us to make application for some special consideration. For example, in 1973 the federal government announced that it was going to negotiate with the province of Ontario the establishment of a basic infrastructure for the county of Renfrew, but to date nothing has been done in this regard.
The province of Ontario could not get the federal government to commit itself, and Finally the province had to act on its

February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
own. Had the federal government lived up to its oft-promised participation, and federal money been poured into the area, we would have been much better off and further ahead than we are today, with the province using its limited resources to support a program which was originally announced to be a joint project.
If the federal government had instituted proper DREE programs and co-ordinated its industrial program's, 1 am sure it would have eliminated some of the regions of high unemployment in this country. In that event, the discretionary power suggested in the amendment would not be required. Since that is not the case, for the sake of those living in disadvantaged areas and, indeed, for humanitarian reasons alone, the amendment proposed by our party will be introduced at the committee stage and I hope will be accepted by the members of the House and become the law of this country.
I feel that the electoral success which the Progressive Conservative party, and particularly myself, had in my region in 1972 was because there was a feeling that the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the manpower department were completely unable to fulfill their respective roles. I readily admit that throughout that election campaign I campaigned on the platform that UIC and manpower should be joined together, that they could not do their job effectively when the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. There was a great hue and cry during the election campaign on that issue. Although this government now has a majority in the House, it has been unable to come to grips with the problems facing this country and only now, almost 4>/2 years since the election, has started to take action. This shows how inept is this government.
I appreciate that this bill is a difficult one to swallow so far as some aspects are concerned, but it would have been much easier from the point of view of government business to bring it in last June or even earlier. In fact, the government did have some legislation on the order paper in the twenty-ninth parliament that covered some of the provisions in this bill, but it remained on the order paper. This is an indication that the government does not react very quickly at times, and this I regret.
I want to talk about youth unemployment in this country, Mr. Speaker, but seeing it is almost one o'clock perhaps it would be convenient to call it one o'clock and I will recommence after the luncheon recess.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed to call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair till two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.

(Mr. Dick ]
Francis Fox: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the question period this morning I attributed Canadian citizenship to an NRC scientist in connection with deportation proceedings involving a Russian scientist. My answer should have indicated that the scientist was an NRC scientist, without reference to nationality. This was brought to my attention when the House rose at 1 p.m. This is the first opportunity I have had to make a correction.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker. Just prior to the lunch break I tried to bring my thoughts on the topic of Bill C-27 to the attention of the House in dealing with the government's bill to try to make minimum benefits payable only to a person who works for 12 weeks. The amendment which our party has suggested is that in special circumstances, when humanitarian concerns are most evident in places of high unemployment, this period could perhaps be reduced down to as low as eight weeks.
I also tried to indicate that some concerns about unemployment insurance, some of which are being dealt with under this legislation, were first raised in the 1972 election campaign. A bill on the order paper of the twenty-ninth parliament died on the order paper, and have had to wait 4'/2 years for the government to take any action.
I want for a moment to deal with what is perhaps the major unemployment problem in Canada, which is youth unemployment. Today in Canada 46 per cent of the people who are on the unemployment insurance rolls are between age 14 and 24. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is unfair to an age group which is offering so much to this country and which wants to offer so much to this country that they are the ones who are being denied an opportunity to make the contribution they wish to make.
As somebody once indicated, the logic of Manpower's approach toward unemployment in Canada affecting those between 14 and 24 years of age was obscured by the growth of Manpower's many programs. That person indicated that the program failures were always being met by band-aid remedies. We have a perfect example of some of these band-aid remedies. Last year, prior to Christmas, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) announced two "brilliant" new programs for the creation of jobs. They were really going to do wonders for the Canadian economy. He announced the Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program. He announced that they were going to be five-year programs. I suppose if one were skeptical about it, one would assume that the government believes it is going to be so inefficient over the next few years that it requires these make-work programs to be in place for five years to get over the government's ineptness. However, the young people in Canada, the people between 14 and 24 who make up half the unemployed, have been given a special program-the Young Canada Works Program-and as we see from a Manpower advertisement, it is geared generally to students who will work on community benefit programs which will enable them to test their career aspirations.
If we read further we find that students can expect six weeks of consecutive work. I am sure that in those six weeks the
February 25, 1977

students will be able to discover all the facets of their career aspirations! It goes on to say that the program can work up to 14 weeks. So between a 6-week and a 14-week period the department of manpower believes young people in the age group between 14 and 24 will find jobs which will help them in their career aspirations.
This is just ludicrous. Maybe they are creating jobs, but they are certainly not creating jobs which will help people generally in their careers. First of all, they are restricting the jobs to community benefits. In other advertising it is indicated that work will be created by a community group, a group responsible in the community, perhaps a municipal council. It is just another band-aid. It will generate some jobs like Opportunities for Youth. In the past we have had LIP, which closely resembles Canada Works, but this is only a band-aid approach and a scratch on the surface.
Also, we are going to have, as indicated in answer to a question I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), a department responsible for a program which may become entitled "operation Canada". Indications that I have are that it will be under the Minister of National Defence. The minister submitted to cabinet on December 1 a plan for "operation Canada" which will bring Canadians between the ages of 17 and 22 together for a ten months' period. This "operation Canada" program is to demonstrate that through physical development, mental fitness and the resilience of Canadian youth, they will provide a greater service to the Canadian nation. They plan to start on a pilot program involving about 1,000 people in this youth corps, and it will cost in the beginning about $5,145,000, or a little over $5,000 per person for the ten months during which they will be employed. That program might start in July, 1977, and they hope they will have 10,000 participants involved by January 1978, with a budget of about $48 million.
I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question about this youth corps about a week ago and he said about the program-which was mentioned in the throne speech-that he did not know when it would be enacted or under which department it would come, but it would be introduced in the second half of this session. It appears to me that the government threw the idea into the throne speech without thinking it out. Now, some five months later, they are trying to think a bit more about it. They will set it up under the Minister of National Defence. I do not know whether it will be a paramilitary group in the outbound movement mode, as the Minister of National Defence expressed it. Perhaps they will even teach them the proper and safe use of firearms; I do not know. There is to be an option whereby people working in the youth corps will have an opportunity of joining the forces.
I am very interested in this program but I am not sure how it will help the youth in this country, who are underemployed right now, to meet their career aspirations, unless one considers the limited number of people who may have career aspirations in the military or who do not know what they are going
Employment and Immigration
to do and take ten months to work in this paramilitary group, this youth corps, the establishment of which was announced but on which the government cannot give us any figures or any specifics. Again, this is a band-aid approach. We do not know whether in this youth corps the young people will be taught any life skills or career skills. They will be taught how to get along with their neighbours and how to get along in the outdoors, as far as we know.
This program, along with Young Canada Works program, does not attack the real problem of future unemployment in this country. Canada Works, which is much like LIP, will not attack the real unemployment problems in this country because under the Canada Works program they are accepting applications for bits and pieces of work which some organizations would like to sponsor, and which will benefit communities, which would normally be of 32 weeks' duration but may be extended to up to 52 weeks. So, again, it is a temporary program. A person cannot find a career job in any one of these government band-aid programs.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), prior to Christmas, in a paper which he put forth announced the Young Canada Works and Canada Works programs and went on to say how much help they would be to help students at universities find career opportunities. At that time I believe there were 72 Manpower offices located on university or post-secondary institution campuses. He announced that he would increase that number by another 17 so that there would be about 89 Manpower offices on the campuses of secondary institutions.
It is strange that the government keeps spending money in this way when the return it is getting is so limited. One of the major universities in Ontario carried out a survey of their student population who had graduated and left university, to see how many of them found jobs through Manpower offices. They found that some 9 per cent of the graduate students had found jobs through Manpower offices. They were, basically, people who did not know what they wanted to do and had taken a construction job or another hourly or weekly paid job through the student Manpower office. After another nine months, that figure went down to a little over 5 per cent of the students who obtained their jobs through a Manpower office.
Expanding the Manpower network on university campuses may not be a wise expenditure of money, because obviously the vast majority of students do not find the Manpower office to be the place to go when looking for a job. Indeed, the experience in my riding is that even people who want an hourly or weekly paid job do not go to the Manpower office to look for it. Also, people who have real career aspirations, whether it be in business, in law or in any other career option which a person may have by getting post-secondary education, do not generally leave it to the Manpower office on their local campus to find them a job. Usually they get a job through their own initiative, or perhaps even by going to one of the specialized personnel agencies which hire for executive, management training jobs or sales jobs.

February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
To show that the Department of Manpower and Immigration is rather contradictory in its approach, let me point out that the figures on youth unemployment are a scandal. They are the highest Canada has ever had, in absolute terms- meaning in the number of unemployed-and in percentage terms, since the department started collecting special data on youth unemployment in 1952. Oddly enough, last year, in spite of this the Department of Manpower and Immigration withdrew the budget for collecting student unemployment data. Since the 1950s the department, in co-ordination with Statistics Canada, has always done, in the months of May, June, July, August and September, special student unemployment surveys in which they have asked whether the person was a student in the preceding month of March, whether the person was looking for summer employment now, and whether the person intended being a student the following September. By this series of questions they could isolate who was really a student and intended to continue his studies and thus could put an actual figure on student unemployment.
Last year the government, in its wisdom, decided to withdraw the small budget-which I think amounted to around $12,000-to carry out these surveys and instead incorporated in its general survey questions which initially they said would indicate student unemployment. They asked, "Were you a student last week? Are you a student now? Will you be a student next week?" Of course, if the person was asked in the last week of July whether he had been a student the previous week, his answer was "No", because the institution had closed in May. To the question whether he was going to be a student the following week, the first of August, the answer, of course, was "No", because the institution would not open until September. So, naturally, they did not get the correct Figures for youth student unemployment. It was a neat little trick, and rather deceitful. It did not give the government the correct statistical base to plan appropriately for students entering the work force in the years ahead.
[DOT] (M20)
I was very pleased to hear that as a result of a condemnation by this party, other parties and members of this House, the department has rethought this shortsighted policy. As a result of questions asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, the minister indicated that he would reinstitute student employment surveys this coming summer. I think that is part of a program which may be more helpful than the rather shortsighted programs the government has used in the past. At least it will provide some statistical base for dealing with some of the youth unemployment in this country.
The government should concentrate on this problem and really do something to try to find employment for the young people of this country. As chairman of the Progressive Conservative caucus committee on youth, I have tried over the last number of months to get to many youth conferences, to a number of universities and to other places where young people gather, to try to find out what they want the federal govern-

ment to provide. I have found out, from the limited exposure I have had, that they do not want more OFY, Young Canada Works or LIP-type opportunities.
Young people laugh, they say that these programs are a rip-off and that they are a waste of taxpayers' money, but if the government is going to be so stupid as to give it out this way, they might as well take their share of it. I suppose that is a reasonable attitude to take, but these young people really want career opportunities, full-time jobs, jobs in which there is an opportunity for advancement. They want jobs which they believe contribute to Canadian society as a whole. They want jobs which they see as being productive and helpful. When I say "productive", I do not mean working on an assembly line and increasing the output of canned meats from 19,000 cans per hour to 22,000 cans per hour. They want to be productive by doing something which will help society.
In my university days, back in the late fifties and early sixties, the attitude was that we wanted jobs which paid high salaries. There were all kinds of people around recruiting in universities at that time. In the late sixties and early seventies people took time off, travelled, bummed around and had experiences, but not working experiences. Students today have returned to some extent to the approach taken in the late fifties and early sixties. They want serious jobs, jobs with career opportunities and jobs which are socially useful to Canadian society as a whole. They want jobs which are meaningful to them, but perhaps they are influenced by that other era of the late sixties and early seventies in that they are not necessarily demanding high-paying jobs. Perhaps they would take a job which pays $12,000 rather than $15,000 if they felt the environment in that lower-paying job was more appropriate to them.
They may be more selective in that they might like to work in a small town or for a small company rather than for a large, multinational company or in a large city. They are more selective with regard to the environment and the type of job, than they are with regard to the dollar value attributed to the job. This is the kind of thing the young people of this country want. They do not want band-aid programs, although they will take advantage of them while they are still around and while the government tries to rely on them. However, this government will not substantially improve the climate for these students until it tackles the real job, and that is the job of expanding business in this country and expanding business opportunities so that business can grow and will require more employees in full-time jobs.
I feel that the government has let down Canadian society as a whole-and this is one of the reasons for the quarrelling and grumbling of today-because it has not approached business in Canada in an enlightened way which would encourage business to expand. For example, in the textile industry we find that in the United States 85 per cent of the textiles sold are produced there. In the European Economic Community, 90 per cent of the textiles used there are made in that community.
What has our government allowed this country to do? Only 45 per cent of the textiles used in Canada are made here.
February 25, 1977

Because of our do-gooder attitude, our Boy Scout attitude, and as a result of GATT negotiations, we have lowered our tariffs and our quotas on imports. This has wiped out thousands of jobs in this country. It has been estimated that in the textile industry alone, if we could come back up to 75 per cent or 80 per cent fabrication in this country almost 200,000 more jobs would be created. As anybody who follows the textile industry would know, we have been closing down textile plants at an alarming rate, so much so that finally last fall the government, through political considerations or finally just seeing its folly, realized the problem and just prior to the completion of the Quebec election campaign the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) announced quotas on imported textiles.
I am sure that was not motivated by political considerations any more than the announcement a week before provincial by-elections that the Department of Veterans Affairs was moving to Prince Edward Island, or any more than the announcement in Prince Albert last week that there would be a new transportation policy affecting that area. That announcement is prior to two by-elections taking place in Saskatchewan next Tuesday. 1 would not have thought the government would come out with these goodies in provinces where by-elections are taking place, just for political reasons; but I was very pleased to see that the government finally, for whatever reason, decided to put a quota on some textile imports. Hopefully, over the next few years we will be able to re-establish that industry, create more jobs, take some of the people who are presently unemployed off the unemployment rolls and put them back into useful, productive jobs.
The knowledge the federal government had that it was going to close down the textile industry goes back to the late sixties and early seventies, because in 1970 the federal government introduced legislation-actually, by order in council, the Appropriations Act No. 4 of 1970-and regulations to benefit clothing and textile workers. It was updated in 1974. This legislation provides a form of pension plan under the unemployment insurance scheme for people who are in the textile industry which the government was in the process of closing down across the country because of its do-gooder policy. There were jobs there which would have taken youthful Canadians off the unemployment rolls.
In the electronics industry the government is doing the very same thing, because in our negotiations at GATT Canada said it would abide by those GATT agreements and allow underprivileged and underdeveloped countries to export into Canada duty-free. Now it appears that because of diminishing trade in the television industry we have lost 20,000 jobs in the electronics industry since 1973. As a matter of fact I can give substance to that, Mr. Speaker. RCA had a plant in Renfrew, Ontario, which in 1972 provided 440 jobs. By 1974, that plant was down to 240 jobs as a result of the government's Bill C-170 in the twenty-ninth parliament which gave benefits to the so-called underdeveloped and underprivileged countries. That plant is now closed. There are no jobs whatsoever. That is
Employment and Immigration
an example of where 440 jobs in my constituency are a part of the 20,000 lost by the television industry in the last few years.
There are other areas which show the government is making a mistake and is not pursuing an intelligent policy of full employment. In my constituency there is the only magnesium mine in Canada. It has a capacity of over 10,000 metric tons per year, and in 1968 was producing at capacity. As a result of this government's policies it is now producing only 4,000 metric tons, or a little over 40 per cent of capacity, annually. But imports of magnesium have gone from 2,000 metric tons in 1968 to 8,000 metric tons today. This is not because it is a rotten, "no good" facility-it may be all of that, or none of that-but in 1968 Canada had a 17 percent tariff and in 1975 it had a 5 per cent tariff. The United States has a 20 cent tariff on magnesium imports. The European Economic Community, which does not have any mines, has a 9 per cent tariff; and the Japanese, who have perhaps the most sensible program, have a 15 per cent tariff on imported magnesium until all domestic magnesium is used up. The Boy Scouts of this government go out saying that we will have the lowest tariff nation in the world, and to hang with the jobs. Well, we have lowered ours to one of the lowest, weak groups-5 per cent, and we are now importing more than ever before.
Mr. Speaker, the saddest example of government bungling in the last few years concerns a plant which wanted to employ 80 people. It applied to Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in 1974 to set up scissors manufacturing in Canada. Canada has never manufactured scissors. The department said it was a brillant idea and made a report showing how well it could be done. Based on that and other considerations, the company went ahead, and largely through an Ontario Development Corporation loan of almost $500,000 built a modern, efficient plant to produce hot, forged steel scissors in Canada. But then this government passed the infamous bill allowing imports from countries, so-called developing or underdeveloped, into Canada duty-free. Now scissors are flooding into this country from Brazil and this company cannot employ the 80 people it wanted to employ. They only employ 25 and are having to diversify-so we have lost 55 jobs there. At the same time, we certainly get equal treatment from Brazil; their tariff on imported scissors was 150 per cent, but it was changed a few months ago to total prohibition. If we are to provide business opportunities in this country, we must have a more constant approach-


Mr. O'Connell:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: -when dealing with tariffs and small business. The present situation is scandalous. We should provide the permanent jobs, the meaningful jobs, the career opportunities and advancement that young people want. They no longer want government hand-outs in 14-week programs. Those things are just a sop. They want something which is meaningful to the productivity and betterment of our country. I think it is time the government realized this and, instead of pouring money into wasteful programs, started to improve what we
3442

February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
have. The government could reduce the high rate of youth unemployment, over 50 per cent, if they took a more intelligent approach and helped this country generally.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us deals with changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, but it is significant in not only what it does about the unemployed who seek benefits but also as a statement of the government's employment policy or lack thereof. I should like to spend a few minutes looking at the issue of unemployment and then relate that to the bill before us, making a few specific criticisms. I will then put forward what I hope are some constructive counterproposals on the question of getting Canadians back to work.
What worries me is the sense of complacency, almost, among the general public that unemployment is a natural state in Canada and that somehow we have to accept high unemployment as inevitable. It is shocking that today there are more people out of work than at the height of the great depression in the 1930s; yet we do not see mass marches of the unemployed and letters to the editor and the media taking up the cause of this great human crisis.
It is argued that is because the benefits we give to the unemployed are adequate to carry them through. That may or may not be correct, as the individual case would tell. Beyond that, however, is the fact that Canadians have come to accept the lack of solution by both the old line parties, Liberals and Conservatives, to solving the problem and have accepted the situation as just the state of the Canadian economy from which we will extricate ourselves. I reject that kind of complacency. I think that when we have over 800,000 Canadians out of work according to the official statistics, and when we take into account the hidden unemployed-those not measured by Statistics Canada because they have tried week after week to find work and have given up the search-the unemployment figure is closer to one million Canadians.
The cost, both in human and economic terms, is devastating. How demoralizing it must be for a young worker with a family to support to find that no matter how hard he tries he cannot find employment. Think of the emotional stress this must place on him and his young family and the kind of marital problems it could bring. It is something that those of us who have jobs all too easily forget.
From workers in the electrical industry who presented a brief to the New Democratic Party labour committee only yesterday we hear of lay-offs in General Electric and Westing-house ranging from between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the work force. You cannot tell me that those working people accept a situation like that calmly and will act as if nothing has happened. Those laid off, those unemployed for many months, have little chance of finding another job if the jobs are not there to be found.
At present in this country we have about 40,000 job vacancies and one million people unemployed. No matter how much
(Mr. Dick.]
you try to shift workers around, no matter how much you try to move the unemployed to areas in which there are jobs, you will still face an immense shortfall in the number of jobs available. Surely the government and we, as parliamentarians, should be concerned about the cost of unemployment in human terms, the erosion of self-dignity and the work ethic.
This government is not proposing massive solutions for curing unemployment-unemployment which is exacting a great toll from Canadian workers in human terms. Nor does the government really know what high unemployment year after year costs our economy. It seems to me that most Canadians do not realize that unemployment costs our economy billions of dollars worth of goods which are not produced. Unemployment costs the Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in extra taxes needed to supplement the unemployment insurance fund, the fund from which we pay benefits to hundreds of thousands of unemployed. When unemployment insurance benefits run out, the taxpayer is called on to pay for welfare in order to prevent the jobless from starving.
My party has calculated that last year unemployment cost each taxpayer an average of $264 extra. The calculation took into account revenue which would have been paid as income tax but was not-since the unemployed do not pay income tax-extra money paid into the unemployment insurance fund and the loss to the economy from lost production. In the face of this, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has the gall to stand in this House and say that we cannot afford to stimulate the economy, we cannot put Canadians back to work because that would create another inflationary cycle. So far as the Liberal government is concerned, inflation, not unemployment, is the number one problem. That is utter nonsense.
The Minister of Finance well knows that the Canadian economy is operating at only 85 per cent of capacity, that there is slack in the economy, and that if measures are taken to stimulate the economy, to stimulate consumer demand which will lead to increased employment for Canadians, the result will not be another round of inflation. At present we have a situation of massive unemployment which is being met, it seems to me, with massive indifference on the part of the government and to a large extent on the part of the Canadian population.
A thinking Canadian must ask himself, why has the government year after year tolerated such high unemployment? In a country as industrially advanced as Canada, possessing natural resources and abundant human resources in the form of talented working people, why should there be persistently high levels of unemployment? The answer in part to that question must lie within the capitalist system and how it operates. Our free enterprise or capitalist system has within it certain built-in biases which say that high unemployment is not only necessary but tolerable. I came across an article written by Professor Robert Lekachman of the Herbert Lehman College, City University, New York, which was published in this month's Harper's magazine. In it he wrestles with this very question; what, within our economic system, allows the existence year
February 25, 1977

after year of high unemployment? I will read part of his analysis. He said:
The brutal fact is that unemployment at "moderate" rates confers a good many benefits upon the prosperous and the truly affluent. If everyone could be employed, extraordinarily high wages would have to be paid to toilers in restaurant kitchens, laundries, filling stations, and other humble positions. Whenever decent jobs at living wages are plentiful, it is exceedingly difficult to coax young men and women into our volunteer army. Without a volunteer army, how can the children of the middle and upper classes be spared the rigours of the draft?
Unemployment calms the unions and moderates their wage demands. Business periodicals have been noting with unconcealed gratification that last year's contract settlements between major unions and large corporations were considerably less expensive for employers than those of 1975, even though union members were steadily losing ground to inflation. When people are scared about losing their jobs, they work harder and gripe less. In more dignified language, absenteeism declines and productivity ascends.
Better still, factory and office workers, alert to potential layoffs and plant shutdowns, are unlikely to nag unions and employers to make work more interesting, and less menacing to health and personal safety. It cannot be mere coincidence that in Sweden, where job enrichment and plant democracy have had their greatest success, unemployment is practically zero and astute management of their economy protected Swedes even from the world-wide economic crisis of 1973-75. The new government, elected on the fortuitous issue of nuclear safety, has promised to extend even further the social benefits for which Sweden has become celebrated. American employers preserve themselves from Swedish experiments in good part by keeping the industrial reserve army plentifully manned.
Nor is this quite the end of the tale. The hunger of communities and regions for jobs and tax revenues has allowed large corporations to extort an endless assortment of valuable concessions from local and state governments, either as blackmail to keep existing installations or bribes to lure new ones. Few major corporations pay their fair share of property taxes. Propaganda by oil, steel, chemical, and paper industries has noticeably slowed the pace of regulation to protect the environment.
I commend the reading of the article to all members of the House. The professor pointed out that in the capitalist system unemployment is a benefit. As long as there is massive unemployment, the demands of workers who, after all, produce the goods and make the profits for the company, will be moderate. They will keep down their demands for wages and good working conditions. Of course, corporations can pretty well state the conditions on which they will enter into an industry. The only way of narrowing the gap between rich and poor is for a full employment program. That, of course, is a threat to the status quo of those who have a privileged economic position in our society.
[DOT] (M50)
In a sense, this analysis of the contradictions in the capitalist system and why unemployment is at high levels explains why this Liberal government or any future Conservative government are limited in what they can do in coming to grips with the problem of unemployment. They will never restructure the capitalist system and the way it operates. That, of course, would challenge the status quo, the very powerful business elite in our country. The options open to them are reduced to tinkering with the system. We have ample evidence of that kind of tinkering.
The temporary job programs such as the Local Initiatives Program, Opportunities for Youth, and the new fancy ones,
Employment and Immigration
Canada Works and Young Canada Works, and the hand-outs of millions of dollars through the departments of Regional Economic Expansion, and Industry, Trade and Commerce to induce business to locate in an area or expand really never comes to grips with the fundamental contradiction in our present economic system, namely, that if you have full employment, you begin to threaten the status quo, those who have wealth and power. Until we have the option of a party such as the New Democratic Party, which is willing to challenge the powerful corporate elite in our economic system, we will never have more than temporary tinkering measures with regard to job-creation from either the Liberals or the Conservatives.
The second reason we have had perpetually high unemployment surely lies with the degree of foreign ownership in this country. For example, over 90 per cent of our oil industry and over 60 per cent of our manufacturing industry is foreign-owned. Therefore, decisions as to expansion of branch plants or location of subsidiaries lies beyond the control of the Canadian economy. It rests with the decision-makers of the parent company outside Canada. If there is a slowdown in the economy of the United States, obviously it is to the advantage of the parent company to lay off workers in Canadian branch plants before workers in the parent company in the United States. Unless we come to grips with what foreign ownership is doing to our economy in terms of downplaying the creation of the manufacturing industry, which of course is job-intensive, and enhance resource exploitation, we will continue to have high unemployment.
There are always more jobs created in processing raw materials than in taking the raw materials out of the ground, yet our economy has been locked into a continental structure whereby Canadians are still the hewers of wood and drawers of water. We are still the ones who take the minerals, oil and natural gas out of the ground and export them to the United States and elsewhere. In return, we import manufactured goods. We import more than 70 per cent of our manufactured goods from the United States, paying for them with Canadian dollars. The only way we can get back Canadian dollars to help solve our balance of payments problem is to export more and more raw material such as oil and natural gas to the United States. That, of course, is one of the reasons for the great pressure to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. If we want to create jobs, we have to regain control of the Canadian economy so that it will be receptive to direction from the Canadian government in terms of creating a national job-creation plan. Neither the Liberal party nor the Conservative party is in any way serious about regaining control of our economy for that purpose.
We will continue to have unemployment as long as we have Liberals and Conservatives managing, because of the existence of the capitalist system. They cannot challenge it or restructure it. Therefore, they are limited to job-tinkering programs and doing what we see before us today in Bill C-27. As the number of unemployed increases, because of the contradictions I have outlined the cost of paying unemployment insurance premiums increases. It has come to the point where it is so
80010-121/2

February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
embarrassing in terms of the billions of dollars being paid out in unemployment insurance funds that, quite naturally, this government takes up the only other option open to it. Rather than create jobs, they begin to tighten up on those who are receiving benefits from the unemployment insurance scheme. Therefore, we see in Bill C-27 a list of provisions designed to cut people off the unemployment insurance roll in order to reduce the cost of that program and be able to say to the Canadian taxpayer "what good boys are we."
Let us look at some of the implications of the legislation before us. This legislation flies in the face of the whole reason for an unemployment insurance program in the first place. The basic reason is to ensure workers against the day when they become unemployed. If a fundamental precept of the program is that a worker has the right to be insured against the calamity of unemployment, how does this government justify taking that right away from workers? We often hear people complain about the unemployment insurance scheme. However, they forget that putting money in the hands of the unemployed helps keep the economy going. These people have to buy food for their families from the corner grocery, the farmer and all down the line. It keeps other Canadians employed.
What are the arguments this government puts forward to say that we can afford to throw people off the unemployment insurance rolls? The evidence soon becomes apparent when we look at the clause of the bill which provides that they will have to redefine the entrance requirement or qualification period in order to become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Until now, if a worker works eight weeks within a 52-week period and becomes unemployed, he is eligible to receive benefits. This government, despite the record unemployment we have today, wants to raise the qualification period from eight to 12 weeks. This will remove some 330,000 people a year from the unemployment insurance rolls. It is really the old principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul. If people are taken off the unemployment insurance rolls and they cannot find work, they have to go on city on provincial welfare, and the taxpayers end up paying anyway. But this government does not look at the consequences; it is trying to protect its own political hide by this change in the qualifying period.
What is this going to mean to certain regions of the country? It seems to me that the requirement of 12 weeks employment instead of eight weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance is going to discriminate against people in poorer areas of the country which have been suffering severe economic hardship and high unemployment for years. I think particularly of Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and some northern regions, especially my own area of northern Ontario.
When we realize that in the province of Newfoundland, for example, 48 per cent of those who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits had less than 20 weeks' work, the implications of this change to the Unemployment Insurance Act have got to be severe. My leader and I, and a few others of our

caucus, recently travelled to Atlantic Canada to witness firsthand the problems of the unemployed. We heard stories about how it was impossible for them to get work in a fish factory for 12 weeks or more; often all they could get was temporary work. Yet the government ignores this kind of economic reality and proposes to increase the qualifying period for unemployment insurance. The jobs are just not there on a long term basis, and until they are it seems to me that this kind of amendment does not make sense.
The Minister of Manpower likes to say, "Well, we are not really after those who are serious about looking for employment; we are making this change to discourage young people, housewives and others, who are not really dependent upon the extra income to keep the family going but who just want to supplement the family income to raise their standard of living. Really women and young people do not count; we can afford to take them out of the unemployment insurance scheme."
Let us examine the actuality of the situation. Is it true that women and young people who fall into this category are from upper and middle class families and do not really need to work, and so we can afford to take them off the unemployment insurance rolls? Do they just want to work for eight weeks, quit, and then collect their benefits? Let us see what the situation is according to figures issued by the minister's own department and Statistics Canada. Here are some facts on the disentitlement of those who work from eight to 11 weeks. What kind of people are they who are now going to be cut off? We find that in the first five months of 1976 those who worked from eight to 11 weeks, the eight to 11 weekers, made up only 15 per cent of all those in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. The way the government talks, great numbers are abusing the system, but the government's own statistics reveal that only 15 per cent of the recipients are in this category.
In the first five months of 1976, 63.8 per cent of all eight to 11 weekers were in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, areas which just do not have long-term work available. The minister keeps telling us, and the media have swallowed the bait, that by eliminating the eight weekers it will be mostly women who will be removed from the unemployment insurance rolls. What are the facts? The facts are that more men, some 214,000, compared with 115,000 women, will be affected by this change. The hardest hit sector will be construction, which is virtually a male preserve.
Those who work for only eight weeks basically come from very low income families that desperately need this extra income from part-time jobs, or more hopefully long-term jobs. When they are laid off and become unemployed, their unemployment insurance benefit is crucial to keeping the family above water in terms of paying bills and feeding themselves.
Again to disprove the suggestion that the great proportion of eight weekers are women who really do not need extra income,
1 would point out that in August StatsCan published a study of unemployment in the years 1973 and 1971, and it was discovered that in both those years unemployed wives tended to come from families of low income. For example, in 1973 the unemployment rate for all wives was 13.5 per cent. Of that
February 25, 1977

figure, 21.4 per cent came from families with incomes between $4,000 and $7,000, whereas only 8.6 per cent came from families with incomes over $15,000. The evidence is clear that unemployment among low income families and particularly among low income working women, was the real problem. The wage of these women in the low income groups was crucial to the family budget. A survey of women in the $4,000 to $7,000 group revealed that they contributed 22 per cent of the family income, whereas women in the $15,000 category contributed only about 17 per cent.
This legislation to change the qualifying period does not make sense. It will continue to discriminate against the poorer regions of the country and poorer families. I think it is disgraceful, in light of the economic calamity that is facing us, for the government to introduce legislation of this kind. There are other examples in the bill of qualifying periods being reduced and of attempts to use some of the unemploymSnt insurance money saved for temporary job training programs, and so on. Some of my hon. friends have gone into this and criticized it. I do not want to do it at this time because my time is running out. I should like in the few minutes remaining to me to put forward some alternative suggestions.
Rather than go after the unemployed and punish them as we are doing under this legislation, why cannot the government prepare and bring forward job-creating programs to get the unemployment rate down to manageable levels? I know it will not come forward with serious programs to challenge and restructure the existing system, but within the framework of the present economic system it could bring forward short-term policies which would help to bring down at least by several hundred thousand this tremendous rate of unemployment.
We in the New Democratic Party have been calling upon the government to bring in personal income tax cuts immediately for low and middle income families to stimulate purchasing power, increase production, and get people back to work. As we have explained, such a move would not create another round of inflation. We have called on the government to reactivate all federal works projects and to encourage the provinces and municipalities to follow suit, at the same time lifting restraints on the shared funding of such projects. This positive approach would get people back to work. Why does the government not take it?
We could have a program, in consultation with the provinces, to expand capital budgets for low income and co-operative housing and land assembly. Today there is a housing crisis. People cannot afford houses. People need houses. The housing industry is one of the most job productive. If we had a massive program to create and build homes we would fulfil an important social need and get Canadians back to work at the same time. We could have a program to upgrade insulation in public buildings and private homes, which would not only conform with the government's stated purpose of conserving energy but also provide employment.
Employment and Immigration
Most important of all, we have to come to grips with the long-term problem of unemployment, and that is the fact that private enterprise has failed to create the jobs needed to keep Canadians employed. It is time the government recognized its democratic responsibility to the electorate. Where private enterprise has failed it has the responsibility to decide, through use of a public investment fund, where private enterprise should expand and locate to get Canadians back to work. We can no longer leave this decision-making process in the hands of private industry most of which is controlled from outside the country.
Sweden has demonstrated most successfully a co-operative program between government and private industry through an investment fund which requires industry to allocate a certain percentage of profits in a central investment fund in return for certain tax advantages. Under such a scheme the investment could only be carried out when and where the government approved in order that we could really stimulate regional economic development, and when the economy went into a decline we would have investment funds to provide the necessary new capital to get Canadians back to work. However, as I said, I do not see the Liberals or the Conservatives tackling the long-range weaknesses of our economy.
I hope that the government at least will have the good sense to listen to some of the proposals I have put forward for the short-term, proposals it can live with and which will at the same time create jobs. Amending the Unemployment Insurance Act hits the unemployed but does nothing to create jobs.


Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill C-27 in the House and the debate on second reading prompt me to make to the minister and the government some comments which are often drawn to my attention by my constituents.
Before doing so, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) that I am satisfied with the federal decision which is consistent with the wishes of members as well as their constituents and also adjusted to the speedy development in the employment field, to make, through that bill, some important amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am especially pleased with that progressive and realistic step taken to amalgamate the Manpower Centre with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Indeed we hope that such an amalgamation will remove any inconvenience for the workers who had to fall from Scylla into Charybdis as they had to seek a job and at the same time apply for unemployment insurance when temporarily out of work.
Hopefully, from now on the unemployed will at least find everything from the same person if not under the same roof. This is truly a realistic and consistent policy. My remarks will bear mostly on the following approaches to Bill C-27 and on the Unemployment Insurance Act in general, on the increased number of working weeks before seeking unemployment insurance benefits, on the eligibility for certain jobs, on the delay of the process taking place between application for and receipt of

February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
benefits and, finally, on the abolition of discrimination against the handicapped.
Hon. members will recall that in 1971, after many months of cogitation, continuing the social policy innovated in Canada by the party now in power, the Liberal party-coming to grips with new social requirements and, one must add, inspired by an unfaltering minister-improved the condition of thousands of Canadians who were unemployed because of various factors over which they had no control and, in many instances, who were deprived of unemployment insurance benefits.
The Liberal government of the time decided it was high time to amend the Unemployed Insurance Act. The considerable difference between wages and benefits which existed at that time and which had not changed with the gradual increase in wages, was enough to justify the 1971 revision, aimed at creating a more realistic and fair balance. But the act went further.
In order to guarantee an income to those workers who could count on employment for only a part of the year, and several members have stressed this before me, as was and is still the case in Canada and particularly in my region where the fishery, forest and other industries like tourism are seasonal activities, it was imperative to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. Unfortunately, as almost always happens, experience has shown us, since the enforcement of the act in 1971, that some intolerable abuses have taken place, which the present legislation seeks to correct. The good will have to pay once more for the improper conduct of those of their fellow citizens who, it is sad to say, would rather draw unemployment insurance than work.
On this subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to point out to the minister and other members that available jobs do not have the same diversity and the same permanent aspect in every regions of this country. In the Magdalen Islands, for example, where fishery is the main industry, the islanders are inevitably fishermen or work somehow within this industry. Directly or not, people in the islands live of fishery. When the season is closed, the fishermen or fish processing plant workers cannot be all absorbed by the other sectors of the economy on the islands. What can they do then? Where will those people go to earn a living during the five, six or seven months before the next fishing season?
Those people are not exactly unskilled. Most of them if not nearly all of them can work at other things. Several of them, the luckier, accept to exile themselves and go to work elsewhere when they manage to find a job, but what about the others? They are left with only the unemployment insurance benefits, when they have been able through fishing to accumulate the required number of weeks, or with social welfare allowances. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the manpower centers scattered thoughout our regions should demonstrate a little more initiative and imagination, and use employment pools other than the sole employment service for available or unemployed labour.

It remains-I am willing to admit this-that even with the best scheme, a number of unemployed could not find a job. In cases such as those which are found in the Magdalen Islands and elsewhere in my constituency, as well as in the Gaspe peninsula generally, including the Gaspe and Matane constituencies, and some neighbouring areas, the whole Restigouche area, the Gloucester area and New Brunswick as a whole, it should be possible, wherever the industrial base is very limited, to adopt special measures, as mentioned by previous speakers, until such a time at least when the government decides to organize the economy in a way which would guarantee a more permanent employment of our active population. Just as the duration of benefits varies and the number of weeks increases depending on the difference between the local or regional rate of unemployment and the national average, so, in my humble opinion, should the number of working weeks before obtaining benefits vary in the case of the Magdalen Islands and the Gaspe peninsula in general, as well as the New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces ridings. Let us put an end to the ridiculous practice whereby an applicant must file evidence that he is looking for a job in a region such as ours where there are few openings, if any. Instead we should require all employers to report job openings to Canada manpower offices, including those they fill themselves without going through the manpower centres. This way manpower officials will always know what jobs are available.
Another serious problem, Mr. Speaker, particularly in our rural regions, is the plight of workers who earn their living by doing little jobs here and there for their neighbour which is not a contractor. For example, let us imagine a good citizen of the Bonaventure riding called Arthur who is a carpenter. His neighbour Alphonse asks for his help to build his house; he cannot afford to complete it all at once so he is building in stages. Alphonse or Gaston keeps Arthur busy for one month with this job. As required by the law, the employer, Alphonse, has deducted from Arthur's wages the federal and provincial income tax, the unemployment insurance and pension plan contributions. Two days after Arthur has finished working for Alphonse, Gaston asks him to work for him. Arthur is a good carpenter and Gaston has decided to have his basement finished. So Arthur works for Gaston one month and a half, until the month of December.
Both employers have deducted all the marginal benefits. But at the end of December, Arthur is unemployed. When you have no job, you are supposed to be unemployed. So Arthur applies for unemployment insurance at the nearest UIC office. His employer gave him the forms relating to the employment termination. And what is the result of his application? Well, the UIC refuses to pay the benefits. For what reason? It is most unfortunate, but the period during which Arthur worked for his neighbours Gaston, Alphonse or Romeo does not count for unemployment insurance purposes as far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned.
I now have to deal with a case the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) is looking into; I hope it will not take her too long to solve it-although it has already dragged on
February 25, 1977

quite some time-and solve it in favour of the party concerned, before he dies. The employer, in this case, as required by law in the province of Quebec, did obtain his contractor's permit, if you please, but did not get an unemployment insurance number allowing him to give stamps to his employee. He did, however, take the precaution of getting a contractor's permit from the provincial government before starting to build his house, because that is what he was building. And so, as provided by law, this employer, this individual, on the strength of a contractor's permit, deducted all the marginal benefits: unemployment insurance, taxes, etc, and they are many! Despite that, his employee has been refused unemployment benefits since December. I find that totally unfair and intolerable. In addition, what about the people who happen to be relatives of an employer? I confess that in this case there can be abuse, but it does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that today accounting procedures are easy enough to check without having to go through all kinds of investigations and ridiculous annoyances.
That reminds me also, Mr. Speaker-and I do not know whether or not you have lived with that kind of situation in Ontario but we did and we are still living with it in Quebec- how ridiculous are those who insisted and still insist that persons seeking social assistance get rid of their cows or their garden before becoming entitled to social welfare, or those intelligent social workers who suggest that couples separate to get more financial help.
I say that such middle-ages machiavelism and tortures must come to an end. Such practices are immoral and unworthy of a civilized society like ours. I urge the minister, the cabinet and the government to take at once the necessary corrective measures. I do not want to generalize when I mention the unbending and distorted feelings which inspire certain officials either in Quebec, in the federal government or at all government levels, but some of them would feel more at home with Idi Amin Dada's cohorts.
I would also like to point out how long it takes, in some cases, to settle benefit claims. I admit that to err is human and that, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau said, "as long as they are human beings, there is human failure", but I refuse to think that everyone is dishonest and lazy. Yet, it is a computer which carries out most of these operations during this process. Is the electronic brain to be blamed? If I take as a basis the argument so often used to answer our recriminations and our unremitting demands, it is this computer which is responsible for most of these delays. Should we come back to manual processing? As strange as it may appear, there were fewer mistakes and less delay when the UIC did not use the computer. You would not have me believe, for example, that, concerning the general construction strike last summer in the province of Quebec, it was not possible to come to a decision before December.
I should say to conclude how pleased I am-not on these matters-but to see that the department is finally admitting that there is discrimination on the ground of physical hand-
Employment and Immigration
icap. Nothing is more stupefying than to see the contempt some employers show for people less endowed by nature or who have been incapacitated by illness or accident which, without preventing them from working, reduced their abilities and is considered as a handicap by these employers, when they come to ask for a job.
I have in mind an outrageous case in the riding of Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, the one of a man built like an athlete, a very hard worker able to squash the army of whipper-snappers who reject him with the back of the hand because he is a diabetic. This man is Mr. William Sawyer from New Carlisle. The Canadian National Railways deny him a job because of his diabetes. This man, who always was a construction worker, or something hard like that, wanted more security so he applied to the Canadian National Railways. Of course these days one might wonder just how much security there is working for the CNR. But in any event, he was required by the company doctor to pass the usual examinations, including the check-up. He was hired and went to work, doing his job without any trouble for about two weeks. His was operating a drilling machine. Without further ado coming back from work after 15 days he was dismissed because of his illness. Another doctor of the Canadian National Railways had considered him unfit for that work, unlike the first doctor, and on the report of the first doctor who had sent him to work.
That, Mr. Speaker, is revolting when the Canadian Diabetes Association has proven that a person suffering from that disease who follows his doctor's instructions on his particular case can normally go about his business without danger. Above all, let the CN not use passenger safety as the pretense for dismissing Mr. Sawyer. So I say bravo to the minister for taking that discrimination out of the legislation, and I hope that the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the government will do their duty and bring that Crown corporation to reason, and that it will correct that injustice against a Canadian by rehiring him immediately.
Mr. Speaker, those are the reflections I felt I had to make on this bill, as well as the Unemployment Insurance Act, and certain anomalies in its application, and particularly on many injustices and worries resulting therefrom. Let us give our future Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission offices the necessary staff and tools to function not like a body without soul working in the cold regions of pure civil service but with a soul filled with the desire to fulfill a humanitarian task, a soul and a heart vibrating in harmony with those of their fellow citizens in whose employ their work and the government have placed them.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, so that we might be reminded of the scope of the measure we are currently debating, I would like to read once again its description. It is, and I quote:
... to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof.

February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
I realize that the unemployment insurance aspect of this bill is one of the most important aspects contained in it. I believe that underlines once again one of the most persistent and, at this point in time, one of the most urgent problems confronting the nation, and that is, of course, the problem of unemployment.
Since returning to this House in 1972 after a period of rest and recuperation, I have noted that each budget address has included in its state of the nation resume a statement to the effect that unemployment is one of the most pressing problems, that the government is dedicating its energies to its solution, and that it is going to take remedial action to overcome it.
However, I suggest that through the failure of the government to take effective action, principally because it is unable to understand the problem-let alone take remedial action- the prospects for the coming months are rather bleak indeed. Once again we are faced with a series of patchwork programs which, unless they break out of the circle of failures which befell their predecessors, will do little to inspire confidence or hope for the future of Canada.
When the government recessed parliament for Christmas on December 21, 1976, no doubt it hoped that the intervening 32 days would bring some improvement to the economic situation facing Canada. Throughout the fall session the government consistently evaded opposition questions about the economy. It stalled on taking any effective action to remedy the sickness which was afflicting our nation during that period, and which continues to afflict it today. Then in a hastily put-together package the government announced make-work programs such as Canada Works, which really seemed-and I think this is proving to be the case-to spend money, while giving only the appearance of remedial action as far as unemployment is concerned.
I would like to make it quite clear today that I am taking part in the Canada Works program by nominating persons to the minister for appointment to the ministerial advisory board. I do not, however, have very much confidence that the minister really knows what he is doing, other than spending a great amount of taxpayers' money. I hope I am wrong, but the program was thrown together too quickly, the deadline for applications came too quickly, and as my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), pointed out when speaking in this debate, some parts of the nation had the application forms while other parts did not.
It seems to me that this is very haphazard way of trying to implement a program which was designed specifically to meet the problem of chronic unemployment we are facing at the present time. When this matter was brought to the attention of the minister and it was suggested that the deadline be extended, he decline to extend it until after the expiry date, and then he pointed out that the government had agreed to let it go for another week. Of course this was completely useless because those who were not able to file by the deadline took it for granted that that was the end of the matter and they did not have time to process applications to meet the new deadline
that had been established. It seems to me there must be some more consistent and deliberate attention given to programs if they are to serve their purposes to the ultimate degree.
Now we are faced with the very serious problem of unemployment in Canada. After the Christmas recess we expected the government to be ready to move ahead with a program of business. The first item on the government's list of priorities, however, was a resolution dealing with televising the proceedings of this House. Mr. Speaker, I do not think any substantial percentage of the people of this country worry whether the proceedings of this House are televised or not. Personally, and I know others have attested to the same thing, I believe there is absolutely no indication that the people are interested in it. But when we had a national unemployment rate approaching 8 per cent-or 12 per cent- the government wanted to debate televising the proceedings of this House.
The next resolution to come before us concerned metric conversion, something of minor importance in comparison to the other problems facing Canada. How the government can establish such a set of priorities and expect to maintain credibility with the people of Canada is beyond my comprehension.
To top it all, when my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, led off the questioning on the first day back by asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he would make a state of the nation type of address outlining the problems facing the country in the areas of unemployment and inflation, and announce the government's initiatives to improve the situation, he was met with what can only be termed a total abdication of leadership. The question was turned over to a parliamentary secretary for reply.
Later in that same question period the Prime Minister condescended to answer a supplementary question and stated that when and if such an announcement were made it would be in a budget speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). While this country was facing the three most serious problems any country could face, the government was playing games and not facing up to the problems which required its leadership and direction.
It would have been reasonable to expect that during the Christmas recess of 32 days the government would have met with its economic advisers to formulate a plan to pull the country out of the recessionary trend with which we were faced. Instead, the government took the time of the House to debate issues of relatively minor importance.
One of the most reliable economic forecasting agencies, the Conference Board in Canada, predicted during the middle of January that economic growth in Canada's two most populous and heavily industrialized provinces, Ontario and Quebec, will slacken this year to "drag national production downward and significantly raise unemployment". The board went on to say that the nation's economic situation was considerably less optimistic looking than it had appeared in the fall, and predicted real growth in Canadian output would decline to 3 per cent

February 25, 1977

from last year's 5 per cent "unless the government took action to stimulate the economy".
The board went on to say:
The outlooks for spending on capital goods, consumer goods and housing have all been revised downward since the fall and this is reflected in the projections of total output in manufacturing and construction industries in the year 1977.
Since these industries play a relatively greater role in the economies of Ontario and Quebec, one can readily see the outlook for growth in these provinces is considerably less favourable than it was in the fall.
As we think of the situation across the country, the growth rate in Saskatchewan is expected to be the nation's worst with a predicted production decline of 0.8 per cent. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland-and this has been vividly brought to our attention by my colleagues in this debate-is anything but bright; in fact it is catastrophic.
At the same time as the Conference Board in Canada was making its economic predictions, analysts reported to the Toronto Dominion Bank that "only additional stimulus will improve Canada's economic performance in 1977 but the trends are not good". In its winter issue of "Canada's Business Climate", the bank's economists suggest:
Real growth in the economy will remain weak, advancing only 4 per cent. Prices should moderate slightly but unemployment will average l/i per cent.
From every angle then, we can see that the nation is facing declining production and increasing unemployment. In fact among Canada's foremost economic forecasting organizations only one has predicted an economic improvement in the months ahead, and that is the Economic Council of Canada- an offspring of the federal government. All the rest, including the Conference Board in Canada, the chartered banks and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, have warned of deteriorating conditions.
There is a desperate need in the country for some economic leadership. The government has passed the buck, has blamed everyone but itself for the situation that has evolved. We have stated many times in the past and we reiterate that the government's own spending habits have contributed more to the inflationary spiral than any other single factor. Its mismanagement in other economic areas has been documented and stated clearly in this House on many occasions. It is little wonder that, as far as the popularity of the government is concerned, it is at a very low level right across the nation.
For several months now the leader of my party has been advocating some of the measures he believed in and was advancing in order to meet the challenge of these days in which we live. He advocated an immediate tax cut in personal income tax as a stimulus to the economy. The government has consistently refused to agree that this measure would be desirable and effective. In the meantime investment capital is continuing to flow out of Canada because of social and political uncertainty, but most of all because of economic uncertainty created by the government. Economic experts claim that this uncertain climate for business means that Canadian money as well will continue to flow out of the country. This Canadian money should remain here and be available for
Employment and Immigration
Canadian entrepreneurial activity. We have a situation where Canadian money is being invested outside Canada while foreign investors are reducing or curtailing their direct investment here.
The Minister of Finance addressed the Canadian Club of Toronto some weeks ago. He said:
There is no question that we need a progressive recovery in private investment if we are going to be able to provide adequately for job creation and rising productivity . .. The control of profit margins has been no tonic for investment ... We recognize that fact.
I must say that the minister does not seem to believe what he was saying, nor do I believe that the government is really interested in fostering a positive climate for business.
I listened with a great deal of interest to our friend from the New Democratic Party extolling the philosophy that his party espouses. He talked about the failure of private enterprise to meet the challenge of these days. I should like to remind him that I live in the province of British Columbia, and when the New Democratic Party formed the government there they certainly did not introduce any Utopia. We would not look forward to a return of that government, although there is no possibility of it.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Nonsense.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It seems to me that the hon. member's party has a tenuous hold on power in those other provinces presently governed by an NDP government, but after the next provincial elections they will be in the backwoods.


An hon. Member:: In Manitoba, too.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes, in Manitoba and in the other provinces where the hon. member's party forms a government. The hon. member need not think he is putting anything over; he is not fooling us. We are not naive enough to accept his kind of argument. We know what the NDP's philosophy is, and what happens when it is applied.
I alluded to the Canada Works program earlier. I think these make-work programs serve as a good illustration for what I was saying about the government's real attitude about private enterprise. The need for make-work programs is based on government policies that have failed to create the economic climate in which private enterprise could flourish, produce goods, and provide services, thereby providing the job opportunities required for our work force. Make-work programs like Canada Works or Young Canada Works become necessary when the government, rather than encouraging and assisting personal initiative and enterprise, strangles private enterprise and makes it incapable of fulfilling its economic and social role in society.
The throne speech which opened this second session of the Thirtieth Parliament made mention of "improving the efficiency of the labour market and actively hastening the return of unemployed workers to productive effort." That sounds great. It has a nice ring to it, just like "the just society" or "the land

February 25, 1977
Employment and Immigration
is strong." This government has a way of coining beautiful phrases; unfortunately they are not reflected in any of the programs or policies the government brings forward.
The government, while talking about returning unemployed workers to productive effort, is led by a man who just a few short years ago told the people of Canada that his concept of the work ethic was that if anyone did not want to work, he should not have to work; the inference to be drawn was that it was the responsibility of society to make certain that those who do not want to work have sufficient cash on which to live, without making any constructive contribution to society.
When we compare the Prime Minister's attitude with that demonstrated by the Minister of Finance when the latter talked to the Canadian Club in Toronto, we find that there is a large credibility gap. The minister claimed in that speech that he knows the problem. What solutions did he propose? He failed to propose remedies. All he gave us was simply more government rhetoric. That was as far as he went. The theory of the government appears to be that if you talk enough about a problem, surround the discussion with enough statistics and wait long enough, the problem will go away. This bill deals with one of the problems created by unemployment. If we are to meet the problem envisaged in the bill and resolve it, the government will need to be more constructive and take greater initiatives.
A recent report of the Economic Council of Canada entitled "Jobs and People" found that the Prime Minister's attitude is reflected in the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The report documents that "the structure of the unemployment insurance benefits, coupled with the ease of entry into the program"-as a result of the government's lax attitude, I might add-"have combined to undermine the work ethic." As well, recipients are remaining on UIC rolls for increasingly longer periods of time. While the average coverage lasts approximately 15 weeks, the report reveals that 75 per cent of females, and over 65 per cent of males, remain on UIC benefits for over 20 weeks, that is, into the extended benefit period. That is an indictment of the operation of the unemployment insurance program.
According to the report, the disincentive factor built into the operation now accounts for approximately 10 per cent of additional unemployment. Some say that is not much, that we should not complain bitterly about a relatively small figure. But in real terms it means that the 1971 revisions have induced between 60,000 and 70,000 additional Canadians to become unemployed. They are Canadians who otherwise would have been contributing to this nation's productivity. If the government is really serious about improving the efficiency of the labour market and actively hastening the return of unemployed workers to productive effort, as the throne speech states, then this is one area in which it can start acting. As my colleague from Hamilton West said, unemployment insurance should be just that, insurance. It should not be operated as a welfare program.
Our party is committed to a policy of support for small and medium-sized businesses. I have said on other occasions in the

House, and 1 repeat it, that small business in Canada guarantees more employment, more real growth, more tax revenue, and bears more of the cost burden of government than does so-called big business. Small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian business community. They create over 50 per cent of the taxes collected by the government, and employ close to 60 per cent of the people working in Canada.
In the last budget the government expanded its definition of small business by offering more tax reductions. This will help somewhat and we support even this small step because we believe that anything done to encourage the small business sector of the economy will have a positive effect on the employment situation.
I should like to mention a number of proposals which have been emphasized, indeed brought forward on a number of occasions, by members of my party. Our attitude to this serious matter now before the House is not destructive. The issue is too important to warrant the presentation of its darker or bleaker side only. Perhaps on another occasion I shall be given the opportunity to present some of our constructive proposals, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Four o'clock.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the House give unanimous consent that all orders preceding order No. 26 stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BANK ACT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: that Bill C-226, to amend the Bank Act (qualification of directors), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House is not inhibited by the black dispatch box before me. It is rather like the British system-a convenient place in which to keep one's notes.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Is it Pandora's box?
February 25, 1977


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No, it is not Pandora's box. It belongs to the House leader of the official opposition. I got hold of it and brought it here.
It occurred to me that the House might like to think for a little while about the somewhat restrictive provision now contained in the Bank Act with regard to directors. This matter came to my attention because of the extraordinarily insensitive statement, I think, made by the head of the Royal Bank of Canada, who said that during the last few months he had unsuccessfully scoured the country for an eligible woman to serve on the board of directors of that bank. Some people, when they come across inherently silly statements of that kind, write letters to the editor. However, members of parliament are given the privilege of suggesting to their colleagues a possible amendment to the Bank Act. I did not write to an editor, but I did decide to put forward a private member's public bill in order to get the whole matter of qualifications of directors discussed in this forum by my colleagues in all parties.
My first thought was to deal with the Bank Act by merely adding a section to try to deal with the matter of women as directors. Then I thought why should boards of directors of banks be so restrictive anyway? In other words, the matter of the status of women has advanced so far in our country that we really should not be in the quota game. We should not be in any game which involves a substantial stake in a bank in order to give the bank good advice. It occurred to me the simplest thing to do would be to repeal that part of the Bank Act which had a monetary directorial qualification. As a result directors would be drawn from the whole mass of the citizenship in this country.
I must give the head of the Royal Bank credit. I am sure that the stupidity of his statement so aroused the public of Canada that he retracted, searched again and, from information I have, was able to find from among the 11,500,000 women in this country one or two, in his opinion, who are eligible to give the bank wise advice on directing its affairs.
If hon. members do not mind, I would like to read into the record the explanatory note of this simple bill. All the bill does is repeal a subsection of the Bank Act. I would like the explanation to be on the record, particularly when the major revision of the Bank Act comes forward in the next few months. The explanatory note reads as follows:
The section as it stands is discriminatory to all but a few who can meet the financial requirements and therefore restricts directorships to a small and unrepresentative segment of the population.
Subsection 18(2) of the Bank Act at present reads as follows:
"(2) A person is not eligible to be a director unless he holds stock of the
bank as the absolute and sole owner thereof in his individual right and not as a
trustee or in the right of another, on which not less than
(a)	three thousand dollars, or such greater amount as the by-laws require, have been paid up, when the paid-up capital stock of the bank is one million dollars or less;
Bank Act
(b)	four thousand dollars, or such greater amounts as the by-laws require, have been paid up, when the paid-up capital stock of the bank exceeds one million dollars and does not exceed three million dollars; or
(c)	five thousand dollars, or such greater amount as the by-laws require, have been paid up, when the paid-up capital stock of the bank exceeds three million dollars;
except that in the case of not more than one-quarter of the directors the minimum requirements with respect to holdings of stock in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall be reduced to fifteen hundred dollars, two thousand dollars and twenty-five hundred dollars, respectively."
In the particular case of the Royal Bank of Canada, it is my understanding from the publicity given at the time of the president's statement earlier this year that the qualification for becoming a director would be something in excess of $100,000 in stock in that bank. Other members will want to participate and will make their own comments about that qualification. I have not yet, since I have flown this kite in the way of an amendment to the Bank Act, seen any statement which appealed to me which could defend the reasonableness of anybody needing to have such a large amount of stock in a bank in order to be a director, hence the reason that I put forward this amendment.
The whole matter of representation of the general public on bank boards will, I am sure, be dealt with when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) brings forward a draft act, which is due in 1977. Why should there be a monetary qualification at all? The same bank that was so insensitive to the need for having the good advice and sensible opinions of a woman on its board has been very progressive in having banks established in poorer parts of our large urban centres. The Royal Bank of Canada is conducting a very successful experiment in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg. It has bank branches with different office hours. They make small loans, even in the amount of $20 I am told, so that people can avoid having to pay exorbitant interest rates. As a matter of fact I am told that half the business done by these experimental banks is with people who have never had any custom, if I can put it that way, with banks before the Royal Bank established this type of a branch. That progressive move should be welcomed.
I hope the banks can confront those people in society who make their business from loansharking. The way for what is now euphemistically called free enterprise or private enterprise-I prefer the mixed economy myself-to survive is for people to confront head on those factors in society that are going to destroy it. One thing which will surely destroy the mixed economy is exorbitant interest rates and an unsympathetic or unresponsive banking system.
I very much hope that some of the ideas that I have included in this short amendment to the Bank Act which, as I said earlier, had its origin in the failure of one Canadian bank to find anywhere in Canada a qualified woman to serve on its board, will commend themselves to the House.
I serve on a board-not of a bank because I have no way of qualifying in monetary terms-of a Canadian university. Of course there is no monetary qualification required. It is all the other way around. It is a matter of civic responsibility which I am very glad to undertake. That board, and other boards in

February 25, 1977
Bank Act
Canada, up until very recently found they were unable to have representation on them from students. It was thought to be pulling down the highest foundations if a student ever got to the stage where he or she could sit on such a board. Now, of course, universities have faced that issue, and I cannot imagine any university in this country without representation from the students, the faculty, and so forth, on its board of trustees. The universities have faced this issue without the whole democratic state crumbling into nothingness. If we can face it in universities, perhaps our formidable and efficient banking system can find it within its heart-perhaps that is not the right word; within its legal competence, to try a lawyer's term, might be better-to widen representation on the boards of directors of Canadian banks.
There are a couple of interesting books about what I might call the "closed shop" in our corporate system in Canada. Other hon. members would probably agree with me that one of the most important books ever written was John Porter's book "The Vertical Mosaic". Of not quite the same importance was Peter Newman's book "The Establishment". Both these books-one being an empirical study of our system; the other leaning toward more popular readership-showed there is a sort of network at work which finds within its system a way to exclude a good many people from participating in many of the senior directorate jobs in the banks and corporations of this country. I think this is to the detriment of these corporations. Basically speaking, corporate life would be much better served if boards were substantially broadened.
Parliament will have an opportunity to test this thesis of mine when the Bank Act comes up for revision later this year. Since parliament will be the leader in this field and will be telling the corporate world how we feel such boards should be constituted, I hope we will not be hesitant in substantially broadening the opportunity for a large segment of the Canadian population to serve on bank boards.
This is an hour that is given to private members and I could entertain the House with a polemic against the Canadian banking system, but I have no such polemic today. Personally,
I have been well served over the years by various Canadian banks which somehow have been able to support my overdrafts and loans. There will be other opportunities for polemics about banks. I happen to believe that the Canadian banking system, with some exceptions, one of which I have mentioned here, has basically served us well. As one coming from one of the poorer parts of Canada, I would feel more comfortable with a little more sensitivity to those regions that would flow from a more flexible lending system, but there will be other opportunities for me to discuss this aspect of our banking system.
What I seek to do through this amendment is not to tear down the altars of Canadian banks or enter the vaults, or to do anything more than give the banks an opportunity to see how well they could be served if that half of the population who are women had a chance to serve on their boards. If the banks could get used to that idea, perhaps they would like also to
[Mr. Fairwcathcr.)
give an opportunity to the 22 or 23 million Canadians who will never have an opportunity to serve because they could never meet the test. And the test now is a substantial financial stake in the banks. This is why I propose this private member's bill, and I look forward to hearing what other members have to say about this issue.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speaking on this particular bill, especially since I have very high regard for the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I know that in debate we are not supposed to say "me too!" along the way too often, but the fact of the matter is that I agree with many of the points he made.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That sounds good coming from you. Why don't you join us?


Gilbert Parent: I do not know if I have to join you because I agree with the hon. member. I could counter your proposal by saying perhaps you would like to join us, and of course you can do that virtually any time.
The hon. member referred to one book I am familiar with and said that there was a network of people who consistently make up directorships on many bank boards across Canada. I think he was being very kind. I do not know whether I am being as kind when I say that in one sense this breeds a kind of financial mafia which appears on many boards across the country.
The statement was made earlier that it was supposedly difficult to find a woman or women who were of sufficient calibre to sit on the boards of directors of banks. Having canvassed the possibility of having students sit on university boards, I wonder whether some consideration might be given by these boards to having people who represent workers serve on them. I know we are all workers, but I refer to unionized and non-unionized workers. Their input would be invaluable and they would have something to contribute. Perhaps here lies a great source not only of opinion but of knowledge as yet untapped.
This amendment will eliminate from the act any requirement on the part of directors to hold shares in a bank. This question some months ago received general attention, particularly in relation to the ability of women to meet the necessary requirements. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) asked the minister to tell the House whether he intended in this present session to introduce legislation to amend the Bank Act in order to facilitate the appointment of women as directors of our chartered banks, and in reply the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) had this to say, as reported at page 102 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, 1 have noted the statements of a number of senior bank executives in this regard. I am sure the hon. member was as delighted as I was at this morning's announcement that the Bank of Nova Scotia has now appointed a woman director.
He went on to say that legislation would be introduced to bring about greater participation in such directorships not only by women but by others in the community. Here again, I would ask how many educators are there on the boards of
February 25, 1977

banks? How many union workers and students serve? I wonder how many housewives would be asked for their opinion. Some people might think that high finance is way beyond them, but surely they are blessed with as much common sense as the members of the House of Commons and many directors of banks.
The matter under discussion is not as easily defined as the proposal would suggest. This has been recognized in a number of ways. The minister has received letters urging that the requirement be wiped out altogether. The hon. member used the term "reasonableness". Would it be reasonable to appoint people as directors of these banks when they did not hold shares in them? Perhaps when they do hold shares it is likely they would take a greater interest in the investments and financial arrangements for which they are responsible. I am not fully prepared to argue all the pros and cons at this time. I am simply pointing out that there are arguments on both sides and that there might be solutions to this problem other than the one proposed in the bill before us.
The matter was not totally ignored in the white paper on Canadian banking which was issued by the Minister of Finance on August 23, 1976. The bill to revise the Bank Act which the minister will be bringing before parliament will attempt to bring the Bank Act, in so far as is appropriate, in line with the Canada Business Corporations Act. The hon. member alluded to this, I believe, a few minutes ago. This undertaking has generally been welcomed. It is, however, a big task and one which is adding considerably to the length and complexity of the process of preparing the new legislation.
It is perhaps worth while in the context of this discussion to review what the Canada Business Corporations Act has to say on the subject. The key section reads as follows:
100 (1) The following persons are disqualified from being a director of a corporation:
(a)	anyone who is less than eighteen years of age;
(b)	anyone who is of unsound mind and has been so found by a court in
Canada or elsewhere;
(c)	a person who is not an individual; or
(d)	a person who has the status of bankrupt.
(2)	Unless the articles otherwise provide, a director of a corporation is not required to hold shares issued by the corporation.
(3)	A majority of the directors of a corporation must be resident Canadians.
The last paragraph is, to my mind, one of great importance. We do need Canadians on these boards so that decisions can be reached in the light of what is good for all Canadians. This, in itself, would be an important consideration.
Section 100 (2) is the key section for purposes of this debate. Under it, a director of a corporation is not required to hold shares unless the articles of that corporation otherwise provide.
An important royal commission has been meeting on questions related to corporate concentration. The Bryce Commission is expected to report shortly and may well have something to say on the subject of directors and requirements affecting
Bank Act
directors. It would be useful for the House to have the advantage of this report before considering this kind of legislation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it is sensible to try to deal with such important legislation as the Bank Act in a piecemeal fashion. It would seem unwise to amend the legislation at this time without being able to consider the whole range of proposals that will be brought forward by the minister.
The minister has already indicated his intention to bring a short bill before parliament which will extend the powers of the banks to do business for a further period of time after July 1, 1977, when under the existing legislation these powers expire. This will provide him with an opportunity to explain the state of preparation of the decennial revision legislation and when it might appear. When the decennial legislation is brought forward, the House will undoubtedly want to hold public hearings and this is an obvious time to explore in greater thoroughness a whole range of questions, including the one which is before us today. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, while I am sympathetic to the general objective of the proposal before us today, I would urge members to be patient until this matter can be discussed thoroughly in the context of the banking legislation which the Minister of Finance will be bringing before the House.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) on introducing this bill. I also wish to commend him for the excellent statement he made on it this afternoon.
When I saw that the hon. member was bringing in a bill to amend the Bank Act with respect to the qualifications of directors I took it for granted he was endeavouring to get at a restriction which denies women the right to be members of boards of directors of banks. Then I discovered, as he did, that there was no prohibition against women as such but that the limitations involved in the financial requirements did have that effect. I am delighted that he seized upon the notion that two things might be done at once, in other words, that we could change the Bank Act so that women would be the equal of men in qualifying as members of the boards of directors of banks, and also do away completely with the financial requirements.
I am interested to see that there appears to be general support for the idea, though it does become a little tiring to get the kind of support from the government side which says, "We like your idea, but be patient for a while; this could be carried out when the Bank Act comes up for review next year." Well, it could be next year, or ten years from now. As for the argument that we should not deal with the Bank Act piecemeal, it strikes me that this is such a simple measure and one so elementary in terms of justice that it would be a good idea to get it out of the way. We could deal with it right now by amending the Bank Act, making the present financial requirements unnecessary, and thus save the minister from having to deal with it later.

February 25, 1977
Bank Act
I am glad the last speaker indicated a desire to see the appointment to boards of directors of banks of persons other than those with financial interests. He seemed to put this proposition forward hesitantly, but at any rate he did put it forward.
The issue is simply this: do banks in this country exist for the purpose of making money? If so, you put millionaires on the board. Or do they exist for the purpose of serving the people of Canada? If that is the case, the boards of directors should be representative of the people. I support without hesitation the idea that workers, farmers, educators, students, housewives, and others who are representative of Canadians generally, should have a voice in the policy of our banks.
I suppose it is rather interesting, almost a coincidence, that the hon. member's bill about positions as bank directors is being discussed at the end of a day during which we have been discussing unemployment. I suppose the hon. member chose to have this bill debated today for that very reason. Here are jobs that could well be filled by some of the unemployed people about whom we have been concerned in our earlier debate on Bill C-27. All told, I think it is an excellent idea. I like the way the hon. member put it that we have made progress, and I hope this is true, with respect to women's rights. There are a number of instances in which we may still have to lay it down that positions are to be divided equally between men and women. Perhaps we will have to do it in this context. I hope the day will come when persons will be persons, but it is still true that women are so far behind in enjoying their rights in this country that we may have to do something pretty drastic about it.
I said the other day in another debate that there have been elected to the parliament of Canada in the last 110 years about 3,000 men. In that same period of time in 30 elections there have been elected only 28 women. Certainly since the early 1920's the status has been equal. It was true in the last election and it will be true in the next. Every woman in the country has an equal right to get here.


Simma Holt: Why do you not have any women in your party in the House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We did our best. As a matter of fact, I believe we ran more women than other parties did in the last election. The public has not got around to realizing their value fully. But we have had them, from Agnes MacPhail to Grace Maclnnis.
The point I am making is that until we reach the stage where there is equality, we may have to go in for a quota system. Perhaps this is not the place where it will be accepted, but certainly something should be done to ensure that there will be women on boards of directors of banks, and something also must be done to ensure that persons who represent the various strata of life in Canada are there. The hon. member's bill does that by removing the financial qualifications altogether.

Again I wish to express my disappointment at the suggestion that comes from across the way that this is a good bill, a good idea, but let us leave it for later. It would be far better if we said in the House that there is nothing wrong with the idea at all and it would be a good idea to make this change in the Bank Act even before the major changes come. Therefore I strongly support the bill now before us.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the wish of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), which has been expressed again by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will be realized today and that this question, which obviously merits support both on its substance as well as on its succinctness in terms of being a relatively minor change and a single change to the banking legislation of this country, will be carried today.
I think it is particularly important that we not forget the context in which this bill is put forward. Although we are facing legislation with regard to the general revision of the Bank Act, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has said there would be some changes in the qualifications of directors which would meet the matter raised in the House by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal as it affects women, the fact is that there is no likelihood that this revision will take place this year.
My understanding of the situation is that what we are likely to face in terms of general banking legislation this year is a one line bill which will merely extend the operation of the existing Bank Act. Therefore, if this House does not deal with this matter today, then the inequity which the bill is designed to attack is likely to carry on for a long time, and I do not think there is any member of the House who would want to see that happen. For those reasons I hope the House will approve the bill today.
Aside from that fact, I think there are many good ideas which come forward in private members' hour, a lot of sound ideas advanced by private members which are doomed to go to the foot of the list, and be brought back again and again. Sometimes persistence pays off and patience wears thin. Problems continue, and a whole host of things can happen as a result of the failure of our system in the House to deal with those good ideas, either by sending them as legislation to the appropriate committees or by sending the various subject matters, to committee for further study.
I share in general the view that the monetary investment by a director in a company or in an organization-particularly an organization which is institutionalized in the Canadian context-spells out his or her level of interest in that institution's affairs. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal has mentioned his involvement in universities, and many other members of the House are directors of organizations in which they have no other interest except sharing the interest of the individual organization in the community. That is the foundation stone for service on those boards. I am satisfied that banks could very well be one of those institutions.
February 25, 1977

The other aspect on which I wish to speak generally is that despite a large amount of lip service given to the status of women in this Chamber and elsewhere, whether with respect to representation in the House or with respect to involvement in the political process generally or advancement in the professions, in business, and in those areas which are important to the well-being of our community, there is a great underrepresentation of one section of our society.
I speak as one who many years ago employed a young student in my office, a woman who came to my law office under the cloud of being a woman and having to prove herself beyond the degree required by a male student of law. She had to adapt in a professional world which, to a greater extent than is the case today, was alien to the presence of women. That woman is now one of the partners in my law firm in which, unfortunately, I cannot take part at present. She has progressed by her own efforts which, I think I have to say, generally in my profession requires more effort by her than would have been required of a student who is not a woman.


Herb Breau: Are lawyers chauvinists?


Walter David Baker: No, 1 do not think there are any more chauvinists among lawyers than in any other group. But the fact is that the traditions of our society have said to women-that view is changing now-that there are other roles for women. Women should be nurses, or secretaries, and they should not advance into management for which men are better qualified-that is what our society has said. I think that the statistics will show that although there have been improvements in the opportunities for women, those opportunities have not really kept pace with the abilities of women in Canada to participate in the professions. As each one advances in a profession or business, it gives the lie to old traditions. They are gradually being whittled away.
[DOT] <1640)
In the Public Service of Canada there are equal job opportunity directives issued with respect to women, but the fact is that as the number of public service positions increases, the proportion of women involved in those positions decreases. As the upper management of the Public Service of Canada increases in size-and it is still going to increase in size-the proportion of women who have been able to find their place in upper management positions has actually decreased. There have been some major advances in the middle-management areas of the public service, but the statistical facts are as I have given them. That is why the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service indicated their concern, and that is why it behoves this House to consider a bill directed to women on the one hand but directed as well to broadening the base of representation on bank boards.
I know there are other hon. members who want to speak, and I intend to sit down, but I want to commend the hon. member for Fundy-Royal for advancing this piece of legislation, and I am very proud to second it.
Bank Act


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, there are times in this House when I feel I have been invited to the Mad Hatter's tea party. I have just had the pleasure of listening to four men, one after the other, talk about their willingness to give equality to women. It has taken hon. gentlemen exactly 45 minutes to let one female speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You've made your point, Ursula.


Ursula Appolloni: If I could paraphrase Shakespeare, I would say "that man doth protest far too much".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: I was invited to join this debate because it is "a women's issue". While I counted to ten and bit my tongue for the umpteenth time since I have come to this place, it occurred to me that such a thing should not even exist. We should by now have evolved to the stage where we do not have such things as women's issues. They should be people's issues, and that should be it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: However, I am grateful to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) for bringing this to our attention. I had no idea that in order to become a director of a bank a person had to go through a means test. That is the kind of thing we were discussing last night with regard to old age security. There is still a means test just to become a director of a bank, for goodness sake!
In a way I am sorry Mr. McLaughlin and the Royal Bank were singled out. I am sure he has lived to regret his statement. I notice that he has not been chastised except by a few. Some comments were cautiously printed in some newspapers, obviously written by men. I do not see one female named here. However, Charles Lynch, another male, in an article in the Gazette on September 20 said that a woman bank director who now holds important political office informs him that intellectual excellence is the last thing a banker is likely to consider when seeking a candidate for the board. Under those circumstances perhaps it is a good thing there are not very many woman directors.
Let us go back to the means test. Why on earth do we have to have money to become a director of a bank? We do not have to have any money to become directors of most of the other institutions which we, the women of Canada, keep going on a voluntary basis. Nobody pays us for our time. Sometimes we might get a pat on the back, but that is all. But in order to be a bank director we need money. Why? Presumably because the original idea was to ensure that the candidate had a stake in the institution. I object most to this. Like it or not, women in this country have a stake in every institution in Canada, be it financial, economic, social, political, educational, artistic, academic, technical, cultural, judicial, or any other kind of institution affecting the stability and progress of mankind.

February 25, 1977
Bank Act
We have been told that this subject is in the white paper on banking. With all due respect to the government, this is exactly the kind of thing which makes the women of Canada sick to their stomachs. We are sick of being surveyed, analyzed, and dissected in every paper, no matter what colour, which comes from the government benches and which just lies to rot and gather dust in the archives of parliament. Stop with these papers, stop with these motions-especially these pious ones-and let us get some action.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Hon. members opposite would not do that if I were talking about a non-women's issue, but I appreciate their applause very much.
I am pleased to follow the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni), another woman. To use her words, these pious bills and these little condescensions to women are mere stalls. I only have to look at appointments-and I say this about my side and about the other side-government appointments of women to Crown agencies, committees and commissions to make my point. In one of the last reports on the status of women of Canada 1,162 positions were shown and of that group 120 were held by women? That is the kindness, love, devotion and tolerance of our male colleagues here. Hon. members keep mentioning their concern for women's rights. Many including the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) have been here long enough to clean up the act the law for directorships. I would like members of boards of directors of banks to be decided on the basis of the Canada Corporations Act. But when we look at that act we see the insidiousness of the discrimination there, the discrimination in the use of male pronouns through all the law and, of course in the Corporations Act, defining the right to the top jobs in the nation as though for males only.
I will read part of the Canada Corporation Manual, as follows; the underlining of the male pronoun in each case being my own:
. .. he or any other company of which he is an officer or director, is a shareholder, and, if the by-laws so provide .. .
And they could change the by-laws to fit what we want, but all the gold-plated chauvinists, the Earle McLaughlins and his ilk, including some in this very House, will not appease the women of Canada with patchwork amendments to correct this subliminal discrimination.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: There are some women who are chauvinists.


Simma Holt: Well, they are not gold-plated. They will hold back their gold-plating from the Earle McLaughlins and the other people if this goes on, and so they should. However, hon. members should note the wording of this. None of them has ever moved to change these statutes, to say "he or she" with regard to employment. Nobody in this side or on the side opposite has done so, and many men have been here long

enough to have cleaned this up. This manual also says the following:
Except as mentioned below no person is to be elected as a director or appointed as a director to fill any vacancy ...
This is under the Canada Corporations Act.
.. . unless he or any other company of which he is an officer or director, is a shareholder, and, if the by-laws so provide, owning shares absolutely in his own right...
Note all the male pronouns. The Hansard reporter should underline "he". Then part of the ruling which I think is quite important is as follows:
The amount of the share qualification of directors is regulated usually by the by-laws, which may provide for the number or class of shares which must be held by a person to qualify him for election as a director.
And hon. members will all give me that nice little Interpretation Act as their cover-up. It has been the ploy throughout the centuries to allow this subtle, vicious discrimination. They say it is subliminal advertising or subliminal propaganda that the Interpretation Act covers; wherever it says "he" it means "he or she or it", they tell me. Nonsense!
I am delighted to discuss the matter, and 1 am grateful to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal because I know he is sincerely concerned about matters affecting women. Maybe he did not realize that all these other inequities existed or could not do anything about them. I know he understands the injustices meted out to women and the discontent of these extremely competent people. I know too he is trying to Find solutions. I do not think, however, that the measure of quality for bank directors should be monetary. If you measure the quality and intellect of women with their capacity and variety of background experience, wisdom and knowledge, the monetary aspect is irrelevant.
Much as I should like to see this one small change by this bill I cannot settle for little compromises, Mr. Speaker. I do not want little bits and pieces; and I do not think the women of Canada-half of our constituents-want that either.
The current approach to improving the quality of the fabric of our lives is slipshod. We do not reweave the whole fabric of our society as we should. That is true of law and of everything in this House. We do not reweave the fabric but just put a little patch here and a little patch there. We do not use women and men equally in a society that man created. It is a man's world-created by men for men to satisfy men and keep men in power.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is passe.


Simma Holt: It is not passe. Look at you all seated over there. Where are the women?


An hon. Member:: There and there.


Simma Holt: Twenty-eight women have been elected to this House throughout its life. They could have been recruited but they are not wanted. We do not want your small solutions to

an incomplete social fabric-a little thread here and a little thread there. It is invisible mending of the fabric. I want the whole Bank Act changed; I do not want it patched. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the meaning the underworld attaches to the word "patch" is appropriate here. A patch is a bribe-a sop to the squares; so it is very appropriate.
For me the "Ms." and the opening of a door is not bribe enough. I think most women would sacrifice being called Ms and open their own door in exchange for equal opportunity. When that gold-plated bank president, W. Earle McLaughlin, made his infamous statement he was not speaking in isolation. He was not unique. He was the voice of the thousands and thousands of men who run this country.
The pictures that appear of executives-and until recently of cabinets-are always of men. Where are the women? In the annual reports of banks or big companies the women are usually standing by the Filing cabinet. Even now, when women are wearing long skirts and pant suits, these pictures still show the women in short skirts because it tittles-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: -it gives men pleasure. These big bank, big company annual reports are the cheap business man's Playboy. It is not even well done.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Simma, you deserve more than to be a backbencher. You deserve to be a cabinet minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I certainly know most of the women here have the intellect and capability to do that job very well. But I do not want to be there. I do not want to toe the male line. I want to change the rules of this House to be more sensible and practical-change from Robert's Rules of Order to Roberta's Rules of Order.
Women are allowed a peripheral place in society. I do not want to be "allowed" anything, and if I have to fight I am going to fight for what is the woman's right. Men like to say that women are the power behind the throne and how great they would be behind the throne of a bank manager. But the route to that throne has been precarious and devious. That wisdom has been short circuited. From the time the male executive first leaves home until he gets to that office on the top floor of the bank, he is indoctrinated by all the males en
Bank Act
route and the wisdom of the competent woman behind that throne is lost. The whole of our nation goes that way-perhaps to male disaster.
Since there are other people who want to speak, I simply want to say that while I appreciate deeply the intent of this bill I would appreciate it more if it were part of the great whole. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal should clean up all the law-as a lawyer-and because it is so subliminally discriminatory by being written as though for men only in the corporations of this nation.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to keep my comments brief and assure my colleagues on the other side that I am not standing up in a partisan way or out of meanness to talk this bill out, but I should like to make a couple of comments that are important to me.
First of all, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweath-er). It is a privilege to speak on a bill sponsored by him because of his well-recognized humanity. Even as a relative newcomer to this House one can see that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: If he is embarrassed by that he should not be, I would say, because of his sheer consistent common sense in all matters in this House. It is a pleasure to talk on the bill as well because of what it attempts to do to eliminate one more area of discrimination in our way of life. I think it is proper and timely right now because we happen to have been debating human rights legislation. I spoke on this last night and it was a pleasure to speak then on the subject we were debating today, the place and province of women in our society. I was happy to mention at the same time the problem of handicapped people.
I have said I would like to see the bill go through, but I understand there is a catch in that the government is seriously considering this measure in its own Bank Act draft and considering it from the point of view-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being Five o'clock I do now leave the chair until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 28, 1977