1978-04-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, may I inform hon. members that yesterday, under Introduction of Bills, Bill C-45, an act to provide for the continuation of regular postal service operations, was introduced, given first reading and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House. Unfortunately, through inadvertence and through an administrative error on our part, the order for second reading and reference of this bill does not appear under Government Orders on today's order paper.
Therefore, Order No. 45 under Government Bills (Commons) which should have been printed on today's order paper should read as follows:

April 10, 1978-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of Bill C-45, an act to provide for the continuation of regular postal service operations.-The Minister of Labour.
Accordingly, I have directed that the order paper be corrected by the addition of order No. 45.
May I also point out to hon. members the presence of a film camera in the gallery. This relates to a film which we began last summer when we had under transformation the entire House of Commons in respect of seating and the introduction of broadcast and television facilities. For posterity, we began to record on film all of the operations at that time. I think that film will be a very useful addition to the Archives of Canada.
Upon request of the editors of the film, and after consultation with the House leaders of all parties, I have agreed that the termination of that film ought to be an episode about the chamber as it is now. I have, therefore, agreed that the cameras be put in under limited use for that purpose for today only.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because this government continues to use as scapegoats in its failure to deal with unemployment the entrance of women and young people into the work force, and because in particular last night, in introducing his budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) when referring to problems of the last year specifically singled out the entrance of women into the work force since 1970, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House once and for all reject the notion that the entrance of women and young people into the work force is a basic cause of unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under provisions of Standing Order 43. Since last night's budget was introduced, the Canadian dollar has declined in early morning trading, Imperial Oil stocks have increased 50 cents a share, and unemployment has risen to another all-time level with 1.6 million Canadians out of work. For this reason, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Minister of Finance, who preached responsibility in last night's budget, to practice what he preaches and accept the responsibility for his government creating this mess, and acknowledge that his new budget has already been seen both at home and abroad as a failure in getting us out of this mess.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 11, 1978


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an extremely urgent and important matter.
Considering that the government has just tabled a piece of legislation which would prevent any postal strike during the electoral campaign so that such a strike would not disturb the basic democratic process; considering that democracy is democracy in name only when citizens are not properly informed; considering that this right to information is particularly important during electoral campaigns and that one seems to be imminent; and considering finally that the three major daily newspapers in Quebec have been paralyzed for six months and are not likely to be in operation during the next electoral campaign, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House inform the owners and unions concerned that it is very much preoccupied by this situation and urge them to show goodwill so as to reach a negotiated agreement as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is now more circumspect in his views and opinions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House endorse the statements made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in his speech of July 6, 1976, when he accused the Prime Minister of "undermining the monarchy, degrading parliament and placing Canadian society and the economic system in jeopardy" and request the minister to explain why he now aids the said undermining, degrading and placing of our economic system in jeopardy.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 concerning Professor Johannes A. Koningstein, Carleton University, resident at 443 Echo Drive, Ottawa, who took a laser device to Moscow against a specific request of the National Research Council and the security services of Canada that he should not do this. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
In view of the fact that after this incident the National Research Council granted Professor Koningstein $28,000 in 1976-77, $31,000 in 1977-78, already $32,000 for 1978-79, and authorized an additional $31,000 for 1979-80 for a project involving physical-chemical research into the use of utilizing lasers, that the Prime Minister make an immediate statement as to whether it is the policy of the National Research Council to give thousands of dollars in grants as rewards to those who have in the past freely given, against goverment recommendations, highly developed and sophisticated scientific devices to the Soviet Union.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Prairie Rail Action Committee set up by the federal government to subvert the Hall commission recommendations wants to close down the rail line between Liberty and Dilke, Saskatchewan. Since abandonment of this part of the Colonsay subdivision is unacceptable and would have a destructive impact on farmers and the communities of Penzance, Holdfast and Dilke, and since the Hall commission said that the line should be maintained and is required for grain service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House condemns the Prairie Rail Action Committee for recommending closure of the rail line from Liberty through Penzance and Holdfast to Dilke which the Hall commission said should be maintained and placed under a prairie rail authority, and that this House calls upon the Minister of Transport to reject the PRAC recommendation and to bring forward legislation immediately to set up the prairie rail authority so all lines under its purview can be upgraded and turned over to the basic network to prevent the betrayal of these communities and subversion of the Hall commission report.

April 11, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to put a motion regarding a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
As a bill was tabled yesterday prohibiting any postal strike during the coming election campaign and as the date for the election has not yet been announced, and that this legislation will hinder the negotiations between the Treasury Board and the postal employees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House direct the government to delay the passage of this bill so that all members of this House as well as all those concerned can discuss the matter in a more relaxed and open climate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance will know that thanks to his direction of the economy, for the second month in a row there are now more than one million Canadians out of work in Canada. He also knows, because it is the statement of his own officials, that in order to make any significant change in this respect we must have a real growth rate at a minimum of at least 5 per cent. The minister admitted last night that we are not going to reach that level under the budget he is proposing.
Oral Questions
Will the minister tell us whether he intends to introduce any new measures to create jobs in Canada, or is it the plan of the Government of Canada to simply sit back and smile while more than one million Canadians are out of work?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. Leader of the Opposition has forgotten to mention that on a year-to-year basis the Canadian economy has created 330,000 new jobs in one year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: You are bankrupt of ideas.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is 100,000 more than the average over the last ten years.


An hon. Member:: Change the broken record.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On top of that, the participation rates increased this month and we have now reached the very high level, compared to the previous year, of 62.4-


Mr. Stevens:: It is still not as high as the Americans.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the Canadian economy is creating a lot of jobs for Canadians who come into the labour force. Yesterday the budget was aimed at solving part of this problem. I wanted to be responsible, and I am not trying to create false expectations. We have said that the stimulus we provided yesterday in collaboration with the provinces will make the g.n.p. growth in 1978 close to 5 per cent. I maintain that position. If everything works well, we could reach 5 per cent.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Finance seems unable to get through his head is that responsibility in government involves helping to create jobs for the more than one million Canadians who are out of work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The budget he introduced last night absolutely ignores and abandons those one million Canadians. One of the measures the government brought in last night on which the minister has pinned his hopes is a reduction in the provincial sales tax, which reduction, at the government's own direction, will endure for about six months: in other words, the program ends when unemployment becomes most acute.
Will the Minister of Finance explain to the House, to the million Canadians who are out of work now, and to the many more who will be out of work when this stimulus ends in October or November, why this six-month limit was imposed on the provinces and on the unemployed of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the very simple reason is that a stimulus of that nature aimed at a period of time will induce Canadians to go and buy now.


George Harris Hees: What will they do then?

April 11, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a technique used in other jurisdictions in the past which producd good results. I have discussed that procedure with my provincial colleagues and they have agreed to come along. I think it is a novel thing. It is the first time we have managed to put forward measures in conjunction with the provinces. The hon. Leader of the Opposition should read the comments of the minister in charge of the treasury in Ontario, who said it was a very good measure and who supported it all the way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what the minister, in his incompetence, does not seem to recognize-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -is the very fact-Mr. Speaker, I will let them attempt to shout me down. My question can wait until members on the other side stop shouting. The Prime Minister is trying to quiet down you fellows. Thank you very much.


An hon. Member:: He is not.


Charles Joseph Clark: The precise difficulty with this limitation is that if people go out and buy at all, they will go out and buy now, and spending plans which might have created a demand in October, November or December when unemployment will be high will be bunched into the immediate period. You are creating problems for the fall because the government wants to have an election document now, rather than an economic document for the country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: I come back to the Minister of Finance and ask this question: Why did he choose to limit this to six months instead of bringing in at least a year long some more permanent stimulus to the economy? Why is he sacrificing the interests of the unemployed for the electoral interests of the Liberal party?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this is a novel measure which was agreed to by the ministers of finance of all the provinces except one, and I am awaiting that answer. The political stripes are all over the place and they are not the same as mine. The hon. member should know it is designed to stimulate the economy right now. If we stimulate the economy in a short time, utilization of the capacity in the Canadian industrial sector will be increased. That will induce industrialists to make plans right away to expand that capacity. I think the hon. member should know that.
It is aimed at stimulating the economy in a short period of time. I think it is very novel. It was experienced before in Ontario. When that was done some years ago in Ontario, when its sales tax was cut for a period of time experience proved that it stimulated the economy in Ontario; and with the push they
[Mr. Hees.l
received from the same stimulus, they kept moving after that, using the push they received at the time of the cut.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister well knows the Ontario government introduced its measure in the winter and not in the summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister is saying that this is a novel approach. Certainly it is a novel approach for the Government of Canada to introduce a measure which will probably make unemployment worse. I am asking the Minister of Finance to tell the House of Commons why he gave us this half measure; why he gave us a six-month measure instead of a measure which could really address the problem of unemployment in the country. Why did he place this limitation on the effectiveness of this stimulus?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I gave one reason earlier: I wanted to give the economy a push right away. There was another reason we did not go further than that.


Some hon. Members:: An election.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No. It was because we could not afford to go further.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE TOWARD HIGH LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the unemployment rate is now running at 8.6 per cent, a figure which was predicted by the Conference Board as likely to be the rate at the end of this year-and we are not even half way there-and given the fact that the measures announced by the minister would reduce unemployment by only .3 per cent, is it the position of the government that one million Canadians should be doomed to unemployment for the rest of this year?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have chosen this incentive so that our economy could improve immediately. This measure has helped the economy out of stagnation and we hope that once the economy is better it will enable us to reduce the rate of unemployment during the coming year. I hope we can achieve a growth rate of 5 per cent this year. This is why I have added another incentive yesterday; it should help us achieve the objectives we set last fall.
April 11, 1978


MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: My supplementary is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given the fact that unemployment in Canada has risen substantially over the past month and that we are now experiencing the pressures of long-term unemployment-43 per cent of those without work have been unemployed for three months or more-and that the number of jobless is likely to be further increased through the closing of universities for the summer, I ask the minister whether he is prepared to tell the House what new measures or directions he is contemplating in terms of job creation to alleviate this critical situation. Or does he subscribe to the view of his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that we are to have a million unemployed to the end of the year? Is that his view, because if it is, it is time this tired government went.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: From that diatribe I would think all the politics is on the other side and that all the responsible positions are being taken on this side of the House. The hon. member should recognize, if he has made any study of the statistics at all, that there is normally a peak in March. One notable aspect-it is almost always ignored by the opposition-is that there were 103,000 more people working in the period than there were in the month before. So there is an improvement in the labour market. The labour force participation rate is 62.4 per cent higher than it has ever been in the history of this country; higher, indeed, than in most countries of the world.
We do face a challenge, but we have programs in place at the present time. We did not make them this winter; we made them earlier, last fall, so that we could put 300,000 students to work this summer through our student manpower offices. That is just one illustration.


REDUCTION IN SALES TAX-EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. However, I would like to say at the outset that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is quite right in saying that the government is responsible. It is responsible for creating this hideous mess. It is responsible, all right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Minister of Finance acknowledge publicly, here, what an official in private session admitted yesterday, that this part-time tax cut budget he has brought in will, at the very most, create 40,000 new jobs in Canada, in the context of our learning today that in one month only unemployment increased by 35,000?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot subscribe to that figure. I say that with a 5 per cent
Oral Questions
growth in the g.n.p. in 1978, the unemployment rate will decrease. But we have to keep in mind that giving a precise figure is very difficult because we are subject to a very big increase in the participation rate in Canada. In the last ten years, the labour force in Canada has increased by an average of 3.5 per cent, per year, compared with 2 per cent in the United States and less than 1 per cent in Great Britain and France. In fact, in Germany there are now fewer people in the work force than there were ten years ago.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say, in all seriousness, that I would like the minister to answer. He gave that answer to the Leader of the Opposition and now he is repeating it to me. Is the minister saying that the real reason we have an unemployment problem in Canada is that people want to work? That is what participation in the labour force is all about. If the minister is saying that, does he not realize that it is perfectly absurd and that it is the government's task to create jobs for people who want to work? Does the minister not agree that it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that people who want to work can find work? The answer the minister is giving is no answer.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said and I repeat that when compared with any other economy in the world at the present time, the Canadian economy creates more jobes. During the last year, our economy has created 330,000 new jobs, which is probably a success second to none since it represents 100,000 new jobs more than the average for the last five years. Some people underestimate that performance. Obviously there are too many unemployed in this country and one of the reasons for that situation is that more people want to work. I will agree about the fact that our economy cannot at the present time produce jobs in sufficient numbers to satisfy all those who want to work. This is obvious. However, hon. members would be well advised to face reality, that is to acknowledge the fact that 330,000 new jobs have been created in the past 12 months. I for one think that Canadians should be proud of such a performance.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that other countries do not have to create the same number of new jobs if their labour forces are not increasing? Does he not realize that it is absolutely stupid, economically, to suggest that those other countries should be creating more jobs than they need? The failure of the government has been in not creating the jobs Canadians need. According to his own figures, private investment in 1978 is going to drop from what it was in 1977. And it is investment that creates jobs.
If that is the case and the minister has already said it is the case, could he explain why the government is cutting back on its own public sector investment in the coming year by more than $200 million? Would the minister explain why it makes more sense for the government to pay people $4 billion in
4372

April 11, 1978
Oral Questions
unemployment insurance handouts than it does to use that money to create jobs so that people can work?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member always uses epithets which apply to him pretty well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The debate with which we are presently involved has to do with the health of the Canadian economy. We recognize that there are too many unemployed in this land; there is no doubt that. We are doing the best we can.


An hon. Member:: You are not.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: At the same time, we have to recognize that this economy performed pretty well in creating 330,000 jobs in the last year. If we want the economy to regain a strong position, we must ensure that Canada is competitive in world markets. If we overburden the public sector now, we will lose our competitive position, we will lose our markets, and whenever we lose markets we lose jobs. We must look at the present situation realistically. I think the people appreciate those who can face these problems and not lose their cool, as the hon. member does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC ON REDUCTION OF SALES TAX
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday morning on my way to Ottawa I heard a comment on radio to the effect that in his budget the Minister of Finance was going to propose reduced tax points on the provincial sales tax. Therefore I would like to ask him the following question: Is he prepared to say to the House whether he had discussions with the Quebec minister of finance and with those of the other provinces and, if so, how long did those talks last? Is he also in a position to tell us whether Quebec, through its minister of finance, will soon give an affirmative answer to that effect?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Quebec minister of finance several weeks ago on the phone about my plans and afterwards I met him in Montreal where we spent several hours discussing the matter. Again, I contacted him last week and yesterday and he assured me that he would probably give me an answer today or in the next few days.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
As the minister seems quite convinced that this measure will considerably improve the Canadian economy, can he tell the

House whether he expects his forecasts to come true and whether he will be willing after those six months to continue to apply the same policy and make sure the economy really grows strong in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, to my mind it would be unwise to speculate about the steps the government might take under other circumstances.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on another supplementary.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to kindly answer a very serious question. For two hours last night we met representatives of the officials of the Department of Finance. To my astonishment, at one point I learned that those officials had met the press before meeting the elected representatives of the people. I found that rather bold because, after all, the elected representatives of the people are really the ones who are responsible to the people. I have nothing against the press, but as we were kept waiting for an hour, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would be willing, next time, to set up a meeting so that it is held at least at the same time with the press and with the members of parliament.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is a problem in that regard. Yesterday we endeavoured to give explanations to both the press and hon. members of the opposition, as tradition would have it. However, if the hon. member has suggestions to make on how to improve that system, I shall certainly be happy to consider them.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General: it concerns the so-called Top Secret document which received such wide circulation. I ask him first, what is the basis upon which this document was sent to the Deputy Minister of Supply and Services, what interest would he have in this matter to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration, or to the representative of that department?
I should like to know something of the basis upon which 58 copies of this highly secret document were distributed to these officials, aside from government members of the security committee of the cabinet. It is something that has not been answered yet. I know that the minister is full of information now, in view of the fact that two weeks ago he said he would have no difficulty in getting an answer to that question.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: However, I have read the reply that was given by the Deputy Prime Minister; I am satisfied with it and have nothing to add.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the attitude of this government, to give no information and to be satisfied with the fact that none has been given. I ask the minister, again, to tell me the basis upon which distribution of these copies was made. If he cannot answer that question-and the security of the government would depend entirely on this answer-can he say how many of the 58 copies that floated all over Canada have been searched for, ferreted out and found and are now in the possession of the Solicitor General or the appropriate minister of the government?


Mr. Blais:: The question is of the same nature as those asked of me some time ago by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. I have nothing to add and no further comment to make.


Mr. Peters:: Nothing is nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing more indefensible than ignorance and refusal to answer. The minister realizes that if he does answer, the truth will be out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With the dollar this morning touching a new low over the last 45 years, the government having lost $1.5 billion in U.S. reserves, borrowed $750 million in the U.S. market, borrowed another some $700 million from Canadian chartered banks, raised the bank rate one clear percentage point, and having brought in the budget last night, would the minister indicate if the government plans any new steps to prevent a further fall in the Canadian dollar?


Alexandre Cyr: The policy of the government was announced yesterday in the budget speech.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Minister of Finance indicate if discussions are now under way with underwriters with a view to placing a further issue on the U.S. market; and does he anticipate that a new registration will be made with the SEC shortly, or has it already been made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Whenever we decide to borrow, we make the announcement in the normal fashion, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Having read the minister's remarks in the budget speech last night and having heard his answers today, I ask him to indicate, if the usual market forces-to which he likes to refer-take the dollar down to 85 cents, will he care and will that be all right with him?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously, the question is hypothetical.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Hypothetical?


Alexandre Cyr: You said "if'.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Business. In view of the fact that everyone agrees that small business is the backbone of a free market economy as well as the largest potential employment sector in Canada, can the minister tell us why he was unable to persuade the Minister of Finance to include much needed incentive oriented programs for the small business community in his budget last night?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, many thousands of small retailers are more than gratified at the cut in the sales tax, which will have a very stimulative effect on that important part of the small business community. Of course, if the hon. member or others do not agree with me, perhaps they will agree with Mr. John Bulloch who strongly endorsed the budget of last night as a real stimulus to small business.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if this minister is suggesting that he is satisfied with last night's budget in regard to small business, I would suggest he resign and let someone with guts take over.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDUSTRY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the information given out by a study done in his department, entitled Manufacturing Performance, that this country's manufacturing industry has lost 80,000 jobs in the last four years, and as sales of colour television sets manufactured in Canada dropped 45 per cent last year, and as the closing of Canadian General Electric's television plant in Toronto is the fifth such closing in the past year, could the minister tell the House how this government can possibly justify the negotiating downwards of import tariffs on colour television sets when he knows perfectly well that if carried out,
80033-64'/2

April 11, 1978
Oral Questions
it will put this once important industry completely out of business?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, when reading that publication put out by my department on manufacturing performance, hon. members will note the comparison between manufacture in Canada and that of other countries. They will see that compared with other countries in the western world in comparison with Japan, we are doing very well in maintaining a high level of manufacturing within Canada.
With regard to the manufacture of colour television sets, we are negotiating on nearly everything in Geneva. We have entered the negotiations in good faith but what we come out with can only be determined by the negotiators there. Certainly, we are well aware of the colour television industry in Canada and the severe competition which television manufacturers face.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the minister's idea of a good performance is to lose 80,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector in the past four years, and as the minister has given no answer at all to my question about the possibility of tariffs on colour television sets-or any other manufactured product, for that matter-is it not obvious that it is "dynamic, imaginative" leadership like this that has caused the economy to be in the mess it is in today. This is the kind of minister who put us there.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ir£n£e Pelletier (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the Quebec government proposal to allow the federal public servants who would settle in Sherbrooke a six year maximum during which they could send their children to English schools has been rejected by the Canadian government, and given the fact that a large percentage of the geographical maps drawn and used in Canada are used by the military and civil aviation, could the minister tell the House whether the Canadian government would be prepared to discuss with the Quebec government whether, under the 101 legislation, the cartographers who expect to be moved to Sherbrooke might enjoy the linguistic privileges of the military?
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would surely be interested in discussing such a proposal with the Quebec government. I feel it would be very desirable to have a certain number of public servants transferred to Sherbrooke as provided in the decentralization plan.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General: it concerns recent allegations that the CPIC records of the RCMP are being used by major department stores such as the Hudson's Bay company and are being sold at $12.50 a copy to department stores to assess their personnel and to making hiring decisions. The solicitor general of Ontario is presently investigating this question. Is the Solicitor General of Canada also investigating the allegations, that private and personal records are being sold to major department stores, including juvenile records?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the investigation being conducted by the attorney general for the province of Ontario, 1 do not know the nature of that investigation. That is information that I have gleaned from the press reports as, undoubtedly, has the hon. gentleman. With reference to CPIC information an investigation has been conducted, and I wish to advise the hon. gentleman that there is no indication of any unauthorized release of information from those records by any people within my responsibility or within the RCMP to any unauthorized individuals.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, would the Solicitor General confirm whether or not he has interviewed Rosemary Morgan, the person who made these very specific allegations? Have his department or the people under his jurisdiction actually inquired of the person making the allegations and determined who had access to the records, since there is no dispute that the records were delivered? The only question is how they were obtained. Thirdly, has he considered referring the whole matter to the McDonald inquiry, to put something else on their plate? Since they have such a big job, they should have this one as well.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the last point, I have had an investigation conducted and I am satisfied that there was nothing untoward in the conduct or the activities of any member of the RCMP or any individual relating to the control of CPIC records themselves within the RCMP. The hon. gentleman, of course, knows how the information is made available to various police forces throughout the country in accordance with very specific, formal arrangements and procedures. Indeed, in terms of the provision by the RCMP of that information, we have been assured there is no leak.
We are satisfied that a proper investigation is being conducted with reference to the locale from which this information is alleged to have been leaked, and undoubtedly a report will be forthcoming. There is no control that we can exercise over the use of that information by the departments which are using it.
April 11, 1978


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance: it has to do with the near record depression levels in the construction industry. Keeping in mind that each month the construction industry in this country loses
10.000	jobs, I am wondering if the Minister of Finance can tell the Canadian people why his budget of last night had no measures whatever to stimulate the construction industry, considering that new house sales are not subjected to provincial sales tax and therefore the sales tax reduction will be negligible where they are concerned.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the best way to stimulate the construction industry is to have investment and growth in Canada. The policies we put forward last night are to achieve a potential growth of close to 5 per cent for 1978. In this way we hope to stimulate the construction industry.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: In view of the fact that any kind of economic recovery in this country is critical to the construction industry, would the minister explain to the House why there were no measures in the budget to offset the higher interest rates on residential mortgages as a result of his economic policies and, in particular, why there was no interest rate deductibility for residential mortgages?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have two points: the first point is that the interest rate in Canada at the present time is lower than it was a year and a half ago; secondly, the increase in the bank rate by one point in the last month has not resulted in an equivalent increase in the mortgage rate. In fact, when we raised the bank rate the first time by half a point, there was no change in the level of interest rates for mortgages. When it was increased by another half point, the mortgage rate increased by only a quarter of a point, not a point.


ALLEGED DEFICIENCY OF BUDGET TO COMBAT UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Considering that, according to the figures announced today,
1.045.000	people are officially without work in Canada, and more particularly that in Quebec we have 17,000 more people out of work than the previous month, and that the unemployment level is now more than twice as high as in two of the Atlantic provinces, I ask the Minister of Finance why in his budget he did not come to grips with the sad and serious unemployment situation with precise measures throughout Canada and more particularly in Quebec.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the hon. member listened carefully to the speech I made yesterday, he
Oral Questions
heard the reasons I gave concerning the budget I brought forward. I gave an incentive of $200 million to the economy this year through which we hope to reach a rate of growth of 5 per cent, thereby reducing the unemployment level.
I would like to tell the hon. member that a 5 per cent increase in the gross national income will be one of the best performances of all countries in the western hemisphere.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question and a most explicit one. Considering that today's unemployment in the province of Quebec is largely due to the fact that many labourers have been fired, for instance in the textile, clothing, furniture and footwear industries as well as in other secondary industries, I ask-yes I said "fired"-

I do not take any partisan delight in putting these questions to the worst government since confederation.

I ask the minister why the budget does not contain any measure specifically aimed at helping these industries and stimulating the economy, particularly in the province of Quebec where the unemployment situation is so serious today?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the hon. member actively follows the trend in Quebec's secondary industry, he will see that the measures we have taken about 15 months ago concerning textiles and some six months ago concerning footwear have given very positive results. It is common today to read that there is a recovery in this sector of the economy. So I do not see why we should add to a set of measures which seem to give good results right now.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would address my question to his parliamentary secretary. Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the department's expenditures for the province of Saskatchewan are several million dollars over the appropriated funds for the past fiscal year, and is this one of the reasons the minister's estimates have not been brought before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about budgeting and the Saskatchewan allocation and the fact that it is over. It is one of the issues we have been discussing with the regional director this past while. We hope that when the estimates are considered by the committee,

April 11, 1978
Oral Questions
we will be able to discuss that matter fully with hon. members opposite.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the parliamentary secretary confirm or deny that his minister has accepted the single agency concept put forward by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, and can he confirm or deny that they are planning to enter into an agreement with the FSI to the tune of $500 million?


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, to the best of the knowledge I have, I would deny that.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that today's figures show that unemployment among women has jumped to 10 per cent, the biggest upsurge in some months, the fact that this could very well be a result of the minister's earlier statements about the increased number of women in the work force being a cause of high unemployment, and considering that last night the minister again pursued this tactic by referring to the growing number of women in the labour force as "one of the problems of the past year", I should like to ask the minister when he is going to stop this reprehensible practice of making a correlation between women in the work force and unemployment, a practice which is making it much more difficult for women to find work?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady has listened to me-


An hon. Member:: Hon. member.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -yesterday, I said in my speech that I do not quarrel with the fact that women have joined the labour force. What I want to illustrate is that there was an increase of almost 900,000 women in the labour force in the last seven years. That is a fact, and I am not blaming it on the situation. I welcome women participating in the economy, but I want to illustrate the fact that it is one of the new components of the economy of Canada.
We have to cope with this problem, and that is why I have to refer to a fact. I do not know that there is anything wrong when I say there are more women in the labour force. We welcome women in the labour force but, of course, that is extending the difficulty because we have to create sufficient jobs to accommodate everybody.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the minister that there are four million women working in this country because of necessity, not because it is a luxury. There are 20,000 more women out of work this month than last

month; 430,000 women, in total, are unemployed. Many of these are single, widowed or divorced and have to work.
I should like to ask the minister if he is really sincere in saying that he is no longer going to make women in the work force the scapegoat for unemployment. Will he tell me why he found it necessary last night to refer to the growth of women in the labour force as one of the problems of last year? Why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to a problem; I referred to a fact. I tried to explain why we have such a growth in the labour force in Canada. I said that society is changing for the good, but there are 800,000, almost 900,000, more women in the labour force now than in past years. I referred later to the problem of young people coming into the labour force. I referred to the fact that in years to come, because there is less enrolment in the schools, the problem will stabilize.
I do not think anyone should be offended just because I refer to the facts of life. I was very cautious in saying in my remarks that I did not blame it on the women. I just said that it is a fact of life that the labour force is increasing because of the young people who have come into the marketplace, and more women than ever; that is all.


MANPOWER
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that each time we ask questions of this minister, he reiterates the old, tired youth programs which have not done the job of reducing youth unemployment, in view of the fact that last night's budget did not announce any new stimulus or proposals to encourage youth employment, and acknowledging the announcement of Statistics Canada this morning which indicates that youth unemployment is now up to 15.1 per cent-an all-time high- which means that half a million young people are out of work, instead of blaming Canada's young and the so-called baby boom which he could have seen from Statistics Canada figures ten years ago, will the minister tell the House when he is going to start fulfilling his mandate by creating programs and an environment in which young Canadians can find work, and meaningful work?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is playing with words and twisting them. The fact is, we did try an innovative program, a job experience training program, which was objected to by members of the opposition. It went from
1,000	to 15,000 participants. We tried to bring in work sharing and job creation. Amendments were moved to the act to withdraw those innovative measures, but we stuck to our guns and we have them in place and are making them applicable.
April 11, 1978

Of the Canada Works Program, some 40 per cent of the people who participated are young persons. In the training programs there is heavy emphasis on young people. We are endeavouring to meet that particular challenge. This year, $96.2 million will be spent directly in creating 60,000 jobs for young people, and we will be placing 250 million people through Manpower. So we are doing our share of the job.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is so uninformed and unknowledgeable that he does not even know we do not have 250 million Canadians, let alone that he is able to place that many. He has just confirmed that they are spending less money and hiring fewer young people this year than they have in any year since 1972, with the exception of 1976.
Because of past and present failures to address the youth unemployment problem, will the minister reassess the current youth employment proposals so that they may be made effective? On the last occasion I questioned the minister concerning this matter, he said that the youth advisory board had met twice. Has the advisory board yet made any recommendations and, if so, will the minister share these recommendations with parliament and with Canadians by tabling the recommendations, together with any other advice given by the youth advisory board?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, because we have so many excellent programs in place, I think it is appropriate that the National Youth Advisory Group should at least be given an opportunity to study them. They are not studying them on an ad hoc basis; they have set up a schedule of meetings so that they will be in a position to concentrate on the various programs which we have in place, how they might be made more effective, how the job experience training program might be made even more effective than it is at the present time, the employment tax credit program and what impact that has on youth unemployment. There is a whole series of things. These people are there to advise me so the youth of this country can derive tremendous benefit from people who are prepared to volunteer their efforts in this regard.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Will you announce them?


An hon. Member:: Are you waiting until the election to make the announcement?


EFFECTIVE DATE OF SALES TAX REDUCTION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister please elaborate-because last night it was not clear-as a result of the agreements with the provinces, which of the agreements with regard to the sales tax are effective immediately, and which must await action by the provinces?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as it is a cut in the provincial sales tax, it is up to each legislature
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
to decide when it will become effective. I understand most of the provinces issued statements yesterday that the sales tax would become effective as of last night.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a result of what the minister indicated in his speech, in his last-minute discussions with the provincial ministers of finance will he indicate to us which provinces are prepared to have their agreements effective as of today, and which will take legislative action which may take them some time in the future? The minister should know that precisely and be able to tell the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the ministers of finance of the provinces who make their own announcements. All provinces agreed to participate in the program on the basis that we were to pay two points out of three for the cut in sales tax. But we have made a special offer to the maritime provinces. As it was sales tax, according to their own legislation they have to make their own announcements. Most provinces made the announcement yesterday that it was to be effective immediately.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice yesterday that information which was contained in the Saturday, April 8, edition of the Toronto Star indicated, in its language by the way it was written, that a leak had taken place concerning information about the budget.
We heard the budget last night, and the precise information which was conveyed in the Toronto Star article was actually to be found in the budget. Having advised you yesterday, sir, that if such a leak had transpired I would rise today to pursue the question of privilege, I now find that I am under an obligation to do precisely that. Not only was the information contained in categorical language in the Toronto Star found in precise detail in last night's budget, but I would also like to draw to your attention that since looking at the Toronto Star of Saturday, April 8, I have had brought to my attention a column in the same newspaper of the previous day, by Mr. Dalton Camp, who also outlined in precise detail the content of the budget as it pertained to tax changes as it affected a number of provinces.
I want to stress that the information was not given in general terms, that this would be the general direction of the budgetary proposal, it was given in both instances in precise detail. Variations of tax rates as they would affect different provinces were shown. That information is to be found in the column by Dalton Camp in the Toronto Star for Friday, April 7, and as well in a news report in the Toronto Star for Saturday, April 8.
I learned yesterday that the CTV "National News" on Sunday, April 9, contained not only the same detailed information about the budget as it pertained to changes in the sales

April 11, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
tax as it would affect the various provinces, but in addition the same news broadcast on CTV referred categorically to the fact that there would be changes in research and development benefits for corporations. It was also indicated that there would be a $1 billion stimulus provided in the budget for the economy. These were alleged to be facts in the news report. I stress again these items were not put forward in conjectural language, that these might be in the budget, were rumoured to be in the budget, or in language of that kind; it was categorically asserted that this information would indeed be found in the budget.
All three reports, the Toronto Star of April 7 and April 8, and the CTV "National News" on Sunday, April 9, made absolute assertions about factual details which were to be included in the budget, and which we found last night were indeed there.
I would like to make it clear that my concern about the budget leak is not based on any misguided concern about perpetuating old traditions. There are a lot of traditions certainly worth keeping, but I am not among those who believe that anything that has gone on in the past should be infinitely perpetuated into the future. The essence of the argument, as I understand it, the traditional parliamentary concern about budget secrecy, pertains directly to avoiding the possibility of private gain being made, or corporate gains being made, as a result of obtaining premature information contained in the budget.
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), that there was indeed important corporate information in last night's budget. It contains, among other proposals, further tax concessions that are to be made to the oil industry of Canada. With so much obvious detail having been leaked, and in my judgment that is beyond question, about the budget as it affected tax changes, the sales tax levels in the provinces, and as it affected stimulus in the economy and as it affected other matters to which I have already alluded, the question then remains that if the people who found out about these proposals got that information so readily, perhaps they found out also there was to be a special tax concession to the oil industry. The immediate consequence of that would be to cause changes in the stock market.
Mr. Speaker, the stock market changed this morning. The value of Imperial Oil went up on the stock market today. Imperial Oil was one of the principal beneficiaries of last night's budget. Therefore, the issue for me is not merely an abstract concern about maintaining an old budgetary tradition of secrecy. In this case the secrecy pertains very much to the importance of parliamentary government, of maintaining by severe restriction all budgetary information to the minister and his officials in order to avoid the possibility of people cashing in, as a result of the budget, in a significant way.
There is the very strongest indication, whatever its source, that there was a budget leak of major proportion. In my

judgment, very substantial parts of last night's budget were in fact made available, whatever the source, to a number of news sources. Perhaps one news source received that information and spread it to another news source. The important point is that a leak has taken place.
I should like to refer to two precedents in modern history of parliamentary government. They took place in 1936 and 1947 in Great Britain. As soon as the evidence became very clear that there had been a leak, in one case the minister resigned, because inadvertently he had slipped out the information to a journalist on the evening of the budget. Thus, he resigned forthwith. In the other instance, when the evidence was brought to the attention of the minister in 1936 that it looked like a leak had taken place, automatically he ordered a formal inquiry, because he recognized the fundamental importance of the question of budget secrecy. Prompt, responsible, and thorough action was taken in both cases.
Because the budget contains information which affected very directly the value of the stocks of Imperial Oil, as well as perhaps of other companies, and the fact that we have had clear evidence of the possibility of a leak of budgetary information, we have to face the clear possibility that some people might have bought stocks of Imperial Oil just a few days ago in clear anticipation of a budget which would increase the value of those stocks, therefore raising the possibility of thousands of dollars of windfall profits to those individuals within a period of days or hours. It is a serious issue.
Unless the Minister of Finance announces his intention this afternoon of ordering a thorough inquiry and naming specific individuals to conduct this inquiry, then I have no other course of appropriate action, following Your Honour's ruling that I have a prima facie case, than to suggest that the matter of a possibility of a leak of information in last night's budget be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course when I was made aware of the story in the Toronto Star, I was a bit preoccupied; but I should like to give some information to the House which probably will clarify the situation.
First, I talked about this proposition of a sales tax cut in which we were to share in the cost. I made it clear to the provincial ministers of finance some weeks ago it was always a hypothetical possibility. I went to them, and we discussed all sorts of matters such as the dollar, the monetary and fiscal policy of the government, what we should do, and what were their views. In the discussions, I discussed that possibility. I said to them that there was some interest in that, and that I was just trying to find out if they would be interested in participating.
All along I said that they would learn by the night of the budget if we were going or not going. That was discussed as a possibility. I was very frank with them, because when one discusses something with the provincial ministers of finance, it is a noble attitude to express to them what one feels about it.
April 11, 1978

Personally I was interested in putting it forward, but I always said to them that "it will depend on the response I have from the other provinces." All along I said to them that I was not sure to go. So, this week the ministers of finance of the provinces knew that it was a possibility. At no time did they know I had the intention of going. In fact, when it was written in the paper, no provincial ministers of finance knew, because even at that time I was not sure that I would be able to proceed.
It was a working hypothesis which we utilized. In sending the documentation in relation to that, always I was very careful to say, "if we go along". Thus, at no point could one conclude that I was to go. Particularly in my case it is quite evident that I have not leaked to Dalton Camp, because I do not know the gentleman and he does not come into Liberal circles too often. I just want to say that I take it lightly, because it was only yesterday afternoon after two or three o'clock that I started to talk to some of the ministers. First I talked to the minister in Alberta, who was not really involved. After that I went across the nation and I reached all of them, but one. The one I have not talked to had told me in previous conversation that if I were to go, he had no problem with it and he would come along. Always I said to them that they would have a definitive answer just before the budget. Some of them were making contingency plans in order to be ready.
Two of the provinces brought down their budgets last night. The minister of finance for British Columbia learned definitely of it some hours before the House knew. When he got up in the legislature in Victoria, he cut his own sales tax by two points, but did not refer at all to the contribution which the federal government was to make. This is that part of the story.
Of course we are running the risk, in discussions with the provinces, that sometimes these things can get out. I was very aware of it. I remember the many debates in the House about the too great secrecy there is in this land about the budget.


An hon. Member:: About a lot of things.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, about a lot of things. I am trying to do something in my own field. 1 talked to them, knowing there was some danger. I am very grateful the provincial ministers of finance collaborated and dealt with this proposition in a hypothetical way.
This was a suggestion which I made public myself as a possibility, in October, to the provincial ministers of finance meeting. Again it was raised at the ministers of finance meeting in January. So, a lot of economists, political commentators and so on were writing about it. They indicated that probably it is the best mechanism we can use to make sure that any tax cut will go into the hands of those who spend their money, and that it will not go into savings.


An hon. Member:: As well as some hon. members of the opposition.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, some members of the opposition made that suggestion often. I just worked on that hypothesis. So, I
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
do not think I should be too embarrassed by this story. In fact, the other article referred to R and D. I do not know the term they used regarding the R and D decision, but it was something about a tax credit. I did not go for tax credit. I chose another vehicle to stimulate R and D in Canada. Who would be surprised that I moved into R and D? At the first ministers' conference it was one of the recommendations of the first ministers. It was quite evident that anybody in his senses ought to listen to what the premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had to say.
A lot of groups were asking that something be done about research and development. I listened to them, but no one knew exactly what I would do. In fact, I did not take the route of tax credits. I chose another route. So I do not think I ought to be embarrassed about it at this moment. I checked with my officials-and very few of them were involved-to see whether any of them had been responsible for a leak. I asked them, although, of course, I would not expect them to tell me if any one of them had been responsible. The precautions concerning budget secrecy have been taken in my department.
Of course, I did discuss with provincial colleagues in a hypothetical way the possibility of action along the line I eventually took. But going over debate in this House and the precedents which have been cited, I can assure the hon. member that there is no leak from the department and that I have not talked to the individual who wrote the story in the Toronto Star. Where he got it from, I don't know. This presents a difficult problem because the proposition had been discussed with the cabinets of all the provinces to find out whether they were willing to accept that hypothetical suggestion of mine, or not.
Should we now hold an inquiry and call in the ministers of all the legislatures? Perhaps one of them has spoken. Perhaps officials in other departments of finance in the provinces have done so. I have tried to work with the finance ministers in all the provinces, ministers of differing political stripes, in an attempt to come to an arrangement which would make sense to all of us. I do not think I should apologise for doing so. The reality of the economic situation in Canada today is that 60 per cent of the tax "take" goes to the provincial and municipal treasuries, leaving only 40 or 42 per cent for the federal treasury. We try to work in close co-operation with the provinces so as to harmonize our tax policies. I believe the House should welcome this new approach.
I am willing, Mr. Speaker, to make a reference to a committee so that members might look at some of the taxes proposed before a budget, and could recommend to me what action I might take. Of course, I cannot undertake to accept those recommendations; ministers do not always accept recommendations made by committees. But I think I would gain a great deal if a standing committee were able to look at specific proposals and make recommendations to me before I reached a decision. I want to take a noble approach and to engage more

April 11, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
people in the elaboration of the government's approach to economic policy.
As to the other matter, I am satisfied that I am not responsible for any leak, nor is any member of my department, to the individual who wrote the article in the Toronto Star. It was a rumour, and it was a rumour on the wrong wicket, because I did not choose tax credits but another avenue. So I do not see why an inquiry is needed at this time. As I say, it could involve all the ministers of finance. Would it be reasonable to ask me and all the provincial ministers to resign? We do not know who it was and, in fact, it was not a federal tax which was cut yesterday; it was a provincial tax. It is not my tax. I do not have any sales tax under my control.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You have nothing to do with it, then?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course you have something to do with it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very pleased hon. members have shown such concern about this matter because we should all be careful to guard against budget leaks and make sure that no one makes a buck out of budget preparations. Consider what has been done with regard to oil and gas, the tar sands, in terms of tertiary recovery. There was no mention of that at all.
As a result of the budget, the value of some stock went up today on the market. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the stock had gone up yesterday, perhaps the hon. member would have a case. But today, he has no case, in my judgment.
I have tried to be as candid as possible with the House. I want to say to the hon. member that I do not feel guilty of any wrongdoing. I am satisfied I have acted in the best interest of the nation and I do not have any intention of resigning, because you know how much I like being a member of parliament and a member of this government.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was at best speculative, but I think it was proper it should have been made yesterday because of the story which appeared, and I think it is proper that the minister should have returned to the subject today by making a statement, to which I have listened with great care.
The minister has told the House that there has been no leak, and the House is bound to accept that statement from him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: From our level.


Walter David Baker: From the level of the federal government. The minister has also told us that, if there were discussions, they were discussions at federal-provincial conference meetings between finance ministers with regard to matters of a hypothetical nature. I accept that. If that is the extent of it, and that is what the minister has told us, then I do not think this constitutes a leak in the classic sense.
It is interesting to examine the precedents for this kind of thing. The precedents cited by the hon. member for Oshawa-

Whitby arose in a unitary state where there was no mixture of taxation authority, no sharing of authority or possibility of one level upsetting the tax proposals of another. In that context the possibility of discussion even in a hypothetical way takes on a completely different sense. As we move ahead and rationalize relationships between the provinces and the federal government, in order to bring the provinces into the federal picture in a way which has been denied them during the last ten years there must be increasing use made of this kind of hypothetical discussion, otherwise the two levels of government would find themselves working, as it were, in a vacuum.
The minister has told us he is open to consider some changes in our procedure. I would be the last to argue that parliament should involve itself in the budget-making process as such. That is an executive function. Nevertheless, the executive functions leading up to the budget are not an exclusive jurisdiction enjoyed by members on the treasury benches opposite and, in my judgment, this parliament has a long way to go before a satisfactory mechanism for dealing with this question is found. The minister's predecessor made some suggestions for procedural improvement, and I recall that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), when he was House leader, also made certain proposals. None of them have been acted upon, though.
If the minister is, indeed, serious, we must pay more than lip service to the idea that before the finalization of the budget by the executive branch, parliament should be allowed an opportunity to make its contribution based on specific proposals. What ought it to be based on? First, it ought to be based on the documents governments prepare to advise themselves with respect to options. Second, it ought to be based on pre-budget submissions which are made by manufacturers' associations, labour unions, and trade associations and others. Those submissions ought not to be made only to the government; they ought to be tabled in the House of Commons in the ordinary way so that they are part of the process.
Certain changes must be made with respect to the budgetmaking process. It has to be more open not only in the executive function but also in those parts leading up to that function, because what happens in terms of budgets is that the government takes a position in parliament, but that position is not tempered in any way by any prior intervention by members of parliament who, as representatives, are just as concerned about the form of budgets as are others.
As I said at the outset, there may be differing views, and I respect them, but I listened carefully to what the minister said, and as a member of parliament he undertook that there had not been a leak.
The minister stated that he had not told anyone in advance what was going to be in the budget which he presented to the House last night. He said he had hypothesized about things which might have been in it. If that is the case, I think members of this House must accept the representation of the minister. There may be some questions about his wisdom in
April 11, 1978

doing that, but in the traditional sense I do not think there has been a leak.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) raised the matter of what was in the budget regarding resource industries and tax measures regarding the oil industry in particular.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) would not agree that he should at least check into trading on the stock market on Friday and yesterday prior to his budget. This morning's Globe and Mail shows yesterday's trading in Imperial Oil A stocks at 92,000 shares, which is highly unusual compared with the rest of the page. I notice that the volume for Consolidated Gas is 20,000 shares, and for Pacific Petroleum it is 13,500. Dozens of other companies which are not in the resource or petroleum business experienced share trading which seems to be nominal or insignificant. I think it is reasonable to suggest to the Minister of Finance that he and his officials look into that.
The Globe and Mail says the following:
Imperial Oil A rose 12 cents on 92,013 ...
Among the bigger gains: Texaco Canada ... Ram Pete and Canadian Superior ... Union Oil Canada ... Pan Canadian Pete ...
-which is CPR.
All made big jumps yesterday in the market. I am no expert on this, but it seems to me that it is worth looking into. It seems to me that the volume of trading in the shares of those particular oil companies was higher than one would expect on an average day, and I think the minister, if not yourself, Mr. Speaker, should look into that.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I confess I must express some surprise at the statement made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I do not disagree with his contention that we have to accept the word of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that he did not leak any of the information in last night's budget, but to move from that to the assertion that there has been no leak strikes me as preposterous. The fact of the matter is that material which was in last night's budget was printed in newspapers two or three days ago.
Let it be said again quite clearly that what we are discussing is not speculation. The stories were not written in those terms. The stories were written in very firm terms as to what would actually happen.


Mr. MacFarlane:: What do you want to do? Send them to jail and make them reveal their sources?


Stanley Howard Knowles: When it turns out that statements in the press as to what would happen were confirmed by the announcement last night-and, as I say, we can accept the word of the Minister of Finance that he did not do the leaking-certainly there has been a leak. It seems to me that in the interests of the whole budgetary process this matter should be thoroughly investigated.
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
The Minister of Finance today, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) did yesterday, made allusions to discussions which have been taking place about some possible changes in our budgetary procedures. I think there is merit in the idea that perhaps there should be a discussion of economic matters in which all members participate before a budget is drawn, and there are other changes which might well be made.
As my leader has said, just because something is traditional, we do not have to stay with it forever, but surely, no matter how far we might go in making procedural changes, we should not abandon the principle that information should not get out in advance of the presentation of a budget which would permit individuals or corporations to make private gains. That is the reason for all this. It is not just because of some tradition, something we should stay with, for the fact of the matter is that if the information which is in a budget is out a few hours or a few days ahead, it puts some individuals or companies in a position to make windfall gains. Therefore we feel that what has happened is indeed serious and should be investigated. The point made by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) is well taken. I think it is something which should be part of any investigation.
When he was on his feet the Minister of Finance said that if there had been stock market increases yesterday, that would have been something to worry about. We would not have expected any stock market changes yesterday; the stock market would have had to wait until the budget was announced. However, if it is true that there was a run on Imperial Oil stocks yesterday, that would add weight to the proposition that perhaps someone knew what was going to take place with respect to the budget last night.
These are reasons why, in my view, the matter ought to be investigated. I realize that it gets a bit awkward when the minister has to tell us that hypothetical discussions took place with the provinces and when he says that so far as he can ascertain nothing wrong was done among those under his control. It is a bit awkward when we start inquiring about others, but if there are going to be federal-provincial discussions about tax matters, we still must maintain the principle that individuals should not be able to make special gains because of leaks that they get.
I noticed that the story which appeared in the Toronto Star on Saturday was very specific in terms of what would happen in Ontario. It said that the sales tax in Ontario would be reduced from 7 per cent to 4 per cent and that that would result in a certain reduction in the total price of cars in Ontario. I admit that that throws suspicion somewhere else and not here. It throws suspicion on those in Toronto who may have known, but just because that is uncomfortable or embarrassing, that is no reason for us to stay away from an inquiry when something as important as budget secrecy has been broken.
I say to the minister, to Your Honour, and to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that, notwithstanding the speech the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton made, there has been a leak, and it is a serious matter.

April 11, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
I think that my friend, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent), is quite correct in what he has requested. I notice that yesterday he made quite a bit of the precedents in the United Kingdom, and while he did not call for this minister to resign, he pointed out that there have been ministerial resignations. I believe he has taken a very responsible attitude today in admitting that there is probably nothing that the minister did that is wrong and in not calling for his resignation. But the other thing that has not happened which should have happened is the investigation, and I regret very much that the Minister of Finance tried to dismiss this matter so easily. I think it is serious, and I hope that the House will insist that there be such an investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise this question of privilege. He put forward a motion at the conclusion of his remarks today, and I will take the matter under consideration.
There are, however, some remarks that should be made now. It is a matter of course under our practices that any budgetary leaks are considered very serious. Two examples in the British precedents were put forward in support of the notion that a minister who assumes responsibility for any complicity in a budget leak should resign, and that an investigation should take place. In fact, I think it will be interesting for the House to know that in both of those precedents in the United Kingdom that matter was not treated as a matter of privilege. In fact, what happened was an agreement in the House that some investigation in each case would take place; in one case there was the resignation of the minister, and a committee of the House examined the matter, and in the other case a judicial committee was set up. But it is interesting to note that in neither of those cases was the matter treated as privilege.
In addition, we do not have in this situation an acceptance of responsibility. We have an argument which begins with the publication by a newspaper over the weekend or before the weekend. So one of the ingredients that exists here and that did not exist in the U.K. examples is the fact that we have to argue from the very presentation of a newspaper as to whether or not that can be taken as speaking for itself, and therefore leaving the very conclusion which would indict either a minister in the House or someone on his staff who might be responsible. In other words, there is a chain of events that seems to be missing here, and that is something to which I must give consideration.
Furthermore, there is an extraordinary situation related to this budget, and that is, as the minister developed today and as hon. members know, we are not dealing with federal tax cuts; we are dealing with provincial tax cuts. Indeed, it would not have been possible for the minister to come to the House last night without having had some prior consultation, I assume, with his provincial counterparts with whom he was collaborating in effecting some sales tax cuts.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).J
That being the case, the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was in a rather extraordinary position in relation to this particular budget. He was not coming to the House to announce tax cuts only in his own jurisdiction; he was announcing tax cuts on which he had elicited co-operation in prior consultations with provincial ministers. The minute the minister is under obligation to consult with some of his colleagues across the country, there is the risk and danger that the information has gone beyond their ears to other sources because, by the very terms of the budget, he had obviously started some sort of consultation which had not been the practice in previous budgets because there had not been the need for this kind of interprovincial and federal co-operation. That is another ingredient which I want to examine.
Finally, the Minister of Finance made this afternoon a most significant revelation, namely, that the original article which gave rise to the question of privilege yesterday raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby was an article which appeared in the Toronto Star on Saturday afternoon. The Minister of Finance indicated here this afternoon, in the argument, that his final decision in respect of the reduction of the sales tax could not have been taken until he had the accord of his provincial counterparts, which he did not have until late yesterday afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly what the Minister of Finance said. Therefore, his own final decision could not have been made until yesterday. Therefore, the possibility of a positive, confirmed revelation, in advance of a decision taken in respect of the budget, as early Friday or Saturday seems to me to be a logistic impossibility. However, once again let me say that I will have to examine the record to see exactly what the minister said. That is an argument that I must take into account.
These are four very significant aspects of the situation before us which did not exist in the U.K. precedents, and therefore I will give the matter serious consideration before coming down with a final decision.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a correction. Perhaps I have not been understood correctly. What has happened is that I consulted the ministers of finance of the provinces. During the course of the week I was able to make up my mind. 1 told them that I was not sure to go, and it was only yesterday that I told them I was going. Of course, at no time did any one of them know precisely if I was going or not going. Of course, they could have guessed that I was interested because I was calling them, but at no time did I say I was going. It was only yesterday that we had an agreement that only a few hours before the budget I would tell them if we were going or not going, and I did it yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would allow a question. I listened to his argument. I am always very impressed by him, and I have said that to him personally and publicly.
April 11, 1978

I listened today to his explanation and found that the one thing which stands out is that he dealt exclusively with the sales taxes, in other words, with those matters in respect of which he discussed the probabilities and possibilities as to what course would be taken with the provinces. However, he did not refer to the petroleum and gas terms. Did he deal with those matters in his talks with the provinces? That is a simple question. No reference was made by him at all with regard to gas, oil, and petroleum. Naturally one wonders when one hears a good argument which covers everything but the facts which might be embarrassing. Did he discuss with the provinces matters concerning changes in terms regarding oil, petroleum, and mining?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss those matters at all with the provincial ministers of finance. We discussed the general economy, we discussed the situation of the Canadian dollar, and so on. The only specific item that could have been in the budget that I mentioned to them and on which I asked them if they were agreeable, was the sales tax. I did not raise the matter of the RRSP, nor did I discuss with them the questions of oil, gas, and any of the other items. The only specific item that was found in the budget that I discussed in a hypothetical way with the provincial ministers of finance, who,
I understand, discussed it with their own cabinets, was the possibility of a joint agreement on the sales tax.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement made now by the minister clarifies the situation. Apparently Your Honour was under the impression that the representations or the discussions with the provinces covered the whole gamut. They did not, and the minister frankly said so. Therefore, there was a leak, and it has no reference whatsoever to the discussion with the provinces. That is the point I am making, and I have listened to the minister with great care. He has been frank, and his answer indicates that somebody within the Department of Finance or within the cabinet, or some of the officials, did discuss this matter and did make it available to the press.
I point out that a couple of years ago in 19-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) might have a separate question of privilege. However, I would remind him and the House that we are dealing today with the continuation of the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby based his question of privilege yesterday on an article in the Toronto Star, which contained in its opening sentence the assertion that in his budget the finance minister would put forward a provision which would enable the provinces to reduce the sales tax-I do not remember the exact wording. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby raised yesterday a question of privilege based on a specific assertion in that article which related to an agreement between the federal government and the provinces in respect of the sales tax. If there is another point on other aspects of the budget relating to petroleum or any other features in the budget, in my opinion that is a separate point
Report of Committee
entirely, which the right hon. gentleman, of course, has the right to deal with as he wishes. However, the argument that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is confined to is the sales tax provision. That was the nature of his argument yesterday, and which was addressed by the Minister of Finance today. It is that point on which I have to make a ruling.
If there is another matter of privilege with respect to the budget, I would be glad to hear it.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may complete my remarks, I am glad to have it clarified that we are dealing only with the question of sales taxes. There would be no particular opportunity to make a profit there if the information got out. The essence of the rule concerning budget secrecy was dealt with in 1977 by the seminar held in Ottawa in Canadian Studies. It states:
-no one should be able to gain a private advantage by reason of advance information about matters to be dealt with in a budget.
If it is restricted to the question of sales taxes, I cannot argue that. However, as far as oil companies and mining companies are concerned, they would be in a wonderful position.
We have often wondered in connection with investment if it would be wise to go to fortune tellers to find out what is going to happen. Those who read this article in connection with the oil industry and the like certainly must have had second sight, perfect sight, psychopathic sight, or fortune teller sight.


MRS. HOLT-STATEMENT ON WOMEN IN WORK FORCE
Mrs. Simraa Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of something that was said during the question period. As one of the few women members in this House I feel obliged to correct a misleading statement-I am sure an inadvertently misleading comment made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Women are not only in the work force out of need, but also by choice and as a right to share in the building and growth of their country. It is as a result of this government's leadership in recognizing women as vital partners in the economic and social strength-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
April 11, 1978
Introduction of Bills

Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I table in both official languages the annual reports of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and Petro-Canada for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1977.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT TABLING OF BOARD'S REPORTS TO ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of four reports sent to the Administrator by the AntiInflation Board.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-440, respecting political partisanship.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this private member's bill is to amend two acts, the Human Rights Act and the Public Service Employment Act. At the present time some 500,000 public servants in Canada are denied the right to participate in the political process as a direct result of section 32(1) of that latter act. The effect of my bill would be to amend those clauses to deny only the deputy heads the right to participate in this process, and to allow those generally employed by the civil service to participate, as we all have a right to do.


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

Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-46, relating to the discounting of overpayments of tax under the Income Tax Act and related payments.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Motions-Mr. McGrath:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 22, 1978, be concurred in.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth day that this motion has been called. By way of a point of order, I would like to point out to the House that my colleagues and I are prepared to allow the motion for the concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs dealing with a number of subject matters from a number of private members' bills, mainly the subject of pornography under the Criminal Code, to go without debate. Our party does this because the recommendations of the committee were unanimous. It is an excellent report, and I commend it to the members of the House.
However, in the event that there is not a disposition to allow the motion to go forward without debate, perhaps then it could be the subject of consultation between the House leaders so that time could be arranged to have debate without taking up a full parliamentary day. I put this suggestion forward by way of a point of order, Mr. Speaker, so that with the limited time we have left in this parliament we will not have to take a full day debating the unanimous report. I commend the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), the chairman of the committee, on an excellent report. His motion takes precedence over mine, and I allowed that to happen because, after all, he is the chairman of the committee. But I do say that I would like to see concurrence in this motion, and I suggest that perhaps it could form the basis of discussion so that time could be taken-not a full parliamentary day-to deal with it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: With regard to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rose in my place several days ago to indicate that there was not unanimous consent that this matter proceed without debate in the House. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is perfectly correct in pointing out that it is a unanimous report. However, it is the view of my party that this is a far too important a subject to go routinely through this House without debate. We would agree with the suggestion of my hon. friend of allocating some time. We are not interested in stalling the process of the House for very long, but we think a reasonable time should be set to debate this very important subject that has been raised by the Justice and Legal Affairs committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it from the intervention by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that what he is telling the House is that, since no agreement is present to let the matter go without debate, he is asking that his motion be stood in the hope that consultation might take place on the subject.
April 11, 1978


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) [Translation]
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 377, 1,078, 1,089, 1,299, 1,317, 1,335, 1,339, 1,411, 1,412, 1,413 and 1,421.


Mr. Mclsaac: 1.	Under the Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands, what amount of federal funds have been allocated to the "Option North" project?
2.	(a) What are the titles of the various sub-projects (b) what amount of federal funds was expended to date, in each case (c) how many persons were assisted under each sub-project (d) what share of the total cost of the sub-projects is represented by the federal contribution?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Under the Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands, from April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1977, $951,000 of federal funds has been allocated to the "Options North" Project.
2.	The titles of the various sub-projects, the amount of federal funds expended to date, and the number of persons assisted under each sub-project are listed in the following table.
(a) Sub-project Titles (b)	Options North Total (c)	Persons Assistedi.	Community College Development	Expended April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1977 Federal Funds $ 36,058	See Footnote 12.	Manpower	4,178	See Footnote 23.	Northern Careers	156,399	1204.	Northern Training Program	42,086	1565.	Training in Government	141,842	306.	Training Opportunity Program	337,883	4397.	Staff Training Career Counsellors	14,321	5Total	732,767	750
(a)
Year	Sustaining
Planned Parenthood Federation
of Canada	1972-1977	2,757,500
Planned Parenthood Federation
of Canada-Affiliates	1972-1977	86,694Serena Canada	1972-1977	852,000
Order Paper Questions
(d) The federal contribution to each of the sub-projects is sixty per cent.
Footnote 1- Indirect benefit was provided to students of the West Side Community College at Beauval under the Community College Development sub-project. As well, residents of the West Side and LaRonge regions of northern Saskatchewan would receive indirect benefit.
Footnote 2- A study called "Options North-A General Program Outline" was undertaken under this sub-project. The results of the study have an indirect impact on the 750 persons who are directly exposed to the sub-projects on training (items 3 to 7 inclusive).


Mr. Epp: Did the government make any grants to the Planned Parenthood Federation and, if so, in what amount, by year?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Planned Parenthood Federation has received the following grants:
Year	Amount of Grants
1972/73	$ 500,000
1973/74	498,200
1974/75	600,000
1975/76	785,909
1976/77	448,129
1977/78	600,000
Total	$3,432,238
This includes sustaining and training grants as well as demonstration grants.


Mr. Reid: 1.	What are the amounts provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare as (a) sustaining (b) training (c) research (d) printing grants, over the past five years to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, its affiliates and Serena, Canada?
2.	If there are differences in the amounts provided in each category in Part 1, what are the reasons and on what policy are such judgments based?


Hon.   Monique@: (b)	(c)	(d)Training	Research	Printing34,038	Nil	Nil488,925	103,671	Nil9,079	5,000	Nil
April 11, 1978
Introduction of Bills CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION


Mr. Bawden: 1.	As the government is an investor in the Syncrude project, was Crown Assets Disposal Corporation asked by Canada Bechtel to handle the disposal of surplus assets?
2.	Did the Minister of Supply and Services give his approval to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
3.	What was the estimated recovery value of the assets to be sold?
4.	What was the acquisition cost of the assets?
5.	Did Crown Assets Disposal Corporation implement the programme and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Who is to manage the disposal of the surplus assets?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.


Mr. Bawden: What is the policy of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as to determine the value of merchandise prior to selling, so as to be a guide for the acceptance of bids?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Crown Assets Disposal Corporation investigates the selling price on prior sales of a like material, as well as the current value on the open market, if available.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	What is the custodial policy of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation when items are missing?
2.	What is the policy of the government and the Corporation in cases where major quantities of surplus Crown assets are found to be missing or unavailable at time of delivery to the purchaser?
3.	How many claims did Crown Assets receive for non-delivery of goods to bidders in the years 1974 to 1977 inclusive?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1.	The corporation ascertains from the declaring department the reason for non-availability of the material.
2.	After investigation, the corporation negotiates with the purchaser to effect an equitable settlement or refund.
3.	The corporation has not set up a system particularly aimed at retrieving this information. To provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of each Report of Surplus (10,000 a year) which cost in manpower and time would be exorbitant and prohibitive.


Mr. McKinnon: Has Davis, Eryon and Associates Ltd., 2540 Sheffield Road, Ottawa, provided engineering services to the Department of National Defence in the amount of $34,105 and, if so, what were such services?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes. "Study of Canadian Commercial Options for Replacement of the One-Quarter Ton Truck".


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to 89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month G) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 to $399.99 per month (o) $400.00 to $499.99 per month (p) $500.00 to $599.99 per month (q) $600.00 to $699.99 per month (r) $700.00 to $799.99 per month (s) $800.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. As
of February 28, 1978 the number of retired Armed Forces personnel receiving monthly pensions totalled 52,500 within the following monthly brackets: (a) less than $20.00, 31; (b) $20.00 to $29.99, 55; (c) $30.00 to $39.99, 131; (d) $40.00 to $49.99, 238; (e) $50.00 to $59.99, 233; (f) $60.00 to $69.99, 178; (g) $70.00 to $79.99, 230; (h) $80.00 to $89.99, 437; (i) $90.00 to $99.99, 437; (j) $100.00 to $149.99, 1,998; (k) $150.00 to	$199.99,	4,651;	(1) $200.00	to $249.99, 6,856; (m)$250.00 to	$299.99,	6,468;	(n)	$300.00	to	$399.99, 9,930; (o)$400.00 to	$499.99,	7,234;	(p)	$500.00	to	$599.99, 4,546; (q)$600.00 to	$699.99,	2,825;	(r)	$700.00	to	$799.99, 1,864; (s)
$800.00 and over, 4,158.
2.	Number of widows receiving monthly pensions-5,689. (a) less than $20.00, 26; (b) $20.00 to $29.99, 32; (c) $30.00 to $39.99, 46; (d) $40.00 to $49.99, 29; (e) $50.00 to $59.99, 36; (f) $60.00 to $69.99, 38; (g) $70.00 to $79.99, 77; (h) $80.00 to $89.99, 107; (i) $90.00 to $99.99, 128; (j) $100.00 to $149.99, 1,024; (k) $150.00 to $199.99, 1,151; (1) $200.00 to $249.99, 1,019; (m) $250.00 to $299.99, 658; (n) $300.00 to $399.99, 740; (o) $400.00 to $499.99, 333; (p) $500.00 to $599.99, 137; (q) $600.00 to $699.99, 51; (r) $700.00 to $799.99, 25; (s) $800.00 and over, 32.
3.	Retired Armed Forces Personnel and widows residing in each province.

April 11, 1978

Introduction of Bills
Provinces	Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	258	15Prince Edward Island	489	59Nova Scotia	5,336	512New Brunswick	2,104	201Quebec	4,364	596Ontario	19,821	2,388Manitoba	2,287	258Saskatchewan	820	102Alberta	4,938	403British Columbia	10,767	975Northwest Territories	100	5Outside Canada	1,216	17552,500	5,689
4. Number of Orphans 179; Average monthly amount $69.24.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977?
4.	What was the total amount paid of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Balance in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) as at:
(a)	Mar 31, 75
(b)	Mar 31, 76
(c)	Mar 31, 77

2,116,679,314.41
2,186,562,695.73
2,263,362,998.98
Actuarial Liability Acct.
3,655,541,539.68
4,270,267,250.56
4,742,803,872.70
Total
5,772,130,854.09
6,456,829,946.29
7,006,166,871.68
2.	Rates of Interest for: (a) 1974-75: 1. Quarter ending June 30, 1974, 1.5642 per cent; 2. Quarter ending September 30, 1974, 1.5900 per cent; 3. Quarter ending December 31, 1974, 1.6259 per cent; 4. Quarter ending March 31, 1975, 1.6363 per cent, (b) 1975-76: 1. Quarter ending June 30, 1975, 1.6612 per cent; 2. Quarter ending September 30, 1975, 1.6724 per cent; 3. Quarter ending December 31, 1975, 1.7109 per cent;
4.	Quarter ending March 31, 1976, 1.7209 per cent, (c) 1976-77: 1. Quarter ending June 30, 1976, 1.7471 per cent; 2. Quarter ending September 30, 1976, 1.7488 per cent; 3. Quarter ending December 31, 1976, 1.7707 per cent; 4. Quarter ending March 31, 1977, 1.7891 per cent.
3. Amount interest credited to CFSA during fiscal year ending:

(a)	Mar 31, 75	82,790,414.91(b)	Mar 31, 76	85,565,010.91(c)	Mar 31, 77	88,547,963.294.	Payments out of CFSA during fiscal year ending: (a) March 31, 1975, $154,976,541.24; (b) March 31, 1976, $172,352,486.95; (c) March 31, 1977, $189,680,605.01.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year 1959 to 1977 (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said Act?
2.	In each year 1959 to 1977, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to (a) retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
3.	In each year 1946 to 1977, how many service personnel contributed to the pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. (a)
Personnel of the Armed Forces retired to pension: 1959, 752; 1960, 1,048;	1961,	1,418;	1962,	1,343;	1963,	1,623;	1964,2,454; 1965,	3,419;	1966,	3,407;	1967,	2,983;	1968,	2,787;1969, 4,050;	1970,	4,075;	1971,	4,267;	1972,	4,405;	1973,3,357; 1974,	3,478;	1975, 3,459; 1976, 3,003; 1977, 3,124; (b)Actuarial Acct.	Total134,902,988.41	217,693,403.32157,615,710.88	243,180,721.79176,486,622.14	265,034,585.43
Widows who commenced drawing pensions: 1959, 98; 1960, 121; 1961, 166; 1962, 179; 1963, 207; 1964, 208; 1965, 283
1966,	263; 1967, 303; 1968, 303; 1969, 371; 1970, 323; 1971 375; 1972, 420; 1973, 441; 1974, 478; 1975, 470; 1976, 554 1977, 527.
2.	(a) Retired pensioners deceased: 1959, 91; 1960, 103 1961, 114; 1962, 127; 1963, 142; 1964, 169; 1965, 190; 1966 208; 1967, 243; 1968, 295; 1969, 353; 1970, 356; 1971, 331
1972,	323; 1973, 379; 1974, 524; 1975, 496; 1976, 513; 1977 507; (b) Widows of pensioners deceased: 1959, 9; 1960, 12 1961, 17; 1962, 19; 1963, 26; 1964, 28; 1965, 34; 1966, 39
1967,	45; 1968, 56; 1969, 50; 1970, 52; 1971, 24; 1972, 11
1973,	12; 1974, 30; 1975, 39; 1976, 58; 1977, 28.
3.	Number of CFSA contributors: 1946, 212,692; 1947 36,535; 1948, 34,762; 1949, 41,676; 1950, 47,185; 1951 68,427; 1952, 95,394; 1953, 104,427; 1954, 112,529; 1955 118,077; 1956, 116,678; 1957, 117,092; 1958, 119,038; 1959 120,412; 1960, 119,597; 1961, 120,055; 1962, 126,474; 1963 123,694; 1964, 120,781; 1965, 114,164; 1966, 107,467; 1967 105,584; 1968, 101,572; 1969, 98,340; 1970, 93,353; 1971 89,563; 1972, 84,933; 1973, 82,402; 1974, 79,921; 1975 79,639; 1976, 79,772; 1977, 80,546.

April 11, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is the Manual on Isolation Training available to civilian health personnel and, if so, when will it be available?
2.	Is the Department of National Defence preparing this bulletin?
3.	Does the department feel that a core of isolation trained experts would be advisable in all provinces and territories and, if so, would periodic refresher courses not be required in this regard?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1 and
2. A training manual for the maintenance and operation of the "Containment Bed Isolator" is being written at this time and is expected to be completed by mid-1979. A second piece of isolation equipment, the "Transit Isolator" is being evaluated by DND and a manual will also be prepared for this equipment, however, no date is available for its completion. Both manuals will be available to civilian health personnel.
3.	Yes. Until such time as provinces develop their own expertise for local training DND nursing personnel will be available to offer refresher training on an as-required basis to those agencies acquiring isolation equipment.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 135 and 713 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: It is proposed that questions Nos. 135 and 713 be deemed to have been made orders for returns, with the returns to be tabled immediately. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were research contracts undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and of the Environment, Department of Supply and Services or any other department concerning science contracts on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and of the Environment and, if so, what (a) is the name and address of the individual or company carrying out the contract and what are their qualifications (b) was the nature of the work undertaken?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the chief officers of any company employed?
3.	What were the names of the ships utilized for this work and the number of men employed?

4.	What was the total amount of the contract awarded to each individual or company employed?
5.	How much time was spent carrying out fisheries research?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	On what date did Mr. T. G. Beynon of Statistics Canada take over the position of Director, Manufacturing and Primary Industries Division, and on what date did he leave the position?
2.	Did Mr. Beynon take over the position as a result of a competition and, if so (a) who were the board members and, in each case, what was his/her title, rank and salary range (b) how many candidates were interviewed and how many qualified?
3.	What was the salary range of the position on the date Mr. Beynon started to work in the Division and when he left the position?
4.	(a) What surveys were conducted by the Manufacturing and Primary Industries Division during the period Mr. Beynon was its director and what (i) was the name of each survey, periodicity of data collection, coverage (description of universe and of each sample, if appropriate, industries covered) (ii) were the names of the resulting publications and/or reports and their periodicity (b) in the case of each survey, were any questionnaires used and, if so, in each case (i) was the content of the questionnaire, when completed, confidential or otherwise restricted under the provisions of the Statistics Act, or any other instrument of the government (ii) what were the questions asked (c) did any of the surveys involve (i) automobile manufacturers (ii) automobile dealerships (d) was Mr. Beynon, by virtue of his position as Director of the Division, entitled to have access to any of the completed questionnaires?
5.	Was Mr. Beynon sworn to secrecy under the Statistics Act and/or under the provision of any other instrument of the government?
6.	On what date did Mr. Beynon of Statistics Canada take over the position of Director, Labour Division?
7.	Was he transferred to the position without competition and, if so, what is the name, title rank and salary range of the individual responsible for such decision?
8.	What was the salary range of the position on the date Mr. Beynon started to work in the Labour Division and on November 12, 1976?
9.	(a) What surveys were conducted by the Labour Division during the period of Mr. Beynon's arrival to the Division and November 12, 1976 and what (i) was the name of each survey, periodicity of data collection, coverage (description of universe and of sample, if appropriate, industries covered, etc.) (ii) were the names of resulting publications and/or reports and their periodicity (b) in the case of each survey, were any questionnaires, when completed, confidential or otherwise restricted under the provisions of the Statistics Act or under the provisions of any other instrument of the government (ii) what were the questions asked (c) did any of the surveys involve (i) automobile manufacturers (ii) automobile dealerships (d) did any of the surveys involve automobile dealers in (i) Arnprior, Ontario (ii) the Ottawa metropolitan area and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the survey?
10.	Did Mr. Beynon, since he became Director of the Manufacturing and Primary Industries Division and until November 12, 1976, have access to other data within Statistics Canada, than those generated and/or stored by the Divisions of which he was (or is) Director, and which were confidential under the provisions of the Statistics Act or any other instrument of the government and, if so, what kind of data were involved?
Return tabled.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before we move forward. With respect to the amendments to the Farm Credit Act, a measure which is of interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who is

April 11, 1978
in the House. I want to tell him that, if he would be prepared to call those amendments, I am advised by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), our critic for agriculture, that they could proceed through all stages and we could complete them. I gather there is some anxiety about this because of the necessity for funding the corporation. We regard this as a very important statute.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is not quite clear from the remarks of the hon. opposition House leader whether the agreement was that the bill proceed through all stages without debate. If that is the agreement of the House, that the Farm Credit Act amending Bill be called right now and that it proceed through all stages without debate, I think it could be called now.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I did not make myself clear, I apologize. That was the purpose of my intervention.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I take it that is agreed with the other parties also?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the disposition of the House to proceed through all stages of the Farm Credit Act amendments without debate? If so, is there a disposition and agreement to call that legislation now? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-29, to amend the Farm Credit Act, as reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Eugene Whelan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


POSTAL SERVICE OPERATIONS ACT, 1978 MEASURE TO ENSURE CONTINUATION OF REGULAR POSTAL OPERATIONS
John Carr Munro: that Bill C-45, to provide for the continuation of regular postal service
Postal Service
operations, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks with respect to this particular bill. As hon. members may have noted, the bill is of a single page so it will not require much analysis other than to indicate that it is to provide for the continuation of regular postal service operations during the period of a dissolution of parliament.
By way of background, may I briefly outline to the House the history of the current round of collective bargaining between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Treasury Board, as employer.
The collective agreement expired June 30, 1977. Direct negotiations did not lead to agreement, and on November 30, 1977, the employer requested the Public Service Staff Relations Board to appoint a conciliation board, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The chairman of the conciliation board, Mr. Louis Cour-temanche, was appointed on February 3, 1978, to complete the three-man board which includes Mr. Irving Gaul and Mr. Roy Heenan as members. The chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board set out terms of reference for the conciliation board on March 29, 1978, and the board commenced its hearings yesterday, on April 10, 1978.
By introducing this bill I am not attempting in any way to interfere in the process of negotiations by officers of the Post Office and the bargaining committee of the trade unions in the Post Office. Nor do I anticipate that the amendment proposed by the bill would interfere with that orderly process in the future-with the single exception of a breakdown in negotiations that could occur during a federal election.
I would like to assure hon. members that the government continues to rely on the voluntary determination of any new collective agreement by the parties. The officers of the Post Office and the bargaining committee of the post office unions can, and may, reach a collective agreement by their own devices. When the conciliation process is invoked, the parties can, and should, be able to settle any dispute either before or after the chairman of the board of conciliation has delivered the report.
However, there is always the possibility that no settlement will be reached and a strike could occur during an election campaign. I would be among the first to recognize that public employees have normally used their democratic rights as trade unionists wisely and responsibly. Public service unions in Canada have not been strike-happy in the past, and I do not believe they are quick to call a strike at this time. However, during a period in which parliament has been dissolved, a strike in the postal service would put the public at a severe disadvantage. I am also advised, as far as the possibility of an election is concerned that should a strike occur during an election campaign it would be most disruptive and costly as far as the election process is concerned.
It is fair to say also that this could well put postal workers at great disadvantage. The point is that the country's preoccupa-



April 11, 1978
Postal Service
tion at that time would be with an election campaign, and the possibility of achieving a resolution of a dispute of this kind would be considerably lessened.
Let me remind hon. members that no new principle is involved in the bill. A provision already exists in Part V of the Canada Labour Code. I refer to Section 181 of the Code, which provides that a strike or lockout that would adversely affect the national interest during an election could be deferred until after the return of the writs.
I would also recall for your consideration the references in the Finkelman report dealing with this question. The Finkel-man report recommended that the Public Service Staff Relations Act should contain a provision of this character. In addition, the joint Senate-Commons committee which reviewed the Finkelman report endorsed the principle.
Finally, I have reviewed the debate in the House in 1972 when Part V of the Canada Labour Code was passed, and I cannot Find any statements which would be opposed to the principle of this bill.
In other words, there was a similar provision in Part V of the Canada Labour Code when it was debated in this House and when it was examined in the standing committee, but there was no antagonistic reference by any of the parties to a provision of this kind including, I might add, the New Democratic Party. I think that indicates that it is not an unusual provision with respect to a deferral of the right to strike during an election campaign or during dissolution.
I should also like to emphasize that this only defers the right to strike and in no way impairs it.
I should also like to refer to a point drawn to my attention by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and I thank him for making the point. There has been some question about whether the existing collective agreement would continue to operate throughout the period during which the right to strike would be deferred. It was thought that this is covered in the bill, but there is some doubt. In order to ensure that there is no doubt and will be no doubt, I propose to move an amendment at the appropriate time that will make it clear the collective agreement does remain in force until the right to strike accrues, or until a new agreement is concluded.
In view of the fact the bill represents reasonable protection for the democratic rights of unfettered elections and only postpones the right to strike during election campaigns, I would urge all members to support this motion and give the bill speedy passage.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I want to endorse some of what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has said, but certain comments must be made.
It is true, as the minister said, that under the Canada Labour Code there already exists provision to deal in advance with situations which might arise during an election period which could cripple the economy of the country, or parts of it.

Without this provision, parliament would find itself helpless to act because there is an election campaign proceeding.
The minister is right when he says that the principle is already in the other statute which governs those workers who come within the federal jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code. Having said that, there is a strange ironic inconsistency in the government coming to us a couple of days before an election call saying, "Hurry this bill through". We may be caught by the fact that we let months and years go by without addressing ourselves to this problem.
Once again my friend, the hon. Minister of Labour has been thrown into the breach at the last minute. Whatever he might have wanted to do, however he might have wanted to address himself to this problem, he had a cabinet which kept pushing it aside and saying, "Leave it alone, it doesn't have to be dealt with".
I remember that it was only a couple of months ago I was asking the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when we would be getting the government's proposals now that the Finkelman Report and the joint House and Senate committee report had been submitted. The Prime Minister said that it was a priority and the government would get to it as soon as it could. There have been many years to do something about this problem. Now the Minister of Labour has come in at the last minute and said, "Please, we really think the public would be terribly inconvenienced if there were a postal strike during the election period."
Where was this government when the public was inconvenienced for nearly 50 days during a postal strike only two years ago? The Prime Minister said in November or December, when being asked about this, that he did not care whether the strike went on till Easter. He said in the House of Commons on November 19, 1975:
... we have to realize that a strike is a strike and it hurts people. That is the very nature of a strike.
The reason the minister is here today with his piece of legislation is simple. A strike in the postal service during this campaign will hurt one person a lot more than anyone else, and that is the Prime Minister. That is why the government has come here. Anybody who thinks this is being done now because there is concern for public suffering during a postal strike, just has to go back to the last postal strike two years ago. There was not one bit of sympathy then from this government for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were put beyond inconvenience, and suffered social strife and economic loss.
Obviously, this government has postponed coming to grips with the problem of how to handle strikes in the Public Service, in essential services, and in those areas where, because of the ultimate effect of a strike, the House of Commons has to be assembled to do something about it. This government is ten years old and it is ten years tired. During all of those years, and right up until tonight, there has still been no meaningful legislation brought forward to deal with this problem.
April 11, 1978

The government says over and over again, "Oh, we are not interfering with the right to strike. Heaven forbid, we do not want it on the record that we will ever do that." But it just continues to do it. What ministers will not do is have the common sense to recognize that there are times when there must be mechanisms used on a selective basis to decide whether the public interest is so badly and so seriously affected that some other ordinary rights must be put aside at least on a temporary basis under certain conditions.
There has been an absolute absence on the part of the government to be honest about this. They played the game of trying to say to labour all the time, "Why, we would never take away the right to strike". How many times have they done it since I have been elected to the House of Commons in 1972? There has been a rail strike, a grain strike, the river ports, the traffic controllers-


An hon. Member:: How many times did you vote for it?


John Allen Fraser: One of my hon. friends on the other side has asked how many times did I vote for it. Mr. Speaker, the point is that every time I advocated that something should be done, it took the government weeks and weeks to do anything about it. In Vancouver, during the grain strike, there were 85 ships in the Vancouver harbour. Members from the prairies and from my province got up in the House day in and day out and said to this government, "Why will you not do something? When are you going to face up to your responsibilities?"
The government was asked how long it would play this silly game of putting the country and everybody else through endless torment, trouble, and difficulty, when everybody on both sides of the bargaining table knew that sooner or later parliament would be called to step in. The question was asked, which way did I vote? I ask, where was the responsibility on the government side in coming to grips with this matter of putting legislation on the floor of this House to give parliament, government, people, labour and management some reasonable mechanism to solve these problems under the unusual and difficult circumstances that often prevail when they occur?
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that we will support this legislation because we do not think there should be a strike in the postal service during the campaign. But I want to make it equally clear through you, Mr. Speaker-and the minister has said this, if anyone was listening-that nobody should be under the illusion that this represents a change in attitude on the part of the government. This does not represent any sort of repentance or any changed position. This does not represent the start of a search for some mechanism to solve strikes in essential services that affect the public interest to the point where parliament has to be called to act. This is a piece of "ad hocery". The problem which must be solved on the eve of an election should have been addressed months and years ago. It could have been, if this government had had the courage and common sense to address it.
Postal Service


An hon. Member:: Where is the Woods committee report of ten years ago?


John Allen Fraser: As my hon. friend from St. John's East says, in the Woods committee report ten years ago-


John Carr Munro: No solution.


John Allen Fraser: My friend, the Minister of Labour says there was no solution in the Woods report for this sort of a problem. There was no solution so far as the government had eyes to see or ears to hear. The establishment of a public interests dispute commission has been the policy of this party.


John Carr Munro: It does not ban the right to strike in the essential services.


John Allen Fraser: Certainly it does not, but it provides a mechanism for those strikes, which are intolerable and which everyone knows will be interfered with by the House of Commons, to be dealt with in advance in a fairer, more proper and more appropriate way than continued ad hocery.
Several years ago the right hon. Prime Minister indicated that if anything is going to be done about strikes in the Public Service, in essential services, or where a strike is so severe that it has to be dealt with by the House of Commons, then the right to strike in the Public Service has to be eliminated entirely. That is the kind of baloney which the Prime Minister has uttered on other issues. Either he should know that is not correct, or else he is doing it mischievously or maliciously with intent.
The entire function of that commission is to avoid taking away the right to strike across the board, and to give the flexibility and the mechanism to deal with those strikes which cannot be tolerated under some conditions and at some times. Sooner or later the issue must be faced. It is not being faced by this piece of legislation.
The hon. minister is correct when he said the provision he seeks tonight is in the Canada Labour Code. In principle, I concede to the hon. minister that it is not an unreasonable provision to be requested, but it is a pathetic plea to come before us a few days before the government wishes to call an election. It is pathetic for the government to say, "Despite the fact that we have been in power for ten years, that we have had two majorities and lots of time to do something about this, would you please help us out now, because it would be an awful shame if some of the Liberal propaganda did not get through the mails in time for election day?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say to the government in connection with Bill C-45 is that this is no time to push the panic button. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) can stand up and say that what he has introduced is a very simple bill because it consists of only one page; but it is a bill which can

April 11, 1978
Postal Service
do serious damage to labour relations in this country, particularly labour relations in the Public Service.
The bill has an innocuous title, an act to provide for the continuation of regular postal service operations. I suggest to the minister that the accurate title of this bill should be: an act to guarantee a postal strike during the federal general election.
The minister said that the bill does not interfere with negotiations and that it does not place any barrier in the way of the parties reaching an agreement. But surely it is clear that it holds over the heads of the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers a very clear threat, namely, if they exercise their right to strike, which is in the Public Service Staff Relations Act, that right will be interfered with. The Minister said that it will only be delayed. I point out that the very terms of the bill make it clear that the purpose would be to delay that strike long enough for a new parliament to be assembled, so that the new parliament could do as parliament has done in the case of so many of these labour stoppages.
I have been here quite a while, long enough to realize that there can be a lot of fine talk about human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the liberties people should enjoy. What counts is to stand by those concepts when the minority is concerned or when unpopular people are affected. It is very nice to talk about the human rights of the majority, whether we are talking about language, race, culture or what have you; but what really counts in human rights is to protect the freedoms of the smallest minority.
I remember my respected colleague of many years ago, Angus Maclnnis, standing in just about this seat during the middle of World War II. At that time, because we were at war with Japan, Japanese Canadians were looked upon with suspicion, to the extent that very drastic action was taken against them, even many who were born in this country. It was an unpopular stand that Angus Maclnnis, M. J. Coldwell and some of the rest of us took at that time; but I was proud to be a member of a party which was prepared to defend the rights of unpopular people. That is the only way to defend rights. Also one remembers the struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Quebec, one remembers the Duplessis padlock law. One remembers some of those incidents. Now we look back with some pride and approval with respect to those who defended unpopular people like the Jehovah's Witnesses.
This is what we have before us today. We are concerning ourselves about a union which is not the most popular organization in Canada. If one wanted to take a poll about organizations and their popularity, I suppose CUPW would be at the top of the list or the bottom of the list, whichever way the question was set up.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Even within the ranks of the CLC.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I heard the hon. minister opposite correctly, she said even within the ranks of the CLC, CUPW is not the most popular union. That sets out exactly what I am talking about. If rights are rights, they should be protected, even for those whom the country as a whole may not like. If the Public Service Staff Relations Act

accords to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers the right to choose the strike route, rather than the arbitration route; and if it accords to that union, having chosen the strike route, when it finds itself dissatisfied with proposals made, the right to go through with that proposal, I suggest to change the rules in the middle of the game, and to indicate to that union that it cannot do so, is to deny all the fine protestations we make about being defenders of human rights, freedoms, and in particular, defenders of the rights which come under collective bargaining.
The Minister of Labour attempted to make a point out of the fact that there is something like this contained in the Canada Labour Code. Even though I do not like it being contained in the Canada Labour Code, I point out to him that what is there is a general proposition applying in advance to any union which might get itself into that kind of situation. The unions under the Canada Labour Code know that that provision is there, but at the moment such a provision is not contained in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The negotiations in which CUPW and the Treasury Board have been engaged have been on the basis of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The government now plans to change the rule in the middle of these negotiations. Not only is this being unfair and undemocratic, not only is it a denial of all the things we profess that we stand for, but it is exploiting the fact that CUPW enjoys a certain amount of unpopularity in Canada. Because of this, whatever I may think about CUPW or about the inconvenience likely to be caused if postal service were interrupted during a general election should a strike come in May or June, I think we have to stand for the rights of people like the members of CUPW when those rights have been given them by legislation passed by parliament. Since that is the situation, we certainly intend to vote against this bill.
The Minister of Labour made reference, of course, to the Canada Labour Code. I think it is a piece of irony that for many years the postal workers under unions of various names have proposed that the Post Office be made into a Crown corporation. I remember on one occasion when representatives of CUPW appeared before a committee and this question of the Post Office being turned into a Crown corporation came up. I put the point to them in these terms: do you want to be a Crown corporation for its own sake or do you want to be a Crown corporation so that you will come under the Canada Labour Code instead of under the Public Service Staff Relations Act? The answer was that their main concern was to come under the Canada Labour Code.
I go back to 1967 when the Public Service Staff Relations legislation was before us in committee. The postal workers, represented by their various unions, appeared before us, and the same issue arose. They talked about wanting a Crown corporation, but when we put the question to them we found they wanted the kind of labour relations available under the Canada Labour Code rather than under the Public Service
April 11, 1978

Staff Relations Act. The government has refused that request year after year. The unions had to stay with the public service staff relations legislation which is under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). But now-and this is what I find ironical-when an election is coming along, who brings in this bill to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act? Not the Deputy Prime Minister as President of Privy Council, responsible for the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but the Minister of Labour. He is the minister under whom the postal workers have wanted to be for years. It is he who brings in this bill. Is it to do what they want him to do? No. It is to give them the one provision of the Canada Labour Code which they do not like. It really takes a lot of gall.
The minister is behind the curtain now-I see him smiling at himself-for it really takes a lot of gall to seek to give these workers the one provision under the Canada Labour Code which they do not like. He wants to change the rules in the middle of the game.
CUPW has been a problem. It has seemed to be a nuisance, an inconvenience to the Treasury Board and to the government. Moreover, the public is annoyed when a strike occurs. But what kind of a place is this if we pass rules and then say to minorities we do not like, "We shall not allow you to take advantage of these rules."
If the government thinks this is going to work, it is out of its mind. There is no denying that CUPW is what is described as a militant union. If, in the middle of May or June, the point is reached at which under the old rules the union has a right to strike, and if it is told it cannot do so because of an act passed by this parliament, the likelihood of a wildcat strike is so high that it is a wonder to me the government does not realize that it would have been far better to have dealt with this whole situation on the basis of reason and understanding rather than on the basis of this sword of Damocles. I might add that perhaps that was not the phrase to use, because the sword of Damocles never fell, but this is one which will fall if the union should exercise the right they possessed at the start of the process.
Let me say one other thing about the rule under the Canada Labour Code which is now being transposed into this bill. Under the Canada Labour Code it is a general rule applying to any unions which come under the provisions of that labour legislation. In this case, though, it is a specific clause relating to one specific union and one specific contract negotiation. The bill is designed especially for CUPW in May or June of 1978. I think somebody over there is out of his mind to bring in such legislation at this time.
I know that the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which met for a year and a half and dealt with the Finkelman Report recommended that a general Clause such as the one in the Canada Labour Code be placed in the Public Service Staff Relations Act but, as members of that committee will recall, that was one of the reasons I voted against that report. If I recall correctly, when that report was finally brought to a vote there were 11 votes in its favour and one against. The 11 votes were cast by the Conservative and
Postal Service
Liberal members on the committee, and I was the one who voted no.
I have taken the view that the increased penalties, stricter conditions and all the other things that are now in Bill C-28 amounted to a green light to the government to be so severe as to damage irrevocably the whole collective bargaining process available to public service employees. That is one of the dangers I see attached to this bill. I know it is a simple one-page bill. But beware of simple, one-page bills. It is a bill which would put into effect in the case of this union one of the provisions which is contained, along with many others, in Bill C-28.
I feel very strongly about Bill C-28. The things it does to limit the rights of collective bargaining in the Public Service, the exclusion of persons, additional penalties and all the rest, are leading to the point at which we shall see collective bargaining in name only in the Public Service. Mr. Speaker, you may say that Bill C-28 is not before us today. That is so. Instead, we have Bill C-45. It is a beginning. It is a first step.
I am sorry my friends in the Conservative party, who do not like this legislation any more than I do, say they intend to vote for it. In that case we shall have put on the statute books one of the provisions which is contained in Bill C-28 and it is only a matter of time, in my view, until the great principle of collective bargaining which was embodied in legislation under Lester Pearson in 1967 becomes so much form and very little substance. A far better way to deal with this situation would be to continue to rely on the negotiating process of collective bargaining and to continue to rely on an appeal to reason.
For all their militancy, members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are Canadian citizens. They are very much concerned about the election process as well, and I think that there just might be a chance, if we do not pass this bill, of appealing to them, if they have a right to strike during the election period, not to do so. The appeal might fail. The strike might come off anyway, but if we do not pass this bill, and if we rely on reason and a sense of fair play, there is a chance that they will not do it. However, if we pass this bill when we try to appeal to the union not to proceed with a strike, how much of a response can we expect to get when the members of that union know that behind all of those appeals to reason will be Bill C-45, which says that they cannot strike anyway.
Decent labour relations are extremely important to our democratic way of life. I cannot go along with some of the ideas my friends to my right have as to how these things might be solved, but I will at least give them credit for thinking about things and trying to come up with something new. However, my friends across the way are not coming up with anything new. They are coming up with something very old, just prohibition. "No, you can't do it, we are boss and it has to be that way". If we do this to one group of employees in the Public Service, other will fear that it is coming their way too, and it will not be long until the whole question of public service labour relations is in a hopeless mess.

April 11, 1978
Postal Service
I know that a recommendation for a prohibition of strikes during the period of dissolution was in the report of our committee. It was there despite my vote against it. I know that there were many things in that committee's report which went too far and which I certainly cannot support, but I also know that in the report there was a serious-even philosophical- discussion of the whole principle of collective bargaining, including when it results in strikes. There were statistics in that report as to how minimal the strikes really are in the Public Service compared with the number of agreements which are reached without disruption, but the philosophy of that report is that we cannot go back on the principle of collective bargaining, including the choice of arbitration or strike, which was laid down in 1967.
I want to say to the Minister of Labour that he is being used by the government to do the work of the President of Privy Council and to start to break this thing down, and that the end result can be a deterioration in relations between the Treasury Board of Public Service generally. It is also a fact that this will have a very serious effect on what can actually happen during the period when the election is in progress. We could get into a situation in which negotiations break down, the report gets put into the hands of the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, a report that does not satisfy the workers, and with this threat hanging over them there could well be a strike. It would not be a legal strike. It would be a wildcat strike. It might not be with the authority of the officers in charge of the union, but it could be just as hard on postal service as if it were a legal strike. Then not only would politicians and the election process suffer, but also the public as a whole would suffer, and one of the reasons would be this very bill, which is a threat which hangs over the heads of postal workers.
I know that it is being argued that it would almost stop the democratic process if there were a postal strike during the election period. I am not convinced of that. We have not had very much evidence of that. It is amazing how much ordinary business and intercourse go on in periods when postal strikes are on. We seem to find ways and means through the use of couriers and other services to get messages transmitted across the country. I am not so sure that in an election period, even if the mails did stop, we could not still carry on the election. Some of the other parties might have to do what we have to do with our literature. They might have to deliver it by hand, door to door.


Mr. Dinsdale:: We do that, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend says they do that too. That is good. It is far better, is it not? It is faster, and when it is done with some canvassing, it is more effective.
I do not think we would suffer greatly if we had to spend less money on postage to deliver our material to all the people during an election campaign.
As the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) says, it is the Liberal party which will suffer the most because
it has the money to spend on this kind of thing. It is strange that it has pushed the panic button in this particular regard.
I am not standing here defending the obstinacy and the militancy, at times, of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Mind you, when you look at some of the conditions they have had to work under, when you look at the Montpetit report and the things which were sc out in that document which still have not been corrected, and when you look at the monotony of the work, the hours and all the rest of it, they do have a case for better treatment, and the only way to get better treatment is through the collective bargaining process, not by counting on some benign management to give them their rights. If the Liberals believed in collective bargaining when they brought it in in 1967, I think it should stand. Just because a union which is not popular in the country is threatening, or may threaten, to make trouble, is no reason to bring in this kind of legislation.
The fact of the matter is that there is no threat of a strike yet. It is one thing to call parliament back after a strike has started and to tell the union that it will have to go back to work, but surely it is going a little too far and becoming a little too excited even before it happens to say that if this particular union wants a strike during a certain month, it will have to wait until later when parliament can come back here to put that union back to work.
I think the government is utterly stupid to bring in this bill. I believe the bill will guarantee a wildcat strike during the election period. If that happens and if the government is looking around for someone to blame, it could not blame parliament. It could not even blame the Conservatives because, even if they voted against the bill, it would still pass with Liberal support. The Liberals could blame only themselves for having been so unwise as to bring in this kind of legislation. In the name of the rights of minorities and unpopular people, in the name of the rights we laid down when we accepted the principle of collective bargaining for public servants, and in the name of the principle that we ought not to change the rule in the middle of the game, I say that we ought to vote against Bill C-45. That is what we in this party shall do.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, this bill is entitled "An act to provide for the continuation of regular postal service". My first comment is that this is an objective toward which members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have been aspiring for ten years. I have read the bill and listened to the debate thus far, and that title is wrong in terms of guaranteeing regular service.
I am not going to use this opportunity this afternoon to recite trials and tribulations of the Post Office and the hypocritical postures which have been assumed by the government as it has carefully avoided any advice of the opposition to resolve the continuing and growing problems in the Post Office Department. That has been done here on many occasions, and I do not think there is any necessity at this time to prolong the debate on that score.

April 11, 1978

Actually, the first initiative to achieve what the bill purports to do came ten years ago from the then postmaster general. I refer to Mr. Eric Kierans, who departed in disgust from the government because he could not get anywhere in his attempts to make rhyme or reason in the Post Office situation.
$h
Just to show that I am not expressing a partisan bias in this regard I will quote from the excellent article covering the Post Office problem written by Mark Nichols in the Maclean's magazine of July 11 of last year. It appeared under the title of "Dissatisfaction Guaranteed", and it reads:
The cure suggested by Canada Post 75 might be to cut the Post Office loose from Ottawa's close embrace and turn it into a Crown corporation that would be able to function, like any other business, on a profit and loss basis-and without constant bureaucratic intrusions. Eric Kierans, during his stint as Postmaster General between 1968-1970 championed the idea-he told Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau that "if you don't make the Post Office a Crown corporation nothing is ever going to change''-and came closest to bringing it about. He successfully pushed the principle through cabinet, and, by the fall of 1970, a bill was ready to be tabled in parliament. At the last minute, Trudeau backed off, on the grounds that once the bill was tabled, no other legislation would have passed through the Commons during the session. Since then, the idea has been resurrected periodically.
I spoke on this subject as recently as last Thursday in the House and I pointed out that Treasury Board was very concerned about the problem because the report, known as Canada Post '75, which was produced by members of the Treasury Board and officials of the Post Office, indicated in one of its recommendations that there must be a further study in this regard if the difficulty were going to be resolved. The Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne), who is not with us this afternoon-he was here for a while, but perhaps he does not want to get involved in the discussion today-said that it was not possible to make that report available to other members of parliament because it would be embarrassing to members of the Post Office in that it dealt with internal matters. The document has been leaked, of course, and has been widely circulated since that time. Those of us who have had a chance to read it consider it a searing indictment of management within the Post Office Department.
Remarkably enough, to show that what we are doing here this afternoon is more a political gesture than anything else, a document has been circulated which, I think at this stage of delicate and critical contract negotiations, should be regarded as being in the same category as that in which the department places Canada Post '75, because the document which was circulated, dated April 10, 1978, is the preliminary submission of the employer to the negotiations that are going on now with respect to the dispute with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. This document, of course, is a searing indictment of the labour side of the conflict, and it is significant that while the government refused to table the indictment of management, it is quite happy to release, while the negotiations are going on, a searing indictment of labour.
Obviously there is not much desire to bring about a reconciliation of the alienation and confrontation that have brought us to the impasse where it becomes necessary for the govern-
Adjournment Motion
ment to rush through parliament, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, a specific item dealing with a particular area of the problems of labour-management relations in the Public Service; problems which require broad consideration. We had the recommendations of the joint committee which studied the Finkelman report. They have been in the hands of the government for two years and nothing has transpired. As a result, there has been a continuing deterioration in relations between the government and its employees.
As I have already indicated here today, I will not prolong the debate, but I think it should be pointed out that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, a militant union. That is true so far as some of the top leadership is concerned, but there is also a growing movement in CUPW towards a more moderate posture with respect to labour-management relations, realizing that unless there is a reconciliation of the confrontation and polarization which exist at present between management and labour, there will be a complete breakdown in the Post Office service, which is of course essential to the economic well-being of Canada as well as to national unity. This emerged incidentally, during the great crisis to which reference has been made, that is, the 42-day strike in 1975, just before Christmas.
I was involved in the discussions in the early part of the negotiations, and hon. members might recall that just as they reached a critical stage I had to retire from the scene for hospitalization. But before that happened, I sent a letter to the leadership of CUPW which indicated that it was essential for the well-being of Canada, and also in the interests of resolving the growing crisis in labour-management relations, that a strike be avoided at the time. Shortly thereafter my office received a call from the then president of CUPW, the well known Joe Davidson, who asked to speak to me. When he was informed that I was not available, that I was in hospital, he asked, "What is his trouble, is he sick in the head?" That represents the militant side of the postal union.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health and Welfare-Establishment of geriatric chairs in medical schools; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Health-Availability of saccharin; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-National Defence-Government policy on acceptance of neutron bomb.
4396

April 11, 1978
Royal Canadian Legion
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am told that after consultation unanimous consent was reached to proceed with Bill S-10 through all stages without debate. If so, then we could proceed with C-233, and I would ask then that the previous bills be allowed to stand with the unanimous consent of the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-10, as I understand it, is in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and it involves the Royal Canadian Legion. I am pleased to say that we consent to the procedure as outlined by the parliamentary secretary.


William Arnold Peters: We are quite pleased to agree with it, but not without debate.


Mr. Francis:: In view of the agreement perhaps the hon. member from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) might make a short statement at the committee stage.


William Arnold Peters: I believe we might.


PRIVATE BILLS
Cyril Lloyd Francis: that Bill S-10, respecting the Royal Canadian Legion, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that is what the hon. member has in mind. I think that if there is an agreement, it is to pass it and not refer it to the committee, and for this reason I would like to say a few words.
I saw this bill for the first time yesterday. I noted that one of the things being asked for is the inclusion of members other than those initially understood to be eligible for membership in the Canadian Legion. Being a Legion member, and having no other reason, I objected yesterday to that procedure. Since then I have had an opportunity to talk to the Dominion Commander of the Royal Canadian Legion. He indicated to me that he and a lot of other members had the same reservations that I have in not only allowing retired RCMP personnel to be members, but also RCMP who are still in active service.
Normally, Legion members have been retired army veterans, and indeed, that is what the title means. Because of the fortunate circumstance where we have not a war for the last 30 years, it has been obvious-because many of the veterans are getting older-and most of them are my age or more, or at
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
least in their fifties-that membership in the Royal Canadian Legion would run out if it were to depend entirely on veterans. It was decided by the Legion-and it is indicated in the work they have done in the last 20 years in such fields as sports, the training of hockey teams, public speaking debates, community advancement and community assistance-that they would have to take in other members. They originally took in, without any particular objection, sons, daughters, relatives, wives and others closely associated with the veterans, because it was felt that they would carry on the tradition of the Legion. More than that, it would maintain the benefits to older veterans-as a place to go, a place to own, and a place to feel at home with colleagues-in a manner to which they have been accustomed.
Personally, I saw the bringing in of active members of the RCMP, not just retired officers, as something that would change the Legion considerably. I have talked to a number of people and they agree with me. The Legion itself at their last convention had some considerable discussion about this, during which they took into consideration several other facts which were unknown to me and, I suppose to most Legion members.
When the Legion was founded in 1928 they did take in the active members of the RCMP because it was considered a para-military organization, although the impression is that it is less of a para-military organization today than at that time. RCMP officers were brought into the Legion as full members, and this continued until 1948 when they changed from the corporation they had at that time to letters patent. The Dominion President informs me that there was an oversight at that time, and they inadvertently left the RCMP out.
I could say that that would be with some justification, but that probably is not true because I and most other veterans were unaware that they had the right to full membership in the first place. I belong to the Legion, and have done so for many years. I am not particularly active because duties keep me from participating. I am prepared, Mr. Speaker, to accept the decision of the membership of that organization, duly constituted at a convention where this matter was raised to satisfy the problem that they had created of inadvertently removing the RCMP by letters patent to allow the RCMP personnel to become full members again.
I am informed by the Dominion President that the vote was in excess of the two thirds that is necessary to make such a change, and they were instructed by that convention in 1976 to make the change. It is interesting to note that much of the support for the action that they were taking came, I am told, from western Canadians. The RCMP play a much closer role to the average citizen in the small rural communities of western Canada than they do in eastern Canada. The support was very large in western Canada, and they overwhelmingly supported the motion. While I am still not personally convinced that this is the direction in which I would like to see the Legion go, it is the direction which the membership chose.
I am pleased to support the changes introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in presenting this bill on behalf of the Legion.
April 11, 1978


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair understands that the House could be disposed to consider this bill in committee of the whole rather than refer it to the standing committee. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton) moved:: That Bill C-233, respecting the policy of financing transportation in non-metropolitan areas, be read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-233 which I introduce this afternoon deals with the financing of transportation in nonmetropolitan areas and more especially in outlying areas removed from the important economic centres of Canada. It is aimed at amending the Railway Act so that improvements of transportation in metropolitan areas should not be prejudicial to the remainder of the country. You understand that it is my duty to object to some plans to reduce or even eliminate services as well as to any increase toward self-financing which would lead to higher costs to users. As for us, and I want to be the spokesman for areas in Canada more or less remove from large urban centres, it would mean that we would still be farther from economic centres, that there should be increasing possibilities of massive exodus from our peripheral areas. However, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to admit that there are difficulties and that the solutions are complex, but what we do not accept is that service reductions should be justified by the need to reduce government expenses and the profitability of transportation companies. The arguments of the minister are valid, but he must defend them since he has all the talents and the effectiveness of a true Minister of Transport. We must therefore be even more cautious if we want to ensure the protection of our regions. The government should not suggest across-the-board answers to reduce costs and eliminate services since we would consider this unacceptable. In fact, what the government is now doing is subtracting, subtracting grants, subtracting services, driving people away from certain areas, which means that certain regions are becoming increasingly
Transportation
vast and under-populated with fantastic costs per capita when you consider the distances and the transportation volume.
In short, Mr. Speaker, what we want is for the government to bring out a comphrehensive transportation policy instead of any changes that it would want to make. We do not want to be conned into co-operating with those who would find arguments to deprive us of services if tomorrow those same people do not give us the promised solutions. This is a matter of distributive justice; we should not think only of the number of people whom we will have to learn to serve in this country, but also of serving the people wherever they may be.
The facts that I want to submit to this House are as follows. First, in our peripheral areas, in the Montreal region, for instance, the problems with passenger and freight transport are increasing every day. Second, if we consider present and future energy costs and potential, and the need to conserve energy, we believe that the government has the responsibility to give not only direction, but also assured leadership in this area. Third, as taxpayers and on behalf of other Canadian taxpayers, we cannot accept that this government be content to suffer deficits, even if they are real, without requiring this same government to take the means to find true solutions for now and for the future. And for us, this answer is not to eliminate deficits and to continue to increase the population of urban areas.
Another fact: remote areas are becoming increasingly remote, so it is not true to say that distances have become irrelevant. You just have to evaluate the cost to be convinced that we are moving backwards, that we are becoming increasingly remote from all points of view, thus more vulnerable and with ever fewer economic incentives.
If the government considers that Montreal and Toronto are the end of the world, it should tell us so, otherwise the same government should give back the initiative to those who in the past had found and paid for means to promote development, particularly a railway transportation system in remote areas.
Thus, before curtailing further any of the existing services, the CTC and the government should introduce a global transportation policy for today and tomorrow. We cannot accept less. It is not only a matter of profitability, but a matter of viability. In other words, who will have the means to stay in a remote area, at what condition and at what price? Profitability has been proven and it always spells reduction or even unavoidable elimination of services. No one has the means to pay for that profitability but no one can accept the elimination of services, not even the government, and the only answer to which we are entitled is a global transportation policy in which the government will assume its responsibilities, as will the citizen in full awareness of the situation.
I for one would think that railways will regain their status as they become again the only means available for passenger and freight transportation. We should right now plan the infrastructures, the equipment and the services our regions need to
80033-65*72

April 11, 1978
Transportation
become economically, commercially and industrially competitive. It is an absolute necessity. To accept a cut-back of services is too risky and too costly. We would be shortchanging ourselves by being complacently understanding and showing good faith.
So the government must take position: either it will continue to tolerate or encourage abandonment, and the recent urbanization statistics clearly prove it, or it will reduce distances through a subsidized and appropriate public communication system and through a transportation policy that will give to our regions the economic stimulus they absolutely require.
As concerns the companies presently involved in rail transportation we also recognize their problems but we cannot accept that they share those profitability problems with municipalities for instance or private organizations. Here are two examples of that exploitation of municipalities and private organizations.
The companies require from municipalities a contribution to build access roads to some grade crossings. The contribution to the works themselves seems acceptable to me but the participation in maintenance costs is totally unacceptable. In my opinion, it is a cost transfer imposed upon a municipality which has no justification.
The Canadian Pacific wants to force snowmobile associations to reimburse expenses for the maintenance of railroad crossings used by snowmobiles. That is another example of the cost transfer unfairly imposed upon a group which has neither the will nor the financial means to take it. Is that supposed to mean that railways are going to become a nuisance rather than a service in addition to others in regions such as ours?
Here is a list of questions which arise from the present situation. Are railway companies going to keep on persecuting poor people? Do they intend to reduce their services to the point where nobody will be interested in using them anymore? As companies contributed at a certain time to create subdivisions, do they contribute today to their isolation or even their disappearance? Or else, are the Canadian Transport Commission and the government prepared to introduce an over-all policy on transportation which would aim at saving peripheral regions from disappearance and would allow each citizen to adjust with full knowledge of the facts?
In short, we do not and we will not accept any decrease in services and we demand that an over-all policy on transportation be established.
Mr. Speaker, I am inspired in my action by fear and fear, as they say, is the beginning of wisdom.
There is an attempt to convince us with arguments which seem logical but in fact one thing only is accomplished and it is to make us more vulnerable by destroying us through our own co-operation for in the last resort we will have no other choice than folding out.

We know that the government has recommended to the Canadian Transport Commission that passenger trains serving scarcely populated areas be replaced by buses so as to eliminate the need for federal subsidies. Yet at the same time, the railways increase their rates beyond the means of present and future train users.
This policy of "user pay" is detrimental to areas such as mine and Bill C-233, by limiting further service reduction and price increases, would contribute to a fair treatment policy for all regions.
Furthermore, this bill would give us an assurance against the great schemers who are constantly alienating us and persecuting us with economic arguments.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask that if these brilliant economists do not succeed in their great urban designs, that they at least do not come to pollute our countryside with their theories, least of all make us pay for them.
I wish our Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) were the best minister ever in his field but he will certainly not be so by saving on the backs of those who are economically speaking the weakest in our society and he will indeed be recognized as our best minister ever, when his transportation policy will enable the population to continue dwelling on this land by facing fair and reasonable costs and will transform our regions into economic areas where it will be possible to work and produce goods at competitive prices in order for them to stay on the market.
That is one of the objectives of a rational transportation policy to be established before we are asked to put up with reduced services and higher costs.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is worth mentioning that the transportation policy we are calling for would not only apply to trains but should also study all the transportation methods and put forth solutions which would take into account the particular needs of remote areas.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the purpose of this bill is to ensure that transportation improvements in the metropolitan regions of Canada are not carried out at the expense of the rest of the country. May I sincerely say "Amen" to the hon. member's explanatory note.
In my own area I have a great interest in what has happened over the last few years regarding the Esquimalt-Nanaimo Railroad, which is the only railroad on Vancouver Island. It may be interesting for members to note that we also have a narrow gauge highway as our only means of communication on the east side of Vancouver Island. The Esquimalt-Nanaimo Railroad which was taken over by the CPR in 1912 has, for the last number of years, been trying to do two things. First of all it tried to cut off passenger service entirely, and secondly to
April 11, 1978

discontinue freight service by letting the trestles rot. Then it told the Canadian Transport Commission that it was too expensive to repair them, and it would have to let the freight service go as well.
I would like to give some background on a situation which I consider heinous. I think the CPR have done the worst job of public relations that I have ever seen them do in the way that they have handled, mishandled, or botched the situation on Vancouver Island concerning the Esquimalt-Nanaimo railroad. I would like to quote a condition concerning this railroad:
In 1883 and 1884, legislation was passed by the Dominion and Provincial Governments for the construction of a railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo. The contractor was a Vancouver Island businessman, Mr. Robert Dunsmuir and Associates. The terms of construction specified that "The character of the Railway and its equipment shall be in all respects equal to the general character of the Canadian Pacific Railway, now under contruction in British Columbia and the equipment thereof." It also stated "that the said Contractors shall commence the works embraced in this Contract forthwith and shall complete and equip the same by the 10th day of June 1887 ..
One of the other conditions for this railroad was that the federal government, through legislation, authorized the construction and contributed the sum of $750,000 to the construction of a railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo. The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, as a result of this grant from the federal government and as a result of a grant from the province of British Columbia, agreed to carry out, and I quote:
-truly and in good faith to keep and maintain the same, and the rolling stock required therefor, in good and efficient working and running order, and shall continuously and in good faith operate the same-
After making that statement, and receiving grants from the province of British Columbia and a grant from the federal government, the railway said they would carry out in good faith and in good order the operation of that railway continuously.
Let me tell you what has happened since then. I will let you decide, Mr. Speaker, whether in fact the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, which was subsequently taken over by the CPR in 1912, has carried out that promise. It is almost like a tale of horror. Starting in approximately 1969 the CPR, in one form or another, have sought to cut off this service which they said they would maintain as a result of obtaining funds and land from both the provincial and federal sources.
In 1970 public hearings were held on an application by Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company to discontinue passenger service. I should like to quote some of the evidence given before the Canadian Transport Commission in order to apprise the House of the situation which was existent regarding passenger service. The CTC indicated that it became apparent, as far as advertising was concerned, that very little had been done by E & N. One must remember we are talking about a railway; we are not talking about a service from one house to another in a town. In 1969, E & N spent the grand total of $150 advertising the services of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company which serviced Victoria to Cour-
Transportation
tenay. I realize $150 was a grand sum of money in 1969, and that $150 was spent on advertising the service of a railway line on Vancouver Island. That amount was used to publish a timetable. That was the total expense of the Canadian Pacific Railway on Vancouver Island to advertise its service. I hesitate to say that Canadian Pacific was in fact doing no advertising because it allocated the $150. But I wonder about the sincerity of that organization and whether it really wanted to keep that line in operation. Were they ready, willing or able to advertise to people from all parts of Canada and the United States that such a service existed and that they would actually promote it for tourism? Even if the local residents were forgotten about, it appears to me that particular corporation had no intention whatsoever of advising people who would use that service that in fact it even existed.
I should like to refer to some of the things E & N did to maintain its passenger service:
According to the evidence given at the hearing, many station platforms were in dangerous condition or overgrown with weeds and various undergrowth; station buildings and shelters were in a state of disrepair, and all stations were closed and locked on Saturdays and holidays. The equipment used at that time was one RDC-3 (rail diesel car) unit consisting of a baggage compartment (where no baggage, express or mail was carried) and a passenger compartment with 48 seats. Further evidence indicated that "the baggage compartment is used to seat passengers when from time to time all the seats in the passenger compartment are full..."
I am not sure whether the E & N was really concerned with providing a passenger service. The stations were in a state of disrepair. As I say, they were closed on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. At times passengers were put in the luggage compartment because there was no room in the passenger compartment. When I indicated that this was a tale of horror, I meant it. Is this indicative of a company which wishes to progress and carry on with its passenger service, or would this be a company which was attempting to get out of passenger service by providing the worst possible service under the worst possible conditions to encourage people not to use its service?
The answer to that is obvious. At that time the CTC laid down certain regulations which E & N would have to abide by. It is almost unbelievable that the Canadian Transport Commission would have to tell a transportation company such elementary things as, first, that it must maintain in a good state of repair all its passenger stations, shelters and platforms on the line between Victoria and Courtenay, British Columbia; second, that it has to keep all such stations and shelters in a clean, sanitary and safe condition. Is it revolutionary to have to tell the CPR to keep its facilities clean? The CTC had to do that because E & N were not keeping them clean. In other words, the customers were being told that their business was not wanted, and the faster they quit using the service, the faster E & N could go to the CTC in order to tell the commission that its operation was non-economic. The CTC was required to tell E & N that it must keep its stations and shelters in a clean, sanitary and safe condition. In other words, they were not in a safe condition when these recommendations were made.
Third, they were told to keep their stations and shelters open for suitable periods of time on all days on which the Esquimalt

April 11, 1978
Transportation
and Nanaimo Railway Company trains 1 and 2 operate. It is ridiculous for the CTC to tell a transportation company to keep its stations open when its trains are running.
Fourth, they were told to remove all weeds and undergrowth from station platforms.
Fifth, they were told to provide sufficient accommodation on their railway cars so that people did not have to travel in the baggage compartment. If I told someone this type of thing happens in Canada today, perhaps they would say that I am referring to a third world country. Surely Vancouver Island is not a third world country. If E & N was interested in running a service, these elemental things had to be taken care of.
Following this, the CTC indicated that E & N could not stop its passenger service. The CPR said that it spent funds to upgrade its service and stations, as well as not put people in baggage compartments but actually allow them to sit on the seats. That may or may not be the case. In 1976, the same railway company applied to the CTC to do two things. The first was to discontinue freight service because the trestles going across gorges had fallen into such a state of disrepair that it was unsafe for trains to cross them. The second thing they were applying for was to have the passenger service discontinued once again. It is unbelievable in this and age to hear such stories.
The city of Nanaimo and its council recently sent me a telegram. It read as follows:
... by announcement that Canadian Transport Commission will permit the company to discontinue the E & N dayliner service on Vancouver Island and urge you to challenge the ruling of the commission.
I am not going to challenge the ruling of that Commission. I say that not because I agree with the ruling which came out, namely that because of loss of operating capital, E & N could shut down its passenger service. The reason I will not challenge it is because the course of action of a member of parliament is to petition the Privy Council to overturn that decision. I do not want to challenge decisions of the CTC, but in a recent letter which I sent to Mr. Pitfield, the Clerk of the Privy Council, I requested that under provision 641 of the National Transportation Act that order No. R25960 be rescinded.
Complications have arisen since that time. In the Supreme Court of Canada the province of British Columbia challenged the right of the CPR to discontinue its service, due to the fact that moneys and land were granted to E & N under the original construction grant in order to provide a continuous service on Vancouver Island.
Prior to challenging the decision of the CTC, the province of British Columbia should have contacted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Privy Council to determine whether they in fact would overturn the decision without going through a long legal process where normally lawyers are the only ones who come out ahead. However, in its wisdom the province of British Columbia decided to go through the Supreme Court of Canada. I think the question could have been resolved more speedily if the province of British Columbia had made an application, as I did, to overturn that decision by means of a
[Mr. Anderson.}
Privy Council decision. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, we have a narrow highway on the east side of Vancouver Island which runs from Victoria to Kelsey Bay. It is totally inadequate to handle the number of people who travel on it during the summer months. With good planning, good management, good equipment and a reasonable timetable the service would make money, not lose money. It is ludicrous that at a time when more and more people are coming to Vancouver Island for a variety of reasons the company should cut down the service by half.
The public relations of the CPR must have reached an all-time low when they brought forward this latest proposal to discontinue passenger service on Vancouver Island. The people of Vancouver Island have a great distrust of a company which was given an enormous amount of land upon which to build a railroad in the first place. If we take into account the value of that land today we would probably find it would be worth around a billion dollars. Yet we are talking about losing a few hundred thousand by operating a passenger service. The reason the service is not profitable is that the bloody railway has done everything possible to provide worse service in order that they can lose money and then say to the CTC: My goodness, this is awful, we are losing money, please help us, rescue us from our predicament.
I do not think they should be rescued from their predicament. I think they should be made to provide better service with better equipment and make money. I hate to tell the CPR people how to make money, but it is very simple: provide reasonable, low-cost service which meets the demands of the people of the area. Do not start trains running at midnight to reach Victoria at dawn. You don't start your service out of town at midnight, because there is not much you can do at midnight in Victoria. My point is that, given a reasonable schedule, people will use the service, thus avoiding the tie-ups which they face on the highway. They will use the service if fares are reasonable and the cars are clean-they do not want to be put into the baggage compartment.
For these reasons I heartily endorse the bill introduced by the hon. member who spoke before me. I think companies such as the CPR have used poor service to discourage people in order that an application might be made to the CTC on a spurious basis. This has happened not only in Victoria but across Canada. I hope these companies will be brought to task and obliged to provide the service they undertook to provide in return for the land which was given them a long time ago.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support what has obviously become a violent attack on the structure of the CTC and particularly upon the atrocious Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who holds office over there. Both the hon. members who have spoken sound like opposition members. It is going to be some election if they vote one way for four years and suddenly get on the opposite side.
The remarks of the previous speaker brings tears to one's eyes because his story reminds everyone of what has happened
April 11, 1978

in their own areas. I can see in my mind's eye all those little stations which have not been painted for years, beside which grass is growing between the rusty tracks. I am surprised, though, that all this should have come to the attention of those hon. members only in the last few days of the present parliament. I heard their Minister of Transport outlining his great schemes, schemes which all hinge upon one simple proposition-user-pay. This means that if a line does not make money for the railways it ought to be closed down. The Minister of Transport is, without doubt, one of the most hard-hearted, hard-headed, thick-headed ministers of transport we have had. If the story we have just heard had come to the attention of the former minister of transport he would, I am sure, have done something about it. But to the hard-hearted minister we have now, nothing else matters except user-pay. He does not care about the service provided; just let the company show a profit at the end of the year.
We in this party have been saying for a long time that service, not profit, was the purpose of the railways. We own one of them and whether it makes a profit or not is, in our view, incidental to the provision of service. The bill before us is a private member's bill, so the idea is to solve the problem in a way which will not cost the taxpayers any money. To some extent, the hon. member is right. If the company were to decide to provide a service in the cheapest and most beneficial way possible, it is likely it would be profitable.
Not too long ago I attended a CTC hearing and shocked the CNR by supporting its application to drop passenger service between North Bay and Toronto. I might explain that the company did not really intend to drop it. All the company wanted was to get a subsidy so that they would be paid for whatever mess they had made along that route. They did not only screw up the CN, Mr. Speaker, they screwed up the Ontario Northland Railway as well. They did not care whether it was easier for passengers to get from Moosonee, Timmins, Kapuskasing, and other points, to Toronto. All they wanted was a huge subsidy. Ask them if they will sell the operation and allow someone else to operate it, and the answer is "No way".
I sympathize with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) when he refers to a very picturesque little railway on Vancouver Island. We are talking about the great expense of getting the Canadian people to travel and to see Canada. I have been to Vancouver Island many times, and I can think of no better way of seeing the beauty of Vancouver Island than to travel on that railway and visit the little communities along the railway. It would be particularly advantageous for eastern Canadians to do so.
In 1978 I expect that there should be some degree of comfort and that passenger trains should not have to travel over trestles which have been condemned for freight. I expect that there should be modern, up-to-date railways to provide service. The Liberal party has sat on its hands in this House and listened to the Minister of Transport talk for several years
Transportation
about abandoning the transportation system in Canada, not making repairs and not updating it. The minister has been talking about abandoning the transportation system wherever it does not make a profit.
The minister says we should provide user-pay service, and that when it becomes profitable we should sell the operation piece by piece. He says we should sell only those sectors of transportation which are profitable. Hon. members opposite are not going to be able to go across the country during an election campaign and say that they are in favour of improving the system because they were too weak to stand up to the Minister of Transport, who has decided on a totally different policy. He is going to put money into Mirabel, into the turbo train between Montreal and Toronto and into that corridor to Windsor. Why? Because those publicly owned ventures will be profitable, and when they are, the minister will sell them. The government bought railroad cars to transport grain and lent them to the railways so that they can haul the grain without having to make that expenditure. Granted, the railways are losing money, but we are providing them with many components. Now they are asking us to fix roadbeds, upgrade stations and to do other things.
Like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I have a story to tell, but mine is about northern Ontario. The government of Ontario went to Europe and bought a train which the Europeans were no longer going to use. The train which was purchased is the train movies are made about. It is a beautiful little train. The Swiss, the Belgians, the French and others who were using that train were getting rid of it, so we brought it into Canada. The United States violently opposed its coming into North America because it is European built, has European parts and will need European repairs. Canadian National opposed it. The Canadian Transport Commission opposed it. They went over that train as if they were looking at a new aeroplane which would fly at twice the speed of sound. However, it was finally approved.
The train ran from Kapuskasing to Toronto. It was faster than any other mode of ground transportation. In Europe the train ran at 80 or 90 miles an hour. But what happened? Canadian National said the train had to fit into its time schedule and the CN did not want it going that fast on its track. CN did not want to meet the kinds of commitments which were possible with that kind of train. According to CN, the train started at the wrong time, arrived at its destination at the wrong time and sat on the track too much. Instead of making the trip from Timmins to Toronto in five or six hours the train was put on a schedule which would mean a longer trip than a trip by car. The train could travel safely and efficiently. It could provide a beautiful service and much quicker than any other mode of ground transportation. Let not the Liberals say they are now prepared to support proper transportation in areas other than urban areas where it would obviously be profitable. We know that has not been done yet, and we know that the Liberals have not voted for anything which would accomplish that.

April 11, 1978
Transportation
Unfortunately this bill will be talked out. It is being used for propaganda, and I say that is a disgrace. If hon. members are honest, if they believe that in the next parliament we can change the user-pay concept and provide service for all Canadians in all parts of Canada, then if a bill of this nature is introduced again they should support it, as I will.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak for very long. The title and the purpose of the bill are clear. The purpose is well outlined in the bill. It is to remedy some of the things referred to by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is famous for his user-pay policy. I am interested in the manner in which the explanatory note is worded. It says the following:
Government consultants have recommended to the Canadian Transport Commission that passenger trains serving less populous regions be replaced by buses in order to eliminate federal subsidies. At the same time the railways are increasing fares beyond the ability of many passengers to pay.
That is exactly what the Minister of Transport tried to sell and did sell to the premiers of the maritime provinces. For that reason I think the bill is very constructive. It is a private member's bill which is a reversal of existing government policy; and I have no hesitation in saying that I support the bill because it seems to be maritime-oriented.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the underlying philosophy-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I had the decency to keep quiet and listen closely to hon. members when they made their speeches. I trust they will extend the same courtesy to me.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying principles of this bill are of course very praiseworthy and justifiable, but I feel that the present national transport policy provides all necessary barriers to enable the Canadian Transport Commission to take into account precisely those concerns expressed by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier). He himself, when he made his excellent speech earlier, was able to take advantage of those CTC rules last spring when he appeared before the commission and pleaded his case for extending passenger services in his area which case he actually won.
Mr. Speaker, though I find this bill very attractive in some regards, and because I come from an area which is also far removed from Canadian metropolises and which, unfortunately, lost its only passenger service running from Quebec City and Murray Bay, though, as I say, I find this bill very appealing, the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that neither the minister nor anyone else can be blamed for trying to put some measure of order in our national policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hour allotted for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) that Bill C-45, to provide for the continuation of regular postal service operations, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At five o'clock the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) had the floor. He has 29 minutes remaining to him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, at five o'clock I was making the point that there is an encouraging development within the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and that is a growing sentiment among the responsible members that confrontation and polarization must end before the existence of the Post Office Department is threatened. This situation has not been developing overnight. As a matter of fact, I am sure hon. members will be aware-those who follow postal affairs closely-that it was emerging during the crisis that was brought about in the 42 days strike in 1975.
I should like to quote again from the article by Mark Nichols in the July issue of Macleans magazine where he refers to the following incident:
At times, the hard line positions taken by CUPW leadership appear to have run far ahead of rank and file sentiment. Toward the end of the tumultuous 1975 strike, says Bryce Mackasey, who was postmaster general at the time, "it became very evident to me that the majority of the workers were satisfied with Ottawa's offer, and equally obvious that the leadership didn't want to settle." "Had the strike continued for just a few more days," says Mackasey, the workers would have begun returning to work and the union leadership would have been effectively broken. Rather than have that happen-"because I am not malicious"-Mackasey made a few minor concessions that enabled the leadership to save face and the strike was over.
That was my own impression at the time. The loss of business was becoming critically evident, even two years ago, and the deficits have been going up astronomically since that
April 11, 1978

time. The advent of private courier service, including the attempts of the United Postal Service from the United States to come to Canada, and also the availability of electronic communications technology, all made it necessary for the postal workers to reappraise their militant position, and as I have indicated, responsible members of CUPW were expressing themselves publicly and have done so since that time in even stronger terms. I would say-and I think I can say it without fear of contradiction-that leaders such as Joe Davidson, who says that the public can go to hell, no longer carry the judgment of the great majority of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers with respect to post office matters. This was evident in the situation that developed in Toronto just before Christmas last year when it appeared there would be another pre-Christmas strike. Wiser sentiments prevailed and wiser judgments were listened to by the vast majority of the workers at this very critically important post office centre, and that strike was avoided.
Unfortunately, as has been said earlier during this debate, to bring legislation such as we are facing precipitously into the House of Commons on the eve of the dissolution of this House will do nothing to help this encouraging development within labour that has been emerging over recent years. I know that the government is attempting to create a law and order image, but the public of Canada can detect hypocrisy. The public was fooled during the last election by the hypocritical stand of the government in respect of wage and price controls. The hon. member who was then the leader of our party, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), said in a very forthright and honest manner that what Canada needed was restraint because public expenditure was out of control. That hon. member went to the people with a program of wage and price restraint that was ridiculed by the Liberal party from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) down, only to have that group reverse itself within a year. I do not think the public is going to be confused or fooled by the cynical turn-about-face in respect of its lackadaisical and delinquent attitude in failing to come to grips with the problem of labour management relations in the public service.
Perhaps I should read from an interesting ComTeam Bulletin that came to my attention. The ComTeam Bulletin represents an attempt by post office management to establish dialogue between labour and management in the Post Office Department. This bulletin was issued on February 8, 1978 under the heading "The Right to Strike in the Public Service". It states in part:
According to Prime Minister Trudeau, the right to strike isn't the problem. In a letter to a major mailing organization Mr. Trudeau said that stifling the worst symptom of the ailment is not a cure.
That is what we are trying to do tonight. The bulletin goes on to state:
He suggests that we must deal with the perceptions that labour and management have of themselves as adversaries. Mr. Trudeau sees the basic challenge as one of securing from labour and management a sense of shared responsibility for making sure the enterprise survives.
Postal Service
Mr. Trudeau points out that, while cynics may scorn this approach in favour of a hard line, experience has proven that conflict between labour and management is neither inherent nor inevitable. Mr. Trudeau said, "Consider the more harmonious relationships that exist in some other countries, for instance, West Germany. And in our Post Office, the letter carriers union is participating with management in a problem-solving program, which has succeeded in defusing some potentially explosive grievances."
Mr. Trudeau closed by insisting that his government will pursue its efforts to get all participants in collective bargaining in the public service to make the process work so that increased regulation doesn't become necessary.
The Prime Minister has reversed himself completely since that statement was made and reported in the ComTeam Bulletin.
While it is necessary to go along with this arbitrary piece of legislation, it will do nothing to solve the long standing problems that were recognized ten years ago by the then postmaster general, the hon. Eric Kierans. An election is the only process that will resolve the problem, because it will provide the opposition, when it goes to the other side of the House, with an opportunity to consider the setting up of a Crown or public corporation, which we have been advocating for a number of years and which was advocated by Mr. Kierans those many years ago. This has also been suggested by a Treasury Board study and other documents well known to members of this House. It will then be possible to get management, postal workers and postal users working together on a management committee to resolve problems as they arise.
This is another recommendation we have been making repeatedly, and to which the Prime Minister refers in respect of the harmonious labour relations in West Germany. It will be possible to provide training for shop stewards and supervisors. This will provide them with the knowledge of industrial relations needed when dealing with sensitive people issues such as those at the heart of the present confrontation in the post office. Finally, it will provide an opportunity to establish a public interest disputes commission to help defuse explosive issues.
I have been in touch with members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers today in an attempt to get their reaction to this arbitrary piece of legislation. The majority group I referred to briefly in my remarks tonight has assured me it will obey the law provided the workers have the protection of the present contract until such time as a new contract is agreed to. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has indicated he will be introducing an amendment to this effect before this legislation is approved. I certainly urge that he proceed in that direction. We will support him reluctantly, realizing it is stop gap and temporary, believing that the election will ultimately resolve the problem.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this new bill. This is not the first time that happens here in the House of Commons, but here we are again discussing a measure which shows that the labour legislation is far from being geared to present needs. I have already said that many laws are drafted and passed, mostly labour laws, much more out of a sense of fear of what
4404

April II, 1978
Postal Service
an election may bring than for the good of people. Bill C-45 is a good example that government jugglers do not always come up with the best suggestions. Having made concessions without sufficiently taking into account the adverse effects they might have, the government now feels compelled to enact legislation to take away from a certain group of workers the right to strike they had granted them.
According to the definition in the dictionary, that process could be termed as absurdity, for it is really absurd to legislate to give a group of workers the right to strike and, after a while, pass a legislation to take it away; that has happened before at the time of the railway strike and, unfortunately, we are now again discussing a legislation with the same object.
I understand, and I had the opportunity to read the recent announcement by the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) who said today that he supported fully the preliminary statement made by the employer before the conciliation board concerning the controversial points. Of course, it is another passage of this announcement. The statement made today repeats the employer's point of view on the events and the facts which prevented both parties from coming to an agreement and the salary increase sought represents a considerable amount of money. This is also one of the reasons why the government introduces this bill but particularly, and I repeat, it is the fear to have a strike during the election campaign which would make it more difficult for those hon. members to communicate with the electorate. I recognize frankly that this reason is questionable. The essential would rather be-and here we act urgently-to introduce a labour legislation which would meet the needs.
Hon. members know just like me that there were written documents published in various places, big books dealing with these questions, but among other things I have here a fairly simple article which is full of good sense. It reads, and I quote:
This is surely no longer a time for this kind of pressure on employers. If every person, rich or poor, would care, we would surely find a solution. We should put human value on top of everything. Sooner or later, we shall have to do so. Why not start immediately?
As a matter of fact, in the past we have always followed the United States. This time it would be a good thing to find ourselves a substitute for strikes. Personally I think that if a jury can judge whether an individual is guilty or innocent, they could also decide on a collective agreement. Surely there are other people who have better ideas than these awful work stoppages.
I remember having made that suggestion to the House and besides our party has looked into a number of questions related to strikes. I had the opportunity to do union work during ten years, at a time when we were lucky enough to negotiate collective agreements with many employers, while always preventing a strike, because everybody knows that a strike is not a solution but a necessary evil which must be avoided as much as possible. It is a pity to see that there are still people with enough imagination to think that the solution to the various labour-management problems is a work stoppage. It is pure

nonsense. We should logically recognize that all human achievements result from work. It takes only a few minutes of reflection to realize that we are going round in a vicious circle, without any practical solution.
The only concession possible to justify a strike is to view it as an attempt to catch up on the ever rising cost of living under the present system. The right to strike is not fundamental either. It is a phenomenon related to various states of generalized unrest. We must look for the cause of all such situations which have become generalized, but first of all, we must try to find the cause which becomes an eventual means of pressure, because the strike proposal is subject to a vote and the decision is often taken by a small percentage of the workers concerned.
Generally, strikes are aimed against those who pay instead of being aimed at those who deprive the workers. I have said before and I say again that a strike should be directed mainly against the infamous system under which everybody suffers. That is where the strike should be directed, and after changing our corrupt financial system, it would then be much easier to negotiate collective agreements and to get management and labour to agree.
It often happens that any misuse of the means resorted to prevents one from achieving one's aim. We have often noted that some agreements turn into disagreements. A certain percentage of negotiators persist in reinstating their right to have rights, with the result that there are many protests, often based on misunderstanding which more often than not leads to confusion.
Most people demand what they believe to be their rights, without much regard for duties, when a solution must be found to complex problems. I can understand that the situation can become complex. The longer the strike and the negotiations, the more different judicial levels are called upon to solve the conflict, the more the people get exasperated and willing to accept any suggestion. We must never forget, for example, that the right to live far outweighs the right to strike or to lock out.
In this stressful and conflict-ridden climate, whether in industry or elsewhere, and with a legislation inspired by fear in front of the dominating world of finance, it is difficult to find an equitable solution to the labour and management problems of the day. Governments will have to become conscious of their responsibilities with the group of experts they have available to them, and apply a true piece of legislation which does not reflect the control of profiteers on the one hand nor the fear of the behaviour of certain unions on the other, but an understanding, honest, human, just and truly social legislation which provides for an equitable distribution of profits and the guarantee of reasonable wages to workers. It should be possible to draft acts in a clear and concise manner that can be understood by those concerned. It is worth trying because peaceful relations between management and labour are at stake.
April 11, 1978

As long as we fail to replace the system of adversary confrontation by a completely different approach based on genuine cooperation, the bad faith stirred by economic conflicts will continue to be a sad reality. Management and unions will still be paralyzed by bitter conflicts which are only the logical result of a tense and quarrelsome atmosphere surrounding many collective bargainings. Nobody wants to yield; everyone wants to win. It is like the game of tug of war: the stronger wins, the winner takes all.
Considering the drastic changes occurring in our society, we should ask ourselves whether the present system of collective bargaining can really enable us to establish economic and dynamic social justice. The Woods task force stated it quite clearly and I quote:
Over the years an increasingly complicated range of issues has found its way onto the bargaining table. The introduction of elaborate fringe benefit schemes, especially in the health, welfare and pension fields, and intricate job and income security arrangements, have forced the parties into more sophisticated relationship requiring something beyond crisis bargaining.
According to Dean Woods and his colleagues, unions and management have failed to adapt the new technology to make work a more enriching activity of man. They insist that this regrettable failure is partly due to the fact that "unions and collective bargaining were not designed to handle problems growing out of the nature of work itself'. The authors of the Woods report have expressed a sound criticism, and I quote:
Unions do not seem to have recognized the magnitude of the problem. Organized labour has long talked about alienation from work, but its answer seems to have been to ensure workers more generous pay to compensate for their frustrating life on the job with a good life off the job. This has not and will not solve the problem and overtime will likely become an increasingly ineffectual and expensive palliative.
It is obvious that we must interest the worker in his job. There are various means at our disposal to achieve that purpose. A few months ago the government was prepared to provide fairly large amounts of money to union organizations and it was inclined to do it-I have the statement before me to prove it-and actually accepted the idea. If that is the case, we must see to it that this money is properly spent and we must recognize at the same time that there is a genuine need for education among workers and the employer and we must also have those who are doing any kind of work understand that they must interest themselves in their job, what are the results expected from them and the reason why such a work has to be done.
So, if we insist upon maintaining an attitude which has existed for so long, we will continue to face situations which are often impossible and which require backward legislation such as the one which has just been introduced.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I will quote an article which appeared in La Presse of Montreal quite some time ago now but which is still of current interest. The article is dated June 3, 1972, and is entitled "The freedom of others". And I think that we must consider the freedom of others. It is fine to be
Postal Service
free, it is highly commendable but one must respect the freedom of others. And several examples are mentioned in that article which should bring those who love their own freedom to consider also the freedom of others.
We are witnesses to a strange situation as we enter the post-industrial age. We notice that the freedom of some may at times destroy that of others. One also notices that certain freedoms do not yet exist. The individual worker enjoys the right to join a union but not the right not to do so.
I have already spoken on that issue. One has to join a union because he is compelled to do so, he has to pay his dues but he has no right to get out of it. This is a point which I have already discussed to some extent in this House.
There is no freedom either to choose a union other than the one which is certified to the management.
Furthermore a newsman may for instance break his employment contract because of an ideological orientation change on the part of his employer but he has no right to withdraw from a labour union for the same reason.
This is somewhat pertinent to the circumstances where there are strikes in newspapers as is the case in the province of Quebec.
Hospital workers have the right to strike but when they do exercise that right, they jeopardize the lives of patients who have the basic right to receive attentive and intensive care. Civil servants have the right to strike but when they exercise that right they are depriving elderly people, pensioners and people on welfare of their right to receive in due time a cheque which is eagerly awaited.
Air Canada's controllers and technicians have the right to strike but when they do, they do so to the detriment of an essential right of the residents of the Arctic which is to receive supplies. They were almost responsible for the death of a child because a rare serum could not be forwarded by plane.
Teachers have the right to strike but when they do, they are depriving children of their essential right to uninterrupted and worry-free education.
Postal workers have the right to strike but when they do, they deny the population an essential service, thereby inflicting a serious prejudice to many businesses depending on the mail for their daily operations.
One should never forget that the right to live for each and everyone of us stems from a natural right and that it must take precedence over the right to strike.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take part for a few moments in this debate. At the outset I want to say how pleased I was to listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I think he has done a tremendous job in attempting-to the extent one can from this side of the House-to bring the parties together in what has been an ongoing and deteriorating situation between workers in the postal service and the Treasury Board.
The situation has reached the point where postal workers in Canada do not trust the Treasury Board, do not believe in the Treasury Board, do not find it responsive; and the Treasury Board has taken the same view that the post office management has taken of the union. Collective bargaining is adversary by nature, but if it is to be effective it must be based on some trust, some understanding and some communication. The fact of the matter is that communication has broken down. If we are ever to get rid of the problem and keep the postal service
80033 -66'/2

April 11, 1978
Postal Service
operating we must start from a premise. We have to get to the truth.
I do not believe a bill like this helps us to get to the truth. A bill like this does not necessarily improve relationships, and over the long run we have to get to the truth. That is why we have said from time to time when the occasion arose in this House that perhaps it was not such a bad idea to have some form of commission of inquiry to deal with this matter and go into the issue of technological change and all the other issues that affect relationships between employer and employees in the postal department. We must get at the truth and find out what has really happened, and have some premise from which we can start. Perhaps from that we can move to a new form of industrial democracy. I do not know whether it will work in Canada or not but in the present atmosphere we will not be able to try.
The management-labour committee mentioned by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, which is working well in Germany and in the United States, has been able to bring labour, management and postal users together in a new way. These things may be conducive to sound relationships within the postal service.
As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) said, the public interest dispute commission is not by itself a dispute resolving body; but it is one of the vehicles that can help understanding, develop trust and ease the way toward settlement. Surely we ought not to say it is ineffective. It is very important that we find vehicles by which the relationship can be effective and meaningful.
That is not the case in this country now. We have had ten years of disruption, then years in which, while there has been considerable difficulty from the point of view of the union and examples of bad leadership, there has been equally bad leadership by the government.
I think we have come to the point where most Canadians are saying, with respect to the post office and a whole host of other
things, that this government is incapable of sustaining the leadership that is necessary. With respect to the economy and the post office, its time has come. It is despondent, dispirited, denuded of its best people and denuded of imagination and ideas. That is why we are facing an election in this country, Mr. Speaker. Leadership has gone. That is why we will be going to the country in a few days. I recall last year during the air controllers' strike-the minister will recall it as well- editorial writers, columnists and opinion leaders from coast to coast were shouting that strikes in the public service must end. The right to strike must be taken away from public servants and others who are qualifying their statements by saying that there should be no strikes in "essential services"-an easy thing to say when there is no necessity to define what those essential services are-or that we should not have strikes which "damage the national interests". That is the kind of rhetoric that was heard. Even the cabinet at that time was split wide open, if you recollect. I would suspect that it is still split wide open today if one lifts the corner of that sticky plaster.

You will recall the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who was smiling in his benign and friendly way-a smile for which he has become famous across this country,-said that all strikes, public and private, that would damage the nation "have to be outlawed", were his words. The Minister of Labour, on the other hand, who until today has been known as "Mr. Free Collective Bargaining" in Canada, said that the Minister of Transport did not really know what he was saying. There is Mr. Speaker, confusion in the government as to its position, so can you imagine the confusion in the minds of the public with respect to the whole process of collective bargaining in the Public Service of Canada.
We must look this situation over very carefully. We are dealing with postal matters tonight. What is important for postal unions is also important for public servants and public service unions. What is the reality in Canada? What can happen? What can we do to improve this situation? What can be done to eliminate the great inconvenience of strikes in the public service, or if not eliminate them, at least minimize them to some tolerable degree so that we can rely generally on efficiency and continuance in this branch of the public service and public enterprise. I always felt that the ability to communicate readily day by day was the foundation of an ordinary society.
There have been a lot of misconceptions about the position in the public service. Geoffrey Stevens, in a column published last summer in the Globe and Mail, gave us some statistics which a lot of people did not believe at the time. I think these statistics are quite important. There had been 405 collective agreements in the public service up to that time since the right to strike was instituted. In that time only 12 of them had been preceded by legal strikes. That is not a bad record. I think that record is perhaps better, at least in terms of numbers, than the record in the private sector which ranks somewhere close to that of Italy. I am not happy with those figures. No one is because when a strike takes place it means that the system has broken down.
There are certain other things which the public generally does not know about public service disputes. There are two routes which can be taken by public service unions. The route chosen is the option of the public service bargaining agent. The first route is the conciliation/strike route. That is the route which postal unions opted for, and certain others, and the reasons for their choice will become clear in a moment. The other route available is the arbitration route. Under this option the dispute is sent to a tribunal where it is resolved. It becomes binding on the public service union, the membership and on the government as well.
Given the existence of the choice of the bargaining agent, it is interesting to look at some statistics. In 1970, 81 per cent of the public servants chose arbitration at the end of their collective bargaining process and only 19 per cent chose the conciliation/strike route. In 1975, Mr. Speaker, five years later, the picture was almost completely reversed: only 36 per
April 11, 1978

cent chose arbitration and a whopping 64 per cent chose conciliation / strike.
I think we are sitting on a time bomb. In Canada we have developed an increasing potential for difficulty on the public side. That potential for difficulty and the probability of it occurring will not disappear because we suddenly decide, by a stroke of the pen, to remove the right to strike in the public service. As I said, the blame can be shared. It can be shared by the unions and their leadership in some respects. It can be shared by the Treasury Board and it can be shared by the government.
One reason we have opted on the public side for concilia-tion/strike rather than arbitration is because the conciliation/ strike route for the employee and his union is more attractive to what the employee wants. He wants certainty and swiftness of decision. We have made it more attractive because arbitration has not developed as something which has been trusted, at least on the public service side.
It is too bad we have been driven to the situation where public service unions, which generally do not move in the direction of strike, are adopting the method which can end in strike. We must devise ways in this country of making the binding arbitration route more attractive.
I represent thousands of public servants and their families. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want a strike; they do not want disrupted services. They are no different from you or me for that matter. Like everyone else, they would like to have the opportunity to work steadily and to be paid in the ordinary course, to receive their mail regularly and be able to plan a holiday, using the rail and air services of the country confident that their holiday will take place. They suffer as much as anyone when a segment of the public service decides to withhold its work and labour. Based on those statistics arbitration in Canada is still being viewed less and less as a trusted tool or method of solving disputes. In view of the statements by the minister, in view of what has occurred in the past, in view of the potential for difficulty in the figures which I have mentioned earlier, we must take a look at the situation in the public service. My constituents who are in the public service do not hesitate to speak to me. They tell me quite frankly that they are not interested in strikes or in striking, and that if there is a demonstrably better way, they would rather have their disputes settled in that manner than through the withdrawal of services.
The public interest disputes commission which we have suggested, and which we will continue to suggest, is one of the . cogs in the wheel of that better way. The management committees discussed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is another of those ways. Public servants tell me in equally strong terms that there is a suspicion abroad about the arbitration process as it now functions in the public service. To put their views succinctly, Mr. Speaker, they tell me that the scope of arbitration is far too narrow. It is impossible for them to arbitrate what they can negotiate.
By choosing the conciliation strike route, subject to very few exceptions, the whole range of differences and opinions be-
Postal Service
tween employers and employees can be aired. They say there are delays in the process which cause frustration. It is a fact that the hopes and the fears of many ride on the outcome of a particular case, and as frustrations develop, anger builds up. They suspect that the arbitration process, as it is now practised, is not completely free of or independent from the influences of the government of the day. They feel the arbitration tribunal ought to give reasons for its judgment in many areas, which it does not do, certainly on questions with respect to pay. They do not feel the arbitration boards are particularly responsible, because unlike the conciliation process they do not have the opportunity to nominate members to the board in the same way, nor is the arbitration board necessarily composed of the most appropriate people from the point of view of the expertise appropriate to the dispute. They do not have a say in the choice of chairman through their representatives, as they would have on a conciliation board. Perhaps most importantly, the entire process is dependent upon data in which the employees have less than full confidence.
Those are only some of the reasons given to me from time to time by constituents who are interested in working and becoming involved in the public service, who do not want service withheld and want to live within a reasonable process. If those areas are the problems, nothing is insurmountable and I do not think we can ignore them. I do not think we can afford to set them aside with a simplistic sweep of the hand because we may face an immediate situation. Whether this bill is passed or not, the same atmosphere and demoralizing influences will be there. The same alarming statistics, with their potential for trouble, will be there for us to face, even though by this bill we may not have to face them in a general election.
No one in this House would condone law breaking in the public service or elsewhere. There is no one in this House who cannot feel somewhat sad that the situation in an essential service has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that now the government deems it necessary, whether for its own purposes or not, to defer the dispute for a time, rather than resolve it.
We must work on methods of improving the dispute resolution process. I know the Minister of Labour is not proud of the fact that this bill does not do that. Surely our best efforts in the next while have to be directed toward asking the public service and other labour-oriented groups and unions in the country to choose a form of dispute resolution which is not disruptive. That is the constructive way to go. When the dust settles from this piece of legislation and those issues, that problem is still before us waiting to be tackled.
I do not propose to speak any longer on the bill. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) indicated what our position would be with respect to the bill. It is appropriate for the debate to end quickly. It is important to resolve that question in the House tonight so that we can go on with other things and deal with them very quickly indeed.

April 11, 1978
Postal Service
The Minister of Labour has always prided himself on standing for the rights of labour. I would not be one to say that he has not. Again today he said that the government would continue to rely on voluntary agreements. He indicated that when he mentioned that the process of voluntary agreement in one department of the government had broken down. Although we intend to support the bill on second reading, and I presume it will move rather quickly through committee, there is a cancer in the dispute resolution process of the public service. This is only one cell. It is shown in the morale of the public service, the way the merit principle is being dissipated in the public service, the way rights are being denied in the public service, and the way 3,000 people were brought in out of the ordinary channels in the years 1976 and 1977, according to the evidence before the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. That is all part of this cancer. Now the public is being treated to the Public Service Commission reporting on the eve of an election with respect to what it will do with public servants. The public has not been consulted with respect to that, they have been told.
The government brought in Bill C-28 which has a disturbing effect on the public service, to say the least. As well, this section is pulled out of it for special treatment. The attitude of the government toward public servants is sick-as well as short term. The length or breadth of the government's vision is as long as the next two months. While this bill must be dealt with because it is a matter put before us by the government, there ought not to be any person in this House who can approach this entire subject without a rather heavy heart. Within the time limited to it, I suggest the government should work very, very hard at changing its attitudes, so that the entire process in government and the relationship between its employers and employees can change. Once again the Government of Canada can begin to provide some leadership for the public and private sectors of this country. This sense of leadership has been lost over the last ten years.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that second reading of any bill dealt with debate on the principle of the bill. I have to ask myself what the principle in Bill C-45 is. How do I square the way I stand and the way my party stands on the principle contained in this bill? I think the principle is one of confrontation.
This has been the pattern since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ran for office in 1968. It is reminiscent of a candidate for Prime Minister standing in Montreal waving defiance on St. Jean Baptiste Day, which caused the rest of Canada to say: "What a strong Prime Minister he will make. Look how he puts the rabble in their place. That is the type of man we want as leader". That is the same kind of confrontation which we experienced when the LaPalme drivers were demonstrating on Parliament Hill against the manner in which they had lost their jobs. It is the same kind of principle. The Prime Minister said to working class people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own: "Mange la merde". At the same time, the rest of Canada said: "What a tough Prime Minister! He has moxie, he has backbone. That is the man."

It is the same sort of principle we saw with respect to Quebec and the government of Quebec. It is the same type of confrontation where the Prime Minister is building on a scapegoat philosophy, so that the rest of Canada says: "It takes a French Canadian to put French Canadians in their place". That is the sort of cynicism, that is the kind of philosophy I find when I read this one-page bill. What else is the principle in it?
I was shocked to hear the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamon-tagne) say yesterday in a CBC interview that all this bill does is to provide for CUPW a clause which is already in the Canada Labour Code. Section 181 of the Canada Labour Code says, in effect, that workers who are covered by it cannot go on strike during an election period. Mr. Speaker, he has not read the bill. I phoned up and said: "You have used section 181 but you have not put in section 148," which says, in effect, that the workers who are prevented from striking during an election period will be covered by the previous collective agreement. Ministers over there have not even read the bill properly. It is not often I feel sympathy with Liberals but I do feel a little sympathy for the defender of the Hamilton Ticats. I feel some sympathy for the men who try to keep Harold Ballard out of Hamilton. Here we have CUPW which comes under the public service act, under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), and lo and behold, the bill which affects them is being introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I cannot help feeling sympathetic toward him if he feels beleaguered and asks: Good God, what nonentity wrote this bill and expects me to clean it up?
There is no protection in this bill for the workers. The post office flunkeys in middle management would love to see the workers without a collective agreement during those 60 or 90 days when an election is being held. They have never shown themselves to be particularly efficient in the absence of whatever is admirable in public relations. Again, the principle is one of confrontation. On the very day the CUPW negotiations went to conciliation, yesterday, the Prime Minister was tabling this bill in the House. Since the Minister of Labour seems to have done so well last Friday he wants to press his luck; he wants us to put the measure through today.
What sort of reaction, Mr. Speaker, do you think this will provoke in any honest-to-goodness trade union with any kind of balls? What kind of reaction might have been expected? I am amazed at the patience and restraint with which CUPW has reacted to Bill C-45. As I say, there is only one concept here, and that is confrontation.
There is political confrontation as well to some degree, because if there is one union in Canada which is not persona grata in the hearts and minds of the public from coast to coast it is CUPW. So the Prime Minister is trying to hoist the opposition in the House of Commons. What a marvellous election issue-to be able to go across the country and say: "We want to be sure there are no strikes in the post office during an election." And if other parties vote against it, he can
April 11, 1978

say: "The opposition tried to prevent us putting in that protection for you." This seems to me to be the height of cynicism and introduces an element of political confrontation.
For nine months CUPW has been without a contract from Treasury Board. Does anyone want to tell me that the Prime Minister got this sudden flash of insight only last week, that quite without premeditation he got the idea of bringing in a bill to make sure that CUPW would not go on strike during an election? Does anyone believe that the government has never foreseen that possibility in time to plan for it and to bring in a properly worded bill in time for it to be sent to committee where witnesses could be heard? Does anyone want to try to persuade me that the government was completely of far-sightedness in this respect? Mr. Speaker, this was planned. This was deliberate. This was cynical. This is confrontation politics and I cannot accept the principle which has been incorporated so blatantly in Bill C-45. I can see the minister shaking his head like a jack-in-the-box, but that is not what he was saying earlier today when he was stuck with this. He rolled out of bed this morning and said to his secretary: "Look what they have done."


Mr. Nystrom:: When he rolled out of bed? His secretary was there?


John Allen Fraser: Explain!


John R. Rodriguez: That is the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) with his chauvinist remarks again. It seems to me the height of cynicism was reached when the Postmaster General said the provision of the Labour Code was being followed with respect to an election in the case of CUPW. It is phony. He gives the union the worst of the Labour Code without giving it some of the better things in it. His mind sprang immediately to clause 181 but avoided clause 148. He argued vigorously against putting CUPW under the Labour Code, but here, when it is convenient, we see it done selectively.
I feel a little twinge of sympathy for the Minister of Labour. He has tried to improve his image as the minister who has done most for labour. It is on that basis that there is the suggestion that the trade unionists ought to be weaned away from their alliance with the NDP. It is suggested that only labour ministers and labour governments can do things for labour.
I believe this parliament is coming to an end very quickly, and there will be a blot on the minister's escutcheon. That blot will be legislation of this kind, which is based on the principle of confrontation and removing from workers the right to strike without providing protection for the collective bargaining process. A section from another statute is suddenly being sprung upon CUPW. The government is not giving CUPW a chance to know the rules of the game. It is springing this legislation at a time when the negotiations are moving into conciliation. That confrontation politics is inviting CUPW to react by saying that parliament can pass all the bills it wants, that the
Postal Service
fines are not too high and that its members will hit the bricks anyway. This way the Prime Minister can look like a real tough guy in the middle of the election campaign. The Prime Minister will be able to say: "I have them with Bill C-45", and the government will be able to enforce the legislation to the full extent of the law.


Simma Holt: Be honest.


John R. Rodriguez: I wish the hon. member would get up and make a speech rather than make smart aleck remarks from the back bench.


Simma Holt: Say something valuable and creative.


John R. Rodriguez: The bionic woman from the back bench is making smart aleck remarks again.
The problems involving the post office have become a long saga. There have been many disputes, and the crux of the problem has been technological change. There was a great fight over getting a technological change clause put into the collective agreement the last time around. CUPW was saying it should be given the technological change clause which is in the Canada Labour Code. A strike went on for weeks and weeks. Finally that friend of labour, Bryce Mackasey, said in my presence one morning at three o'clock that he would be prepared to lay a technological change clause on the table for CUPW. After a five-week strike Bryce Mackasey laid on the table word for word the technological change clause contained in the Canada Labour Code.
Is that the way we should operate in this country with respect to industrial relations? How can this government hope to be an example and encourage the unions in the private sector when it has the worst labour relations record in the history of this country? The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) asked me to say something intelligent and to contribute something. I have just done so. This government is not fit to provide an example. It is not fit to lead with respect to bringing parties together to work out new forms of collective bargaining and industrial relationships. Under the present system the minister has direct control over the workers in the post office, and that leaves a lot to be desired.
As I said, there was a strike which dragged on for five or six weeks. Bryce Mackasey had claimed prior to that that the public servants of this country were the lead dogs of labour and that he was going to leash them and bring them under control. The then postmaster general, after a five or six-week strike, laid on the table a clause which would eventually solve the problem. That clause was section 129. I do not call that bargaining in good faith. Even when the workers obtained the technological change clause the Minister of Labour could have learned a lot from the way the post office was running around the ends on that one. He could have coached the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.


Mr. Gilbert:: "Pussycats."

April 11, 1978
Postal Service


John R. Rodriguez: He is no pussycat. He is a smart politician, and he has to live with this. No sooner did CUPW get the technological change clause than it got the runaround with regard to the notice required before the technological change clause came into effect. There was a requirement to sit down with the workers and to talk to them about how technological change would affect them. The government did everything possible to run around the ends with regard to the technological change clause.
In the last ten years the government has changed postmasters general more often than I change shorts.


John Allen Fraser: I can believe that, John.


John R. Rodriguez: In the last ten years the government has changed postmasters general practically every year. I remember that in the first week the former postmaster general, who is now the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), took over the post office he made a press statement. He said he would stay out of collective bargaining because he did not study labour law and was not a collective bargaining expert. One week later he was in there giving advice about the technological change clause, and the contract and about how the workers must live up to their responsibilities with regard to technological change. It was like Moses being taken out of the bullrushes! Suddenly overnight the new minister had become the expert. He was involving himself in the collective bargaining process.
I have listened to the Conservatives to my right. I can tell it is close to an election. They all love public servants. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was not kidding when he said there were many public servants in his riding. That was his reason for condemning the bill, but I want to see how he will vote on the principle of the bill.
I am sure all those who will be affected by the proposed Bill C-28 are anxious to see how the Conservatives will react. The Conservatives talk about studying the problems further. We do not need to study the problems any further. There has been royal commission after royal commission. The post office has been studied to death. Postmasters general have recommended that the post office be made a Crown corporation. They have said that that would provide some sense of continuity and unity of direction, instead of dealing with three or four departments and having a spread in jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, Eric Kierans, a former postmaster general, has said that the post office ought to be made a Crown corporation. That is what the workers have been harping about since I came to the House of Commons in 1972. They have said that they would prefer to be put under the aegis of the Canada Labour Code. Royal commission after royal commission has come to the same conclusion. There has been dilly-dallying, and these decisions which must be made have been put off.
Technological change has been brought in. We spent $1 billion to purchase equipment for the post office. The West Germans said they would be very happy to sell Canada the automated junk they sold us for $1 billion. One would think that that automated equipment would have speeded up mail service. Mail used to be put on trains. There were carriages at

the rear of those trains in which workers sorted mail. The mail was taken to the various communities and delivered. There was one-day service. The president of VIA, Frank Roberts, has spoken about going back to putting mail on trains. I asked Mr. Roberts if he envisaged the day when we would have a man sitting at a table in the carriage at the back of a VIA train sorting mail. He laughed. We have put in automated equipment, but that has not speeded up mail deliveries.
Somehow or other, the victim in that whole fiasco always seems to be the worker. By some means or other it is always the workers who are supposed to be delaying the mail, when in fact the government embarked on a very expensive technological change program in the post office. First of all, they did not know their elbows from a hole in the ground about how to work with the workers in the post office. I receive letters from postal locals right across the country. They write me about the problems they are having with their superiors in the post office. It seems to me that the middle management in the post office must have all been in the army at one time or another because they all seem to be the Colonel Jekyll and Colonel Hyde of the postal corps in the second world war and have no ideas, beyond barking orders to underlings, about how to handle workers on the floor. It is "yes, sir", or "no, sir", "don't question my authority, do as you are told and don't ask why". It seems to me that before the government embarked on this sort of technological process which involved changing the lives of workers, they should have been sent to some sort of humanizing schools to take a course on how to handle workers. Perhaps that is the first thing they should have done.
What they tried to do in the post office is to superimpose a technological operation and to fit square management personnel into round technological holes. It just did not work, and as a result tensions arose. For example, we went through the whole shamozzle in the last five years on the manner in which the Post Office Department uses casuals. That was one of the big fights that CUPW had. It was around the effective dealing with casuals in the post office. Invariably casuals had a "sweetheart arrangement" which involved every manager and his sweetheart getting jobs as casuals in the post office while other workers who had been casuals for ten or 15 years would be used in such a way that the contract or the terms of the collective agreement would not be followed with respect to those covered under the agreement. The workers had to put a lot of effort in to cleaning up the whole matter of casuals in the post office.
If the leadership in CUPW is militant, they have reason to be. We should look for the causes of their militancy; we cannot deal solely with the symptoms. They are symptoms of the frustration which emerges in what is called the angry leadership, the aggressive leadership. It seems to me that one of the causes for that relates to the way in which the post office is operated.
The former postmaster general-I have not heard the present Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) on that-was
April 11, 1978

going to have these tete-a-tetes around the table. "You tell me your trouble, I will tell you mine. We will both put our problems on the table and we will then have two problems". We have not heard the Postmaster General go into that. The best way to have industrial harmony and peace in the work place is to clearly define the rights and responsibilities of the workers and of management in a contract which will be observed by both parties. That is the best way to maintain peace in the work place, instead of these little love-ins that are held so often, the net effect of which is to put off making tough decisions, which has the long term effect of sloughing off the problems to another day. "Let us have another cup of tea and talk about that problem again". The present minister has not been on to that kick yet, but I expect it will start coming shortly.
I know the leadership of CUPW very well. They are dedicated trade unionists who represent the interests of the workers. After all, it is the workers who have elected them, so whose interests should they represent? Surely not the interests of management. Their purpose is to ensure that the collective agreements are kept. We have a situation where there are literally thousands upon thousands of grievances that are backed up and have not been processed properly or expeditiously. That is one bone of contention in the relationship between management and workers in the post office.
What is the principle in this bill? As I have said, we deal with principles at second reading. I say that the principle in this bill is one of confrontation rather than solution of the problems that exist in the post office. This is confrontation politics. It is the principle of confrontation which is envisaged in this bill, and I and my party cannot support that. That is the other little game the government is playing. I do not think the Minister of Labour has participated in that Machiavellian scheme, but one of the aims of this bill is to try to hoist the NDP with the bill. In effect, how are the New Democrats going to react to that? Will they go along with such a blatant anti-labour bill? If we do that, it will wean our labour base from the party politics. I think the Minister of Labour has more principles than that. It is the other yahoos who occupy the government front benches for whom I have no respect, and I make no bones about it. I have never had any respect for them in the House because they are politicians in favour of whatever is going. Those are politics of convenience. In principle I could never support making scapegoats of one group of persons and using them for my own interests.
I am glad the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) is here. His record with respect to the nickel miners is not one to hold up as an example. I will make sure that the workers of Sudbury remember that at election time, that they remember the fact that he does not give a hoot about workers in the nickel industry. If you have any principles at all, how can you go along with Bill C-45? Surely there is a principle involved there. How does one explain the fact that they did not even know that it did not cover the workers during the 60 day period under the collective agreement? Does that indicate to you a thoughtful and purposeful drafting of the
Postal Service
bill? Either the legal minds in that government are incompetent and should be fired or, as I said before, they are guilty of collusion to try to foist this bill on parliament in its dying days, to run it through while the boys are all busy talking about when the election will come so that they will not notice it. That is the kind of cynicism they are demonstrating.
We on this side of the House cannot support the principle involved in the bill and we intend to vote against the bill. If the minister wants to put CUPW under the protection and aegis of the Canada Labour Code, then do it and give them adequate notice. Do not put them under section 181 or section 148. Section 148 is the crux of the problem.
The minister stands up in the House and says there seems to be some confusion. I suggest the confusion is on the part of the minister and not in this opposition member's head. The confusion lies with cabinet ministers who are supposed to have such "smarts". They have less "smarts" than my pet Scottish terrier has in his tail.


An hon. Member:: Do not insult your terrier.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right, I refuse to insult my Scottish terrier who has quite an attractive name. His name is Mr. Davidson and I would never under any circumstances suggest such an insult.
We cannot in all conscience support this kind of legislation. I am really shocked that the Minister of Labour, for whom I feel a tinge of sympathy, has been given the responsibility of putting this mess of potage before parliamentarians. I know he has troubles, but he should be fighting Harold Ballard, not the NDP. As I have said, we will vote against this bill as we cannot support its principle on second reading.
I am really surprised that the Tories to my right would support it. Perhaps I should not really be surprised because this is the time in the fourth year period when they should love all civil servants. I know the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton will love all those civil servants to death. Of course, we know what his reaction was to the Finkelman report and all its recommendations embodied in Bill C-28 when it was before the committee. Where do the Tories stand on this? Now that we have television in the House I want the whole Ottawa valley to know that the Tories were all for the Finkelman report, with all its recommendations embodied in Bill C-28. The record is clear in that regard and we will put their views on record shortly in respect of Bill C-45.
CUPW has exercised a great deal of patience and forbearance. At the moment this matter is at the conciliation stage. I sincerely hope a settlement will result from the conciliation report. Surely there is a great deal of forbearance being shown. I know that their patience will endure and the interests of the Canadian people will always be paramount in their considerations.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry day not only for parliament but for labour-management

April 11, 1978
Postal Service
relations in this country. We have just heard the dissertation of a person who is well qualified in the field of labour relations, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). It is not necessary for me, nor is it my intent, to give a comprehensive report about the value of good labour relations. Bill C-45 certainly is not an example or evidence of bona fide good faith in the field of industrial relations. To attempt to force legislation of this nature upon a single trade union is in itself an example of discrimination of the highest order.
This type of legislation will create hard feelings and a hardening of attitude, not only between CUPW and the government, or the management of this union, but between labour and management across the country. The people of Canada deserve perfection and excellence in postal services in this country; I suggest that this bill will create hatred, suspicion and deceit. This bill is a terrible precedent for the future of Canadian labour relations.
Let me urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and his colleagues, even at this late hour of the night, to have the common courtesy and decency to withdraw this bill and get on with the collective bargaining process which is already taking place. There is no strike under way and the union is involved in conciliation proceedings. I would caution the Minister of Labour and the government in respect of this bill and suggest that they on this occasion put their right feet forward instead of both falling on something they do not want. On this eve of an election they should finish the job that has been started, and finish it properly. This government should not jump on the back of one union because there is an alleged disagreement between the executive management, or the government, and the union leadership. At this time we are not only penalizing the membership of this union, we are creating tension between labour and management right across the country, not only in the public sector but in the private sector as well.
The previous speaker indicated that the principle of this bill was confrontation. Surely that is not a principle in labour-management relations. The bill per se is hateful, will create more hatred and is really a deceitful piece of legislation. I have a good deal of respect for the present minister, and it is hard to believe that he and the Liberal party, as well as the Conservative party, would consider endorsing or supporting this type of bill. The bill should not even be before us, and there certainly should be no attempt to rush it through. It is the type of legislation which makes that man we call "Mr. T. C. Mitts", the celebrated man in the street, so cynical of this government and political parties generally. I urge the minister to use a little bit of common sense and common decency and to consider the common man in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on March 9 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) a question concerning the increased demands made on health care as a result of the aging of the Canadian population. In particular, I asked her what steps were being taken to encourage the establishment of geriatric chairs in medical schools to train doctors in this special field.
I remember well that when I entered medicine pediatric teaching facilities were just being established, and what a difference they made to the mortality rate and to the number of hospital beds needed by the young. At the present time between 800 and 900 pediatricians are practising and doing excellent work. But the birth rate has swollen until today there are between 200,000 and 250,000 people aged 65 or over who are being cared for in institutions at a cost of $7,500,000 per day, or around $2 billion a year. The babies born during the post-war boom will be 65 and over by the year 2,000; by the turn of the century, based on present indications, there will be nearly four million people aged 65 or over. Economic strains may keep those people existing at poverty level unless they are allowed to continue to work as long as they wish to do so, contributing to society without restriction. The Americans now permit a man who is working and who wishes to continue to do
Adjournment Debate
so to carry on. Thus he has the additional advantage of feeling he is still useful.
A question which immediately comes to mind is this: Could three workers carry the extra load of two pensioners? The answer is: perhaps-if the proper training is given to doctors. Medical problems change as patients reach the age of 50 or more. As we age we may find we have more than one medical problem.
Geriatric medicine involves the treatment of the elderly and the maintenance of optimum health and mental and social aspects so that people may be returned to their own homes as quickly as possible. This is the reason for having geriatric chairs in the medical schools of Canada. Those who have a special aptitude for this and who are trained further in geriatric medicine departments should provide consultative services for older patients who occupy acute medical and surgical beds which are very expensive.
I might add that there may be a tendency to limit visits to the aged. No one has more reason than a doctor to dread old age, because during his professional career a doctor sees many of the worst features of this time of life. This may be one reason-and I have heard this many times-that doctors have an indifference toward older patients, while they might otherwise be excellent internists. However, doctors are far too ready to get old people into homes, often because of rising costs.
It is estimated that 75 to 80 per cent of the aged can remain in their own homes, while 15 per cent of those will require treatment, so they may need medical care and visits. Those who are experts in the geriatric field believe that of the 9 per cent of our population who are in homes today, 3 per cent could be in their own homes if some kind of home care was instituted. If we do not establish geriatric chairs at medical schools and if we continue as we are, we will not be able to provide beds for the elderly except by increasing health care costs and lowering the quality of medical care.
I want to thank the minister for writing to me on this subject. The minister shows an awareness of this very serious problem. Today we have only 27 trained geriatricians but 700 to 800 pediatricians. The time is now. Instead of 27, our need is for a minimum of 450 geriatricians across Canada. I hope the minister will take this to heart and keep the pressure on. Otherwise, this field will be neglected and people like you, Mr. Speaker, I and others in the House, as they get older, will all be in the old age group, and we will be the ones who will suffer.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) for bringing this matter before the House once again. It is one of those questions of continuing concern to the hon. member, and I know also to the Department of National Health and Welfare and to the minister who has, on occasion, spoken on the matter eloquently. The minis-

April 11, 1978
Adjournment Debate
ter has also written to the hon. member suggesting how the matter can be dealt with properly.
As the hon. member knows, this whole question is in the realm of education which falls within the purview of the provinces. It is, therefore, rather difficult for the federal government or for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to decide unilaterally what to do, even though the minister may have a great desire to carry out the suggestions made by the hon. member, with which I personally agree, certainly in part and almost in toto. There is no question that the minister does have a role to play in this regard, and my understanding is that she is more than prepared to act as a catalyst so that the federal government can show leadership with regard to geriatrics, possibly by bringing various parties on the provincial level together with members of her department who also have the same concerns about geriatrics.
So I say to the hon. member that this matter is receiving consideration at present and will continue to receive it, and I thank him for bringing it before the House.


HEALTH-AVAILABILITY OF SACCHARIN
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) asking her if the government would reconsider its proposed ban on the sale of saccharin, which is to be implemented in the near future to limit the sale to drug stores and to take it out of grocery stores and other stores where it is at present being sold over the counter and in tablet form.
The House will recall that last year the Minister of National Health and Welfare released a report which suggested that tests in laboratory animals showed an increase in cancer caused by eating massive doses of saccharin, which in turn caused bladder cancer in animals. The government acted by removing saccharin from cans of pop and food. In January of this year the health protection branch issued letter No. 518 which stated that saccharin would be removed from grocery stores as soon as an order in council is passed, and its sale will be limited to pharmacies only. I understand that it is proposed that later this year saccharin be removed from tablets and toothpaste as well. I understand that provincial pharmacies will interpret this decision in such a way that in many provinces saccharin will not only be placed in a controlled section in the pharmacy but will also be sold from behind and under the counter.
If the decision is actually carried out by the government, it will cause a great deal of inconvenience to people on low carbohydrate diets, to diabetics, and especially to those living in the more remote areas of our country where there are no pharmacies or drug stores. If toothpaste and tablets and other such items which contain minute quantities of saccharin will have to be reformulated, this will result in a tremendous increase in the cost of these items to the consumer. I understand that it costs about $25,000 to bring in a substitute for

saccharin in pharmaceutical items. I believe that the government has exercised all due precaution by removing saccharin from pop and from foods, so that now it is available as a table top sweetener or in tablet form.
Studies which have been carried out in the United States, such as the inter-agency report put out in January of this year, did not deny or confirm that there were any harmful effects from saccharin to mice and certainly not to humans. In the United States an extensive study costing $1.4 million is being carried out this year to try to identify any harmful effects from the use of saccharin either on lab animals or on humans. Since reasonable caution has already been exercised, it seems to me we should not take the next step of limiting the sale of saccharin to pharmacies and taking it out of pharmaceuticals, where the amounts are minute, until we have further evidence from the studies which are being made in the United States and in other countries.
There are no proven harmful effects to humans from the use of saccharin. Indeed, I understand that one research project showed a lower level of bladder cancer in diabetics than in other people. So I think the government should wait until next year or until more proven results are shown of the harmful nature of saccharin. To remove it from general stores and limit it to drug stores at this time causes a great deal of inconvenience to consumers, especially in rural areas, to diabetics and to people on special low calorie diets.
I want to quote from a relevant study to show that no other country in the world has limited the use of saccharin in food, let alone restricted the sale of saccharin to drug stores. I want to quote from the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, specifically Professor Dieter Schmahl, who had this to say after only two years of saccharin experiments with pregnant rats:
-the fact that it was even possible to apply a food additive in such large overdoses as in the Canadian experiment for a whole lifetime, attest mainly that it is not poisonous.
Let me also quote from the British Medical Journal, The Lancet. It states:
-the study by the Americans Wynder and Goldsmith which concluded that "users of saccharin have a smaller risk of bladder cancer than non users".
That is a very influential medical journal.
It seems to me it is premature, until more concrete evidence is laid before the scientific community, for the government to pass this order in council which will restrict the sale of saccharin to the drug store only. It is a product that has been on the market for many years. Thousands of tons of it in fact have been used by people who want to reduce their intake of sugar. I believe the health protection branch should consider this further before the government passes this order in council.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has spoken on this matter on a number of occasions both inside and outside the House. The point that he
April 11, 1978

makes is one that will receive every consideration. It is true, as I understand it, that although there may have been an increase in the incidence of cancer in mice after receiving massive overdoses, there is no evidence at the present time to indicate that humans would be affected in exactly the same way. As I understand it, there have been no experiments or studies carried out in respect of humans regarding massive dosages of this substance known as saccharin, the substance about which the hon. member is concerned.
It is true that saccharin has been removed from pop and food, and in fact the over-the-counter kind of situation may no longer exist. In effect, the substance would have to be purchased from the drug store. It is appreciated that this could effect hardship on people, particularly those in rural areas where there may not be a pharmacy readily available.
The hon. member knows that the department is most concerned about the effect this may have on people. He has suggested that other countries have not seen fit to provide a ban on saccharin. This country has obviously done so in the interests of Canadians. Let me suggest to him that the health protection branch is still looking at the whole matter. Certainly we have to be cautious when we are making decisions in terms of the health of Canadians. The Department of National Health and Welfare will consider the whole matter further, along with the representations by the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ACCEPTANCE OF NEUTRON BOMB
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on April 5, I addressed a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) concerning the government's position, or lack of one, in respect of the deployment of the neutron bomb by NATO. I then asked this supplementary question of the same minister:
Last Wednesday the minister said on television that we should give the neutron bomb to the Russians, ignoring the fact that it is not ours to give to anyone. Would the minister explain why he is so keen to give the neutron bomb to the Russians, when we ourselves seem incapable of deciding whether it should be deployed by NATO?
The minister answered by stating:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member did a little more research in many areas, he might find out that that is not what I said.
I have a great deal of pride in the capabilities of my research staff and I resent the minister's ill-humoured remarks that he made on March 21 when the "Watson Report" was recorded for CBC television. I studied his words carefully before the "Watson Report" was aired and carefully read them after I watched the show live-partly because I could hardly believe what I had seen with my own eyes. The Minister of National Defence said this:
I think even in terms of-it might sound a little way out, but I rather like to start way out and then come down to earth-is on the reduced blast weapon or the enhanced radiation of the neutron bomb if you want to use the dirty word. But somehow, perhaps we should take this and give it to the Russians.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Watson:: Give the neutron bomb to the Russians?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Sure, we both have it.
Those, Mr. Speaker, were the minister's own words, and the crucial words were, when Mr. Watson asked: "Give the neutron bomb to the Russians?" and the minister replied: "Sure, we both have it." It is the minister who should do some research before he tries to pretend to the House of Commons that this was not what he said.
The fact is that the neutron bomb raises important issues for Canadians, as it does for all members of the NATO alliance. Not only must we as members of the alliance share a measure of responsibility for all alliance decisions, but we have 5,000 of our troops permanently stationed in central Europe, in positions which could be directly affected by decisions to deploy, and therefore one day to use, the neutron bomb.
Not only would the neutron bomb tend to lower the nuclear threshold and so threaten to make nuclear war more likely, it would almost certainly cause the Soviet Union to develop and deploy its own version of this weapon. I would estimate it would take only a couple of years for the Russians to be able to do that. Then we would be in a situation which would be fraught with even greater danger than the present, unstable enough "balance of terror" as far as nuclear weapons are concerned.
While using nuclear weapons remains a measurable and distinct step up the ladder of escalation, I believe their deterrent effect is preserved. If we introduce the neutron bomb this will change the situation. The Minister of National Defence either lacks the skill or the gumption to offer some indication to the Canadian people of what his government's views are on this question. This is peculiar to Canada. Other nations are discussing this matter. There has been wide public discussion in Germany, Belgium, Norway and the United States on this question. The minister of national defence in Belgium, in fact, resigned when he could not agree with his government's decision to deploy it.
The minister has in the past attempted to soften the reality of the debate on the neutron bomb by referring to it by such public relations names as "a reduced blast weapon" or "an enhanced radiation warhead". As everyone knows by now, this is a weapon which kills people at greater ranges than its blast destroys property or objects. For example, a one kiloton neutron bomb detonated as an air burst would emit fatal radiation for humans up to three-quarters of a mile away, while the blast and heat damage would perhaps extend for only 200 yards. Conventional warheads kill by blast and radiate heat with fallout as an unwanted byproduct. Neutron warheads kill by generating a sudden intense pulse of high velocity neutrons.
While very heavy neutron doses will incapacitate humans within a few minutes, they will not necessarily die for 24 to 48 hours. They will exhibit symptoms of convulsions, trembling, lack of muscular co-ordination, severe difficulty in breathing and intermittent stupor. There is no medical treatment. Those who receive less heavy, but nevertheless fatal, doses of neutrons will be initially incapacitated also within a few minutes, but will recover partially within half to three quarters of an

April 11, 1978
Adjournment Debate
hour. They will suffer nausea, fever, loss of appetite and extreme fatigue. Death may occur within four to six days as a result of massive infection and circulatory collapse. Once again there is no effective medical treatment.
The prospect of this latter group wandering around the combat zones-and they may include civilians as well as military-quite literally like an army of living dead is disturbing, not only on grounds of common humanity, but also in terms of military discipline, morale and military efficiency. To add to the all-round unpleasantness of this weapon, the neutron flux emitted by such a bomb is not invisible but can hardly be sensed except when very heavy doses are received, and then the victim feels a momentary tingling sensation.
I tend to agree with an American general quoted in the press but who insisted on anonymity to protect himself. He believes that neutron warheads come terribly close to chemical weapons such as poison gas, and that they may be illegal under international agreements which our government is bound by.
It is for these reasons that I believe that a minister of national defence with any real sense of his obligations to parliament and the people of this country would see fit to provide some leadership on this matter, and by that I mean doing more than trying to make a neutron bomb sound less horrible by using such names as a "reduced blast" or "enhanced radiation" weapon. Furthermore, I fail to see why he should be permitted to evade serious questions on this topic by making facetious or stupid suggestions, such as offering to give an American bomb which is not ours to give to the Russians.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has already spoken out in regard to the neutron bomb. The government was asked what position Canada was taking in NATO on the neutron bomb. While Canada has no plans to acquire such weapons, we have been participating in discussions at NATO headquarters in Brussels regarding the possible acquisition by certain NATO countries of enhanced radiation, reduced-blast nuclear weapons. These discussions are continuing.
The military usefulness of the weapon is not in question but, like our allies, Canada is also conscious that its possible acquisition raises complex questions which must be examined
with care. Any decision regarding these weapons will not be taken lightly.
In passing, I want to stress there has been an unusual amount of misinformation printed on the neutron bomb. Most of the available public reports cast this weapon as something new and awful; actually it is only awful. And at that, it is less awful than weapons it could replace. The only thing new about the neutron bomb is its name and its packaging.
To begin with, it is necessary to agree on a name in order to avoid confusion. On the basis of the technical details available, it seems more appropriate to call this device a reduced blast/ enhanced radiation weapon, or RB/ERW. It is certainly not a bomb and that name should no longer be used in this connection.
The RB/ERW is essentially a very small hydrogen device or fusion device. In simpler terms, being much smaller, its effects are also infinitely smaller. Moreover, the peculiarity of this type of nuclear weapon is that it makes it possible, through appropriate design, to graduate in various modes the quantity of energy of the three physical effects which are common to all nuclear weapons: blast, heat and radiation. The latter are sub-divided into prompt and delayed radiation. The design of the RB/ERW is such that the partition of the total balance of energy yielded at the moment of the explosion favours radiation at the expense of blast and heat.
The RB/ERW will kill crews of tanks, which are the main threat to NATO, by nuclear radiation. In covering the same intended target area with a standard nuclear weapon, civilian casualties and damage to property from blast and thermal effects in a congested region would be much greater.
The decision to produce the RB/ERW has been from the very beginning one for the United States. The Canadian government is fully conscious of the dilemma which President Carter has been facing in the last several months regarding the production of the RB/ERW and we see merit in deferring the decision. In our deliberations, the suggestion of placing the weapon in an arms control context has not troubled us and we are looking forward to participation in future consultation on this matter with our NATO allies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Wednesday, April 12, 1978