1978-11-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to some food provided to an Indian band in the Skeena area.
In light of the supply of low quality and even rotten fish to the Indian band in the Skeena area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment take the necessary measures to discipline the official who selected and is now insisting that the spoiled fish be provided to the Indian band, and that the band's needs be met without further delay by supplying tinned salmon unless good quality, freezable and smokable salmon can be found.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the statement by retired RCMP security chief John Starnes at the McDonald inquiry yesterday, that only an idiot would not have been aware that the RCMP were breaking laws in the line of duty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House consider whether Mr. Starnes' statement completely and utterly exonerates the entire cabinet from any wrongdoing.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As this country is losing manufacturing jobs at an annual rate of more than 100,000 jobs a year-


Mr. Horner:: Those figures are completely false.


George Harris Hees: -and due to the fact that productivity in Canada is 20 per cent below that of the United States, our chief industrial competitor, making our products cost more and selling higher prices than theirs, and as the only answer given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would refer the hon. member to the very excellent interventions made by two or three of his colleagues who sit very close to him in the debate last Monday. If the hon. member has a motion, would he put it forthwith.


George Harris Hees: As I was saying, the only answer he gave was about airplanes.
1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to immediately introduce productivity incentives, to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity, so that this country can bring its productivity at least up to that of the United States and stop the loss of more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs a year.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time, under Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since the inception of the procedures which we have been following with respect to the order of business at two o'clock, every day we begin with applications pursuant to Standing Order 43, followed by the question period. The direction upon which the Chair has felt bound, and which seems to me to be quite satisfactory to all members, is that points of order during that period are taken up at three

November 9, 1978
o'clock, not during the period for Standing Order 43 motions or the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
*
* *
* *
*


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, if the high-flying Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) would cool down for a moment, I would like to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that exuberant bank rate increases will further adversely influence the record-breaking number of bankruptcies within the small business sector, resulting from costly and inadequate financing, and because a recent survey indicates that more than 95 per cent of small businessmen applying for a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act were turned down due to a lack of government initiative in promoting the program, along with a lack of co-operation by the chartered banks themselves, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. de Cotret):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to encourage chartered banks to co-operate fully under the provisions of the Small Businesses Loans Act, and at the same time enhance and promote the act by amending it to include venture capital loans at preferential rates for the small businessman.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the CPR has refused to co-operate with the government of Canada to repair boxcars to increase our grain movement capability.
Because our deteriorating ability to move grain is costing the Canadian economy $700 million per year, and in view of the precedent of this House in legislating Canadian workers back to work, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House request the Minister of Transport to present a bill to legislate the CPR back to work hauling grain for the farmers of Canada.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In light of the apparent adoption yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition of a policy that Air Canada should be excluded from regional air routes in southwestern and northern Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine):
That this House go on record as affirming that national air carriers should not be excluded from a role in regional air traffic.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House, in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In light of the fact that information collected gives every reason to suspect that those railway lines that were recommended for further study by Chief Justice Emmett Hall are receiving a consistently and extraordinarily low level of service, probably with an intent to force the ultimate closing of those railway lines without community hearings, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Minister of Transport institute a parliamentary committee to do a full and thorough investigation of the seemingly unjust working arrangements with the section of the rail network that was recommended for future study by Chief Justice Emmett Hall.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, this time would require unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 9, 1978


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of all the poppies being worn in this House, I hope no one will say no to this very reasonable motion.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That, in recognition of this Saturday as Remembrance Day, this House expresses the hope that steps will soon be taken to improve the pension position of all widows of Canada's war veterans.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Supplementary Estimates (A), tabled yesterday, indicate that the government has a long way to go to bring government spending under control. In fact, in April, the Minister of Finance forecasted expenditures of $26.9 billion, but we find out from the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday that the spending will be $47.8 billion, representing $4,561 for every working Canadian.
Is it the government's intention to revise the inaccurate forecast of last April and give the House a true indication of its budgetary expenditure plans, and will the President of the Treasury Board commit himself unequivocally not to seek any further spending authority from this House for the rest of the current fiscal year?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the total spending of the government for fiscal 1978-79 will be $48.3 billion, including meeting budgetary and non-budgetary cash flow commitments. The totality of the main estimates and supplementary estimates tabled could be higher than that before the final supplementaries are in.
As has been the tradition in the past, we have committed to spending ceilings in 1976, 1977 and, now, in 1978. In 1976, we came in $1 billion under that ceiling; in 1977, we came close to $1 billion under the original ceiling, and we will meet our commitment of $48.3 billion in 1978-79.
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: A supplementary question. As the President of the Treasury Board knows, that can only be done through inappropriate manipulation of Crown corporation books, as was done with CMHC. An examination of the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday shows that there was some $200 million transferred from capital expenditures into operating expenditures.
If these were not needed as capital expenditures, during this period of constraint, how can the President of the Treasury Board justify this increase in operating expenditures, and why did he not just cut off that $200 million of capital expenditures which the supplementary estimates say are superfluous and not needed this year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it has been the tradition in this House over many years that spending authority is sought mainly by the main estimates' procedure, but by supplementary estimates through to the end of the fiscal year. It has not been the tradition that expenditure reductions, as a result of executive action after that authority has been received from parliament, are entered into supplementary estimates to make those kinds of adjustments.
What the executive is empowered to do is to spend up to that authority, but it has total authority in that authorization to spend less, and that is what we will be doing.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. An examination of these estimates and the main estimates show that the fastest growing component of government expenditures is operating expenditures. This year, the final year of the anti-inflation program under which Canadian workers are asked to keep their wage increases to less than 6 per cent, government operating expenditures are growing at over 14 per cent, more than twice as much.
Will the President of the Treasury Board indicate, by way of a statement on motions or before the appropriate committee, just how and, more important, just when government operating expenditures will be cut back to at least no more than the growth in the over-all economy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would examine a speech I made during the throne speech debate, he would get a clear indication of the areas of growth in what he is terming direct government expenditures, which I do not call direct government expenditures. The transfer payment section of our expenditures are the areas of transfers to persons and transfers to provinces where there is an inexorable escalation formula built in.
We are trying to negotiate that problem with the province to try to share with them a general restraint program. The direct operations of the federal government next year will have a 0.8 per cent growth factor from this year and, in fact, if you remove the Department of Defence, in absolute dollars it will be less spending next year in the direct operations of the federal government than this year.

November 9, 1978
Oral Questions


CUTBACK IN CMHC ESTIMATES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board.
In August of this year, the President of the Treasury Board indicated that the government would be cutting about $500 million in its expenses. Now there is a very striking feature in Supplementary Estimates (A) in terms of $368 million being used in terms of cuts by CMHC which, in effect, I think leaves no room for any other department and in fact it shows no restraint in terms of government operating expenditures.
How can the President of the Treasury Board indicate that there has been some cut which would leave room for other governments when here you have one department alone which has an illusory cut of some $368 million?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, 1 think there is a contradiction in the hon. member's question. On the one hand he talks about cuts being detrimental to other levels of governments, and then says it is an illusory cut. You cannot have it both ways. In fact, Mr. Speaker, for the details of the reductions in the Ministry of Urban Affairs or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I ask the hon. member to pursue those details with the appropriate minister.
I can say that, generally speaking, those reductions on the capital side of CMHC were done after consultation with the provinces; and the hon. member will note that there is a possibility of giving more subsidy to certain programs, such as public housing and that sort of thing. But we think the provinces can share with us the burden of raising money for the capital cost of their housing programs.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I used the word "illusory" is that it is my opinion that the $368 million referred to by CMHC should have lapsed and is really not a reduction in supplementary estimates. In other words, there is more flim-flam and more manipulation by Crown corporations.
The minister has undertaken to introduce an omnibus Crown corporations bill in order to bring about some control, direction and accountability with respect to Crown corporations. Seeing that there is manipulation by these Crown corporations, which the government is feeding on, can he give us some indication of where this omnibus Crown corporation bill is that means so much to not only the government but to the people of Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to explain his "flimflam" when he talks about manipulation by the Crown corporations. That is a serious allegation. I suggest he back up his flimflam with some precise statements of where this comes from.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Answer my question.


Robert Knight Andras: As to the illusory question under which he cloaked that preamble, the Crown corporations bill will be coming before the House in due course.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You promised the people of Canada this Crown corporations bill, and it is time you brought it in. You are flim-flamming the Canadian people.


TRANSPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It pertains to the failure of the St. John's vessel, appropriately named the Cros-bie, to unload all its cargo in Frobisher Bay and the resulting hardships that have been inflicted upon the people in that area. The minister knows that it is a serious matter.
Considering that the minister said in the House last week that discussions were under way as to how this cargo was eventually going to be delivered to the people in Frobisher Bay, is he now in a position to report to the House? In addition, is he in a position to assure the House that the additional costs which will have to be borne as a result of this will not be inflicted upon the people of the Frobisher Bay area?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would only say at this time that the vessel was putting into Montreal. At that point, the cargo was going to be assessed in its various categories and also in terms of its essential nature and its immediate movement. The broad assessment of this is being handled essentially by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the government of the Northwest Territories. I will see if my colleague has anything to report to the House at this point in time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed by the officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the government is at this moment in the process of opening crates in Montreal, making arbitrary decisions between essential and non-essential items, presumably on the ground that some will be shipped and some will not. The people in the north will have to pay for those items that are not shipped, to be shipped again.
Since the people in the north are dependent upon these shipments once or twice a year and have ordered in good faith, I would like an assurance from the minister that the government will not make such a distinction and all the goods ordered by the people in that northern region will be delivered. Will the government offer assurance that no distinction will be made between essential and non-essential items, because while

November 9, 1978

recreational facilities, furniture and appliances fall in the non-essential category in the south, in the north they are regarded as essential?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that it is not our intention to make any arbitrary judgments about the matter but, rather, reasoned judgments will be made. As soon as the assessment can be completed, I am sure the minister will be glad to give the House further information.


John Edward Broadbent: This government has always defined reasonableness in terms of arbitrariness. I want assurance from the minister that the government will ensure that all the goods ordered will be shipped to the people who ordered them, and if there is a battle between the government and the shipping company, the people in the north will not have to pay for it.
I will direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Considering that inflation in that part of Canada is normally worse than it is elsewhere, for obvious reasons, will the minister ensure that a small body of officials will be set up to monitor prices in the Frobisher Bay area for the coming six months, so that price-gouging in any form does not take place and the people there do not suffer additional hardship?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take steps to see what happens to prices in that area, but I cannot promise we will set up a small group of officials, as asked by the hon. member. I will try to do it in one way or another.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Department of National Defence confirmed today that the armed forces were recruiting medical doctors and marine engineers in the United Kingdom for service in Canada's armed forces. Will the minister advise whether these openings were advertised in Canada Employment Centres and, if not, why not?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: I am not familiar with that specific move on behalf of the Department of National Defence. However, I think DND draws attention almost daily to the many fine openings there are in that tremendous professional service, inviting people to make application through the Canada Employment Centres. So there is wide advertising by DND to fill these positions. If they are moving outside without advertising, I will check with my colleague.
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The department says these marine engineers should have either a chemical engineering degree or a mechanical engineering degree. In view of the fact that unemployment among the youth of Canada is roughly double the national average, how does the minister explain that young Canadians are not filling these jobs in the armed forces, and that the department is now authorized to go abroad for recruits, despite a domestic unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Having been a parliamentary secretary in the Department of National Defence, I know that there is a fantastic group of professionals who operate our armed forces and that there is a glorious opportunity for young people to get a university degree and join the forces. I am surprised more are not taking advantage of it. As I said, as far as the recruiting aspect abroad is concerned, I am not familiar with it and I will check it out with my colleague.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER IS CONSIDERING SHUTTING DOWN LAPRADE PLANT IN QUEBEC
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that many municipalities and organizations of my constituency are concerned about the future of the Laprade plant, I would like to ask the minister whether new developments have occurred in that connection or if an agreement has been reached with the Quebec government?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope there would be a movement on the part of the government of Quebec with respect to the proposal I have put to the government which would call for the renegotiation of the agreement to complete that plant by 1982.
The reason for renegotiating that agreement is that there would be savings of some tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in energy costs to consumers in Quebec, and at a time when the Quebec government has itself announced a 33'A per cent increase in the rate structure for electric power over three years it would appear to me they should be a lot more sensitive to this issue than they have shown themselves to be.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, a report out of Washington by the U.S. Department of Com-

November 9, 1978
Oral Questions
merce indicates that the Canadian automobile industry will be in a serious deficit position up to, including and beyond 1985. To be specific, the report states that the cumulative deficit from 1978 to 1985 will be in excess of $10.3 billion. This is in addition to the $7 billion cumulative deficit already on the books.
I should like to ask the minister, where are these new plants he has been talking about? We know about the Ford plant that the government of Ontario and the federal government put together with the aid of a grant, but where are the other three or four plants that the minister said were coming to Canada to help overcome this adverse balance?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I assume that question is directed to me, Mr. Speaker. The deficit in automobile trade this year will be exactly half of what it was last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am very pleased that the U.S. Department of Commerce is aware of the need for Canada to get additional auto plants.


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 1 want to assure the House we are doing everything we can, even cajoling, as we did, the Ontario government into putting up $28 million to help us get the Ford plant. We shall continue to do that.


William James Kempling: The report out of Washington was put together by Data Resources of Canada for the U.S. Department of Commerce. Noting that General Motors has now pulled back on its proposed aluminum casting plant in Canada, can the minister tell us when there will be some firm statistics regarding the Canadian automotive industry? We do not have a report. We are the only country in the world which has an automotive industry but which does not have an annual report on it. When are we going to have that report? When will we see the Reisman report which the minister commissioned?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the Reisman report is a large document which outlines some of the figures, and I am sure it will help the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby because he is always having difficulty with figures. We are studying it and I hope to be able to make it public.


William James Kempling: When?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Very soon.


THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as Major A. G. Vandelac, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, has announced his wish to retire from that office, and as a meaningful recognition of our war veterans at this time of Remembrance Day observance, will the Prime Minister pledge to continue the principle of veteran preference in appointing a successor to this high and important office?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question.


POST OFFICE
William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Postmaster General. Yesterday, the minister announced that postal employees who wish to do so, will be permitted to attend Remembrance Day services on November 11. That, in itself, is commendable; but why is the Post Office not to be closed completely, as are government offices here in Ottawa, to allow the staff to observe Remembrance Day, rather than the crazy policy of having an undefined number of people leave their posts, which will effectively close the Post Office in any event?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think I explained very well yesterday that in some areas postal service is essential and we have to provide that service. In many ways, some of our workers work in the same way as Air Canada pilots, policemen or anyone else who has to work on that day.
I said that we would accommodate and allow all latitude possible to veterans who want to participate in Remembrance Day ceremonies. I remind hon. gentlemen that I am a veteran myself: I know the meaning of this day, and I will see that all veterans who want to participate in Remembrance Day ceremonies will be able to do so.


COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY WHETHER CFER-TV, RIMOUSKI, WILL BROADCAST PROGRAMS IN GASPfi AREA
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
A few months ago the minister attended the opening of CFER-TV station in Rimouski. This new station covers only part of the lower St. Lawrence and the north shore. The
November 9, 1978

minister has promised that she would intervene on behalf of the people of the Gaspe Peninsula to obtain coverage for that area. Could she tell the House whether the requests made by the population of the Gaspe Peninsula to Telecapital will soon be answered?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the problem experienced when Telecapital began broadcasting its programs in the Gaspe Peninsula. 1 have communicated with the authorities of Telecapital. There are three or four options which would enable the residents of Cap Chat, Tourelle and Sainte-Anne-des-Monts who are situated in a kind of small enclave to provide that service in a rather short time. 1 think that changing the direction of the antenna would make it possible to provide both services so eagerly expected.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Anti-Inflation Board third-year report released just this week indicates that, on a national accounts basis, federal government spending went up 13 per cent in 1977 as well as in 1978. That is approximately 3 per cent higher than the gross national product increase for each of those years.
Would the Minister of Finance tell us whether he agrees with the national accounts calculation of the AIB?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Board uses a different base than the one used by the government. For our purposes, the base is taken over a period of years. We have managed-and the same will be the case for the third year in a row-to keep growth below the growth of the gross national product.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the minister says, "for our purposes". Presumably, the government has used a certain base for political purposes. Would the minister go further and tell us what is wrong with the AIB figures? Do they not represent a fair presentation, namely, 13 per cent actual growth in each of those years, compared with growth of roughly 10 per cent in the gross national product?
Second, would the minister tell the House what he had in mind at various private meetings when he said that, if necessary, the government would extend the mandate of the AIB beyond December 31 ?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have said repeatedly that the Anti-Inflation Board would complete its work by the end of 1978, but that an evaluation of company reports would have to be made for part of the year, which work would probably be
Oral Questions
completed towards the middle of 1979. As for the figures we use in assessing government expenditures, we use those of the public accounts of Canada which really are the most acceptable basis in all fields.
* *
*


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in receipt of a telegram from several unions involved in the work force of Canadian National and CN Marine at North Sydney, requesting him to meet with them concerning the drastic and continual cutbacks in employment opportunities in the shipping of freight to Newfoundland through that port?
If the minister is in receipt of such a telegram, copies of which went to cabinet representatives in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, would he be good enough to advise whether he could arrange the requested meeting at a location convenient to him, as he was good enough to do some years ago?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the telegram to which the hon. member refers, but I have had discussions with my colleagues, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister, about their interest in our examining the employment situation and the implications of changes being made in the Port aux Basques and North Sydney areas. I will certainly look seriously at the question of the kind of meeting which may be helpful in resolving these difficulties.


MOVEMENT OF GRAIN-AVAILABILITY OF BOXCARS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I am sure the minister is aware that nearly all elevators on the prairies are plugged, that there is space at the Thunder Bay terminal and that that route will be freezing up at about Christmastime. There will be an emergency soon if the grain in these elevators is not moved quickly.
Would the minister use his good offices to demand that CPR repair quickly some of its boxcars and that both CN and CP, on an emergency basis, put boxcars on their lines to haul grain to Thunder Bay before freeze-up?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to convey to Canadian Pacific that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville agrees with me that it would be useful if Canadian Pacific undertook additional repairs of boxcars. I am sure that when CP learns that the hon. member is on the same side as I on the argument, it will give way.

November 9, 1978
Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should reassess my position. I am given to understand by the Canadian Wheat Board that we have sold about three million tonnes of grain to China, that we could have sold about four million tonnes if there had been additional rolling-stock, and that there could be a market for six million tonnes if we had an efficient transportation system. The Canadian Wheat Board also said we could have grain sales amounting to an extra $700 million per year if we had a good transportation system.
Instead of talking very nicely and cuddling up to CPR, will the minister bring in legislation which would require CPR to put more boxcars on the rails and ensure that we have enough rolling-stock to haul farmers' grain to market?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly reflect on that recommendation as well. I would welcome discussions with members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, who may not be quite so co-operative in offering assistance in relation to legislation. I believe that some very important steps have to be taken in order to continue to improve our grain handling system.
An analysis of how boxcars and hopper cars work and how fast they can be moved from the prairies to terminals is under way. That analysis is very important. As the recent report from Mr. Snavely indicates, the turn-around time on these hopper cars has dropped by about three days in the last few years, and we want further improvement in that regard. I firmly believe that an expansion of facilities on the west coast would also be a very important aspect of improvements to come, and I will continue to press for that.
If the hon. member would join in representations in another direction, it might be in relation to elevator companies so that they move quickly in order to put up additional facilities.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS LACK OF REFERENCE TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN MATERIAL CIRCULATED BY NATIONAL UNITY INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. In the propaganda emanating from the National Unity Information Office, no mention whatsoever was made of the Queen and her position in our federal system. Will the minister be kind enough to tell us why this serious error occurred? Why was there such a serious omission? Will it be rectified and, if so, when?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have misread the information and publications which are coming from that office. The position of the Queen has always been recognized by this government. We have stated quite clearly in all our publications dealing with the constitution that Canada

was living under the monarchical system. The position of the government is that this is the way it should be in the future.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from his very department suggesting that certain information shouhjl be supplied to constituency offices and given out by constituency offices. A person from that department came to my office with the material and admitted that there was no information in that propaganda or the brochures which mentioned the Queen. He admitted the omission. Would the minister now be agreeable to admitting it and having it corrected?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the documents to which the hon. member is referring is a series of publications which explain mineral resources in Canada, how equalization functions in this country, the size of the country, how many Canadians there are, the population of every province, and so on.
If the hon. member would like to have the Queen mentioned on every page of every document published by the government, I think that would expose the monarchy to ridicule. I am sure that is not what he has in mind. He should have more respect and common sense than that vis-a-vis the monarchy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. It is further to correspondence and meetings with both myself and other groups, such as the Nova Scotia Fishermen's Association, concerning the depletion of lobsters in the inshore lobster fishery and the potential total destruction of the thousands of formerly successful inshore lobster fishermen.
After two successive bad years, will the minister now consider, pending the outcome of the study on the relationship between offshore and inshore lobster fishermen, closing Brown's Bank to the eight or nine offshore lobster boats and request them to fish further offshore, and thus save the livelihood of thousands of inshore fishermen who are affected by this?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, while I am not accepting fully the rather pessimistic conclusions drawn by the hon. member, the fact is scientific evidence appears quite convincing that there is a relationship between offshore and inshore lobster fisheries. Officials of my department and American scientists have been working together. Now we will consult the fishermen to see how this fishery should be managed as one unit with interrelations with the other.
Obviously, these measures may mean restrictions in some of the fishing efforts in the next few years. We are discussing the
November 9, 1978

matter with fishermen's organizations. We will keep hon. members informed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and Minister of Transport. It arises out of a statement which he made to the Canadian Press, that it is his intention to take action against local union leaders of CUPW.
If those charges have been laid, were they laid under the Criminal Code of Canada? Will those charges be under the direction of the Department of Justice? If not, will they be under the direction of the various attorneys general departments in the various provinces in which the five cities referred to by the minister in the press release are situated? I will not set them out in the House.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have signed four additional indictments against members of the national executive of CUPW which, along with the five previously signed, were laid under the same section of the Criminal Code. Also, they were laid by way of direct indictment. The charges against CUPW itself were laid by way of indictment under section 115 of the Criminal Code. The federal Department of Justice will proceed with the prosecutions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, since the Department of Justice will be initiating the charges and the court procedure, I take it the minister and his department will take responsibility, rather than pass it off as was done with the question as to whether the Rolling Stones had a right of appeal under the drug laws of this country. Will the minister and his department take responsibility for these charges and this procedure?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has repeated what I just said in my answer. We are in charge.


FISHERIES
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and has nothing to do with lobsters. Since Ambassador Marcel Cadieux, the Canadian negotiator with regard to maritime boundaries, has been assigned other duties in the field of national security, would the minister be willing to make a statement in the House on the present state of
Oral Questions
affairs with regard to those bilateral negotiations with the United States? What progress has been made?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), to whom Mr. Cadieux reports, should not be the one to answer that question but I can, in general terms, say that Mr. Cadieux is pursuing his work. Anyway, I should remind the hon. member that he was our former ambassador with the community. As he is now in Ottawa, he is even more accessible than before. We met him after his most recent conversations with the American negotiator, Mr. Cutler, early this week. It seems possible, subject to discussions with representatives of the industry, both fishermen and industrialists, and of course with the provincial governments concerned, that an agreement could be reached on the fisheries. Of course, as I have already said, all this is subject to discussion, but it seems an agreement is possible; still, we have acquired some experience in this regard over the past year, and the fact remains that the optimism of Thursday is often followed by the pessimism of Monday.


TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are the unresolved questions, whether they be on the Georges Bank on the east coast or on the Dixon Entrance, likely to be assigned to an arbitration tribunal, whether it be an arbitration tribunal in The Hague or a special tribunal? Can the minister say anything along these lines at this time?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to be too specific because negotiations are continuing. However, I think I have said on a number of previous occasions that we have never discarded the option of possible reference to a third party, or arbitration, whichever word the hon. member of the House wishes to use. However, as of this moment negotiations are continuing. No definite decision has been made regarding whether to refer all or part of the boundary question or other related issues to a third party.
Incidentally, during the coming visit of Secretary of State Vance, I hope that he and I will have an opportunity to review the total picture. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it is conceivable that we may be able to come to a mutually satisfactory decision on the unresolved issues.


PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS ON SAINT PIERRE AND MIQUELON ISSUE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on October 12 I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At that time I asked him for an update on boundary questions and he said that they were still under

November 9, 1978
Oral Questions
discussion. I presume his response today applies to the west coast and to Georges Bank.
Would the minister tell this House, now, how negotiations are proceeding between Canada and France with regard to Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and if the question of Georges Bank goes to third party arbitration will this area of dispute also be included for arbitration, and where will this arbitration be held?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the two issues are totally unrelated. The negotiations with the government of France with regard to some delineation relating to St. Pierre and Miquelon have involved two meetings, as I recall, over the last few months. The talks have been quite amicable and there have been no tensions at all. There is still a great deal of talking to be done. Therefore, we are proceeding and will continue to do so on that particular issue. The question of third party arbitration regarding St. Pierre and Miquelon has not come up and it would be hypothetical to even postulate that likelihood.
With regard to the situation of Georges Bank, I think that the hon. member is aware that when I answered him before I said negotiations were continuing. A set of meetings were held early this week between the negotiators and, I believe, as of yesterday there were consultations between the governments of the provinces concerned on the east and west coasts and also the fishermen's representatives.
We are trying to be very comprehensive in the consultation process, and this is designed to bring it to the point-and I repeat-where during Mr. Vance's visit, or shortly thereafter, we may be able to make a mutually satisfactory decision on how the final settlement is to be brought about.


TOURISM
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in his capacity as the minister responsible for tourism.
Was the minister able to report to the provincial ministers of tourism, with whom he met this morning, on the progress and/or resolution of the problem with the United States in terms of the tax convention, whereby offshore conventions in the United States no longer qualify as a business expense? This has caused a lot of irritation and loss of revenue to our tourism industry in Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with my counterparts in the field of tourism tomorrow morning, and I hope then to give them a report on the situation. The people concerned in the United States have already made some

modification in their law with regard to conventions outside the country.
I would also add that Canada has had a tremendous growth in tourism this year from offshore countries: it is up by 20 per cent over last year. There has also been a decline in the number of Canadians visiting the United States. Our tourist picture has improved substantially.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his brief report on the state of tourism in Canada. Perhaps he will submit a longer one on motions, when it would be more proper. We on this side do not like to tolerate things either, in view of some of the things said in this House in the last two or three days.
In the discussions which the minister has had-perhaps this question should be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-with the United States, have they confronted either the minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs with their problem, that before there are any concessions on the tax convention for offshore conventions, Canada will have to give something in terms of Bill C-58, the broadcasting expense problem?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a lengthy representation of which I have taken note.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that it was the policy of his party to replace Air Canada with regional carriers, and he specifically mentioned northwestern Ontario and southwestern Ontario. When the question was asked of the minister about specific points-North Bay, Sudbury, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay-with regard to a move from those communities, he evaded the question completely: he did not mention Air Canada or the communities.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Edmund McRae: Would the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice affirm that the government has no intention of removing Air Canada service from any of these communities?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government has no such intention. Any such change would require an application by Air Canada before the Canadian Transport Commission and they would then make a judgment on the matter.
However, the matter is academic at the present time because Air Canada itself is very conscious of the fact that those communities in northern Ontario wish to continue to be
November 9, 1978

served by that carrier. I was as astonished as the hon. member to hear the Leader of the Opposition suggest that he would remove the service from them.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that Post Office management has been sending letters to hundreds of individual members of CUPW threatening disciplinary action and saying that the threatening letter will be attached to their personal files, in view of the fact that this is not limited just to the leadership of CUPW but in some areas to the total local membership of CUPW, in view of the fact that this action can only be seen as a harassment of the employees, and in view of the fact that the Postmaster General has promised that there will be no harassment, can the Postmaster General tell this House if he was aware that these letters were, indeed, being sent out to thousands of members, and can he also assure us that instructions from his office will now go out to Post Office management asking that these letters be not placed in the files of the workers?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to a question like that, I wonder if the attitude of the hon. member is not one of protecting the workers who got involved in illegal activities or actions disrupting the postal service.


John Edward Broadbent: Come off it.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I say to you what I said very clearly to the news media, that there was no witch-hunt at the Post Office, but there will be justice and that is what we intend to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Lamontagne: I would like to quote one passage of the letter we sent to many of our workers:
You will be advised of either any administrative action or disciplinary action which may be taken in regard to your action.
There is an article in the collective agreement which tells us that we must send these letters within ten days of whatever accusation or allegation we have against the workers. In cases where there is no allegation or accusation, these letters will be withdrawn. We had ten days to do it and I think in the name of justice we had to do it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that in all modern industrial relationships in the private sector after a prolonged strike, modern management never proceeds with a witch-hunt and sending out letters as the Postmaster General is doing, can
Oral Questions
he give the assurance that these letters will not remain on the files of the CUPW members across this country permanently?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, obviously, we are talking about one union, CUPW. In answering the question put by the hon. member, I would ask him to read the constitution of this union, which constitution says there is to be no fraternization with management. They negate completely negotiations or communication with management. How can we-


John R. Rodriguez: Answer the question.


Maurice Lamontagne: I am answering the question, but when talking about a union like this, and when we hear on television and read in the papers what their leaders are saying, and even what Mr. McDermott, the President of CLC, has said about this, I wonder if the hon. member is not part of the Charge of the Light Brigade.


CANADA'S PARTICIPATION IN MOSCOW OLYMPICS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). On May 24 I wrote to the minister, and I have not yet had the courtesy of a reply to that letter. I would like to read part of the letter in order to put my question in perspective:
Our own House last week passed a unanimous resolution expressing our concern for the abridgement for freedom of thought and expression in the Soviet Union as demonstrated by those trials.
In view of the upcoming 1980 Olympics to be held in Moscow, could you tell me whether there are any plans in your department to re-examine our country's position vis-a-vis participation in the Moscow Olympics?
Would the minister answer that question?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member has not had a reply. I will see that that is done immediately.
In the matter of the question, however, I am quite prepared to accept that there be sport boycotts when related to sport, but when the matter is outside the realm of sport I do not feel the sport should be used as an instrument through which retaliation is executed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of consistency- and I know this government would always want to be consistent-is the minister prepared to apply that policy to all other countries where discrimination is going on?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have been told the Russian Olympic team is more than one-third Jewish, I think the hon. member's question is not relevant.
958

November 9, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez PRIVILEGE


MR DIONNE (NORTHUMBERLAND-MIRAMICHI)-REMARK MADE BY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from a remark made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in which he cast aspersions on all members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may want to consider giving the Chair proper notice of this question of privilege under the terms of the Standing Orders.


MR. RODRIGUEZ-ANSWER GIVEN BY POSTMASTER GENERAL
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the answer the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) gave me this afternoon in this House to the first question I put to him.
The point I want to raise is the suggestion or the accusations in the answer the Postmaster General gave, that I was more interested in protecting lawbreakers in the Post Office than in coming to grips with the problems in the Post Office. At no point in my question to the Postmaster General did I raise any concern with respect to those who have been indicted and those who have been charged with having broken the law. I raised specifically the question of letters which have been sent to employees in the Ottawa local, for example. Some 800 letters have gone out to CUPW employees of the Post Office.
I should like to put the letter on the record. This one is addressed to Mr. Patrick Berry, machine processing, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Berry
A review is currently being undertaken of all the activities which occurred during the period from 19th October 1978 to 26th October 1978, inclusive.
Your actions during the above noted period will be investigated further. You will be advised of any disciplinary action which may be taken in regard to your conduct.
A copy of this letter is being placed on your personal file.
Yours truly
A. Clare Plant Manager
The question I asked dealt with the fact that this letter was being placed on the personnel files of hundreds and hundreds of CUPW employees of the Post Office. In trying to make political points or whatever, the Postmaster General said to this House that I was more-he was imputing a motive to the question I asked-said I was more interested in protecting lawbreakers than raising a legitimate question. I say that the Postmaster General is certainly being irresponsible and certainly disrespectful to members of this House when he stands up and imputes motives of the kind he imputed to me.
The second point I want to raise, is that the Postmaster General accused me of being part of "The Light Brigade Charge." Mr. Speaker, I happen to be the Post Office critic for my party in this House. Questions which arise with respect

to human relations within the Post Office at this particular time are extremely important. We are in a period following a strike, Mr. Speaker, and tension is high. We are in a period where very shortly we will be dealing with a Crown corporation in the Post Office. It is absolutely essential that there be good industrial relations in the Post Office. It is with that concern, and with the agreement of my party, that I raised this question today. We are absolutely at the crux of the relationship with the Post Office.
I pointed out in my question that in modern industrial relations in the private sector, after a strike, where there are modern and avant-garde approaches to industrial relations, no witch-hunting takes place after a long and bitter struggle in the work place.
I asked the Postmaster General if he would reconsider this letter which he has told workers will be placed on their personnel files and if he would give us an assurance that it would be removed. The Postmaster General got up and accused me of being part of a "Light Brigade Charge . That is contrary to the concept of responsible ministers responding to critics in the opposition parties of this House. The Postmaster General wraps himself around Dennis McDermott. 1 want to say, while Mr. McDermott is not here to claim privilege, that to accuse Mr. McDermott of abandoning the rights of workers in the Post Office-that he made a broad statement that in effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member has left his original point which had some bearing in privilege in respect to a response that he got in the question period. He is now going into a criticism of the response given by the minister. I am sure he is aware that he cannot, at this point, be critical of the minister's answer. That is a matter for debate. If the hon. member has a question of privilege I will be glad to hear it.


John R. Rodriguez: In conclusion, then, Mr. Speaker, I believe I do have privilege in this matter. I think the only honourable thing for the hon. minister to do is to withdraw those remarks which imputed motives to me this afternoon.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I ever questioned the motive of the hon. member. I said I wondered if-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Lamontagne: I do not think there was any question of giving motive to whatever he thought. The way he asked the question there was nothing else left in my mind but maybe that was his thought. If it was not, good for him. As far as my allegation regarding the charge of the Light Brigade is concerned, I have the article here. Mr. McDermott said it; I did not say it. I said I wondered if he was part of it; I did not say he was part of it. It is up to him to judge.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. The issue being raised here, I think, is of very great importance indeed, whether the
November 9, 1978

Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) recognizes it or not. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) asked a question, and he asked it not about people who were breaking the law; he asked a question not about people who have been charged; he asked a question about hundreds and perhaps thousands of men and women currently working for the Post Office who had a letter sent to them from the Post Office which I say, coming from an industrial town, would never be sent by General Motors to UAW members under such circumstances.
Not only did he ask a question about men qnd women who were not breaking the law but about men and women who are good citizens of this country and in whom he is interested. The question of privilege pertains exactly to what the minister said. I do not have the "blues" here but I know I have exactly the gist of his comments. The minister said in reply that the hon. member for Sudbury-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was more interested in protecting lawbreakers than he was in coming to grips with the problems of the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious accusation regarding any member of this House, that he is interested in supporting lawbreakers. The hon. member for Nickel Belt never, inside or outside this House, at any time, has taken that position that I am aware of nor in this question specifically does the minister's irresponsible reference have any appropriate reference to what the hon. member, for my party, asked in very good conscience for a very good cause.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to examine the record. There is an allegation that the answer given by the minister did make some sort of imputation of motives to the hon. member for Nickel Belt. The minister in response has said-I take it his response was that if he did that, he did not intend it, but intended to say that he wondered whether that was the case. I do not know.
I shall have to examine what was said in the first instance by reading the record, and then in turn examine the contribution of the minister today to determine if in fact there is any basis for a question of privilege. I will undertake to do that and we can raise that in the House tomorrow when we have had an opportunity to examine the record.


MR. HORNER-STATISTICS USED IN STANDING ORDER 43 MOTION
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the abuses occurring, to me particularly today, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Standing Order 43 was re-adopted in the House of Commons in 1975. It is to allow the opposition or government members to bring to the attention of the ministry matters of
Privilege-Mr. Horner
urgency and pressing necessity. Standing Order 43 is being used to make false accusations against ministers, and questioning minister's words, as was done today with regard to the figures used in manufacturing. There are more people working in manufacturing today than ever before in Canada. There are 2,006,000 people working. There are 130,000 more people working in manufacturing today than there were a year ago.
Those are Statistics Canada figures. I have them here with me. Why did I have them with me? Because I am aware of the abuses that are occurring under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and I got into a discussion yesterday during the question period, if you recall. One could go back and check the pattern. He apparently thought he lost that round, so he came in with a cheap attack on the manufacturing figures by the use of Standing Order 43, whereby I could not rise to correct him.
He did not dare ask me a question on manufacturing today, but he uses that tactic. He is an old boxer and telegraphs his punches, and he telegraphed this one, so I came-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As a House, Mr. Speaker, we have to help you create an order of some semblance of fairness so that the people of Canada can have an accurate picture of what is going on in this country. You cannot allow the use of Standing Order 43 to abuse the words of the ministry and not be challenged. I really believe the accusations which the hon. member made on the question of manufacturing figures really put my word in jeopardy. I cannot allow that to happen because I am not wrong, I have the figures here. And you, Mr. Speaker, cannot create an order of good will, or a semblance of order which lends itself to rational debate, if continued abuses of the provisions of Standing Order 43 are allowed to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, the minister started with a false premise. He said I was under the impression that I lost the debate yesterday. I won it hands down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Secondly, I based my question yesterday and my motion under Standing Order 43 today on statistics that were produced in his own department, Stats-Can. These figures were produced very recently, which stated that the manufacturing industry in Canada in each of the months of September and October lost 11,000 jobs.


An hon. Member:: What year?


George Harris Hees: That is this year. And, Mr. Speaker, 11,000 jobs a month is at an annual rate of 130,000 jobs.
I would like to repeat the question on which this is based and which I asked the minister yesterday. You will see the
8006 5-61 Vi

November 9, 1978
Business of the House
figures that I used, and that 1 used again today. Here is the question I asked yesterday and repeated at the beginning of my motion today. I said:
As the principal reason for this country losing manufacturing jobs at the rate of 11,000 a month is that productivity here remains well below the level in the United States, thus causing our costs to be higher than theirs and making our products uncompetitive with those of our principal competitors, would the minister advise us when he intends to introduce productivity incentives to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity, so that we can stop this serious loss of manufacturing jobs which is going on at an annual rate of more than 1C0,000 jobs?
Mr. Speaker, on that very serious question, which you can hardly find more important to the country, the minister chose to ignore it. He did not deny any of the figures, and then simply told us about a new airplane that he is building.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Something that he was so proud to tell us, that it was able to stay in the air for an hour, something a little better than what the Wright brothers were able to do at Kitty Hawk 70 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, what he is objecting to are my figures, and I repeat, I say his department stated recently, "We are losing manufacturing jobs at the rate of 11,000 a month" which is 130,000 a year, very much in excess of 100,000 a year. So he is wrong, and obviously 1 am right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In any case the House will realize at once that we are locked in a classic disagreement and not a matter of either privilege or order under the circumstances.


POINT OF ORDER
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. In answer to a question put by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) I made reference to the Department of Justice, when obviously I should have referred to the office of the Attorney General. I would like to make the record clear in that regard so there will be no misunderstanding.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the wondrous thin skin developed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) since he has left us.
In any event, I ask a question of the government House leader with respect to the business of the House of Commons.

What is his intention for today, tomorrow and into next week, up to at least the budget? Could he at the same time designate next Monday as an allotted day in accordance with the discussions we have had?


Mr. MacEachen:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to designate Monday as an allotted day. And in reply to my hon. friend's question with respect to the business of the House, 1 would like to advise that for this afternoon we will be continuing the discussion on Bill C-10, the child tax credit measure. At eight o'clock we will move to Bill C-14, the unemployment insurance amendments. This change in business has been worked out co-operatively in order to take into account the desire of a number of members to be present at the state dinner being held tonight in Toronto for the Prime Minister of Israel. I appreciate the co-operation that has made possible this rearranged business.
I would gather the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments will be debated for a day or so. Following that we would attempt to return to Bill C-10 if it is not completed, which is unlikely, certainly not third reading. Then we would deal with the old age security bill and the borrowing authority bill, both of which, I understand, will be returned from committee today. That, I think, will probably take us well into next week. If necessary I will add some more items to the list.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are two matters arising out of that answer and connected with the budget to be brought down on November 16, that is, the government's intention with respect to the carriage, and more important at the moment, the beginning of the debate on the budget.
I understand there is an agreement to begin the budget debate on Friday, November 17. I assume it is the intention of the government to carry it on for the balance of the week, although there might be some change in that. However, with regard to Friday, can I have the government's undertaking that it intends to begin on Friday as we discussed and, I believe, agreed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I propose to call the first day of the budget debate on Friday in order to give members of the opposition an early opportunity to extol the virtues of the minister's budget.


Walter David Baker: I want to assure my friend we will not let such an opportunity pass by. The final matter is with regard to the commodity sales tax review and the reference with regard to it. As I mentioned last week, we are prepared to agree to have that reference go without debate if my friend wants to make the appropriate move. As he perhaps knows, there are over 100 briefs waiting to be considered by the committee. If he could do that today or tomorrow, it could be done without debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: First, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the government House leader for designating
November 9, 1978

Monday as an allotted day. I believe the arrangement is that the motion for that day will be put down by the New Democratic Party. With regard to Bill C-14 which we shall commence tonight, although the government House leader did not say it in so many words, I take it we shall stay with it tomorrow. Hansard might note the minister is nodding his head up and down.


Walter David Baker: In a wavy line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government House leader referred to a couple of other bills being reported back from their committee study today. Because Bill C-5 is a bill that comes into effect when it has finally been passed and been given Royal Assent, that is, the old age security bill, and therefore affects the discontinuance of the spouse's allowance of widows who may lose their husbands this month, I hope that can be brought back very soon so we can pass it, get it over to the other place, and finally get it on the books.
We agree to the suggestion that the budget debate, apart from the minister's statement next Thursday night, start on Friday, November 17.
I have just one further comment to make. It is the same one I made last Thursday. In view of continuing misunderstanding as to what is in Bill C-12, having to do with the indexing of pensions of public servants and others, I hope that debate might get started fairly soon so there can be exposed to the public what the government's intentions are under that bill.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about Bill C-12, I will be in a position very shortly to convey the information which I know is pertinent to the deliberations on that bill. I will consult with the House leader for the timing of such a reading at which time all the pertinent factors, specifically the degree of supplementation possible for the next three years, which I think is the key issue, will be made clear. I say to the hon. member that I think he will receive my information favourably.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria on a point of order.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, referring to Standing Order 35 which says, and I quote:
No member shall... use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.
Committee Reports
Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, as can be read in Hansard for Wednesday, November 8, page 928, the Leader of the Official Opposition said at about 3.42 p.m., and I quote:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not have any way in which I can receive the point from the hon. member at the present time unless it is by way of a question of privilege. If it is a disorder that took place yesterday, it would need to have been raised or brought to the attention of the Chair at that time. If it relates to privilege, having occurred in yesterday's proceedings, and being raised today by way of privilege, it would have to be upon specific notice under the standing orders. In the absence of that notice, I have no jurisdiction to proceed with it at this time.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the matter I wish to raise occurred at a time I was serving as a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, which is my duty as a member of the House of Commons. At that time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) made a comment in the House which was offensive. It only came to my attention during today's question period when I read the comments he made at that time. I take the earliest opportunity to raise this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that, although I understand his dilemma, namely, that he was serving on duties of the House of Commons when what he considers to be an offence was made, I have to consider whether I have jurisdiction to take it into account and, if I do, if it was disorder I would have had to take it into account at the time it occurred. If it is privilege, the only basis upon which I can deal with comments made yesterday in today's proceedings is if I have received proper notice under Standing Order 17, and I have not. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to deal with it.
If the hon. member feels aggrieved, perhaps he can take the earliest possible opportunity in debate to refer back to that remark. 1 would guess there would be opportunities in future debates to do that, but I regret procedurally 1 have no power to deal with it at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.
[Stage Direction]
November 9, 1978
Order Paper Questions
[Translation)

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)

Jeanne Sauvé: for leave to introduce Bill C-16, respecting telecommunications in Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 147, 247, 249, 256, 257, 271, 272, 274 and 417.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]



BUREAU OF PENSIONS ADVOCATES


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Where are Bureau of Pensions Advocates offices located in Canada?
2.	How many Pensions Advocates are assigned to each office?
3.	How many claims were processed in each office for each year since 1970?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 


Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-17, to promote public safety and the protection of the environment in the transportation of dangerous goods.


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


Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-18, to provide for the appointment of a Port Warden for the Harbour of Quebec and to amend an act to amend and consolidate the acts relating to the office of Port Warden for the Harbour of Montreal.
1. St. John's, Nfld. Charlottetown, P.E.I. Halifax, N.S.
Saint John, N.B. Quebec, P.Q. Montreal, P.Q. Ottawa, Ont. Toronto, Ont. Hamilton, Ont. London, Ont.
North Bay, Ont. Winnipeg, Man. Regina, Sask. Saskatoon, Sask. Calgary, Alta. Edmonton, Alta. Vancouver, B.C. Victoria, B.C.
2. 1
1	(part-time)
2 2
4 1 1 3 1 3 1
0	(serviced by Regina)
1 1 3 2
3.	Bureau of Pensions Advocates-Applications to Canadian Pension Commission,
Requests for Entitlement Board and Quantum Hearings and Appeals to the Pensions Review Board by Districts-1969-70 to 1977-78
District Office	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78St. John's, Nfld.	117	88	180	150	110	117	125	161	211Charlottetown	127	74	209	167	209	166	187	204	259Halifax	534	435	833	1159	1167	959	1261	1716	1528Saint John, N.B.	344	303	334	494	579	422	522	670	621Quebec	405	404	412	482	490	413	442	638	399Montreal	534	442	624	871	969	994	1061	1180	1275Ottawa	1014	838	1055	1256	1283	1326	1482	1759	1531


Order Paper Questions
3.	Bureau of Pensions Advocates-Applications to Canadian Pension Commission,
Requests for Entitlement Board and Quantum Hearings and Appeals to the Pensions Review Board by Districts-1969-70 to 1977-78
District Office	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78Toronto	496	391	475	530	504	466	528	529	485Hamilton	308	196	186	336	333	273	581	680	508London	505	440	836	787	942	865	1057	1427	1410North Bay	266	249	265	359	448	636	384	413	387Winnipeg	394	422	760	809	1133	788	827	994	920Regina	166	165	221	232	246	187	178	241	171Saskatoon	130	95	103	203	143	167	193	213	219Calgary	392	365	670	607	491	417	354	517	511Edmonton	262	225	278	253	380	295	325	434	312Vancouver	839	736	952	990	1112	848	857	1288	1191Victoria	389	358	555	589	611	602	494	641	661



URBAN AFFAIRS-LAWYERS IN PROVENCHER

Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and what amount was each paid per year?


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.



AGRICULTURE-LAWYERS IN PROVENCHER

Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of Agriculture and what amount was each paid per year?


Claude-André Lachance: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.



FEDERAL PROVINCIAL RELATIONS-LAWYERS IN PROVENCHER

Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Ministry of State for Federal-Provinciai Relations and what amount was each paid per year?


Claude-André Lachance: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.



LABOUR-LAWYERS IN PROVENCHER

Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of Labour and what amount was each paid per year?


Claude-André Lachance: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.



MULTICULTURALISM-LAWYERS IN PROVENCHER

Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Ministry of State for Multiculturalism and what amount was each paid per year?


Claude-André Lachance: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-LAWYERS IN PROVENCHER

Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and what amount was each paid per year?


Claude-André Lachance: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-LAWYERS IN PROVENCHER

Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of National Defence and what amount was each paid per year?


Claude-André Lachance: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.



AGRICULTURE-TAX WRITE-OFFS

Mr. Brisco: Are the same tax write-offs allowed for greenhouse agricultural projects, such as the growing of tomatoes, as are allowed for field grown products outside of a greenhouse environment?

November 9, 1978
Points of Order


Claude-André Lachance: See reply to question No. 1,718 of the third session of the thirtieth parliament, Hansard No. 146, page 6724, dated June 26, 1978.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
1 rise on a point of order. This afternoon the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) stated that he would be providing us with the necessary information to deal with Bill C-12, to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary and the President of the Treasury Board whether they would consider answering a question I placed on the order paper on October 17. It was in regard to whether there was in excess of $9 billion in the Public Service Superannuation Account. That is question No. 238. The answer to this question would certainly help hon. members to deal properly with Bill C-12 concerning retirement benefits.



MR. ELZINGA-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 223

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: I, too, rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with regard to question No. 223. This is the third session during which it has been on the order paper and the government has had some two years to answer it. It simply deals with special or annual air passes granted to presidents of Crown corporations and government commissioners, and asks how often these special passes have been used. I wonder if I could get a commitment from the parliamentary secretary allowing me to expect an answer in the near future.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as regards the first intervention, we will give the question serious consideration, and attempt to provide the best possible answer, as quickly as we can.
As for the second intervention, the hon. member must understand that his question is directed to several agencies and departments. It will certainly cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money to satisfy his fancy, but we will nevertheless take his question in serious consideration.



MR. ORLIKOW-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON CROWN CORPORATION SALARIES

['Mr. Speaker, we agree to come to an agreement as to a reasonable time to do this.']
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise more in sorrow than in anger to ask the parliamentary secretary whether the government will, some time this session, answer a series of questions which have been standing in my name on the order paper for a long time-I think this is the second year-having to do with senior officers of Crown corporations, who they are, and what salaries they receive. If the government does not want to answer the questions, I wish the parliamentary secretary would tell me so, in which case I might pursue them at some appropriate time in one of the standing committees. It does seem to me that the questions are not so complicated nor so difficult that the government cannot answer them in a matter of two years if ministers put their minds to it.


Yvon Pinard: With respect to this intervention, I can tell the hon. member that I can see his name very often in the questions I have the occasion to answer. I can see he looks happy. I will try my best to keep that happy look on his face as long as possible.
* *
*



Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to indicate to the House today that I have come to some conclusions with respect to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) on November 3, having to do with a number of matters which were the subject of an interesting discussion at that date. I have not made up my mind on two or three issues which I think should be discussed further; I want to leave them with the House in the hope that they may be argued at some convenient time.
Perhaps I might simply say at this stage that on November 3, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham raised a question of privilege which came to his attention as a result of certain testimony before the McDonald royal commission. Briefly, the facts are as follows. In reply to a query on behalf of a constituent, the member for Northumberland-Durham received from the then solicitor general, on December 4, 1973, a letter which read in part:
I have been assured by the RCMP that it is not their practice to intercept the private mail of anyone and I trust the above explanation will set your constituent's mind at ease.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham indicated to the House that in testifying before the McDonald commission in relation to this particular letter, former Commissioner Higgitt had said:
November 9, 1978

That is not, that is not an assurance the RCMP is giving to the minister at all and as a matter of fact the practice was, in matters of this kind, the practice was very often ministers' letters were not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact.
On the basis of this evidence the hon. member alleges that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct him in the performance of his duties to the extent that the minister's letter to him, dated December 4, 1973, was not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact.
The law of privilege in this regard is stated in Erskine May in the nineteenth edition at page 136:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
More specifically, under the heading "Presenting Forged, Falsified or Fabricated Documents to Either House or Committees of Either House", May goes on to say:
It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to committees of either House, forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such House or committees or to subscribe the names of other persons or fictitious names to documents intended to be presented to either House or committees of either House or to be privy to, or cognizant of, such forgery or fraud.
That appears in the nineteenth edition at page 141. At the same page May deals with conspiracy to deceive either House or committees of either House, as follows:
It has already been seen that the giving of false evidence, prevarication or suppression of the truth by witnesses while under examination before either House or before committees of either House is punished as a contempt; and that persons who present false, forged or fabricated documents to either House or to committees of either House are guilty of a breach of privilege. Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
The very interesting debate on this question of privilege which took place on Friday last has left me with a number of issues to resolve. The first of these, of course, is whether or not the hon. member, within the classic definition of the law of privilege, has in fact a matter of contempt or a matter of privilege.
In addition, there were a number of ancillary items which I felt arose during the course of debate. I will enumerate five of those now. The first deals with whether the complaint was raised at the earliest possible moment. The second is whether a letter from the Solicitor General to a member can be treated as a proceeding in parliament in order, therefore, to qualify for consideration under our rules of privilege. Third, can a contempt committed during one parliament be dealt with in another? The fourth point which I want to bring before the House now is: does the sub judice convention impose any constraints upon the House in this case? Fifth, does the constitutional doctrine of ministerial responsibility affect in any way the law of privilege?
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
I have no difficulty in disposing of the first three of these ancillary items. I am prepared to find that, first, the complaint was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. It was before the McDonald commission that Commissioner Higgitt acknowledged for the first time that the letter in question was "not exactly drafted on a precise statement of fact". Nothing said before the Keable inquiry earlier in the year would lead to that conclusion, and what was said in the House on November 9 by the then solicitor general indicated that the RCMP opened mail only in certain very distinct cases and circumstances. Furthermore, in connection with certain questions put by the hon. member to the solicitor general in respect to that pronouncement on November 9, I am satisfied that the hon. member can draw a relationship between the letter and his questions on that particular occasion.
His questions were directed to the Solicitor General at that time on the grounds of asking whether the Solicitor General was sure that these were the only categories in which mail openings were conducted by the RCMP, and I therefore accept the hon. member's argument that there was a direct relationship between his letter and his conduct on specific occasions in the House. I find, therefore, in that relation the letter does become a proceeding in parliament for the purposes of privilege.
I can also easily deal with the problem about this House dealing in this parliament with a contempt committed by an earlier parliament. I would refer hon. members to the nineteenth edition of May at page 161, where it is stated:
-a contempt committed against one parliament may be punished by another;
The matter is obviously put to rest by that quotation.
The last two ancillary issues, however, give me greater difficulty. I want to indicate to the House at once my own preliminary analysis of these two problems and also of the form of the motion, which is the third matter which I want to leave for the House, because we did not have argument directed to that question.
I want to refer hon. members to paragraph 24 of the recent report to this House of the Standing Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members on the sub judice convention, which reads as follows:
Your committee recommends that the Speaker should remain the final arbiter in the matter, that he should retain the authority to prevent discussion of matters in the House on the ground of sub judice, but that he should only exercise this discretion in exceptional cases where it is clear to him that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals. In exercising this discretion your committee recommends that when there is a doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention. In the view of your committee prejudice is most likely to occur in respect of criminal cases and civil cases of defamation where juries are involved.
My preliminary analysis of the question of matters sub judice is, in the first place, that this touches privilege, and
966

November 9, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
surely no body but this House can have jurisdiction where matters of privilege are involved if, in fact, privilege is found.
The second thing is that in my preliminary analysis the proceeding which is the parallel inquiry about which concern might be expressed if the sub judice convention were to apply is not in fact a trial. It is not a civil or criminal court. There is no verdict to be given, and therefore no prejudice, it seems to me, could result from discussion in this House parallel to the discussion taking place before that royal commission. Therefore, on the face of it, because it would involve privilege, which is in the jurisdiction only of this House, and because no prejudice would be apparent, it would seem that the sub judice convention ought not to be applied. However, that was not argued, and I would like to hear argument, if there is any to be made, contrary to my preliminary analysis.
I am also concerned that although the sub judice convention may not have application in this forum, the wisdom of avoiding parallel inquiry is something which was not argued. When we draw upon the testimony before an inquiry, at what stage is it appropriate to draw upon that testimony to proceed with another inquiry here? That testimony can be cross-examined. It may be contradicted. On the other hand, surely this House is not about to wait patiently for the conclusion of the proceedings before the McDonald inquiry before it takes steps of its .own, particularly if the House feels that it has been treated with contempt and that a matter of privilege is involved. That is an issue upon which I would like to hear further discussion.
Furthermore, the matter of ministerial responsibility is a question which gives me some concern, and while I recognize that ministerial responsibility is a constitutional doctrine, again I say my preliminary analysis is that it does not have procedural significance as far as the Chair is concerned and, in any case, does not override privilege even if it did have some procedural significance. Nevertheless, it has been quite a generally accepted extension of that doctrine of ministerial responsibility that when serious dereliction of duty by an official of a minister takes place, the minister is expected either to assume responsibility for that in the House or, alternatively, to advise the House of the appropriate disciplinary measure which has been taken.
I say to the House that while I do not think there is procedural significance to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, it appears that we are now embarking on a different course in having the House, through a question of privilege, reach around the minister and examine directly the conduct of an official. Both of those-parallel inquiries and taking that step in terms of ministerial responsibility-it seems to me are probably not procedural matters but are risks the House is taking. It may be that they are risks which will be examined in debate, and the House will take decisions. They are substantive matters to be considered by the House and not properly procedural matters for the Chair. Those are two concerns I want to leave over for further argument. I do not expect hon.
members to be prepared to argue without having time to put their thoughts together.
The final concern I want to leave with the House-and I freely say that it would not be looked upon by me in any case as a fatal concern-is the form of the motion. The customary form of a motion on a question of privilege is very precise and explicit, in that the matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The form of the motion put forward by the hon. member, on the one hand, seems to make a declaration which is in fact a finding that contempt has taken place. On the other hand, it calls for an inquiry to be made in the committee. I have looked at the form of the motion, and it is a departure from previous motions of privilege which have been accepted, but I am far from satisfied that it is out of order. I am not at all convinced that it is out of order and, frankly, I think if there is a procedural irregularity regarding the motion, I would not want to stop an important question like this on that ground. However, if the motion is found to be procedurally irregular or a departure from our regular procedure, I would be sympathetic to an amendment or an alteration to the motion, if we were to carry the matter forward.
I have not, and I do not think I should go on to deal with the basic question of whether the question of privilege has been decided finally by me in favour of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I will not do that until I have heard other argument.
These other considerations having been set aside, and in line with the precedents I have cited I think most members of the House would find it very difficult to accept that this House is powerless to do anything about a deliberate act to deceive either a minister or, through the minister, the House. However, the final determination will be after argument on those other three points.
I do not want to hear any further argument on the points I have set aside, but I would be grateful if the House would direct itself, at a time which is convenient, to further argument on the questions of whether a parallel inquiry should take place and whether the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in any way affects this question of privilege. I have said already-and I want hon. members to look at my remarks- that I do not think that those are procedural questions, but I would like argument on them nevertheless, as well as on whether the form of the motion should be altered in order to keep it within our practices, if we set these other objections aside.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your indication as to how we will proceed. I will be conveying that immediately to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who, no doubt, in the usual way will have discussions with the other House leaders in order to determine the convenient time to which you refer.

November 9, 1978


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to express the same thing, except in reverse. I will be speaking to my friend as well as to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to come to an agreement as to a reasonable time to do this.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 7, consideration in committee of Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Turner in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday, November 7, 1978, clause 1 was under consideration.
On clause 1-


Miss B6gin:: Mr. Chairman, as you can see from a reading of Hansard for Tuesday night, I had not finished my contribution. May I be given a few moments to finish my reply to the hon. member for Broadview?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member for Broadview spoke of a problem which surely does exist, but I do not think we can bring about any change. The problem is the difference between the treatment of common law marriages pursuant to the Income Tax Act, and legal marriages. The hon. member gave an example of two common law parents with two salaries which total more than $18,000. This mother would be entitled to the child tax credit. If these two people were legally married, they would not qualify for the child tax credit. If common law marriages were recognized under the Income Tax Act, the door would be open to uncontrollable situations. Because of that, I do not see any valid amendment to the bill presently under study. Common law marriages do not have the factor of stability which legal marriages have. That is the basis around which the social policy in Canada has been built. I think this is accepted by hon. members.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I should like to enter into this debate for a few moments. I would like to have an explanation from the minister concerning what I consider to be major differences between the speech she made during the debate on this bill, and the speeches she made before the bill was
Family Allowances
introduced. I am referring to the area in her speeches relating to the extent and depth of poverty in this country.
First I will refer to a couple of examples, and then I will put on the record what is the real situation in the country, for the benefit of all hon. members. On Tuesday, November 7, as reported at page 883 of Hansard, the minister said:
However, in the last ten years absolute poverty in Canada, as given by the indicators of Statistics Canada, has been reduced from 20 per cent to 12 per cent.
She said the same thing in the speech which she gave when the House was considering second reading of the bill. The minister should think about the statements which she made the other night and compare them with the statements which she made in a speech to the Sherbrooke Federal Liberal Association. Her speech was made on March 13, 1978, and it is entitled, "The Myths of Social Policy". She was referring to the dangers of people not understanding what is going on in the country when she said:
That danger is that in the current swing of the political pendulum we will overlook the needs of millions of Canadians who are far less fortunate than we are. It is, after all, very easy to turn our backs on poverty.
Later on in the speech she said:
Many, many Canadians believe these myths; you may believe some of them too. But many others know differently. The others are found among the 600,000 working families who must spend two thirds or more of their income to provide the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter. They are among the nearly two million children living in families with incomes that are inadequate for their needs. They are among the hundreds of thousands of elderly who live below the poverty line.
Further on in the speech she said:
-Canada's poor families are getting along on an average of one seventh of the income of families in the upper one fifth of our population.
She was referring to her audience when she used the word "you", and I am sure she would say the same thing about members of parliament.
She continued:
You are likely all in that upper one fifth. Divide your family income by seven and try to imagine what it would be like living on that one seventh.
What happened to the minister between March and November? In March she made that speech, and in November she came into the House to explain and defend the bill which is a good one. Surely the minister knows that there is poverty in Canada. I do not know if anyone else on that side of the House or any other cabinet minister realizes that. The minister was aware of that fact last March. Thus, I cannot understand how she reached the position which she has taken in this debate.
In the minister's speech on second reading, she created the impression that we did not have much poverty, yet approximately two days ago she referred to the fact that the percentage of Canadians living in poverty has dropped from 20 per cent to 12 per cent.
The figures reported by Statistics Canada do not bear out the 12 per cent referred to by the minister. In its fifth annual review in 1968, the Economic Council of Canada indicated that, based on figures from the 1961 and 1965 census, 20 per cent of Canadians were living below the poverty line at that
80065-62'/2


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Your government has contributed to that.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member for York-Simcoe, the social specialist for the Conservative party, says that we have done nothing about poverty. That is not true. Many things have been done to erase poverty, and it is important to remember what this government has done. Poverty had decreased to a certain degree in this country. The measure of redistribution, however, has not changed, and this bill will help that by putting $300 million more into that group of poor families living below the poverty line. It will be quite a step, certainly not revolutionary, but it is of great importance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue with the Minister of Finance a line of questioning that 1 originated during this committee stage with his parliamentary secretary. It has to do with identifying the on-going expenditures with respect to the family allowance program and then relating it to the on-going loss of revenue which may ensue as a result of the tax credit proposal. When I raised this question I specifically requested more detailed information that led to the government telling us that the total savings and costs of these various programs are X hundreds of millions. I was looking for a more detailed breakdown showing the number of family allowance cheques that were involved and the number of tax credits that the government anticipates will be going out.
I suggest that perhaps the parliamentary secretary misunderstood what I was getting at. He tabled a list of certain expenditure reductions and revenue additions or reductions for the year 1978-79 and 1979-80, but perhaps the parliamentary secretary was not aware that the list he tabled had already been put into Hansard. I was well acquainted with that list and, in fact, it was what prompted me to ask for further details.
The refundable tax credit, according to the minister, will result in a loss of revenue of $810 million in the fiscal year 1979-80. Can the minister give us more detail as to how he arrived at that figure, which is the first entry on the table I referred.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, we take the number of children receiving family allowances who are, according to the information we have, in families where parents do not pay income tax or pay just a little amount and compare it with the number of family allowance cheques we issue during the year with all the information we could get from the Department of National Health and Welfare and from the Department of National Revenue, based on income tax return forms filled by Canadians, we came to the conclusion that the total amount for fiscal year 1979-80, which is the first year in which these tax credits for children will be paid, will be $810 million.

November 9, 1978



Mir. Stevens: Mr. Chairman, what I am asking the minister for is at least an outline of the detail behind the statements which he has made. When the minister says that he takes the number of family allowances and calculates from there, can he tell us the actual numbers behind the $810 million estimate he has given us?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, we made a model of certain family incomes that would be involved, and we processed that scientifically with the departments involved. 1 have explained the ingredients in the model. 1 cannot bring the model here because it is an IBM machine and there is no room in the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister may jest, but I think it is a very important question. In the past we have found in many instances that government figures have been proven wrong, literally within six to 12 months. In this case we are being asked to accept an estimate of $810 million as the net revenue loss for the fiscal year 1979-80. Would the minister give us back-up figures to substantiate his estimates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I think that it is one of the elements of the program. There is the refundable tax credit which will be a loss of revenue for that aspect, and we have said there will be an offsetting element, a net gain to the government of $35 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are just dealing with one element.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is the process of paying back the credit to the people who will qualify. There is also the reduction in the family allowance, the elimination of the $50 tax credit per child, and there is the modification to exemptions for children age 16 and 17. These elements will offset the $810 million for a net of $35 million. Those are the ingredients which make up the model and enabled us to arrive at an estimate of $810 million.
There are many things that can go into such a model. Can the hon. member provide, for example, the total number of children, the number of families earning under $22,000 a year, their exemptions and so on? It is a complicated question, and we rely on the figures provided by the experts.
The hon. member made a statement to the effect that the government was seldom correct. I was pleased to report to a committee, where the hon. member for York-Simcoe and I seem to meet so often, that we do make errors, and that this year we underestimated our revenue and over-estimated expenditures. That kind of error pleases me.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, 1 will not make any comment on the last little misrepresentation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: With the reduction of 16 and 17-year olds, 250,000 families will be affected. With the elimination of the
Family Allowances
$50 credit, 2.7 million families will be affected. The child tax credit that we are introducing will affect 2.5 million families.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I think that is partly the information I was looking for, Mr. Speaker-2.5 million families will be affected as a result of the tax credit. How many children are involved?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: About five million children.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me go to the next stage. That is fiscal 1980 which, if we accept the minister's figures, indicates a loss of revenue of $810 million. Could the minister give the House the estimate for fiscal 81-82?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I must say that we do not make such estimates precisely because we do not prepare estimates five years in advance. To be able to give precise figures in this area it is necessary to make very difficult extrapolations because it would be necessary to know the exact income levels of Canadians in two, three and four years, as well as the exact level of inflation during the same years. The hon. member mentioned a few moments ago the difficulty of obtaining very precise figures for a single year and then he asks me for something which is almost impossible to give under the circumstances, namely to give him the figures with the same precision for the next five years.

We have a good idea that this program will not become more expensive to the government because the revenues it is based on have been indexed and the tax credit program has been indexed as well. They will move parallel. With the higher income and growth in the GNP, the program will move up on both sides of the ledger. The one forecast I can make without scientific information is that the number of children is going down, relatively speaking, so the impact will tend to diminish on the expenditure and revenue side of the government over a period of time. This is a phenomenon that has been in existence for many years. The family allowances program is taking less of government expenditures than before because families tend to be smaller.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the minister may say it is impossible to give these longer range projections, and he refers to five years. I think that was more than just a slip. He must know that in the United States at the present time all budgetary presentations are made on a five-year basis, showing two years of fairly definitive figures, and three years of forecasts. In the United Kingdom all budgetary calculations are based on a five-year period. If the minister is unaware of this I will be pleased to send him the last United States budget and the last United Kingdom budget. He can then see for himself that what he says is impossible is exactly what our two biggest trading partners have been doing for some time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain to the hon. member again that this program is designed, in terms of expenditures and revenue, to be neutral because it will move

November 9, 1978
Family Allowances
on both sides of the ledger. We are making forecasts for five years ahead of time with all sorts of estimates, but we do not go into every aspect of every program. That would be a waste of time. We deal in bigger figures than that, trying to analyse what would be the growth of the economy and so on. In fact, for the first time in Canadian history, last February for the first ministers' conference I tried to make a planning program for five years ahead. Sometimes that comes back to me because we have set a pattern of growth that would be the ideal for the country that we are not achieving at this time. It was done in order to have a model against which to measure performance, so I am ahead of other nations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, one thing we know that this government and this minister are not ahead on, and that is performance. He has just admitted he is finding it hard to live up to his target of only a few months ago.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to that comment. The hon. member's party has acquired a new member for Ottawa Centre who is supposed to be challenging the hon. member for the position he occupies. But the hon. member for Ottawa Centre predicted, on a very neutral basis, not in order to boost the party in power, a 5 cent growth. He was obviously not a friend of ours. Of course there is fluctuation in the pattern of growth, but to the chagrin of the hon. member opposite last month he realized we were quite close to target and forecast a surplus in trade.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister is overlooking the fact that when my colleague made the 5 per cent prediction he made it in the context of responsible government, but the fact is that we have not had the leadership to achieve a 5 per cent rate of growth. The 5 per cent rate of growth minimum in Canada is not a totally unachievable target. There is no reason why we could not achieve it if we had better government.
What disturbs me about this bill is the lack of planning with regard to expenditures and revenues. One of the problems this government is now living with-and I think the minister might agree-is that Ministers have indexed the revenue sources available to them. They have indexed many of their expenditure programs and are now in the difficult position of having expenditures indexed to inflation, revenue indexed to inflation, so the revenue is levelling out and expenditures are going up. The result is a $12 billion deficit. That is exactly what this bill is going to put in place.
We reduced the $20 family allowance and the minister says that gave us a $690 million reduction in expenditures, but then it is indexed again. The only year we gained the $690 million reduction in expenditures is one year.


Monique Bégin: No; wrong.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Surely the minister understands that on a $20 basis the expenditure that is said to be saved in reducing the family allowance from $28 to $20 is again indexed next year. What I am saying is that when you have the expenditure side indexed and you have the tax credit indexed, it means there

will be an error, increasing loss of revenue, tax revenue, yet an ever expanding expenditure on family allowances. I am saying that if we carry on with the 8 per cent inflation this government has inflicted upon us, once indexing takes hold, the $20 family allowance goes up $1.60, and the $200 tax credit under the same 8 per cent calculation goes up $16.
The dilemma we are faced with in the country is that loss of revenue and rising expenditures in the years ahead-not speaking of this year-are going to widen that much more with every family allowance going up $1.60 per month, with every tax credit going down, as far as revenue is concerned, by $16. If either minister could respond to that I would be very interested to hear their answer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, we can have a long argument about that. In the process by reducing the basic payments that we were making to all families, rich and poor, we have saved a total of $690 million. We have reduced the base from $25.85 this year, which was supposed to increase to $28.80 next year. That has been reduced and has resulted in a saving of $690 million. This saving will be forever because the indexing will be based on a lower base, that is the programs henceforth will be parallel. I do not say there will not be a few dollars here and there, but the principles are such that the program is self-financing, even more with the diminution of children. Relatively speaking it will probably be less expensive in terms of loss of revenues to the government in future years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the minister has a staff of three, and he has more staff within calling distance all waiting to work their calculators. I would ask the minister to take a static situation, the same number of children, do not worry about income increases, and tell us what fiscal 1981 will look like, assuming we have 8 per cent inflation for indexing purposes. I believe, if I judged correctly from the minister's response, that the consequence of what I have described as indexing on the tax credit side and indexing on the family allowance side has not been driven home to him yet. Sure, he can say that they have a national expenditure saving of $690 million by reducing the family allowance amount from $25 to $20. But unless the minister makes it very clear to this House that if inflation continues there is a $1.60 extra per $20 payment in the following fiscal year-


Monique Bégin: Per month.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Per month, fine. Any way you want. In other words-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. 1 regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. We will recognize him later.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Maybe I have consent to carry on.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. The hon. member's allotted 20 minutes have expired. I recognize the hon. member for South Western Nova.
November 9, 1978


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I know we are all anxious to get on with the bill as quickly as possible. However, I think it would save time if I could have an assurance from the minister that, on the basis I have represented, he will get his officials working on 1981 figures just so we can see the impact of an 8 per cent inflation if the situation is still static. Could I have the assurance that the minster will be doing that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, he loves to have a lot of people work for nothing. I think I have explained the principle.
I will make a calculation on the assumption that there will be no more children and inflation will be 6 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Eight per cent.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It will not br 8 per cent. I will not buy that one. I will make a calculation that everyone will be quiet for next year and there will be no more children, as you mentioned.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, this is an innovative bill. I say this because the refundable tax credit and its application, in my opinion, introduces for the first time a negative income tax system. In other words-and one of the ministers may wish to correct me on this-the refundable tax credit will not only apply to families with children who are taxpayers but to families with children who owe no taxes and who, in the past, would have been unable to take advantage of the credit. These people, the ones who owe no taxes, the most in need, will receive a benefit for the first time from the tax system. I feel that the use of the tax system to provide a benefit for families, whether or not they owe taxes, brings us a step closer toward the restructuring of our whole system of income support programs. In so doing we come closer to the implementation of guaranteed annual income.
In my opinion a guaranteed annual income program would do away with a lot of income support programs now in existence, such as the old age security, spouse's allowance, guaranteed income supplement for persons 65 years of age and over, family allowance, provincial assistance and other programs of assistance. If we had a guaranteed annual income program I feel we would lessen the burden on the taxpayer, first by reducing the administrative costs of all these individual programs and the duplication of services therein, and by eliminating some of the disincentives to work that are there in the present system.
What is proposed in this bill, in my opinion, is a restructured system of financial support for families with children. I have some concerns, and before I go on to this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about this restructured system. The federal income system will be used to deliver benefits to low and middle income families, including those families below the
Family Allowances
poverty line who would normally not be affected by the usual tax cuts.
Let us look at the present system. What do we have for families with children? We have the family allowance which provides a taxable benefit of $25.68 a month for each child under the age of 18 in the past year. The dependant's exemption excludes from income tax $460 for each dependent child aged 16 and under, and $840 for a dependant 16 years of age and over but under the age of 18. Both of these two items are presently indexed to the cost of living. We also have an additional measure in the personal income tax which allows a taxpayer, with children, a reduction in federal tax of up to $50 for each child, up to an income of $26,000. This measure has been in existence since the 1977 tax year.
I have looked at the financial implications for 1979-80 concerning the changes as announced in August by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and now incorporated in this bill. They may be outlined as follows. First, we have the basic federal family allowance which will be reduced to $20 per month per child beginning January, 1979. The current rate is $25.68 a month, and because it is indexed to the cost of living it would have risen to about $28 in January. The savings from the lower payments to be commenced in January are $690 million, so I am informed. The reductions in tax revenues are $130 million, since allowances are taxable. The net saving is $560 million.
Second, the current tax credit of $50 per child under 18 years of age would be eliminated. The savings in this case amount to $260 million. Third is a refundable child tax credit which is going to be introduced to take effect based on the 1978 taxation year. The basic credit will be $200 a year for each dependent child under the age of 18. It will be available in full to any family with net family income of up to $18,000 a year. The credit will be reduced 5 per cent of net family income above $18,000, for an expenditure of $810 million, and fourth, the tax exemption for children age 16 and 17 will be reduced from $840 to $460, the same level as for children under 16. This change is being phased in over two years. Hence taxpayers now benefiting from this deduction will not be affected. The saving will be $25 million.
If one worked this out on paper, he would see that the restructured system will result in a net saving to the government of $35 million in fiscal year 1979-80. In other words, the aggregate benefits provided under the child support system will decline marginally with the new system. The incidence of benefits, however, will change significantly. Benefits to the poorest families will increase. Families with incomes close to the national average will be about the same, while benefits to high income families will decline.
The exact impact of the restructured system on families with different levels of income will vary with the number of children and the province of residence since income tax rates differ from province to province. The effect of the proposed changes will be to redistribute benefits from the wealthier to

November 9, 1978
Family Allowances
the lower-income families with children. Since Nova Scotia is a low-income province, relative to the Canadian average, it stands to benefit under the new system.
I am advised that of the total of about 130,000 families in Nova Scotia affected by the proposed changes, roughly 105,000 will be net gainers. The over-all net benefit to Nova Scotia, that is, the increase in benefits over the current system, will be $8 million in 1979, $6 million of which will accrue to families falling below the Statistics Canada poverty line of $9,700 for a family of four members.
The impact of the proposed system on a two-parent family with two children under 16 and living in Nova Scotia can be stated as follows. The definition of net family income is income after deductions for contributions to Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, retirement savings plan, home ownership plans, union dues, tuition fees, child care expenses and other expenses. However, net income is calculated before subtracting personal exemptions.
Going back, a family with an income of $5,000 in Nova Scotia under the 1978 benefits, the existing system, would receive $616. Under the 1979 benefits, the proposed system in this bill, they would receive $880, a positive change of $264.
A family in Nova Scotia with an income of $15,000 would receive under the 1978 benefits, the existing system, $813. The 1979 benefits under the proposed system will be $1,047, a positive change of $234. A family with an income of $20,000 would, under the 1978 benefits, the existing system, receive $832. Under the proposed system, the 1979 benefits would be $984, a positive change of $152.
When you reach the $25,000 family income, the 1978 benefits under the existing system would be $838. Under the 1979 benefits proposed in this bill, they would receive $771, a negative change of $67. I could go on and quote all the changes. However, I am just trying to show what would happen with a family of two parents and two children.
As the foregoing indicates, the benefits under the restructured system vary inversely with family income, with higher income families being net losers. The Department of National Health and Welfare estimates that families with net incomes in excess of $25,000 a year will receive $165 million less in 1979 than they would under the present system. Families with less than $25,000 will gain about $130 million. In terms of the number of families involved, there are about 1.3 million families with incomes in excess of $25,000, and 2.3 million families with incomes below this amount.
How will it work? The first benefits under this new child tax credit program will be paid during the early months of 1979. 1 do not question the administrative end of it, but I look forward to the Income Tax Department doing its share of the work. It will take effect on the 1978 taxation year and it will, as I have already stated, be based on net family income.
An application or a one-page claim form will be included with each January family allowance cheque to be completed by the parent who normally receives the family allowance. Normally this will be the mother.

I now wish to return to the two areas of my concern. One has to do with the parent who normally receives the family allowance cheque. I am not sure whether it states in the Family Allowance Act that the cheque should be sent to the mother or the father, or whether the father has a right to the cheque if he designates he is the one to receive it. In other words, there may be a change with many families as to who would receive the cheque on a monthly basis. In most cases, it is the husband who is working. He may want to take advantage of the set-off between what is owed under this child tax credit and the amount of his taxes.
How will this affect the receipt of the monthly cheque by the mother if the father is in a position to receive the cheque? I can see a situation where the father did not receive the benefit last year but, under the new plan, will exert a certain amount of pressure within the family relationship in order to receive it in the future.
The other area of concern is the way this is to be paid out. It seems it will need to be done in instalments. Due to the circumstances this year, I feel that a lump sum payment could be made. However, I would like to know whether the Department of National Health and Welfare, in conjunction with the Ministry of Finance, is considering making quarterly instalments on family allowance cheques so that there will be more benefit over the year. Also, if the cheque were received next June, it would be at a time when most people on the Atlantic coast are working. Has the matter of instalments under the family allowance scheme been studied?
These are my two areas of concern. First, can the father be designated to receive the family allowance cheque instead of the mother to whom it has normally been sent? Now that it is being tied into income tax, can this be changed? Will there not be a great revolution with the fathers asking for the cheques?
The other concern is with regard to the lump sum payment or whether this can be done in instalments. I realize that for 1979, because of the implementation of the program for January, it has to be done this way. I would like to know whether it can be done another way in the future.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I have taken note and agree with what the hon. member for South Western Nova said regarding the establishment of a guaranteed annual income as an objective of social policy in Canada as well as being a completely restructured system with tax benefits.
The thrust of her presentation this afternoon, it seems to me, had to do with the effect on Nova Scotia families, and more particularly on families which are now good middle-class families with the money which goes with it but may be of a more recent character. The fact remains that this bill wants to redistribute family allowances within families to those most in need. To Nova Scotia it does bring benefits, and taking into account the slight monthly reduction in family allowances it would bring to the province a net additional $8 million in
November 9, 1978

1979, $6 million of it going to families in Nova Scotia who live below the poverty line right now. That, I think, is an advantage. Of course some of the wealthier families in the province will lose a bit every year, but we have kept family allowances and that is what I want to stress.
As to what measure of income we propose to use, 1 want to confirm that it is net income, the take-home pay. All the deductions the hon. member referred to will help bring back into the picture lots of families who make good money but who are not rich. As to the problem of the struggle of mothers versus fathers in the Canadian society of the future, who is going to get the cheque and the "tractations" which may take place within such families, I want to assure the hon. member that there will not be such a problem and that mothers can continue to receive the cheques without any disadvantage to the income tax position of the fathers. This is for the simple reason that the new child tax credit of $200 a year per child will be non-taxable; it will not be declared on the father's income. It is a net benefit and it does not prejudice the other partner in terms of income tax.
We have taken the decision to send the cheque to the mothers in recognition of the present Canadian reality and in accordance with our long standing policy. In cases where fathers have the legal custody of children, fathers will receive the new child tax credit.
As to the last point made by the hon. member for South Western Nova about making the allowance in instalments more frequently than on an annual basis, we shall, of course, be monitoring the situation. I have spoken on that aspect on several occasions in the House. We shall welcome hearing the viewpoint of mothers on this question after the first year of the program's operation. Right now, there are pros and cons on both sides. While possession of a lump sum will have certain great advantages, it is true that there may be abuses by tax discounters. It might assist family budgeting if the credit were made available in several instalments. This is simply a matter of an administrative decision to be made in future years. We intend to monitor the situation carefully and may well recommend payment by several instalments in future years.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that always when I begin a speech by saying I would like to "say a few words" I try to make it a declaration of intent rather than a rhetorical cliche. I say it now. It is a pleasure to be participating in this debate. I haven't heard all the speeches, but I have read them all and understood some of them. I have not been able until this week to be in the chamber this session except on Thursday and Friday, and when people say they have not seen me since God knows when, that is a reflection on their own attendance pattern. But it is not for me to go into that.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare was suggesting that the hon. member for Winnipeg North was really directing his remarks to people sitting right of him, and I want to remind her that I am sitting to his right and I did not need that kind of direction she made.


Monique Bégin: Then he was talking to the angels!
Family Allowances


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The score is, too, that I am sitting on his right, and to the left of most of my colleagues. If that be treason, then make the most of it, as Patrick Henry might have said if he were here.
I am pleased to be associated with a debate led in part by the Minister of Finance who is a man I have known for many years, a man of great charm and humour-and heading the portfolio he heads in the way he heads it, he needs a sense of humour. I am delighted he has one. I was impressed to read that he had declared this debate as one of the most significant social policy reforms in a decade. That is quite a sweeping statement. The minister, as I say, is a charming man, but if we ever had in this country a post similar to the oracle at Delphi I would suggest that he not even apply. I say this in terms of his prophetic record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was impressed by some concerns which have been raised by many of my colleagues in a matter which, in general, is one which looks pretty appealing. I think the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Egmont have still to get fulsome answers to the anxieties which they expressed with reference to certain very important matters. I was impressed too by the address by the new hon. member for Rosedale and by that of my colleague for St. John's East.
There seem to be some contradictory elements in this measure which mar our enthusiasm a bit. The lady minister is one of my favourite ministers in the whole cabinet. I cannot even hope to come close to the honourable, learned, and venerable member for Winnipeg North Centre who praised her so fulsomely, but if she would not consider it praising with faint damns or damning with faint praises I would say she is one of the most enlightened ministers of the particular group now in charge of our destinies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The trouble is she is so lonely in that cabinet.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The hon. member says she is lonely and I notice he goes over and talks with her every so often.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But I, Mr. Chairman, am too young and too shy to go over and talk with good looking women.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I admire him for doing so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You may find yourself there some day yourself.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The thing that does appeal, of course- and no person with a social conscience would be too disturbed by this-is that basically we are trying to direct government assistance where it is most helpful. Someone long ago, who did not belong to this House, said, "To each according to his needs", and that is not a totally erroneous description of how

November 9, 1978
Family Allowances
the power of government should be used. It is not an improper position in any way.
I have certain little anxieties that in this measure we are, to a degree, assaulting the principle of universality and moving in effect, if not by declaration, back toward something a little closer to the means test mentality. That is something which has always upset me because I began my political career 22 years ago, when we had to deal with all sorts of senior citizens in this country who would ask the Conservative candidate, "Is it true that if you win we shall lose our old age pension?" That is something I shall never forget. It was a very mean abuse of our older people. I have a deep-seated emotional anxiety about that. Perhaps if I were back in university I might be tempted to use the word "syndrome". But what is becoming increasingly apparent-and I noticed it earlier this afternoon when my colleague from York-Simcoe, who has a calculator here-and the Minister of Finance has one over there-was engaging in a discussion about, as I recall, de-indexing, non-indexing and re-indexing. I am not a geronton by any means but I have been here a long time and one thing I am certain has happened- this is no cause and effect relationship; I have watched it-is that our legislative measures are becoming constantly more complicated.
I predict to both ministers that there will be trouble ahead in interpretation; there will be trouble ahead in administration. And I always believe it is basically a bad thing a priori if you confuse, compound and complicate the relationship of a citizen with his government. That is most assuredly going to happen with this measure. God knows that the Minister of Finance deserves credit for being persistent, and I am quite sure that he will continue to make predictions. I am also sure that as month follows month it will be discovered that the hon. member for York-Simcoe is far more capable of predicting the future than is the minister.
I do not applaud the elaborateness which is coming into this measure. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is a Canadian with a very highly developed social conscience, and I think the intent of this measure is not at all bad, but I have a feeling that as it is administered the Canadian people will find that it is not nearly so great a measure as the Minister of Finance proclaimed it to be in his opening paragraph.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to three points made by the hon. member. There is no means test at all. No bureaucrats from the Department of National Health and Welfare will be moving into houses, looking at people's assets and so forth. There is no danger of that.
The universal aspect remains, but we are trying to target surplus funds to areas where they are needed. I recognize that the system will be more complex, but we have to live with that if we want to achieve our goals.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that my fears are not at all allayed by her remarks about who will be allowed to
claim family allowance cheques. When I was working on my private member's bill regarding parental kidnapping, I discovered that it really is possible for husbands to abduct their children and get family allowance cheques, even though they are not granted custody. That has happened. The minister shakes her head. I will send her a copy of the correspondence which indicated that to me.
My question is really to the Minister of Finance. I listened to his response to the hon. member for York-Simcoe, and in his response he used the term "self-financing". I want to make sure I heard him correctly. The government collects taxes from Canadians across Canada and, to use a favourite word of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, "redistributes" that revenue in $20 cheques per child and in $200 tax credits per child. Does the minister consider this continuous accumulation of tax revenues and continuous redistribution to families across Canada to be a self-financing proposition?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, if we look at both sides of the ledger we find that we are reducing some payments and changing some exemptions in order to introduce refundable tax credits. The two are in balance.
I said earlier that at the end of the year there will be a difference of $35 million, that difference representing more cash in the hands of the government than before. The hon. member for York-Simcoe asked me to use my calculator. Using all the assumptions he has made, the amount will be $45 million rather than $35 million. The hon. member for York-Simcoe is not listening. Perhaps I should repeat what I said in French so that he can understand. We have made the calculations he has made. I do not now if his calculator is as good as mine, but assuming the same number of children and a rate of inflation of 6 per cent next year, the difference will be $45 million and not $35 million, as it is this year. It is virtually the same thing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I assure the minister that neither calculator is at fault. Perhaps the inputs are different.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I used your input.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would like the minister to tell me where I am going wrong. On November 6 his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, told us that the $690 million figure was arrived at by taking $8 per child-that is the proposed reduction from next year's figure-times 12 months times the number of cheques issued for the children of Canada, which is 7.2 million. If the minister puts that through his calculator, he will find that he gets approximately $690 million. I took the minister's own 6 per cent calculation, which means that there will be $1.20 more on every $20 payment as a result of indexing. I went through the multiplications and got $103 million. With regard to the credit, if we take five million children, which I think was the minister's number, times $12-I have extended it, in fact, the minister might be interested to know, until 1985 using his inflation figures on both sides-what we find is that the net cost to the treasury, if

November 9, 1978

things simply stay static through the loss of revenue and the expenditure increases, will be $1 billion in that year.
Am I wrong to conclude that there will be $103 million in added expenditures due to indexing alone based on the 7.2 million cheques to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred earlier?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, we could go on ad nauseam making calculations. The hon. member asked me a precise question. I asked my officials to make calculations. We used the figure of 6 per cent. We multiplied the figures by 6 per cent, and we came to a net gain of $45 million for next year rather than $35 million. That was the calculation the hon. member asked us to make. If he changes the hypothesis and goes on to something else, we could spend eternity calculating. The hon. member's calculation included the $690 million figure. The hon. member came to that. I do not think it is fair to ask me to make calculations in the House of Commons. There should be a limit to this nonsense. We are wasting time. I enjoy it; I do not mind-hon. members opposite can put all kinds of questions to us, and we can put figures into computers and produce replies-but this is just a waste of time. We have a good bureaucracy in this country, and it can make these calculations.
Our officials do not try to fool anybody. They are honest people who want to give us honest answers. I do not do the calculations myself. I do not pretend that I do, and I never will. I think it is pure nonsense to be caught up in this situation. I am in the midst of preparing my budget, and I am fed up with this kind of nonsense.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The minister knows that I have requested this information twice. He has failed to give it to us. If he wants time, that is fine. I do not expect him to be able to calculate on his knee, but I have asked for this information twice. May we have it tomorrow, and not just for next year, in which I think there will be $160 million at stake?


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for York-Simcoe that this is not a point of order but a point of debate.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Transport-Movement of
Children's Rights
grain to export positions; the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- Request for explanation of Prime Minister's comment on state of corporation; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Finance-Funds research and development.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills, since there are no items on the order paper under private bills and notices of motions (papers), the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' public bills.
Item No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion stands by unanimous consent.


BILL OF RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ACT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) moved: that Bill C-204, respecting a Canadian Bill of Rights for Children, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before proceeding with the consideration of item No. 4, I would appreciate if the House would allow me a few minutes to put in front of hon. members some of my preoccupation regarding a few private members' public bills which, at this time appear on the order paper.
At the beginning of every session the Chair always is in a situation to authorize the first reading in one block of a great number of private members' public bills, without having the chance to pass judgment on their procedural acceptability. Thus, it is always with a reservation or caveat that first reading is given, with the understanding that the Chair may, upon consideration of second reading stage of such bills, inform members of some irregularities or infringement of the rules or practices of the House.
Although there seems to be a disposition by unanimous consent to refer the subject matter of Bill C-204 to committee, and I am sure no member would oppose the objective of the bill which is scheduled today for private member's hour, this bill includes an irregularity which creates a doubt about its

November 9, 1978
Children's Rights
procedural acceptability; not really in itself, but in the fact that it opens the door to further abuses on other occasions.
Despite the fact that this bill, or an identical bill, was allowed to be debated earlier this year during the previous session, the Chair feels it is necessary at this time to intervene and interpose its authority, because now it becomes quite clear we will be faced within the near future with a far-reaching precedent which could be set for many other such bills already listed on the order paper.
Before proceeding with the consideration of this bill, I thought it was appropriate to make the case and establish the position of the Chair. It appears to me that this bill, and other similar ones, are out of order at first glance. This bill seems to infringe the financial initiative of the Crown.
Clause 4 of Bill C-204 reads as follows:
Such officers and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the task force may be selected from the Public Service of Canada and the public service of the provinces.
That clause, as well as the objectives laid down in clause 5, will necessitate expenditures of a nature which would require the financial initiative of the Crown. These financial initiatives are the first items mentioned at page 754 of May's nineteenth edition under the appropriate heading, as follows:


MATTERS REQUIRING THE QUEEN'S RECOMMENDATION
[Stage Direction]
1.	Moneys to be Provided by Parliament The most frequent case of expenditure of this type is that of charges upon moneys to be provided by parliament for salaries and other expenses caused by the imposition of novel duties upon the executive government by the legislation of the session.
Further down the page, it reads as follows:
Instances of charges imposed upon moneys to be provided by parliament occur in abundance every session. The following examples may be given:
(1)	The expenses connected with the establishment of a new department-
(2)	The expenses arising out of the imposition of new duties on an existing department or authority-
If this bill is to impose a new duty on officers of the Crown, it falls within the citation in May's to which I have referred.
Another point is disturbing for the Chair. Clause 6 of the bill reads as follows:
Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring an appropriation of any part of the public revenue.
Similar clauses are found in many other bills. Of course the Chair is not concerned with the application which might be made of the clause, if the bill becomes written in the statutes. That is a matter for the courts to decide. But the House should be cautioned that the Chair could not interpret the incorporation of such a clause in a private member's public bill as an acceptable way of eluding the requirement for a royal recommendation where such recommendation is required.
The practice of incorporating clauses of this nature in private members' public bills is relatively new, but it is being applied to an increasing number of bills, all of which have this in common: that there might be some doubt as to the need for

a royal recommendation for the implementation of a bill because of financial requirements.
It should be understood clearly that the Speaker, and only the Speaker, has the duty and responsibility to determine whether any bill requires a royal recommendation, and that the Speaker is empowered to decline to put the necessary questions on bills which require royal recommendations but fail to obtain it.
It is equally clear that when the required royal recommendation is not obtained in relation to a bill, the Chair must interpose its authority before any further proceeding is embarked upon on the bill. Under the heading "Enforcement of Rules of Financial Procedure", May's nineteenth editon, page 709, states:
Questions of interpretation are decided by the Speaker, or if they arise in committee, by the chairman. In discharging its duty of disallowing any proceedings which would infringe the rules of financial procedure, the Chair relies in the last resort upon its power to decline to propose the necessary questions. It is principally by the action of the Chair that the financial practice of the House has been developed, its principles defined, and any deficiencies in the standing orders (such as those mentioned on p. 710) supplemented.
And a few lines further down its says:
Unless the recommendation of the Crown enjoined by SO No. 89 be signified, the Speaker cannot propose the question on a motion which comes within the scope of this standing order. Accordingly, if any motion or bill or proceeding is offered to be moved, whether in the House or in a committee, which requires but fails to receive the Queen's recommendation, it is the duty of the Chair to announce that no question can be proposed on the motion or to direct the withdrawal of the bill.
I am sure all hon. members are aware of our Standing Order 62, but this same requirement is also provided for in the British North America Act under section 54.
The rules of financial procedure are so stringent that there is no provision whereby the Speaker might leave it to the House to decide whether or not a royal recommendation is required for a particular bill or to allow the House to do it by unanimous consent. It is interesting to note-and this is important-that even if the Chair were tempted to abnegate its responsibilities in this area by allowing a bill to be proceeded with on the basis of the inclusion of a clause claiming that no appropriation would be made of any part of the public revenue, it would not be the House but one of its committees which would in fact decide on the application of the financial initiative of the Crown, because it is in committee that the various clauses of a bill are dealt with. For example, clause 6 or a like clause could be defeated in committee and removed from the bill.
The Chair has therefore come to the conclusion that clause 6 of this bill, and similar clauses in other bills, whatever their purpose or object may otherwise be, will not be given any consideration in determining whether or not there is any infringement of the financial initiative of the Crown. I therefore intend to continue, according to past practice, to examine every private member's public bill as it is proposed for consideration to ensure that the provisions of Standing Order 62 are not violated.
November 9, 1978
[Stage Direction]
In the case of Bill C-204, however, it is my view that the peculiar circumstances surrounding this bill are such that its further progress should not be impeded. In fact, it has already been debated in this Elouse during the previous session. The money implications, if not minimal, are difficult to identify, and perhaps the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), in his eloquence, may have been able to convince the Chair to that effect.
With all these things taken into account, I am ready to allow the consideration of Bill C-204, but I would caution the House that this decision is not to be considered as a precedent for similar bills in the future. With this proviso, I am ready to put the question on second reading of Bill C-204, but I would add that there are at least two bills which give great concern to the Chair, Bill C-210 and Bill C-237, because they involve public moneys, one of them hundreds of millions of dollars, and they both bear a type of clause 6 which I do question.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, were it not for your charm and graciousness in handing down your ruling, I would feel obliged to place on the record of the House the fact that you, sir, have already taken up 20 minutes of the one hour set aside by the House for this bill. I will resist that temptation excepting to say that I hope in the future it will be possible for the Chair to give these rulings before these bills come up for second reading so that they will not cut into the very precious few minutes we have in private members' hour.
You must bear in mind, sir, that these bills are drafted by the law officers of the House of Commons, the very people who advise Your Honour at the table. Having said that, I also hope that you will, like Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar, cast a blind eye to the clock when it comes six o'clock so that some of my colleagues will be able to make a contribution to this debate.
I will not make a speech because this bill was debated in the House in the last session on May 12, 1978. I would simply refer hon. members to page 5390 in the May 12 issue of Hansard. I will not repeat the statements I put on the record at that time, except to bring the House up to date on what has happened since then.
This is the fourth occasion that I have had the honour of presenting to this House a bill dealing with the rights of children, the exploitation of children on television, the impact of television on children and the home, and the impact of television violence on children. I am particularly concerned with this bill which deals with the rights of children, because next year will be the International Year of the Child. It was so designated by the United Nations in 1976 in order to draw attention to the Declaration of the Rights of Children, a protocol which was accepted and signed by the member states of the U.N. 20 years ago in 1959. Canada was a signatory to that declaration.
I would refer hon. members to the protocol which is attached to the bill. Each member state of the UN was expected to establish a commission to mark the International Year of the Child and to draw to the attention of that state the
Children's Rights
obligation that it had assumed as a signatory to the protocol. The United Nations set out as its objective in establishing the International Year of the Child:
To provide a framework for advocacy on behalf of children and for enhancing the awareness of the special needs of children on the part of decision-makers and the public.
(b) to promote recognition of the fact that programs for children should be an integral part of economic and social development plans with a view to achieving, in both the long term and the short term, sustained activities for the benefit of children at the national and international levels.
We were a little late getting started, but we established our commission and in Ottawa we have a secretariat with inadequate funding. I hope that is something the government can be advised of in a more forceful way than I intend to pursue in this House.
As you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, there is a disposition by the House, by agreement, to have this bill discharged and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where witnesses can be heard. I will enlarge on that later, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House now. The objectives and functions in the International Year of the Child that Canada has assumed are stated as follows:
Promote observance in Canada of 1979 as International Year of the Child through the encouragement of the widespread involvement of individuals, communities and organizations in activities designed to advance the rights, interests and well-being of children in the context of their families and society.
The specific aims are set out as follows:
1.	To stimulate families, communities, societal institutions, organizations, governments and all persons concerned to review the quality of childhood in their respective purviews;
2.	To encourage all concerned to work together to establish long and short-term plans, programs and services aimed at strengthening the forces that enhance optimal child development and parenting;
3.	To encourage the celebration of the joy of childhood and the very special place that children have in society and to create a milieu in which children's activities, creativity, imagination, ideas and thinking can be widely portrayed and demonstrated;
4.	To recognize and enhance the role of parents and the art of parenting, and to find ways and means to support parenthood and the family in the Canadian society; and
5.	To enhance in children the concept of their personal identity and worth as individuals belonging to a given cultural, linguistic, religious, social or ethnic group, and to the Canadian and world communities.
I thought it would be worth while to put these objectives on the record of the House of Commons.
Almost by happy coincidence with the introduction of this bill for the second time for second reading, the Canadian Council on Children and Youth issued a report of a task force which the council established in 1975 under the honorary chairmanship of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. It was a distinguished task force representing all parts of the country, with various professional expertise in the field of children, children's rights and the family.
I had the honour of making a submission to that task force in September, 1976. It was that submission which prompted me to place this bill before the House. It was the catalyst that

November 9, 1978
Children's Rights
brought this together and brought into perspective, in so far as the Parliament of Canada is concerned, the rights of children in this changing society. I would commend the report to hon. members. It is entitled "Admittance Restricted" with the subtitle "The Child as a Citizen in Canada."
It is interesting that the title is "Admittance Restricted." Just a few days ago we read of a highrise apartment building in Toronto which advertised for tenants but stipulated "No Dogs Or Children." That is an interesting, ironic and sad commentary on our times and the changing society in which we live.
The rights of children are summed up in this paragraph on page 17 of the publication:
While insisting on the universality and individuality of human rights, we recognize the need for society to take special responsibility for identifying and safeguarding the rights of those who are incapable of doing so for themselves. Children have no claim on special freedoms which should not be available to all citizens, but their inability to insist upon their rights is an argument for special representation, not an excuse for ignoring them.
We have been ignoring the rights of children because they are not vocal. For example, we addressed ourselves to the rights of women because they were a vocal group in our society and we were able to redress some of the injustices that had crept into society with respect to the rights of women. It was not too long ago, and the House would do well to remember, that women's rights in Canada were not talked about. Women were looked upon almost as the chattels of their husbands in terms of law. They had virtually no rights before the courts of the land. We changed that, but that is the position children are in today; they are the chattels of their parents and very often the chattels of the surrogate parent, the state, the foster parent, the single parent.
The ultimate right of children is the right to life itself. I cannot resist bringing that in, because we should become more and more concerned with the ultimate right, namely, the right to life itself. Abortions in this country are growing at a rapid rate. There were 11,152 recorded abortions in Canada in 1970; in 1976 the number had risen to 54,536. How many of those pregnancies were aborted beyond the stage they could even be considered, in the widest interpretation, on therapeutic grounds? I will not go into that any further, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that by allowing the subject matter of this bill to go to committee, the House is addressing the fact that the Parliament of Canada should properly involve itself in the International Year of the Child. This would be the most meaningful way we could do so, by having a committee of the House examine the area of children's rights in Canada.
I believe the country looks to us as legislators to provide leadership in this field, as we had to provide leadership in the field of human rights when dealing with the rights of women, minority rights, and discrimination on racial or religious grounds. There is a large segment in society to whom we deny those basic rights. We do not give them rights before the court; they have no advocates; they are nameless, faceless, until they appear in the form of a tragedy reported in the newspaper as battered children, murdered children, abused children. Then it
[Mr. McGrath.)
is too late. That addresses itself to the negative aspect of our law dealing with the rights of children. The law cannot act until an offence takes place; then it is too late. I hope the committee will address that problem when it meets.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House in anticipation for the consideration this bill will receive. I end it by reminding the House that it is about time we considered the position of children and their rights as citizens in our changing society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief because, I hope we will be able to refer the subject matter within the time allotted, as has been agreed.
1 should like to start by congratulating the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who has the peculiar facility of getting his bills accepted in the House and in committee. I have often wanted to talk to him about his success. I suspect the eloquence he displays in this place must be displayed to individual members on a continuous basis. He seems to have made a very significant contribution-and 1 say this in all seriousness- not merely to the question of the rights of the child but to sensitizing the Canadian constituency to the problems of children. I refer, of course, to his success on the subject of advertising and the manipulation of children by advertising.
Unfortunately that unanimous recommendation which was initiated by the hon. member for St John's East has not yet seen legislation, but we are still hopeful we can begin to look at this whole question of restricting advertising. The reason I want to commence my remarks about the subject of advertising, which the hon. member for St. John's East has raised before, is that when we are dealing with the rights of children and dealing with a piece of legislation which wishes to place in the law the protection of children, if one looks at the question of advertising that justifies the need for a general law. We tend to be hypocritical in this country about how we treat our children. We should see ourselves as children see us. We still consider children to be chattels or property.
As the hon. member for St. John's East pointed out, there is a movement concerning women that recognizes that there is less of a feeling of property toward them, but we have not progressed very far along the road in that respect with regard to children. Let me give some examples of why this attitude toward children is so strange, unnatural and inhuman. First, how many of us have seen the example of a group care home or a home for unwed mothers attempting to settle somewhere in a subdivision. Over and over again we hear "It is okay to have it, but do not put it next to my house".
The urban areas of Canada have experienced that over and over again. This is best illustrated by the number of people who show up at protest meetings and those who go down to the city council and say, "We cannot have those disturbed children in our area." All those people, of course, will insist that they have a very humane approach to their own children and to
November 9, 1978

other children, but their actions belie this statement. They have more concern for the value of their property than they do for the tremendous resources we have in the children of this country. So there is this attitude of looking at children as chattels.
Our commercial world looks upon children not as children but as a market. This is a market to be manipulated by advertising, a market to make sure that the child will persuade the parent to buy a particular product and too often that product has no nutritional value at all. Again, there has to be something in the law that says Canadians must change their attitudes toward children. Last but not least, and it is something that the hon. member touched upon, is the whole question of discrimination against children. The hon. member referred to the commonly seen sign saying that children and dogs are not wanted. Presumably they will accept a boa constrictor and birds, but children have no place there. We are letting our children grow up in segregated areas; by this, I mean places where they do not see their grandparents. As the family network is broken down nothing has replaced it.
If a child was abused there was a time when the grandfather would beat up the father who abused the child. But that does not happen any more. Children have been left in limbo with no protection. Because our society has changed and the extended family has broken down, we in this place must replace it with rights and law.
I want to speak about one special area that the bill does not deal with specifically but which would be covered. That area concerns the problems of the native children in Canada. This group of children is more abused than any other. This is due to the native culture being under attack. It has been ever since western Europeans came to North America. When you look at that culture under seige, the victims are mostly native children because they come from a different tradition. Native parents by tradition have been kinder to their children. Europeans have tended to be more disciplinarian and have tended to use corporal punishment. However, if you look at numbers for Canada as a whole, the most abused child tends to be the native child. As I say, his culture is under attack and in our community we have tended to take away the pride of his heritage. This is a special problem we will also have to deal with.
The hon. member for St. John's East also referred to the question of the right to life, the question of the right of a child to be born. He and I have some differences over how we can accomplish this. I just want to say briefly that I do not know anyone in this place who is not seeking to reduce the number of abortions that take place in Canada. I am not sure the law that we have in fact has contributed one way or the other to the increase in abortions. But I do know this, that unless a child is a wanted child and unless we concentrate on family planning and birth control so that those who are born are needed and wanted, then we cannot begin to get a handle on the question of the abuse of children.
It is all very well to talk about the right to life, but it must be talked of in the context of the right to happiness and the
Children's Rights
right to a child's existence. Instead of arguing about what we are going to do in terms of the abortion law, let us get down to arguing about the reality of birth control. Let us get down to arguing about the reality of allowing parents to decide whether or not they want children so that every child is a wanted child, a cherished child and a loved child. This is one way we can make a substantial contribution to the prevention of child abuse.
Lastly, in the field of child abuse and in the field of crime we have arrived too late on the scene. In Canada the theory is, in order to solve a crime the criminal is the one to be attacked rather than the cause of the crime. The same is true with regard to child abuse. We do not have preventive programs, such as programs to identify the high-risk parents, being those parents who are likely to need some kind of counselling and support so they will not abuse their children.
There is one program in North America, I believe in Colorado, that has shown a good deal of success. In my community of New Westminster we have one of the better child abuse programs, but it needs some additional help. There is an application presently before the minister of health to fund a prevention program, a program which will seek to identify high-risk families and prevent abuse of the child before it becomes a reality. If we can do that in the area of child abuse, we should think about doing it also in the area of crime, in terms of preventing anti-social behavior, identifying, for example, psychopathic behaviour earlier. There is not much point in the long run in attacking the parents and the victims without attempting to prevent the occurrence.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East who I think is doing a fine job of sensitizing the Canadian people to this particular problem. I wish him the very best. He certainly has our support to move this subject forward.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) in congratulating the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and recognizing with him the need to make Canadians and this House aware of the importance of protecting and promoting children's rights. And in that respect, in the little time I have-as the hon. member suggested, we are looking forward to having an opportunity to consider that question more fully in the committee on justice and legal affairs-I would yet like to point out a few of the accomplishments that have been made in the area of the protection of children's rights.
Children's rights may be affected in various ways, particularly by what is called family law. First, several legal decisions can affect the individual status of children. Adoption and status claim actions are exemples of that. Second, certain matters can affect the material or financial status of children. That is the case of alimony claim actions or support orders

November 9, 1978
Children's Rights
that nearly always accompany separation as to board and room and divorce. Third, certain matters have to do with the protection and social well-being of children. I will mention petitions to get the care of the child, tutelage, and judicial hearings in the area of juvenile delinquence.
Most of those matters come under the jurisdiction of the provinces and not the federal government as child protection is obviously a shared jurisdiction. However, the Department of Justice made remarkable efforts in areas under its jurisdiction to promote legislation to provide better protection for the rights of children. Some of those efforts, for example, were intented to strenghten as much as possible the family tie and find human and constructive solutions to problems which could be solved through unified family courts. There are now some provinces four or five different courts dealing with family law. Household breakdowns raise several problems that can all be brought before one traditional court or another. No court has jurisdiction to pass judgment on those matters, let alone assess the problems from which they origin. The federal government considers it necessary to put up a system of courts which would be the only one with jurisdiction in family law, not only to put an end to the scattering of family problems in federal courts but also to make available to the people a judicial institution specially designed to deal with the family as a distinct entity.
This is a new concept which offers tremendous advantages as regards the settlement of disputes and which proposes many alternatives for solving various family problems. Most of these courts would not only allow couples in the process of separation to avail themselves of consultation or reconciliation services, but they would especially help married couples from getting to that point by facilitating their reconciliation. The principal mandate of this court would be to offer services likely to help people, if at all possible, to come to some common ground of understanding, instead of resorting to prosecution. Of course, the federal government cannot institute, by its own will, such courts in the provinces, as the administration of provincial justice, including the setting up and organization of civil and criminal courts as well as civil procedure, are, in terms of legislation, a provincial responsibility. However, the Department of Justice, following the recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission's working paper on family courts, published in 1974, has made available to the provinces funds aimed at promoting pilots experiments by way of family courts.
Another area under federal legislative jurisdiction that involves children's rights is of course the matter of divorce. As many members are aware, the report on family law put out by the Law Reform Commission of Canada was tabled by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in the House on May 4, 1976. The report urged that the children of estranged parents be the legislator's first concern. To that end, the commission recommended that the Divorce Act be amended to recognize two

basic rights of children, when their parents are divorced. The first was the right to social and psychological help, in terms of reaching the best possible arrangement in the circumstances concerning custody and education. The second was the right to financial help. The commission further recommended the establishment of a new divorce process ensuring that arrangements concerning children be made in an extra-judicial context, to reduce the current need for a defensive position in husband-wife dealings that lead to the divorce. The commission is of the view that a legal framework based on confrontation and responsibility without social and conciliation services hardly protects human or psychological values, the key factor in safeguarding children's interests.
The commission concluded that under the current Divorce Act, it is improbable or impossible in practice to examine a number of factors that are vital to children, and to openly discuss those factors. The commission recommended the setting up of a new mechanism to solve children's problems arising out of divorce, a mechanism aimed at supporting parent and court efforts to arrive at a sensible and human solution. Within that process, the commission recommended further that the court be empowered to order that a child be represented by counsel other than that of either parent. The commission finally recommended that the Divorce Act take into account children's desires, to the extent the court finds this appropriate, based on children's age and maturity. The Department of Justice is studying the recommendations put forward by the Law Reform Commission of Canada and their report on family law, as well as numerous briefs sent to the department in response to that publication and recommendations by the Law Reform Commission and other recommendations by a number of bodies, groups and individuals concerning the current Divorce Act reform.

Another area of concern of the Minister of Justice has been the problem of abduction of children by non-custodial parents. The Minister of Justice, as a result of his deep concern, introduced Bill C-51 on May 1 of this year in the last session of parliament. This bill proposes to amend the current section 250 to create the offence of abduction of a child under 14 by a parent either in contravention of a custody order made by a Canadian court or in special circumstances where there is no custody order in relation to that child made by the court anywhere in Canada, but the child is taken with intent to deprive the other parent or guardian or any other person who has care or charge of that child of the possession of that child. The offence would not apply to a person who abducted a child in circumstances where the court is satisfied that the obtaining or retaining of possession of that child was essential for the welfare of the child, but the amendment specifically provides that the court shall not be so satisfied by reason only of the granting of a custody order in favour of the accused after the possession of that child was obtained or retained.
November 9, 1978

In addition, the Minister of Justice has actively encouraged the provincial attorneys general to enact provincial legislation that would provide for the mandatory recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders in Canada, and to date eight provinces have done so. In 1976, Canada proposed that the 1980 Hague Conference on Private International Law deal with the problem of international child abductions and it appears that formal approval has now been given by the Netherlands State Commission to include the subject of childnapping on the agenda for the 1980 meeting.
Another question of concern is child abuse. The Minister of Justice has also shown concern over increasing the responsiveness and the effectiveness of the criminal law in cases of child abuse. This concern has resulted in an amendment proposed to section 4 of the Canada Evidence Act contained in Bill C-51, introduced on May 1 of this year and, we hope, reintroduced soon in this session. This amendment recognizes that criminal convictions are difficult to obtain in child abuse cases because it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person assaulted the child.
Abuse of children generally takes place in the privacy of the home in the absence of witnesses who can or will testify. Normally the only witnesses to the abuse are the other members of the family, that is, the other parent and other children. Under existing evidence rules, if the parents or adults of the household are not legally married, the law considers them strangers for the purposes of criminal proceedings and the prosecution can compel one to testify against the other. However, if the parents are married, the spouse not charged is neither compellable nor competent to give evidence for the prosecution, even if he or she were willing to do so, unless the offence is one of a number of specified exempted offences, and a non-sexual assault on a child is not one such offence. The amendment proposed provides that the wife or husband of a person charged with an offence against any specified code sections where the victim is under the age of 14 is a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution without the consent of the person charged. The specified sections include common assault.
Additional study is continuing in the Department of Justice in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of other Criminal Code provisions relating to cruelty to children. In particular, this involves the offences of abandonment and exposure, failure to provide necessities of life, and assault as well as the provision relating to the right of a parent or school teacher to use reasonable force by way of correction against a child. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I lack the time to go over the list of measures that the government has taken over the years to promote children's rights. In this regard, I think the move by the hon. member for St. John's East, which will allow us to discuss the matter at lenght in committee and formulate any recommendation that may be necessary to improve the situation further is welcomed by the Minister of Justice and the government. I expect that later on in the debate, which is
Children's Rights
unfortunately getting shorter, somebody will seize the opportunity to move that the subject of the bill, once it is withdrawn, be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for presenting this bill for further consideration, despite the fact that it has been before the House before but was not referred to committee for consideration.
I assume the Chair will give us a little extra time because of the remarks made at the outset of this private members' hour.
I intend my contribution to be very short and I do not propose to encroach upon the time limit.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) talked about group homes. I should like to say that in my riding of Toronto-Lakeshore such a home was opened only last week. More and more communities are realizing the feasibility of providing such group homes. I am glad that the subject matter of this bill will probably be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for consideration; it is to be assumed that no one will talk it out today. I will therefore restrict my remarks to the question whether the implementation of a bill of rights for children is the best mechanism for reaching the objective the hon. member has in mind and also whether the timing is right.
The several principles of the United Nations declaration of the rights of the child which are included in Bill C-204 can be summed up as a child's right to an environment which encourages his or her physical, mental, social and spiritual growth. Quite frankly, I am not sure how we can legislate for that, or even legislate against actions which would interfere with growth. We are, in fact, faced with a dilemma because children are so completely dependent on adults for their development over such a long period of time and under conditions of such intimacy that I think a positive declaration of rights can amount to nothing more than guiding principles with little impact in law. Yet despite the probability that there would be little legal impact, I recognize that the bill would still be very useful as this nation's statement of its ideal role vis-a-vis children regardless of the reality. There is, though, a danger, as I see it, in such a document. We risk assuming that in the act of printing words we have made the ideal reality. Let us not fool ourselves. Not all of Canada's seven million children are assured protection, health, social security, an atmosphere of affection or full opportunities for play and recreation. And saying they should be won't make it so.
Another danger with respect to the bill is that it introduces a subtle adversary concept. The idea of children's rights or "kids' lib" is too often pitted against the concept of parental rights. I have had this experience myself. In my constituency, some parents who are excellent at the job of child rearing and

November 9, 1978
Children's Rights
who have made the UN's ten principles a reality in their homes have a real distrust of the concept. One man said to me the other day that children would be able to call an ombudsman who would decide whether he had a "right" to stay up until 9.30 p.m., decline to practise the piano, skip breakfast, etc. We know this is not the intention of the legislation before us but I do not think we will be any further ahead if we implement legislation which parents distrust and fear. For some time to come, children will be living with their parents or other caretakers. What the family needs, regardless of its constitution, is not a divisive mechanism but rather as much support as possible in as many ways as possible.
We hear a lot these days about parents who abuse their children. The parents we don't hear enough about are those millions and millions who are doing a superlative job in the face of almost impossible odds. Often it is one parent alone who must provide loving care to increasingly sophisticated children in a world where the only constant is change. Then when the parent turns to experts for help, he or she receives conflicting advice.
Parents, too, are sometimes confused about the changes in spiritual values and social values which are taking place. Take the prevalence of violence, for example. If our objective is to assure that children grow up in an environment which encourages their physical, mental, social and spiritual growth, I must seriously question the extent to which a statement of rights would go in meeting it. When I examine the United Nations declaration of the rights of the child, I noticed that the word "need" could in every case be substituted for the word "right". To my mind this would be a much more positive and productive way of thinking.
I want at this time to refer, as did the hon. member for St. John's East, to the excellent report "Admittance Restricted" which has been put out by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. I would recommend it for reading by anyone who is interested in this subject. I had myself intended to place a portion of it on the record but time will not allow me to do so. Reference is made to it in a report which appeared in the Globe and Mail earlier this week under the heading "Children neglected, study says" and in the Winnipeg Free Press over a CP story headed "Children's needs ignored: report-parental neglect criticized." Unfortunately, I cannot go further into that aspect because of the time restraint.
Let me add one further point before resuming my seat. Next year, 1979, will be considered the Year of the Child. The United Nations has taken up this concept and we in Canada are doing likewise. I might mention that the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) was one of the first in this House to consider that the government should become involved in the Year of the Child. I can only say that advances are being made, and will be made, and that next year will be a year in which Canadians as a whole will be involved in children's issues.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) should have brought this measure before the House again for

the second time this year. I am also delighted to note that we have been able to put aside partisanship and have agreed that we should refer the subject matter of the bill to committee. It will be my pleasure to move such a motion in a moment.
I am very glad we have an opportunity to debate this question so near to the year when countries around the world will devote their attention to the needs of children. The subject should certainly be sent to a committee of the House where it can be discussed in a fulsome way. I look forward to participating in that discussion. There is already growing up around the world a practice of adopting children who cannot get enough to eat, who lack proper clothing and who have no prospect of an education. There are members of this House who have adopted children around the world and I wonder whether I could put forward the suggestion that, as a gesture to launch the International Year of the Child, all hon. members give close consideration to this possibility.
I understand, of course, that we cannot get into the question of abortion in a debate of this kind, but I am sure this subject and related matters will receive attention during the discussions in committee. I say this because if there is any group of children in need of a voice, it is that group of children who are in their mothers' wombs and who are crying out in their silence for us to defend them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving us a few minutes extra before terminating this debate.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-204, respecting a Canadian bill of rights for children, be not read a
second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the
subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart, Cochrane) agreed to.
Motion (as amended) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock 1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
November 9, 1978


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-14, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am getting off to a good start with this bill; I have had three notes tonight about immigration cases, and I am talking unemployment insurance! It is evident that this is a somewhat versatile ministry; not only do the questions come from the other side, but from this side as well.
The government has decided, as one of the major features of its revision of priorities, to recommend changes to the unemployment insurance program, coupled with a significant redirection of its employment strategy. The essence of the changes we propose to the unemployment insurance program is twofold. First, we want to reduce some of the disincentives to work which are present in the program. Second, we want to encourage workers to establish more stable work patterns and develop longer attachments to the active work force, thereby reducing their dependency on unemployment insurance.
The proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program should, therefore, be considered both as program improvements in themselves, which will reduce the negative aspects of the program, and as cost savings to be applied to other more productive programs. The cutbacks are necessary and will result in a better, more balanced program than ever before. The new emphasis will be on encouraging all Canadian workers to look for, accept and remain at work.
I want to emphasize again, as I did in my announcement on September 1, that the government has moved on several fronts to provide more work for people who would otherwise be on unemployment insurance. The employment strategy in 197980 will have an impact of some $710 million, creating an estimated 113,000 work-years of employment and training for some 360,000 people. A further $300 million of funds for economic development activities have been announced.
Our new target for jobs and training in 1979-80 represents a 70 per cent jump over what we have accomplished and are accomplishing in the current year. By any standard that is a very significant increase.
On the job creation front, we could not be content solely with the strategy as outlined for 1979-80, substantial as it is, so we announced an immediate start-up of a job experience training program involving some $45 million, which should mean that some 58,500 young Canadians already should be employed in meaningful work by this winter. Also we have made changes to the employment tax credit program to make it more acceptable to the business community.
Unemployment Insurance
The growing costs of the unemployment insurance program, which were just over $4 billion in the latest fiscal year, could not be ignored. Nor could we ignore the employment disincentive effects which were adding to other problems in the labour market.
On September 1, I outlined the thrust of the government's proposed changes. As I said at that time, we are determined that the program be realigned to meet today's economic and social needs, and in particular, to contribute in a positive way to strengthening the labour market. The bill provides for six major amendments which would require some claimants to work longer before qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits; change the minimum insurability under the program; reduce the current rate of benefits; require high income recipients to repay a portion of unemployment insurance benefits received; and provide a new financing formula for the labour force extended phase.
In our original proposal applying to repeaters, it had been contemplated that if an individual drew down 26 weeks of benefits, he or she would have to work that same number of weeks in order to establish a new claim. However, thanks to the solid representations of caucus colleagues, particularly those in the Atlantic region, we made two significant changes to the definition of repeaters so that it would create less hardship in those regions of Canada with high unemployment where jobs are harder to find.
Under these changes, repeaters would need to work up to six additional weeks of insurable employment over and above the usual variable entrance requirement of from 10 to 14 weeks. By way of example, if an individual in Alberta drew down 16 weeks of benefits, that individual would have to work the required 14 weeks in any event, plus two additional weeks to establish a new claim. Similarly, if an indidivual, again in Alberta, drew down benefits of 26 weeks, then that claimant would only have to secure the 14 weeks plus six weeks. The ceiling, therefore, in areas of low unemployment is 20 weeks and in areas of comparatively high unemployment is 16 weeks.
Not satisfied that this was going far enough, the government is now proposing that the repeaters provision would not apply in any region where the applicable regional unemployment rate used for the program is over 11.5 per cent. For example, this means that in Newfoundland and its three UI economic regions, the repeater section would not apply, should the unemployment rate remain over 11.5 per cent.
Turning to another important provision, "new entrants" and "re-entrants" are those claimants who either enter the labour force for the first time or who re-enter it after a period of absence.
In simple terms, new entrants and re-entrants are people who do not have 14 weeks of insurable employment in the year preceding their qualifying periods. New entrants and reentrants would be required to have at least 20 weeks of insurable employment in a qualifying period to gain eligibility for UI benefits.

November 9, 1978
Unemployment Insurance
The change in the minimum insurable earnings is meant to make the program more equitable in relation to part-time workers. The present structure excludes from insurable employment those who work 20 or more hours a week at less than the provincial minimum wage, such as domestics, but it includes those who earn high hourly wages in only a few hours a week.
A section of the bill provides the necessary regulatory authority to ensure that a minimum of 20 hours of work in a week will be needed for any employment to be insurable, no matter what the wage rate.
The other changes proposed in the bill, namely the reduction in the weekly UI benefit rate from 662A per cent of average insurable earnings to 60 per cent, and the transfer of the labour force extended benefits from the government alone to tripartite financing, would not, of course, exclude anyone from benefits.
I should emphasize here that when all these amendments are fully implemented and despite the correction of the anomaly which will now see government, management and labour sharing the cost of the labour force extended phase, there will be savings to employers and employees and therefore it will not be necessary to increase premiums.
The government also proposes to provide for a repayment of UI benefits by higher-income UI claimants. Higher-income claimants are defined in the Act as those with net incomes of over 1.5 times the yearly maximum insurable earnings, an amount estimated to be $20,500 in 1979. Claimants with incomes over this level would be required to repay a portion of the UI benefits received in that year at a recovery rate of 30 per cent. Any repayment, of course, would not be included in taxable income.
Representations from many sources resulted in a further amendment which will increase the minimum fines for employers who deliberately give false information on insurable earnings or insurable employment or reasons for separation from employment generally on the record of employment. The present minimum fine is $25. The government proposes to increase the deterrent effect by raising it to $200.
All the changes to the UI program I have proposed will result in a net program cost reduction of $935 million in fiscal year 1980-81, when fully implemented and matured.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of concern expressed about those who will be prevented from establishing UI claims. I share those concerns, but 1 may point out that for new entrants to the labour market it is far preferable in my view, both socially and economically, that they be given meaningful work experience rather than just income maintenance. It is also preferable that those who are marginally attached to the labour force, either by choice or circumstance, be helped to become more substantially employed and, hopefully, not to make unemployment insurance a way of life.
I mentioned earlier in my comments that the employment strategy for 1979-80 will have an impact of some $710 million, and that a further $300 million of funds are available for

economic development activities. This means over $1 billion will be available next year to provide jobs for Canadians.
We are examining ways of deploying these funds to alleviate the effects of the expenditure reductions in the UI program as much as possible. For example, the previous formula for distributing Canada Works funds is being revised, and we are discussing with provinces ways to tailor the mix of employment strategy programs to best meet the needs of each province.
I recently met with my provincial counterparts and 1 am pleased to say that some provinces responded positively to my suggestion that funding be shifted more towards high unemployment areas.
I have also reviewed with provinces the potential impact of the UI changes on welfare costs. I advised them that, even if there were no employment strategy, our estimate is that additional welfare costs in 1979-80 would not exceed $51 million, of which 50 per cent is paid by the federal government. In other words, we are talking of costs to the provinces of $25.5 milion in 1979-80 and $43.3 million in 1980-81. While all provinces have not fully accepted these estimates, they have not refuted them. Nor have they put forward any alternative changes which will be as feasible, equitable and cost-effective as those I am proposing today, in this bill.
It is virtually impossible to make changes to a program like Unemployment Insurance, without affecting people. What I have tried to do is wield a scalpel instead of an axe, eliminating anomalies and excesses while strengthening the basic purpose of UI. Nevertheless, I realize that people are involved and we must and shall do our best to help them.
One particular group which feels it is a target for government expenditure reductions is women, and I would like to devote some time to try to allay their concerns.
Women should be entitled to the same opportunities and benefits as their male co-workers in the labour force.
Some of the UI changes may well affect women but they also affect men, and in terms of absolute numbers, more men than women will be affected. However, to the extent that the work patterns of women tend to be somewhat different from those of men, they may be more affected by the new entrant and re-entrant provision. Similarly, because a larger percentage of women tend to be employed in part-time work, they will be more affected by the minimum insurability provision than men. But we will compensate for the effects of these changes by increased and continued efforts to improve the status of women in the labour force.
I would like to clarify our aims with respect to women on employment training. It has been charged that recent changes in training allowance rates are an attempt to discourage women from taking training. This reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of the allowance, which is not to provide a training incentive. Rather, it is intended to remove financial barriers to training. What we are saying now is that any person, male of female, living with a fully-employed parent or spouse should continue as a dependent during training. The basic allowance provided to such people is only intended to
November 9, 1978

offset additional costs, such as transportation, incurred in training.
We will monitor very carefully both the number of women in training and the quality of their training experience to make sure the program becomes even more effective in serving women's employment needs. I can assure this House that we will quickly take any steps needed to achieve this aim.
Over the years, female participation in training programs has increased substantially, to the point where about one-third of the trainees are women. We are, however, not satisfied that women are receiving the types of training that can best improve their opportunities for employment. Too much of the training taken by women is still concentrated in the traditionally female occupations and academic upgrading courses. We want to redress this imbalance to ensure that training leads many more women into satisfactory employment.
The main thrust of recent policy developments in the training program is to improve effectiveness by linking training more directly with skill needs and job opportunities in the labour market. This will benefit all clients-both men and women-who look to training as a way to enhance their employment prospects. And we are taking special steps to ensure that women share equally in these opportunities by reserving places for them in those skill courses in which women have been under-represented.
We believe that the industrial training program, which offers trainees the opportunity to gain work experience as they learn skills directly relevant to the employer's requirements, is particularly valuable for assisting women to enter non-traditional, better-paid occupations. Accordingly, we are placing special emphasis on increasing female participation by setting targets for women. This cannot be done by governments alone. It must be done through the concerted efforts of employers, unions and women themselves. I emphasize "women themselves" because it is they who will provide the impetus, when all is said and done, to bring about the needed improvement in their own status. As full members of the labour force, they must demonstrate the ambition that will justify their promotion to a fair share of the top jobs in the future. They must not hang back from competing for the jobs that were once considered those of men alone.
I would also like to clarify a misconception which appears to exist in the House and elsewhere. Specifically, it has been claimed that women have been dropped as a target group in all our various employment programs. This is not so. In our small Outreach program, however, we decided last year that priority must be given to a number of specific categories of severely disadvantaged and chronically unemployed workers. Severely disadvantaged female workers are certainly included. But women can in no way be considered severely disadvantaged just because they are women. The directive for the Outreach program established priorities for, first, isolated or remote communities; second, native people; third, the chronically unemployed, such as welfare recipients; fourth, the mentally or
Unemployment Insurance
physically handicapped; and fifth, persons who find great difficulty in entering or re-entering the labour force, such as ex-inmates, alcoholics, etc.
Earlier last week the Supreme Court handed down an important decision relating to unemployment insurance and women. I refer to the case of Stella Bliss. Notwithstanding that the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the government in this case, I have directed a thorough and sympathetic review of the maternity provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. When that review is completed, I shall be recommending changes to the cabinet. Because the review will take time, such changes would be the subject of a future bill. My only regret is that it is not possible to include these changes in the bill before the House today.
I have heard arguments that rather than amending the act, all we need do is to tighten up our administration and get rid of the cheaters. This is simplistic, and I must emphasize strongly that stricter administrative controls are no substitute for the package of amendments we are presenting in this bill. We have introduced additional controls and are planning to put others in place.
I want to close on one important note. We are in the House to represent the people of Canada. That is our function. We must ask ourselves, therefore, what it is that the Canadian people expect from their unemployment insurance program. Do they want it to be tightly administered, with a firm but fair hand? Do they want it to be free from work disincentives? Do they want it to do the job it was designed to do-provide temporary financial help to Canadians who are between jobs?
I know the answer to all those questions is "yes". I know it from a continuing series of studies which the unemployment insurance program has commissioned over the last year. These nation-wide studies have told me Canadians strongly support the directions I am proposing. The views they express have hardly changed at all from the first study in September, 1977 to the latest, in September 1978-after I announced the changes to the UI program. I tabled the detailed findings of the first three studies with the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration earlier this year, and I am prepared to do the same with the latest.
Whenever the government moves to tighten its administration of a major social program such as this, criticism is to be expected. Informed criticism which is sensitive to the views of Canadians is the lifeblood of parliament. We welcome this sort of constructive comment.
But in considering this bill, I ask the House to consider not only my words and the government's reasons for amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, but to listen to the Canadian people. From the evidence before me, the measures we have proposed are administratively sound and equitable both to those who pay premiums and to those who receive benefits. They will, to an important degree, permit the government to reallocate funds to more positive uses. I know Canadians will approve of this legislation.

November 9, 1978
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: I was very interested, Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister's presentation of numbers. He is very good at that, and I will put forth a few numbers myself in a few minutes to compare with those that he has given us. There is one number that the minister did not mention, and that is the reduction of 250,000 beneficiaries under his proposal. He has not in any way indicated to the House that the savings that will result from having 250,000 fewer people on the program will solve the problems the minister has been told about so often with regard to the very program he is now adjusting.
The minister has said that $51 million will be transferred to the provinces. Even though 50 per cent of the proposed cash outlay will be paid by the federal government, by the minister's own calculations there will be a burden of $25.5 million transferred to the provinces, including those that can least afford it. I am sure that some of my colleagues from those areas will have a lot to say about that. I expect that the $51 million he has proposed will probably range as high as $80 million.
The minister in his speech referred to the government's policy on women vis-a-vis the UI program. I do not think there is any reason to accept the minister's statement that he could not have the amendments before us now to deal with the problems of pregnant women, particularly as they were brought to light in the Stella Bliss case, even though the ruling by the Supreme Court was handed down only a few weeks ago. The minister's first statement, which was later changed, was made only a little over eight weeks ago, and the minister knew full well the problems illustrated by the Bliss case. Even though the Supreme Court ruled, as the minister said, in favour of the government, the government can take no pleasure in the fact that they have not yet proposed amendments that would deal with such a problem. Perhaps when the bill gets to committee there will be time for the government to present an amendment to alleviate that problem.
Women who are adoptive mothers face another problem. There is discrimination against adoptive mothers in favour of natural mothers. A minor adjustment would correct this. The minister need not look very far to determine that adoptive mothers need a period of adjustment every bit as much as natural mothers.
Before I get into debate on Bill C-14, I would like to take the House back to August 1, when I am sure all Canadians welcomed the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), concerning restraint of government expenditures. He had been to the conference at Bonn and had learned to his surprise, we presume, that some other governments thought that perhaps Canada was spending too much money and had too much debt. After having his knuckles rapped at Bonn, on August 1, he announced, apparently without consulting his ministers, that Canada was in for a period of restraint and there would be cutbacks in government expenditures.

We now know that what the Prime Minister meant was a cut-back in planned expenditures or, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) put it last year, a decrease in the rate or increase of government expenditures. All that means is that perhaps we are not going to spend some money that the government at one time planned to spend. Inevitably, it also means that under this government expenditures will increase.
After the Prime Minister's address on August 1, Canadians were anxious to hear what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) would have to say. In the mood of restraint, the people of Canada thought that some of the problems in the unemployment insurance system would be corrected.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration made two announcements, both dated September 1. The minister is very good with numbers. He indicated that the savings through changes to the unemployment insurance program for the fiscal year will be $580 million; for the 1981 fiscal year, the total annual savings will be between $750 million and $1 billion, and the figure he gave us tonight is $953 million. On September 1, the minister said he was going to save us $580 million, but in his other release on the same day concerning employment strategy for the fiscal year ending 1980, he told us that it will cost $710 million. The minister is quite good at calling deficits by some other name. 1 think he calls them "commitments." In this case he claimed to save $580 million and then announced another program that will cost $710 million. 1 think the people of Canada might be forgiven if they wonder what the minister means.
It might be useful to go over the history of unemployment insurance, Mr. Speaker. I often think that the minister and the government believe that we on this side of the House are against unemployment insurance or do not think that social programs are a good thing. I want to remind the House and the government that it was actually this side that proposed many social reforms, particularly the original employment and social insurance act which was proposed by the Bennett government in 1935.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That was the year they were defeated.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The important thing to remember is that it was a Progressive Conservative government which proposed the legislation. It turned out to be a little slow to get going so it was not until the 1940s that the program went into operation.
In 1971 when the Liberal government enacted the proposals of the then minister of whatever it was called, Mr. Mack-asey-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He was the architect of disaster. I remember him.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -the proposed changes included a reduction of premiums. I believe this minister may have obtained some of his skill in numbers from the former minister who proposed the changes in 1971. That minister was confident that he was
November 9, 1978

going to save money through the changes although the premiums were actually being reduced. It was the old Liberal trick again-they indicated they had discovered how to pay out more benefits at less cost. I have a chart here, Mr. Speaker, which will show how they worked it out.
It became obvious that the combined premiums of employer and employee could never meet the cost of the program. With the abolition of the unemployment insurance fund, general revenue moneys were transferred to the unemployment insurance account without the requirement of a vote in this House. That is where the present minister comes in with his cute terminology. We are straightforward people on this side of the House and it seems to us that if you spend $4 billion when you only have an income of $2 billion, you end up with a deficit of $2 billion. The minister refers to it as a "commitment" and apparently believes the taxpayer is willing to make up the shortfall.
It is interesting to know that these tricks used by the government result, as the Auditor General noted recently, in an overstatement of the assets on the statement of assets and liabilities of Canada of some $2 billion because the expenditures are not matched with the fiscal period into which they should fall. For instance, on March 31, 1978, the statement of assets and liabilities of Canada shows a 12 billion advance to the unemployment insurance account. It will never be recovered, yet it is shown as an asset. It will be written off next year. Not all of us can defer a $2 billion expenditure into another accounting period.
Since 1971, despite the increase in premiums, combined payments have never covered the cost of the program. The schedule I have here shows that in 1970-71, the year before most Liberal amendments were made, the deficit or shortfall or whatever was $300 million. Immediately after the changes were made in 1971, the deficit was $686 million. It ranged around the billion dollar mark in 1975, last year it was $1.6 billion, and although the figures for 1978 are not final, the interim figures are sufficient to show that the deficit will be over $2 billion this year.
That is not the only problem, Mr. Speaker. An additional problem is the precipitous increase in labour turnovers. The costs of those turnovers may represent our single largest factor in terms of lost productivity. It is very difficult to quantify that kind of a figure but it could well exceed the losses in Canada due to strikes. Concerning the strike situation in Canada we find that the Prime Minister said that Canada has the worst record for strikes.
Again, that is not the only problem members have had. Members on all sides of the House have found themselves over the past six or seven years turned into ombudsmen for unemployment insurance claims. The jungle of the Unemployment Insurance Commission has become vast and I have forgotten how many of hundreds of offices there are. The number of unemployed is so great that Canadians cannot cope with the system themselves and the number of appeals to members of
Unemployment Insurance
parliament has become enormous. Largely these problems are caused by inequities in the system as it now exists. We were quite hopeful the minister would give us some kind of a program that would clear up these inequities. I would like to mention a few, especially the forcing, through the regulations, of self-employed and retired taxpayers to contribute to the deficit through the income tax system. That may not seem unusual, but if we are going to have an insurance scheme, and the government still persists in calling it an unemployment insurance scheme, then to force individuals to pay for that scheme without permitting them to participate in the benefits, because they have no coverage, certainly has to be considered inequitable.
According to the annual report of the unemployment insurance account, which I have here, the total cost to the government for the extended benefit period of the program-and the minister indicates that is all paid by the government-is over $1 billion. The total cost to the government in the 1977 calendar year was approaching $2 billion. The interesting factor that is revealed by the financial statements, however, is for phase 2 and phase 3, the initial benefit period and the re-establishment benefit period. In those two cases in 1977 the government cost was only $1 for every $3.60 paid out. In 1976 the ratio was even wider; the cost to the government was $1 for every $4.50 paid out. That illustrates that the scheme could be an insurance scheme if the government was able to keep the economy rolling, as we have been urging them to do for the many years I have been here. Because of the government's other policies which have created the situation where we have so many people unemployed and where people are unemployed for so long that benefits run out, the government has to pick up the total cost. The original good idea of having an insurance scheme to protect Canadians when they need protection has gone down the drain. The government is now complaining about the cost.
It is now the minister's intention to say that he is going to share the costs of the extended benefit period with his other partners, as he calls them, the employers and employees. I will be saying something about the plan to share that cost with other partners, but I think that employers and employees may wonder if they really need partners of that kind.
On September 1 the minister said "It is anomalous that the entire cost of this benefit..."-referring to the extended benefit-"should be borne by the Canadian taxpayer. I propose that it will now be partly financed from employer-employee premiums." Extraordinarily enough, he continues in his remarks by saying "This will in no way mean an increase in employer-employee premiums for 1979. In fact there will be a net annual saving of $50 million to $100 million to the employer-employee account. It is likely therefore that premiums can be reduced for 1979".
It is obvious that this minister learned well from his predecessor that on the one hand you can have a saving and on the other hand reduce premiums. The minister has just said by his explanation that the $2 billion deficit or short fall can be eliminated by reducing premiums. I am sure his partners will

November 9, 1978
Unemployment Insurance
be glad to read that now, Mr. Speaker, but 1 am not so sure they will think it is right or true when they get the final bill next year.
Is it any wonder, we have to ask ourselves, that the administrative side of the department is such a nightmare given this bit of history? I want to refer to a remark made by the Auditor General in his 1977 report where he had this to say about the operation of the unemployment insurance. On page 68 of his report he says:
The over-all system, when viewed as a financial system, does not contain control procedures sufficient for ensuring that claims for initial and continuing benefits are adequately validated before or after the issue of the warrant.
The second point the Auditor General makes is as follows:
There are also weaknesses in the control and balancing of data throughout the entire system that could allow unauthorized transactions to be entered or cause valid transactions to be misplaced, without being detected.
We have heard a lot over the past few years of the problems in administration of the fund, not to mention the abuses. The Auditor General commissioned the firm of Clarkson, Gordon and Company, chartered accountants, to do a study of the benefit and overpayment system of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In the report that was given to the Auditor General under date of February, 1978, we find two interesting tables showing the analysis of a statistical sample of 1,027 claims. The 1,027 samples included a total of 122 overpayments. That is a rate of 12 per cent, which resulted in the figure we heard mentioned earlier this year in the House of $95 million. I do not think that is the most important figure because the government does recover some of that. The more important figure which shows the chaos which reigns in the department in so far as the handling of cases is concerned is a different summary of the same sample results which, in addition to showing the 122 cases of overpayment, showed another 180 cases of follow-up inadequacies and 320 cases of compliance deviations.
When you add all of that, you get 622 cases or 60 per cent of claims which contained some kind of irregularity. Only 12 per cent resulted in overpayments, but 60 per cent contained some kind of irregularity. With that kind of experience, I do not know how we can expect the administration to solve the policy problems they have. They cannot even solve their administrative problems.
We will soon have the Auditor General's report for 1978. The Minister of Employment and Immigration will no doubt again be in trouble, trying to explain what his department has been doing with all its money. In his report on the 1977 accounts, with regard to the unemployment insurance account the Auditor General indicated there were $142 million in overpayments during the 1977 calendar year. That is the comparable figure to the $95 million for 1976. I do not think 1 need say any more on that. The government increases its expenditures and overpayments at about the same ratio.
I do not want the minister or hon. members to think it is just people outside of the government who think the government is

not handling things properly. I refer the minister, because he mercifully might have forgotten, to a letter which emanated from his office on June 30. I quote:
In 1977, for example, we imposed 62,104 administrative penalties and initiated 6,854 prosecutions. Over 500 employers were prosecuted. Overpayments related to unreported work and earnings and other forms of abuse and fraud were valued at $37.6 million in 1977.
Those were the department's figures, not the Auditor General's. Of course, they do not balance. If the department admits to 62,000 administrative penalties and nearly 7,000 prosecutions, that is an indication that the minister must take a very serious look at this.
A further statement was put out by the minister's office on October 26 this year. It is a five-page document explaining the $142 million in overpayments. The minister admits to 447,000 overpayments detected by the commission, a healthy increase over previous years.
The minister must also take a close look at the administrative side. I do not like to belabour this. However, there is no point in tidying up the policy if you cannot tidy up the administration. I refer to the matter recently brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). It is raised every time there is a postal strike in this country, which has been quite a few times in the six years I have been here. I remind the minister of this because he said he would look into it.
This year across Canada there were 150,000 unemployment insurance cheques that were not picked up at special distribution centres during the postal strike. Of course, the government has explanations for this. The minister stated the staff would attempt to find out why the cheques were not picked up. He predicted the investigation would reveal in the vast majority of cases that the recipients were either unaware it was possible to pick up the cheques or were back at work and could not leave the employment they had recently obtained.
They may have been out of the country, they may have been at work, they may not have known. However, the minister was not above spending a million dollars not too long ago to warn claimants and all Canadians about cheating the system. The indication is that there were obviously a lot of people in Canada who were entitled to their insurance benefits but did not need them that particular day or week.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to try and assess the real problem in unemployment insurance. It is becoming more and more clear it is not an insurance scheme. No insurance scheme could continue to have losses as this scheme has over the many years it has been in existence.
In answer to my question in the House in April of this year, the minister said the government was considering a type of means test by which an individual's total income would be taken into account. There is something in this regard in the proposals in the bill before us. We will talk about that in a moment. In the same answer, the minister said something that caught my attention. He referred to the top echelon of the salary range who contributed a substantial amount to the fund and derived very few benefits in unemployment insurance.
November 9, 1978

The minister is sucking and blowing at the same time. On one hand he says he will tax back the benefits from high income earners. On the other hand, he says the commission are making quite a profit on the high income earners, because they pay a lot into the fund and, in his words, derive very few benefits in unemployment insurance.
The government has to decide whether it is going to have an insurance scheme or a welfare scheme, as many Canadians think it is. There are certain people in this country who are wondering about that. After the minister's statement, the Globe and Mail in an editorial of October 4 observed, and I quote:
A participant in an insurance plan is entitled to receive whatever benefits he has purchased, regardless of whether they exceed or fall short of his needs at the time he becomes eligible to receive them. Not so the participant in a welfare program, who is-or should be-entitled to receive benefits sufficient to meet his needs, neither more nor less.
On one hand the minister says there are certain people who are getting benefits who should not receive them. On the other hand, he says there are certain people who will have to pay more but they will not get any benefits. That is not a consistent view. The Globe and Mail continued in its editorial, and I quote:
For too long, Canada's unemployment insurance plan has been operated as though it were an insurance plan, plain and simple. But the plan is not funded solely through premiums, as are insurance programs; the size of benefits do not actuarially reflect the cost of purchasing them, as do insurance benefits.
It is interesting to note that in 1971 the ratio of heads of households, which is what some of the minister's amendments are aimed at, numbered about one third of the beneficiaries of the plan. By 1975 the proportion of heads of households was 14 per cent of those receiving benefits. Where is the minister taking us with these policies? Will the next step be family income? We wish he would share that information with us so that we may know where we are going. It is obvious that this is not an insurance scheme.
We on this side are calling for a complete overhaul of the system which would restore it to its original function or else change its function. We do not have the troops over here to analyze things the way the government does but it may be that the government is moving increasingly toward a guaranteed income scheme. I am sure the Prime Minister would like it- everybody gets a certain amount of the dole, enabling us to do away with all this nonsense about unemployment insurance premiums which, after all, represent merely another form of taxation. It is not a premium any more, as we know.
In past years we on this side have called for a special inquiry. Failing that we have sought a complete overhaul of the system. It was appropriate and timely for the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) just seven days before the minister made his statement on September 1 to have spoken as he did in Halifax about the developmental use of unemployment insurance funds. I think it might be a good idea to get some of that speed on the record. He said:
Unemployment Insurance
First, we will use funds from the present $4 billion unemployment insurance budget to help private employers create new jobs which give on-site training to Canadians who are now unemployed. Such a program will be of particular benefit to young Canadians who lack practical work experience but it will not be limited to them. Care will be taken in restructuring the program to ensure that support is limited to jobs which are, in fact, new and permanent. Incentives would be highest during the intitial hiring period. That program will offer employers a major incentive to create new jobs. It would give the unemployed a working wage income plus the chance to develop work skills.
Let me stop there for a moment and ask hon. members to compare that statement with the statement made by the minister on September 1. There was probably a similar desire but in no way the kind of program which would achieve what my leader has proposed.
The second proposal of the Leader of the Opposition was this:
-to redirect unemployment insurance funds to help fund the payroll costs of hiring unemployed Canadians to work on worthwhile new capital projects. I am not talking about simply another version of LIP or OFY or similar programs, too many of which fund projects of little ongoing economic value.
The kind of projects we will fund will be those which have permanent value in adding to the social or economic wealth of a community or region. The major role in deciding specific project categories will be with the provinces and local governments who know local needs better than Ottawa does.
This kind of thing would encourage Canadians to work and ease the burden on Canadians who are paying the bill. It would ease their minds, too. What they see now is money going out to encourage people to lie around instead of getting into the mood of work.
Given the climate of restraint, Canadians were looking forward to the minister's statement on September 1; people were probably quite pleased to think the government was moving to cut down the unemployment insurance deficit. The minister made six proposals. It is interesting to note they were not the same six proposals as are embodied in the bill which came out this month-we may find out the reason for this difference as the discussion proceeds. Those proposals covered a higher entrance requirement for repeaters, a higher threshold for new entrants, an increase in minimum insurable earnings, the reduction of weekly benefits, special recovery from high income claimants and the refinancing of the labour force extended phase of benefits. On the last proposition the minister said, laughably, it would be more equitable because the cost of second phase benefits would be shared.
On the same day as the minister made his statement, I made a response for this party in which I noted that in our view the measures proposed by the minister were a step in the right direction. No one would argue that it is not essential for the government to get its expenditures under control or that something should not be done, in particular, about abuses of the unemployment insurance scheme. However, I went on to say:
Even so, we realize there will be unequal hardships felt in the five eastern provinces where jobs are scarce. For example, the finding of 30 weeks of work after a 30-week claim period will be impossible in many areas. The government does not take that into account.
Toward the end of my statement I said this:
Missing from the government's announcements is an over-all plan to make Canada once again an attractive place in which to invest and to stop the flow of
990

November 9, 1978
Unemployment Insurance
investment dollars from Canada which has taken more than $1.5 billion to other countries, principally to the United States.
At that time we demanded the recall of parliament and the presentation of a new budget. Keep in mind that this was over two months ago. We looked for an incentive budget. It did not take long for other sectors of opinion to respond. The minister's statement was made on September 1. On September 6 the Globe and Mail reacted in this way:
The federal government has finally admitted that unemployment insurance is not insurance.
The editorial went on:
Employment Minister J. S. G. Cullen has now admitted the non-insurance of Canada's unemployment insurance by tying the size of benefits to the total of the beneficiary's annual income.
That is a means test, if you like. Then the provincial governments took stock of what was going to happen to them. In addition, the churches, the missions, in Toronto were moved to worry about the effect of the number of jobless who would be on their doorsteps when people ran out of benefits and were no longer the government's responsibility. The message finally got to some of the members of parliament who come from areas which would be hardest hit by the new programs. By September 18, the Globe and Mail was reporting:
Liberal MPs from the Atlantic region are "strong and solid in their opposition" to some of the Liberal government's proposals to tighten the unemployment insurance program.
Said the Citizen in Ottawa, "Unemployment Insurance Changes are Unfair". The Journal said the new measures were a political program. The Edmonton Journal said the Liberals were flouting parliament and introducing all these new programs and taking the country in a new policy direction without going to parliament. We agree with that. The bill to amend the Financial Administration Act which would allow the public accounts of Canada to delete-


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


An hon. Member:: No!


Some hon. Members:: Unlimited time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Perhaps I was ill advised. The hon. member may continue, and I ask him to forgive the Chair for this interruption.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was my impression that as the responder to the minister I could go on for a little while longer. I assure the Chair that I will not be standing here at 12.30 tomorrow, but I would like to continue my remarks.
I was saying that it had been pointed out forcefully by the Auditor General that a tiny piece of legislation which would certainly not upset anyone on this side was required. The President of the Treasury Board has been advised that a small amendment to the Financial Administration Act would allow an item called "accounts internal to the government" to be

deleted from the public accounts. That would include the little item of $2.1 billion to which I referred earlier by which the assets in the statement are overstated as of March 31, 1978, in the public accounts volume 1 which came to us this month.
After the press noted what had happened here I think it was predictable that people in sensitive areas would get in touch with their members of parliament, particularly with hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) was quoted as saying that he doubted the legislation would even get through parliament, given the number of other bills which had to be dealt with before a spring election. The combined force of hon. members opposite who, after all, have access to the minister, and through him to the cabinet, apparently succeeded in their efforts at having the minister withdraw measures which would hit repeaters in favour of a scheme to tax back a portion of the benefits received by members of families which have excessive total family incomes. The minister has not quite succeeded in that part of it, but it was interesting-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I know he would not wish to mislead the House. I know he is misleading us unintentionally, but never at any time was it suggested by members of this House from the Atlantic region that we should deal with unemployment insurance on a family income basis. That was not their emphasis at all. I do not know where that story came from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: This was written by a woman. Perhaps she was angry with the minister and wanted to put that in. If I made an incorrect statement, it certainly was unintentional. I was reading only what I saw. In any event, I do not want the House to think for a minute that hon. members opposite from sensitive areas have a monopoly on compassion. There are very many members on this side of the House who are much more familiar with their areas than is the minister, and they realized the very serious implications of that bill for their own areas. My colleagues from poor provinces, if I can call them that, will be speaking in the debate and drawing these matters to the attention of the minister. Suffice it for me to say at the moment that the only reason the minister heard nothing from these MPs was that there was a summer recess. The government would not recall parliament, and even though we have been back for a month now it has taken this long to introduce this bill, which the government says is very important.
Having observed what was in the newspapers, the government decided that perhaps it was being a little too tough. The Globe and Mail was moved to observe on October 13 that the government was retreating from the stiffer standards it said it would require of applicants for unemployment insurance benefits. The government's problem was that it would not admit what the country in general knew, that unemployment insurance benefits had little of insurance about them and much of welfare. The conclusion of the Globe and Mail-which I think
November 9, 1978

will be borne out as time goes on-was that the piece by piece approach of the minister simply would not work, even if the government had the courage to stick to it.
I think it was predictable, and it is a fact now, that the bill as presented to us this week differs from the September 1 proposals. The minister did not tell us why the proposals have changed, but I could suggest a few reasons. Before doing so, I should give the House an idea of what the changes are. First, the proposal originally was that so-called repeaters would have to work the greater of the number of weeks that they had been on claim or the number of weeks ordinarily required under the variable entrance requirement for their region.
The example 1 used was that of a worker who had been unemployed and on claim for 30 weeks. He would then require 30 weeks' employment before being eligible for benefits again. The government completely ignored what we pointed out, that in many areas in Canada it is impossible to get 30 weeks of employment, and those are the very places where there are likely to be claims for 30 weeks. It is interesting to note also that the effective date of that original proposal was to be April 1, 1979. No one can tell me why it was necessary to delay the effective date seven months from the date of announcement, but now it will be effective on proclamation.
We find that the number of weeks has been changed to "up to an additional six weeks more than the variable entrance requirement." In an attempt to recognize some of the problems which I have been outlining and which the House will be hearing more about, the government then decided that in regions where the unemployment rate was above 11.5 per cent the new provisions would not apply at all. Are we to take it from that that if the unemployment rate in a particular region is only 11 per cent or 10.5 per cent, that is not a serious problem? I do not think we on this side would agree that high rates of unemployment like that are not serious.
In any event, that is one of the changes the minister proposed. Another change is that where originally 40 weeks of insured employment within two years was required for new entrants, the requirement will now be 20 weeks of insured employment or only the variable entrance requirement; in other words, the 10 to 14 weeks, if a claimant works 14 weeks the preceding year. I suppose we could say that the 40 weeks has now been reduced to 28. Again the effective date has been advanced to the date of proclamation rather than April 1 1979.
Regarding the increase in minimum insurable earnings, while the minister was unable to give any details in his September 1 statement, the provision was to be effective April 1, 1979. In the next two months prior to this bill's introduction the minister came up with details, and he now says in the bill that the minimum weekly insurable earnings will be increased to 20 hours for hourly or salaried workers and to 30 per cent of maximum insurable earnings for others. Again the effective date has been changed to January 1 instead of being April 1. That is a very serious change because there are many jobs, particularly seasonal and part-time jobs, which just do not exist for 20 hours in any given week. That means that nobody
Unemployment Insurance
who has an opportunity to take a two-day a week job, 16 hours, will be able to take that job because of the complications there will be regarding benefit rights. Instead of encouraging people to go to work for 20 hours or whatever, the minister has introduced another disincentive for people to go to work.
The reduction of the payment rate to 60 per cent from two-thirds has not changed. It has the same effective date of January 1. But the government seems to have overlooked in that reduction that for some people two-thirds of the wage is closer to a necessity, and 60 per cent to some at the other end of the scale is still more than adequate for an amount to be paid for not working. Undoubtedly my colleagues will have more to say about that aspect.
Referring to the recovery of benefits from high income claimants, the minister reduced his proposal from the $22,000 trigger level to approximately $18,000. Many workers in many cities in Canada would be faced with a problem if they lost their jobs at $18,000 or $22,000. I listened for the minister to explain how the new amounts were arrived at. The wording is 1.5 times the maximum yearly insurable earnings. If that was in effect this year, the income threshold would have been $18,000.
There has been no change in the refinancing of the labour force extended benefit stage. I commented on that earlier. It seems to be an attempt by the government to transfer the burden of the unemployment insurance deficit to the provinces. We will hear from some of my colleagues concerning the problems their provinces will have in meeting this increased burden.
Perhaps it is a good move to change the minimum fine to $200. Missing from the minister's statement was the revision of the amount of money which the proposals were going to save. In September he gave us a range of figures which would reduce the expenditures of the program because of the amendments proposed. Now he has made some substantial changes from the proposals of September 1 to the time the bill was presented; but he has not given any indication as to what the saving will be.
Another thing which the minister did not do was attack the basic problem. In the abuses and overspending of the unemployment insurance account, the basic problem is payments made to people who quit their jobs because they would rather go on unemployment insurance, or those who are fired for cause, sometimes the cause being that they simply do not want to quit and choose to wait around until they are fired. Obviously there are some problems in that area. Instead of attacking it at the administrative level, the minister took a shotgun and fired it at all repeaters. He shouid have taken a rifle to get at the 20 per cent of claimants who are estimated to be abusing the system.
Not all of those people are abusing the system on their own; some are abusing it with the help of the system. We have heard of cases where individuals, through no fault of their
80065-63%

November 9, 1978
Unemployment Insurance
own, were paid benefits only to be told later by the government that they had to pay back this amount of money. When one receives unemployment insurance, it is traditional to spend it as soon as it is received. In most cases these people have found it impossible to pay back the amounts which they have received. My colleagues will have more to say about that as well.
The minister has provided us with a further disincentive to work, especially in the seasonal job area. Apparently the government has ignored completely the fact that any insurance scheme will be subject to widespread abuse, if the replacement ratio is high enough so that there is no significant penalty to not working. Actuaries call that anti-selection or moral hazard. Private insurers have found, as the benefits increase, that the incentive to collect benefits is very much greater. Private insurers have moved to reduce the benefits paid for that very reason. It is amazing how much better one can feel if one knows he has to go to work, rather than lie at home and get paid for not working.
In addition to the government mounting an attack against working Canadians who happen to be unemployed by taking this shotgun approach rather than the rifle one, it is attacking the provinces by attempting to force them to pick up these higher bills. It will be especially hard on the poorer provinces.
I have heard that it will amount to some $80 million for the Atlantic provinces.
It reminds me of the maiden speech of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) when he told the House that we have two nations in Canada. Of course, he was not referring to geographical regions; he was talking about the haves and the haves nots. He made a very sensitive speech outlining the problems of the haves and the have nots.
The minister has created another kind of two nations: the Canadian who wants to work and cannot, and the Canadian who does not want to work if he does not have to. By its policies the government has destroyed the initiative of a whole generation of Canadians by making it easier for them to sit around on pogey rather than work.
We all know of people who accept unemployment insurance benefits because they have paid into the fund and feel entitled to such benefits. A recent study by the Fraser Institute in British Columbia indicated that no more than 10 per cent of those who exhaust their unemployment benefits go on welfare. That was more or less confirmed by Mr. St. Laurent of the minister's own department. It indicates that a large measure of the people who are receiving unemployment insurance are doing so because they feel they are entitled to it, and not because they need it. This fact is supported by the number of cheques which remained unclaimed during the recent postal strike, and only 10 per cent of those who exhaust their benefits go on welfare. I suppose this policy is an aid to the Liberal government policy of having more and more state intervention, with expenditures now at $50 billion in Canada and rising.
With difficulty this week I obtained a figure from an official of the Department of Finance which indicated that when all the government's current borrowing authorities are taken up
{Mr. Clarke.]
and after Bill C-7 is passed, the total debt of Canada will be $69 billion. That works out to just about $3,000 for each and every Canadian.
The question the government does not seem to have addressed itself to is how it is going to pay back this $69 billion. Has the government considered seriously that $6 billion, which is something like 8 per cent of the total budget, is the amount that Canada is paying in interest on the debt? When looking at the $3,000 for each and every Canadian, and that might not sound like a lot of money, we should keep in mind that the personal federal income tax statistics for 1976, just released, show that the total revenue raised by personal income tax in 1976 was less than $14 billion. We have an annual bill for interest on debt of $6 billion. In 1976 there were only 8.8 million taxpayers in Canada. If we try to relate the national debt, which is $69 billion, at $3,000 per capita, to the amount of money paid by the taxpayers, which averages out at $1,600, those who do not pay taxes are not going to help us pay back that $3,000 per capita.
If we look at the national debt on the basis of the number of taxpayers we find that this averages out at well over $7,000 per taxpayer, yet taxpayers are only paying on the average $1,600 each. We have not heard anything from the government in the six years I have been in this House about how it is going to create any kind of government surplus with which to pay back this deficit. All we get are more and more deficits. The very deficit we are talking about now in the unemployment insurance fund has been caused by the policies of this government, a government which is not considering these factors.
I am going to close, and I do not want to hear too many cheers-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -but before closing I must stress a number of problems which have been created for residents, workers and would-be workers in the eastern provinces particularly, as well as in other depressed areas in Canada, and there are many. There are depressed areas in the north, in the west and in the centre of Canada. Perhaps those in the east are a little more vocal, particularly the Atlantic provinces, so we think of them more often.
There are problems in the opposite direction for the working areas of the country, if I may call them that, those areas of high employment where any number of employers are having great difficulty in finding workers to fill the jobs because this government is encouraging workers to sit around rather than work. Instead of trying to get at the real problems, this government has used the scatter-gun approach.
We must stress again what can be done by this government to get the economy straightened around. This will go a long way toward solving the unemployment problem and, therefore, the unemployment insurance difficulties.
November 9, 1978

If the minister had more co-operation from his many colleagues who have held the finance portfolio during his time here, he would not be here debating this bill with us at this time. We are anxious to get this bill to the committee because we need much more information from the minister. I intend to indicate what it is that we do need. Much more study is required and many questions have to be answered. It is likely we will be proposing amendments in the committee. We want to have a very much closer look at the 11.5 per cent trigger rate for the suspension of the repeater penalty. It is entirely possible that the 11.5 per cent is too high in certain areas, and that a cut-off should be based on some lower percentage figure. The minister has not indicated how he arrived at the 11.5 per cent figure.
It is possible we will want to propose an amendment having to do with the 20 weeks of insured employment, suggesting that perhaps there should be some revision there, with some scaling on a regional basis. The minister has seen fit to have 48 regions now instead of 16 so it should be easier to make calculations and pinpoint problem areas. It may well be that in some areas a lower threshold than 20 weeks should be adopted.
It may be that areas of the bill which will deny benefits, for one reason or another, as proposed by the minister, should be reconsidered, and that certain people should be exempted from paying premiums. After all, if this is to be an insurance scheme, if one does not have coverage one should not have to pay the premium. We are going to need more information in this regard.
I have prepared a memorandum for the minister regarding information we will require. It is a little longer than I want to read into the record at this time and I will have time to do that in committee. I have two copies here which I will send to the minister right away. This memorandum requests quite a number of pieces of information about the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries in various areas. I would ask the minister publicly now to bring the information requested in this memorandum with him to the first meeting of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, for a moment there I thought we were in reversed roles. I would have liked to have had the opportunity of leading off. I would then have had every reason to take as much time as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). Our position will be very clear in respect of this bill from the opening gun, and it will be clear consistently throughout the debate here and before the committee.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad you are all anxious to listen. I am glad that you have all now come awake and are prepared to listen. I have witnessed in the last couple of years-the last three years at least-


An hon. Member:: From the riding of Nickel Belt.
Unemployment Insurance


John R. Rodriguez: During the last three years I have seen introduced in this House Bill C-69, Bill C-27 and now Bill C-14. This reminds me of the old rape victim syndrome. This bill is the epitome of placing the blame on the rape victim for the predicament in which she finds herself. 1 think in that same way we can look at Bill C-14.
Before getting into a discussion of the bill I think hon. members ought to be very clear on a few background facts. I think it is important to set the stage with these background facts. The first fact we must keep clearly in mind as we take part in this debate is that Statistics Canada tells us that on a day to day basis there are 40,000 full-time, part-time and casual jobs available in this country. I want you, Mr. Speaker, to keep that in mind as we take part in this debate.
Secondly, the unemployment rate in this country according to the latest figures is 8.2 per cent, with the number of persons unemployed, seasonally adjusted, being 910,000. The minister confirmed just the other day that in effect all the indicators show that high unemployment will continue for the rest of this year and into 1979. Those are the facts I would like to put as a backdrop to this debate in principle on Bill C-14.
Superimposed on those facts I would also like to put before the House a quote from the Economic Council.


Mr. Railton:: Yawn.


John R. Rodriguez: Doc, it's past your bedtime. Daddy War-bucks, it is nine o'clock. I would like to put a quote on the record from the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada, the chairman of which is that darling of the Liberal benches, Sylvia Ostry. At page 97 of that report it says that it is evident that the most efficient method of reducing the cost of unemployment insurance to the taxpayer is to reduce the incidence of unemployment itself, and that this obviously presupposes measures to re-energize the economy. That is a statement from a far more respected council than the Fraser Institute, which has also been quoted in this House. I believe the Liberal government hooks up these right-wing institutes out on the west coast, subsidizes them and then has them come up with these right-wing reports.
We all know that we are debating the principle of this bill at second reading. I like to think that a principle is much the same as a theme. What is the theme of Bill C-14? I think that the theme which the government has taken is that if things can be made tough enough, if the government can dismantle enough of the unemployment insurance program, it will force the unemployed to take jobs. Throughout the government's explanation for the bill and throughout the government's propaganda we find the same song and dance over and over. The government says that it will cause more people to work because it is removing the incentives which stop people from working. I do not know how the tightening of the unemployment insurance program rules will create one single job. The unemployment rate in my own area is 11.2 per cent. How will

November 9, 1978
Unemployment Insurance
the tightening up of the program help Inco or Falconbridge to create more jobs?


An hon. Member:: The government will do it.


John R. Rodriguez: The government has not done it. The government made a prediction that it would create 50,000 jobs, but it created only 8,000. The program was a miserable failure, so I do not put much stock in the prediction that they ' will create jobs.
The central thrust of this bill is to make the victims pay for the predicament in which the government puts them. It is a principle which is dead wrong. We have no consideration on this side of the House where we stand with respect to the principle of this bill.
The minister announced cutbacks and changes to the UI program in September. While watching a program on national television the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the UI critic for the official opposition, stood up, looked right into the camera and said: "If we were the government, we would have gone further with these cutbacks." Tonight, he is sitting all over the fence. He cannot do that. Television is now in the House and it will show where the Tories stand, whether they are from eastern, western, central, northern Canada or wherever. They will not be able to get off the horns of this particular dilemma.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They tend to get slivers.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member says that these people tend to get slivers, and that is right. There are not enough jobs available in this country for the number of people who are registered officially as being unemployed. I mentioned earlier in my backdrop that there are only about 40,000 full-time, part-time and casual jobs on a day to day basis in this country and that there are 910,000 people looking for work. That means there is one job for every 20 people who want to work and who are looking for work.
Hon. members must keep in mind that we are not dealing with real unemployment figures. We are not talking about the unofficial figures, which tend to be much higher than the official figures. The minister has gone into secrecy with regional figures on unemployment because they are too embarrassing, and very shortly they will probably stop producing the figures showing the ratio of the number of persons unemployed to the number of jobs available. Many of these jobs are not available permanently. The Social Planning Council of metro Toronto in their study entitled "The Problem is Jobs, not People", found that of 16,900 jobs that existed in Ontario in August, 1978 only 5,000 were available for a period of longer than four weeks. That means that of those jobs surveyed, 11,900 of them were for less than four weeks' duration. Conveniently, the department considers a permanent placement to be longer than one week with respect to collecting unemployment insurance benefits.
This legislation will not do anything about unemployment except make it more difficult to be unemployed. Once again,

the government is saying they have no responsibility for unemployment and that the unemployed are to blame. It is a lie we are becoming familiar with, a lie used to cover more government inadequacies. Legislation like this has one major purpose, and that is to cover up the fact that we have a tired and morally bankrupt government that has no policies to deal with the problems which we face in this country. At a time when it is critical for us to have economic planning to deal with a failing economy, instead we get knee-jerk policies based on gallup polls.
The Economic Council of Canada stated the situation correctly in their last annual review when it said that "in devising unemployment strategies there is a need for selective targeted policy instruments. In this way, the particular problems of women and the young, as well as of certain provinces, industries and occupations, may be recognized specifically." Obviously, Bill C-14 was conceived as a knee-jerk reaction. There was no consultation with the provinces, labour or anybody. It was conceived and dropped on the people of Canada in September of this year, and there is no doubt that the government through this bill has focussed its attenion on many of these particular groups I have mentioned. In so doing, they are trying to make a bad situation even worse.
Let us look at the situation as it applies to women in this country. I do not think the minister and his bureaucrats have spent much time looking at the facts as they relate to women as employees and as potential employees in this country. The major change this bill seeks to accomplish is to deny unemployment insurance benefits to those people who cannot find long-term work. We all know it is a fact of Canadian life today that women as a group are last hired and first fired. It seems to me they fall squarely into this category where the Unemployment Insurance Act is being amended.
Further, these changes, as they apply to women, seem to be largely based on the results of the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program that was released in 1977. That review made the dubious statement that women misuse the UIC program through non-availability and refusal to work. The review also suggested that women, as secondary wage earners, generated unexpected increases in UIC expenditures.
The Advisory Council on the Status of Women correctly pointed out that such sweeping generalizations had no facts to back them up. That did not deter the minister and his nabobs in the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They are not confused with facts and should not get credit for seeking out facts.
There are facts available about women in the labour force but the government chooses to ignore them. I will put them on the record tonight, however. Labour Canada figures for 1975 show that 31 per cent of women in the work force are single and need a job to support themselves. They show that 9.4 per cent of women in the work force are widowed, divorced or separated and must work to support themselves. They show that 20.7 per cent of women in the work force are married to

men earning less than $10,000 a year and must work to support both themselves and their families. They also show that 47 per cent of families where both husband and wife work earned less than $15,000 in 1975, below the median income.
Thus we can plainly see, Mr. Speaker, that most women in our society are like any other workers. They are working to support themselves and their families, not to buy a second car. Working women are not "a social phenomenon", as one of our Edmonton Conservatives once said in this House. They work to earn a living and as such deserve the protection of an unemployment insurance program.
This is especially true because, bad as the unemployment situation is for men, it is even worse for women. The situation will be worse yet if this legislation passes. Women often find it more difficult than men to find long-term jobs, so the requirement for people to work longer to be eligible for benefits if they have previously been on claim will hit women hard. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that all of this is happening at a time when there is evidence that the use of unemployment insurance by women is actually decreasing.
A comparison of unemployment insurance claimants over the last ten years in Ontario, again done by the social planning council of metro Toronto, shows a discernible downward trend in the use of the program by women. In other words, while more women need to enter the work force to make ends meet within families, they are actually able to use UIC less and less as the government attacks them, first through regulations and now through legislation.
The requirement that new entrants must work longer will hit young men and women equally hard, but it will particularly attack older women who might be returning to the work force after raising a family for a number of years. Many of these women who have spent many years in the home lack necessary skills and find it very difficult to find other than casual jobs. Many of these women go to work for such firms as temporary employment agencies. Now they will not only have to work for these leeches but they will also lose their eligibility for UIC benefits.
The same thing is true of the amendment limiting benefits to those people working more than 20 hours a week. This section of the bill is not aimed at people making a lot of money in a few hours, as the background to the bill suggests. It is aimed at the thousands of women who work part-time in department stores because they cannot find full-time work.
The federal Liberal government has talked a lot about changing the legislation to cover only those with a stable attachment to the work force, but this sort of legislation makes it clear they will never admit that women are not attached to the work force only because there are not enough jobs for them.
The author, R. H. Robinson, dealt accurately with this point in an article in the Canadian Forum. He wrote:
Working women and women wanting to work are coming more under attack with rising unemployment. There are multiplying signs of a drive, like the one which followed the Second World War, to make women believe that their true place and role is not at work but in the family and at home. Instead of being
Adjournment Debate
marginally attached to the labour force, they would be completely detached from it. This is like treating an illness, not by curing the patient, but by denying that she exists.
How familiar that sounds, Mr. Speaker, to those of us who have sat in this chamber for years hearing the government deny that the problems of this country, like unemployment, existed. The government is once again trying to have it both ways. First the government accuses women of being only secondary wage earners-those who are going to be discriminated against in this bill-taking jobs away from men. Now they are saying that they do not want women to work enough to be eligible for benefits. It is all part of the same Liberal game plan to blame the unemployed for unemployment.
I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so I will call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question tonight arises from the continuing problems Canada is experiencing with its grain handling and transportation system. The time has come when something must be done to jar this minister and this government into action, because we have a grain handling system that is inadequate and underutilized in certain areas at certain times. It has been in this state for some period of time.
The inadequacy of our grain handling and transportation system is responsible for loss of sales in the international export market. It is responsible for our loss of reputation as a reliable supplier of grain in the export market and it is responsible for the build-up of frustration and disgust amongst producers. And to put it bluntly, it is causing farmers and this economy a loss of untold millions of dollars. Unless something positive is done very soon-perhaps even something revolutionary-Canada will suffer and lose its traditional position as a leader in grain sales throughout the world. It will no longer be in the forefront of the world grain trade picture.
We need a quantum leap in our system to capture the growing market opportunities of the 1980s. The minister has spoken of studies, of co-ordinators, of consultants and of straining the existing system. In answer to my questions on November 7, he replied, in part, as reported at page 865 of Hansard:
One of our objectives is to test those strains and to keep strain on the system.

November 9, 1978
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, it is going to take more than strain on the system to move the amount of grain we must move if we are to capture the potential market. The minister is indirectly blaming the farmers in his answer. We must bear in mind that this is the same minister who brought in Operation LIFT-that disastrous policy of paying farmers not to grow wheat.
He said as reported at page 865:
-that we have just had three all-time record crops. If only one of those had been average instead of record, it would be a problem of grain supplies rather than a problem of movement.
He is saying that it is the farmers' fault that we have a problem in moving our grain because they grow too much wheat. There is not much hope in the statements of the minister in his response to my question of November 7. Quite frankly, what we need in this country, in addition to an improved grain handling system, is a full-time Minister of Transport. We need a full-time minister in charge of the Wheat Board because this minister has been a flop in those two portfolios. I am not sure about justice; I am not qualified to comment on that, but in terms of transport, in terms of moving grain and in addressing himself to those very serious problems, he has been a flop.
We know there are inefficiencies in the system. At a recent meeting in Calgary of the Canada Grains Council the railways pointed out there was underutilization of the system, and that of course raises the question of whether we need additional hopper cars or additional rolling stock. Frankly, I think we do, but that does not mean that we should not be utilizing the system to the fullest extent.
In Canada today we have a primary elevator system that is literally plugged 75 per cent to capacity, 35 per cent more than last year. The terminals are half full, down 35 per cent from last year. The producers' stocks are up by 20 per cent; they are carrying about 42 millions tonnes of grain in stock. We are losing sales to our traditional customers. As a matter of fact representatives of the United States have served notice that they are going to pursue the Chinese market very aggressively.
Today we have a system in this country that is limited to moving 21 million tonnes of grain, and our export sales are limited by that amount. We had the promises of WEOC in 1973 and we had the promises of this government in 1974 that they were going to overhaul the grain handling system from the granary to the ship in the harbour. Since that time we have not increased the capacity one iota.
I want to quote from an address given by the senior economist to the Canadian Wheat Board, Harold F. Bjarnason, on October 18, 1978, who was talking about the 21 million tonnes that we have moved and then went on to say:
The only reason that this near record export volume did not exceed the 1972/73 level of 21.4 million tonnes was that our transportation system could not physically handle any more grain exports during the prime demand period. A yearly volume of about 21 million tonnes thus seems to be the maximum quantity our present system is capable of moving into export. If we had had greater capacity in our system, we would not have to defer 1.5 million tonnes of export grain to the 1978-79 marketing year.
[Mr. Mazankowski.)
He goes on to say:
All in all, it seems safe to say that, if transportation had been available when the demand was, exports last year could have reached 25 million tonnes.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that we have lost a sale of 4 million tonnes of grain in the last crop year and that means a direct loss to the farmers of something in excess of a half a billion dollars. If one considers the ripple effect in the economy, it works out at about $2.75 billion.
What about the future? To quote Mr. Bjarnason again, he states that:
-by 1985 we should be able to export roughly 20 million tonnes of wheat and up to 10 million tonnes of feed grains-
In addition there were 1.5 million tonnes of oilseeds. That totals 31.5 million tonnes. That means we must increase our grain handling and transportation capabilities by 50 per cent.
It is significant to know as well that the bulk of this increase will come from the west coast, so we must move very quickly. We must prepare to move well in excess of 15 million tonnes from the west coast. The most we have ever moved, and that occurred in the record year of 1972-73, was nine million tonnes. We must develop Prince Rupert and increase its capacity of moving anywhere from three million to four million tonnes, which is the equivalent of 125 million to 150 million bushels. We must expand Vancouver's capacity to reach 11 million to 12 million tonnes. That will give us 450 million to 475 million bushels. We must also move quickly to expand Thunder Bay and Churchill.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, lamentations, jeremiads, complaints, criticism, negativism, but never constructive suggestions, never positivism. That is the typical attitude of the Progressive Conservative party which is content with destroying everything and is not-I am convinced the public realizes this-really playing the role of a responsible opposition. All the hon. member did was criticize regardless of the facts and the excellent policy of the Minister of Transport who is doing one of the best jobs ever done in the whole history of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned about the difficulties we have had this fall with the movement of our grain for export markets. In fact, it has been concerned about that for several years and has many programs to reduce this problem in future years.
Last year, transportation and grain handling systems moved nearly unprecedented volumes of grain in spite of the transportation problems which were much more serious than in 197273 when this record was achieved.
Capacity was increased to the point where we expected to export 23 million tonnes during the current crop year before the strike occurred which could reduce actual exports a little
November 9, 1978

under that level. This is substantial increase in capacity over the seventies when our capacity was 21 million tonnes.
To a large extent that increased capacity is the result of the guidelines the government set for the grain industry. We indicated in 1974 that we would be upgrading the grain handling system from the grain warehouses to the ships in ports. That we are doing, and everyone can see striking examples of it.
In 1973-74, the government bought 2,000 hopper cars. Since that time, we bought 6,000 more. In 1977, the hopper cars bought by the Government of Canada carried 38 per cent of the grain shipped from western Canada. Since 1974 those hoppers cars have also contributed to the improvement of the operation of our transportation system. Since then, the turn around time of cars was shortened by four days, that is 17 per cent, which allowed the average car to carry about 3.3 more loads per year.
The federal government has also contributed to the repair costs of several thousand boxcars that will increase our capacity in the short term. Recent improvements to branch lines to Churchill under the prairies branch lines renovation program have also effectively increased our grain exportation capacity through that port.
We are also increasing the capacity of grain terminals in Canada. Under the storage improvement program of the Canadian Wheat Board, the storage capacity should improve by 40 per cent in Vancouver. Half of the storage capacity increase of 5.8 million tonnes must be done before the coming winter. The rest will be completed by the end of next year.
Major improvements are being made to increase our present and future export capacity. We are now studying all possible means to transport a maximum quantity of grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway before its closing, including the extension of operating hours whenever possible. But we do not deal only with those urgent problems, Mr. Speaker, we are also concerned by problems that will be faced in the long term by our grain transportation and handling system. We commissioned an inquiry, the Hall commission on complex social and economic factors related to that system. We should soon establish in the prairies a comprehensive basic branch line system that will be operated at least until the year 2000.


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


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF PRIME MINISTER'S COMMENT ON STATE OF CORPORATION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this adjournment debate on a matter which was raised in the House last week and this week. It started with a question, albeit a set-up question, from the hon.
Adjournment Debate
member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asking about coverage of the federal-provincial conference. I wish to quote the relevant words. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi asked the Prime Minister to check with the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) so that, among other things, and I quote:
-we can determine whether the CBC is trying to fulfil or thwart its mandate as a force for unity in this country.
As part of his answer the Prime Minister said several things. Then he said:
I am sometimes amused when the CBC talks about the terrible state of the country considering the terrible state of the CBC.
That was said on Thursday, November 2. I rose in my place, Mr. Speaker. This occurred at about five minutes before three o'clock and I was trying to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister about what he meant about the terrible state of the CBC. I know the right hon. gentleman's mood that day, at the end of the federal-provincial conference,-perhaps he was tired-but I wanted to find out whether this was a flippant or facetious remark, and I wanted him to define what he meant about the state of the CBC. After all, he is the leader of the land, a prime minister who has been in charge of cabinet and orders in councils for ten years, but unfortunately I did not catch You Honour's eye until Tuesday. When I did put the question to the Prime Minister, as recorded on page 868 of Hansard for Tuesday, the Prime Minister answered my question as to what he meant. He had the nerve, Mr. Speaker, and he smiled when he said it, to say:
-when I commented on the technical difficulties the CBC had experienced from the first day of the conference. If the hon. member had been following the proceedings, he would have seen that as a rather light reference to the difficulties the CBC had. I stand by my remarks. The CBC is very critical of many institutions in Canada. It should not be without criticism itself nor beyond the scope of criticism. I often hear it from the other side.
Those remarks were greeted with loud applause from the government benches, as was the initial statement back on Thursday. It is patently clear to anyone in this House that the Prime Minister was not referring to technical difficulties in the CBC. The question by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi was about coverage and the seriousness of his question was for the Prime Minister to check to see if the CBC is trying to fulfil or thwart its mandate as a force for unity in this country.
I wondered if I would raise this matter in the adjournment debate or accept the Prime Minister's facetious answer to me on Tuesday. The more I thought about it the more I thought I would take the time and trouble of the House tonight to make a point that I think in capsule commentary summarizes why the mania over Trudeau in 1968 has frankly become the delirium with him in 1978.
In that remark on Thursday, without any qualification, when questions on technical difficulties of transmission were never asked, the Prime Minister replied in the most insidious form of criticism which really has been a hallmark of his administration against institutions. That, I submit to you, Mr. 998

November 9, 1978
Adjournment Debate
Speaker, is one of the reasons this country is so divided that it is searching almost for its constitutional soul, its internal soul.
I am not denying that all members and all Canadians have many strong feelings about the pros and cons, the good and the bad, the plusses and the minuses, of the only national broadcasting system that we have. But that is not the issue. The issue is not that there should not be criticism of the CBC. We all know that. But this man was asked that question as the Prime Minister of the land. Ele is not an ordinary citizen. He is supposed to be the leader of the land exercising responsible leadership. And for him to give blanket condemnation without qualification, saying "considering the terrible state of the CBC", is demoralizing to those who work within it and is most unfair.
It is not just a case of the CBC. That is a popular whipping boy. This Prime Minister, unfortunately, because he has intellect, abuses it by appealing to the baser instincts of his constituents. And frankly, Mr. Speaker, his constituents are from coast to coast because he is the Prime Minister. You can take the symbolic head of this land, the Crown, and where do we find the Prime Minister in England? Pirouetting behind the Queen. If it were an individual act, one would not think too much about it, but it was just one of many incidents which I suggest in all seriousness appeals only to the baser instincts of many Canadians.
It was the Prime Minister who not many years ago said that opposition members were nobodies. If opposition members are nobodies, let us just imagine what government backbenchers are. I do not want to proceed too far with that.
It was the Prime Minister who, on August 1, appeared on the nation's screen with his reformation after his trip to Morocco. The conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus looked like a little exercise compared with the Prime Minister's conversion regarding economic realities.
What did the Prime Minister say about another institution of ours, a popular whipping boy, the Post Office? I still remember it: "Canadians are getting sick and tired of the Post Office, and so am I". Of course he is, but the man forgets that he has been the leader of the land. He has had responsibility for doing something about the Post Office, the CBC and parliament, if he has felt so aggrieved. One of the problems of our land is this Prime Minister and his sophistry which, for those who do not know, is false argument intended to deceive. That is not acceptable any more. That is why I have taken the time to participate tonight.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member's feeling of frustration to a certain extent. He obtained an intelligent answer to his question, and I think he would like to have a leader who would be as gifted as the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). I have the feeling, and this is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is not used to
[Mr. Nowlan.J
accept clear, precise and brief answers, and 1 think it would be a good thing to check and to review what the Prime Minister told him.
To put it in a nutshell, the whole problem arose when the Prime Minister, answering a question asked by an hon. member on the government side, said last November 2, and I quote:

I am sometimes amused when the CBC talks about the terrible state of the country, considering the terrible state of the CBC.

Mr. Speaker, on November 7, 1978 the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) merely asked the Prime Minister to explain that part of his answer. The Prime Minister replied that he had referred to the technical difficulties that the CBC had experienced on the first day of the constitutional conference. And he told the hon. member that if he had been following the proceedings, he would have seen that as a rather light reference to the difficulties that the CBC had. The Prime Minister added that he stood by his remarks. He said that the CBC was very critical of many Canadian institutions, that it should not be without criticism itself nor be beyond the scope of criticism, as he has often heard it from the other side of the House. That was the reply of the right hon. Prime Minister. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley, returning to the charge again, still on November 7, asked the right hon. Prime Minister: Then can we assume from what the Prime Minister said that he was referring only to the technical difficulties which we all noticed during the conference, that he was not making a blanket condemnation of CBC? Then, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister answered, and I quote:
Oh, no, Mr. Speaker, I never make blanket condemnations, except sometimes of the hon. member. I think in the case of the CBC I was referring to some specific and recent event. The hon. member knows that I am a great admirer of the CBC and the media in general.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to that brief reply. As answers go, it is simple, brief, concise, complete. Even an ignoramus, whether he be a fool or a simpleton, would refrain from asking that changes be made to such a masterpiece.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


FINANCE-FUNDS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
David Orlikow: When the minister made that statement, some of us, including myself, pointed out that he was setting an objective for five years from now which would be substantially less than what was being spent by most of the other industrialized countries of the western world. I pointed out to the minister that countries such as West Germany, Japan and the United States already spent substantially more than 2 per cent of their gross national product on scientific research and development. The minister promised that five years from now we would be spending less than those other countries spend at the present time.
The truth of our contention was demonstrated this week by six background papers issued by the Department of State for Science and Technology. It reported that Canada's research and development effort has been inadequate to maintain an internationally competitive economy. It pointed out that R and D expenditures in Canada are only 0.92 per cent of the GNP Also it indicated that this ratio was disturbingly low compared with other developed countries. It went on to point out what some of the other countries were spending. The papers noted that between 50 and 65 per cent of R and D was performed by business enterprises in most industrialized countries, while in Canada, only 40 per cent of such research was carried out by business.
The minister's present proposal is that the people and the Government of Canada offer to the business corporations of this country, particularly the multinational corporations, further incentives in an attempt to persuade them to do more research and development in Canada. Despite the fact that over the years there have been a host of these programs, such as PAIT, DIP and others, none of them have succeeded in persuading the Canadian business community, particularly Canadian subsidiaries of multinational corporations which virtually do all their research and development at home bases mostly in the United States. Despite this fact and the lamentably low objective of the government, and without waiting to see if incentive programs worked, as part of its restraints program the government announced major cutbacks in government expenditures and support for research and development in the field of science.
I raised this question with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) a few weeks ago. In view of the cutbacks which were announced, I asked the minister if the government had set a new target date at which time it expected the government, universities and the corporations of this country to be spending 1.5 per cent of GNP on research and development. This percentage was announced by the minister on June 1. The Minister of Finance said that a new date had not been set and that the government was reordering its priorities.
By way of a supplementary question I asked the minister if he could explain how cuts were being made in fields in which Canada plays a leading role, especially those which gainfully employ many Canadians such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The minister rejected my suggestion and said that there had been no cuts for scientific research in agriculture.
Adjournment Debate
I want to put on the record what the situation is. In the Department of Agriculture there have been cutbacks in the estimates of $8.5 million for the coming year. One of the projects eliminated involved $3 million for the Lethbridge research laboratory. In the Department of the Environment there was a cutback of $11.7 million in scientific research, including $2.8 million for a Newfoundland environmental centre and a maritime forest research centre.
In the Department of Fisheries, which is increasingly important because of the 200-mile limit-and for the first time we had hopes that the tens of thousands employed in the maritime fisheries would begin to enjoy a decent standard of living- what do we find? We find a cutback in the Department of Fisheries for scientific support of $11.9 million, one example being a $2 million cutback in a technological development program which is to be reduced and eventually transferred to the private sector.
It makes no sense at all to me or to the people involved in scientific research and those who benefit from it that the government should make these cutbacks without considering the tremendously harmful effects not only on the industries concerned but the people of Canada as a whole. I would urge the government to reconsider its position and restore what already was woefully weak support for scientific research.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence my remarks in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) by thanking him for giving me the opportunity to bring some facts to the fore in respect of the government's position regarding research and development.
As the hon. member stated in his remarks, the minister responsible for science and technology in Canada stated clearly in June of this year the importance the government attaches to this very important aspect of the Canadian economy. The minister has clearly stated that Canada's aim and target in respect of research and development expenditures will be of the order of 1.5 per cent of gross national product by 1983. This is the goal that has been set and I think the minister has made the position of the government very clear.
As well, Canadians will realize that the Canadian government purchases each year $4 billion in goods and services. The procurement practices of the government will be changed to ensure their effective use to stimulate Canadian industrial research and industrial development.
It will be appreciated as well that for the first time the minister has convened a conference of federal and provincial ministers, in fact this week in Ottawa, to review the current state of industrial research and development in Canada. These ministers have collectively agreed that they must make every effort to ensure a higher level of support for research and development and innovative activity in Canada through encouraging and stimulating the private sector.
80065-64>/2

November 9, 1978
Adjournment Debate
Tax incentives are an essential tool to encourage the private sector to perform more industrial research and development. As well, procurement ought to be used to promote and strengthen research intensive industries, and a subcommittee of the working group established by ministers of industry should also be encouraged to examine this most important matter.
The ministers have agreed that they will get together from time to time to keep abreast of the developments and results of these tax incentives, as well as the benefits that will accrue from these programs, ft was agreed as well that the results of their conference should be submitted to the first ministers' conference.
1 think the importance the government does attach to research and development and to science and technology in Canada is made abundantly clear by the fact that this first ever conference was held this week at the initiative and as a result of the leadership of the minister, taking into account the
statements and announcements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) concerning renewable energy and communications technology that the 1978-79 expenditures on research and development will be higher than provided for in the 1978-79 main estimates. Thus, while cuts have been made in research and development, as in many other areas of governmental activity, research and development also benefited substantially from the reallocation of resulting savings as shown by the doubling of that fund for 1979-80. I think it is abundantly clear that very definite steps are being taken and will be taken by the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 10, 1978