1978-12-08

['No.']
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
It is necessary for buyers in the very important United States market to see Canadian manufactured products firsthand, if we are substantially to increase our sales in that market and start reducing our SI2.5 billion a year trade deficit in fully manufactured products, the ones that produce the jobs. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the minister of trade and commerce to immediately organize "Fly and Buy" missions from the important merchandise buying centres of the United States to see Canadian manufactured products displayed at giant trade shows in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and our heavy machinery in the plants where it is made across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the obvious need for the city of Winnipeg to proceed with the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, the urgency of which was pointed out to the Minister of Transport by Mrs. Anne Steen, of Winnipeg North, in a telegram received by the minister this week, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Transport disregard the advice of the lone Liberal, Lloyd Axworthy, and reinstate the federal commitment of $4 million for the immediate construction of the badly-needed Sherbrook-McGregor overpass in Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that recent studies show that one of the last remaining major Canadian polluters of the lower Great Lakes is, unfortunately, the farm community, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That the Minister of State for the Environment enter into discussions with all farm organizations to attempt to rectify this serious situation, in order to reduce


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency concerning the $60 million windfall to the federal government at the expense of automobile dealers across Canada who have been denied reimbursement of the 3 per cent sales tax reduction on the 12 per cent sales tax paid on inventory and vehicles en route.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That the government reassess its position and negotiate with automobile manufacturers in an effort to have the loss split three ways between the

December 8, 1978
government, the manufacturers and the dealers; the government and the manufacturers reimbursing their two-thirds to the dealers by crediting their accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the Elouse. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, in accordance with Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the ever-increasing air traffic volumes at Toronto international airport have led more and more to the use of the two major east-west runways on a joint basis for incoming and outgoing flights, rather than on a rotational basis, and considering that this practice not only increases dramatically the total disruption and interference to the lifestyle and environment of thousands of my constituents but proves that the Government of Canada was correct in its plans for a second airport designed to avoid such disruption and suffering to people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne):
That this House reconfirm the need for a second major airport facility for the Toronto area, and urges the government of Ontario to admit their error in blocking a second airport and now to work in co-operation with the federal government to urgently seek a solution.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lawrence:: Cafik said no.


An hon. Member:: That is why he is in the cabinet and you are not.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Alastair Gillespie said no.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that experiments seem to be about to take place in feeding whales, polar bears and seals with diesel fuel oil and also dipping them in this substance, and in light of the fact that some of these creatures are on the endangered species

list, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour):
That the Department of the Environment cause these experiments on polar bears, seals and whales to be re-examined.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of the same Standing Order.
In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when minister of transport in September, 1969, removed a freeze from railway freight rates and as a result freight rates have since increased 136.62 per cent in Newfoundland, and since CN has developed a rate structure for Newfoundland to drive all freight offering off the railway, as is proven by the fact that if a Newfoundlander is transferred from St. John's to Vancouver and wishes to ship his automobile to Vancouver by rail, it will cost him $4,497 from St. John's, but only $571 from Halifax or $548 from Moncton, and that these are the rates despite the fact that Newfoundland is a part of and adjacent to Canada, and not an island in the South China Sea, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the Minister of Transport, or both, explain on motions why.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. By happy coincidence, he is the senior member from the
December 8, 1978

Atlantic provinces, one who represents an area of long-term, chronic, high unemployment.
Is it now the policy of the government, as seems to be emerging in the debate on the unemployment insurance bill, that unemployed people in areas of high unemployment, who will be disqualified from receiving UI benefits under this bill if it passes, should move to other parts of the country-a philosophy that has not been heard around here since Walter Gordon's famous final solution in 1957, when he suggested that the answer to the maritimes' unemployment problem was depopulation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member that it is not the policy of the Government of Canada to encourage out-migration as a solution to the problems of regions of this country.
I believe my hon. friend will realize that the establishment of such programs as those carried out by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is the direct opposite of a strategy that would be employed if out-migration were the objective. Our purpose is to attempt to create economic opportunities in the region, so that an increasing number of employment opportunities will be available to the growing labour force.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am glad to get that assurance from the minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration, was enunciating government policy last night when, in response to concern expressed regarding the inability of young people to find jobs in areas of high unemployment and the fact that they would be disqualified under this bill, the minister said, "Isn't that just too bloody bad", and, "I hope the hell they move all over this country"? He said he was not going to put a nipple in the mouths of young people, and as far as he was concerned, if they wanted to stay home and suck their thumbs, that was just too bad.
I have much greater respect for the young people of this country than the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his colleague was expressing government policy last night on the unemployment insurance bill when he said that the best thing for young people would be to move to hell all over the country, which is not too far out from the statement of the Prime Minister last March, when he-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not want an answer; he wants to bombast. The hon. member is not quoting me correctly; he is quoting me out of context. I indicated that one of the tremendous advantages in this country is that people have the opportunity to be mobile. I indicated the increase in in-migration to the Atlantic provinces. To misquote me in that fashion is a little irresponsible.
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Deputy Prime Minister. I did not misquote the Minister of Employment and Immigration; I quoted directly from the transcript of last night's proceedings of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I am prepared to put it on the record at a later time.
I now ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is the policy of this government to tell the young people of this country who have no jobs and now constitute 15 per cent of the unemployed, to get the hell out and move? Is that the policy of the government? I think the young people of this country would like to know.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I first want to point out that the hon. member is referring to a transcript of a committee proceeding which is not available to members of the House generally. The committee itself has not reported to the House: only at that time will its proceedings and the total report be available. In my view, it is quite irregular to base a series of questions on committee proceedings not available to hon. members and from a committee that has not reported to the House.
Apart from that, it is not the policy of the Government of Canada to speak to the young people of this country in the bombastic terms used by the hon. member for St. John's East. Inasmuch as the hon. member related his first question to the Atlantic provinces, I would advise him that for a good period of time until the worldwide recession occurred, there was considerable in-migration to the Atlantic provinces, particularly to my province of Nova Scotia which experienced a net increase in total population for the first time in a long time as a result of the policies of regional economic expansion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Within that context, it is certainly my view that it is quite healthy and desirable for young people to travel to any part of Canada to seek employment opportunities. The idea that it is unthinkable for young people to travel to any province of Canada to seek employment is not one we advocate. The Canadian labour market is open to all the young people of Canada and it is quite healthy they should travel to obtain jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who by coincidence happens to be the government House leader. It concerns the unemployment insurance amendment legislation.

December 8, 1978
Oral Questions
I want to ask the hon. gentleman about order in council PC-1978, No. 3243, dated October 26, 1978, published in the Canada Gazette on November 8, 1978. In view of the fact that the order in council usurped directly the provisions of a clause in Bill C-14, which is now before the House, would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether it is his intention either to withdraw Bill C-14 or to cancel the order in council to which I have referred?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the bill to which the hon. member refers is still before the committee; it has not yet been reported to the House. When the bill is reported, that will be the appropriate time at which to deal with questions relating to its provisions.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The Deputy Prime Minister seems to forget that the order in council has been proclaimed. In case he is not aware of it, I wish to remind the hon. gentleman that both the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Deputy Minister had their attention drawn to their wrongdoing, and both of them apologized to the standing committee yesterday.
The Deputy Prime Minister may or may not be aware that the Department of Justice advised the Department of Employment and Immigration not to proceed with this matter. I would like to know whether knowledge of these factors would cause the Deputy Prime Minister to rethink his answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to transfer to the floor of this House matters which are presently before a standing committee. I have greater respect for the work of the standing committee than to have it duplicated in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


FUTURE OIL PRICES-NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALBERTA
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In the light of the announcement today by the minister of energy in Alberta, Donald Getty, that Alberta will increase the price of crude oil by $1 per barrel if a pricing agreement is not completed by January 1, could the minister advise the House whether he has been successful in negotiating a new pact on oil prices with the province of Alberta or whether we will be faced with a massive increase in oil prices on January 1 ?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with the Alberta government with respect to a deferral of the price of oil come January 1.

I have an exchange of letters which, with the consent of the House, I would be prepared to table now. If the House will consent, I would like to table copies of my letter to Mr. Getty and Mr. Getty's to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister shall have leave to table these documents at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could be a little more forthcoming. Can he confirm that this new agreement will have the effect of raising oil prices on July 1 of next year, and again on January 1, 1980, a doubling of the increase we were anticipating for January 1, 1979? Can the minister advise that the government has adopted a policy of "No increase today if you vote for us tomorrow"?


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear in an answer in this House last week that there would be no automatic increases on July 1 of next year or January 1 of 1980. We have agreed to a set of conditions which would protect Canadians: we have agreed that increases would take place only if Canadian prices were kept below the United States price and below the international price.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the impact of these increases will clearly be to reduce by half the stimulus in this government's budget. Can the minister confirm that his officials have come to the same conclusion? Can he also confirm that the impact of these increases next year will be to drive the price of gasoline to the consumer up by at least three cents at the pump, and the consumer price index right across this country up nearly one point?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his facts quite wrong. The reason for deferring the price increase, or the price freeze on January 1 is to assist the economy in holding down the rate of inflation. The effect of this deferral should amount to about one-half of a percentage point on the consumer price index, probably the single most significant item which can effect the CPI during the course of next year.
The second point which the hon. member should understand is that as a result of this deferral we will be making Canadian industry more competitive, rather than less competitive. Therefore, it will have a very favourable effect on growth and stimulation. It will also have a very favourable effect on employment.
December 8, 1978


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister: it touches on the unsatisfactory answers we received yesterday from the intended President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. I asked that minister what plans he had in place, or was intending to put in place, to try to arrest the current account deficit in this nation.
In 1977 we had an $11 billion deficit on end products, a $3.5 billion interest service deficit, a $2.2 billion "other service" deficit, and a $1.6 billion foreign travel deficit-all of which were up in the first nine months of this year. In view of the minister's answer yesterday, that those are medium-term and long-term problems to solve, would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what minister is going to start solving these problems today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no difficulty in identifying the ministers who are responsible for the implementation of policies related to the deficit to which the hon. member refers. There is a surplus on the merchandise account, as the hon. member knows. There is a deficit on the service account.
As my hon. friend is fully aware, deficits arise from millions of private transactions undertaken by Canadian individuals and Canadian corporations. The hon. member seemed to imply yesterday that these imbalances arose from some contrived policy on the part of the Government of Canada. They arose from decisions made in the free market by individuals and corporations.
I believe that the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers was perfectly correct in saying that a number of these problems are medium and long-term in nature. One of these problems is, of course, the travel account deficit. If my hon. friend had followed the proceedings of the federal-provincial conference recently, he would have-and I am certain he has-understood that the federal and provincial governments regard the solution of the travel account as a medium-term problem to which both levels of government are currently addressing themselves.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed, again, to the Deputy Prime Minister who must still have the fact ringing in his ears that only this week it was announced that the third quarter deficit on the current account is the highest in our history.
Would he not tell the House frankly that the reason our dollar has tumbled from $1.03, in U.S. terms, to its present 85-cent value is mainly the current account deficit; and if he agrees with that, does he not feel it is time the government described what plans they have to arrest the current account deficit?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not agree with the hon. member's analysis of the present level of the Canadian dollar. I believe it is finding its place on the international market as a result of a large number of influences, including the state of the trade account. I believe it would be an oversimplification, not to be expected from an aspiring future finance minister, to accept that kind of reasoning.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed, again, to the Deputy Prime Minister who must realize that the government has expended billions of dollars in attempting to defend the dollar: $265 million has gone out this month alone in attempting to defend the dollar. Does he not realize that it is absolutely foolhardy to be expending such sums of money in foreign funds, if you do not arrest the deteriorating current account deficit in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is accepted that one of the objectives of Canadian economic policy is to increase our sales abroad, which would have a direct effect on our current account position. It is also an objective to influence our service account. These are obvious conclusions which are contained in the hon. member's question.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER WILL ENSURE THAT GASOLINE PRICE INCREASE IS JUSTIFIED
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In spite of the government decision to defer an oil price increase for six months an oil company, Esso Imperial, has announced, at least that is what I heard on the radio, that it intended to raise the price of gas by two cents a gallon.
Is the minister aware of that decision and does he intend to ensure that such a price increase is justified and report his findings?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any decision or announcement by Imperial Oil with respect to a price increase. It is possible that there may be price increases by oil companies, depending on the competitiveness of certain markets.
The hon. member will realize that the pricing policies and retail level of the oil companies are beyond the scope of the federal authority. The point that I wish to emphasize is that there will be no increase as a result of a wellhead price increase. That is the price that we have frozen, in agreement with the Alberta government. There will be no increase on January 1. If that increase had taken place, it would have provided for an increase in the order of three cents, or a little more, per gallon at that time. That will not take place.

December 8, 1978
Oral Questions
Competitive factors being what they are, there may be some markets where prices have been driven down below what has been allowable, and that could be the factor to which the hon. member is referring.


INQUIRY WHETHER GASOLINE PRICE INCREASE DUE TO MONOPOLY POSITION OF OIL COMPANIES
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Every time oil prices go up, either as a result of a wellhead price increase or otherwise, we have seen all other oil companies, any one of the seven sister companies, proportionally raise the price of gas or fuel per gallon.
Should Esso Imperial increase its prices by two cents a gallon, as announced yesterday or the day before yesterday, could the minister make sure, if the other companies do likewise, whether it is not a monopolistic practice as in previous cases.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon. member, I am not aware of the announcement on the part of the oil company to which he referred. I will be very pleased to look into it.


HARBOURS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. One of the serious issues in the 1978 Auditor General's report is the questionable use and structuring of information behind the decision-making process for large capital projects. The Minister of Transport gave us the impression that management procedures are now in place within his department to prevent or overcome this weakness as reported in the 1978 report of the Auditor General.
Can the minister assure the House that all factors have been considered properly and openly and have been included in the criteria behind the National Harbours Board announced expansion of Roberts Bank?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the hon. member the general assurance he is seeking. I am not quite sure what, specifically, he is dealing with in relation to Roberts Bank. The current issue there is environmental considerations. Any final decision in relation to any facility at Roberts Bank will have to take environmental considerations into account. It could be anticipated that the

cost and benefit analysis will change, given the spending which may be required in that regard.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister examine the letter he gave to my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, in February of this year. Also, I ask him to consider that the market data and projections support the doubling of the coal-handling capabilities of Roberts Bank at this time, but show that potash and sulphur can be handled well into the future by the existing facilities in place at the port of Vancouver.
Can the minister explain why environmental studies have been tampered with and why the National Harbours Board continues to call for expansion well beyond the foreseeable needs of the port?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is room for different judgment as to when expansion is required. The hon. member could be critical of planned expansion, and he could be just as critical a couple of years from now if the facilities are not there to handle western products trying to go through the west coast ports. Our judgment has to be made as to when the expansion is right.
I deny that there has been any tampering with environmental studies. Any decision to go ahead with the facility will depend upon a full analysis of the environmental significance of the development plan. The National Harbours Board believes the need is so great that it keeps speaking about wanting to get it ahead, I understand, in terms of its business and task. The decision is not to be made and will not be made until the fullest environmental results are in and taken completely into account.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Is the minister aware, in a time of budgetary restraint and cutbacks, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is paying a newsreader, to wit, Knowlton Nash of the National News, a salary rumoured to be $85,000 to $90,000 a year, not including any fringe benefits which may come his way? That is a higher salary than the Prime Minister of Canada receives.
What steps will the Secretary of State now take to ensure the CBC uses its money more judiciously? Will he now use moral persuasion and ensure that all funds granted the CBC, to wit, more than $500 million a year, will be used for furthering the broadcasting policy agreed to by all members of the House in 1967 and 1968?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister is on the road to Mandalay.
December 8, 1978


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have, of course, seen newspaper reports speculating as to the salary mentioned by the hon. member. I do not know whether the stories are accurate.


An hon. Member:: Find out.


John (Moody) Roberts: I am not sure I quite understood the last part of the question. If I can summarize it accurately, the question was whether I would take any steps to ensure the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation followed the principles or guidelines outlined by the Commons committee. I can tell the hon. member that I have drawn to the attention of the CBC the committee's comments on its operations. I have discussed different ways in which budgetary restraint would apply to the CBC and what its effects might possibly be.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport: again it relates to the question of the government's attempt to set up the Loto Select program.
On Tuesday of this week, the minister admitted that losses so far in the Loto Select program totalled between $2 million and $3 million. Can the minister indicate, for the benefit of the House, whether in fact Loto Select signed a $5 million contract in September with Addressograph-Multigraph corporation to build machines to be used in printing dealers' names on the tickets, and that the plan was killed one month later, with possible cancellation costs to the Canadian public of up to $1 million? Can the minister indicate whether that figure was included in her $2 million to S3 million figure of losses to date tabled on Tuesday?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House many times on this question, although not on this specific one related to Addressograph-Multigraph of Canada, Ltd., these are now being represented by legal counsel. So far as I know, they are not in the courts at this time. To reveal the facts and the figures the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo wishes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: -in fact may have the effect of causing a greater amount to be paid than would be paid otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: I am sure the hon. member would not want that to be on his head.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the minister would like to have on her head. Will she confirm to
Oral Questions
the House whether a contract was signed in September by Loto Canada with Addressograph-Multigraph, to the tune of $5 million?
Can the minister tell the House whether a cancellation clause was included in that contract? If so, what were the terms of that cancellation clause? If she will not tell the House, will she at least tell us whether she is hiding also in this instance behind a so-called secrecy clause which prevents her from coming clean with the Canadian public?


Iona Campagnolo: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member knows that under section 66 of the Financial Administration Act, a Crown corporation is accountable to the people of Canada through a minister in the House. I have undertaken to provide that accountability. I will do so at the appropriate moment. I cannot do so now, even though I would like very much to be able to supply the answers requested by the hon. member. But to do so would jeopardize the negotiations taking place at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
 * *


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The federal government indicated that it will grant $4 million to assist the city of Winnipeg in building the Sherbrook-McGre-gor overpass spanning the CPR marshalling yards. Also, the Canadian Transport Commission has approved the overpass.
Can the minister inform us when the grant will be provided, as there is some urgency because the two bridges in operation now over the tracks, the Arlington and the Salter, are in a state of deterioration and weight restrictions are in effect?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not stated the facts accurately. In addition to approval of the overpass by the Canadian Transport Commission, we have made it clear to Winnipeg and to Manitoba that the UTAP funds available to the province could be applied to the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. We indicated that at this time we cannot supply additional federal funds other than those available through the UTAP program. It is completely in the the hands of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba to move this project forward as quickly as possible.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, certainly that is not the information which has been relayed to the mayor. The council of the city of Winnipeg are in a state of confusion waiting for answers from the Department of Transport.
Has the Minister of Public Works vetoed the $4 million going to the city of Winnipeg? Does the minister plan to discuss this matter further in cabinet to see if the $4 million can be granted? Will the minister contact the mayor to let him

December 8, 1978
Oral Questions
know whether the money will be provided and to clear up the confusion on the other matters raised earlier by the minister?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confused; I do not think the mayor is: he will have received a message from me along the lines of the answer I just gave. The matter was considered fully in cabinet and in appropriate committees several times because of the desire to review all factors which might lead to special consideration of additional funds for Winnipeg. In the end, it was concluded that only urban transportation assistance program funds would be available from federal sources. That has been relayed to the city.
With regard to local environmental matters and the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, obviously they may be very important considerations, but the view I took in dealing with the mayor was that these are essentially local issues to be decided by the province and the city, and there should be no federal involvement in those questions.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he confirm that officials of the Canadian Transport Commission have requested, and received, special vacation airline passes from CP Air for themselves and their families; and, if so, does he consider that there is, in fact, a serious conflict of interest on the part of CTC officials who regulate air transportation and air routes for which the airline carriers are competing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information. Obviously, it would have to be obtained before I could comment on it and the second part of the question.


POST OFFICE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will look into the question and report to the House.
I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General, if I may. Is he aware, or will he inquire, whether officials of his department have received airline passes for vacation trips; and, if so, could he inform the House whether the Prime Minister's guidelines of December 20, 1976, have been broken and what action he would plan to take, since the Post Office awards mail delivery contracts to different airlines which are quite profitable to them?
[Mr. McKenzie.)


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any passes have been given to any of the staff of the Post Office, and as for myself, I think the guidelines of the Prime Minister were made very clear in public the other day. This must be according to our own consciences and it is up to us to decide whether we accept them or not.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and arises from a decision by the government of the United Kingdom to request Air Canada to move its London operations from Heathrow to Gatwick airport.
Since this move would have a serious economic impact on the operations of the airline, would impose payload restrictions, have a serious effect on its competitive position with other airlines, notwithstanding the fact that Air Canada has been located at Heathrow for some 32 years, and would have a disruptive effect on investment and, indeed, on the people who work there, will the minister indicate what action has been taken on the part of the government and whether an official Canadian government protest has been filed with the government of the United Kingdom in connection with this matter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have made our position very clear to the United Kingdom government on this question, and I did so personally at a meeting with Mr. Dell when he was here a few months ago. It was also conveyed to the government, through the airline, previously in direct discussions, as well as by our High Commissioner in London. We are pressing many of the points to which the hon. member referred, as well as some other significant ones in favour of the case Air Canada can make in support of staying at Heathrow.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether he has been able to determine why Air Canada was singled out as a candidate for the move from Heathrow to Gatwick? Does it have anything to do with the intentions of British Airways to apply for routes into western Canada, or is it, as has been reported, that Canada has become the easiest target for such a move? Has he been able to determine the reasons that lie behind this decision?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the essential problem facing the United Kingdom in this regard, with which I do have sympathy, relates to the overcrowding which is occurring and will occur at Heathrow, necessitating the removal of some of the facilities of airlines. That, obviously, is the background reason for some airlines having been moved.
Obviously, I am not going to try to state the United Kingdom's analysis which it would put forward as justifying the
December 8, 1978

picking of Air Canada, because I do not agree with those arguments being put forward. I think we make a good case in relation to our long-term, long-standing position at Heathrow, having regard to the fact that three American airlines which are also there are not being asked to move. Therefore, we resist the United Kingdom's argument about convenience of traffic diversion. I would say that I do not see a direct connection between that issue and the issue of access by British Airways to western Canada.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY WHETHER ANNOUNCEMENT WILL BE MADE ON IMPROVEMENTS TO AIRPORTS IN GASPfi PENINSULA
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the House whether he is or will be shortly in a position to indicate to the people of the Magdalen Islands and their elected representative, as we are approaching Christmas, that he has a fine present in store for them concerning air transport in this part of my constituency, and announce for instance the improvement of the landing strips, the installation of air navigation aids and the construction of adequate airport facilities? Could he also advise the House what his department's priorities are for airports of the southeastern Gaspe area, including that in Bonaventure.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I will be able to make such an announcement in time for Christmas, which I know the hon. member would very much like. I will review the situation in an urgent way to see whether his desire in that regard can be met.
As he knows, I have been giving special consideration to some of the ferry services in that area. I hope that, at least, has been some good news.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business): it concerns the recent reduction of 3 per cent in the federal sales tax on manufactured goods. This question was raised today by the hon. member for York-Simcoe and in the way of a Standing Order 43 motion by the hon. member for Red Deer.
Considering the certainty of great financial loss to certain businesses such as automobile and machinery dealers who have substantial inventories on which the old 12 per cent sales tax
Oral Questions
has been paid, will the minister indicate whether he is considering some form of adjustment in the sales tax formula that would minimize the financial loss of those businesses?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer I indicated that very real difficulties are present because of the enormous number of products that have been manufactured, sold and stored in inventory. It is very hard to draw the line. In the past there were some remissions granted in cases where the tax had been specifically reduced; for example, on automobiles and trucks.
What I did not say in my answer last time to the question, which probably I should have said, is that because this matter is a part of the budget and, therefore, within the formulation of taxation, the question should more properly have been addressed to the Minister of Finance. Nonetheless, I would reiterate the points I made, that very considerable difficulties are present in attempting to grant remissions in respect of so many millions of transactions which involve many thousands and millions of dollars in inventories that have been stored over such a long period of time.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council: it has to do with a report to the first ministers, from CSIP, on food prices.
Given the fact that if policy is to be adopted by this nation in respect of economic activity, it must be based on reasonably accurate information and a reasonably accurate analysis, and that even a cursory examination of that report, particularly in terms of the sample and in terms of methodology, would indicate no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from it, is it the intention of the minister or the government to have that report withdrawn and reworked, or at least re-examined?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have not seen or studied that report; therefore, I cannot make a proper response. However, I will undertake to provide the hon. member with an answer later.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might do me the courtesy of directing a question to either the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister

December 8, 1978
Oral Questions
of Regional Economic Expansion. They may reply to you, because they do not reply to us.
I wonder if you would ask the hon. gentlemen whether, prior to the introduction of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, either of them requested or initiated particular or specific studies with respect to the impact of those amendments on the economies of Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces; and, if so, may we have the results of those special studies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, I must assure him that all the provisions of the bill were carefully examined and their impact on various parts of Canada were understood.
I am not aware of any specialized studies, but I believe all the information that would be required in order to make a decision was available to the government.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I see that you are no more competent than we are in extracting information. May I direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and be more specific about it?
The Deputy Prime Minister indicated to the House that he allowed to go forward, from his position of influence in the Government of Canada, the amendments that are presently before us-the tinkering with UIC on the backs of the poorer regions of this country-without having required or requested information that would lead him to a clear understanding of the very serious impact which, it is now obvious, these changes will have, particularly on eastern Canada. Is that the position?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, what I said was the very opposite of the conclusion the hon. member has drawn. I said that all the information necessary to reach conclusions and understand the impact on the various regions of Canada was available. What I said, also, was that I was not aware of any specialized studies on the subject, but that seems to be immaterial if the necessary information was available.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In view of the fact that Bill C-14 has not yet been passed and there is total confusion among the larger employers of Canada because of this, can the minister indicate why his officials are now instructing employers how to administer a regulation which, in effect, is still before the House?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the regulation is not before the House. It was passed under the present

legislation: As is always the case, it was gazetted one month ago: I believe the date quoted today was November 8.
Invariably, at the end of the year, before all the facts and figures are in-as every employer who deals with computers knows-there will be a rush. The Department of Supply and Services knows that and the Department of National Revenue knows that: They need figures in order to prepare their tables. The regulation that was passed was legal; it was passed under the present legislation; it was gazetted in the normal way and became public information as recently as November 8. To some extent, the information was possibly available to others prior to that time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I put my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, in his role as government House leader?
This regulation was gazetted on November 8, it was discussed by cabinet on October 20 and the bill received first reading only on November 2-although we have now been sitting for a month. We are now in the invidious position that if the bill does not pass and parliament excludes that part of it, namely, clause 2, on January 1, despite what parliament says the regulation will still be in effect. Can we have the assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister that should parliament so decide, that regulation will be withdrawn?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unwise to anticipate the judgment of parliament. I simply say that when the reality which the hon. member now hypothesizes comes about, we will consider it.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs?
A few weeks ago the minister indicated in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that he was in favour of the necessary steps being taken so that war veterans allowance recipients who receive increases in their old age pension supplements in January or increases in their family allowance in 1979 will not have these increases cut off their war veterans allowance.
I ask the minister if he is now in a position to assure the House that these steps are being taken; and, if not, can he assure the House that he will do his best to get Treasury Board to allow him to make that statement before Christmas?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, I made remarks previously to this effect, and they are still in effect. I
December 8, 1978

hope to have something to announce one way or another very shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not one way or
another-one way!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council if he can tell the House whether the government is considering any change or amendment to the order in council or orders in council affecting the terms of reference of the McDonald royal commission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any consideration being given to a change in the terms of reference. There may be some consideration being given by the Minister of Justice, but I am not aware that any such matter has been considered by the government.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform himself, and undertake to report to the House of Commons on Monday whether consideration is being given to any change in these terms of reference; and, if so, what change is being contemplated and what discussion has ensued with members of the royal commission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 shall advise the Leader of the Opposition whether any changes are under consideration by the government with respect to the terms of reference.


METRIC SYSTEM
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in his capacity as minister in charge of metric conversion.
Knowing the warm feelings the minister had in the past toward metric conversion, I wonder whether since assuming his responsibilities as minister in charge of metric conversion he has reviewed the program, or does he intend to continue at the present rate? Has he any plans to modify this program?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, with regard to metric conversion, nearly every country in the world has now gone metric.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: How is it in Damascus?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, when I was with those people over there, I did not get as much applause as I do now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think that, considering Canada's effort to export more finished, manufactured goods, it is of the utmost importance that we keep in step with the manufacturing world. Certainly, we are watching very closely metric conversion in the United States and attempting to keep in step with that industrial nation.


George Harris Hees: How about the Horner conversion?


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is probably aware of the problems with metrification in Great Britain and Australia.
In view of the report of the general accounting office in the United States which, in effect, says that the cost of converting to the metric system is prohibitive, and in view of the fact there is doubt in the minds of legislators in the United States whether they will proceed with metrification, I ask if the minister has read this report or met with his counterparts in the United States to consider the effect a decision against metrification might have on our trade relations with the United States.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the problems the United States has had in this respect. They passed a law some 200 years ago suggesting that the manufacturing industry could go metric if it wanted to do so. Only in the last ten or 15 years has that country made strides toward metrification. I am well aware of the problems and the confusion which rests in the minds of some legislators.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have, as a result of yesterday's proceedings, a number of notices on procedural matters. I can only repeat the order in which I received them. I had a notice from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), from the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCros-san), from the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), and from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale). I do not know if the points are still applicable in respect to which these notices were given but, if they are, 1 should proceed to hear them now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 think some of us know that when we get to statements there is to be a statement respecting an important anniversary having to do with the Declaration of Human

December 8, 1978
Human Rights
Rights. I wonder if it could be agreed that that statement and the responses be made now rather than at some indefinite time down the way. My understanding is that there is a speaker from each party ready to respond to a statement that is to be made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). It seems to me, in view of the importance of the question of recognizing the thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, that we might do that now in an orderly fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raises a useful point of order. Without anticipating great difficulties we may be able to take routine proceedings through entirely, including, of course, statements by ministers, and conclude routine proceedings but before taking the order of the day for debate, we return to the procedural matters which were just raised. We could try that, but if it is too lengthy it would be unfair to other members.
I understand the statement and responses on the other matter will be brief. We might proceed to take routine proceedings through to their conclusion and, before going to orders of the day, return to these procedural questions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the interparliamentary union at its sixty-fourth interparliamentary conference made a useful suggestion in one of its resolutions that each national parliament commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result of recommendations made by the executive of the interparliamentary union in the House of Commons, it is my responsibility to make a statement on behalf of the Government of Canada.
On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sunday is the thirtieth anniversary of that event. It should be used in Canada and all parts of the world as an occasion to review the progress, or the lack of progress, that has been made in these three decades toward guaranteeing human rights. More significantly, it must be used as an opportunity to identify what more can be done, both internationally and in Canada, to ensure that the rights and freedoms enunciated in the Universal Declaration are effectively enjoyed by all people.
The agreement 30 years ago on the principles of the Universal Declaration was a remarkable achievement by the interna-

tional community, given the wide variations in political and social systems throughout the world. One of the people directly involved in that success was Dr. John P. Humphrey, a Canadian. In his former role as the Director of the United Nations Human Rights Division he oversaw the drafting of the declaration. He is to speak on behalf of Canada at a special commemorative meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on December 11. The principles of the declaration have been elaborated and defined in more than 20 international agreements. However, we are all painfully aware that the existence of these agreements has not created a world in which human rights are respected. In many countries there are gross violations of even the most basic human rights.
The member states of the United Nations have not given it the power to oblige governments to respect human rights. But it is a forum where world opinion can and should be focused on those governments which persistently abuse the rights of their citizens. Canada and certainly the Canadian House of Commons, are firmly committed to efforts to improve the performance of the United Nations in the human rights field.
In Canada we have made considerable progress in the past 30 years. That progress has been influenced by the international obligations we have assumed. Every province has adopted human rights legislation and has established a provincial human rights commission to consider complaints from individuals. The federal government has adopted important human rights legislation and has established the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The distinguished former member for Fundy-Royal, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, has taken on the key position of Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In 1976 Canada became a party to the most important human rights conventions, the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol. The federal and provincial governments are aware that Canadian legislation and practice are not always totally consistent in every detail with the international obligations we undertook by adhering to the covenants. But they recognized that the covenants provide a standard against which Canadian performance can be measured to identify where improvements should be made.
The thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights is being recognized across Canada by the provinces, by church groups and by non-governmental organizations. Among many other significant events, the Canadian Human Rights Foundation has conducted seminars and conferences across the country on the nature of Canadian obligations arising from our international commitments. On December 9 and 10 the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in co-operation with the Departments of the Secretary of State and of External Affairs, will hold a conference at which national organizations concerned with human rights will review progress in Canada since the Universal Declaration was adopted.
The federal and provincial governments are now preparing reports for the United Nations on the implementation in Canada of the two human rights covenants. When the reports
December 8, 1978

are completed they will be made public. They will provide Canadians with important information on the state of human rights in Canada.
We are commemorating in the House of Commons the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, not only as a reflection of the past and present importance of that historic document but also as an opportunity for us, as Canadians, to move forward. In doing so, we renew our commitment to ensure that everyone, everywhere, will enjoy fully the fundamental rights and freedoms described in the Universal Declaration.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to be able to speak on behalf of my party on this occasion marking the thirtieth anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The adoption and proclamation of this Declaration by the UN General Assembly in 1948 marked a momentous step forward in the development of a sense of universal community and, I think, universal compassion. It sets forth those basic rights and fundamental freedoms to which men and women everywhere are entitled, without discrimination. It represents a standard, a goal, toward which we hope all member states of the UN will aspire.
Unfortunately the Declaration itself creates no binding legal obligations. However, it did give birth to two Covenants and a Protocol which are binding on signatories: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada, I am glad to say, has acceded to all three.
Anyone who reads the declaration cannot but fail to notice the glaring contrast between what are declared human rights and the situation as it actually exists today in many countries around the world. It is an unfortunate fact that the world community has been unable, and in some cases unwilling, to give meaning to the words of the declaration. I am sure all members share my concern about this.
We on this side of the House believe that Canada must play a prominent and forceful role in keeping human rights issues to the fore at the United Nations. Wherever the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is given but lip service or openly scorned, and differences are repressed rather than resolved, violent struggle becomes likely. The United Nations charter is in harmony with the highest political insights when it affirms that the desire for peace is incompatible with the violation of basic human rights. We therefore hold inviolate the human dignity of each individual and seek to guarantee his or her physical and cultural well-being. Where religious and ethnic communities are surrounded by grave denials of civil and political rights, or the refusal of social, economic, or cultural justice, we declare our support for them as they demand freedom for their peoples.
Human Rights
Individual justice and freedom are questions of concern to persons throughout the world, and as such they may transcend the normal prerogatives of national sovereignty.
Looking at the world today, it seems that human rights violations are becoming, in some instances, more blatant and more vicious than at any time since the second world war, and, as I indicated earlier, it is a matter of grave concern that the UN seems unable to deal with these problems. For example, the representations made by Canada and other countries last year to the UN Commission on Human Rights about events in Uganda failed to produce even an investigation into the situation. To date, nothing meaningful has developed with respect to the situation in Cambodia, beyond intimations that the Secretary General may eventually receive an invitation to visit that country. At the moment, we know little about the circumstances which are driving thousands to flee Vietnam at appalling risks to themselves. We are all familiar with the problems of human rights in eastern Europe.
My party believes that a major step toward ensuring respect for the Declaration of Human Rights would be to create the post of a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, with the power to investigate alleged violations whenever and wherever they occur. Canada has supported this in the past, and we urge the government to continue to press, in the strongest possible terms and at all appropriate opportunities, for the creation of such a post.
We would also urge, as another means of giving expression to the deep concern which all Canadians share about human rights, that Canada must minimize its material assistance to and symbolic approval of such governments that commit gross violations of human rights.
The UN has accomplished a great deal since its creation. Much remains to be done. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an inspiration to us all.
In conclusion, 1 join in the tribute to Dr. John P. Humphrey who played the important role of chairman of the drafting committee, representing this country in the drafting of this landmark declaration. It is our sentiment that it is the most significant declaration ever made by the international community. We in this party look forward to an even higher profile on the part of the Government of Canada to ensure that the statements made in this important declaration are brought to proper fruition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf and on behalf of my party I am glad to be associated with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in asking this House to take note of and recognize the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am glad, too, that the interparliamentary union suggested and recommended this recognition. I congratulate them for it.


K006 7-5 I COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
December 8, 1978
Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks as a conscience of mankind. The first two recitals in that Declaration read as follows:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Those recitals which preceded the declaration are still applicable. Thirty years after the declaration was made, the situation has not substantially changed, although it would be wrong to deny that much useful progress has been made. In many parts of the world there is still contempt for human rights, resulting in barbarous acts. This is not the proper place to go into any detail on that matter. I only want to say that we must not be selective in our judgment wherever human rights are involved. Whatever regimes invade them should be treated alike, firmly and fearlessly by the expression of Canadian opinion, not only in international forums but also in bilateral relations.
An hon. Member:: Fora.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Somebody says fora. I do not like that word. I purposely left it out.
The declaration contains two types of rights, those that are political in nature, such as freedom of religion and speech, freedom from torture and cruel punishment, freedom from discrimination, and the right of access to the courts. It also contains a number of social, economic, and cultural rights which are enumerated in the declaration.
We in Canada have had much talk about a new Canadian constitution. It is not easy to predict when this new constitution will come into being. I hope it will be soon. We believe that when it does, the essential political rights should be enshrined in it as they embody the fundamentals of Canada's democratic society. A constitutional declaration of these political freedoms would not only have tremendous educational effect but would be a means of protection against invasion of these rights from any source, including governments.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes much further than merely dealing with political rights. It includes, of equal importance, a declaration of economic rights, for example the right to work, the right to form and join trade unions, the right to equal pay for work and the right for leisure and periodic holidays with pay, the right to security in unemployment, sickness or disability and to a standard of living adequate for health; the right to education, the right to cultural life in the community.
These are fundamental rights. However, they cannot be secured by a mere parliamentary or even constitutional declaration. They depend upon detailed legislation and administration, and the planning of a just society, which is our job.
Many Canadians are in urgent need of these rights-I think especially of the million or so unemployed, the large segment of the population which is below the poverty line. Special attention has to be paid to the rights of our native peoples, of immigrants and of aliens in our midst. We should, from whatever party we come, dedicate ourselves to realizing these rights for all our people.
What are the limits? There is no limit based on geography. The rights proclaimed are rights of all human beings by virtue of their humanity. There is no distinction to be drawn between people of different racial backgrounds. The poison of racism and racial discrimination must be totally eradicated. To many, the Declaration of Human Rights is a naive, idealistic, and theoretical exercise. We, on the other hand, hold a deep conviction that it is the way of sanity, the way of true realism, and the way of peace.
The Declaration of Human Rights must be applied to the world of nations; this is necessary in order that we may build a world society. It must also be applied within nations such as Canada. International proclamation is meaningless unless supported by the institutions and personal convictions of persons within different nations. It must permeate the thinking of individuals.
Our former colleague, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, who was the member for Fundy-Royal and is now chairman of the Human Rights Commission, said this:
For me to live a full human life, my neighbours must be just as free as 1 am. Their freedom is my freedom, their equality is my equality, their dignity is my dignity. Freedom is indivisible, human rights are universal.
I think that says it all. I have ended my quotation from the former hon. member for Fundy-Royal; I am not sure that all the members of his party are interested in hearing it. I commend that quotation to all members of the House, and to all Canadians. I, and those for whom I speak, accept the commitment to fight for human rights and to fight for the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the world, in our own countries, in our own communities and, if I may be personal for a moment, within ourselves.
[Translation)


Gérard Laprise: Even here in Canada we have our own Bill of Rights. Unfortunately it does not always hold true in practice. In the fields of politics, I would say we have full rights and freedoms. But economically, sad to say, we still have a long way to go. Again last night, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) pointed out in a television interview that almost 25 per cent of all Canadians live below the poverty line in Canada. In other words, Mr. Speaker, for all those people economic rights and freedoms are far from a fact of life. They do not have the right to choose like other Canadians.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, though we boast a Declaration of Human Rights, though we pride ourselves in a fully democratic system, I feel that for that sector of the population democracy does not exist, at least not fully. As we medidate on the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whether in terms of the whole world or our own country, we must take this opportunity to see what remains to be done here in Canada and take the necessary steps to ensure that every Canadian, man or woman, feels completely free, politically and economically, in his or her own homeland.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I realize we have to deal with some questions of privilege, but it would be a great convenience to the House if I could put the question on business which, in the confusion, I could not put yesterday. Perhaps I could direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). It is my understanding that there is no difficulty at all as far as the government is concerned about the proposition that the motion standing in the name of my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), which would have been heard yesterday but for what took place in the House be called today, the last day allotted to the opposition under the rules. I would appreciate confirmation of this.
Later on today we shall be dealing with the appropriation bill. I just want to say to the House leader that it is not our intention to call a vote with respect to that bill. Will he confirm that the situation is as I have stated, and will he also tell us what is to be the business for next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) I wish to confirm that there is no difficulty whatsoever from our point of view about proceeding with the motion which in other circumstances would have been dealt with yesterday. I should also like to confirm, for purposes of planning the latter part of the day, the understanding which has been voiced by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that it is not the intention to have any votes with respect to the supplementary estimates and the ensuing bill.


An hon. Member:: Recorded votes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There will obviously be no difficulty, I understand, in carrying these items on voice votes, but if it is
Business of the House
the intention to have any votes on division it would be of interest for me to know, so that I could advise my hon. friends.
With respect to the business on Monday, for various reasons it is not possible to call the motion with respect to the Ministry of Economic Development or the other bills I had in mind, Bill C-12, for example, which has been the object of discussion between the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and myself. As a result of those discussions we have decided not to call Bill C-12 at this point. For Monday, therefore, I would like to indicate Bill S-4, legislation respecting non-profit corporations, Bill S-5, the Canada Business Corporations Act amendments, Bill C-13, the Electricity Inspection Act and the Gas Inspection Act amendments, and then the Canada-France trade agreement legislation about which we have had discussions. That is the champagne bill. It is known by that more interesting name rather than by the Canada-France trade agreement legislation.
I ask hon. members to keep in mind the referendum bill and the bill respecting conflicts of interest. It is not my intention to call the referendum bill on Monday, but if we make great progress on the other bills it might be contemplated for Tuesday.
I have received some information since the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the McDonald commission, and I would like to confirm that no consideration is being given to changing the terms of reference. I felt that it would be important to get that on the record before being asked outside the House. I might be held in contempt of the House if I answered outside and not here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the plaintive plea of the Deputy Minister (Mr. MacEachen) for peace of mind with respect to any votes this afternoon. I point out to him that the order paper does not contain any notice of opposed items in the estimates, so there cannot be any votes on individual items, and I give the undertaking that we will not be forcing votes on first, second, or third reading of the supply bill. In that connection, in view of the fact that there may be many members wanting to speak on the motion being proposed today, and since it is clear that there will not be votes called at 4.45, I suggest that the debate go until five o'clock and that we agree to pass the bill at that point.
I noticed in the list of items the minister gave he made particular reference to the fact that Bill C-12 will not be called next week. There is a good deal of interest in this bill, and I take it it can be assumed from the minister's announcement that Bill C-12 will not be put through in December. In other words, the arrangements respecting the Public Service Superannuation Act which now apply will continue to apply in 1979.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 think I can make it clear that it is not the intention to bring forward Bill C-12 this year. The reason is that it is apparent to me that it could not clear all stages and become law before the end of 1978.
80067 -S t >/;

December 8, 1978
Death of Golda Meir
On the second part of the question, I think it would be desirable to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) at an early date as to what his plans for that bill are in 1979. I think the question should be asked, and I think the minister will want to answer it, but I am not in a position to answer it today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can we have an agreement that the debate today should last until five o'clock and that there then be no recorded votes?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.
In keeping with the practice we have been following recently, may I presume, since this day has now become the day for dealing with the supply bill and as the House has now agreed to proceed in a certain manner, that it is in order to introduce the supply bill at this hour of the day under introduction of bills in order that it can be distributed? That is the way we have proceeded in recent times. I understand that the government has made copies available for the purpose. Can we proceed to do so now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-447, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this private member's bill is to make it abundantly clear that the Canadian Human Rights Act is intended to apply to all federal employees, including the staffs of the Senate and the House of Commons who, under this particular legislation, at the present time are excluded. The bill further extends the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act to employees of companies which carry on business in Canada and which are in receipt of federal government contracts or subsidies of any kind.


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

Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask that the House take note of the death this morning of Golda Meir, a former prime minister of the State of Israel, and that I be permitted to speak about that for a moment.

Golda Meir visited Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Despite the seriousness of the matter to which the hon. member refers, I really do not know that we have any practice whereby we can proceed with it any further.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Ask for unanimous consent.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this puts the House in an invidious position. Once unanimous consent of the House is sought, the House is in a rather awkward spot, and I do not know that I ought to depart from our regular practices. Perhaps there might be some accord during the course of the next few minutes to see if some pause could be taken to make some recognition, but I think there ought to be some consultation first.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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, including those which were earmarked for yesterday: Nos. 181, 345, 537, 540, 186, 213, 423 and 467.


Mr. Patterson: What amount was spent by the Department of the Solicitor General in the Constituency of Fraser Valley East in each year since 1970?
Mr. Roger	Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor		
General):	Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service S	Royal Canadian Mounted Police $1970-71	4,576,706	904,2001971-72	4,257,475	1,161,8001972-73	6,597,268	1,490,8001973-74	9,087,448	1,629,0001974-75	13,716,390	2,625,2001975-76	23,021,532	3,625,9001976-77	23,553,391	4,031,9001977-78 April 1, 1978 to	29,774,918	5,089,016September 30, 1978	13,826,229	2,428,143
Ministry Secretariat National Parole Board
Nil
December 8, 1978


Mr. Howie: 1.	Was a contract let in September 1978 for the construction of the CANEX Building in the Army training area at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick and, if so, was the lowest or second lowest tender accepted and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What are the names of the companies which tendered on the project and what was the amount in each case?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Yes. The third lowest bidder, Modern Construction Ltd. was awarded the contract. The reason for accepting the third lowest bid was because of the earlier completion dated July 31, 79 offered with their bid, which was a full five months earlier than that offered with the lowest and second lowest bid. The decision was made based on a complete financial analysis of the effect of completion date on the base non-public fund picture forecast for these five months of operation, related to the difference in amount between the lowest and third lowest bid which was only $10,275. There are no public funds involved in this project.
2.	Atlas Construction Maritime Ltd. Diamond Construction (1971) Ltd. Modern Construction Ltd.
A.C. Mallet and Fils Ltd.
Simpson Construction Ltd. Richards & Ryan (Atlantic) Ltd.
$2,327,725 December 30, 79 $2,333,000 December 31,79 $2,338,000 July 31,79 $2,417,727 September 30, 79 $2,449,350 September 30, 79 $2,486,781 November, 79


Mr. Jones: 1.	Will there be repairs made to large numbers of freight cars used in grain hauling? How many rail cars are being repaired?
2.	Where will the repairs to these cars be made? List the yards and their location. What will be the cost of the repairs? Are there any plans to use the freight yards in Moncton, New Brunswick for any of these repairs?
3.	How many new jobs will this work create? Will there be any new jobs created in Moncton, New Brunswick for this purpose and if so, how many and what are the job descriptions?
4.	Will there be any CN employees or Transport Canada employees transferred from Moncton, New Brunswick to any other location and if so, how many? Will there be any CN employees or Transport Canada employees transferred to Moncton, New Brunswick for this project and if so, how many?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes, 1,000 boxcars.
2.	Winnipeg, 300 cars light repairs at Symington Yard, Winnipeg, 700 cars heavy repairs at Transcona Shops, Winnipeg. The cost will be approximately $6.5 million. There are no plans to use the CN facilities in Moncton, New Brunswick for this work.
3. This will create approximately 150 man-years of new jobs. Because of rearrangement of work this will create approximately 30 man-years of new jobs in Moncton, New Brunswick. The additional positions will all be for car-men.
Order Paper Questions
4.	No CN or Transport Canada employees will be transferred either to or from Moncton, New Brunswick for this project.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, what amount was spent on interior landscaping by the Department of Supply and Services?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: 


Mr. Epp: 1.	Has the search for debris from the U.S.S.R. satellite which crashed in Northern Canada been concluded and, if so, on what date?
2.	How many days were spent in the search?
3.	What was the total cost of the search?
4.	Did the government request full reimbursement from the government of the U.S.S.R. of the full costs incurred in the search, and, if so, did the U.S.S.R. agree to pay such costs and, if not, what steps has the government taken to recover the costs?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows:
1.	The search for debris from the Cosmos 954 satellite was concluded on October 15, 1978.
2.	Two hundred sixty five days (January 24, 1978-October 15, 1978).
3.	There is as yet no final figure for the total cost of the search since some costs remain to be determined.
4.	Canada has informed the U.S.S.R. of its intention to present a claim. Under the 1972 convention on international liability for damage caused by space objects Canada has one year from the date of the satellite incident to present the claim.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the total cost of the Golden report?
2.	Was the President of Telesat Canada chosen to write the report and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. $5,463.59 (period March 28, 1977 to November 10, 1978).
2.	Yes. Mr. Golden was asked to undertake the task because of his wide experience and proven capability in aerospace, in both the private and the public sectors. At his express request he was paid no fee for this assignment.

December 8, 1978

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For each year from 1953 to 1977, were any sheep from (a) pure bred (b) commercial flocks ordered to be slaughtered owing to the disease scrapie and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost for each year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Number of Sheep Slaughtered 2. Compensation Paid (a) - (b)	*
1953-54	
**	-1954-55	108	8,100.001955-56	654	100,050.001956-57	88	3,340.001957-58	79	4,566.001958-59	459	15,548.501959-60	5,539	214,235.001960-61	2,735	107,740.871961-62	1,593	32,617.001962-63	565	13,446.001963-64	1,639	115,873.501964-65	24	676.651965-66	164	5,868.901966-67	393	33,527.001967-68	78	6,495.001968-69	15	905.001969-70	29	2,880.081970-71	-1971-72	180	11,875.001972-73	5	350.001973-74	82	3,175.001974-75	-1975-76	33	3,621.001976-77	80	10,276.001977-78	1,026	200,085.0015,568	$895,251.50
* Records on scrapie do not differentiate between pure-bred and commercial flocks.
** Departmental records have only been maintained since 1954.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many beds at the Memorial Pavilion were guaranteed to veterans under the Agreement with the Government of British Columbia covering the transfer of the Pavilion to the B.C. authorities (b) how many were guaranteed in the Jubilee Complex?
2.	How many of the beds were occupied by veterans on (a) January 1, 1977 (b) July 1, 1977 (c) January 1, 1978 (d) July 1, 1978 (e) October 1, 1978 and, of these, how many were for (i) extended (ii) intermediate (iii) acute care?
3.	Can a distinction be made in the foregoing Parts as to beds and beds occupied in the Memorial Pavilion on the one hand and in the Main Jubilee Complex on the other and, if so, could the replies already given be made again making this distinction?
4.	(a) How many beds in reserve are retained, under the federal-provincial agreement to serve unexpected needs of veterans requiring acute care (b) have the required number of beds for acute care been available at all times or has the quota been breached?
5.	How many veterans were on a waiting list for extended care space on the dates mentioned in Part 2?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. (a) and (b) In the 1974 transfer agreement with the

Province of British Columbia, the Department of Veterans Affairs retained 170 priority use beds at Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria. Included in the total were 60 acute care beds located in the Main Jubilee Complex; and 50 extended care beds and 60 intermediate care beds located in the Memorial Pavilion.
The agreement provides that the priority bed allocation can be revised with changes in bed requirements. Such changes have occurred from time to time, and the present bed allocation is as follows:
Acute care (Main Jubilee Complex)	32 beds
Extended care (Memorial Pavilion)	46 beds
Intermediate care (Memorial Pavilion)	92 beds
2. The bed occupancy by veterans on the specified dates is as follows:
	Jubilee	Memorial Pavilion		
Acute	Extended	Intermediate	TotalJanuary 1, 1977	11	42	73	126July 1, 1977	11	46	84	141January 1, 1978	16	49	84	149July 1, 1978	21	44	94	159October 1, 1978	8	44	90	1423.	See 1 and 2 above.4.	(a) No beds other than those described in (1) are retained to serve unexpected needs of veterans requiring acute care. However, the agreement does provide that where it is necessary to admit a veteran and priority use beds of the type required are fully occupied, the veteran will be admitted to the first available bed in a hospital having beds clinically suitable for the level of care required by the veteran.
(b) The agreement provides that priority use beds not required for veterans will be released for patients who are not veterans. No delays have been experienced in obtaining admission of acute care veteran patients and the acute care beds available for veterans are more than sufficient, as noted in (2). The department has reacted to trends in patient needs by reducing the number of priority use acute care beds, and by increasing the number of intermediate care beds.
5.	No record has been kept of the number of patients awaiting admission on the dates specified. At November 15, 1978. there were five patients awaiting admission to extended care, and this number is considered higher than usual. When a situation arises requiring urgent attention an effort is made to locate a temporary bed in another institution.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 520 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

December 8, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 520 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Epp: Did the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) give any aid to the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) in (a) 1968 (b) 1969 (c) 1970 (d) 1971 (e) 1972 (0 1973 (g) 1974 (h) 1975 (i) 1976 G) 1977 (k) 1978 and, if so, by year (i) in what amount (ii) what projects were approved (iii) what was the purpose of each project and what amount was approved in each case?
Return tabled.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 347 so I may reply to it.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Did the Prime Minister or the Department of Transport receive a 1972 report authored by Robert B. Choma entitled "Research in Creative Development" which deals with Runway 23 at the Toronto International Airport and was receipt of the report acknowledged and, if so, by whom?
2.	Was action taken in regard to the recommendations contained in the report and, if so, what was such action?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Prime Minister's office and Transport Canada as follows: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I intend, as briefly as I possibly can, to attempt to demonstrate to Your Honour and to the House that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there may be a prima facie case of privilege with respect to the fact that by certain actions the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is in contempt of this House. My question of privilege will be to
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
make that case, and 1 intend, at the conclusion of my remarks, to move a substantive motion.
My question of privilege arises out of the presentation to the House by the Minister of Employment and Immigration of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. That bill received first reading early in November and it received second reading in the House on November 10. These dates are important because it has come to my attention that the Canada Gazette for November 8, 1978, volume 112, No. 21, part II, has a proclamation putting into effect order in council PC 1978-3243, October 26, 1978. That order in council and the proclamation in the Canada Gazette proclaimed clause 2 of Bill C-14 which is still before the House.
You may argue that this is a point of law. I argue that it is contempt of this place. Parliament has not passed Bill C-14 and the government has no right to anticipate the passage of the bill, the government has no right to second guess parliament, nor does the government have the right to legislate by order in council, which seems to be what it is doing here.
Surely the right to legislate is one that is jealously guarded by parliament itself. If the government has the right to legislate by order in council, then we might as well dispense with parliament; there is no need for us to be here. It is absolutely useless for parliament to conduct legislation in such circumstances. That is really the core of what my argument is all about, the fact that somebody else has taken it upon himself to legislate something which is still before parliament, contemptuously or, if you like, to second guess parliament or to anticipate what parliament will do.
I can say, although it is not entirely relevant, that this has caused a great deal of concern, confusion, and misunderstanding among the clients of the Unemployment Insurance Commission or of the Minister of Employment and Immigration who administers the act. Indeed, there is evidence in today's press that there is great confusion because, as a result of the order in council and the proclamation in the Canada Gazette of November 8 and the bulletins that went out from the commission flowing from the order in council, people are somewhat confused as to just exactly how they should go about the necessary changes to implement the provisions of a bill which has not yet been passed by the House. If that is not contempt, I do not know what is.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to be clear with respect to the hon. member's argument. Perhaps he could give me the language of the proclamation in the Canada Gazette, because I am not sure at this moment whether I can take his version of the proclamation as having the effect of proclaiming a section or whether it proclaims a section of an unpassed statute in exactly that language. I should like to be clear on that point.

December 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. McGrath


James Aloysius McGrath: I can read the proclamation into the record, Mr. Speaker. The proclamation is PC 1978-3243, October 26, 1978. It reads:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, pursuant to sections 4 and 146 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, is pleased hereby to approve amendments made on October 20, 1978 by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to the Unemployment Insurance Regulations approved by Order in Council PC 1955-1491 of 29th April, 1955, as amended, in accordance with the schedule hereto, effective January 1, 1979.
Schedule
1.	Section 54 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations is revoked and the following substituted therefor:
54(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) the employment with an employer in any week of a person,
(a)	whose earnings are calculated in whole or in part on a time-worked or fixed-salary basis and who is employed and remunerated for less than 20 hours by his employer, or
(b)	whose earnings are calculated on a basis other than that described in paragraph (a) and whose cash earnings from that employer are less than 30 per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings,
is excepted from insurable employment.
For purposes of my argument, that is the only part of the order in council and proclamation that I need to record into the record. The rest of it is not entirely relevant to my argument.
Now I should like to read clause 2 of Bill C-14 now before the House. It reads as follows:
2.	Subsection 4(3) of the said act is amended by deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (/) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (g) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
Here is the key paragraph:
(h) any employment with an employer in which persons are employed for less than 20 hours in a week or in which the earnings of persons are less than 30 per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings.
As you will see, it is almost the same, word for word, as the order in council and the proclamation.
The explanatory note to clause 2 of the bill is very important, and I will develop why it is important in a subsequent argument. The explanatory note for clause 2 reads as follows:
Clause 2: New. This amendment would provide authority to make regulations providing that a week of employment must contain at least 20 hours or must provide a salary equal to or greater than 30 per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings to be considered insurable.
The government wishes to have the authority to make this regulation which it has made already by order in council which I read earlier, and in the proclamation in the Canada Gazette. If ministers did not need the authority, what are they asking parliament for? If they need it, then there is contempt of parliament in that order in council.
I should like to mention something in support of my argument, but I hate to do this because I do not want Your Honour to pick upon this as an excuse for ruling out my argument on a technicality. So if I may ask the jury to leave, while I mention this part of my case, may I continue by saying that yesterday, when this matter was raised in committee we received from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and from the deputy minister, an apology. They said, in so many words, "I am
| Mr, Speaker. |
sorry, the committee and parliament should have been told about this, and we regret very much you were not told."
The minister and the deputy minister took the blame and they said that there should have been a further explanation in the explanatory note, that parliament should have been told when the bill was introduced that the order in council had been passed. "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa." I appreciate the minister saying he is sorry. That is what I would expect from the minister because he is that kind of person. He is a good parliamentarian, and that is in keeping with my perception of his good character. But an apology is not enough because we are still faced with the dilemma of having before us a bill, a part of which has already been enacted by order in council. That is my case.
I could argue that the committee was deceived, that the House was deceived, and, in support of my argument I could refer Your Honour to a citation in May's nineteenth edition entitled "Conspiracy to deceive either House or committees of either House." The citation reads:
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 minister and the deputy minister admitted that they withheld this information from parliament, namely, the passage of the order in council and its proclamation, when Bill C-14 was presented for second reading debate and committee stage.
I submit there is a prima facie case. The minister is in contempt of the House, either by virtue of anticipating or second guessing the House, or by ignoring the House in making a proclamation for a section of the bill which has not been passed by this House, or in withholding information from the House and one of the committees of the House relevant to a bill or a measure before the House. The minister is in contempt either way.
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration by an order in council dated October 26, 1978, and proclamation in the Canada Gazette of November 8, 1978, enacted section 2 of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is still before the House, and thereby showing contempt for this House; and that the said order in council and the said proclamation of November 8, 1978 be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: There are six or seven members who want to contribute. I presume all members of the committee want to make a contribution. It seems to me the ground is fairly clear.
The first thing which must be solved is whether the order in council enacts what the section would enact. The second is whether, if that is the case, it constitutes a contempt of the House. If that is not the case, the matter stops there. It would seem to me the argument of the hon. member for St. John's
December 8, 1978

East (Mr. McGrath) is clear. 1 do not know whether new ground can be covered by other members who want to support it. Perhaps I would be more greatly aided to find out what the opposition is to the argument, than more support for it. In any case, I am in the hands of members of the House in terms of further discussion.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very short in my remarks. What my friend has indicated is that if the parliamentary process is to work-and it should work-then we must have open, honest, and full disclosure. Your Honour's question goes to the very root of the matter, whether the promulgation or the proclamation under date of October 26, and as registered in the Canada Gazette on November 8, in fact is the gist of the bill.
It is quite obvious. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) indicated that the gist of the proclamation as promulgated, or the order in council, refers to those persons who are employed less than 20 hours. They would be excepted. The second portion of the schedule to which I have just referred deals with those persons whose earnings would be less than 30 per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings. Those are the two figures which Mr. Speaker must keep in mind. The remainder of the sentences are explanatory and perhaps extraneous.
If one looks at clause 2 of the bill, one will see that those two key or phrases are within the bill. In other words, the principle brought forth by the order in council as promulgated is within the bill. I will not take long, because the hon. member for St. John's East explained clause 2. I direct Your Honour's attention to clause 2. That clause refers to less than 20 hours, and further on, it refers to less than 30 per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings.
As my friend has indicated, the minister stated that he was sorry. More important, the deputy minister indicated that he was sorry, and as a matter of fact he went further.


Mr. Caccia:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. I know Mr. Speaker will be kind enough to recognize him in due course.
The error has been admitted. The problem is in which direction they are indicating that they are sorry. The specific item within the bill which we are talking about sets forth no deadline. It calls for introduction by way of proclamation after the bill is passed. The order in council has gone beyond the scope of the bill, because it indicates the particular provision, to which we are directing our attention, will come into force on January 1, 1979. In the first instance, that is beyond the scope of the bill.
We are faced with a very peculiar situation. If the House is dealing with a particular piece of legislation, then I submit respectfully that there should not be any edict, regulation or proclamation promulgated prior to the passing of this bill. If
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
that occurs, our role becomes a sham, meaningless, and useless.


Walter David Baker: And parliament is held in contempt.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) just said, parliament is held in contempt. The hon. member for St. John's East said that the government is in contempt in terms of recognizing the roles of members of parliament when it comes to the parliamentary process of dealing with legislation. It cannot have it both ways.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that at the lunch break I was trying to convince Your Honour of the necessity of dealing with this matter because of the principles involved. I was most encouraged by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who was asked by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) to withdraw the order in council, when he said, after some deliberation and a supplementary question, that it would be improper for him to anticipate the conclusion of the bill. I want Your Honour, with respect, to remember that phrase, "anticipate the conclusion of the bill."
What is equally important is the fact, and this has been emphasized by the hon. member for St. John's East, that there should be no intervention by the promulgation of an order in council dealing with the same subject parliament is dealing with by way of committee consideration. With all due respect, and if I am wrong I am sure the minister will correct me in due course, that is what has happened. I mentioned this to you, and I will not repeat it other than to say we were talking about the less than 20 hours in a week and the not less than 30 per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings, which are the two main points. These matters have been dealt with by the order in council at a time when we were considering them, as we should in terms of the legislative process.
You will hear argument from the other side, particularly from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), that the government has the legal authority to do this. That raises a very serious question, because if the legal authority exists, the government has done by order in council-and once again I would direct your attention to the explanatory notes-what it is attempting to do under the authorities sought by these two provisions.
For the benefit of hon. members I will read this again. It is extremely important. The explanatory note in reference to
1948

December 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
clause 2, and these are the words 1 respectfully submit must be underlined, states:
This amendment would provide authority to make regulations providing that a week of employment must contain at least twenty hours-
If the minister had the authority to introduce the order in council, which I now question, why did he see to it that clause 2, which covers the very same matter, was included in the bill? If he did not have the authority, which the explanatory note would indicate to be the fact, then I respectfully submit the minister and his official are in serious error.
In conclusion, I would just say that if the parliamentary process as we know it is to function in a proper and meaningful way, without being a sham or a farce, and I will not emphasize those latter two descriptive words, we must abide by what is reasonable under the circumstances. We must be given an opportunity to rely on what this bill says.
The bill has been circulated across the country and states in dealing with clause 2 that it will not go into effect until the bill is proclaimed, rather than on January 1, 1979, as stated by the order in council. It says it becomes effective once the bill is proclaimed. We are entitled to rely not only on the explanatory note but on the application of clause 16. That is why I suggest, with all due respect, that the arguments put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, have great merit. I hope after due deliberation, and after hearing from other hon. members, Your Honour will find that this very serious matter should be referred to the appropriate standing committee for further deliberation and report back to the House.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we do admire the rhetorical talents and the heart with which the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) have spoken. It seems to me, and I submit this thought for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that they have in their submissions to you forgotten to stress a couple of thoughts which, in my opinion, are very relevant to this matter, namely, that the proclamation gazetted on November 8 is not a proclamation that did not stem from any power or legislation passed by this parliament. That proclamation flows from a statute already passed by this parliament and therefore it has its roots in a piece of legislation that has undergone parliamentary scrutiny.
[DOT] (MI2)
In essence, clause 2, which is under discussion, does two things: it narrows the powers outlined in the regulation that has been gazetted and it puts under parliamentary scrutiny, because of the transfer from a regulation into Bill C-14, a regulation which until now was in the regulations and now is being placed in the act for parliamentary scrutiny. It does, I submit, what we all know was recommended over the years by the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments when it was felt that the regulations ought to flow from laws of parliament and that they ought to be limited, and where possible, the powers ought to be included in the statutes themselves.

The regulation to which hon. members opposite are referring is rooted in an existing statute; it is not in a vacuum. It is valid, and is based on the powers of a piece of legislation that has been approved in the past. What Bill C-14 does, and specifically clause 2, is to narrow the scope of that regulation and submit the substance of it to parliamentary scrutiny. It is not something that has been gazetted. What has been objected to is not something that has been done in anticipation or by second guessing parliament-I am trying to quote hon. members opposite-it has not been done to bypass parliament or in anticipation of what parliament will do. It is a measure or a step taken by the government within the scope of an existing statute and not outside that, as I understand it.
I submit there is no evidence of any prima facie contempt of this House; there is no anticipation on the part of the government or the department that the bill will be approved. If anything-and here I would agree with the hon. member opposite-the explanatory note in the bill is badly worded. But it is just an explanatory note attempting to explain the scope of clause 2; that is all it is.
In many respects, Mr. Speaker, this is a linear or fairly straightforward question. To suggest that there is an attempt to bypass parliament or anticipate what parliament might do is without basis, in my opinion, in view of the fact that the regulation that has been gazetted is rooted in an existing statute previously approved by this House, the Senate and the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) because I consider that the proceedings before this House and the committee represent a serious breach of the confidence of this House and amount to a contempt of this House and contempt of the committee.
We have to examine what was actually done here. I realize we are getting close to a legal inquiry, but I think it is essential to set the stage for the point being made. The order in council issued on November 8 was issued, so we are told, by the department under authority of sections 4(1) and 4(3)(/) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which read as follows:
4. (I) The commission may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations for including in insurable employment
4. (3)(/) any employment in which persons are employed to an inconsiderable extent or for an inconsiderable consideration.
That is the authority under which the governor in council issued the regulation, and under which the regulation purported to exempt from unemployment insurance benefits any individual whose earnings are less than 30 per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings and any individual who works less than 20 hours a week.
The problem arises-and obviously the department has anticipated this-because the wording of Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act is perhaps too vague, too uncertain, in giving the department authority to make those specific regulations. I would suggest that the department realized this
December 8, 1978

when it presented clause 2 of Bill C-14 to this Elouse which provided authority to make precisely the same proposal that was presented in the regulations promulgated on November 8. That proclamation came from the authority of a statute passed by parliament some time ago, but I would disagree with the hon. member opposite who just spoke and said that all the clause tends to do is narrow the powers given to the government. It does not narrow any powers; it grants specific authority to deal with part-time workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act. His statement that the proper course of action is to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments is not relevant here.
The question of whether there was authority in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 to promulgate those regulations was never resolved. I think it is irrelevant. It is obvious that the department thought there was some doubt about their authority and they needed the specific proposal. Clause 2 provides specific authority to do what they have already done.
1 would suggest that the conduct of the department in this matter amounts to second guessing parliament and bypassing parliament. It is obvious that if the original regulation had been followed and they did have authority for its promulgation, the rejection by parliament of the proposal in clause 2 of Bill C-14 would raise questions about the validity of the regulation.
I do not think we should ask Your Honour to decide the legal question involved, but rather just what the department was putting before parliament in this case. The department was asking parliament for authority to make a specific regulation. It is very specific in its terms. It is not a genera! regulation. It is not granting the department wide powers to deal with part-time workers; it is granting specific authority under specific circumstances. By promulgating the regulation prior to this time the department, I submit, is anticipating parliament and second guessing what this House would do.
As to whether members of this House were misled or whether it was an honest mistake, that I do not think is the issue. I do not think there is any allegation that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead. But the misinformation created certain problems for members. Members have been dealing with this act for some time. Members of the committee have been dealing extensively with the act for some 32 or 33 meetings over the last several weeks. In reporting to constituents, the press and so on, it presents a real problem, because members and constituents are under the impression that this particular enactment would provide the power for the department to deal with part-time workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act. In the department's opinion we now find that no matter what we do to this particular enactment here in this House or in committee, the regulation has been promulgated already, and in its opinion it is valid.
Reference was made in committee-and I am not sure if it is proper to refer to committee debates-and the deputy minister mentioned this in debate, to the effect that it was
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
presented before, and he said he would check the record. We have checked the record and could not find where reference was made to the fact that this regulation has been issued prior to this time. What we were doing in the committee and this House was dealing with a provision that the government felt was not really necessary. The department had already promulgated it in the form of a regulation and therefore, in the opinion of the department, our time was being wasted and it really made a sham of the whole parliamentary process.
I submit to Your Honour that you should find a prima facie case of a breach of the privilege of this House.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a volunteer to speak on this particular issue.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The lawyer does it for no fee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, for no fee, just the approval of my colleagues at least on this side of the House.
I have some interest in the issue not only because as a member of this House I am concerned about the regularity with which things should be done, but also because I have the honour of being one of the co-chairmen of the statutory instruments committee. 1 have to point out to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this particular regulation would, in the normal course of events, come before our committee for consideration in any event. Because of the numbers of regulations which the government is spewing out day by day and week by week, it might well be four months, five months or six months before it comes to us, by which time an interesting event might have taken place, or maybe even some reversals of positions from one side of the House to the other.
Just a short time ago this House gave approval to the terms of reference and to criteria which the statutory instruments committee uses when it examines orders in council and regulations. Certainly one of the most important of those criteria is the one which is now being discussed, that is, the study of the regulation which is warranted legally under the terms of the enabling clause in the legislation. However, we go far beyond that. We also look at the question as to whether it violates natural justice, whether it is in accordance with human rights and whether there is an unusual or unexpected impact of a power which this House has granted which is being used by the government in a rather extraordinary way.
During the course of our deliberations over four or five years we have had some limited capacity in taming some of the departments, including this particular department. I cannot say they are eating out of our hands as yet, but at least they are listening to us. We are having a reasonable measure of success in persuading some of the bureaucracy who, when confronted with a committee which is usually unanimous, consisting of members of this and the other place, change, take back, vary, and sometimes even repeal regulations which offend our criteria.
I am not going to take part in the debate in substance, but it seems to me to be rather unusual if a committee of this House, distinct from the standing committee, were to examine this
80067-52*/2

December 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
particular issue and come to some conclusion about it, we would find ourselves seized with jurisdiction with respect to it maybe four or five months from now. We are not looking for work. I can assure Your Honour that with all governments and this bureaucracy we are guaranteed tremendous amounts of work so long as the committee is in existence, but it might well be that the committee on statutory instruments is the proper form to examine any issue should Your Honour come to a certain decision, and should the House decide that it is a matter which necessitates some examination. I just put those ideas forward for the benefit of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: As a result of the last intervention by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), 1 am wondering if there is any merit in considering the possibility of his committee getting to work at once on the examination of this particular regulation and statutory instrument, as it would do in the normal course in any event, and to suspend consideration of any matter of privilege until such time as the committee has had an opportunity to examine the regulation and report back to the House. That is in the normal course of the work of the statutory instruments committee. I am not considering that to be a special reference in any way. But as the hon. member has said, the statutory instruments committee in the normal course will have this before it, as it does all other regulations.
There seems to me to be two or three areas of argument here, and they are becoming intertwined. One of those has to do with whether or not the regulation has its roots in proper statutory authority. That is an argument that has not been waged by some members in support of this question of privilege, but it has been referred to by others. There also seems to be some argument as to whether or not this regulation and the section of the act referred to have an identical purpose. It would certainly help the Chair a great deal to be able to put those two questions aside. If the work of the statutory instruments committee, which will do that work any way, might accomplish that, it might be a worth-while consideration to think that this regulation be referred to them without prejudice to carrying this question of privilege forward after the statutory instruments committee has examined the regulation and reported to the House as it does in the normal course. From the point of the Chair this might be very helpful.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that is a very useful suggestion. However, it leaves us with one dilemma. We have a bill before us which contains a section which has already been incorporated by a statutory instrument, that is, by order in council, and we will have to address ourselves to that bill at third reading. If the debate on the bill can be suspended until the statutory instruments committee has a chance to deal with this, then that obviously would be the answer. If Your Honour would so rule, I think that would solve the problem.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, even in the preamble of the hon. member's question he suggested a section of the act has been proclaimed. That is not the case. We are dealing with a specific issue here. Mr. Speaker has indicated that legal authority was provided.

The timing aspect is significant. This view should be put and a ruling should be made. I do not think there is any question of contempt here or any breach of privilege. I would like to make my comments along that line.
It is fair to say that Bill C-14 with which we are dealing is a very complex piece of legislation. The issues have been hotly contested both before the bill was introduced and the announcement was made, and when the bill was tabled at first reading. Hon. members who have participated in the debate know that on occasion it has become somewhat rancorous.
I think the debate has been fruitful. It has been positive. There have been some suggestions on the bill here and there. We have had a thorough study of the bill. Witnesses appeared before the committee expressing their varying points of view. I believe we are now up to something like 32 meetings of the committee. It can hardly be said the bill has not received thorough study.
I am not in a position to suggest that we delay the implementation of this particular piece of legislation, important though it is, while we wait for the committee to study something I do not think in this instance has to be studied. The question of privilege can therefore be done away with.
One particular clause in Bill C-14 establishes a very specific and detailed regulation making authority. Members indicated they were not aware that there exists already a more general authority for similar regulations, and they were surprised to learn that a regulation had been made on October 26 under the existing authority.
1 would like to deal with several aspects of this matter today, Mr. Speaker. The legal issue is whether there is authority under the present Unemployment Insurance Act to make the regulations which were recently published in the Canada Gazette or whether the authority set out in clause 2 of Bill C-14 is essential in order to make the desired regulations. In discussing this issue it should be understood that the regulations pertain to standards to be used by National Revenue in determining whether certain employment shall be excepted from coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
When I determined the need to submit the regulations in question to the governor general in council for its approval, 1 was advised by my legal officers that there was present authority found in section 4(3)(f) of the act to support the making of the regulations and that it was not specifically necessary to await passage of Bill C-14. In fact the regulations replace earlier ones made under the same statutory authority which were never challenged as being ultra vires.
As all members should know, proposed regulations must be reviewed by Department of Justice officials, including the legal officers to the Privy Council office who examine the regulations in accordance with the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act. That examination also involves a determination as to whether there is proper statutory authority to make the proposed regulations. I am satisfied that the appro-
December 8, 1978

priate legal review was carried out correctly and that the regulations are proper. This is the difference.
The purpose of clause 2 in Bill C-14 is to provide cleaner and more limited authority respecting the power to make regulations of the type in question regarding excepted employment. I am seeking this authority after being advised by my legal counsel that, while present authority existed in the act, it was identified through broader wording than the government might desire in order clearly and specifically to identify exactly what the government wants as statutory authority for such regulations. As such, the introduction of clause 2 into law would re-identify the authority to make these regulations. In addition, once this new authority became effective, the government would propose to revoke the recently passed regulations and re-enact them under the authority identified in clause 2.
In short, with respect to the legal issue raised by the hon. member, I am satisfied with the legal advice given to me and have no doubt as to the legality of the actions of the government in this matter.
It has been asked whether the regulation passed is identical in substance and character to the wording of clause 2 of the bill. The regulations in clause 2 are not the same. They are of two separate characters. The regulation is the substantive provision for determining the exceptions for the type of employment.
Clause 2 is the statutory authority to make regulations and by itself does not provide the vehicle for legal authority to except employment from insurance coverage. The two provisions are for totally different purposes and are not an inconsistent or redundant duplication. I think that is the crux of the legal portion of the argument.
In the committee, hon. members did not probe the issue of comparability between the existing and proposed regulationmaking authority. They might have been expected to know that regulations relating to minimum insurability in terms of earnings and hours of work exist now. There was in fact a minimum insurability regulation in existence prior to Bill C-14. Hon. members should have been aware of that.
Undoubtedly it would have been helpful if the explanatory note in the bill had gone on to specify that the clause would define and limit an existing regulation-making authority that is too broad and loose.
It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of the opposition are claiming that they were asked to pass a meaningless and redundant clause in Bill C-14 when in fact that clause does exactly what they have been demanding for years, namely, limit regulation making authority by specific and clear direction in the act itself. That was and is the purpose of clause 2.
On the question of privilege, I have apologized to the committee for the fact that we did not make it clear to them that the clause in question was a refinement of an existing provision. I am convinced that one of my officials did point this out at one stage in the committee hearings. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there was absolutely no intent to
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
mislead. The order in council under the existing UI act was passed on October 26 and published in the Canada Gazette on November 8, a month ago. I regret that it did not come to the attention of hon. members of the opposition before yesterday, but that is surely not the government's fault.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars are made available to opposition parties for research staff. Surely one thing it should examine is the Canada Gazette, which comes out on a regular basis, in order to determine what regulations have been proclaimed and what regulations have been gazetted. They have that obligation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt hon. members.
I listened as courteously as I could to what they had to say in order to determine if I owed them another apology, or further apology. I wanted to know precisely what they felt was their question of privilege. I hope they will do me the courtesy of listening to my views.
This is singularly important to me because no less a person than the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) referred to me as a House of Commons man. I consider that a great privilege. I do not want to do anything to usurp the role of members of parliament. I have that reputation. I built it up in this place over something in excess of ten years. I have a feeling for my colleagues in this chamber, and I would not do anything to usurp their role.
Again with regard to the timing, this bill was gazetted on November 8. It was referred to the committee, and clause by clause study began on December 5. For practically a month they had that information. It was public information. Therefore it was available to the opposition. There was no attempt to hide anything. If we had done something such as having it gazetted for December 15 or some time beyond the bill, that might be a different case. However, there was no intention to mislead here.
We went through the usual channels and caused this particular proclamation. It was published and therefore became public information. 1 can hardly be held to blame for the fact that the opposition did not find out about it until a month later.
I have apologized to the committee, as have my officials, for what has occurred, however unintentional. But I am satisfied that our actions were completely legal and proper and that the course of debate in the committee would not have been different if the opposition had been aware that the clause they were considering was a clarification and limitation of existing regulation-making power rather than a completely new provision.
I am endeavouring to indicate that what we did was correct and proper. There was no intent to mislead. The regulation was published as the law requires. I can see that the explanatory note might have gone on further-I suspect that every

December 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
explanatory note could be longer and provide more information. But surely that is one of the purposes of a committee hearing-so that all the information with regard to a clause in a bill or a regulation made under it can be explained.
I concede that as a courtesy to the committee, having put this regulation through, I should have said to them, "By the way, the regulation which is needed in order to deal with all the hundreds of thousands of employers who have to get their computers and books in order, the Department of National Revenue which has to prepare its schedules, the Department of of Supply and Services which sends out hundreds, probably millions, of cheques in a year-the regulation to give them the necessary authority has been put through, and the regulation derived its statutory authority from the present act." Again I say there was no attempt to mislead or usurp authority. The regulation does not stand in the place of clause 2 of the bill. It performs a totally different function and on that basis I can hardly visualize your finding there is a question of privilege or that there has been contempt for members of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this point I see four other members who want to contribute to this discussion. I have no way of stopping them, but 1 wonder whether hon. members understand the limitation placed upon the Chair in this kind of argument. It is not a question whether the Chair accepts the proposition put forward by the minister or by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). This is a procedural problem, a question of privilege, and there are severe limitations on the authority of the Chair with respect to procedure. Whether the minister is correct or not in saying that the section and the regulation have two different purposes is not for me to judge on procedural grounds.
It is not my function to make a legal decision-to interpret the act and say, "This is the right interpretation, and that is wrong".
As long as the minister takes a position and says to the House, as he has done, that the section and the order in council have different purposes, it seems to me I am powerless to examine the matter further. There may be other grievances, other remedies which can be taken with respect to them, but we all have to recognize that rather severe procedural limitations are placed upon my ability to resolve this problem. I am prepared to listen to other contributions but I do not know they will get us anywhere.
We have a motion on the order paper with regard to social insurance numbers, we are rapidly running out of time, and I believe there are some important contributions to be made to that debate. I seek the indulgence of the House. If the House is satisfied I have heard all the argument I need to hear, and that other argument may be somewhat repetitious, I would think that either now, or very soon, I should be permitted to reserve my decision on this matter and consider over the weekend whether my initial impressions are wrong. 1 shall do that very studiously, but if my initial impressions are right I will make my ruling on Monday.
(Mr. Cullen.]
Unless there are some areas relative to what I have just said and from which I might get some helpful contributions, I would like to bring the discussion to a close because there are other questions of privilege of which I have received notice, one from the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) and another from the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan)-it is on the same subject as this one. I leave the matter in the hands of the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just two things to say with respect to this matter and perhaps, in a way, they will be helpful to the Chair. The first is this. I do not think we can ever reasonably argue, as the minister tried to do, with respect to the reviewing of the Canada Gazette, that it is always the responsibility of everyone when dealing with matters of this nature to make the assumption that the government has done something wrong and that the research offices must therefore search everything out to confirm that the government has done something wrong. That is the essence of what the hon. gentleman said. Surely that is not a tenable point.
The second matter I should like to raise is whether or not this subject should be referred in some way, either to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as set forward, or, perhaps, to the statutory instruments committee. This was one of the points you raised, Mr. Speaker. As the seconder of the motion in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) I am pleased to say that if that latter suggestion meets with Your Honour's approval as you consider the matter over the weekend, I would concur. I would go one step further and encourage you with respect to that course of action, because the committee was established precisely in order to deal with questions of this nature. It is well equipped, both in terms of counsel and of expertise-I need look to none other than the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) as the expert in this House to deal with an issue of this kind.
I rise with respect to the procedural aspect so that Your Honour may know that as a seconder I would concur if you felt, over the weekend, that that should be done.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about this question of privilege because I believe it affects all members of parliament in a very real way. If the department felt it had the necessary authority to pass this regulation, it should not have shown the contempt of asking a committee to look at it.
The order in council was passed on October 26 and published on November 8. The committee has not met. Either that regulation was legal or it was illegal. If it was legal, parliament should not have been faced with the problem. If it was illegal and they wanted parliament to endorse something to make it legal, and the committee had decided not to do that and abolish clause 2 or vote against clause 2, then parliament would have made one decision and the department would still be saying that the regulations were legal and would be left in place. I know of no case where departmental officials have
December 8, 1978

been allowed to overrule a decision of parliament. It is a little like discussing capital punishment. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) wants to hang someone and he has a friend in the Department of Public Works who is building all the platforms and getting them ready, whether parliament wants to hang people or not!
Another factor that enters into this is that we always have to depend on the law officers. In every department I find ministers hiding behind the law officers. Who the hell are they? I don't know. But they are like lawyers in general. Whoever hires them gets the advice they ask for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: We had an interesting meeting with the minister who is so interested in parliamentary procedure and events in the past. There was some discussion about imports back in 1962 when John Diefenbaker was prime minister. Several days after that parliament ended, he passed an order in council dealing with imports, which eventually was challenged in the courts. The leader of the Liberal government had the same law officers. We were told in the 1963 parliament that those law officers had said it was legal, but when it went to the courts the law officers got cold feet and asked the government to pass a bill to regularize the situation. A bill was passed in 1963 establishing those import laws retroactively, because it was anticipated they would be thrown out by the courts. That is exactly the same situation this time.
The minister does not know whether this regulation is legal or illegal. He has to take somebody's advice. He is paying people to give him the advice he wants. That order in council is standing in line waiting behind a number of other things. A lot of time will go by. In the meantime he tries to pass the bill. If the bill passes, there will be an order in council. That order in council will be added to the line, and the illegal one will be withdrawn. That is what members of parliament are faced with.
I will read the first part of the explanatory note to clause 2 as follows:
This amendment would provide authority to make regulations providing that-
Then it refers to two specifics, the length of the week and maximum insurable earnings. This is a new clause. The minister says it is necessary to make this order in council and to make it specific. If this bill does not pass, in my opinion that order in council would not stand up in any court.


Charles L. Caccia: Not so.


William Arnold Peters: The apologist for the government says that is not so. That is not what the minister thought. That was not the advice he received. He was advised to get this clause through so that there would be authority. My privileges are being abused. When I go to a committee-


Mr. Maine:: First time.
Privilege-Mr. McGrath


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says "first time", but I have been in the committee several times. I admit that I am not a member of that committee, but if Your Honour saw the game of musical chairs which went on in that committee, Your Honour would be surprised. Most members do not even know what the bill is about. What did the parliamentary secretary do last night? He wanted to continue when all the other members went home at the normal adjournment hour. He wanted to continue so that he could ram the bill through without any opposition. It seems to me that members of parliament should be able to depend on the integrity of the law officers of the Crown and of the minister. We have to have some faith in the whole structure, and ministers certainly have some responsibility regarding the legislation they put forward.
If that clause was not necessary, it should not have been there. If we had defeated it, it still would have applied by virtue of the regulation the law officers said was legal. Where would that put us? Parliament would have decided against it, yet it would have become a fact. Would the minister have got up and said that because of a certain ruling he would withdraw it? Nuts to that! The only reason he wants this authority is that he needs time to get this matter to the Department of National Revenue and to get forms made up for income tax purposes for employers who will be making deductions in accordance with this new category of work week.
The order in council was passed as a matter of expediency. The government knew it would never have to take this order in council to court because before its becoming effective, January 1 would have arrived, and the government anticipated the bill would have been passed by January 1. The dummy regulation would have been standing in place so that employers and the Department of National Revenue could have oriented their computers and their bookkeeping to that system. In the meantime a legal order in council would have been passed. That is the worst kind of abuse the government could inflict on members of parliament and on this country. It indicates, as nothing else does, the inability of this government to govern and to operate as a supervisor of civil servants, who are supposed to serve the government, and its tendency to act as a stoolie for civil servants.


Mr. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that three questions have been raised by yourself and by the minister. One question relates to the regulation which was proclaimed, that regulation being the same as clause 2. The second question is whether this represents a change from the previous legislation. The third question is whether the government had the power to do what it did. I want to deal with these questions, one at a time.
I would like to leave for Your Honour documents provided to us by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) outlining what he intended to do through clause 2 of the bill. These documents are entitled "Highlights of the Proposed Amendments". It seems to me quite clear that if one reads through these documents, one finds that the regulation which was gazetted was identical to what was being put before the House.

December 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
The second question is whether this regulation which was gazetted changed the current law. We have the word of the minister here in his summary, which reads as follows:
The proposal would change the basis of minimum insurability.
Further on it reads as follows:
Because the present formula allows some individuals to work very few hours a week to qualify for UI benefits, the proposal would reduce the disincentives to work.
Under the heading "Impact of the change" we find the following:
One effect will be to exclude from insurable employment those individuals who are able to earn a relatively large wage in only a few hours a week.
There are clear and repetitious references in the documents provided by the minister to the effect that the bill represents a change from the previous legislation. In addition, these documents were given to us when the bill was prepared. We see that the proposed effective date of the regulation is January 1, 1979, when in fact the regulation was already in place by order in council.
The third question with which 1 want to deal is the question of power. I want to deal with this just briefly because, as the minister has stated, the government relies entirely on section 4(3)(/) to make its case that the regulation which was gazetted is within its power. As was mentioned previously, that regulation said that the government could exclude any employment in which persons are employed to an inconsiderable extent or for an inconsiderable consideration. It seems to me that it is quite clear that if the regulation which was gazetted excludes one additional person who could not have been excluded under the prior act, that represents taking the law into one's own hands because the government did not have the authority to exclude that individual person.
The government has admitted that this change in clause 2 would exclude some 42,000 persons, but 1 would like to put forward for Your Honour's consideration the cases of two specific individuals who I do not believe could have been excluded under the previous legislation and who are clearly excluded now. I believe Your Honour can see that there is prima facie evidence that the rights of parliament and its sole right to make law have been breached.
One of the two individuals I would like to use as an example is a part-time school teacher. Typically, such a school teacher earns from $9,000 to $11,000 a year. That amount exceeds the average wage in the country. The dictionary definition of "inconsiderable" is "small, of little consequence or trivial". 1 do not think any person could agree that such a school teacher is employed for an inconsiderable consideration.
The second point is whether such a person is employed to an inconsiderable extent, because as part of his duties he would likely have to report for work at about eight in the morning. He would likely leave about one in the afternoon. He would have to mark tests and so forth in the course of carrying out his duties. He is under contract, and I do not believe any reasonable person could conceivably argue that he is working to an inconsiderable extent.
Therefore, I think it is a clearcut example of a person who would be specifically excluded under clause 2 of Bill C-14, if it were passed, who is excluded under the regulation which was gazetted, and who could not conceivably have been excluded under section 4(3)(/) which the minister cites as his authority.
The second example which I would like to cite is that of the longshoremen in Toronto. We have a two employer system for the longshoremen's union in Toronto. The two employers are the Toronto Harbour Commission and the Maritime Employers' Association. It is quite possible for a longshoreman to work 38 hours a week, 19 hours for the harbour commission and 19 hours for the Maritime Employers' Association, to receive pay that is considerably higher than the average pay in the country, to work considerably longer than the average hours worked in the country, and yet be excluded under the regulation which was gazetted. I do not believe there is any conceivable way they could be excluded under the current act, and therefore it is quite clear that the regulation which was gazetted does, in fact, as indicated in the minister's explanatory notes to Bill C-14, represent a significant change from what was provided under the prior act.
The final point I want to make concerns my own question of privilege to which I should like to speak for about 30 seconds. 1 raised the point on November 28 of the impact of clause 2, and in the cross-examination, which is reported at pages 963 and 964 of the committee's proceedings, the deputy minister stated that when the act is amended, provisions will be introduced by regulation, which provisions could be changed from time to time. There was no hint at all that the regulations had already been introduced and that they were in force.
I refer back to the quotation cited by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) from May's nineteenth edition to the effect that if there was a suppression of truth by witnesses, that constituted a breach of privilege.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to intervene briefly on this question of procedure because there is a point which I wish to make which has not been dealt with and which I feel concerns the very invidious position in which we are placed as members of parliament working on committees vis-a-vis the witnesses who appear before committees.
It is evident in this case that there is, and has been, contempt with regard to the witnesses who appeared. I want to make particular reference to two groups which appeared before the committee for a specific reason. One of the major reasons that they came before the committee was to deal with this particular clause of the bill, a matter which has been raised on a number of occasions by women in particular because it has special significance with regard to women in the work force. Some 22 per cent of women in the work force, almost one million Canadian women in the labour force, are employed on a part-time basis.
The Advisory Committee on the Status of Women and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women both

December 8, 1978

appeared as witnesses before the parliamentary committee. The Advisory Committee on the Status of Women appeared on November 21, and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women appeared on November 27. Both directed many of their remarks to this clause in the bill. They were protesting the provision as it pertains to part-time workers. They had no idea at the time they were making their intervention that the order in council dealing with this specific provision had already been enacted.
What I find very interesting in the remarks of the minister is that he has made the rather fallacious argument that members of parliament should have been aware of what was gazetted. I have no doubt that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), when he gets up every morning, reads the Canada Gazette as his first order of business.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is a real best seller.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: But I am not sure that everyboby does that. However, it was quite evident, when representatives of these women's groups addressing this issue were before the committee, that they had not been informed that such an order in council had already put this provision into effect.
If the minister feels that members of parliament should have been aware of that provision-and he may have reason for feeling that members of parliament should have been informed-surely it was the duty of his officials sitting in committee on those two occasions to inform those witnesses of what had been promulgated by the order in council. Surely it was their duty, knowing that the representatives of these women's groups were raising this very point, to inform them at that time. That is what makes a mockery of the whole proceedings. Witnesses come before committees to deal with a specific piece of legislation and they are not even informed that their arguments are no longer relevant.
The reason 1 say that it is a form of contempt on behalf of the witnesses is that it can only lead to more cynicism on the part of people who appear before parliamentary committees to make justifiable arguments which they want to put forward strongly. If we are going to make a mockery of the system in that way, and if we are going to allow ourselves to be party to undermining the system in that way, then I think it is not only a contempt and a breach of the privileges of members of parliament but a contempt and breach of the privileges of every witness and of every Canadian citizen who appears before a parliamentary committee and is so treated.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, i want to take a few minutes to give my thoughts on this question of privilege because 1 have been a member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration from the time we started discussing Bill C-14. At no point was I aware or had an indication from the minister or from officials of the department that, when we came to examine clause 2, what we were discussing did not matter because it was already the law. Just suppose the committee had defeated clause 2, what then? The answer is, of course, that it would still be the law because
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
the order in council would have stood as the law. We were there as members of parliament believing that we had some control over the legislation which was being examined in committee when, in effect, we had no control at all.
The minister and the officials put forward the argument that they have the legal right to do this, and they quoted the section of the act under which they claim they have the legal right. If they had the legal right to do it, then why did they need to repeat verbatim the same clause in Bill C-14? If they had the authority of the order in council, then why make fools of members of parliament and have us go through the charade of thinking that we could decide whether or not that clause was acceptable and would become law?
That seems to be an extremely important point because what the officials are saying to members of parliament and what the government is saying, in effect, is: be fruitful, go forth and multiply. All of us resent that type of treatment. At no point during committee stage, up until yesterday, were we informed that there was an order in council which made that particular clause in the bill effective.
Deliberations on Bill C-14 ought to be suspended, and a reference ought to be made to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments for examination of this particular regulation. How often is this repeated in other legislation? If 1 introduced a private member's bill in the House of Commons for something which is already the law- for example, a private member's bill requesting an unemployment insurance program in Canada-the first thing I would be told is that it was out of order because an unemployment insurance program already exists in Canada. How can the government bring in a bill which contains a clause that is law already ? The entire question is out of order.
The Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments ought to look at this particular situation occasioned by the order in council. The committee could expedite its deliberations on this particular point and bring back a decision to the House on which the House may decide before going forward with the consideration of Bill C-14.
It is an extremely important principle. The people of Nickel Belt and the constituents of all members are under the impression that somehow their members of parliament have some control over the legislative system in the country. Lo and behold, this particular incident indicates how foolhardy we have been concerning the democratic process. In effect, members of parliament do not have control. The bureaucrats and the government have complete control. It is a sham and a shambles to think hon. members have control. I resent that on behalf of the people of Nickel Belt and all other Canadians.
The government is in contempt of parliament. I have no hesitation in making that charge. The minister, the officials in his department, and the government are in contempt of parliament. They should have come clean and told us the truth. We did not receive the truth. We received an apology, which they hoped would move things forward in committee yesterday.

December 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
This is an extremely serious matter. They ought not to be let off without a proper examination of this principle. The bill should not go forward until the matter is cleared up to the satisfaction of all members and the people they represent.


Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of briefly participating in the question of privilege before the House. I should like to deal with this matter and the manner in which it is hurtful to members of my constituency and perhaps others. Obviously I will not go over the ground already covered by other hon. members. I am referring to the longshoremen of the city of Toronto. They will be affected seriously by the legislation and/or the regulation, whichever comes first.
The longshoremen first read about this matter on November 3, 1978, at which time an article appeared in the Globe and Mail. In part it read:
Thousands would no longer be insured by the program-for example, the longshoreman who works a few hours on the weekend for extremely high wages.
Shortly after that, the longshoremen were in touch with me. The reason for their particular concern relating to the ongoing process before the House and committee is that there are two ports in the country unlike other ports in terms of the manner in which longshoremen are employed. The ports of Hamilton and Toronto offer opportunities to longshoremen via a variety of employers. The legislation always contemplated one single employer. These ports function with two employer groups, the MEA and the Toronto Harbour Commission of the city of Toronto.
The situation is difficult for longshoremen in Toronto and Hamilton, given the circumstances of trade in those two ports during the last five to seven years, because they cannot receive up to 20 hours' work from one single employer. If this piece of legislation passes, or if the regulation goes through, they will not be insured.
After the longshoremen contacted me, I indicated that the bill had been introduced for second reading, that it was now before committee, and that the opportunity to make their views known would be before the committee. They believed in the process as much as I and felt that it was fair. At the same time as the matter came to committee, I found out that regulation 54 had been revoked. That regulation placed the longshoremen in exactly the same circumstance as the new legislation would have if passed. Not only did they have no opportunity to say anything, but they believed, as most people across the country do, that the idea of legislation before the House is to debate principles, refer it to committee, and allow people affected to say something about it.
As it stands now, the difficulty facing the longshoremen of Toronto is that essentially they are involved in a Catch 22 situation. They cannot speak to the legislation as it stands. They do not want the legislation to pass, particularly respecting clause 2, because it effectively "disinsures" them. To be told that it does not matter whether they come to the committee or whether the legislation passes, that in fact three weeks

ago the government passed a regulation "disinsuring" them, abuses the process as it affects them.
It is not merely a question of the privileges of the members of the House. If the privileges mean anything at all, they mean something to the people affected by the legislation passed. The regulation means that the longshoremen in the city of Toronto are no longer able to achieve insurability respecting unemployment insurance. It is not because, as the minister suggested in one of his press releases, that the government is attempting to deal with those who make a lot of money over the weekend. The average wage on an hourly basis for longshoremen in Toronto is $11,500.


An hon. Member:: On an hourly basis?


David Edward Crombie: Perhaps it is funny to be smart, but if a person has to live on $ 11,500-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member said "on an hourly basis".


David Edward Crombie: Obviously no one receives $11,500 an hour; I assumed hon. members opposite would understand that. Longshoremen receive $11,500 a year. According to contract, they must be available seven days a week. I am not talking about people who are slacking. I am not talking about people who can make a lot of quick money on the side. I am talking about people with average salaries of $11,500, people who must be available for seven days a week. Also they work in ports which are not designated as deep water ports. Therefore, their ability to carry out responsibilities as people looking after their families will be non-existent if the regulation or the legislation goes through. They would like to have an opportunity to make that point.
There is only one possible salvation for them. Perhaps an agreement will be reached between the MEA and the Toronto Harbour Commission for an employer of record. I mentioned that to the minister and he indicated that he thought something could be worked out. Given what I have heard today, I suggest it cannot be worked out by January 1, and that is the difficulty.
I conclude by suggesting that anyone who, for the first time, followed through on the problem of a constituent or a large number of people who were affected by a bill referred to a committee and found that it did not matter because in fact there was a regulation which covered it and, therefore, the people who were affected by it had no effective say, would consider that as not a very good introduction for someone handling the problem, such as is the case with the longshoremen, who were involved in this sort of thing before.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be short. I did not intend to intervene, but when listening to the debate I noted the coming together of three sets of coincidences which made me feel that my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath),
December 8, 1978

has a very valid point in this question of privilege. If we were somewhere else we might describe this as a matter of contempt, because it does boil down to a contempt of this House. It is on this ground that I want to describe these three sets of coincidences.
There is in addition a fourth argument which I should like to touch upon briefly. It really strains my ability to accept the arguments advanced by the other side. I get the feeling when you take these three sets of circumstances together that there might be a fourth question, so to speak, which strains even further the credibility of the argument put forward. This may convince Your Honour that the case has been well founded.
The first set of coincidences relates to the dates. The order in council, PC 1978-3243, is dated October 26. The bill was introduced on November 2, about a week later. The order in council was gazetted a week later on November 8. Then the bill was adopted and referred to the committee. I believe the date of its reference was December 5. Those four dates, October 26, November 2, November 8 and December 5, with a debate in between, suggest there is a certain amount of haste on the part of the government.
The second circumstance or coincidence, and it would strain the imagination if it were not a coincidence, is that what we are doing here is adding a new paragraph after paragraph (g) namely, paragraph (h). That paragraph makes reference to the 20 hours a week and the less than 30 per cent of maximum weekly insurable earnings. They were not referred to in the previous section. There also appears a reference to the 20 hours and the 30 per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings in the regulations. We must keep in mind that these regulations were published before the bill was introduced. They were approved in cabinet before the bill was presented to the House. It was presented to the House on November 2 and gazetted with these same terms on November 8. That is the second set of circumstances.
Having regard to the third set of circumstances, I noted with absolute amazement the number of times this committee met. It meets four times on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It met again this morning. There are very few committees that meet ten times in a week. I can account for nine of its meetings and there may have been another on Monday morning, which would make ten committee meetings in a week. What is the reason for all this urgency? We knew on December 8 through the order in council that the new regulations come into effect on the first day of next year. The bill, after being considered by the committee, will come back to the House for report stage and debate. Obviously the government wants to get this bill through the House by the end of this month in order to justify the date set out in the Canada Gazette regarding the regulations, and in order to justify or legitimize, so to speak, the order in council which was gazetted on November 8.
The fourth matter which is of a somewhat different nature, and perhaps not as grave as this pre-emption of the rights of parliament, relates to a press release. 1 came to Ottawa with the firm belief that this parliament had some meaningful role to play in legislation that would have a bearing on the lives of
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
the Canadian people. When I found this sort of thing could be done through order in council rather than by legislation I became greatly disillusioned. I am very disillusioned by the performance of a government which acts in this way.
The date of this press release which I happened to come across the other day does not matter very much, but it is November 30. It was issued by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). It is to be noted that at the top left hand corner the department is noted as "Fisheries and Environment". The press release refers to fisheries and oceans, assistant deputy ministers appointed. The first sentence in the text is interesting. It states in part that "A major re-structuring of the emerging fisheries and oceans department" will come into effect on a certain date.
I rose to my feet during the question period, as did a lot of other people, to ask the minister if he was changing the name of his department. This government changes things by gazetting them before the existence of substantiating legislation. This government changes things by press release before there is any legislation, as in this case, changing the name of the department to the "Department of Fisheries and Oceans". To my way of thinking, this develops a brand new theory of legislative process. I can only describe it as legislation required to legitimize regulation. I am sure even Laski did not produce such a theory of government. The only place I know of where legislation follows the putting into place of regulation is one of the supreme councils of the people's democratic republic. I suggest this is the direction we are going.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated earlier, I will give this matter careful consideration over the weekend.
Before moving to orders of the day, there are two other questions of privilege of which I have received notice. The first is raised by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte).
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to rise on this question of privilege which concerns me personally and highly interests the 70,000 residents of the Champlain riding who feel rejected because their own member is helpless under the policy enforced by the Chair when it comes to my right to speak during general debates or during question period or on motions. Allow me to point out the essential issue which has given rise to a real question of privilege.
First, you will admit with me that this assembly is made up of 264 members enjoying equal rights and privileges. If some are ready to abdicate their own independence and freedom for the sake of a strict party line, allow me to do differently. During some ten years while I sat as a member of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I always kept my freedom of action. It is indeed the lack of democratic freedom and the irresponsibility of that party which have led me to resign from its ranks. I am not responsible to anyone except to the electors of the

December 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
Champlain constituency of whom I am trying to be the worthy and proud representative.
Mr. Speaker, under what basic principles would you not recognize the spokesman for the riding of Champlain since he has been sitting as an independent? Under what rule is priority given to the eight members sitting immediately before me and to another one dragging a leg on my left? You will tell me that there has been tolerance. I will not accept that inadmissible tolerance when it goes against the interests of my constituents. 1 admit that it is difficult for Your Honour always to make a wise and fair choice of speakers in the debates on speeches from the throne and budgets. The same goes for motions under Standing Order 43 or the question period. However, 1 cannot tolerate without expressing my indignation being systematically eliminated from a reasonable participation in the heat of the action in this House.
As 1 already wrote you in previous correspondence, that is all the more revolting as the taxpayers of Champlain in particular, and the taxpayers of Quebec as a whole generally, were used to hearing me regularly defend their interests, denounce injustices and try to promote the profound aspirations of a large number of Quebeckers. Why silence that voice? Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly do not have the monopoly of expression from Quebec in this parliament but I think that all my colleagues will admit that 1 am the only one who openly wants a constitutional change through a restructuring of Canada that is closely related to the sovereignty-association option being advocated by the government of Quebec. Do you not think that is it good that at least from time to time all members of this House and consequently the whole people of this country should know that at least one member was not caught off guard by the election in Quebec on November 15, 1976? Is that not an excellent means of trying to harmonize different opinions and thus create a climate of sound objectivity with respect to the future of this country?
You may answer me from your chair with arguments like tradition or even regular attendance. I will answer beforehand that tradition should not supersede justice and that I am not interested in having the people of my riding see their member of parliament silent in the action. 1 will not warm up a seat in this place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) to raise a question of privilege, and he understands very well that there is no question of privilege. The suggestion that he is systematically avoided in the selection of those who may rise in this House is completely false. The hon. member must realize, I am sure, that although he sits as an independent member, during proceedings for example he wanted to take part in the throne speech debate, a debate which is limited by our Standing Orders. Now the difficulty for the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, whatever the

circumstances, is to recognize members according to the time allotted to different parties in this House, including independent members.
If I remember correctly, at least one of the independent members took part in the throne speech debate and another one took part recently in the budget debate. If it was not the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), this was certainly not the fault of the Chair. If the hon. member wants to suggest that the fact that the Chair recognized another independent member to take part in the budget debate violated his rights, I would like to point out that this is quite untrue. Second, it is against our rules and our traditions to suggest that the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or one of the Acting Speakers have deliberately made their choice in violation of the rights of the hon. member or some other member. Of course, there can be certain limitations, even as concerns government members during question period, since each day I can recognize only one government member among seven, eight or ten who regularly seek to be recognized to ask a question. It is the same for opposition members. Since we must distribute the time of debate among members of the various political parties, the same problem exists for independent members. The Chair always tries to be fair when allocating the time available to the members of the House and it recognized one independent member during the budget debate and another one during the throne speech debate. If we went to the trouble of making an exact calculation, we would see that the Chair has been more than fair towards independent members. This is what has always been done in the past. On occasion, I try to recognize one or another of the independent members during question period. In view of the number of members from other parties in the House, I have the impression that the independent member is not only treated fairly, but most generously. I must now put an end to the contribution of the hon. member for Champlain because I am sure that he now realizes that this is not a question of privilege any more than a point of order. If he wants to discuss something privately with the Speaker, this can always be arranged. However, he does not have a question of privilege.
[English}


MR. GOODALE-INACCURATE REPORTING BY MEDIA OF MR. SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this particular hour with some hesitancy, as I think the House might understand given the events of the last two or three days. I rise both as a member of parliament who does not want to see the work of this House unduly delayed or interfered with on procedural matters, and also as a former journalist and news reporter who has a very high regard for those who are charged with what is a serious responsibility of reporting the news to the people of Canada.
The question of privilege which I put before you for consideration this afternoon arises from events in the House of the
December 8, 1978

last two days relating to the issues raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). In particular I would refer to media reports today of those events which unfortunately serve to perpetuate two erroneous points. There has been an enormous amount of rhetoric on these issues in this House this week and some genuine disagreement with respect to the substance of the issues, but on the two particular points that I want to refer to this afternoon I do not believe there is any question of disagreement in the House as to the proper interpretation to be given to those points-no disagreement on this side, no disagreement with the Chair, and as far as I know no disagreement even from the opposition. Yet these two areas continue to be misreported or commented upon in the media in a fashion which clearly leaves a wrong public impression in a way I fear may affect privileges of members.
The two specific points are these: first, a misinterpretation of the meaning of your ruling on a prima facie case of privilege to be put to the House; second, the inference that an hon. member was deliberately misled by a minister or by the government.
To show the problem, Mr. Speaker, I would simply refer to one media report. There may well have been others, but I refer to one specifically which was carried by the CBC. It was a CBC news report on a program called "The World at Eight" carried across Canada this morning. I have a complete transcript of the newscast before me now. I will not take the time of the House to read it all, but the parts which I think are questionable I will refer to in due course. The second item on this program purported to report on the events in this House over the last two days. With reference to the first of the points I mentioned a moment ago, the CBC broadcast began with a headline at the beginning of that program claiming that for the last two days the House had been debating something called "ministerial privilege." I believe that is a concept which is totally unknown to constitutional lawyers or political scientists, and certainly not one that was before the House on Wednesday and Thursday of this week.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to restrict unduly the hon. member, but surely he does not expect me now to allow him to criticize the quality of broadcasts unless he has some specific point. Even yesterday when I was at pains to say that I was dismayed by the inaccuracy of reports, in my own decision I indicated even then that 1 did not think it had procedural significance. 1 simply put it on the record because 1 think we were all rather surprised by the misinterpretation. If the hon. member has a separate point from what I said yesterday and one that clearly relates to a question of privilege, it will have to be something more than a criticism of the quality of reporting.


Ralph Goodale: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 think I have a point that will meet the requirements that you have just made. If it does not, I would welcome your advice with respect to it. To get to the substance beyond the headline, the CBC said that it is- and I quote from the transcript:
-unusual for the House to overturn a decision of the Speaker.
Social Insurance Numbers
Those were the words used on the program this morning. In its vote last night, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the House did no such thing, and that point is absolutely clear.


Walter David Baker: Now you are in breach of the Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I will give the hon. member an opportunity another time. Yesterday I said I would try to be careful not to draw conclusions respecting these things. We have to be very careful where we are dealing with areas of opinion. We have to be very careful in this House to make sure that we do not in any way even appear to interfere with journalists. As long as the matter is left in the area of opinion I do not think the matter should be touched by this House. In a situation in which there are factual inaccuracies, not differences of opinion, I think they should be addressed by the House. That is what I was attempting to do yesterday.
If the hon. member wants to raise this again, I will be glad to hear from him, but I think that matter has been dealt with rather thoroughly. But unless there is a clear factual transgression, which I am sure he would have mentioned by now, to get into differences of opinion as to whether or not the rarity of the House in deciding one way when the Chair has decided another is something I do not think we can launch upon on a question of privilege, particularly since we have just had two days of debate and a vote last night on the subject matter to which the hon. member addresses himself. Therefore with regret, I think I will have to go on to orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That this House, concerned by the threats to personal privacy posed by the Government's violation of its commitment to confine the use of the social insurance number to social security programs, accepts the recommendation of the Task Force on Privacy and Computers in 1972 that a single identifying number for individuals should not be adopted, directly or indirectly, without a full prior examination and public debate of its consequences, and calls upon the government to immediately introduce legislation establishing guidelines and limitations upon the use of the social insurance number or other identification numbers in order to protect Canadians against threats to personal privacy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I was going to extemporize at some length today, but in view of the truncated nature of this debate I will follow my notes fairly closely so that I can put on the record some important and I think germane observations and recommendations with respect to this important issue.
In 1974, Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina opened the United States Senate hearings on privacy legislation with these words:

December 8, 1978
Social Insurance Numbers
Privacy, like many of the other attributes of freedom, can be easiest appreciated when it no longer exists. A complacent citizenry only becomes outraged about its loss of integrity and individuality when the aggrandizement of power in the government becomes excessive. By then, it may be too late.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to speak on the need for public debate on a matter of great significance for personal privacy, namely, the use and extension of social insurance numbers, 1 cannot help but feel that the complacency does not lie so much with the citizenry but rather with the government and its unwillingness to engage the Canadian people in such a debate.
Traditionally, Mr. Speaker, the recourse for the citizen, if he felt abused or contraried, was parliament. As the scene of a continuing electoral battle, parliament was the privileged spot for debates on all major issues and trends. Furthermore, parliament guaranteed the citizen the opportunity to bring his grievances to the attention of the Crown. Indeed, one of the major precepts of parliamentary tradition states "grievance before supply".
In recent years, however, especially the administration in the Trudeau years, there has been a growing public awareness that the role of parliament has been downplayed. The attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the decorum of the House, both in his many linguistic profanities and in his opinions of members; the scandalous consideration of estimates; the increasing size of the Prime Minister's office; the lack of attention and abandonment of any attempt to revitalize the committee system; the refusal to introduce freedom of information laws, all these factors have tended to downplay the role of parliament.
It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the ordinary citizen has little faith in seeing his grievances solved, or in hoping to stop trends which are disconcerting to him. In the case of social insurance numbers, this has been obvious.
The extension of SIN has occurred without parliamentary debate or a full examination of the merits and consequences. Despite government guarantees to limit the use of SIN, successive Liberal governments have forged ahead, surreptitiously but purposefully, to promote the extension of SIN within the government. This expansion within the federal government has been paralleled with increasing use of the SIN within provincial governments and in the private sector, partly due to its convenience and economy.
Yet parliament, the traditional scene for debate and examination, has never been seized with the issue. Liberal governments have refused to make the extension of SIN an issue to discuss. Part of the problem arises from the long reign of power by Liberal governments. The present government has become insensitive and complacent to the needs of the Canadian people. The government does not see the dangers or understand the issues involved with the extension of SIN.
The response of this government to our parliamentary inquiries on the use and extension of SIN has been typical of this
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.J
government's insensitivity to real worries expressed by concerned citizens and by the opposition. I have some examples.
On October 27, 1978, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) what was the government's policy on the extension of social insurance numbers. She replied, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, that question is very bizarre ... It is quite in order that in the future social insurance numbers will be used more and more. More computers are being used in every department, whether provincial or federal.
Obviously, only a minister totally unaware of the ordinary citizen's concern could qualify such a question as bizarre. Furthermore, like many Canadians, I do not recall authorizing the government to expand the use of social insurance numbers.
On November 2, 1978, in response to a question from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) replied:
-a program can be better administered as a result of using numbers, whether it is for income tax, bank accounts or whatever. I indicated in my answer that as far as the use of SIN numbers is concerned, we do not encourage their use outside the federal government.
While admitting the dangers of extended use, he did not feel it necessary to limit the use of social insurance numbers in the federal government.
On November 3, 1978, when it was pointed out to the Minister of Employment and Immigration by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) that SIN was used beyond the three fields to which parliament has given legislative authority and was used by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) in connection with firearms acquisition, the minister did not deny it.
On the same day, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised a question of privilege. He contended that, by forcing Canadians to present social insurance numbers in order to cash their savings bonds, a form of intimidation was being used to force Canadians to get a SIN number. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) answered that Canadians had ample warning by means of a press release dated June 2, 1977. This government, Mr. Speaker, acts so smugly that it presumes that its press releases supersede the importance of parliamentary debate.
Furthermore, on October 31, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) introduced a private member's bill to remove the necessity of presenting a social insurance number in order to cash Canada Savings Bonds. Once again, the government's attitude reflected its smug insensitivity. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance summed up the government's feeling on the subject as follows:
We are living in a computer age whether we like it or not . . . Everybody works by means of identification of accounts through a number system. This is simply done to ease administration, to facilitate the handling of thousands and thousands of accounts, and to simply make things easier in terms of administration of many thousands of documents.
For this government, accustomed to the bureaucratic routine and insulated from the concerns of individuals, the issue is seen solely in terms of administrative convenience. They do not

December 8, 1978

understand Canadians' worries and misgivings about the extension of the social insurance number. It is not surprising that they have treated this issue so cavalierly. It is no wonder they refuse to have a debate on this issue.
In light of the government's obvious insensitivity to the issue, and aware that the extension of SIN troubles many Canadians, my colleagues and I have decided to use this allotted day to move a motion which will allow parliamentary debate on the use of social insurance numbers and to force the government to introduce guidelines to limit their use.
What are the uses of SIN? My first area of concern touches the extension in the use of the social insurance number. Without any fanfare, without great fuss, without even a word of debate, the social insurance number has evolved secretly and slowly into a de facto national identification card. Its use has progressed slowly but surely in both the public sector and the private sector. Let us look at some of the present day uses of social insurance numbers. Let us draw some attention finally to this innocuous number that has begun to pervade our lives and insinuate itself into all aspects of our existence.
In 1964, the social insurance number saw the light of day. Created for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan, the number was to be limited to social security programs. Members of parliament who enacted the law thought they were merely providing a means to administer a new program. Any suspicions of other uses for the card, any suspicions that the card would become a national ID, were allayed by the repeated assurances of the then prime minister and his colleagues who claimed insistently that the numbers would not become national identity cards.
Fifteen years later, how do these guarantees stand up to reality? Is the social insurance number still limited to social security programs? Let us see.
In the federal government, the social insurance number has become a key registration and administrative number for numerous programs and various departments. It is used for unemployment insurance programs; for taxpayer identification; for identification of all federal employees; for registration of all purchasers of Canada Savings Bonds; for the military number of all Canadian Forces personnel; for gun registration with the Solicitor General; for permits to hunt in certain areas of Quebec. In addition, it is used as a prime identifier in computer banks in different agencies, varying from use in the computers of the external affairs department to its utilization in the computers of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation.
Not only is the social insurance number pervasive in the workings of the federal government, but provincial governments have adopted the social insurance number as one of their own. For example, the school systems of Saskatchewan and Ontario use social insurance numbers for record keeping for students in senior grades. Motor vehicle drivers' records in Quebec and hunting licences in Manitoba are recorded by social insurance numbers. Recently, Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the P.E.I. government reached an agreement to register all newborn babies in that province.
Social Insurance Numbers
As hon. members can see, the social insurance number has become, without parliamentary authority or approval, an identification card within the government and, if I may say so, within the different levels of government. The assurances of successive Liberal ministers have been as hollow as much of their thinking on policy.
But the use of the social insurance number does not stop at the government. In recent years, a new phenomenon can be easily detected. The social insurance number has become more commonly used in the private sector. Youngsters playing peewee hockey are asked for social insurance numbers for the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association computer. A Winnipeg ballet school uses social insurance numbers. Banks are asking companies to provide social insurance numbers before they will process payrolls of the companies. Grocery stores, insurance companies, and other private institutions are demanding social insurance numbers as a proof of identification.
As shown by the above enumeration of activities and organizations using social insurance numbers, it is clearly evident that social insurance numbers have gained the status of a de facto identification card. The question Canadians are asking themselves is the following; "When did the Canadian people decide to adopt a national identification number?" The answer, Mr. Speaker, is never. There has never been a debate in the House about the desirability of or the necessity for such a system. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this system has been implemented contrary to the assurances given to the Canadian people by the government.
I want to turn now to government promises that have been broken. The extension of the use of the social insurance number and its attainment of the status of national identification has been done surreptitiously and without the consent of the Canadian people. What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is to examine the replies of different cabinet ministers throughout the years and then match their statements with the facts. Let us start with the numberous assurances given by the government. In a written question on March 9, 1964, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orikow) asked the minister of national health and welfare:
Has the registration proposed for all Canadians been considered solely for social security purposes-
The minister answered:
It has been developed solely in connection with social security programs.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert was pressing the then minister of national health and welfare, presently the government House leader, on the future uses of the social insurance number. He wanted to know if the social insurance number data would be passed on from the Department of Labour to other departments and government agencies. The right hon. member suggested that social insurance numbers would be used in the future for "income tax and so on". The then prime minister interjected and said "certainly not".

December 8, 1978
Social Insurance Numbers
This "certainly not" by the then prime minister is obviously a candidate in the "Hall of Fame of Famous Last Words, along with the assurances of the present Prime Minister that "Separatism is dead" or "We have wrestled inflation to the ground".
A third example of the hollowness of the government's promises arose from an exchange between the then hon. member for Middlesex West and the minister of labour, incidentally the present government House leader, in June 1965. The member asked whether the minister's description of these cards as general purpose cards will extend for numbering purposes to the military services. The minister replied "No, Mr. Speaker".
Canadians have seen instance after instance of the government breaking its word. Little by little, the social insurance number has become more prevalent in our society. This movement has not stopped. In 1977 the cabinet passed an order in council which permitted the then minister of national revenue "to cause a social insurance number to be issued to any individual who has not earlier been assigned such a number". A similar regulation in the same year gave the Minister of National Health and Welfare the same authority.
Perhaps the final indication of the government's intentions can be glimpsed at in the testimony of Bernard Dertinger, executive director of national systems for the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission before the McDonald commission in June of this year. He said the commission had discussed with the provinces the possibility of registration of all Canadians at birth by social insurance numbers and "there was substantial agreement at the official level".
The major objection of the Conservative party to the unbridled extension of the social insurance number and its not so subtle adoption as a national identification card remains the following. On an issue so paramount to the privacy of the individual and to the future development of our society, the Canadian people should have the opportunity to debate fully the advantages and disadvantages of a national citizen identification system.
Successive Liberal governments have condoned and encouraged the expansion of the social insurance number. The review of the federal activities described previously, which do not by any means constitute an exhaustive list, makes it clear that the federal government itself has been in the forefront of extending the use of the social insurance number. All these actions have actively promoted the tendency in society to depend more and more on the social insurance number as an identifier-of workers, taxpayers, automobile drivers, students, welfare beneficiaries, civil servants, servicemen, veterans, pensioners, and The Lion Club's band in my constituency. Few people have flatly proposed a national identification card. But successive Liberal governments have made decisions which, taken collectively, are leading us to the establishment of a national identification card.
Imperviously insensitive to the concerns of the individual citizen, blinded by their long sojourn in the corridors of power, the Liberal party has placed efficiency in administration above

the protection of personal liberties. Despite general public disapproval, the party has forged ahead unilaterally to give Canadians a single identifying number, mainly in the name of administrative convenience. More seriously, Mr. Speaker, I honestly doubt if the Liberal party yet understands our concerns and citizen's concerns about the dangers inherent in the implementation of a single identifying number system. In their view, what's good for the functioning of the bureaucracy is good for Canada. Citizens move aside; personal rights abandoned; right of privacy banished.
Since the Liberal government visibly has no understanding of why concerned citizens are questioning the extension of a social insurance number, I will now explain our misgivings about such a system. First of all, Mr. Speaker, from a psychological point of view 1 have serious doubts about the applicability of a single identifying number system to Canada. In North America, Canadians and Americans have historically placed a great deal of value on privacy. To Canadians, the idea of a single number that would identify them "from cradle to grave" is distasteful in itself, regardless of how that number might be used and regardless of safeguards society might enact to protect the rights of privacy.
Many Canadians having fled their homelands in Europe retain bad memories about national identification cards and numbers. A Canadian travelling in continental Europe often sees his European host obliged to carry a national identification card which he must present on demand. Few Canadians envy this system. Once identifiable to the administrator in government or business by an exclusive number, such as a social insurance number, the citizen risks being identified exclusively in those terms. Few Canadians want such a system.
This is not my most serious misgiving about the extension of the social insurance number however. My real worry arises from the very real possibility that use of a single identifying number, such as SIN, in more and more computer files makes it easier and cheaper for organizations to exchange data among themselves and to merge records from files of different agencies, departments and organizations into central databanks. There arises the ultimate possibility that a person with access to the databanks will be able to compile a complete dossier on any individual covering everything from childhood illnesses, school records, psychiatric examinations, consumer habits, political activities, personal beliefs and employment record. The individual stripped of all privacy will be at the mercy of the data manipulator.
Many people argue that if one has done nothing wrong, what does he have to worry about? They do not view such a system as threatening. The only people who will have to worry, according to them, are the criminals with something to hide. Is this, in fact, true? Will the ordinary hardworking citizen have nothing to worry about? Will he not suffer any inconveniences or threats to his rights? I would argue that people who hold this view seriously underestimate the dangers of the system.
First of all, such a system poses serious problems in a political sense. Simply put, knowledge is power. An individual who has access to information on another person can use it to
December 8, 1978

extort or extract some desired action. A government which has an all-dominating presence can manipulate its citizens.
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that a Russian can best suggest the words to describe a society in which all computers are interlinked and an all-knowing government dominates its citizens. In his book, Cancer Ward, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Russian Nobel Prize winner writes:
As every man goes through life he fills in a number of forms for the record, each containing a number of questions . . . There are thus hundreds of little threads radiating from every man, millions of threads in all.
If these threads were suddenly to become visible, the whole sky would look like a spider's web, and, if they materialized as rubber, buses, trams and even people would all lose the ability to move, and the wind would be unable to carry torn-up newspaper or autumn leaves along the streets of the city. They are not visible, they are not material, but every man is constantly aware of their existence . . . Each man, permanently aware of his own invisible threads, materially develops a respect for people who manipulate the threads.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn describes accurately the dilemma of modern man in our societies. Each time we give up a bit of information about ourselves to the government, we give up some of our freedom. For the more the government or any institution knows about us, the more power it has over us. When the government knows all of our secrets, we stand naked before official power. Stripped of our privacy, we lose our rights and privileges.
I suggest that these are not merely abstract musings but a serious concern about the future of modern society. A single identifying number such as a social insurance number would give individuals untold opportunities to interconnect various computer terminals, each one possessing different bits of information about us.
In conclusion, 1 hope the government will take into account some of the solutions I recommend. In Canada, for the sake of individual privacy something must be done about the uncontrolled expansion of the use of social insurance numbers. Instead of encouraging surreptitiously the evolution of the social insurance number to the status of the exclusive identifier of individuals, the government should take heed of the advice of its own task force on computers and privacy. Its authors, including the present under-secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. Gotlieb, stated, and 1 quote:
It is possible that a de facto personal identification number will develop in Canada, either through an ever-widening use of the social insurance number (despite its limitations) or indirectly through credit card and bank account numbers. However, it is important to ensure that a single identifying number should not be adopted in Canada directly or indirectly, without a full examination and public debate on its merits and consequences.
The government should introduce legislation regarding the social insurance number to prevent further extension and to place constraints on its use.
I put forward several suggestions to the minister, who is in the House today, which might govern the use of social insurance numbers in Canada. The use of social insurance numbers should be governed by the following principles. First, the uses of social insurance numbers should be limited to those neces-
Social Insurance Numbers
sary for carrying out requirements imposed by the federal government.
Second, federal agencies and departments should not require or promote the use of social insurance numbers except to the extent that they have a specific legislative mandate from parliament.
Third, parliament should be sparing in imposing mandatory use of a social insurance number and should impose it only after full and careful consideration preceded by well advertised hearings which elicit substantial public participation. Such consideration should weigh carefully the pros and cons of any proposed use and should pay particular attention to whether effective safeguards have been applied.
Fourth, when social insurance numbers are used in instances which do not conform to the three foregoing principles, no individual should be coerced into providing his social insurance number; nor should his social insurance number be used without consent.
Fifth, an individual should be fully and fairly informed of his rights and responsibilities relative to uses of social insurance numbers, including the right to disclose his social insurance number when he deems it to be in his interest to do so.
These are principles laid down by a comparative study of the social security number in the United States. We can take some direction from these principles, and I recommend them very strongly to the minister.
Having regard to these principles, I suggest that the minister make specific recommendations based upon them. Such recommendations would include the following. First, individuals should have the right to refuse to disclose their social insurance numbers to any organization which does not have specific authority provided by federal statute. Individuals should have recourse to the courts if this right is denied.
Second, any future legislation dealing with social insurance numbers should be preceded by full and careful consideration and well advertised hearings which elicit public participation.
Third, in order to prevent the social insurance number from becoming an employee identification number, a patient identification number, a student identification number, a customer identification number or the primary organizing element in any non-federal organization, any organization or person should be unable to use the social insurance number of an individual unless the individual gives his informed consent.
Fourth, legislation should prohibit the use of social insurance numbers for promotional or commercial purposes.
I think these principles and recommendations which 1 have set out should be adopted by the government and should form the basic guidelines for Canadian legislation. Like many Canadians, I feel that the expansion of the social insurance number and its evolution toward a single identifying number are not beneficial to the protection of privacy. Further examination and public debate are required. In the meantime, some concrete steps by the government are called for in order that Canadians will not be presented with a fait accompli.

December 8, 1978
Social Insurance Numbers


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about your SIN!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As a United Church minister the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) must be all shook up to be hearing about SIN on a Friday!
I welcome this debate, but I have one regret. Time does not permit us to explore this matter in depth. The concern raised by hon. members opposite is a concern we all feel. I am sorry that both yesterday and today there were questions of privilege and that we have not had more time. I believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would have made some telling points. I may not have agreed with him, but I always enjoy listening to what he has to say.
At first blush any mention of invasion of privacy raises grave issues for most Canadians. The problem is that the very term "invasion of privacy" is somewhat like waving the proverbial red flag in front of a bull. All of a sudden the issue becomes a cause celebre. Many are concerned about the issue, but many may not see it or completely understand it in the context in which it is occurring.
I do not intend to go on for very long today. I know that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) wishes to speak. I expect to be 15 to 20 minutes at the most.
1 propose that we rationally examine the protection for Canadians already existing in legislation. There are definite limits to the information which can be passed on by the government about an individual. Unless the individual authorizes it, one's social insurance number and the contents of his social insurance file cannot be disclosed to a third party. The only exceptions, in most cases, are those who administer the Canada Pension Plan, the Quebec Pension Plan and the Income Tax Act. The government's policy is, in fact, very restrictive about the disclosure of information contained in the social insurance number registry.
It is important to realize what kind of information the central index, which is, after all, the social insurance registry, can actually collect. Sections 125 and 126 of the Unemployment Insurance Act legally restrict this. The central index can request only the type of information that is necessary to identify an individual accurately. Strictly personal information such as a person's race, religion, political affiliations, community activities, financial status, extended family affiliations and employment record cannot be solicited.
As I am sure the House is aware, section 52(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977 provides, and I quote:
Every individual is entitled to be consulted and must consent before personal information concerning that individual that was provided by that individual to a government institution for a particular purpose is used or made available for use for any non-derivative use for an administrative purpose unless that information for that non-derivative use is authorized or pursuant to law.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister decides what a non-derivative use is.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We introduced that legislation. It was the first legislation introduced on the subject. I think it warrants some checking out. It warrants looking into the administrative value of all the information that could be made available. I think this is being done on an ongoing basis, and I think we have a good piece of legislation. In all probability improvements could be made, and I am sure that in the future they will be.
The government is bound by the prohibition in the act to which I referred. There can be no linkage without the consent of the individual. The sole exception to this arises when linkage is expressly permitted by law. For example, the exchange of data in the social insurance number registers is permitted between the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Department of National Revenue, Taxation. As has been stated, these linkages are necessary to the smooth functioning of the government's administration. This is dealt with in the legislation which was passed by parliament.
The issue of the use of the social insurance number to link bases outside the federal government has also been raised. As we all know, the individual has the right to decide whether or not to give his or her social insurance number to, for example, department stores and other places of business. It is true that a person's unwillingness to give this information may lead to a refusal on the part of the business concerned to do business with him or her.
An individual's right to disclose his or her own social insurance number is what permits the creation of data banks which use the social insurance number in the private sector. Modern computer technology allows for this linkage. It should be pointed out that this kind of linkage, given the heights to which modern computer technology has risen, would be possible using an individual's name, even if the social insurance number did not exist. I will concede that the SIN makes it easier. But if we did not have SIN, the computer could now make the linkage anyhow. We do not use the technology in the federal government which could link people by their names.
For the government to attempt to regulate the private sector on the use of SIN in their storage files would be a difficult operation. Every employer who has a computerized payroll system finds it a legal necessity to keep employees' SINs as part of this record. This is necessary for income tax purposes. It is easy to see how the use of SIN would grow for other record keeping purposes-for example, in logging in an inventory of tools or office supplies charged out to an employee. An attempt by the government to introduce controls in the private sector-controls which would certainly be viewed as intrusive-would have to be made only after very careful study as to their restrictiveness and, indeed, the probability of their effectiveness. Just imagine, if you will, Mr. Speaker, the spectre of an army of investigators probing into every computerized payroll system in the private sector to be sure employers are not using their computers for anything but government approved purposes.

December 8, 1978

We have the technology and it is growing every day. The question is how to use that technology intelligently and with due regard to people's right to privacy. This is a question under study by the government on an ongoing basis. But to jump in without proper study and thought would cause hardship to employers and workers in business concerns of every size, to say nothing of the millions of Canadians who found the SIN a convenient and commonly accepted way to identify themselves in business transactions of every type.
The concern voiced in both private and public sectors about the growth in volume and complexity of information and data processing systems has been heard by the government. People speak about the threat to individual control of our lives. Again, I must turn members' attention to the many acts of parliament limiting the use of personal information filed under the social insurance number. The SIN registry, as I stated, collects information solely to establish the identity of a person so that he or she can obtain a social insurance number. That has to be done; 1 do not think anyone will argue with that. Any personal information about a person is not available through the SIN registry. The SIN is as confidential as its holder chooses to make it. Many people do not seem to attach great importance to this confidentiality, since the SIN has been used as the basis for newspaper lotteries. So far as the government is concerned, the privacy and anonymity of the SIN are protected in the same way as bank accounts are protected. This is a time honoured tradition in Canada. The government is committed to upholding this tradition and to protecting this public interest.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that identifying systems seem to threaten basic human freedoms. Yet it must be recognized that, in many countries today, a number like SIN is used for a universal identifier. The record keeping systems of many European institutions are linked by the use of such individual identity numbers. These countries have successfully reduced the potential of this threat by parallel development of strict rules that give the individual control over the nature of the information recorded and the uses to which it can be put.
Canada is no different, Mr. Speaker. Although the SIN system is hardly a universal numbering system in the same sense, we do, nevertheless, have a Human Rights Act already in place to prevent abuses of information government now collects from people. The privacy laws give individuals the right to correct information on file and to appeal any abuses of their privacy to a privacy commissioner.
As we are all aware, the Canadian government, in June 1974, was party to a summary statement issued by a conference of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. The conference discussed policy issues on data protection and privacy. It underlined consulting public opinion as the basis of any major shift in information gathering and filing systems.
I believe that the government and the public will continue to be guided by the spirit of the following extract from the OECD's summary statement:
Social Insurance Numbers
The right of public or private institutions to acquire personal data is not absolute; at some point, the need to gather information must give way to the right of the individual to maintain privacy.
But let me add here, Mr. Speaker, that we must proceed with caution.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, first of all. I should like to commend the minister for the statement which he just made which seems to me to be a useful statement of principle. But it is unfortunate that, when one examines the record of the use of the number and its institution by the government, one finds that it does not square with that statement of principle. As to the statement of principle that the right to obtain information is limited, it seems to me that the use of SIN, which has grown, has clearly eroded the right to privacy which people who live in this country expect.
Sometimes when we engage in these kinds of debates we feel a little like King Canute trying to stop the tides from coming in, because the trend toward reducing the right to privacy is overwhelming, not merely in the case of government but in terms of the use of identification numbers by private industry. There is a parallel risk. I know the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) touched on that, but he touched on it very lightly. We tend in this place to emphasize always the bureaucracy and the great risk that big government runs in terms of obtaining access to what is normally private information and abusing it. In fact, the potential for abuse of private information by the private sector is just as serious as in terms of the public sector.
I think I should like to address a few remarks to that kind of risk. Consider the use of information such as, for example, that contained in an income tax return. Remember that the use of SIN is absolutely key to the operation of the income tax department in terms of programming purchasers, of finding a category in the public which is susceptible to buying insurance or buying motor vehicles or buying products for which they have no particular need. So here lies the danger.
I agree completely with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar that we need a guideline, an addition to the privacy laws of this country to set forth the right of the citizen to privacy. We cannot just look at it in terms of the potential for a draconian, totalitarian kind of society on the part of the bureaucracy. We also have to look at the increasing size of multinational corporations and the increasing sophistication of those organizations in the way they can use that private information also to erode freedom of choice and the right to privacy of citizens.
I am pleased to see that the NDP was, as usual, in the forefront in trying to protect the liberties of the subject when this system was initiated some time ago. On March 9, 1964, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asked this question:
Has the registration proposed for all Canadians been considered solely for social security purposes, or is it tied up in any way with the emergency measues organization and compulsory military service?
He asked also:
Will this information be provided to other government departments and particularly the RCMP?

December 8, 1978
Social Insurance Numbers
That question was answered as follows:
The proposed registration of all Canadians has no connection with the current planning activities of the emergency measures organization. It has been develpcd solely in connection with social security programs.
We know what happened subsequently with regard to the records of the income tax department and the access that the RCMP subsequently had to that information as a direct result of an agreement between two departments. That is a record the government should have touched on, and I expect that perhaps the minister might have mentioned what occurred with regard to that. I know he certainly was opposed to that and 1 think he made statements in the House and was somewhat active in trying to end that kind of arrangement. But what a violation it is of the undertakings that were given to the House when we commenced use of the SIN. The risk comes in the slow erosion of liberty in very small steps. Once liberty is taken away, it does not return because the public begins to accept the loss of that privacy as the norm, and therefore there is no great public pressure upon the legislature to restore traditional rights of privacy.
Not only was the number to be limited to social security. On April 8, 1964, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to the social insurance number and suggested that it would be used for many things. He said, "Oh; income tax, and so on?" That was the question he put to the honourable Lester Pearson at that time. The answer which Mr. Pearson gave was an emphatic "Certainly not". We know the number went on to be used regarding income tax.
As the use of that number increases and as our technology increases, we wind up with a capacity to compile all that information and put it in a data bank. Then it becomes very lucrative information. The trend exists already in terms of motor vehicle records. Provincial governments now sell their motor vehicle records. It is a nice revenue producer. The result is that private industry knows who owns motor vehicles, what kind of motor vehicles they are, and therefore they are able to use their subliminal advertising to reach their target groups through mailing. Suddenly the sales resistance one should have, if one has the information and is acting independently, is taken away. That is an erosion of freedom.
1 would not doubt that the Conservative party's excellent campaign of fund raising, in which letters were sent across the country, has a computer somewhere in the background attempting to find voters who will be susceptible to sending the party some money in a moment of weakness. Also that is an erosion of freedom. It is an erosion of the right to make independent decisions.
It is interesting to look at the actual horror stories regarding SIN. I should like to refer to the excellent study on privacy and computers which was conducted in 1972. At page 88 it reads:
It is interesting to note that until 1967 all Eskimos in the Yukon and Northwest Territories were identified by numbers imprinted on tags worn around the neck. Not surprisingly the Eskimos objected to the system and, in
[Mr. Leggatt.J
preparation for its abandonment, during the four years from 1967 to 1971 the Eskimos selected their own surnames which arc now used in lieu of numbers.
Can one imagine a law which requires native Eskimos to wear numbers around their necks? Of course that law has been changed; but it would not be changed if people did not stand up in the House like King Canute because of these trends and tendencies to register some objection to the continuing erosion of freedom and privacy in both the public and private sectors of Canada.
This motion is a very positive one in a special way. It suggests the introduction of legislation establishing guidelines and limitations upon the use of social insurance numbers. 1 should like to suggest how we can look at privacy legislation with a view to improving the right to privacy and limiting the use of that number. I see no reason why the police forces of Canada should not be required to appear before a judge in order to show cause as to why they need access to this particular information. This procedure should be on warrant.
I believe the same should also be required of other government agencies. They should not be allowed, as a right, to peer into a person's background for some bureaucratic reason, even if it is more efficient and a method of saving money. All other government agencies, except those directly dealing with social insurance numbers, should be forbidden access to SIN-related information on the ground that it is confidential.
The original law respecting SIN said nothing about private organizations demanding social insurance numbers from clients, customers or members. When someone wants to cash a cheque and the person behind the counter says, "We require your social insurance number", there should be some law protecting that person from providing the massive amount of information backed up by SIN. Perhaps we could forbid private organizations from demanding SIN.
It is worth considering denying the Department of National Revenue the right to use SIN. The use of SIN by the Department of National Revenue perhaps has been the most dangerous invasion of privacy which man has seen in this century. That department's use of SIN does not merely provide snippets of information. It provides almost everything there is to know about an individual. 1 am not afraid of making any level of bureaucracy work a little harder. Perhaps it will not be as efficient, but the advantages in terms of privacy would be very substantial. The advantages of denying SIN to the Department of National Revenue would put that department where it belongs, completely separate and not working in co-operation with any other department of the government. It would eliminate this nonsensical agreement between the Department of National Revenue and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police providing information and a method of cross-checking. I believe my suggestions would be of some benefit regarding the use of SIN.
Another area to which serious consideration should be given is the amazing clout an employer has over an employee if the employer has access to social insurance numbers and is able to tune in to the background information. In the circumstance where the employer has access to confidential information,
December 8, 1978

such as something in the employee's background which would suggest that he was not a respectable citizen at one point, the capacity of the employee to maintain his job is limited. It could result in his demotion, firing or have various adverse effects. We require a law which substantially restricts access to social insurance numbers.
Since other hon. members wish to participate in this debate, in conclusion 1 should like to refer to the report on privacy and computers at page 86, where an amorphous fear of the loss of privacy as a result of various identification numbers is mentioned. It reads:
Accompanying this fear is a suspicion that bureaucrats confronted by numbers will tend to forget that they represent real people. The suspicion is fed by haunting memories of the Nazi system of numbering Jews in the 1930's and 1940's. The survey of Canadians by the Department of Communications revealed that 62 per cent fear that computers "will reduce us to numbers".
Fear of the cataclysm is simply the concern that, should an autocratic regime come into power, single identifying numbers would be used to assist in the compilation of investigatory dossiers which would be used as instruments of oppression. Proponents of SIN point out that the lack of comprehensive dossiers has in the past had no obvious inhibiting effect on autocrats.
Society continues to grow larger and become more complicated. The public and private organizations which dominate our lives continue to become more autocratic and less democratic. They continue to exert a power which we cannot restrict unless we are forever vigilant. I am referring to the power of the computer, the power of technology, and the power of having control over the lives of Canadians as a result of new scientific advances. Unless we express dismay over a society in which individuals have no control, then we do not do a service to our constituents.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my participation in this debate by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), for proposing this motion today. Surely there can be no more important issue to come before parliament than the need for parliament to act when we find that mechanisms are being put in place, either by design or through complacency, which can strip away the individual privacy of our constituents and ourselves.
Like most members of parliament, 1 was not aware of the threat that was posed by these tiny white pieces of plastic that virtually every Canadian has today. Some 19 million or 20 million social insurance numbers have been issued. I was not aware of the implications of the problems caused by the social insurance number until 1 had a call about a year ago from a constituent of mine who was calling to ask what she could do because her nine-year old son had lost his social insurance card and he did not know what to do. 1 said: "This is outlandish. What would your nine-year old son want with a social insurance card? Why would they number him when surely he is not in the labour force and will not file an income tax return? It hardly seems reasonable to expect that he is required to have a social insurance number." Then my constituent told me that the minor hockey league in which her nine-year old son was enrolled required that every member of the team take out
Social Insurance Numbers
social insurance numbers. Here was a child eight years old who had been issued with a plastic card and told to carry it around. He had been told that was necessary if he was going to play hockey in his part of the league. He had to accept this government number. Then we were surprised a year later to learn that a nine-year old child had lost his social insurance number.
What an outrageous situation it is in Canada when we find that already in one of the provinces, Prince Edward Island, every citizen from birth is automatically issued a social insurance number. We have reached the point where this numbering with a single identification number is beginning to take place from the cradle to the grave.
Every member of parliament has in his constituency people who have bought Canada Savings Bonds for their children. We are finding now that if those people clip the coupons to take out the interest on their Canada Savings Bonds for their children, they are required to take out social insurance numbers for those children, who maybe are two or three years old, unless they want to have 25 per cent of the interest withheld until tax time. What sort of an outrage is this?
What sort of an outrage is it when senior citizens who have lived for 80 or 90 years without ever requiring a social insurance number now find, if they are going to be allowed to cash their coupons and their Canada Savings Bonds, that the government is requiring that they have social insurance numbers, unless they are prepared to leave behind 25 per cent of the value of that interest? I feel that the government is guilty of a breach of faith in its handling of the Canada Savings Bonds issue. Surely the government had a responsibility, if it had the intention of requiring that Canadians have social insurance numbers to cash coupons, unless they wanted to leave 25 per cent behind, to tell Canadians at the time they sold them the bonds that this requirement would be put upon them. Instead, after the contract was made the government changed the rules, just last year.
Let us take a look at the scope in which the social insurance number is used in the government and in the private sector. An article in the December 19 issue of the Globe and Mail dealt with this question of the proliferation in the use of the social insurance number. Here are a couple of paragraphs from it:
SINs now are used as identification to cash cheques and make credit checks in department stores. Libraries, banks, insurance companies and hospitals use SINs. Canadians must provide SINs to cash government savings bonds. SINs are a must on income tax returns.
Youngsters playing peewee hockey are asked for SINs for the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association computer. A Winnipeg ballet school uses SINs. By special agreement with the federal government, the Prince Edward Island registrar of vital statistics applies for and receives social insurance numbers for all newborn babies in that province.
The federal government singles out and keeps track of foreign workers who require work permits by giving them special SINs beginning with the number 9. Employers can be fined up to $5,000, if they hire a 9-numbered person who doesn't have a work permit.
In Ontario, 25 of the 44 public health units filed the immunization records of school children by SIN. The school systems of Saskatchewan and Ontario use SINs for record-keeping for students in senior grades. Motor vehicle drivers' records in Quebec and hunting licences in Manitoba are recorded by SIN.

December 8, 1978
Social Insurance Numbers
What we have seen happen is that a program that was justified by this government on the basis that its use would be limited, and strictly limited to specific instances stated by the government, has been broadly expanded so it is used widely within the federal government, other levels of government and within the private sector. What we are finding is that without a conscious policy decision being made, without debate talcing place within parliament to decide to issue social insurance numbers to all citizens, we are backing into the system through the back door and citizens are being forced of necessity to take these numbers out-not by statute but by circumstance.
What more scathing condemnation could there be of the irrelevance of parliament, or of the lack of direction being given by government, than to find that that sort of decision and that sort of circumstance takes place not by design but by accident, and by indifference on the part of the government?
When the minister spoke a few moments ago he stressed the fact that within the central index registry of social insurance numbers the sort of personal information that is included is very limited. Of course, that is correct within the central index; but what the minister did not mention was the scope of government data gathering activities in which dossiers are assembled on individual citizens which reach into every aspect of their private lives.
I think it would be useful to share with the House something of the scope of government data gathering. In 1974 I put two questions on the order paper asking what sort of computerized data banks were in existence at the time. This information is dated at this time, but I think it is useful to take a look at the answers I received.
First of all, all government employees have files kept on them, most of which are computerized. Some departments made provision for their employees to see the files; others at that time did not. The Department of National Revenue reported that a record is maintained for each individual required by law to file a T1 return. At the present time records are maintained for approximately 12.8 million employees. There are some 250,000 corporation tax returns and some 770,000 employers who are making payroll deductions from employees.
The Ministry of Transport has a computerized data bank for some 75,000 pilot licence holders.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has a computer data bank of families and children entitled to family allowances, including parents and children up to 19 years of age. There are some 3.5 million families and some 7 million children who have personal files in that data bank. There are some 1.8 million recipients of old age pensions and some 1.1 million recipients of guaranteed income supplement recorded in the computerized data bank. The department also holds files on some 10.3 million contributors to the Canada Pension Plan.
The Department of External Affairs also has a new data bank which was established in 1974, in which at that time it had only 600,000 names, but it was planned to include some 3.5 million people by its fifth year. Also, some 30,000 people

whose passports are being processed at any one time and some 20,000 people who are not to be issued passports or whose passports have been reported lost or found, are recorded in the data bank.
The Canadian Wheat Board keeps computerized files for some 240,000 producers whose names appear on Wheat Board delivery permits.
The names of some 43,000 children of up to one year of age born with birth defects in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia since 1967 are also recorded, as is the following information: hospital number, the serial number, the name, the date of birth, the sex, the birth weight, the gestation period, the place of admission or death, the residence code, the place of residence and the types of abnormalities.
Obviously this sort of information which is being kept by the government on individual citizens and their private lives is expanded day by day. The government has finally published a list of some 1,500 data banks in which personal information is held on individual citizens by the federal government. It is not required that in this catalogue the government reveal whether or not the information that is included in the personal file of an individual includes the social insurance number. It is not required either that they indicate to the public whether the number can be used as an access number to give a person access to a computerized file. We know that in many of the instances reported in the book, if an individual even wants to see his own file he is required by the government to first supply a social insurance number.
Last year 1 put a question on the order paper asking for a complete listing of government data banks, including personally identifiable information about individuals in which the social insurance number may be used to gain access to the computerized file. 1 asked about the nature of the information, the number of individuals who were on file, and about what other ways, beyond using the social insurance number, that the file could be accessed. The response I received was that the government did not have that information and that perhaps they would be able to provide it by the fall. That information was not included in this index of data banks.
At this point no one in Canada knows the extent to which the social insurance number is used within government as a computerized file. The minister stressed in his comments that we have privacy legislation in this country as well as a Human Rights Commissioner. It is worth noticing, however, that some of the most scathing condemnations of the government have come from the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr. Gordon Fairweather.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Because of the short length of time available for debate this afternoon and the number of members wishing to speak, I wonder if the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) would be kind and generous enough to keep his
December 8, 1978

comments short so that as many members as possible may speak this afternoon.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure the hon. member that I will stay within the time limit allowed me.
The Toronto Star of September 24, 1978, refers to the Human Rights Commissioner in an article headlined "I am Appalled." The Canadian Press story from Ottawa begins as follows:
Parliament will be asked to deal with alleged misuse of social insurance numbers, says Human Rights Commissioner Gordon Fairweather.
The government's own Human Rights Commissioner has indicated that he is totally dissatisfied with the way the government is acting to protect personal privacy and the abuse of the social insurance number.
In the time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make three or four points. This government has stressed time and time again that its justification for the increasing practice of numbering citizens and for the proliferation of the social insurance number is that it is to be used as a control mechanism to protect the public against fraud and against the misuse of public funds. In some ways this is justifiable, Mr. Speaker. We can understand that it is necessary to ensure that Canadians do not abuse public programs. I would argue, however, that the social insurance number itself may well present a mechanism that can be used by people intent on committing fraud.
I refer the House to statements made before the McDonald inquiry as reported in the Calgary Herald on October 26, 1978. The article on the subject reads in part as follows:
When RCMP Assistant Commissioner H. Jensen gave evidence to the McDonald commission into RCMP wrongdoing in June this >ear, he stated that 50 per cent of all cases of false pretenses made use of SIN cards. The problem, he implied, was the lack of security surrounding the SIN.
He illustrated this with the case of a Calgary man who had 109 SIN cards, 59 UIC claims, and a monthly income of $33,000.
He told of a Montreal duo who used 60 SIN cards over a period of two months to collect $32,867 from the UIC and who had projected earnings of half a million dollars from their gainful unemployment had they not slipped up.
He related the tale of the Winnipeg man who parlayed 25 SIN cards into $92,000 over 4'/2 years.
If we allow the social insurance number to be used increasingly as a citizen identification card, the credibility that goes with this card will also be useful as a mechanism for people intent on committing fraud to fulfil their objectives.
The use of the social insurance number within government, even without the direct linkage to government data banks, facilitates improper access into the personal files of individual Canadians. At this time last year parliament devoted a great deal of time to discussing the ability of people posing as chartered accountants or claiming to be unlicensed private investigators to get access to the personal and confidential income tax returns of individual Canadians. Someone posing as a chartered accountant could ring the taxation branch and say that his client has misplaced his income tax return, give the social insurance number and get information over the phone. In this way information was given to unauthorized
Supply
individuals without the individual about whose return the inquiry was made being informed. This was done despite the sanctions in the law forbidding it. The use of the social insurance number as a computerized filing number throughout the government facilitates this sort of invasion of privacy.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, with this one observation. We as legislators have the responsibility to act in a conscious and deliberate way. If we are to make changes which will profoundly affect all Canadians, we have a responsibility to ensure that those decisions are made after careful deliberation in parliament, after broad public discussion and after parliament has actually made the decision to go ahead with the particular program.
That was the recommendation of the 1972 computers and privacy report commissioned by this government. That is the nature of the motion before the House today, and it is the policy that should be adopted by the government. If the goverment looks seriously at the motion before the House today, it should agree that it is one which commends itself to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 58(10) and the agreement made earlier this day to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of all business of supply now before the House, including the bill based on Supplementary Estimates (A).


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(A)
Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Supplementary Estimates (A), 1978-79, laid upon the Table, Wednesday, November 8, 1978, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Buchanan thereupon moved that Bill C-25, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1979, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Buchanan thereupon moved that Bill C-25, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1979, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
[Stage Direction]
December 8, 1978
Supply
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On clause 2-
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, can the President of the Treasury Board assure the committee that there is nothing out of the way in the clauses of this bill and that it is in the usual form?


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would have been distressed if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had not raised this matter. The form of this bill is the same as that passed in previous years and contains no additional borrowing authority.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


J. Judd Buchanan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday I was pre-empted from so doing because Your Honour ruled that the question of privilege took precedence in the debate, and we found ourselves pretty much in the same position today with little time left to deal with the supply motion. 1 thought if I could raise the point of order at this time it would be the first practical chance I had to raise it.
It has to do with Hansard for December 6, which is last Wednesday. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Ouellet) in reply to my question, accused me of trying "to convey a message that all the builders in Canada are crooks". That statement appears at page 1845. This is a shameful innuendo which I reject out of hand. Any objective examination of my question will reveal that I tried to leave no such impression. I cannot ask the hon. member to withdraw his remark because there is nothing unparliamentary about it. It is just a cheap shot. But what can one expect from a minister who insults judges?


An hon. Member:: That is a cheap shot.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being after five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday afternoon at two o'clock.
At 5.06 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 11, 1978