1978-12-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Taking into account the statement by the Solicitor General Mr. Blais that no written notices of employment termination have been issued by the government regarding the reduction of chaplains in Canadian penitentiaries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the Solicitor General make a statement on motions today outlining how it is that he knows nothing about a written notice of job termination received by Reverend Neil de Haan, chaplain at the Rockwood Institute and, as well, explain to the House what is meant by the policy given to the director at Stony Mountain maximum security penitentiary that the positions of chaplain and psychiatrist must be eliminated but the people, namely, the doctor and minister, must remain.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move an urgent motion.
In view of the government's proposal to cut by half the number of libraries in Canada able to receive government publications free of charge, and in view of the fact that it will be citizens in the more remote parts of Canada who will pay for this measure by being deprived of access to information, at a time in the nation's history when we require greater, not less,
communication, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House instruct Treasury Board, in keeping with the recommendation of the government green paper on public access to government documents, to ensure the continued provision of government publications to these college and public libraries free of charge.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that as of January 7 Air Canada will substantially reduce its services, especially on routes serving remote areas; in view of the fact that the same corporation says that it is compelled to make those changes as a result of the restricted number of authorized landings for pilots; considering that those reduced services added to other ones are reflected by higher transport costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang): first, instruct that Crown corporation to maintain its present services; second, deny to Air Canada the elimination of flights expected on January 7, 1979; and, third, suggest that the Crown corporation hire more pilots with a view to enforcing the collective agreement and maintaining that public service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 20, 1978


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the fact that the federal government is now the proud owner of another luxury hotel, one in a series of 12 hotels funded under the National Housing Act, in this case to the tune of $13.5 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House direct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to terminate CMHC involvement in its hotel franchise operations and get on with the job of providing satisfactory housing for the over half a million Canadians who pay over 30 per cent for shelter, and to admit the serious backlog of problems associated with the AHOP program.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
*
* *


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In keeping with Canada's extremely fortunate position in the world, and with the spirit of the season, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin):
That the government give favourable consideration to the admission to Canada of an appropriately higher number of those southeast Asian refugees known as the boat people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, perhaps I could direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister who was the recipient of a letter from the Prime Minister dated October 18, 1976, setting out a reminder, as the Prime Minister called it, of the policy respecting commercial activities of former holders of federal public office in Canada.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the former minister of finance, Mr. John Turner, within weeks of leaving this House solicited various corporations with a view to offering them advice and guidance in respect of many matters pertaining to Ottawa, and succeeded in getting a group of ten to 12 to pay him $15,000 per annum for the advantage of his counsel? Is the House leader aware of this and, if so, does he feel it broke any understanding or guideline that existed at the time Mr. Turner left this House?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such offer on the part of the former minister of finance, not following his career with the same interest as my hon. friend has done. Knowing the former minister of finance, I would conclude that he would conduct himself after he left office with the same degree of integrity that characterized his public service in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again I would direct my supplementary question to the House leader, who I know will recall that one of the principles set out in the October 18 letter addressed to him was the following:
Current and former holders of public office must ensure by their actions that there is no reasonable ground for belief that it is possible to have privileged access to government personnel or services.
Has the House leader had an opportunity to review the various memoranda and letters that have been sent out by the former minister of finance, in one of which he states:
As a starter, the chief executive officer should be put in as good a public policy posture as a cabinet minister.
Presumably he was referring to the chief executive officers of corporations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not received copies of the alleged memoranda or bulletins that may have been sent out by the former minister of finance. As I said earlier, the former minister of finance, when he was in the House of Commons and occupied an office in the ministry, conducted himself with integrity, and I am sure he is aware of the obligations which are voluntary in character and which may
December 20, 1978

follow the career of a person who has served either as a minister or as a member of the public service.
To my knowledge, there are no sanctions and it is entirely up to the individual himself to observe the standards which have been suggested and circulated by the Prime Minister. All I can say is that I am quite confident that the former minister of finance would conduct himself with those standards in mind.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would again address my supplementary question to the House leader, and recall for his benefit that Mr. Turner's first letter and statement of account was sent out one week after the guidelines were first communicated to the House leader back in 1976.
My final question to the House leader, who has extolled the virtues of Mr. Turner, is: in view of the letter sent to Mr. Turner, as minister of finance, on his departure in September, 1975, from the Prime Minister which stated in part, "Since you did not base your resignation on any policy disagreement,
I will not hesitate in the months ahead to seek your good counsel", would the minister indicate if, in fact, that good counsel has been sought and received since Mr. Turner left this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no knowledge of what communications may have transpired between the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance, in either direction. However, I do not know what relevance there is at the present time in asking questions about correspondence between a member of the government and a former minister who is now a private citizen. I do not see where that comes under the administration of the Government of Canada.


ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY FORMER MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. I guess the government cannot afford the price of these private epistles from Mr. Turner.
In the latest one, dated December 1, Mr. Turner notes that there has been a decline in the traditional strength and independence of the Department of Finance and increasingly poor economic performance by the government, and he notes that the Economic Council of Canada has contributed nothing to improve either of these worsening situations. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with this analysis? If he does, does he intend to subscribe to these rather interesting memoranda?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, from what I have listened to, which is purported to be the content of a memorandum, I certainly do not subscribe to those views. If they are sold to clients, maybe they would find them more useful than I would.
Oral Questions


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am sorry to hear that, because Mr. Turner is apparently actively engaged in undermining the government with this ginger group in which he plays an advisory role. Since Mr. Turner appears to be running well ahead of the Prime Minister in polls in certain areas of the country, probably the Deputy Prime Minister will agree there is more of a basis for a problem with party unity than national unity with this government, and the purpose of Bill C-14 and the closure motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence to the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated in the House that the cost of living is going up faster than wages in this country. Today, the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity reconfirmed the fact that profits in the food and beverage sector have gone up by 65 per cent in the last 18 months. They said:
If there is any remaining doubt about the extent of the profit recovery-all other data show that the return on equity in the food and beverage industry in the first quarter of this year was the highest of any quarter in the last 15 years.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this: yesterday the Prime Minister called upon workers and unions to continue practising restraint in order to stop the possibility of controls. Will the minister call the heads of the food and beverage companies into his office and insist that they now restrain their prices, and in many cases roll them back, because of the tremendous profits made in the last year?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal by the Prime Minister yesterday applied to both labour and management. Everyone must show restraint in order to ensure that the competitive position of Canada is maintained and that we can take advantage of the fact that the Canadian dollar is more competitive. It is important that management shows restraint, like everyone else.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. I asked whether he or the Prime Minister would call the heads of the food and beverage companies into their offices and insist that they show some restraint, particularly in view of the fact that the Financial Post reported just a week ago that the George Weston company had a profit increase of 421 per cent this year over last. Will the minister call these companies into his office and insist that they show some restraint?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the month of June I asked the AIB to look into the food industry. I do not know what the

December 20, 1978
Oral Questions
difference is between this report and the report we received from the AIB some months ago showing there were not excessive profits. We now have a report showing there are excessive profits. I will look into this. I hope that, for the benefit of Canada, every sector of the economy will show restraint in order to maintain the competitive position of the Canadian economy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that it appears the Minister of Finance will not be doing that, may I ask him a specific question? The price of bread will go up by seven cents a loaf on January 1, and probably by 12 cents a loaf within a few months. The Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity said it is vital, if we are going to overcome inflation in this country, that cost increases are not automatically passed on to the consumer.
In view of the fact that the actual cost of the wheat in a loaf of bread is only 3 V2 cents, will he call in the food company heads and insist that the price of bread should go up, not by seven or 12 cents but only by the increase in the cost of wheat?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In the Canadian economy we have to rely on the marketplace-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, those are the very members who were complaining because we had controls in Canada. A year ago I said controls were to be abolished. I am glad to see that the hon. member is advocating a return to controls, and I hope he will inform his labour friends accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR CANADA
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since Air Canada is about to cut back on its flights to outlying areas, for example it will cancel its non-stop Rouyn-Montreal flight on Thursday, Friday and Sunday evenings, and since it is going to do the same thing in just about all the outlying areas of the country, as of January 7, can the minister tell the House whether he has had discussions with Air Canada concerning these service cutbacks. If so, how does he explain the fact that despite the proposed 8 per cent increase at the end of December the company can still cut back on its services, especially since there are no more newspapers distributed on the planes and meals are nothing more than pre-packaged sandwiches? How does he explain that on top of that the company wants to cut back on its flights?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: This subject was raised in the House some time ago and was based on an Air Canada information statement which indicated that a shortage of pilots was going to require a cutback in service beginning early in January and continuing for several months. These cutbacks are to be spread across the country.
As a result of acquiring new aircraft, Air Canada has a lot of pilot training to do, because very often pilots from one type of aircraft are involved in training for the new aircraft. Many more pilots are involved in the training than those required to fly the new aircraft. But I will certainly bring the hon. member's concern to the attention of Air Canada.
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, indeed the minister is right when he says that Air Canada justifies its decision to cut down the number of flights, come January, by saying it has a shortage of pilots. Since 1973 pilots from various sectors, both the military and civil aviation, have been applying for jobs but Air Canada has always turned them down. At times Air Canada says applications should be made more often but, unfortunately, when people do so then they are told they should not apply too often. Can the minister explain the attitude of Air Canada toward the pilots who apply for jobs in its service?


Otto Emil Lang: I think I did explain the situation. Air Canada had enough pilots and was recruiting pilots according to its needs. With the acquisition of new and different types of aircraft, the need for a whole new training program arose. Whether Air Canada predicted it accurately or not, I have not investigated. But the specific problem the hon. member refers to its related to the flights which are being cut off in the early part of January, and I understand that a pilot problem is the cause.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minister says, the ultimate reason is not a question of training new pilots but the fact that the collective agreement limits the number of landings the pilots can make on each flight, five at the most, and despite the agreement the company has not managed to increase the number of its pilots in order to respect it. Today, is the minister willing to take what steps are indicated with Air Canada so that it has more pilots and can respect the collective agreement it has signed with them?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that would not solve the immediate problem because the difficulty is in the whole training process. So I have no particular advice to give the hon. member and I do not think I have any to offer Air Canada, either.
December 20, 1978


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but in his absence, if I may, 1 would like to direct it to my colleague from Cape Breton, the Deputy Prime Minister. It is with regard to the proposed contract between Sysco and the Tree Island Steel corporation of British Columbia.
In light of the answer given by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion last week in which he indicated that an interim decision should be possible, is the Deputy Prime Minister now in a position to specify what form of interim agreement the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is seeking and whether we can expect an announcement before the House adjourns? Today is December 20.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can tell my hon. friend with some assurance that it will not be possible to make an announcement with respect to the Sydney Steel plant before the adjournment which we expect to take place at the end of the week.
That is not to imply that the question raised by the hon. member is not important and is not being considered by the government, because it is. Indeed, yesterday a number of ministers considered in some detail the problems facing the steel industry in Nova Scotia, and particularly the proposals we have received from Premier Buchanan with respect to possible federal assistance. We have maintained contact with the provincial government on this matter and will continue to do so.


INDUSTRY
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his very encouraging reply. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, a former seatmate of mine who is well aware of the economic problems and the unemployment situation on Cape Breton Island.
My question relates to the recently announced loan by the Enterprise Development Board of $40 million to $50 million to the Tree Island Steel company of British Columbia. Would the minister be kind enough to tell the House if the loan is conditional on Tree Island's meeting its long-term contract with Sysco regardless of whether financial arrangements for the modernization of the Sysco plant have been finalized by December 31 ?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to say it is conditional, but it is hoped that the loan will be used to renovate and enlarge the facilities at Sysco in conjunction with possible assistance from my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House what progress he has made in reprivatizing Nordair, and how is he coming along in fulfilling his commitment to rationalize regional air carriers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, those two questions are receiving my continuing attention. I have no further statement to make in that regard at this time, and I think I should refrain from trying to describe the state of any discussions or negotiations until they are close to being completed.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can confirm or at least take as notice a recent statement by one of his predecessors, former transport minister Lionel Chevrier, now the president of Quebecair, the gist of the statement being that Quebecair is confident of purchasing Nordair to accomplish the merger of these regional airlines.
It has also been suggested that Air Canada might be permitted to take over Nordair's Baffin Island, Arctic routes. Can the minister advise whether things have progressed as far as Mr. Chevrier suggests?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will change my earlier answer. I want to refrain from commenting on speculation or rumour. In the nature of things, a good deal of commercial sensitivity exists in relation to all these matters and I think it would be unwise for me to comment in an incomplete way.


POLICY RESPECTING REGIONAL AIR CARRIERS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Transport can indicate to the House whether a new statement of government policy with respect to regional air carriers will be brought down before an announcement with respect to Nordair or before such rationalization of regional carriers takes place.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is distinctly possible that there will be some further elaboration on the policy which was contained in the statement at the time of the announcement of the Nordair decision. There are a

December 20, 1978
Oral Questions
number of other issues involving regional carriers which are moving before the Canadian Transport Commission. I believe it may be helpful to the commission if I elaborate somewhat on the statements contained in that announcement.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister feel the recently announced increase in the compensation level for brucellosis is adequate to attain farmer co-operation, or would he consider bringing in legislation to tie that to a percentage replacement value for those cattle?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is adequate and the history shows it is adequate, because the brucellosis rate in Canada is now the lowest it has ever been in the history of cattle production in Canada. There are only three or four people who are really making complaints about it. It is the fairest system of any cattle producing country in the world.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, since the Holstein Association, the Ayrshire Association and the Canadian Cattle Commission have indicated that this compensation is too low, will the minister instruct his department to consult with these people and perhaps take another look at it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we could consult with them more, but I know there was consultation with them. I do know that these people know that no Holstein breeder, no Ayrshire breeder nor any other cattle breeder in the world is treated as fairly as the ones in Canada.


CUSTOMS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I addressed a question to the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Small Business concerning the move of the customs training school. Has he now consulted his colleagues, various memos, and so forth? Can he tell us precisely what will happen to that proposal?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have ascertained that the school which is being prepared at Rigaud ultimately will be occupied, and that the school which is being used now on Walkley road will be discontinued. I understand this has been a plan of some long-standing. As soon as the arrangements are made, we expect that it will be quite satisfactory.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, has the minister consulted closely with the President of the Treasury Board regarding this question? At this time, in a period of so-called restraint by the government, can he justify additional expenditures of close to $10 million in the foreseeable future caused by the occupation of these new facilities in 1979?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker, and I would dispute the sum mentioned by the hon. member.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Given the fact that from all reports the minister disagrees with our estimate that the default rate in AHOP is approaching 10 per cent, up from 8.1 per cent last March, is he now in a position to provide the House with accurate facts and figures to refute our estimates, or will he give us some more of his slipshod facts and figures?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that the figures quoted by the hon. member are correct.
I cannot understand why she says of our figures, which are official, that she cannot accept them and that they are-I did not understand too well the adjective she used in English to qualify them-but I in turn apply the same objective to her figures.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, the trouble with this minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: As of March this year, 53,000 units under AHOP, or approximately $3 billion worth of real estate, were vacant and unsold.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Will the minister tell us what is the matter with his department that it has not addressed this problem? One of the worst things in management is that when one does not take action-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. McGrath:: A supplementary question.
December 20, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton.


Mr. Paproski:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Communications and refers to a question raised by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on December 14. The question implied that the minister took a group of over 100 people to Florida at government expense to attend the successful lauching of the Anik B satellite last Friday.
Would the minister say whether the figure as to the number of people attending is correct? If not, will the minister indicate what the true involvement was in the lauch by the minister and the Department of Communications?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give the exact number of people who attended the launching of the satellite in Florida because those invitations were not handled by me but by the president of Telesat. The local papers in Cocoa Beach indicated that approximately 100 people attended the launching, and I would say that is about accurate.
These people came on their own and paid their own expenses. They included broadcasters and cable operators in great numbers-which I felt was an interesting development- potential customers and actual customers for the satellite, five provincial ministers, four of whom were Tories, and myself, of course.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jeanne Sauvé: They thought it was an important event. Four officials of my department attended-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. The consumer price index statistics released yesterday continue to indicate that the province of Newfoundland has the worst economic situation in the country. The city of St. John's showed the highest increase of all surveyed cities, with an
Oral Questions
astounding rate of inflation of 9.6 per cent over the past 12 months.
In view of the fact that the province has the highest inflation rate in the country, and that this becomes completely unacceptable when coupled with an intolerable level of unemployment, realistically, in the province, of approximately 25 per cent, will the minister accept the view that this is evidence enough to motivate him and the government to consider a special economic package for the province of Newfoundland as I have asked the minister repeatedly?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said previously in reply to a question by the hon. member, most of the programs of the federal government are geared in order to help areas where there is slow growth, and in the last budget we made special provisions in the tax area in order to assist the developing areas of Canada to have a better break. I think it has been the concern of the government that the programs of Manpower, all the programs of Regional Economic Expansion, and so on, are directed toward helping solve the problems of slow growth areas.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not hearing the question. I asked, in view of the latest statistics which show that the economic policies of the minister are not working in Newfoundland, would he consider this package?
My supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of these latest figures, will the minister and the government reconsider their proposals regarding Bill C-14 and exempt Newfoundland from its application, as it will only contribute to an already intolerable situation?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the new member is accentuating some of the things which he sees as negative and is not pointing out that the Stephenville linerboard factory benefits to the extent of $13.5 million. It will create permanent jobs, and that is what we want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport: it arises out of his announced intention to close down between
2312

December 20, 1978
Oral Questions
midnight and 6 a.m. the tower services at most of the principal airports in Canada.
In light of the increasing usage of those services between midnight and 6 a.m. by domestic mainline carriers for air cargo purposes, and the increasing demand respecting Night-hawk flights, in the interests of safety will the minister review his decision so that these airports do not become potential Cranbrooks?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the closing of towers during certain hours was in the form of a proposal for discussion put before the various participants in the air industry. It was designed to save significant amounts of money if it developed that those services were not required for real reasons of safety or other aspects of operation.
I have been reviewing very closely the evidence and the comments of all the participants in the discussion and very soon an announcement will be made on the final outcome. I have no doubt that some of the closings which we had indicated will take place, but others are being considered carefully in the light of possible need.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, do I understand from the minister's response that consideration is being given to extending beyond eight the number of airports that will be closed down?
There are approximately 35 to 40 departures during those night hours from Edmonton; there are virtually no departures from Calgary. Has this situation been taken into consideration? What happens when we select an NFA and have to move it to Gander so it can fly over the water for military mission purposes?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, essentially the airports selected for examination were selected after people who were knowledgeable about air travel and air safety were convinced that the service was not, in fact, required and that all the necessary airline activities and air operations could take place perfectly well with the facilities which would still be there and available, even without the on-duty control service. That exact question is one which came under some argument among the various participants in the airline industry and when I make my final decision on which points will have service and which will not, those comments will be taken into account.


DAIRYING
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The milk payment formula for industrial milk has a triggering mechanism to allow for an increase in payment, and in October allowed for a 52-cent increase. Would the minister tell the
House why that payment has not been made so far, and when it will be made?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked several times by several members in the House of Commons. Taking into consideration the season which is about to come upon us, and in the true Christmas spirit, I would say very, very soon.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I understand that although the discretion lies with the Dairy Commission, some provinces felt that it should be made sooner, other provinces felt that it should be made later. Will the payment be coming, as the minister has indicated it will, in the festive season, or close to it, in one lump sum or will it be split in two parts-one part now and one part later?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to wait. I do not know if he will have to wait until Christmas morning, but he will have to wait a few hours or days longer.


SHIPPING
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In connection with the present inflation rate, the Prime Minister said yesterday, "in times like these, Canadians should exercise a measure of restraint".
I assume that the minister is aware of the fact that the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, a federal Crown corporation, has just received permission from the Canadian Transport Commission to increase pilotage rates for small vessels by 62 per cent, for medium vessels by 30 per cent and for larger vessels by 18 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Put the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am coming to the question. Will the minister exercise restraint on this body and instruct them not to put these gigantic increases into effect which will drive away shipping in the Atlantic provinces, and will he assure the House that the government will provide whatever revenue is necessary, as they have been doing? This will be the fourth increase since this body was set up in 1972. What action has the minister proposed to stop this extraordinary increase?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the CTC decision and my first course of action would be to look at it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this was reported in the press about three days ago. The minister is taking his time in looking at these decisions.
The minister said last June, in response to a question, that he was not satisfied with the present pilotage structure and that he was thinking of a new act. There have been other

December 20, 1978

suggestions-that the number of ports subject to compulsory pilotage fees be reduced and that smaller foreign vessels entering Atlantic ports be allowed to do so without using pilots. If this is not done, it will have the effect of driving away foreign fishing vessels from St. John's and other ports.
Will the minister assure the House that he will consider these provisions and that he does not intend just to allow this increase to go into effect without taking some measures to alleviate the expense, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's statement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be very interested in analysing the CTC judgment to see whether the costs facing the Pilotage Authority were the basis for the increase in charges. The whole question of pilotage and the appropriate relationship between the minister, this House and the Pilotage Authority is something which I have been reviewing, and I do believe there is need for change. I will be looking forward to the opportunity of bringing in legislation on the subject in the future.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology, if I could have his attention. In October, 1978, the United Nations passed a universal declaration on the rights of animals. Article 14 of this document stipulates that "animals must not be used for scientific experiments which cause them suffering".
In view of that fact, will this government, and especially the Minister of State for Science and Technology, take the lead in this country and not grant money to researchers who do use live animals in their laboratories.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the particular report to which the hon. member refers. Obviously, live animals are an important technique in research, and 1 am certainly in no position to give any undertaking that we will make no grants to institutes which use live animals.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Use Liberals.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. In the last session, the government introduced two bills, C-51 and
Oral Questions
C-52. Bill C-51 was reintroduced as Bill C-21 in this session and deals with obscenity, pornography and many other items.
I would like to ask the minister, not only in his capacity as Minister of Justice but in his capacity with regard to the status of women, whether he intends to reintroduce Bill C-52 which, in effect, repealed the definition of rape and defined it as indecent assault or aggravated indecent assault. Is the minister bringing this bill back before the House, or has he changed the policy with reference to this matter which was introduced by the former minister of justice, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, since the tabling of this bill between the last session and now I have received a number of representations from women's organizations and other groups as to possible improvements in that particular bill. In addition, we have received the report from the Law Reform Commission covering all sexual offences.
I have asked my department to review that particular report and assess its various recommendations. My inclination is to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code which would cover all sexual offences, and not just the offence of rape as it does at the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the minister is studying the report of the Law Reform Commission which, as 1 understand it, recommends that we legalize or decriminalize-whatever way you want to put it-the offences of incest and bestiality, does he intend to write this into his new bill and follow the recommendations in that regard?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I said that I had asked my officials to assess all the recommendations. At first reading, I can tell the hon, member now, I would not at the present time support an amendment of the Code regarding incest.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that he has information which is circulating dealing with pilot shortages in Canada, coupled with the fact that civil aviation inspectors in Canada are now paid less than even traffic controllers, military pilots and their equivalents in other countries, will the Minister of Transport explain to us why this important group of professionals has been without a contract since 1975?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been difficulties and disputes involving the collective bargaining process: that is the reason nothing more satisfactory has been arrived at. I share the hon. member's view that this is a very important group.
80047-5'/2

December 20, 1978
Oral Questions


Arthur Ronald Huntington: My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. History tells us this goverment will move decisively when there is a crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: In light of the fact that 75 per cent of the major air regulation infractions committed in Canada in 1978 have not been processed, will the minister tell us what he is waiting for, vaporization of the civil aviation inspectors, the air operations group, withdrawal of their service, or another major air crash?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Environment. In light of the announcement by the U.S. environmental protection agency that approval will be given for the building of a supertanker port at Eastport, Maine, would the minister state whether he raised with his U.S. counterparts the issue of supertankers being allowed to travel to Eastport in Canadian waters along the New Brunswick coast, where difficult navigational hazards pose the risk of oil spills? Is the Canadian government still opposed to having supertankers travel in Canadian waters to reach Eastport?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian goverment is still opposed to this project. We will wait until this particular project goes through the regulatory process of the U.S. government before we make any moves. This is a matter with which perhaps my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is more in tune with after talking with his colleagues in the United States, but we in Environment Canada remain definitely opposed to it and will continue to oppose it.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works: it concerns the Higgins report which, according to the information which my office has obtained, has not yet been made public.
The author of the report, Professor Higgins, in a presentation to the committee of the other place recently quoted some parts of it, that is, that he would recommend to the Department of Public Works that they should forget all about British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and channel all their spending to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. I should like to ask the minister if we can consider that to be the policy of his department in the future.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the study made by the professor, but I can assure the hon. member that that is not government policy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It follows on the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Greenwood, in reply to which the minister said that the NRX research reactor in Taiwan has been under IAEA inspection ever since the ending of diplomatic relations between Canada and Taiwan.
Since it is my understanding that the United States took over international inspection following the break-off of diplomatic recognition between this country and Taiwan when Taiwan was no longer recognized by the UN, and since the agreement with the IAEA is no longer in force, would the minister say whether or not the Canadian government has made a new arrangement for the inspection of the nuclear research reactor in Taiwan to ensure that there is no opportunity for a recurrence of a situation such as developed in India with a similar research reactor?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member will appreciate that, once again, as with all these complex questions, it is difficult to cover all the elements in an oral answer.
Yes, we have made some inquiries since the announcement of the weekend with regard to the change of status of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship and there has, indeed, been a report that the Taiwan assistant foreign minister has, in these last days, recalled that Taiwan is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has therefore pledged not to manufacture nuclear weapons. Another piece of information is that Taiwan ratified the NPT on January 27, 1970, and this reinforces the answer which I gave yesterday.
Obviously, the situation is changing to some degree and we do not have a definitive answer at the moment as to how, for example, IAEA safeguards will be supervised under the new arrangements, but as soon as I have that information I will be glad to pass it on to the House. I might conclude by saying that I think I understood the hon. member to say that it was not under IAEA safeguards. The information I have is that the IAEA safeguards are in place and are subject to IAEA inspections.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, when referring to the IAEA safeguards, he is telling the House that the IAEA agreement between that body and Taiwan is still in force. Is he giving the House that kind of information, because that is the important
December 20, 1978

assurance that would have to be sought and our information is to the contrary?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the hon. member's information might be more up to date than mine, and that is why I do not want to give an off-the-cuff answer until I am perfectly clear. As I understand it, to try to be as forthcoming as possible, the IAEA safeguards are in effect and the government of Taiwan, even since the weekend, has indicated that it is prepared to accept them.
I repeat that that is not a formal declaration on paper or anything I can show the House. If the hon. member does have it-and I say it in all sincerity-I would be glad to hear from what source she has that information, if it is as new as she suggests.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for CMHC. In view of his recent announcement of the community services program which will provide some $400 million for vital municipal infrastructure programs such as sewer, water and community facilities, how soon will he actually be signing an agreement with the province of Ontario, and will there be an allocation of these funds to municipalities so they will be able to get on with the planning of these important municipal structures for 1979?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I had preliminary discussions with the government of Ontario earlier this week. I met the minister responsible for housing and municipal affairs of Ontario. We are supposed to meet again in the early days of the new year and I hope the province of Ontario will benefit from the community services program in 1979.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerns the report yesterday that negotiations on boundaries and fishing zones broke off as of last Friday. The report says that these negotiations will continue in the new year.
The minister indicated to me earlier in the House that if these issues were not resolved this year, they would be taken to the ministerial level and there would be direct negotiations between the minister and his U.S. counterpart on the unresolved questions. My question is: what arrangements has
Privilege-Mr. Peters
the minister made for direct negotiations with his counterpart in the United States to resolve what appears to be an unresolved negotiation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the operative words here are "what appears to be". I do not know where the report came from: it certainly did not come from me and I assume it did not come from the U.S. Secretary of State. Therefore, unless it did come from one or the other of those sources, it is not formal or final that the negotiations have broken off.
However, even on the hypothesis that they have broken off, that is not inconsistent with what I said earlier. By the end of the year we will have received a report from the negotiators as to the state of the negotiations at that point. Following that, Mr. Vance and myself will discuss the second part of the hon. member's question, namely, how the negotiations will proceed from there.
* *
*


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have a rather unique notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I am rather anxious to hear how he can relate this to anything to do with the procedures of the House.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I sent you notice under Section 17(2) of the standing orders of a question of privilege which, I believe, affects all members of this House. On several occasions I have raised a problem that confronts me as a member of parliament, and all other members, and have asked the House to do something about it. The problem is that one of our citizens is spending considerable time in front of the parliament buildings asking for relief from this institution.
I asked for advice, Mr. Speaker. I am given to understand that we have a privilege that goes back quite a way. It predates the Knowles parliamentary procedures and goes back to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, nineteenth edition.
This affects all members of the House. On several occasions we have made the request that this matter be handled in the House. The nineteenth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, chapter IX, page 120, under the heading "Power of Both Houses to Secure Attendance of Persons on Matters of Privilege", has the following to say:
The House of Commons has the power to send for persons whose conduct has been brought before the House on a matter of privilege by an order for their attendance, without specifying in the order the object or the causes whereon their attendance is required (e); and in obedience to the order members attend in their places, and other persons at the Bar.
This came about a long time ago. It is indicated that the origin of a power which is judicial in nature is to be found, naturally, in the medieval conception of parliament as primari-

December 20, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
ly a court of justice-the high court of parliament. We have often heard it said in this House that this is the high court of the country, that this is the last court, the court of last resort. It must, therefore, be a court of last resort for persons who wish to air a grievance or bring before parliament and the country something that they feel very strongly about when they are not in a position to petition in the normal sense.
As I am sure most other members of this House feel, I am a member of that court of last resort-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is attempting to develop the thesis in some way that he ought to help someone redress their grievance by bringing them before the Bar of the House to air that grievance, I am sure he will understand that while he may have some substantive way to bring that about, it does not affect the privileges of the members of the House of Commons.
I have to be reasonable, and I have given the hon. member a few minutes to develop that question of privilege as we know it in the House in its classic definition. I think he will have to agree with me that while he has a very imaginative approach to try to help someone with their problem, I do not think there is any way he can fit it within the bounds of privilege as we know it.
I wish the hon. member the best of luck in trying to bring this forward under what other procedural grounds he may pursue.


MR. NYSTROM-ANSWER GIVEN BY MINISTER OF FINANCE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from an answer given to me today by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) during question period. I am sure he did not mean to mislead the House intentionally but he said that this party was advocating the reintroduction of controls. In that he is misleading the House, although I am sure not intentionally so.
I want to point out that yesterday in the House I put the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as reported at page 2254 of Hansard-.
In light of some speculation that wage controls might be brought in, and in light of the Prime Minister's words on this at the first ministers' conference, can he assure us we will not see any wage controls in 1979, so that the Canadian worker will at least have a chance to catch up to the cost of living?
A supplementary question I put repeated basically the same thing at page 2255 when I asked the Prime Minister, in part:
-can the Prime Minister assure us there will be no implementation of wage controls until workers at least catch up to the increased cost of living?
My question today arose from a study that was just produced by CSIP, a government agency, that complained that profits were too high. I wanted the Minister of Finance to assure us that there would be some equity and that companies would be asked to restrain their prices. In no way did we suggest the government should bring back wage and price controls.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines-Mr. Foster.

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-449, to amend the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reintroduce essentially the same legislation that the government introduced several years ago dealing with the drug marijuana.
In effect, the bill would remove the drug marijuana from the Narcotic Control Act and place it under the Food and Drugs Act. It would also change the penalties very substantially, particularly in terms of importation of the drug which at the present time carries a minimum sentence of seven years for any person carrying the drug marijuana, in whatever quantity, across the Canadian border. This would simply civilize marijuana legislation.


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

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-450, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is quite simply to remove the subject of abortion from the Criminal Code and leave it as a matter to be closely regulated by the individual's conscience and by the medical profession. In a pluralistic society such as Canada it is inevitable-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 20, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I record it as carried on division?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-451, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (oaths and confidential information).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is that, in view of the increased demand for more open government in Canada, it would facilitate the flow of confidential and nonconfidential information both within the public service and between the public service and the general public. Existing legislation places a specific responsibility on public servants at all levels to withhold any and all information that is marked "confidential". This bill makes a distinction between confidential and non-confidential information and job capacities, and implicitly requires the government to define more clearly the word "confidential" which is used liberally throughout the Revised Statutes of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order which arises from the introduction for first reading of a bill which dealt with an amendment to the Criminal Code on abortion, I was not clear on your ruling as to whether the bill was received on division for first reading or whether it was received unanimously on first reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion has been carried.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, 1978 DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That, in relation to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration of the report stage of the said bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill; and
That, not later than fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in each such sitting, any proceeding before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the report stage or third reading stage, as the case may be, of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) yesterday gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise, by point of order, the question of whether such a motion is able to deal with both the report stage and third reading of this bill in the way it has. I indicated to him I would examine the language of the Standing Order and the precedents. It is a practice which has been followed in respect of the same or similar language in Standing Order 75A as he knows, but not in respect of Standing Order 75B.
The language of Standing Order 75C does make specific reference to the inclusion of report stage and third reading, and it describes it specifically that way. I would, therefore, have some difficulty in interpreting that language in such a way as to prevent it from being done, particularly in view of the fact that a two-hour debate is provided during which the government may be freely criticized, as I am sure it will, for the use of the Standing Order. That is a separate question, as to whether it can be criticized or not, from the procedural right of the government to put the motion in this way. However, I am now prepared to hear the hon. member on his point of order.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when I raised the matter yesterday you suggested it would be better if I were to do so today rather than yesterday, as I was prepared to do.
I realize that one rule which some persons follow in debate is never to admit thefe is any difficulty with your argument, but to insist that your case is watertight, ironclad, and all that. I am quite prepared to admit at the start that the wording in 75C does present some difficulty in respect of the point of order that I present for your consideration. However, I suggest there are times when what the House is about to do is so repugnant to the practices, precedents and traditions of this place that it should stop and take a look at it to see whether it is in order.
I said yesterday that if this motion were to cover two stages in a closure motion under 75C it would be the first time in the nine or ten years we have had this rule that it has been done. I have done some checking in the meantime. I have not read every page of Hansard and every page of the Journals back to

December 20, 1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14 1867, but I have done enough checking that I am in a position to say to Your Honour that if you do find you have to put this motion you will be the first Speaker in history to put before the House of Commons a motion for closure on a stage of debate that has not yet been reached.
We have had lots of motions for closure over the years. We have had House orders by agreements that were achieved before a debate started, but we have never had, by the use of the government's majority, a motion to set time limits on a debate before the debate at that stage had even been reached.
I point out that prior to 1913 there was no closure rule in the Standing Orders of the House Commons, but that in in 1913 we got such a rule. It was brought in by the Conservative government at that time, with the Liberals strongly opposing it. But, sir, even that rule which was brought in in 1913, about which I could say a good deal, had in it a provision that it was not to be used until there had been some debate on the stage in question.
That rule was badly abused by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe in 1956. There were times when some debate consisted only of a sentence or two. At any rate that is the tradition, the principle, and the spirit of closure in the Parliament of Canada. You do not use the government's majority to apply closure until there has been some debate. You do not anticipate the application of closure a day or two ahead, as this motion does in respect of the third reading of this bill.
As I say, we have a rule that limits debate to eight days on the throne speech before it starts, but that rule was agreed to, and we have a rule in respect of the budget debate being only six days after it starts. I have not been able to find any case where, by the use of the government's majority, a motion was passed before a debate started on a particular stage, prior to the one that is before us at this time. I feel this should be looked at very carefully before we proceed with it.
You may say to me, Mr. Speaker, that is good rhetoric, good philosophy, and so on, but then ask what we are going to do about the wording of the Standing Order. The wording that does present a problem, and I put that right on top of the table, is the phrase:
an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13).
Standing Order 75(13) is the order that says that third reading cannot be called on the same day on which the report stage was under debate. Therefore, it might be argued that in a sense there is consistency, although it seems to me there is a vagueness in Standing Order 75(13) that is not really covered by this provision.
May I point out that there are some things that are distinctive about Standing Order 75C as opposed to 75A and 75B, which tell us that about which we ought to be concerned. Neither 75A nor 75B requires any notice. They are motions that can be made by a minister without notice, because in the one case there is unanimous consent among parties, or in the other case there is majority consent. Standing Order 75B has never been used. I do not know whether we have used 75A as

such, but we have conformed to the spirit of 75A a number of times.
It is quite clear that when there is unanimous agreement or majority agreement you can do certain things that you cannot do when you are acting unilaterally under 75C. Standing Order 75C is distinct from the others in that it requires notice to have been given and, of course, that notice was given yesterday.
You will also note, sir, that there is nowhere in 75A or 75B any reference to proceedings that had already started. There is no requirement under 75A or 75B that the motion be put after the debate is under way. In other words, what the minister is trying to do in respect of the third reading stage could be done under 75A or 75B, but those are motions in respect of which there is either total agreement or majority agreement.
On the other hand, 75C makes a special point of the fact that an order under it is in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration. In other words, if you are going to act under 75C, you are back to the traditions of a century of this parliament, namely, that you do not impose closure on something unless there has been some debate. That is there. I know there is the exception when we get down to it. However, there is also to be noted in all of this that it says there shall be only the one stage of a motion.
We then come to this exception. I have to admit that the words are clear. However, I submit that this rule has never been tested and that it in itself is inconsistent. On the one hand, it says there can be only one stage. It says there cannot be a motion respecting a stage on which there has yet been no debate. Then it turns around and says you can do the very things that the first part of the motion says cannot be done.
I went back to look at the origin of 75A, 75B and 75C. I have a pretty good memory of it, but I did not trust my memory. I had the feeling there was a report from the committee which brought in the rules in 1960 and that that report had some philosophizing in it that might be of help to me.
When I looked, I realized the case was that the rule changes that were debated in December, 1968, were brought before the House after reference to a committee. It was not today's standing committee but a special committee. The whole subject was referred to that special committee. It brought in a report with some philosophy and rationale in it.
The report had some nice things in it to the effect that although the government has to have certain powers to control the business of the House, there has to be co-operation. That was the philosophy behind what was rule 16A in the report that we debated in December, 1968. Rule 16A was withdrawn. That was part of the price for getting that report through.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We did not bring in closure then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Closure came in July, 1969. The minister is aware of what I am talking about, I
December 20, 1978

trust. In June, 1969, when 75A, B and C were brought in, they were not brought in as a result of a reference to a committee, or committee study of any kind. They appeared on the order paper as a government notice of motion under the name of Mr. Mcllraith who was government House leader at that time.
Standing Orders 75A, B and C did not come out of a committee initially. They were not referred to a committee. The whole question of their integrity, their holding together, is really at stake. The reason I think it is fair to ask Your Honour to look at this today is because this is the first time this provision has been tested.
I suppose it was an oversight or a mistake, but in the requirement for a 75B, there must be agreement among the majority of the House represcr Natives. It does not say a majority including the governing: 'louse leader. We have had two or three occasions when we on the opposition side of the House have said that the three of us were prepared to agree to something but the government House leader was not prepared to do so. The result was, of course, that the government would not use 75B and then could not use 75C. I cite that merely to point out there is that technical error in 75B which is part of the package we dealt with in June and July, 1969.
I submit that the provision in 75C that says you shall apply closure only to a matter that has been under consideration and you shall not apply closure to two stages at a time is contradicted by the later phrase. That contradiction makes the whole order invalid on that point.
I repeat what I said at the beginning. This is the first time it has been tested or tried. Never before has there been an attempt to move two stages under 75C. Although we have had the rule since July, 1969, although we have had closure around this place since 1913 and problems since 1867, surely it is a serious matter if today we have a motion allowed and put to this House which permits the government, by the use of its majority, to decide before there has been any debate whatsoever that closure is to be applied.
As I say, my late friend C. D. Howe abused this very badly in 1956. The rule required that closure could not be used unless there had been debate. I remember very well when we got into committee and Mr. Howe stood up on the clauses of the bill. Clause 1 was called, he read out the marginal note and asked us to move on to clause 2. He read the marginal note on clause 2 and asked us to move on to clause 3. He did that right through the bill. Then the government argued there had been debate at the committee stage of that pipeline bill and therefore it was able to apply the closure rule. I argued that that was a ghastly abuse. However, it at least demonstrated that the principle, philosophy, and whole idea behind the practice of closure are that in our parliament you only do it after there has been a debate.
I emphasize that rule 75C did not have any committee consideration. It was a very contentious debate. The Liberals, much to their annoyance, were kept here all the month of July and finally had it put through under closure. Instead of the use of this being allowed today, which established a very serious precedent, and there is no telling what will go on from here on
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14 in, the government should be allowed to put only the one stage, and the question of the inconsistency and invalidity of Standing Order 75C ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my case. I know from the way you spoke yesterday, and the way you spoke just now, you think that the words are such that there is no argument. I have great respect for words and what they say. However, 75C is in such a mess that I believe it is improper and out of order for the government to use it in this way. It has never been done before.
We have never had a motion put from the Chair for closure on a debate that has not yet started. For that to happen today would be a retrograde step. I hope Your Honour will ask the minister to amend the motion to let it apply only to the report stage, and deal with the other later.
I am not at this point arguing about the use of closure, the length of time allotted and all of that. We can deal with that in the other debate. However, in terms of 111 years of history in this place, what is being proposed today is not only repugnant but is essentially out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the hon. member before, I examined carefully the language of the Standing Order. I would have more sympathy for his argument if he were addressing himself to an application of this order in respect to two stages of a bill if they were not specifically mentioned. The language of the rule is specific. It does not simply say in a sentence that more than one stage may be covered by this kind of order. It states in very specific terms, that I simply cannot get around, and I quote:
-provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill-
That language is so clear and so specific that I have to believe that the drafters of that Standing Order, and of course the hon. member and I were both members of that committee-


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, no. That was brought in by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is correct. But he and I were both members of the committee which examined the Standing Order. The committee did not necessarily put the Standing Order before the House, but we were both members of that committee. I was not attempting to associate him with the draftsmanship of the paragraph. I did not mean to do that. However, the origin of the Standing Order is not at the moment material to the argument. The fact is that that language is in the Standing Order. I again refer to the language:
-provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistant with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13).
2320

December 20, 1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
Standing Order 75(13) protects the right of the House to insist that report stage and third reading not be taken on the same day. This motion is not repugnant to that clause and therefore I have to say that the motion is clearly within the terms of the Standing Order.
I wish to add just one other note. The hon. member spent a great deal of time on the subject of closure which, as he well knows, is covered by Standing Order 33 and which is, in fact, a motion to terminate debate at a stage on which the House must have launched itself. The fundamental difference between that Standing Order, which has been on the books much longer than this Order, is that this order is for time allocation which, in its fundamental terms, is a different exercise. Closure, of course, is an exercise terminating a debate which has already begun.
Time allocation has the fundamental difference of attempting to prescribe time for debate in advance, and obviously, in its very nature, has as part of it the ability of the House to program its time in advance, and in Standing Order 75A this is done by agreement. In Standing Order 75B it is done after a majority of the House leaders have agreed. In Standing Order 75C it can be done in a different way if these agreements have broken down. Now, whether the hon. member agrees with that or not, he can address himself to that subject in a few moments when the debate begins. But the language of the Standing Order has as its intention the advance programming of time, which is fundamentally different from closure as dealt with in Standing Order 33, and I certainly have to take this into account in examining whether the order is doing what it is intended to do.
The second thing is that the clear language of the order leaves me with no other choice but to rule that as the order stands at the present time, which is all I can deal with, the motion is perfectly in order. Therefore, the question is now-


An hon. Member:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is on the motion (Mr. Cullen).


Mr. Rodriguez:: On a point of order Mr. Speaker, in the light of the draconian nature of the measure which is being introduced, I move that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that he has to have the floor in order to move such a motion. The hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat incongruous that while the opposition parties regard the filibuster as a legitimate parliamentary tactic, there is a tendency to heap scorn on the fact that there is a party with a majority in parliament which, having been unable to negotiate time allocation with the other parties after trying to do so, then sees fit to try to use a rule of parliament-Standing Order 75C-to bring about time allocation for the passage of a bill or for different stages of that bill.

In committee the New Democratic Party predicted that the government would bring in time allocation. The New Democratic Party indicated they fully expected this would be done. But just to be sure, and knowing the practicality of the situation, knowing that it was our intention to adjourn the House to enable us to be home for Christmas and to see our constituents during the month of January, just to assure that the government would bring in time allocation under 75C, the New Democratic Party brought forward a whole series of amendments which it knew full well could not be dealt with in the ordinary course of debate. Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party did everything they could to guarantee that the government would be forced to use 75C in the interest of getting this bill passed.
Last night the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) spoke somewhat longingly of his hope that his party would form the government after the next election. Mr. Speaker, that is not going to happen because I am satisfied the people of Canada will not give a mandate to any party which suggests it will negotiate sovereignty association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Nevertheless, in the very improbable case that this might happen, I wonder if members of the official opposition are prepared to get up in their places today and say that should they form the government they would remove Standing Order 75C from the rules of the House. I suspect they will not agree to do that.
I had, frankly, hoped for a full and open debate on the ideas to be presented by the parties opposite. To the credit of the official opposition they recognized the limited time which was available to us prior to the recess. The government had indicated that this was a priority bill and that we were going to seek to have it passed before the recess. Given that position they got together, despite all the amendments they might have liked to have moved, and came forward with two or three amendments. There would have been time to debate those amendments, and I believe we could have had a good debate.
I think we could have benefited from some of the ideas I heard in committee and which I feel should have been brought forward either at the report or third reading stage. But the New Democratic Party made this impossible, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to hear some of the views expressed. I did hear some of them expressed by the New Democratic Party at the committee stage-hour after hour after hour of the same argument on different amendments. The argument was the same, running through some 35 meetings of that committee. There were 11 meetings a week, and over and over again we heard the same shallow and not very convincing arguments.
In an earlier session of this parliament it was my privilege to pilot through two pieces of legislation-Bill C-24 and Bill C-27. We had good debate on those bills and made many changes. Some of them were suggested by the New Democratic Party, some by the official opposition, and some by our own members. Some of them were suggested by the government in cases where we wished to make some correction or smooth out
December 20, 1978

some of the rough edges of the bills. But we had a good debate because people took their responsibilities seriously and recognized we were trying to make improvements. That is the kind of debate which makes parliament great. But bringing in 25 or 27 amendments at the last minute is really not a sincere attempt at holding honest debate on a tough piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I looked for something at the report stage which might be new. Or I looked for some evidence that the New Democratic Party might have said, "Well, we're not going to change this bill. The government has decided it will put the bill through so we are going to concentrate on a couple of areas to make our point." But they haven't done that. These are exactly the same amendments as were argued at the committee stage. They have already been debated, and members of the official opposition will confirm what I say, as will my own hon. friends. We have had long debate on every one of the amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party-nothing at all is new in these amendments. Those amendments were voted down, sometimes by government members, and sometimes by opposition members joining with government members. Surely there could have been a focus.
I think members of the New Democratic Party have done the people of Canada a disservice by taking this stubborn, stupid attitude and by bringing in so many amendments. They knew we could not have a good debate in the House at report stage or at third reading stage.
I make no apologies whatsoever for using Standing Order 75C. That is a rule which parliament has adopted. It is meant to be used when arrangements or agreements cannot be made with opposition parties. I recognize that there is a filibuster. I saw it at the committee stage, and I have seen it here in the House. That is a parliamentary tactic. I do not like it, but it is a tactic all three opposition parties use very effectively. However, if that is a legitimate tactic when nothing is written about it in the rules, surely it is legitimate to use Standing Order 75C when a party in power has a majority and says it wants to put a bill forward. The rules make provision for that.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Where are your Atlantic Canada members?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I hear rumbles. "Where are your Atlantic Canada members?" I made my announcement in September. Atlantic members of my party were quick off the mark to say that the way we intended to bring in the repeater section and the new entrant and re-entrant sections was too tough and that it would have an undue impact in the areas of the country for which they were responsible. They came to me with reasonable arguments, and changes were made. We moved back on the repeater section. We brought in the 11.5 per cent rule so that it does not apply in areas of high unemployment.
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
Atlantic members of this party, to their credit, worked diligently, despite the fact that the House was in recess. They did not wait until we came back here. They were quick to get to me, even though the House was not in session, and they were successful in having changes made. I am still hearing representations from my colleagues, and I am having second thoughts in certain areas. I am doing what I can to accommodate members who make legitimate representations. However, members of the New Democratic Party have filled up the order with amendment after amendment, all of which have been debated. I think members of the New Democratic Party have done their own party, and certainly the people of Canada, a disservice.
If members of the New Democratic Party wanted to get into a legitimate debate, we would have been prepared to debate the strengths or weaknesses of this legislation, but they have taken away that opportunity by using the senseless approach of proposing so many amendments to the bill. Standing Order 75C was meant to be used in situations like this, and I make no apology.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can advise the House that we are going to oppose this closure motion. There is a place for closure. We all know that. But I want to quote from Beauchesne, page 140 in the fourth edition.
The ending of protracted debate, not its abolishment, was the main reason why closure was established.
Where is the protracted debate in this House on this piece of legislation? On November 9 we debated for three hours and 50 minutes on the second reading, and on November 10-both days the total was three hours and 50 minutes on second reading. That is all, Mr. Speaker. Then we came back to this House on December 18-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was at the insistence of the official opposition that we moved to have a voice vote in the House on that particular occasion. The official opposition was quite satisfied to have that limited debate. The official opposition put time allocation on second reading.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the minister's ramblings. He was half right in his remarks when he spoke with reference to the NDP, and now he is completely wrong. There were three hours and 50 minutes on the 9th and 10th. And on December 18 and 19, this week, we had six hours and 46 minutes altogether on the report stage; ten hours and 36 minutes to date on this legislation affecting one million unemployed and all of the people of Canada who are subsidizing unemployment insurance to the tune of $2 billion a year. We take off 30 minutes for procedural arguments on December 18, and we have had ten hours of debate in this House so far, and we have had speeches so far in the debate, 28 speakers, seven Liberals, nine PC, eight NDP, and four Social Credit or independent speakers, out of 265. This has not been a protracted debate.
80047-6'/I

December 20, 1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
This bill went to a committee which did a marvellous job. It had 30 sittings, met 30 times, and there we put forward serious amendments to be considered, which were voted down. In that committee the government attempted closure. They brought in a closure motion, and their own members voted against it in the committee. This government has gone berserk with fear. They bring in closure in the committee, not only in the House but in the committee.
Since I came to the House in the second session we have had closure on several other occasions, but nothing like this. On the income tax, C-l 1, last year at least we debated for ten days on second reading, four days at the committee stage. The income tax bill in connection with the sales tax, before closure was brought in, was 22 days in the committee stage. The income tax bill the previous year was 4'h days in the committee stage, nine days on third reading in this House. We have had four days, and the government is putting the clamps on. Why? Because of its ineptness, because it did not organize its business to bring this in earlier, because it does not know what it is doing, because it does not care about the rights of parliament, because it does not care about the rights of the unemployed. Just total ineptness, and we are not going to vote for closure even though Christmas is coming and the sleigh bells are ringing. We are not going to go along with this closure motion.
Mr. Speaker, the minister was right on the members to my left, the NDP. They have helped destroy this debate with 24 amendments they have moved, most of them stupid amendments, remove this clause, remove that clause, remove all the clauses. This is only for the purpose of holding up the House. It was not for serious debate. It was for cheap political gain that they think they are going to make. That is why the NDP moved 24 motions. We are still discussing their first motion, so don't set themselves up in this House as the apostles of purity. They are going to get up and argue that "You cannot have 75C, you cannot do this and that because we purists in the NDP say it is all anti-democratic". It is anti-democratic how they have abused this House in the last few days with the 24 amendments that they have moved, knowing that they would never be debated, knowing that the government would bring in closure, knowing that Christmas was coming. It is the biggest example of insincerity since somebody invented Santa Claus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Withdraw that.


John Carnell Crosbie: In fact, these are the Santa Claus members. In committee we brought forward-and by the way, the members of the NDP are suffering from a disease which has been described as Pope's Law. I will give you what Pope's Law is: All looks yellow to the jaundiced eye. They have a jaundiced eye on this unemployment insurance, and therefore they cannot look at the thing without their colouring being yellow.
I have a quotation for the government. "A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular," said Adlai Stevenson, and

the government is darned lucky this is a free society because they are certainly unpopular, and they are going to go in 1979.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) did splendid work in the committee, and they moved several serious amendments, one so that the people who would bear some onus for having their unemployment insurance receipts cut would be those who quit their employment without any justification. That has been ruled out for consideration in this House. The second was that we adopt a two-tier system so that we not punish everybody on unemployment insurance by reducing everyone from 66% per cent of their pay when they were working to 60 per cent as the government proposes, or that we cripple re-entrants into the force so that they can no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance, or new entrants into the labour force in places like Newfoundland so that they will never get unemployment insurance.
No, we say that is unfair and arbitrary, and therefore we suggested that, to save more money than the government is going to save, we have a two-tier system, accepted by most of the provinces, where people with dependants would receive the same amount of unemployment insurance in the future, but those with no dependants would be cut back to 50 per cent because of the need to cut back on this huge $2 billion deficit. We are responsible. Even if we come from areas of high unemployment, we are responsible enough to know that this government is leading us to doom if the $12 billion deficits in the budget continue, and the huge deficits in unemployment insurance continue. But the government would not consider that in committee. The government is not going to give us a chance to debate now through its closure, and if the government does not accept that amendment, we are voting against the government on third reading and these arbitrary and cruel amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
This government is in the stage now that we had in 79 A.D., two thousand years ago. That was the last days of Pompeii when Mount Vesuvius exploded and Pompeii was done away with. We are waiting for the eruption now, and the eruption is going to come when they get their courage up and call the election in 1979.
The government is acting somewhat like Marie Antoinette, but does not give them either cake or bread. Nobody here now can afford bread because of the offence of the "true dough", and Trudeau is going to go so that the unemployed of this country can afford to have some cake, not the ruinous policies that this government has bumbled along with until now When? is the originator of the unemployment insurance change in 1971? As I said last night, flying across Canada sucking his thumb. He is not down like the unemployed, sucking their thumbs and wondering where they will have to go next to look for work. Now the minister has to take the odium for bringing in these changes and cutbacks. The public

December 20, 1978
never likes cutbacks. He has to come here today with the "poor people" remarks he has made.
We will not accept closure. We believe that this has been a poor performance by the government, and an exceptionally poor perfomance by the NDP. Those people have such lofty virtues. The only ones who have the decency to perceive how unfortunate some people are and to do something about it, the only people with any goodness in the House are members of the NDP, they like to think. I can tell them that their lack of principles makes them the newly debauched party. That is what they are, the NDP.
I suggest that we proceed to our motion which is the only serious amendment before the House. Our motion is No. 14 moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. And I suggest that we debate the two-tier system. Perhaps the government will tell us that they will put it into effect. We recognize the need for restraint and we recognize the need for some changes, but we think the government's changes are not the right ones. We have our own expert here, he is an expert actuary who came to the House only a few weeks ago and he has added a lot to it. We are standing with him. We are voting against closure. If the minister does not get some sense and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, we will vote against third reading of the bill. We are not afraid of the scattered remnants of the NDP because they will not be here after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The people of Canada will force the floorflush-ers right down the drain when the next election comes. I am proud to be one to vote against this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas I should like to extend my sympathy and sense of understanding to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He seems to be suffering from a severe case of paranoia. I have seldom seen anyone in the House so worried about the New Democratic Party. It has been my view for a long time that Newfoundland is a natural place for us to gain strength, and we had some evidence of that this fall in the election of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour). But every time my friend, the hon. member for St. John's West, speaks and makes these attacks on us, I feel we must be gaining more strength down in Newfoundland than even we had dared to hope. In any case, when anyone is suffering such a severe case of paranoia, he deserves our sympathy and understanding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Every time we have a debate on a motion under Standing Order 75C, which is closure no matter what other name you might try to put on it, we have the argument from the other side that it is there in the books and it is there to be used.
I have to make the point again that although the rules of 1968 were dealt with by a committee, and although in that
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
committee we did consider rule 16A which was dropped, 75A, 75B and 75C were never before the committee; they were an invention of the Liberal government. As for closure, in whatever form you put it, I should like to quote the words of a person who, I think everyone in the House will agree, was one of the outstanding members of the Liberal Party of Canada throughout its history.


An hon. Member:: Jack Horner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I refer to none other than Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In 1913, when the Conservatives of that day were putting through the closure rule that has been a black mark on our books all these years, he fought it bitterly, and if I were not limited to ten minutes I should have liked to give a number of quotations of the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier given to the House in that day. He must have been a tremendous orator with a tremendous capacity for the use of words. Let me give just one quotation, and I am sure that members can hear that great orator on that occasion. It was in 1913 when he was attacking the closure rule which has been brought in, and this is what he said:
Heaven is my witness that I would rather stand here today defeated and in opposition by that appeal to the people than stand over there in office by the power of the gag.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sir, that is what we have today, liberals who believe that with the government's majority they can use the power of the gag. We are completely opposed to what is being done in this instance with respect to Bill C-14.
All of this talk that we have had from the other side and from my paranoiac friend, the hon. member for St. John's West, about our having put forward quite a number of report stage amendments seems to miss the point, and I suspect it is deliberate. There are two or three things in this bill which to us are essentially wrong. They spread through the whole bill and that is why we have to make so many amendments. I say to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) today that this motion would not have been necessary and a debate this long would not have been necessary if he had met us on three important points. Those points are, first, the unjustified reduction in the benefits payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
This is a day when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has managed to increase family allowances and old age pensions, pensions of various people will be escalated in January, the pay and allowances of members of parliament and cabinet ministers will go up in January, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says that the government is not prepared to subsidize the price of bread or other such things, but it wants to help those who are having a difficult time because they do not have enough income. Yet they bring in a measure to reduce the benefits under employment insurance by 10 per cent. That is wrong. We make no apology for trying in any way we can to defeat it because of that reason,

December 20, 1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
but if the minister had the decency and had the sense of liberalism that the government House leader used to have, he would stand up today and say "We will meet you on that point, we will be prepared to negotiate a quick end to this debate."
There are two other points, in addition to the one I have just mentioned, the reduction by 10 per cent in the amount of the benefit. The second one is the inclusion in this legislation of measures that-are of particular disadvantage to young people and to women. The reference, of course, is to new entrants and re-entrants, and so on. The reference is also to the minimum number of hours a week that have to be worked to qualify for unemployment insurance, but the people hit hardest by this are women, the same people who were hit by the cutback in the Outreach program, the same members of our community who are still on the short end of the stick. If the government would meet us on that point, we would be prepared to negotiate some end to this debate.
The third point has to do with the disadvantaged areas in Canada. The minister can stand up and try to tell us that the Atlantic Liberal members are satisfied with what has been done in Atlantic Canada so far as this legislation is concerned. That is not the way I hear it, either on the floor of the House or from members who talk to us behind the curtains.
Mr. Speaker, I make to you the point today on behalf of my party that if these three areas could be met, this bill could be brought to a vote fairly soon. We might still not like the bill as a whole, but the reason the debate has been dragged out in committee and the reason we have put down so many report stage amendments is that we regard these three points as crucial and they make this bill one that is thoroughly bad.
It is sometimes made out that the whole purpose of this bill is to do something about the abusers and cheaters of unemployment insurance. It does not do very much about them, but supposedly that is what it is all about. That is what my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) thinks, and for that reason he is prepared to support the bill, although he does not like some of the other phases of it. According to some members of the House we are supposed to be supporting those abusers and cheaters. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to support measures to do away with the abuse and cheating of this program. But the three provisions I have identified are bad, unliberal, indecent and un-Canadian, and we are against them.
We think that for the government to use its majority power, to use the power of the gag-because that is what rule 75C is-to bring to an end a debate like this, is something completely out of touch with the spirit of Christmas. Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this motion with everything we have.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when the government introduces a bill in the House but does not want to hear the opposition's opinion about it and wishes to impose its dictature or to impose a particular bill to the people of the country, we can see that the government is prepared to

accuse the opposition of filibustering and taking every means to uphold democracy. However, the government, which does not want to respect the democratic process of parliament, uses that argument to accuse the opposition of complicating that democratic process.
Indeed, all three opposition parties have proposed amendments to Bill C-14, a bill which obviously represents a direct accusation against the unemployed, because the bill accuses them of being swindlers, bandits or crooks, and the opposition does not accept such an attitude from the government. That is why each of the opposition parties moved motions proposing amendments which are likely to represent worthwhile solutions to the problem of unemployment in Canada.
When the minister blames the unemployed and the opposition tries to put the minister back on the right track, namely showing respect for the people, the minister replies: No, the opposition is filibustering. As an hon. member pointed out, after barely ten hours of debate on a subject as important as unemployment, the manpower available in Canada, unavailable jobs, the lack of jobs, the government says: No, we are committed to have the law passed by January 1. The government is not overly concerned about the essence of the law or respect for individuals. No. For them what counts is the date of January 1, the date for the implementation of a law clubbing employers. To show the extent to which the government is acting in a dictatorial and undemocratic way, I will say that already in regional unemployment insurance centres, even before the act is passed, even before opposition parties introduced amendments, already directives are being sent to regional offices, computer systems are being set and programmed so as to reflect this legislation which has not yet been voted in the House of Commons. But when opposition members rise to make changes, because the government does not want in a democratic way to recognize that changes can be made, the government introduces this motion 75C to end the debate. The minister says: We did not get agreement between the parties. Our House leaders did not agree on a time limit for the debate. The minister adds: Furthermore, we did not get a majority to decide if we should limit the debate.
We in the opposition cannot accept a time limit on the debate when the government does not want to debate anything, when it sticks, like a good old horse with its blinkers, to its basic idea in spite of and against all, charging, as I suggested at the beginning of my remarks, that the unemployed are cheaters and people who refuse to work, and saying just as plainly that the bill is intended to get 250,000 workers off unemployment insurance. But they do not wonder where those workers will go from there. The government is not indicating in any way that they will create 250,000 jobs. No. But on the other hand, once again, I say that in a dictatorial way they are ready to put the gag to opposition members to prevent them
December 20, 1978

from revealing to the whole population what the government is going to do to Canadian workers.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot as a group and I cannot as a member accept the imposition of a bludgeon measure such as the use of Standing Order 75C in a debate which is thwarted from the start by the government in power.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, a number of issues have been raised already in the short debate which has taken place. A number of things should be answered or at least brought to the attention of some hon. members in the House who seem to have a slender grasp of some of the rules of this particular place.
I do not claim to be as expert as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but a casual reading of the rules and a casual listening to the rules would suffice. Perhaps the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is so bombastic that he has hurt his ears. Perhaps he did not understand what Mr. Speaker said because the hon. member says so much and listens so little. Perhaps he did not hear Mr. Speaker, who went to great pains attempting to dispose of the issue as to whether the motion was proper in terms of both report stage and third reading. Mr. Speaker went to great pains to point out that there were rules of closure, Standing Order 33, and rules respecting time allocations in advance of debate, the 75 series. Yet notwithstanding that, the first member of the official opposition rose and referred to what he considered to be a terrible thing, closure. I have never seen such a disgusting example of people who want to have their cake and eat it at the same time.
The official opposition could have exercised Standing Order 75B. They could have indicated that they were prepared to see this matter disposed of, that they did not want to see two hours of the time of the House wasted debating whether there should be time allocation. They could have agreed that this matter was too important to waste time on procedure. They could have indicated that they wanted to discuss the issue and their two motions. Did they do that? No.
Instead they said, "Let the government be forced into the position of using Standing Order 75C so that we can claim gag and closure", knowing full well that it was not. They wanted both to have their cake and to eat it as well. It is disgusting, and it is time someone stood up and said so. That is what I am saying now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) referred to the lack of opportunity for debate. There were 35 committee meetings dealing with Bill C-14 and an additional ten meetings dealing with supplementary estimates, the majority of which time was spent considering Bill C-14. I do not know on how many occasions in the last nine months members of the official opposition have risen to suggest amendments to the rules to make committees more meaningful
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
and more important, and that committee debates should be recognized, heard, understood, and felt within the House. Then they have the gall to rise and suggest that a total of 45 meetings is no discussion at all, and that there has been no opportunity to discuss.
It is my understanding, and the minutes of the hearings will bear me out, that the Social Credit party was not represented at any of those meetings at all and in fact made their first submissions with respect to this bill in the House yesterday. Now they have the gall to suggest that they have not had the time to speak on the bill or to put forward their objections to the legislation.
I have spent some time examining this bill. Hon. members should have spent more time discussing it with their constituents, as I have.


John R. Rodriguez: You have just seen the bill for the first time.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member suggests that I have just seen the bill for the first time. I have read the bill probably as frequently as the hon member, who is making all the noise over there. Rather than trying to prevent the bill from being passed, I took it back to my riding and discussed it with the people there who have for the last number of years been suggesting that the government must take action, bite the bullet, and realize that there are imperfections in the act.
These people told me something which I heard and heard well, that this was one of the most important items in their eyes. In fact I have been behind the minister saying, "Get it changed now, and if I have to stay until Christmas I will do it because it is that important to my riding". It is not just the people whom members opposite describe as cheaters and misusers who have spoken to me, it is farmers who recognize that if we tighten up too much it may make it more difficult to acquire farm labour. It is the workers themselves with whom I met this weekend. For example, I met with hospital employees who have suffered substantially in Ontario because of cutbacks which have taken place in the hospitals at the provincial level. These people were concerned about what was happening with this bill. I went through it with them and they said that they could not understand why the government was so fearful of it because they felt that they could live with the bill.
I suggest that what has happened is that these representatives of labour who have supposedly been speaking to members opposite have forgotten to speak to the labourers themselves, because the labourers seem to be able to understand.
We have heard a lot of debate in the House over the last four years on how we should control debate in the House, not in terms of imposing hours but in terms of sitting down and rationally deciding how the debate should take place. We have heard that "reasonable men should be able to sit down and determine how many hours should be necessary to discuss any particular bill." As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated, in 1969 when this particular section of the rule was brought in, it was in an attempt to verbalize that

December 20, 1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
kind of debate, to provide us with a tool that would allow hon. members somehow to determine in advance the time that should be spent on any particular issue. I get a little bit upset with those who now say that because we have not used the tool since 1969 maybe we should not use it at all; in other words, this House should not have the perception to be able to determine what is a reasonable length of time for debate on an issue.
I compliment the minister for having imposed closure. I think it was absolutely essential, given the number of amendments introduced by the NDP and the time already spent on the bill in committee. To fail to do so by Christmas would have meant expenditures by the government of $50 million to $100 million in the new year that it can ill afford to have at this particular time.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. member who just preceded me. I found it interesting that he would get involved in this debate and that he would quote from committee hearings when those of us who sat through many of those hearings did not see the hon. gentleman.
As the opposition critic to the minister on immigration matters, I have discussed certain issues with him, and I find that in most cases he has attempted to be fair. But today when he tried to defend the motion with regard to the portion on which he would get a mandate, it was a total red herring, and he has shown more brilliance in other situations. I suggest to him that the electorate will decide who will get the mandate.
There are two things which have happened with regard to the bill. Part of this bill was, in fact, gazetted before this House had opportunity to debate it. On October 20 the cabinet discussed clause 2 of Bill C-14 and at that time the cabinet made a decision to use the Unemployment Insurance Act, by order in council, to pass clause 2. On November 2 this House gave first reading to Bill C-14. On November 8 the government passed or gazetted in the Canada Gazette clause 2 of Bill C-14. Up until that time this House had not debated any portion of that bill. On November 9 and 10-members will recall that the tenth was a Friday-this bill was debated and passed out of this House to committee.
It is preposterous to think that this government, or any government, would present a bill to the House for debate when part of it had already been enacted into law by the Canada Gazette, but this government did it. We then had an interminable number of committee meetings in which there was an exercise by the NDP, and I guess they can use whatever tactics they wish, the repeat of a performance which I had seen in discussions on Bills C-24 and C-27 previously. Basically their argument is that they want to spend more money on unemployment insurance.
My party does not want to spend more on unemployment insurance; we want to spend more on employment and the creation of jobs.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, oh!
[Mr. Daudlin.l


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is a record currently on the market which many young children are buying called "Disco Duck", and I suggest that the hon. member purchase it himself.
Part of this bill was already gazetted. We sat through 35 meetings with the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who tried everything, including an attempt to rotate members speaking within the committee, to use more time. It is fine for hon. members to speak, but what he was trying to do was to get his point across at the expense and the right of other members to speak in the committee.
In committee it is the object to present proposals which are better than those under discussion. Many of the minister's officials agreed that our proposals were better than his. The minister said that he wanted to go to committee in order to look at proposals. However, did he accept any? He did not accept ours but kept on saying that his proposal was better. This party proposed responsible amendments to improve the bill but the minister just wanted to get the bill through committee, through report stage, and into third reading. He was not interested in the final analysis for change. On other bills relating to unemployment insurance and immigration, a number of amendments were introduced which the minister considered seriously and ultimately those amendments or modifications of them were approved. That did not happen with the bill before us, however.
I want to return to the question of gazetting, Mr. Speaker. On the morning of one committee meeting we received a telephone call from a gentleman in Toronto who wanted to know if the bill was already in effect. It was not, of course, because we were still debating it in committee. This gentleman began to read some very interesting and strange words to us which he said appeared in the Canada Gazette. It was only after the minister was caught with his hand in the cookie jar that he admitted that clause 2 of the bill had already been gazetted. This must go on the record, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have respect for the hon. member and I know he would not wish to mislead the House. At no time, however, did I ever indicate that we had gazetted clause 2 of the bill. I indicated that we have moved a regulation under a bill that was presently in existence.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I appreciate the minister's intervention. He knows, and I know, however, that the gazetting had the same effect as the provisions in clause 2. He also knows that because of the action the government took on October 20, and afterwards, they did not need clause 2 in Bill C-14. He was asking parliament to pass something that had already been enacted. That is the kind of thing that was going on.
There were some very specific amendments that we wanted to bring forward, but actions of this kind put in doubt the sincerity of the government and of its members on the committee.
December 20, 1978

It is true there are a large number of amendments as report stage which the NDP have brought in and that this prevents the official opposition from bringing forward its amendments because we will not have time to debate them. 1 appreciate the latitude that you extended to me and other members on this side last night, Mr. Speaker, when you did not restrict us to discussing motion No. 1. We were able to discuss almost all the motions on the order paper. The fact is, however, that the NDP did not bring in positive amendments.
There are two reasons why the official opposition is deeply disturbed about action by the government. First is the fact that the government gazetted part of the bill. It was not necessary. It was a violation of parliamentary procedure and an insult to every member of this House. For 35 committee meetings we discussed something that was already law. What a shame that is!
The other reason is that a proposal was presented in good faith, but the minister wanted to get his bill through without a serious examination of it. That proposal would have met the objectives of the minister. It would have brought in restraint but would also have preserved the income of those groups in society receiving unemployment insurance benefits who are not abusing the system. The minister cannot deny that. Now, when his back is against the wall, a motion for closure is introduced in order to stifle debate. We cannot debate the amendments that we wanted.
This is a very sad day for this House and this parliament, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I should like to contribute a few words to the debate this afternoon. One of the underlying principles of this bill is to provide additional funding to the government for constructive job creation and training programs. This bill and other government funding would provide some $710 million for this purpose in the coming fiscal year, part of which would derive from the savings realized by the operation of the unemployment insurance program.
The opposition has explored this bill in great detail in committee. There were some 35 committee meetings, and all the amendments presented for consideration at report stage were dealt with in considerable detail at those meetings.
The opposition obviously has responsibility to oppose a bill and to make positive and constructive amendments to it, but there must come a time when members from all sides can vote. We can either have continued blockage or obstruction of a bill, or else it comes to a vote.
A motion under Standing Order 75C allows the government to set a time limit on debate, and provides that report stage and third reading can be dealt with in the same motion. In this case two sitting days have been proposed to deal with report stage and third reading. That would bring us up to two days before Christmas when I think many members will be getting away for the recess and all members will want to get back to their constituencies.
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
As I recall, when changes were made to the rules in 1969, the idea was that the policy of a bill would be explored on second reading, it would be sent to committee for clause by clause study, then be dealt with at report stage and proceed for expeditious third reading. In the case before the House it is clear that the opposition, or at least the NDP, did not want to bring the bill to a vote but rather wanted to prolong discussion indefinitely. This bill would provide additional funding for direct employment programs and direct skill training programs and, surely, that is what most people in this country want. I receive many letters and communications, as I am sure other members do, asking why we spend so much money on welfare and unemployment insurance benefits and why we do not put people to work, and provide more training that would equip them for jobs.
This bill would make expanded job creation and training programs available to the government, Mr. Speaker. The program outlined by the minister at a cost of some $710 million for 1979-80 would do what many people want. It would provide 113,000 job-years of employment and activities, through such things as part-time jobs for students or on the job training in which 368,000 people could participate. This is a 70 per cent increase in work-years over previous figures.
I am especially interested in the fact that a lot of the emphasis is on youth employment, because often young persons coming out of high schools or post-secondary institutions cannot get jobs as they do not have experience on the job. They have not held jobs and have no letters of reference from previous employers. This program has a strong emphasis on youth with some $225 million for youth employment, some of which will come from savings through the UIC bill.
As a matter of fact, the job experience training program will be expanded from some 20,000 jobs to 63,000 jobs. This is for young people just coming directly out of school, and some $40 million will come from UIC benefits, creating a positive force for job training and job experience for young people, rather than being used as a direct pay-out from which we do not in the long term get any advantage for young people, such as experience on the job and becoming accustomed to being in the labour force. That does not occur when they are just drawing UIC benefits.
1 was also impressed by this job-creation program and the local economic development assistance program. We have in certain areas of the country local economic development corporations designed to seek out economic opportunities to create new businesses, but up until now there have been no equity funds available for this purpose. Often the banks are too tight-fisted, so there is no equity in the hands of the local entrepreneur who has a good idea and cannot put it together.
We have an economic development corporation in my constituency, and this program for local economic development assistance will provide some $10 million during the next fiscal year for the creation of about 1,000 permanent jobs.

December 20, 1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
It seems to me that by implementing these programs designed to assist, stimulate, and provide an incentive to the private sector, we are looking at a much more positive way of utilizing the unemployment insurance funds that would be used in direct pay-outs if these positive and constructive programs were not available.
I am pleased to see that the minister is expanding by some 70 per cent these direct job creation and training programs. That is the real positive aspect of the move by the department to provide assistance to the private sector in order to fund direct employment programs.
In my constituency $1.5 million will be spent this year on direct job programs, providing jobs that will ultimately, at least some, move into the private realm. We have one project on an Indian reserve for the development of a new operation, a dolomite mine, an open-pit quarry that will create permanent jobs. This is being carried out through a Canada Works program.
It seems to me the question we have to ask ourselves is, do we want to continue pouring billions of dollars into UIC benefits, or do we want to use those funds to create employment for the native people and other unemployed? I think that is the direction in which the minister wants to move, and I would support him in that objective.
[ Translation]


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, of course this gives us an opportunity to comment on the proposal of the minister to apply what we usually call a muzzle on the debate concerning this legislation which will cause serious deceptions throughout the country. As I was listening to the previous speaker, I was wondering how anyone can try to justify the proposal made by the minister under the terms of Standing Order 75C. Others have underlined the speed with which we went through the second reading stage. We believed that by passing the bill quickly on second reading, it would be possible to amend this legislation, which is completely unacceptable in my opinion, as thousands of Canadians now realize. Since not enough amendments were made at the committee stage, the same legislation has now come back to us even though we have seen the reaction of thousands of Canadians to this measure during the committee stage. Even before we can begin third reading of the bill, the government has decided that we would take too long, and it now wants to restrict the debate to a few hours even though it concerns a bill which contains many weaknesses and inequities.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that these types of discussions are useless when we study legislation which is acceptable to Canadians as a whole. Indeed the opposition has quite often co-operated with the government on legislation which could meet the needs of Canadians, but it is also clear that this legislation is quite unacceptable in the present situation. I come from a province which will experience great difficulties because of this bill. Indeed this was pointed out by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) who noted that he

would oppose the bill if it were not amended. I hope that my colleagues from Quebec will not let the minister push through this legislation as fast as he can. I hope that they will respond to the interests of Quebeckers. Other members will be able to speak on behalf of their constituents. There is only one thing I can say, and that is that I pity those members who will not oppose first of all this motion of closure because it muzzles the House and shows a callous attitude on the part of the government. In view of the objections that have been made and the consequences of this legislation, we know that more than
200.000	Canadians will be cut off from their unemployment insurance benefits.
This is the Christmas gift the government will offer them on Christmas Eve, Mr. Speaker, and I must say that it takes a heartless government to do this. I think that this government- I hear the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) who will probably not take this opportunity to inform the minister that in his riding, as in many others in Quebec, that kind of legislation is going to cause problems. We heard about the $700 million to be used for job creation, Mr. Speaker, but how would you explain that the minister did not understand the situation earlier? How is it that this government has failed to give more priority to job creation in the last ten years? How would you explain, for instance, that the minister did not implement those job-creation programs? Why is it necessary to make those savings at the expense of the unemployed? Twelve months ago the government launched a $700 million job-creation program and the minister told us in committee that he was sure to achieve the objective of those job-creation programs. If it is true that the government will succeed in giving employment to
368.000	people through job-creation programs, if it is true, Mr. Speaker, that the government will achieve its objectives, then this legislation is not needed since 33 per cent of the unemployed will find work and at the same time the government will save 33 per cent of the money paid to unemployment insurance recipients. Why did the minister come up with this kind of legislation?
Earlier I heard a government member tell us that the public prefers that these funds be used for job creation rather than for unemployment insurance benefits. Of course people prefer to work. We do know, Mr. Speaker, that they wish to find a steady job but because of a lack of appropriate measures and foresight on the part of the government, we now have 1.5 million unemployed and to reward them the government proposes this draconian, tough, inconceivable and callous legislation. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we object to this muzzling, to this motion of closure and I think that no member who takes really at heart the interest of his constituents or his responsibilities as member of parliament has the right to support such a measure which prevents members of this House from speaking on behalf of the people.
By introducing this motion for closure today the government is exceeding its powers in a shameless manner, Mr. Speaker,
December 20, 1978

and this type of abuse on its part is not new and I hope that Canadians will remember it. In less than two years, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from Quebec will have to crawl and support such an outrageous measure. I would say that in less than one year, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have witnessed such outright betrayal. Indeed last summer it happened regarding the sales tax and in this case we are being confronted by a situation where inhuman conditions will be inflicted upon thousands of Canadians. It will become a growing concern among Canadians.
The only solution the government has to offer is cutbacks in much needed welfare. The evidence is that the provinces have not been sufficiently consulted. It has also been demonstrated before the committee that the provinces will have to pay very dearly for this decision on the part of the federal government. This leads us to believe that the federal government is showing a desire to put the provinces in a straightjacket position in order to compel them to come to the negotiation table afterwards and kneel down before its authority.
Here is a kind of attitude which even exceeds the arrogance that we had become accustomed to. Earlier the minister even accused the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) of talking about negotiating with the other provinces and not only with the province of Quebec. I would like to remind the minister that a member of the Pepin-Robarts Commission, Mrs. Solange Chaput-Rolland, recently made public a letter warning the Prime Minister that he was the one who told Canadians that negotiations are not synonymous with unconditional surrender. And I suggest that the letter which Mrs. Chaput-Rolland has made public is not only a warning for the Prime Minister, but also a piece of necessary information for all hon. members on the government side.
Should I beg-and I do so-my Quebec colleagues and all hon. members on the government side to seriously consider, in the spirit of the season, the possibility of asking the minister to withdraw this bill? And we oppose this bill because we have introduced amendments to this bill. My colleagues have suggested very good ideas aimed also at saving money. The government, which has turned down all the proposals the opposition has made, is now asking us to agree to one which is unacceptable. I think that I am fulfilling my responsibilities as a Quebecker and as a member of this House when I beg hon. members to demonstrate courage and to refuse to support slavishly such diabolical legislation. That is the message I wanted to convey before Christmas. Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Maiden speech.


John Campbell: Not exactly. I am forced to participate in this debate after listening to the comments and buffoonery of
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
the last member who spoke. After assisting at many of the committee meetings on Bill C-14, it is unbelievable that a member who represents a Quebec constituency would get up in this House and present the kind of speech he has just presented and have any respect for those he represents and, in fact, for all Canadians. He made some totally false statements.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Campbell: There was very little participation at the committee hearings by the hon. member. The Unemployment Insurance Act was amended several years ago, apparently because of its harshness. The Liberal government said it would be more sensitive and that it would relax the regulations, which was done for the benefit of all Canadians. Typically, the government was criticized, as it has been for many years.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: They deserved every bit of it.


John Campbell: The employers and the employees began to criticize the act for being too lax, saying there should be more restraint, that the majority of Canadians, I believe 92 per cent, were the working force, in the vicinity of 700,000 or 800,000 had been unemployed and that we could probably eliminate
400,000	or 500,000 of those who are continually abusing the system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: That is a stupid statement.


John Campbell: Under this bill, $150 million will be saved at the outset. This will be taken away from those abusing the system. I say there are abusers of the system. I am sure all members receive telephone calls about abuses of the unemployment insurance system.
The minister had enough guts to stand up and say for the benefit of all employers and employees that we should exercise a little more restraint and surveillance over UIC benefits, something Canadians had been asking for over a number of years. The minister stood up and said this would be done for the benefit of Canadians, which is what this government stands for, Mr. Speaker.
The $150 million that will be poured back into the economy to create jobs for those who are unemployed may not seem very much. However, next year it will be $655 million, not a small figure, to create jobs for the unemployed. In the next six months after that it will be $935 million, nearly $2 billion within two years. No one can say that will not create permanent employment for those who want to work, not for those who abuse the system, and God knows there are enough of them. Employers constantly tell me they cannot get people to work for them at any cost.


An hon. Member:: Because of the minimum wage.


John Campbell: The minimum wage was established by this government, supported by all sides. Whether it is the minimum wage or double the minimum wage, the employers say they

December 20, 1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
cannot get people because the UIC benefits plus the undertable money they are paid is more than a person would get at a steady job. That is what this minister is trying to prevent.
There was some mention about clause 2 appearing in the Gazette. I guess it did not receive much publicity because the committee hearings are not televised. However, the minister and his officials explained over and over again that that was done legally. There was nothing to hinder this government from publicizing this regulation through the Gazette. Clause 2 was put in to complement the bill. To make political gain out of that is to say to the Canadian public that they are all stupid. However, they are not. They are intelligent people. They know what the hell is going on and who is trying to block this bill for no reason.
If you go down to 75 you are telling the hotel owners why you close at three o'clock when the movie theatres close at 11, because if you did not do that those people would abuse the system as the opposition is trying to abuse the system at this very moment and trying to put the blame somewhere else. Well, the people are not going to believe that for one damn minute.


Mr. Benjamin:: Hogwash!


John Campbell: Are you inside or outside the curtains?


An hon. Member:: Half and half.


John Campbell: Those who are employed, the majority, are paying less and the employers are paying less, and they are happy and they are the large majority. So we are talking about
400,000	people who are probably legitimately unemployed. This government has never let them down. Regulations can be implemented to make sure that no one suffers, and no one will suffer. All we are saying is that those who are abusing the system while others are paying for it, I do not think the latter like it one damn bit. It was high time for the minister to take that in hand and say no more abuse, the funds which are spent because of abuse will be directed to those people who really want to work and create the jobs.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is nothing in the bill about abuse. Have you read the bill?


John Campbell: The hon. member asks whether I have read the bill. I would not want to do anything different from what the opposition has been doing for the last number of years. You don't have to read the bill. You just listen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Campbell: For instance, today in committee the opposition criticized this bill. On all the occasions on which I attended the committee and sat there, the only name brought forward by the chairman was that of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Campbell: One of the members of the official opposition said he had absorbed all the time available to the committee and used it to say nothing. Can you imagine the waste of public funds involved when one man occupies all the time of the committee to say nothing? The opposition today came forth out of their clouds and said "What a lousy bill," when they know damn well it is an excellent bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


John Campbell: Every bill needs minor changes. That is done through regulation. But the crux of this measure is a response to what the people want, and they will come forward very shortly and tell us that what we have done has been done right for them. We will not protect those who abuse the system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to contribute, but for the record I must correct the remarks made by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin). I will come back later to closure. The hon. member accused us, members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, of not being in committee. If the hon. member himself had been in comittee, he would have spoken differently. He would not have launched into such cowardly charges. Mr. Speaker, every member in this House knows that my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), who sits on the committee, is now in hospital and cannot therefore attend committee meetings. Nor can the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), who also is in hospital. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) had open heart surgery. This leaves six of us to deal with 25 committees. How can the six of us be expected to do the work of 140 Liberal members, especially when there are committee meetings while we sit here? As I said recently, when this House sits while committee meetings are in progress nobody will see me in committee, because my first duty is to this House. Committees come second. All we need is that committees meet when the House is not in session. So much for the first correction. I am sorry for the young member who accused us earlier. He should check his facts first, his comments would make more sense.
Coming to closure, I have always been most strongly opposed to silencing this House. This is what is happening once more. I have always felt this indicates a lack of planning on the part of the government. If they had come up two months ago with this bill of prime importance to themselves, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, we would not now be discussing this motion. They brought in closure because they want to leave for Christmas. The bill is introduced in the last moment of the session, and we are expected to go through all stages in one or two days, when 90 per cent of Canadians are opposed to the bill. They want to force this down our throats. Some moments ago I heard another Liberal member say: "Finally, we can
December 20, 1978

collect $710 million at the expense of the unemployed." In order to create what? Only 113 man-years. And to get this, we are going to deprive 250,000 unemployed of something they are entitled to, unemployment insurance benefits for which they paid premiums. I suggest this is outright robbery. I said so yesterday and I say it again today. The people are cheated and are led to believe that it is in the interests of the country. It is as if to pay off municipal expenditures, Mr. Speaker, the mayor would decide to ask his fellow citizens to eat only one meal a day so as to make both ends meet. That is exactly what is suggested today, Mr. Speaker.
We need $117 million, one or two million within two years, so let us discontinue the payments. Premiums are collected, but let us drop the benefits. Let us keep that money for something else. However, the government knows quite well how to get the money to buy military toys worth $2.5 billion which have just been purchased as replacements for our planes. It is also ready to buy warships worth $1.5 billion while it is devoting $4 billion to save the party and try to give a new impetus to the economy. Some low income families living on the threshold of poverty will be deprived of their unemployment insurance. I say no. It is a shame. This government does not deserve to remain more than one day in power. How can they impose such nonsense on the people, Mr. Speaker?
How are the amounts collected? How has the number of inspectors been almost doubled now? Why? To make inquiries? Inquiries after one, two or three years to see if someone was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits four years ago? But, Mr. Speaker, it shows precisely how incompetent their civil servants are. If an employee was unable to determine whether someone was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits for some reason or another four years ago, and agreed to pay them, and civil servants say four years later: You are not eligible. You must refund the overpayment. Well, I say that it is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and that the civil servants should be forced to refund those amounts because they made the mistake. The unemployed now have to pay for the mistakes of the civil servants. At the present time we have one civil servant for every ten Canadians, Mr. Speaker; but at that rate, in five years from now there will be one for every five. That is a lot of inspectors. That is a lot of people digging into our pockets. Skyscrapers are being built to accommodate those civil servants who collect taxes. Centres for fiscal data, those are being built; but manufactures, very seldom.
Fiscal data centres, Mr. Speaker, will not spur the economy; they make the country poorer, not richer. But, for instance, if those same millions of dollars were taken to build industries, to help the secondary and tertiary industries, the people would realize that we are becoming serious about the situation. But you cannot try to get even more from those who have nothing left. The bill will do no harm to the big shots, Mr. Speaker, those v/ho earn $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 a year.
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
These are the career unemployed. After a few months they quit work. When asked why they do not work, they answer that they do not want to give everything to the tax man. So they apply for unemployment benefits and they disrupt the whole system. Yet the bill attacks the seasonal worker, not the big shot who will not be hurt by it at all, but the seasonal worker. When we say that over 250,000 seasonal workers will not be able to claim unemployment, that is serious, Mr. Speaker. I think the government should be concerned more about people, the human capital, than about money.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in the six
years I have been in this House I have never been as saddened as I have been by the action of this government in imposing closure on Bill C-14, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am sad because of what the government and the minister, in particular, have done. The minister talks of the government's majority in this House. We are all well aware that the government has a majority, but surely we should move from the concept that might is right and use might for right. That would be a much better aspiration for this government when dealing with changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Right from the start of the bill I was closely associated with it on behalf of my party, and I saw not one iota or one scintilla of effort on the part of the minister or his government to be flexible, or even to entertain reasonable argument or propositions. The first thing we discovered when this bill was brought down-and through questioning witnesses who subsequently came before the committee-was that there was very little consultation with those who will be affected most, the workers of this country and the unions which represent them. There was very little consultation with the interested groups which will be affected by this bill, such as students and women. Even the government's own advisory group on the status of women was not consulted. We had the spectacle of the parliamentary secretary jamming the bill through committee. He limited the number of witnesses coming before the committee.
I come from an area where in October of 1977 the largest employers there, Inco and Falconbridge, announced a 3,000 person lay-off in the Sudbury basin. We fought like hell to get this government to keep people working, but this government was totally helpless. It could not provide jobs for people who wanted to work. The government rejected the stockpiling idea. It rejected an import duty on nickel coming from Argentina, the Philippines, and Australia. The government rejected those concepts, which would have kept 3,000 people working. Now we are witnessing the jamming through of a bill, clause 5 of which would reduce the benefits of those people who today are unemployed through no fault of their own. It would reduce their incomes from 66% per cent of average insurable weekly earnings to 60 per cent. The phonies to my right would have reduced those incomes to 50 per cent for those without dependants.

December 20, 1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
Just today I presented the minister with a list of about seven or eight people who found jobs in Thompson. They were laid off by Inco in Sudbury and found jobs in Thompson, but they have been unemployed, and they do not have the wherewithal to transport themselves to Thompson. Officials at the regional office of the minister's department in Sudbury said that they could not transport those workers to Thompson because there are unemployed people in Manitoba, particularly in Thompson, who must be hired first. I do not understand, and this is all so saddening to me.
I am a new Canadian, relatively speaking and it is sad to me that the government would propagate the concept that Canadian young people are lazy and that Canadian workers are lazy. I am sad that the government would legislate based on its perception of laziness. All reputable studies show that the puritan work ethic is alive and well in this country.
The party which forms the government has a long history of concern for society, but it has dragged itself to such a level that it must curry favour with the corporate sector so that it can get funds when the bagman goes around collecting for an election next spring. I am sad because the government has dragged itself to that level of expediency and concern about power. I am very sad about the performance of the government.
I have sat in committees of this House which have dealt with legislation dealing with corporations. It takes ten years to get a change in the Bank Act. That has been put off for the last couple of years. First we get a yellow paper, then a white paper, then a green paper, and then the subject matter, not a bill, is referred to a committee.
I sat in the committee which dealt with Bill C-16, the borrowers and depositors protection legislation. I saw every single financial institution and group come to the committee. Did the government jam that legislation through? Does it jam through legislation which affects the corporations of this country through? Oh, no, sir, it does not. But when it comes to workers' legislation such as changes to the unemployment insurance fund, they jam it through. I think that is sad because they have a double standard.
I cannot leave these phonies to my right alone because I recall the parliamentary secretary limiting the number of witnesses to nine, and pushing closure through the steering committee a week and a half ago. He was going to limit the debate to last Tuesday at eight o'clock. The Conservative member on the steering committee, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), agreed with the closure then, which subsequently resulted in the parliamentary secretary presenting a three point report from the steering committee. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra turned around in the committee and, like the boa constrictor that this party has showed itself to be, he swallowed himself completely, twisting here and twisting there until he got to the eyeballs, then he regurgitated all over the committee. I thought it was a shameful display.

The Tories have an awful gall to come here and say they are opposed to closure when their representative was all for closure in the committee. The party to my right twisted here and twisted there. They have gutted themselves head on, as the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) would say. On the one hand they want to curry favour and curry votes in eastern Canada, and on the other hand they have the corporate sector and the John Bullocks of this society pushing them in the other direction. So they have had members speaking out of one side of their mouths and other members speaking out of the other side of their mouths. That is a totally shameful display.
The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell) said that this bill is all about abuse, that its purpose is to cut down abuse, when in reality the only provision in the bill which tends to punish abuse is the one dealing with employers, the provision which raises the fines on employers when they have broken the regulations by giving false information to the commission.
We have opposed the bill, and I make no apology for the role we play, because when it was fairly obvious that the minister was intransigent and the government's mind was made up, that the parliamentary secretary was the juggernaut in the committee trying to ram the bill through, it was at that point we decided that obviously the only thing to do was to try to stop the bill in its tracks. I say that, given the same circumstances, we would do that again.


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have been debating Bill C-14 for almost two months and I have been present at every single meeting. I am the only member in the House who can say that with any degree of honesty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are there degrees of honesty?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: I have learned an awful lot in those two months, and I have seen an awful lot in the four and a half years since I have been here. I thank the opposition members for contributing so much to my education. One of the biggest things I have seen demonstrated here is hypocrisy. I have really been shocked by the degree of hypocrisy I have seen demonstrated in the last two months here.
I will speak first of all about the Social Credit party. They complained today that we were gagging them on second reading but, when it came their turn to speak, their member walked out of the House moments before because he did not wish to participate.
After second reading there were 34 meetings in committee stage on Bill C-14, seven meetings on supplementary estimates, which were largely devoted to debating the contents of Bill C-14, and not one time was there a Social Credit member present. We heard today that the two members of that party were sick. If this bill was so important to them, they would have substituted another member for them, as the rest of us do. Since they had not done so, it means that the bill was not
December 20, 1978

that important to them, and they have no right to complain they have been gagged. It is sheer hypocrisy.
Now let us come to my favourite party, the NDP. I have learned more than ever about the imaginative interpretation of rules in the last few months. The word "filibuster" has taken on more fancy variations than I have ever seen before. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has visibly demonstrated the meaning of the words rhetoric, bombast, demagoguery and histrionics, words about which I did not even know before. I have seen beautiful demonstrations of them. Today he has added a new element to his efforts as an actor. He has shown us the "more in sorrow than in anger" phase. One thing that I remember in committee is that he admonished members to read his speeches. I took him up on this. I found the smallest room in my house and I took his speeches there and held them before me, and after I read them I put them behind me and then disposed of them. I venture to say that that is the best use to which his speeches were put.


John R. Rodriguez: You don't have a sense of humour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you proud of that?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Now let us go on to the Conservatives. I have never seen a party that has been so split in all my life. On the one hand we hear the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) say that this bill is a kick in the guts, and on the other hand we hear the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) say it is about time but the bill does not go far enough. They are split all over the place, and we have seen it demonstrated time and time again at every phase of the bill.
My learning has further been increased by seeing the Progressive Conservative's version of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, namely, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I call him the hon. member for Nickel Belt phase two, very similar but a little more sophisticated. My education was increased further when I watched them wanting their cake and eating it too, as was demonstrated by the hon. member for Nickel Belt last Tuesday. If we had sat for two more hours on Tuesday night, we could have completed the debate on the bill, but the NDP made it very clear they wanted to stall the bill. So the bill was stalled until Monday. The Progressive Conservatives agreed they wanted to see the bill go through the committee stage, and they agreed that with extra hours we could get it out of the committee on Tuesday night. Either they have no stamina or no guts, because when it came to the crunch they could not follow through on their promise and they reversed themselves completely. When it came to this stage, again we saw them trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Under the rules we have provision 75B where, with the agreement of the majority of the House, we can achieve a time allocation agreement. Here was an opportunity for the first time for the PC party to show its true colours. They said they would agree-although they did not quite agree with the bill as it was-to rule 75B and they would not force the government to use rule 75C. Here again they tried to have their cake and eat it too. We could bring in a new rule for the Tories, rule 75BC for those who want their cake and want to eat it too.
Allotment of Time for Bill C-I4
But we Liberals are not afraid. We have guts, we can take it. We will not let 17 members out of the 264, a mere 6.4 per cent of the elected members of parliament, stall and thwart parliament and stand in the way of the progress of this government. No, sir; we will take the action in a responsible way and use rule 75C because it will stop the filibuster attempted by the NDP. We have guts enough to do it, and we are doing it.


Mr. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the two speakers preceding me with interest. Perhaps I could deal with the last speaker first. I do not think I have heard such a bunch of crap since the speaker before him. Here he is accusing my party of being split on this bill. That is incredible. He tried to suggest that because the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is concerned about the rather unfair measures in the act, and because the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is concerned the provisions of the bill do not save enough money, that that indicates a split in our party. Not at all. What the heck! That is the essence of our proposal. We are all for restraint. We feel that the government is not saving money intelligently.
The manner in which the government is saving money will create tremendous hardship in the area east of the Ottawa river. The hon. member talked about a split. If he listened to any member of my party, surely it would be evident that two themes have been running through the contributions of every speaker. We are in favour of restraint.


Mr. Breau:: You have two teams, one on each side.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I was referring to themes, not teams. All of my colleagues have spoken in favour of our position. We have a united position.
Hon. members opposite, with the exception of the minister, who have spoken on the bill report stage, have spoken against it. When one talks about splits, surely there must be one opposite when all Liberal members do is attack the bill. In his opening remarks, the minister indicated that he wanted a constructive debate and that he wanted to listen to our position. He should listen to our position as other members of his party have done. They have become convinced by it.
This attempt to limit debate is not an attempt to limit my party so much, although we resent it. It is an attempt on the part of the minister to limit the members of his own party who are speaking out continuously against the bill. The minister indicated that he wanted to hear our positions brought out because he thought there would be some merit in debating them. The minister, several of his officials, and I, have had discussions. Some of our amendments were put forward after discussion with the minister. In a headlong rush to bring in the bill by January 1, the minister is going forward with a bill which he knows is inferior and which he knows will cause severe economic damage.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member is misleading the House.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: The minister is going forward with a bill which does not contain provisions that his officials feel are

December 20, 1978

Allotment of Time for Bill C-14 necessary in term of curbing abuse. If the minister has any courage at all, the measure will be back in the House in a matter of months. The effects of this bill will create heardships in the area east of the Ottawa river. The government will be forced to alleviate them.
We have proposed two basic types of amendments which we wanted to discuss rationally. The first area of saving money should be an area where most Canadians feel abuse is centred. I am referring to people who quit their jobs for unjust cause. That should be the cornerstone. If one is looking to save money in a program, one must look at the areas of abuse. One cannot cut off people because they cannot find work when there is no work available. One goes after the people who are choosing not to work and choosing to collect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: The minister recognized this in discussions with his officials and myself. Our approach is a constructive one. It will save more money than the minister's approach. It will cause less hardship. It is interesting that not just members of the opposition support our approach and condemn the government's approach. It is not just the officials who feel we are on the right track. We have the Economic Council of Canada on our side as well.
Prior to the publication of the bill, the Economic Council of Canada conducted a review of the unemployment insurance situation. It warned against measures such as the repeater and new entrants ones which the government introduced. I should like to refer to the Economic Council of Canada discussion paper, which reads in part as follows:
A recent opinion poll showed that 60 per cent of Canadians felt that the minimum of eight qualifying weeks is too short and that eligibility based on 20 to 27 weeks would be more appropriate... A policy decision with respect to the minimum number of qualifying weeks should take into account the economic impact and abuses of the program. However, on equity and hardship grounds, the above popular belief cannot be supported ... it cannot be concluded that employees with less weeks of work have a higher expected relative cost ratio. The results of this paper ... indicate that employees with fewer weeks of work would, in the absence of unemployment insurance-
That is what the minister is talking about, cutting them off completely. It continues:
-be subjected to higher financial hardship. This finding should be taken into account when a political decision is made with respect to the minimum number of qualifying weeks.
This is a situation where a government-funded organization warned in advance of the bill against introducing the types of measures which the government introduced. The bill is a headlong rush to bring in anything which will reduce the deficit next year.
I understand why hon. members opposite are concerned about the size of the deficit next year. I understand why they feel that this is an area in which to save money. But it is evident to everyone who has attended the meetings and listened to the evidence that the government brought in ill-conceived and hastily conceived measures which will not do the job. These measures will do a tremendous amount of harm

around the country, which is why we feel we cannot support the bill.
Members of the government and committee members who attended the hearings looked at the impact of the bill. Many, many times the terrible effects of this bill have been brought forward, but I should like to bring them out once more. At the present time there is an unemployment rate of 8.3 per cent seasonally adjusted as of last month. There are only four provinces below the average rate of unemployment, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The government's proposed measures will affect the provinces with low unemployment proportionately less severely than the provinces with high unemployment.
If one looks at the repeater and new entrants provisions, the proposed measures will affect 10 per cent of the unemployed in Newfoundland, 20 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 11 per cent in Nova Scotia, 12 per cent in New Brunswick, and 10 per cent in Quebec. In other words, the amendments will have maximum effect on areas with the highest rates of unemployment.
As several hon. members have pointed out, the 11.5 per cent relief rate for the repeater provision is a temporary salve. As the hon. member for St. John's East pointed out, Newfoundland and some of the other less-advantaged areas will be in terrible straits if they ever manage to bring down their unemployment rates below 11.5 per cent. As a result of the government's legislation and the new entrants and repeater provisions, if these areas manage to bring their unemployment rates below 11.5 per cent, the effects are just fantastic. Approximately 18 per cent of the unemployed in Newfoundland would be disqualified, 20 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 14 per cent in Nova Scotia, 19 per cent in New Brunswick, and 12 per cent in Quebec. The effect on the more prosperous areas is minimal, 6 per cent in Alberta and 8 per cent in Saskatchewan. Nearly one out of five to one out of six of the unemployed in less prosperous areas of the country will be affected by these provisions, and that is why we object to them.
We are proposing provisions which will eliminate abuse, spread the load fairly across the economy, and get at the abuse where it is likely to be concentrated, in the middle and upper middle class income families in central and western Canada. The government is going after money in any manner. Its proposals will affect one out of five to one out of six people in the Atlantic regions and in Quebec.
I see why the government wants to cut off debate. It is because the bill cannot stand up to scrutiny. Even hon. members opposite recognize that it is a bad piece of legislation. Repeatedly members across the way have spoken against it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should all be clear as to what the fuss is all about. It is all very well for the minister, his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member

December 20, 1978

for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and everybody else to say that we are here simply in the spirit of negativism, that we do not have any constructive proposals to put forward, that this bill attacks abusers and has the effect of getting rid of all the cheaters in the unemployment insurance system, and that we are in favour of the abuse, the cheaters and the ripoffs, but it is not true.
It is very easy for people to say these things, especially considering the current mood the country is in, people like the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-Cote-Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell), who does not even know what the subject of the bill is and has not read it. These are the people who are speaking on behalf of the government and who represent the combined intelligence of the Liberal party, and who tell us that half the unemployment recipients in Canada are cheaters and abusers. That statement by the hon. member was a very revealing one, and, just as sometimes in the course of a slip of the tongue one gives the whole game away, the hon. member gave the government's game away. It has, in a haphazard and slipshod manner, brought forward legislation which has not been seriously examined in committee. In fact neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary considered any of our amendments. They never considered any of the savings which would result from the amendments.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: That is not so.
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
The press has been saying that the NDP is opposed to tightening. We are not opposed to tightening or cutting back on benefits to people who are cheating. What we are opposed to, however, is an indiscriminate attack on working people. This bill does not discriminate between people who are deserving and people who are not deserving. It says that everybody regardless of where they come from, will receive a 10 per cent cut in benefits.
The second thing which this bill does is that it makes it difficult for those entrants, regardless of where they are from, whether it be a high employment area or a high unemployment area who will be cut from the program. Their requirements-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 5.36 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion before the House under Standing Order 75C have expired.
Consequently, pursuant to this Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the debate and forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Bob Rae: There was certainly no indication to me, and I was at many of the meetings arguing for the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) when he could not be there, and I was there when he was there arguing just as vigorously as he was about certain of these measures. I indicated the philosophy of the bill. We had just as many statistics as the Tories to show what the effects were. I can rattle off statistics which will illustrate the fact that the government has not put a trigger in the bill for the new entrants which will cost $300 million and in the Atlantic provinces alone, $70 million will be saved because it will not go to those provinces. I can cite the fact that the 10 per cent cut in benefits will have a dramatic effect on income maintenance in this country, that according to the Metropolitan-Toronto Social Planning Council if an individual is on unemployment insurance for 16 weeks the child tax credit-which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is so proud of-will not have any effect.
We have to recognize the fact that this government is walking on two legs, one leg is going in one direction and one leg is going in another direction, and the split has been inevitable.
This bill is doing three things. First, it is cutting back benefits by 10 per cent. What possible relationship Could that have to the concept of abuse? That measure does not attack the abusers or cheaters but everybody, whether or not they are legitimately on unemployment. It is not a strict reading of the law, but a cut in the level of incomes of people who are unemployed. Canadians should understand that and it should be driven home to them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Cullen), which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 18)
Allmand Andres (Lincoln) Appolloni (Mrs.) Bechard Bdgin (Miss) Blaker Boulanger Breau Buchanan Bussidres Caccia
++YEAS
Messrs.
Cafik
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Campbell
(LaSalle-fimard-Cote
Saint-Paul)
Caron
Chretien
Clermont
Collenette
Comtois
Condon
Corriveau
Cullen
Cyr
Danson
Daudlin
Dawson
De Band
Demers
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)

December 20,1978
Allotment of Time for Bill C-14
Douglas (Bruce-Grey) Duclos Dupras Duquet Ethier Fleming Foster Fox Francis Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) Gendron Gillespie Goodale Gray Guilbault Harquail Herbert Holt (Mrs.) Hopkins Horner Jamieson Johnston (Westmount) Joyal Kaplan Lachance Lalonde Lamontagne Landers
Messrs.
Lang
Langlois
Lapointe
Lavoie
Leblanc
(Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Maine
Marceau
Marchand
Martin
Mclsaac
McRae
Milne
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet
Parent
Pearsall
Pelletier
Penner
Philbrook
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Raines
Reid
Roberts
Robinson
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval) Sauv6 (Mrs.) Stewart
(Cochrane) Stollery Tessier Trudeau Trudcl Watson Whelan Wood Yanakis Young-110.
Cossitt
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Darling de Cotret Dick Ellis Elzinga Epp Faour Firth Forrestall Gauthier
(Roberval)
Gillies
Grafftey
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hargrave
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Holmes
Howie
Huntington
Janelle
Jarvis
Messrs.
Johnston
(Okanagan-Kootenay) Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West)
La Salle Lawrence Leggatt MacDonald (Egmont)
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacKay
Macquarrie
Malone
Masniuk
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McGrath
McKinley
McKinnon
Muir
Murta
Neil
Nowlan
Ny strom
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Rae
Ritchie
Rodriguez
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shymko
Siddon
Skoreyko
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Symes Towers Whiteway Woolliams-90.
Alkenbrack
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Bawden
Beatty
Beaudoin
Benjamin
Blackburn
Brewin
Brisco
Cadieu
Caouette
(Villcneuve)
Caouette
(T&niscamingue)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 21, 1978