1984-06-08

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House will have read of or watched on television the recent bloodshed in India. Hundreds of people have been killed, and an estimated 11,000 refugees have streamed into the small town of Ambala in recent days to avoid violence.
In my own constituency there are many Canadians of Indian origin, with an estimated 2,000 alone from the Punjab. Constituents of both Sikh and Hindu faiths from the Punjab and elsewhere are understandably acutely concerned about the safety and well-being of innocent family members in India. The same must be true in numerous constituencies across Canada.
The overwhelming majority of Sikhs, both in Canada and throughout India, where their contribution to that country has been simply enormous, condemn terrorism of all sorts. They are a law abiding and patriotic people who are internationally renowned for their peaceful and non-violent characteristics. They are also people of high principle, excellent character, and dedicated religious convictions. My prayer today is that further bloodshed and violence can be avoided in the world's largest democracy. What happens there in the next few days and weeks will touch all thoughtful Canadians, and all Members here must hope that peace and reason can be restored permanently to the Punjab.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber can remember 1977 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said to the young unemployed of Canada: "My heart does not bleed for you". In that same speech to young people at the University of Toronto he said that if they do not
like it in Canada, if they do not like it here, let them find another country.
Yesterday in this Chamber the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Pepin) said to the young people of Canada that if they cannot find a job the reason may be because they are lazy. That is a shameful comment from the Acting Prime Minister, just as the previous comments by the Prime Minister were shameful.
The Conservative Party and I believe most Members of the House do have hearts that bleed for the young people of this country who cannot find jobs. We want Canadian young people and university graduates to stay in this country and contribute to this country. We do not believe that the problem is that young people are lazy.
I come from the Province of Alberta where four years ago, when the Government was elected, the unemployment rate was 3.5 per cent. With government policy and government programs, today it is 12 per cent. That is the problem. Laziness is not the problem; government policy is the problem.



Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's figures on unemployment show an increase in the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed Canadians across the land. However, under the NDP Government of Howard Pawley, Manitoba has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada.
Historically Manitoba does not have the lowest unemployment rate, but what is happening in Manitoba now proves that with the right Government something can be done about unemployment in Canada.
Let me read the figures to you, Mr. Speaker. Last year at this time Manitoba had 51,000 unemployed. One month ago that figure was down to 43,000, and last month that figure was down to 39,000. In Manitoba the unadjusted unemployment rates have dropped from 9.9 per cent to 7.5 per cent, and the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures have dropped from 10 per cent to 7.8 per cent.
Through its job fund the Manitoba New Democratic Party has created in excess of 17,000 jobs. For the most part those jobs have met real community needs in recreation, education, and other required facilities. This has created employment in the short term, and it has created permanent facilities for the people of Manitoba. The Government has also looked toward

June 8, 1984
creating jobs in the long term. One example is the number of hydro agreements that are being negotiated at the present time which will create thousands of long-term jobs with training opportunities for-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, only four years ago many reputable industrial observers were preaching the permanent decline of the North American automobile industry.
Under the protection of quotas on imports of Japanese motor vehicles, the North American automobile industry obtained a breathing space in time within which it could modernize and introduce high technological improvements into its manufacturing operations.
The announcement made yesterday by General Motors to invest a further $255 million in its engine plant in St. Catharines indicates a vigorous, competitive approach by the industry itself, and a determination that the products manufactured by General Motors will be highly world competitive both in quality and efficiency.
With the introduction of new mechanized moulding systems and computerized sensors, General Motors can achieve lower per unit production costs. In doing so General Motors will maintain a stability of employment in our local community where the matter of jobs is the top priority and concern. General Motors will give confidence to other Canadian manufacturers in this highly technical and competitive world, and Canadians generally will receive the beneficial fruits of the G.M. example.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, tribute ought to be paid to those thousands of Canadians right across the nation who volunteer their time and effort in training for mine rescue work. Despite precautions, mine disasters can always happen and, when they do, it is essential that fully trained mine rescue teams be available so that loss of life can be minimized.
Competition between teams in regional, provincial, territorial and national events not only adds interest to the training but hones the teams into higher degrees of preparedness and effectiveness. For this reason competitive events should be encouraged. But it is saddening to learn that, for the second year in a row, the Dominion Mine Rescue Competitions
scheduled to have been held in Yellowknife have been cancelled. In expressing our appreciation for all those involved in mine rescue work let us record our dismay that the Dominion competitions will not be held this year, and our hope that sufficient funds can be found to enable the event to be held in 1985.

[ Translation]


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will be asked to consider a very important Bill concerning the Naskapi and the Cree. After the James Bay Agreement, Bill C-46 proposes to give practically complete autonomy to the various reserves. It confirms the responsibility of the Cree and Naskapi for governing their territory, for the organization of their band councils and for the by-laws that will be enforced directly by the local government authority.
Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted if the House could adopt this Bill unanimously this afternoon, especially since it would mean a step forward for the Cree and Naskapi, who have shown that they appreciate the values of native tradition. I think this Bill will give all native peoples in Canada more confidence and encourage them to show white people they are able to govern themselves.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, in these harsh economic times, social services are particularly hard pressed to meet the demands placed upon them, particularly in the Province of British Columbia. In that province there have been savage cutbacks in health care, education, child care, child abuse teams, services to young people, the elderly, and the handicapped. Unemployment is at record levels, particularly among young people. With broken families, record levels of single parent families, and cutbacks in welfare, social service agencies are particularly hard taxed.
One volunteer agency has been serving the Greater Vancouver community for 15 years today, with tremendous dedication and energy, that is, the Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Centre of Greater Vancouver. It has provided hope to the hopeless and, I venture to say, has saved many lives. Today, on the fifteenth anniversary of the founding of that Centre, I want to commend the thousands of volunteers who have been
June 8, 1984

prepared to lend their time and to listen, and the flying squads as well.
I had the honour of serving as a volunteer with the Crisis Centre. This week is Crisis Centre Week, from June 4 to June 10, as proclaimed in Vancouver. I am sure I speak on behalf of all Members of Parliament when I congratulate the Crisis Centre on its fifteenth birthday. I wish the Centre many more successful years, and I urge the federal Government to provide badly needed federal funding for crisis centres across the country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who is away on public business, in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Pinard:: Where is Brian?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He is in your riding.


James Aloysius McGrath: -in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in the absence of the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, in the absence of the Minister of State for Youth, I direct my question to the Marie Antoinette of the Cabinet, the Minister of State for Finance.
Today, on schedule, unemployment figures were released showing that once again our unemployment rate has increased from 11.4 per cent to 11.7 per cent. Yet in the United States, for the same month, its unemployment rate went down from 7.8 per cent to 7.5 per cent. Indeed, its unemployment rate has gone down from 8.4 per cent in November to 7.5 per cent, whereas during the same period of time ours has risen from 11.1 per cent to 11.7 per cent.
There is no growth in employment in western Canada. There is no growth in employment in the Atlantic Provinces.
Yesterday the Minister said that on interest rates we were tracked with the U.S., that we had to follow U.S. interest rates. Why does he not explain to us why we are not tracked with U.S. unemployment rates? Why is it that its unemployment continues to go down and ours continues to go up?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I was so bemused by the idea of being Marie Antoinette that I was somewhat distracted from the Hon. Member's principal question. The short answer to his question is that the growth in the labour force in Canada has gone forward at a faster rate than in other major industrialized
Oral Questions
countries. Comparison with the United States would suggest that if the growth in the Canadian labour force had been similar to that in the United States there would have been one million fewer people entering the workforce in Canada, and the unemployment rate in Canada today would have been about 4 per cent, instead of the 11 per cent which we are encountering today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roy MacLaren: What has happened in the past month is that a large number of additional jobs has been created in the Canadian economy. Some 23,000 jobs have been created, additional to those which have been created since the recession, but additional workers have joined the labour force. Some 68,000 new workers have joined the labour force, so that the seasonally adjusted rate has indeed increased by some 45,000.
I am sure all of us on both sides of the House share a concern about that increase. We, for our part, will continue, both through direct government intervention and funding and through indirect support for the private sector, to work toward a decrease or reduction in that level of unemployment.


SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE-COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister just does not know what he is talking about. He does not seem to care because we are talking about people, people who are not too lazy to work. They want jobs, and this Government cannot provide them with jobs.
Let the Minister explain to us how it is that since November the U.S. labour force has grown at a faster rate than the Canadian labour force. The figures show a 1.6 per cent increase in the U.S. labour force as opposed to a 1.2 per cent increase in the Canadian labour force. Their unemployment rate has continued to decline. Ours continues to increase. Let him explain this, that we are still 122,000 jobs behind since the commencement of the recession in August, 1981, whereas the United States has not only picked up all lost jobs but is four million jobs ahead. How does he explain that?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I have already commented on the Member's point with regard to the United States. He and I know that since the recession began in November, 1982, we have been creating jobs at a faster rate in Canada than in most other industrialized countries. We have equally seen a substantially greater increase in the Canadian labour force than has occurred in the United States or in other OECD countries.
Let me cite for the Member, who should know, that there are now 40 per cent more Canadians working today than in 1968, compared with the other six summit countries where there has only been a 13 per cent increase in the labour force. In Canada we have experienced a substantially higher increase in new workers joining our labour force than any other industrialized country.

June 8, 1984
Oral Questions
Obviously none of us rejoices in the current level of unemployment. It is a concern for all of us. It was indicated to the Member on earlier occasions that we on this side of the House have worked consistently to bring about the circumstances in which jobs can be created. The inflation rate in Canada has been sharply reduced. The productivity of Canadian industry has improved greatly. Our export trade reflects that achievement, both in terms of lower inflation and in terms of higher productivity. I do not doubt that the circumstances are there for additional private sector growth as well as public sector support for greater employment opportunity in Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will explain that statement when he gets outside the House.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. There is still presumably a Government in this country, Liberal leadership race notwithstanding. In the midst of this deepening economic crisis, what action can we expect from the Government to treat this matter with the urgency it deserves? Can I get an assurance from the Acting Prime Minister that regional Ministers, political Ministers in the Government are not holding back millions of capital works funds for an election slush fund when there are 800,000 young people unemployed?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the inference of my friend's question is that the Government is not trying sufficiently. I have figures here which indicate the extent of investment by the Government in job creation and job training at this moment; for example, $1,246 billion for job creation and $1,266 billion for training. The results are beginning to show. For example, job creation in 1984-85 will result in 265,000 jobs and 281,000 in job training. I could go on. Applying it to youth, there is $634 million for job creation and $493 million for job training.
My friend has to accept that a major effort has been made by the Government. This is not something which will be done in the future; the investment has been made. The results cannot be obtained in one week. There is a continuing process in the effect of these investments that have been made by the Government. As well, I am sure that he will agree that there is a need for the co-operation among different elements of society.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced the remarkable Husky project a few days ago, a big project which will create 3,500 jobs, he underlined the importance of co-operation between the federal Government, the provincial Governments, and the private sector. Similarly, when the Minister of DRIE announced the Honda project the other day, he emphasized the importance of international negotiations. I am sorry to say that this is a process out of which results take time in coming.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister did not give the Hon. Member for St. John's East the assurance that regional political Ministers are not holding back funds that should now be put into the unemployment program.


UNEMPLOYED FEMALE HEADS OF FAMILIES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday the Minister of State for Youth admitted that the unemployment crisis really does touch some 800,000 young people in the country and, by the same criteria, touches some two million Canadians across the country. Included in that figure of two million is the highest number of unemployed women who are heads of families ever recorded for this month. These women have homes to keep and families to feed. I would like to ask the Minister what programs the Government has to bring these women into the mainstream of the labour force of the country. I do not want him to tell me that these women are lazy, or that their children do not need food and clothing.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite knows that the growth in the labour force in Canada has included a greater number of working women and a greater number of young people than in previous years. She knows as well as I do that during this year we in Canada created some 71,000 new jobs on top of those that we had already created since the beginning of the recession, bringing the total to some 441,000 new jobs. Of those additional jobs, the participation rate for young people has recently increased. The basic purpose of the Government is to create circumstances under which every Canadian can find a job.
We on this side of the House are going to continue to work to provide direct funding for retraining and training programs so that women, for example, can participate more effectively in the job market. We are going to continue to provide tax incentives in the R and D area to ensure a greater degree of technological improvement in our industries. We are going to continue to provide more financing for exports so that the economy benefits from the jobs created as a result of our sales abroad.
I could cite for the Hon. Member opposite a whole range of specific policies which are in place, but she knows of them as well as I do. We will continue to pursue those policies so as to create the greater opportunities she and I both seek.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister does not realize and does not come to grips with when citing those statistics is the fact that since 1980 the number of unemployed women who are heads of families has doubled. It is of little comfort to them to be told that the labour force has grown.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the Minister's attention to
June 8, 1984

another area of real crisis, and that is the area of youth unemployment. The Minister said that the Government's programs were working. There are 800,000 young people out there to show that those programs are not working. If the Government's programs are working, can the Minister explain why there is a higher rate of unemployment for young people who are between the ages of 20 and 24 in Canada than in any other country in the industrialized world?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the last point before I attempt to address the other question. In fact a recent report on unemployment issued by the OECD would suggest that, when comparing the performance of other industrialized countries in dealing with youth unemployment with that of Canada, Canada has not been doing badly at all. Our youth unemployment rates are not very different from the OECD average.
Partly in response to the direct programs provided by the Government for youth training and youth participation in the labour force, and a variety of programs which, in the fiscal year 1984-1985 are estimated to cost over $600 million, we will see the participation of some 185,000 young people. That is, of course, additional to the jobs which will be created by the private sector, thanks in part to the programs in place from the last two Budgets. I believe the effect of those combined elements is that the youth participation rate, according to the latest statistics, has gone up. We have seen a greater youth participation in the job market than we have since the beginning of the recession.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE NEW EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I want to begin by saying what a bankrupt Government we have. Yesterday we learned that we have almost 800,000 unemployed young people. The national figures which came out today show a great increase in national unemployment.
Yesterday the Government called the unemployed lazy. Today there is not a senior economics Minister of the Cabinet in the House for Question Period. It is this Government which is bankrupt. It is the Government which is lazy, not the unemployed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since there is one Government in this country which set unemployment as the top priority more than a year ago, and that is the Government of Manitoba, and since it has now the best record in this country by bringing down unemployment by 2.5 per cent in one year, I want to ask the Minister this: will the Government demonstrate the political will-which is what the Government of Manitoba has-to create jobs, so that every man and woman who wants to work can do so? Will the Government now admit that its policies
Oral Questions
are wrong and bring in new initiatives before we recess for the summer?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that my hon. friend was an honest man. I do not believe he is particularly attractive politically- neither am I-but I always thought my hon. friend would respect the truth. By quoting me as having said yesterday that unemployed young people are lazy, I believe he was breaking down the basic ABC of academic propriety. I am quite sad about that.
What I said was that in establishing the statistics of unemployment there were different degrees of certainty. In other words, we were certain of the conventional way of establishing unemployment figures among the youth, if you follow the four weeks' searching and availability criteria of Statistics Canada.
I said, with respect to what is called the "hidden unemployment", that there were differing degrees of uncertainty. In some cases a person would have given up after trying hard. In other cases some people might not have tried hard enough, simply being lazy. If the Hon. Member reads Hansard he will find it is all there. I would be grateful if he did me the favour of reading what I said.
As the Hon. Member for St. John's East said, it might have been unwise of me, but you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. If you like academic debate, you bite into it. I would have thought that my old friend would pay me the respect of reading what I said and not distort it.
With respect to Manitoba, I am very pleased to see progress being made. However, again, if one wanted to be totally honest about it, one would have to look at the extent of the support which the federal Government has given to the Government of Manitoba in recent months.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: In my description of the performance of the Government I did not even mention a moment ago the $2.4 billion which the Government has invested in Canadian growth in recent months through what is referred to as the SRCP program.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there is somebody on the other side of this House who is making a noise.


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect to the total argument, I tried in my previous answer-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has concern at this point about the ability, within the framework of a question and answer period, to deal with the matters which are raised, and the time it is taking in the exchanges. The Hon. Member for Oshawa has just put one question. He has two supplementaries. This will be the third question and we have used, at this rate, close to half the Question Period. The Hon. Member for Oshawa on a supplementary question.

June 8, 1984
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. The regrettable truth about this Government is you cannot introduce an old Government to new ideas. That is the problem with the Government.


DECLINE IN MANITOBA UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SET SIMILAR TARGET
John Edward Broadbent: Since the Minister has said that a broader understanding of the Manitoba situation would include references to what the national Government has done in terms of its spending program, I want to say to the Minister that that spending program has gone on all across the country. In western Canada, Manitoba has the lowest level of resources of all the provincial Governments. The other provinces made the mistake of electing Conservatives. Their economies are becoming worse. Manitoba's economy is becoming better. That is the reality.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are strong in every seat you now hold. We know that.


John Edward Broadbent: The people on my right, in more ways than one, should know that. If the Government duplicated at the national level what Manitoba has achieved in one year, that is the 2.5 per cent reduction in unemployment, and if the Government set targets for unemployment the way it did for inflation, very soon we could have full employment in this country, which all Canadians desire. Will the Government set those targets to produce the jobs we need?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend is finding reason for satisfaction somewhere in Canada, particularly in his present situation. The Hon. Member's point on targets is always debatable, as to whether one is desirable or not. However, the Government has a target, which is to help in the creation of the greatest number of jobs possible. As the Minister of State for Finance said a moment ago, the objective is for all Canadians to find gainful employment in Canada. That is the target.


GOVERNMENT'S ECONOMIC PREDICTIONS-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN POLICIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I put to the Minister that the Minister of Finance and other economic Ministers have indicated that there would be an improvement in 1984. The situation was supposed to get better. Unemployment levels were supposed to go down, not up. Investment was supposed to go up, not down. Everything the Government has projected to take place in our country which was supposed to be positive, has turned upside down. Will the Government please come to an understanding of the reality of this country, as our Canadian citizens see it? Will it see the truth? Will the Government see that its policies are not working, change them, and bring in some new policies in order to get Canadians back to work? That is the issue.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has been sitting in the House for a number of months has witnessed the diversity of efforts put forward by the Government in order to remedy the situation of unemployment in Canada. We have tried a collection of programs, some of them attractive to the private sector, others attractive to different groups in society or different regions. We have tried to adapt our programming and strategy to the demands, general, local, professional, and what not.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And you have failed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I could line up a whole list of programs for the summer. There was a program, for example, to employ people in the forestry area this summer, and so on. We have really tried to adjust, and the argument I was making a moment ago is that it takes time for these measures to show their effects.
The Minister of State for Finance, in my view, expressed a very interesting argument, which I believe is true, and that is that the reality of gainful employment as it grows attracts to the market a number of people who may have given up in the past. This in turn increases the labour participation. Again, this is an academic explanation for a real situation, and my hon. friend, who is an academic, should be attracted by the efforts we are making, not only to create programs but to try to understand the situation. My hon. friend should be interested in the argument made by the Minister of State for Finance this morning. It shows that in some ways by doing better you do not help yourself statistically speaking.


ALBERTA UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, when the Government was elected one province in the country had an unemployment rate of 12 per cent or higher. Today seven out of 10 provinces have such an unemployment rate. I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to concentrate on Alberta. When the Government was elected that province had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole world. Today it has a record high unemployment rate.
Does the Government think that unemployment has been caused by lazy workers, by some other country's policy, or is the unemployment rate in Alberta caused by bad federal policies affecting energy, agriculture, and transportation? Is bad federal policy the reason?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is addressing me personally, I did concentrate a lot on Alberta. I tried hard to do a number of things which would have been useful for Alberta, at least in the production of meat.


Mr. McDermid:: Thank God you stayed out of Ontario.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was looking frantically for support from the other side of the House at that time when it would have been so appreciated. I just want to underline the fact that the situation in Alberta is a complex one. You cannot pin down
June 8, 1984

the difficulties of Alberta to a single program. I gave a personal experience. It would have been useful to me on February 1 last year to have the support of Alberta Members on the other side of the House, and I did not get it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have ruined western Canada.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not believe that when you put a program such as the National Energy Program in place and chase out $17 billion worth of capital, it takes jobs out of the country to some other country? Does the Deputy Prime Minister not believe that when you raise the rates on the Crow for farmers, you are going to put farmers into bankruptcy? Are those not federal policies which could be changed, which would produce jobs in the country? Will the Government change those policies?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to remind my hon. friend, who may have forgotten-his memory is very, very short on these matters- that one of the greatest supporters I had for what I was trying to introduce in the House in February of 1983 was the Government of Alberta.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance and his mouthpiece, the Minister of State for Finance, boast that the economy is in recovery. Yet in the Atlantic region there are 8,000 more people unemployed this year than last year. The unemployment rate in the region has soared to 15.2 per cent. Industries, like Canada Packers in my own province, and others right across the region, are closing their doors. If that constitutes recovery, what in the name of Heaven constitutes recession? How bad does the situation have to get in the region before the Government will take that situation seriously?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite has indeed drawn our attention to a serious unemployment problem in his region. We know that.


Mr. Forrestall:: It is about time somebody did.


Roy MacLaren: All regions in Canada have experienced a degree of unemployment which is worrisome, and which causes us on this side of the House real concern. The Member opposite would want to recall that since the beginning of the recession Canada has achieved a remarkable record in job creation. We have also experienced an unprecedented growth in our labour force which is substantially greater than that experienced by any other industrialized country in the OECD.
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member overlooks that fact that, to a substantial degree, the continuing high level of unemployment, both in the Atlantic region and generally across Canada, is a function of the degree to which more people than before have joined the labour force in Canada.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ASSIST IN DEVELOPING ATLANTIC REGION ECONOMIC STRATEGY
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Earlier in the Question Period the Minister cited projects into which the Government had poured money, including projects in the Atlantic region. Granted, the Government has supported such things as the Atlantic Regional Veterinary College in my own region. However, does the Minister not realize that the benefits from those ad hoc, short-term, make-shift programs are being negated by the Government's narrow-minded fiscal and monetary policies? If he does, will he not at least sit down, or recommend to the Minister of Finance that he sit down with the four Ministers of Finance in the Atlantic region to put together an over-all strategy for the region on a crisis basis? Will he do something concrete, rather than giving the House of Commons and the people of the Atlantic region a lecture on macro-economics ?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, if the Member opposite wants me to be a little more specific, I shall. He has raised the question of special recovery projects in the Atlantic region. They have gone forward and been successful. They have created jobs. They have created the circumstances in which further private sector growth can occur. The Member opposite should realize that the spending of more than 60 per cent of the funds in that program has been completed. Ninety-six per cent of the projects are under way and they have brought a direct benefit, both to his region and to Canada generally.
In addition, as we cited earlier, the Government has provided retraining programs and other job creation programs which have had a beneficial effect in his region as well as nationally. Perhaps more important than the shorter-term projects which I have cited, and which the Member opposite drew attention to, is the fact that in Canada in the past year and one-half we have brought down inflation. We have increased productivity. We have increased our export trade. We have created the circumstances in which greater productivity and international competitiveness will occur. That is where the jobs will be created. They will be created there, and in the small business sector which will benefit from the tax incentives and the tax changes we made in the recent Budget. That is how jobs will be created in Canada as we work through this temporary high increase in people joining the job force.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Temporary for four years.

June 8, 1984
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG WOMEN
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in the absences of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the Minister responsible for Employment and Immigration, and the Minister of Finance, all of whom, I suspect, are out trying to get a job for one particular man as Leader of the Liberal Party, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Last month 31,000 more women were unemployed. What is the Government going to do? It is a very simple question and I want a straightforward answer. What is the Government going to do to create jobs for women?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there is a great diversity of programs. The programs announced a few weeks ago by the Secretary of State for Youth include a diversity of jobs. There is nothing in the list which says that these jobs are only available for males. These jobs are available for females as well as males. The totality of the programs, the training programs that-


An Hon. Member:: How about better daycare facilities?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are going to have a study on the daycare facilities.


An Hon. Member:: They have been studied to death.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have to study the problems that daycare presents because there is divided jurisdiction in this matter between the federal Government and provincial Governments. In my view it was a coup not to have a contrary reaction from the provinces to the very announcement that there would be a study on the subject. To my way of thinking, that shows that the country is becoming more sophisticated in these matters than in the past.
To return to the question of women, all the efforts that the Government of Canada is making now are, of course, available to women. The rising degree of participation of women in the labour force is a clear indication that they are getting the message too.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that as far as the job creation programs which he has just spoken about are concerned, the participation level by women is less than that of the participation of women in the workforce. In other words, the job creation programs the Government is creating for short-term jobs is not creating jobs for women in the proportion that they should be receiving.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO CREATE JOBS FOR WOMEN
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been in power for four years. Now is not the time to study daycare; now is the time to be acting. The Affirmative Action Program in the Public Service has not worked for women. Affirmative action in the private sector is not working for women. The affirmative action compliance for government
contracts is not working for women. What will the Government do to create jobs for women?


Jean-Luc Pepin: What my hon. friend says, which is traditional, standard, par for the course, is that it is not the time to think, not the time to do research, to study, but that this is the time to bring in programs. When we do bring in programs they say that we did not think about them sufficiently, that the individual program is wrongly devised, does not tackle the issue as it is. They say if we had done more study we would have devised a better program. That is the routine stuff that regularly comes from the Opposition. I answered the question in the first part.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS' HIRING PRACTICES-RECALL OF PENSIONERS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In western Canada there is a shortage of employees in the CNR. The CNR has gone back to hiring people whom it pensioned off two and three years ago. It is not hiring this year's students. It is not hiring unemployed young people this year who are knocking on its door looking for jobs.
Would the Acting Prime Minister get in touch with the CNR to find out why it is not hiring young people, not hiring students, and why it is hiring people whom it has pensioned off, who have retired and are supposedly no longer in the workforce?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the problems that we have. Because of the uncertainty that exists in Canada and in the whole of the western industrialized world, businessmen who run the plants hesitate to hire new people. Consequently they offer extra hours for which they pay more, and bring back people who have already been trained. In my view that is a reaction that is caused by the uncertainty that exists.
Perhaps my hon. friends on the other side, and all of us collectively, could move the country to a certain degree of optimism, to say "Bravo, such a mine has opened yesterday. Bravo, Husky just decided on the biggest energy project in the last five years" or, "Bravo, the Minister of DRIE has attracted a Japanese automobile company to Canada". Unfortunately the country is listening too much to opposition Members and not enough to government Members on these matters. If there was a bit of an optimistic mood in the country, maybe the economy would grow a bit better.
I have tried to provide an explanation for the phenomenon of recalling former employees, for example, in order not to have to train people. That is a saving from the point of view of the industry which is unsure of the future.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ALBERTA
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In spite of
June 8, 1984

his rhetoric, the facts are pretty clear. Today's unemployment statistics show that in British Columbia the seasonally adjusted rate is 15.6 per cent. It is 12 per cent in Alberta. These are the highest figures since statistics were first recorded back in 1946.
As a result of its grain transportation legislation, the Government promised to create 157,500 new jobs in western Canada. Instead, contrary to what my friend across the aisle said, the railways are laying off people rather than hiring new people. Why are the railways laying off people? Where are those new jobs that were promised as a result of the dismantling of the Crow?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think I can at least make an observation. A moment ago we heard a spiritual explosion from a member of the New Democratic Party on the beauties and merits and fortune of Manitoba. Now we are told that the West is not doing well. It is obvious that my friends have read the announcement of today's unemployment levels extremely well. We have not heard from anybody from Nova Scotia yet. We have not heard from anybody from Quebec yet, because the figures are good there. We only hear from the provinces where the figures are not as good as they were in the past. Be that as it may-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is no laughing matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, but it is an interesting remark, I thought. If you don't like it, lump it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is not interesting. It is a lazy remark. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One of the effects of the western rail transportation legislation is to produce a great element of growth in western rail transportation, leading to the best transportation system in the world. However, because of some of the slowdown in some sectors, it has been found unjustified to keep going at the rate at which plans were made. I am sorry about that. It contributes again to difficulties that we have temporarily, as the Minister of State for Finance said.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hope that the Minister is not implying that it is not proper for Members on this side to represent the concerns and interests of their own provinces and regions. I think one would have to take offence at that. The fact of the matter is that it is the Government's policies over the last four years that have created the mess we are experiencing in western Canada today.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT POSITIVELY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Program has cost western Canada at least
50,000	jobs. The Government's high interest rate policy is bankrupting farmers and costing more jobs. Now the Government is failing to hold the railways to their commitments as far as investment and the creation of jobs are concerned. Today there are 378,000 people unemployed in Alberta and
Oral Questions
British Columbia. It is the highest number of people unemployed since 1946.
When will the Government start taking some positive action rather than just spouting the empty promises that we have heard over the last four years, and particularly over the last six months?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot answer the question because I cannot accept the premise. The Government is not failing in its responsibility with respect to western rail transportation. Where did my friend get that idea? We are fulfilling all of our responsibilities. There are new federal and provincial government programs being developed all of the time. Just in British Columbia, which is part of the West too, what do you see? You see a Port of Vancouver that is booming. You see the Port of Robert's Bank quadrupling. You see the Port of Ridley Island with a billion dollar new investment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There are fewer jobs in transportation today than there were last year.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Of course our friends on the other side select the nasty part of the news every day and then come here and blow on it in order to create the impression that the Government isn't doing anything. Of course our job is a difficult one because when we praise what is happening in Canada and describe some of the good things, of which there are plenty, we are thought by the other side to be propagandists. But we are really describing the reality, and the Speaker stops us.


INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Government's economic policies have managed to turn British Columbia from a rich province into a have-not province, suffering the highest level of unemployment since the labour force survey was established in 1945.
Would the Minister reconsider his decision which he communicated to me in April of this year that we did not have enough unemployment to qualify for anything but the lowest level, Tier I, of his Industrial and Regional Development Program?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not agree at all with the Hon. Member's premise with respect to this Government's responsibility for the unemployment situation in British Columbia. The Acting Prime Minister today just outlined a few of the major transportation agreements and discussions, and financial contributions that the Government of Canada has made in British Columbia. He did not even talk about

June 8, 1984
Oral Questions
Northeast Coal, he didn't talk about Expo '86, he didn't talk about a number of other projects in which the Government of Canada has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy of British Columbia in the last couple of years. That is why I disagree with the premise of the Hon. Member's question.
With respect to the tier designations, once a year right across the country, on a statistical basis with Statistics Canada people, we do an evaluation which takes account of disposable income, unemployment, and the fiscal capacity of the respective province to make sure that we have a comprehensive, equitable, and fair index across the country. There is no political input into that process whatsoever. Consequently, we will be doing that for this year.
If the figures that the Hon. Member indicates are correct, obviously there will be some changes. I think we have already redesignated four or five census divisions in British Columbia from Tier I to special Tier I as a result of the higher unemployment figures in the last year and a half alone.


NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT RECIPIENTS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has defined the way in which the Government will determine whether a region will have Tier I or Tier II, or a special Tier I. It is the ratio between unemployment insurance beneficiaries and the working age population. Does the Minister not realize the reason we do not have more unemployment insurance beneficiaries is that they have exhausted their time available to draw UIC and now cannot draw it any more? Consequently we will never be able to reach the level he demands. The simple fact is we have a higher rate of unemployment than ever before. It is now higher than two of the four Atlantic provinces. I would like to thank this Government a lot for that. How desperate does our unemployment need to be before we will be treated fairly?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the IRDP program was passed unanimously in this House. It was agreed by members of all three Parties that for the first time we had an equitable index which compared the most vital economic statistics in the smallest census regions in the country. The formula that was applied is as equal for the Hon. Member's constituency as it is for every other single constituency in the country. I cannot think of any index, at least I do not know of one that has ever been developed by any Government or by the private sector, that is more equitable or more fair than this particular index.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the 34,000 increase in
unemployed young people since last month, a man of his generation and mine must know that condemning the unemployed for being unemployed is the biggest lie since Hitler blamed the Jews for the Depression. My question, on behalf of the youth in my riding, and throughout Canada, to the Minister is: will he stop his lying, stop deliberately misleading the Canadian people-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member, I am sure, is aware that it is unparliamentary to accuse a Member of this House of lying. I ask the Hon. Member for Spadina to withdraw the expression he used.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister is well aware of the effect of what he said and well aware that what he said was false. I will only withdraw the accusation if he withdraws the remark he made yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a basic principle of the House that a withdrawal cannot be with qualifications when a reference is made to another Hon. Member lying. This has been established in the case of a senior Member of this House not very long ago, the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I will have to ask the same consideration of the Hon. Member for Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am convinced the Minister knew that what he was saying was false when he said it.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I will not under those circumstances withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: To tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, I do not care one bit.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You don't care about young people?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister for External Relations made an intervention which the Chair did not hear. Does he care to repeat it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I said that I was not preoccupied by the insult thrown at me by the Hon. Member. I have learned to judge the quality of an insult by the quality of the person who makes it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member for Spadina to withdraw the word he used, which is clearly unparliamentary.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I believe thoroughly that what I said was true and that what the Minister said was false, Mr. Speaker, and I will not withdraw those words.


Mr. Cousineau:: Throw him out.
June 8, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all Hon. Members of this House are concerned about the decorum of the House. Our rules have been established through the years and apply to every Member. Sometimes the Chair has a little more difficulty in some situations than in other situations, but the Chair appeals to the Hon. Member in the interests of decorum and in the interests of the House to withdraw his unparliamentary word. I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the reference to lying.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: With respect, Mr. Speaker, in view of the gravity of the Minister's accusation yesterday I will not withdraw.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Judge not and be not judged.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Heap, I have to name you for having disregarded the authority of the Chair.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we are all very much aware of the practice in our parliamentary system under similar circumstances. The practice is very clear. I do not have to move a motion to expel the Hon. Member. Beauchesne stipulates very clearly that the House Leader may do that. In the past we have always supported you, Mr. Speaker, and it is clear that today we intend to do so. But I want you to know that we do this because we feel that a minimum of respect is required in this place and it is a shame for any Member to abuse the rule in the way the Hon. Member for Spadina just did. It is even more insulting that what he is doing is jeopardizing the passage of the Cree and Naskapi Bill today. He knows that, and his Party knows that very well.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, because we are to have a recorded division it means that we may not be able to deal with the Cree and Naskapi Bill, which we have reached agreement to pass through all stages today.


Mr. Nielsen:: And the veterans' allowances, too.


Yvon Pinard: It is too bad that the passage of this Bill may not take place, Mr. Speaker. I see the people interested in it are in the gallery. Thanks to the NDP we may not be able to pass it today.
Therefore, I must follow the tradition of this House. I move:
That the Hon. Member for Spadina be expelled for the remainder of this sitting day.


René Cousineau: What an example to Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Pinard, seconded by Mr. Munro (Hamilton East), that the Hon. Member for Spadina be expelled for the remainder of this sitting day. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
In accordance with the motion which has been adopted by the House, will the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) please withdraw from the Chamber?
And Mr. Heap having withdrawn:


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has been given notice of two matters of privilege at this point.

June 8, 1984
Points of Order PRIVILEGE


MR. ROBINSON (BURNABY)-PROCEEDINGS IN STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which stems from the actions which were taken in the last three days in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs by the Chairman of that Standing Committee. In my view, those actions very seriously undermined the integrity of the parliamentary committee process as well as the rules of order of this House.
On Wednesday last the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was considering Bill C-9, and at that time the Chairman of the Standing Committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please resume his seat? It is a well established principle of the House, and I quote Citation 76 of Beauchesne's, that:
Breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee.
The House has not yet received a report from the committee. At this stage, until such report has been received, the Chair cannot entertain a matter of privilege in relation to a matter that has transpired in committee.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been given notice of a second matter of privilege but the Hon. Member who has given me notice is the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) and he is not present in the House. I recognize the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on a point of order.


POINTS OF ORDER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the statements made by the Government House Leader prior to the last vote in the House. At that time he pointed out that the Cree-Naskapi Bill would be coming up this afternoon. We recognize the importance of that Bill and I rise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please cite the Standing Order that he feels has been violated? The Hon. Member cannot enter into debate at this point. He raises a point of order. Would he please state his point of order?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move to Orders of the Day at this time. I have asked for the unanimous consent to make a motion-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member was recognized on a point of order. He cannot move a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day at this point.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on a point of order. He has already been heard on a matter of privilege which was not privilege.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)-


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion cannot be entertained on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I move that the Hon. Member for Regina West be now heard.


Mr. Speaker:: For the purpose of clarifying the rules, to move that a Member be heard there must be a motion before the House and a debate. At the present time there is no motion before the House. Two Members have to rise, in which case there is a dispute as to which one is recognized. The Hon. Member under these circumstances cannot move such a motion. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is rising on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House now hear the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).


Mr. Speaker:: For exactly the same reason which I have just given to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the Hon. Member cannot move such a motion at this point. There is no motion before the House. A motion that someone be heard cannot be entertained when there is no motion before the House. Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby again rising on a point of order?


Svend Johannes Robinson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, I will move to Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the First Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
June 8, 1984


TRANSPORT-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport to which, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the Committee requests a comprehensive response.
[Editor's note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 30
Mr. Speaker:: I will now call upon the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), there being no other motions. The Hon. Member for St. John's East has given the Chair notice of his intention to propose a motion at this time.


UNEMPLOYMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have served notice under Standing Order 30 to ask leave at this time to adjourn the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have just finished the semester for the Supply period. There are no more Supply days left, no more allotted days.
Today the country was struck with bad news. There is a deepening economic crisis in the country as reflected in the unemployment figures released today. They show a marked increased in unemployment. We now know that there are
800,000	young people unemployed. We know that as of yesterday interest rates are rising. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to sit here all weekend because we believe the matter is one of urgency and should be treated as such. We hope Your Honour will do the same.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's East has given me the proper notice under Standing Order 30 of his intention to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the critical high levels of unemployment, particularly among youth and women.
As the Hon. Member is aware, applications for emergency debates on the unemployment situation in Canada have been filed with the Chair in the past on many occasions. As my predecessors have consistently ruled, and as Madam Speaker Sauve did on December 3, 1982, problems of a chronic nature are not proper to be discussed under this Standing Order.
Order Paper Questions
I would refer the Hon. Member to Section 16(a) of Standing Order 30 which reads as follows:
-the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration;-
I would draw to the Hon. Member's attention the provisions of Standing Order 46(4) which now allows committees to consider reports of the various Government Departments permanently referred to them. I believe the report of the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration on September 29, 1983. I am sure the Hon. Member for St. John's East could find ways to have the matter he has raised considered during the Committee's discussion of the report.
In addition, questions on this matter may be addressed to Ministers on any day during the Question Period. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that he took eight minutes in his exchange during Question Period this morning. The second Member, who put a question on the same subject which included youth unemployment, took five and a half minutes during Question Period this morning.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How about the answers?


Mr. Speaker:: The third question dealt with the same matter. In fact, during the Question Period today I believe all but one question related to the problems of unemployment. Most of those questions touched on the matter of youth unemployment. I offer this as an example of the opportunities which are available to Hon. Members to call the matter to the attention of the House.
For these reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the matter as being proper to be discussed under the provision of Standing Order 30, although it is a matter of considerable importance.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Hon. Member was ready to stay here over the weekend, I would like to invite him to a golf game tomorrow.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the invitation. I have to attend to the many demands of my constituents who are unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 430, 524, 606 and 665.

June 8, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in Part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1. No. The
Solicitor General employes exempt staff as follows:
(a) Titles	(b) Positions	(c) NamesSpecial Advisor	Policy and Correspondence	R. FoleySpecial Assistant	Constituency	W. PiovesanSpecial Assistant	Scheduling	J. SpanglettSpecial Assistant	Special Projects	F. LevineSpecial Assistant	Media	A. CaddellSpecial Assistant	Legislative	R. VezinaSpecial Assistant	Special Projects	S. Fitterman2.	(a) and (b) No.


Mr. Howie: How many persons were employed as members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each of the last three fiscal years?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned:
1980/81	-	16,3951981/82	-	16,9041982/83	-	17,016
Please note that "members" include regular members, civilian members and special constables.
PUBLICATION "CBC TELEVISION: AHEAD IN '84' "


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Is there a publication entitled "CBC Television: Ahead in '84" and, if so (a) who authorized its publication (b) how many copies were printed (c) to whom, by what methods(s) and at what total cost was it distributed?
2.	What individual(s) or company(ies) prepared the booklet for publication and at what cost?
3.	What was the total cost of printing and which company was awarded the contract?
4.	What was the total cost of the advertising campaign?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) The proposal for the brochure was initiated in the Communications department at the Toronto centre, in the summer of 1983 as part of the annual program promotion campaign. It was then approved by the Director of Communications English Networks, the Vice-President of Communications and the Vice-President of the English Television Network.
(b)	Ten thousand copies were printed.
(c)	The brochure was distributed by mail at a cost of $7,219.99 to key Canadian opinion leaders, Senators and Members of Parliament, commercial sponsors, press, cultural special interest groups, and CBC program sales and distribution contacts.
2.	Typesetting-$1,042.10, Robert/William Typographers Ltd., Toronto. Illustration and special effects photography- $1,885. Sloane Square Studio, Toronto.
3.	Printing-$24,000. Herzig-Sommerville Ltd., Toronto.
4.	$34,147.09.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	On February 14, 1984 how many (a) retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel (b) widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP were receiving monthly pension benefits including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (i) less than $20.00 (ii) $20.00 to $29.99 (iii) $30.00 to $39.99 (iv) $40.00 to $49.99 (v) $50.00 to $59.99 (vi) $60.00 to $69.99 (vii) $70.00 to $79.99 (viii) $80.00 to $89.99 (ix) $90.00 to $99.99 (x) $100.00 to $149.99 (xi) $150.00 to $199.99 (xii) $200.00 to $249.99 (xiii) $250.00 to $299.99 (xiv) $300.00 to $399.99 (xv) $400.00 to $499.99 (xvi) $500.00 to $599.99 (xvii) $600.00 to $699.99 (xviii) $700.00 to $799.99 (xix) $800.00 to $899.99 (xx) $900.00 to $999.99 (xxi) $1,000.00 to $1,499.00 (xxii) $1,500.00 or more?
2.	What is the number of retired RCMP personnel and also the number of widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel presently residing in each province?
3.	In respect of how many orphans of RCMP personnel are pension benefits paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned:
1. Less than $20 per month	(a) Retired RCMP Personnel 0	(b) Widows 0$ 20 to $	29.99 per month	1	230 to	39.99 per month	4	240 to	49.99 per month	6	250 to	59.99 per month	3	460 to	69.99 per month	1	570 to	79.99 per month	7	380 to	89.99 per month	7	490 to	99.99 per month	8	5100 to	149.99 per month	31	45150 to	199.99 per month	44	44200 to	249.99 per month	82	34250 to	299.99 per month	108	45
June 8, 1984

300 to 399.99 per month	247	77400 to 499.99 per month	267	59500 to 599.99 per month	343	60600 to 699.99 per month	401	32700 to 799.99 per month	428	22800 to 899.99 per month	341	20900 to 999.99 per month	333	121,000 to 1,499.99 per month	852	251,500 per month and over	565	242. Province	Retired RCMP	WidowsPersonnel	Newfoundland	81	17Prince Edward Island	38	7Nova Scotia	264	36New Brunswick	151	12Quebec	254	30Ontario	848	108Manitoba	188	32Saskatchewan	262	30Alberta	654	57British Columbia	1256	187Yukon	17	0North West Territories	28	3Outside Canada	38	73.	There are 175 orphans of RCMP personnel being paid pensions. The average amount is $74.42 per month.


Maurice James Harquail: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting, but I seek the unanimous consent of the House in order that the Bill can be referred to the Committee of the Whole as opposed to the Standing Committee. We would like the Bill to be passed with one speaker per Party today for all stages.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that yesterday this matter was first raised with me by the Government House Leader. I consulted with Chief Billy Diamond and other representatives of the Cree and Naskapi with respect to this matter. I had a formal discussion and received a letter from them in which they acknowledged that their original hope was that the matter would be referred to a standing committee. That was the basis upon which I proposed in the course of the House Leaders' meetings that we should deal with the Bill.
James Bay Agreement
Therefore, I was surprised yesterday to hear the Government House Leader suggest that we would not go along with having all readings and all clauses of the Bill dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons.
I would like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances, and with regard to our very traditional and long friendship with the Cree and Naskapi in northern Quebec, we are prepared to do what is necessary to assist this very important part of the population. After further discussions, we have agreed, of course, to let the matter go through all stages today.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to indicate that our caucus will support the proposal of the President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: I wish to thank all my colleagues in the House for providing this unanimous consent. I would just like to add to what my colleague said by saying it is true that the Cree and Naskapi would have preferred the Bill to go to committee. However, ultimately they wanted the Bill to be passed through third reading on June 8 at the latest. Today is June 8 and that is why this consent was required. I am sure that every Hon. Member will appreciate that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-46, an Act respecting certain provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement relating principally to Cree and Naskapi local government and to the land regime governing Category IA and Category IA-N land, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) rises on a point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the Minister. We certainly are not trying to prevent him from debating this Bill; we wish to proceed with it immediately. However, I have a question with regard to House business. Is it still the intention of the Government House Leader to deal with Bill C-34, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, as the first order of business on Monday?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand why the Hon. Member sees fit to ask me this question at this time. I answered that question yesterday. We are very serious. We want the Canada Labour Code to be passed as early as possible. I wonder if the New Democratic Party has second thoughts about it.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to join with my colleague, the Government House Leader, in thanking the House Leader of the Official Opposition, the Opposition critic,

June 8, 1984
James Bay Agreement
Hon. Members of the Official Opposition as well as my colleagues in the New Democratic Party for agreeing to passage of this Bill through all three stages today. I believe it is an excellent example of non-partisanship that all three Parties are equally concerned with the passage of this Bill, and each Party is supporting it with equal enthusiasm.
I am extremely pleased to be able to address this House on matters pertaining to Bill C-46, which has been more commonly known as the Cree-Naskapi Act. As most Members of this House are aware, the legislation concerns the assumption of the authority and responsibility by the Cree and Naskapi of Quebec for their own forms of local government. This legislation is the end result of the work of many dedicated people. I speak of those representatives of the Cree and Naskapi and those representing Canada who have steadfastly worked toward consensus in the matter of self-government for these Indian peoples.
It is nice to see in the galleries of the House today the Grand Chief of the Cree tribe, Billy Diamond. He and his people have worked strenuously and hard over many years. This is our way of showing we are backing their leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Working in concert, over a long period of time, they have fashioned together a resolution to the myriad problems surrounding such a complex subject. The thoroughness of the discussions and negotiations and the reasonable approach taken to the solution of divergent views were in the very best tradition of the democratic process.
When the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement were signed, there was an obligation placed on the Government to recommend to Parliament special legislation relating to local government and lands administration on the lands held by Canada for the use and benefit of the Cree and Naskapi. Indian self-government, over the past few years, has been a subject in which I have taken a very special interest. The way of the future, I am convinced, is for Indian Nations to have increasing control over their own affairs. I would like to continue my review of this proposed Act with this interest in mind. In negotiation respecting the Cree-Naskapi Act, self-government was a central theme, indeed central to all discussions and negotiations that have taken place since the signing of the agreements.
The Grand Council of the Crees have described negotiations leading to the proposed Cree-Naskapi Act as a follow-up to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. They have emphasized the importance of this legislation to Cree self-government. There was no implication that this legislation should be a mode. On the contrary, they have made it clear they explicitly rejected assumptions that this proposal would be used as a model for self-government legislation, although other Indian Nations would, of course, be free to adopt appropriate elements. These views were recorded in the special committee report on Indian self-government in Canada.
The federal response to the parliamentary committee's report made reference to the Cree-Naskapi Act this way, and I quote:
In accordance with the principle of flexible accommodation of different government arrangements, the federal Government is moving ahead with the Cree-Naskapi legislation pursuant to the terms of the James Bay and Northern Quebec and Northeastern Quebec Agreements.
The nature and scope of the legislation has been largely pre-determined by the Agreements. In addition to the provision and establishment of local self-government, the Agreements provided these groups with specified land rights; hunting, fishing and trapping rights; establishment of native-controlled health and education authorities; measures relating to policing and administration of justice; continuing federal benefits; and cash compensation.
As Hon. Members will have noted, the contents of the Bill are designed to provide and to ensure both a legal and financial basis for the Cree and Naskapi assuming authority and responsibility for their own forms of self-government. The legislation is so written as to take into consideration the special and distinct needs and aspirations of these particular groups of Indian people.
I would like to address, for a moment or two, some of the aspects of the legislation. Perhaps the most important objective of the Indian people is the recognition and protection of their rights through constitutional provisions. The rights of the Cree and Naskapi obtained from the Agreements, many of which are repeated in the Cree-Naskapi Act, are given such protection by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Second, the Cree and Naskapi bands will have full powers of local government so they can govern their land in the way which they consider best for them.
Third, the role of the Minister of Indian Affairs will be drastically reduced in the supervision of local government as it exists in the Indian Act. My role as Minister is to be responsible to Parliament for the legislation in that I must affirm that the provisions of the Act are being met with respect to the role of band governments as the first level of authority over its members, and the requirement of the band governments to act in a responsible manner for and to their members. In speaking of this, the special committee recommended that the legal capacity of Indian governments be clarified so that they may operate within their own spheres of jurisdiction, interact with other governments, make contracts, and take legal action. Bill C-46 has provided for this by giving the bands status as legal corporations.
Issues such as land base, ownership of natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable, access to lands, and the application of certain specific provincial laws are part of the agreements and are incorporated into this new legislation. These differ somewhat from the aims and desires of other Indian nations but it must be realized that co-operation with the provinces is an essential requirement for effective Indian government.
Regarding the funding to support the proposed Act, I will mention the establishment of accounting criteria to be met by
June 8, 1984

each Indian government. It has been incorporated into the proposed Act and will detail the provisions for accountability of band governments to their memberships.
Finally, the proposed legislation anticipated the recommendation to reject the Indian Act membership criteria as a basis for establishing political participation in Indian government and relies instead upon a membership provision proposed by the Cree and Naskapi under the comprehensive Agreements. In its final report released on November 3, 1983, the special committee on Indian self-government specifically supported the initiative of the Cree-Naskapi Act in that it is intended to address the needs of these bands. I wish, Mr. Speaker, to thank sincerely all of the members of that committee and Mr. Penner, its Chairman, for its support.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the hopes and aspirations of the Cree and Naskapi and the results of months and years of discussion and negotiations are before us in this Bill. I call on my fellow parliamentarians to follow through as quickly as possible on our obligation arising out of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to participate in the debate on the Cree-Naskapi Act, known as Bill C-46. This particular Act has been long awaited. It has been under negotiation for approximately eight years now. There have been extensive consultations between the Cree, the Naskapi and the Government. Thanks to the leadership and driving force of Grand Chief Billy Diamond of the Cree, the chief of the Naskapi, their very efficient staff, along with the negotiators and staff of the federal Government within the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, these consultations have come to fruition. I want personally to extend my congratulations and thanks to them.
I would also like to thank the Minister for the very kind remarks which he made this morning publicly as well as privately. I appreciate that. I congratulate the Minister for honouring his commitment to have this legislation tabled in the House before the end of the session. I congratulate him because it is the only commitment he has been able to keep so far, and this just made it under the wire at that. One of the candidates running for the leadership of the Liberal Party said that you should not go to the locker room before the game is
James Bay Agreement
over. I can assure you that the Minister has not gone to the locker room, he was in the House this morning and presented the Bill. I do not think he has gone to the locker room, although he may have this afternoon because he is not here, as yet.
We had a misunderstanding over the last couple of days regarding this Bill. It was decided that it would receive first and second reading, go to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and then return to the House for third reading. This was agreed upon by all Parties and the standing committee. The chairman of that committee insisted that this should happen to this Bill. Neither the chairman nor the vice-chairman was available this week. I am sorry that they were not available so that this Bill could be examined in committee after that agreement was made. This is a fairly extensive Bill. I feel badly that the negotiations which were agreed to were, by necessity, changed rather quickly. I hope that in the future when we are dealing with legislation such as this, when agreements are made they will be adhered to.
This Bill is a very significant Bill. It is composed of some 120 pages and some 200 clauses. It deals with a significant portion of the unfinished business stemming from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It institutes Section 9 of that Agreement. It enables the Cree and Naskapi to become the local government authority on Category IA and Category IA-N land. This encompasses an area of approximately 1,300 square miles in the Province of Quebec.
This historic Act, which I believe it is, will apply to eight Cree communities in Quebec and the Naskapi of Quebec. Because I believe this is a historic time for the Cree and the Naskapi, permit me to read into the record the bands and the names of the present Chiefs of those bands: the Great Whale River Band, Chief Robbie Dick; the Chisasibi under the leadership of Chief James Bobbish; the Wemindji under the leadership of Walter Hughboy; the Eastmain Band, Chief Ted Moses; Rupert House, Chief Bill Namagoose; the Nemaska Band under the leadership of Chief Lawrence Jimekin; the Waswanipi under the direction of Chief Abel Kitchen; and Chief Mathew Coon-Come of the Mistassini Band. Of course, there is the Naskapi of Schefferville and their Chief, Joe Guanish.
There are two other people who should be mentioned. They have been very much involved in the negotiations and in encouraging the development of this Bill. They are Philip Awashish, who is the Executive Chief and one of those who was involved in the original negotiations on the James Bay Agreement, as was Chief Ted Moses. Another individual who should be mentioned is Johnny Jolly, who has been the main Cree co-ordinator over the last eight years and has done a marvellous job as well. I felt it fitting that their names should

June 8, 1984
James Bay Agreement
be read into the record because of the significant contribution they made.
The bands covered by this legislation will have significantly greater power than those falling under the Indian Act. In effect, this legislation will be the mechanism by which the Cree will control their own lands and their own affairs. The Indian Act will virtually no longer apply to the Cree bands or the Naskapi bands, with the exception of certain sections. Many of the concepts of the principle of Indian self-government are reflected in this legislation.
The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed on November 11, 1975, was an important first step in agreements of this nature. However, we are all aware of the problems that were encountered with the implementation of that Agreement and we must not let the same type of thing happen in this instance. As we know, there was a Bill presented in the House in 1977 which received Royal Assent, I believe, on October 31 of that year and which confirmed the James Bay Agreement of 1975. That Agreement established a unique relationship between the bands and the federal and provincial governments. I think the present Bill will further that unique relationship.
Although the proposals in this legislation are not-I should emphasize this-a result of the report on Indian self-government and this should not be considered a model for self-government, I am sure everyone will be watching this particular piece of legislation and its implementation with great interest.
Under the present legislation the bands will be incorporated and membership will continue to be defined as in Section 3 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The present legislation will further cover those Indians who were not previous Cree beneficiaries but became so between 1975 and 1984. This Act confers upon the band the power to make by-laws of a local nature for the good government on category 1A lands of the inhabitants of those lands, and in areas concerning the administration of band affairs and the internal management of the band; the regulation of buildings and other structures for the protection of public health and safety, health and hygiene, public order and safety; by-laws for the protection of the environment, including natural resources, and for the prevention of pollution; for taxation for local purposes; by-laws for roads, traffic and transportation; and parks and recreation, just to name a few.
Bands will also have the power to make by-laws with respect to land and resource use and planning, zoning, subject to the approval of the electors, for hunting, fishing and trapping, and the protection of wildlife. Band elections, meetings and referenda are also provided for and the powers of the chief, committees of council and band bodies are set out.
The powers and responsibilities of the bands in the area of financial administration are spelled out. The Bill sets out the budgetary requirements, such as record keeping and disclosure requirements, for the bands. Audit requirements are spelled out as well as provisions for the procedures to be used in cases
of serious financial disorder. Each band must have a budget for each fiscal year. Residents and access rights on 1A and 1A-N lands are detailed.
Although ownership in these lands is still vested in Quebec-I believe it is called naked ownership in the law-the bands have exclusive rights to the uses and benefits of these lands. They can use them as if they are their own. The mineral, subsurface and mining rights are retained by Quebec, but only with the approval of the band and with compensation to the band can any material be extracted from these lands. The band will have the exclusive right to forestry resources, subject to provincial approval.
With this legislation, a Cree-Naskapi commission is to be established. This commission will review the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi Act and report to Parliament. As I understand it, the commission will have the power to investigate complaints in any area covered by the Bill. The chairman of this commission is to be designated by the Governor in Council and the members of the commission are to be appointed by the Governor in Council on the advice of the Cree regional authority and the Naskapi bands. I feel very strongly and hope that some of this commission would be made up of Cree and Naskapi and probably the elders of those bands.
All this is to say that this is a very extensive, comprehensive piece of legislation which will allow the Crees and the Naska-pis to preserve their traditions and at the same time allow for their political and economic evolution.
The Crees of Quebec have been managing and administering their education, social and health services very successfully for a number of years. These matters were vested in regional bodies, the Cree Board of Health and Social Service of James Bay and the Cree School Board. I am confident that they will handle the balance of their responsibilities with equal competence.
The unique relationship between the Governments of Quebec and Canada and the Cree and Naskapi people is one that has taken a great number of years and long hours of negotiation to arrive at. Some 20 pieces of provincial legislation have had to be amended or introduced in the Province of Quebec and the federal Government has finally introduced this Bill, as it was permitted to do. All the hard work and long hours have resulted in a workable agreement and legislation that has been agreed to by all interested parties.
I think it is fair to say that this is an example of how, through negotiation and hard work, we can arrive at a suitable agreement which will allow our aboriginal peoples to take control of their own lives once again. I think it is also a signal to the aboriginal peoples of this country that the Party which I represent is dedicated to continuing the process of returning responsibilities for their future to the Indian First Nations across this country. I want the public record to show today that, despite some of the concerns and opposite opinions that have been expressed across this country, our Party is dedicated
June 8, 1984

to negotiating with the Indian people their rights of self-government. I look forward to this process hopefully coming forward in the not too distant future.
While I shall have some questions during the Committee of the Whole procedure, I want to say that our Party is proud to support this Bill and we will assure its passage this afternoon so that we can celebrate what I think is a very historic Bill in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on this very important Bill which is before us today. It has been called the Cree-Naskapi Act. I believe it is an important piece of legislation. It is the only piece of legislation upon which this House has acted which grants more in the way of legislative rights to the native people of Canada, at least to one group of native people within Canada.
I would like to point out it is unfortunate that the Indian Act as it is now written makes it necessary for us to have to pass particular legislation in this area. Native people throughout this land face a very restrictive piece of legislation in the Indain Act. Other groups within society do not have to appeal to the Parliament of Canada for their own self-government, to determine their own education authorities and to have the necessary facilities for their health and economic development. It is unfortunate that the Indian people of this land have to come to Parliament for that kind of authority. The House committee on Indian self-government has said that we should be moving in this area, that this House should be passing legislation and this nation should be passing constitutional amendments to ensure the rights of native people to self-government.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we must also move on the very important area of providing adequate funding to native people. One of the items discovered by the committee on Indian self-government was the complete lack of adequate funding for education, for self-government, for health and for economic development. Many of the conditions in which all native people find themselves are completely unacceptable to the majority of Canadians.
In the Province of Manitoba, on a different matter, it is interesting to note that the Department of Indian Affairs spends on the education of Indian children only two-thirds of the money which the Province of Manitoba spends on the education of people in other parts of northern Manitoba.
What we have is not only a need for legislation for the Cree-Naskapi people, but a need for this Government to bring about constitutional change, changes in the legislation affecting Indian affairs and changes in the actual funding of money that goes to the native people throughout this land.
James Bay Agreement
In my Province of Manitoba there have been attempts by the bands to come to an agreement on band funding, a funding formula which would provide the necessary money for the bands to carry out educational and health services so they can administer their own self-government within their communities. That agreement has not been forthcoming. Over two years of work have been done by the chiefs and the budget committee of the chiefs of Manitoba to try to get this Parliament to act and get the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) to come to some agreement with them on funding. Similarly, the tribal councils in Manitoba have had a problem moving in this direction.


John Horton McDermid: All tribal councils have.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Tribal councils throughout Canada have been trying to get some agreement so they can have the necessary funds to act. Some tribal councils have some funding. Other tribal councils, like the Island Lake Tribal Council in my riding, have no adequate funding with which to act.
While I am glad to see this legislation before us today, and I will be speaking in favour of it, it is only one piece of legislation in a long list of legislation promised by the Minister of Indian Affairs. He has promised legislation on self-government, on amending Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act. He has promised funding for recreation, for tribal councils and for the proper administration of band councils for the needs of the people. None of that has taken place.
I see the Minister is in the House and I would like to make that point again. We must have him act not only on this promise but on a whole litany of promises that he has made to the native people over the last four years. This House has only two and a half weeks to go before the summer recess. I do not think we have enough days left to meet even half the promises which the Minister has made. I do wish, if time permits, that he would stand up and explain to us whether he has any other legislation affecting Indian people that he plans to introduce before this House recesses. If not, he should let the bands know. He should tell the bands and the native people what he is going to do to provide funding for health care, for education and for proper band administration over the next little while.
With regard to the legislation before us, I want to congratulate the leadership of the Cree and Naskapi people for getting this legislation into the House. Even though it has taken seven to eight years for this House to act, they are one of the few groups in Canada which have got legislation before it. I believe what they have achieved is only rightfully theirs. As I said, it is something in terms of administration which all other Canadians have already. It is a major achievement for the leadership of the Cree and Naskapi people. Our critic, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has been very active in this House and in the committee on Indian affairs. He has spoken about the needs of the people.

June 8, 1984
James Bay Agreement
I am glad to see this legislation today. I do not want to slow down proceedings. I hope we can pass this legislation, as we have promised, in the next short while.


Mr. Rene Gingras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly anxious to say a few words about the Bill before the House this afternoon, because this legislation affects the Cree in my riding.
First of all, I would like to say it gives me great satisfaction to be working as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro).
With great enthusiasm-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me but-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should have informed the House that if the Parliamentary Secretary speaks at this time, he closes debate on second reading.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we basically agreed that we would have one speaker per Party. The Parliamentary Secretary has committed himself to giving a very short speech. I know the Cree and Naskapi are in his riding and that he is very interested in this legislation. That is fine with us and we will proceed to Committee of the Whole when he finishes, which I hope will be very soon because we do have some questions.


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right, but I would not wish to close the debate before taking these few moments to say that I appreciate the work that has been done on all sides of the House, and especially the work done by the Minister. I would like to stress particularly the work done by two great chiefs, Joe Guanish and my friend Billy Diamond, who represent the Cree in my riding.
We are writing a new page in the history of our country. I am very pleased to be among those who will have helped to give the native people in my riding more justice and equity.
So as not to delay the debate any further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, in concluding, that I thank the Chair and the Opposition for allowing me to say a few words in connection with this Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Rather than go through the Bill clause by clause, since we have some 218 clauses and just going through them could keep us here all weekend, perhaps we could have the unanimous consent of the House to discuss the Bill under Clause 2. If this is permissible and we obtain the unanimous agreement of the Committee of the Whole, we could cover all aspects of the Bill and then approve it on a total basis. Would that meet with the approval of the committee?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a wise suggestion. I understood that we would not debate it at this stage, after the three speakers, but perhaps the division on Clause 2 could apply to all other clauses in the Bill. Perhaps we could agree to that and that would solve the problem.


John Horton McDermid: That is the same thing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I am always very cognizant of what the Government House Leader says. My ears perk up whenever he makes a statement. I listen carefully and I want to make sure that the record is straight and clear. Certainly, if there was ever any undertaking given about not speaking during the course of committee stage, it never came from my lips. We had intended to ask certain questions. It is a very voluminous Bill, but we will pass all stages this afternoon. It was always contemplated and intended that we would have some questions and answers, especially since the Minister is present. It is a pleasure to see him back for a day.


John Carr Munro: Thank you.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We thought that during the course of the afternoon we would be able to ask a few questions, with the benefit of senior officials from the Department. However, I can assure the Government House Leader that we will expedite the passage of the Bill and that this matter will be dealt with today.


Yvon Pinard: I think that is fair. I never intended to muzzle my hon. colleague. I always like to hear him sing on Friday afternoon. Nevertheless, my proposal could still apply.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Absolutely.


John Horton McDermid: Yes.


Yvon Pinard: Questions could be asked on Clause 2 and once the division has taken place on that clause, the same vote could apply to the other clauses of the Bill. We could discuss the Bill under Clause 2, that would be fine. Once again, I never intended to prevent Hon. Members from asking questions, except I understood that one speaker per Party would be enough. Provided we have the Bill passed this afternoon, it is fine with me.
June 8, 1984


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my caucus I should like to indicate that we are quite willing to follow the procedure as outlined. We will deal with all clauses of the Bill under Clause 2, and the vote on Clause 2, could apply to the other clauses.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: I would like to rise on a point of order very briefly concerning House business. I should just like to inform the House that on Monday we will be dealing with Bill C-34 but, contrary to what I indicated yesterday, starting Tuesday morning, Wednesday, Thursday and so on, we will be dealing with Bill C-9.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Surprise, surprise!


CREE-NASKAPI (OF QUEBEC) ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-46, an Act respecting certain provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement relating principally to Cree and Naskapi local government and to the land regime governing Category 1A and Category IA-N land-Mr. Pepin (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)-Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. In the Alberta legislature we quite often followed the practice of taking the title, Clause 2 and the preamble together, and unless a member asked for any other particular clause, agreement was given to passing them all. In that way no one had a comeback to say later that he did not have a chance to speak on Clause 24, Clause 28 or whatever.


Eymard G. Corbin: There being no further points of order, the Chair will take it for granted and make it an order that the discussion on Clause 2 will encompass discussion on all other clauses, and when the question is put on Clause 2, it will apply to all remaining clauses.
On Clause 2-Definitions:


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions which I should like to direct to the Minister this afternoon. The Cree and Naskapi represent about 25 per cent of the Department's regional office in Quebec. Because of the fact that the area involved is isolated, perhaps the figure is slightly higher. I should like to find out from the Minister whether, with the passing of this Act, any person-years will be decreased within the Department. What kind of monetary saving from a departmental point of view will take place? This concerns the entire area of self-government and the taking
James Bay Agreement
over of responsibility for their own affairs by the Cree and Naskapi, which they have so ably demonstrated they can do. What in fact will happen within the Department? Will the person-years be reduced?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown that we very much hope after a few months to reduce the personnel of the Department. That is my desire and it is the general aim of the Department.
It can be said that the Cree and Naskapi, even before this legislation, were already exercising a de facto type of Indian self-government, knowing that this was the spirit of the James Bay Agreement, knowing that both levels of government agreed, and knowing that there was almost unanimous support in the standing committee for this, as expressed by the Hon. Member, his colleagues and Members of the NDP. We stretched the Indian Act to its outer limit in this particular case in order to accommodate the self-governing practices of the Cree and Naskapi. We must keep that in mind when we say that much of the personnel of the Department, unless almost specifically invited by the Cree to involve themselves in some area, was not preoccupied with matters of the Cree and the Naskapi because they were self-governing in many real ways.


John Horton McDermid: I do not want to put words in the Minister's mouth. He may want to correct what I have to say. Is he saying that when the Cree took over their own responsibilities as far as education, health and social services were concerned, in fact there was a reduction in man-years in the Department for the Quebec region? I think that was what the Minister was alluding to, that that has already been done and, therefore, do not expect any further reduction in manpower staff.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, not only will there be further reduction, but the case is even better from the Hon. Member's view. During the last few years we have been reducing personnel quite dramatically. I will get the figures for the Hon. Member. For example, we closed the Val d'Or office completely in my colleague's constituency. Before all this occurred it was a very active and significant office. We have been cutting down all along and intend now to accelerate the process as a result of that.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, could it not be reflected in the manpower of the Department which over the last few years has in fact increased? Although the Val d'Or office was closed, those jobs were not lost. Those person-years were shuffled to the regional office and to the head office in Ottawa. What should have happened did not happen.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I will carve out for the Hon. Member how this applies to Quebec in particular. Over the last four to five years we cut the personnel of the Department in absolute numbers by 1,200 people. That is the over-all reduction in staff. I suppose a rough rule of

June 8, 1984
James Bay Agreement
thumb is that if you take Quebec on the basis of its Indian population, you are probably talking about 200 people. I will get the specific figures for the Hon. Member.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question on this point. We cannot then expect any further reduction in manpower, or can we? Will there be a further reduction because of the responsibilities that are being assumed by the Cree and Naskapi which, I might add, will be better administered because things will be done by themselves on a local basis?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give a precise number. I can give an undertaking that there will be a reduction in Quebec. In Quebec there are now only 12 personnel involved with the Cree and Naskapi. It can be seen that we are paring down. If we pare down much further, in terms of the Cree looking for certain responses that they want, they will complain if there is a further reduction.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, I will go to another subject which is important, namely funding. It has not been discussed in the debate so far. As the Minister well knows, there were some implementation problems with the James Bay Agreement from time to time. Can the Minister enlighten the Committee on the funding agreements? How will this be carried out? He might also wish to talk about the funding and how it will be guaranteed over the next number of years.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, counting operation and maintenance, it will be roughly $11 million a year, at least for this fiscal year under the Act. It is now $3.7 million. We anticipate through undertakings to the Cree that under the provisions of the Act there will be a further $8 million, making a total of $11 million a year.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, could we have some of the details? Is that given in a lump sum or a certain percentage at the beginning of the year? How will that happen? Will it be directed through the Quebec offices or directly to the Cree and Naskapi? Will the Minister go into a little more detail so that I can assure myself that the mechanisms set up will not be heavily bureaucratized and unduly hold the process up?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, this level of support is basic. You build on it each year. It is subject to negotiation each year, but it cannot drop below this level. I understand the first payment will go out in the next week or so. It will be a direct payment from the federal Government to the Cree.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, therefore the Minister does not envisage that the Quebec regional office will be in any way connected with this, that it will be pretty well handled from the federal office. The Minister said the first payment is going to be made. What is the agreement between the Department and the Cree and Naskapi on percentages as to how this will be funded? There must be some agreement as to how much of the total budget for the year will be given to them at the start of the year for their operations. How is that going to operate?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I am told that the moneys are paid directly to the Cree by the federal Government, that 75 per cent is up front and there is a holdback of 25 per cent until the accountability features of the Act are met, naturally, and then they flow. It is a one-time payment.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, will there be any new structures created within the Department to deal with the Cree and Naskapi or will it be business as usual with people in the Department?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, there are no new structures to be created in the Department. We already acceded in a sense almost independently of this Act at the request of the Cree secretariat to handle their concerns and channel them into action, in terms of negotiating things through the bureaucracy and getting a result without undue delay. That secretariat has two or three personnel. We intend to continue it because they are rather insistent that we do so. We acceded to their demand, much to their relief. That secretariat is already there, but we do not anticipate any new ones.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, my final questions are with regard to the commission to be set up. The Minister might expand a bit on what the commission intends to do, the estimated cost per year of the commission, what its powers are to be, if it will have any powers, and how it will report to Parliament. How does the Minister envisage that that will be carried out?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the best way to handle this would be to refer to Part XII of the Bill. It sets out the membership, that the commission is responsible for the implementation of the Act and the terms of the members. The over-all mandate of the commission is to be responsible for the implementation of the Act and to prepare reports to Parliament. The duties of the Commission are clearly set out rather concisely on page 78, Clause 165. It states:
The Commission shall
(a) prepare biennial reports on the implementation of this Act,... investigate any representation submitted to it relating to the implementation of this Act, including representations relating to the exercise or non-exercise of a power under this Act and the performance or non-performance of a duty under this Act. ...
(3) The Commission may refuse to investigate-
That is the operative section in terms of the duties of the commission. As far as the cost is concerned, the cost of the Commission is estimated to be $1,597,000 to be spread over four years plus an upward adjustment for the Cree-Naskapi commission to be funded through contribution agreements with terms and conditions to be negotiated. May I repeat that figure? It is $1,597,000 over the four-year period of 1984-85 to 1988-89.
June 8, 1984


John Horton McDermid: That is funded separate from the agreement by the Department; is that correct?


John Carr Munro: That is over and above the $11 million to which I referred earlier.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, my next question deals with the appointment of members of this commission. Without naming specific names, perhaps the Minister could relay to us his philosophy regarding the make-up of that commission and who he would see as sitting on that particular commission.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, those are Governor in Council appointments. However, the agreement is quite clear, although it is not reflected here or in any other Act, that we will consult with the Cree and there will be an agreement with them about who will be on the commission. As we deal with a commission like the CLC or various other bodies of that kind which deal with their own affairs, we would consult with them and try to arrive at an agreement as to personnel. The appointments would then go through as Governor in Council appointments.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, the Minister will excuse me for asking that question but I did wawnt to get that answer on the record. From time to time some of the appointments that are made by the Government to some of these boards and commissions are questionable. The Minister for External Relations is questioning me with a puzzled look. However, he knows very well what I am talking about. I wanted to get the Minister's answer on the record to ensure that consultations would take place with the Cree and Naskapi regarding that commission.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the Hon. Member did that because he has now served the interests of the Cree by getting the assurance on the record of Hansard. However, it is also contained within the Bill itself. Clause 158 which can be found on page 76 of the Bill reads in part:
-a maximum of three individuals appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Cree Regional Authority and the Naskapi band.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question of the Minister. Could the Minister briefly outline what the major difference will be, once this Act goes into effect, between the self-government provided for in the Bill and the self-government of a municipality?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, may I say that that is a very tough question because it calls for a very detailed and long answer. I will do my best to answer the question in a short time.
The powers given to the Cree-Naskapi are more extensive than those given to a local government, and I think if the Hon. Member would look at the Bill he would be inclined to agree with me about that. Clause 45 of the Bill deals with those powers.
James Bay Agreement
I will simply read through some of my quick notes. They have the power to pass by-laws respecting the administration of band affairs, the internal management of the band, the regulation of buildings and other structures, the sanitary conditions of public and private property, the regulation of waste disposal, the establishment and operation of fire departments, the prohibition of the sale or exchange of alcohol, the possession and consumption of alcohol, the protection of the environment, the prevention of pollution, taxation for local purposes, the regulation of roads and transportation and the regulation of hunting, Fishing and trapping.
Part of the whole essence of the Bill is the administration of lands and those powers are very extensive. I would say that in that area alone the powers are much more extensive than those given to municipalities. I would say that the bands have the responsibility of a government of a local municipality plus, and I would underline "plus".


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I have one short question to ask. I realize that we wish to pass this legislation quickly. I am sure the Minister agrees with me that the housing, education, health, water and sewage conditions on most reserves throughout Canada are completely inadequate. I wonder how he sees this piece of legislation helping to bring those conditions in these regions up to a standard that is closer to the national norm. How does he see that happening through this piece of legislation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, we are looking for the appropriate section of the Agreement now. The Hon. Member will recall the urgings of the Cree and Naskapi during the hearings of the standing committee. They felt, and legitimately so, that we were not living up to the spirit and intent of the Agreement. In the Agreement we said that as we went down the road, we should improve the infrastructure substantially for the Cree but that statement was not couched in wording that could cast a specific legal obligation.
In living up to the spirit of the Agreement, we made some $61 million in additional funds available. Much of that money was designed for the type of infrastructures just identified by the Hon. Member for Churchill. We tried to live up to that spirit.
I suppose one could say that the entire Agreement required the federal Government, as part of its obligations under the Agreement, to pay a greater degree of attention to and put a greater call on its financial reserves for the Cree, and perhaps that is the situation across the country generally. However, the Cree have every right to that special attention as a result of the Agreement that was negotiated. Much of that money has been spent and more of it is to be spent. Most of the $61 million has already been paid out, as the Hon. Member will recall from hearing that review announced.
The most relevant section of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is Section 28.1.1 which reads as follows:
28.1.1 Programs, funding and technical assistance presently provided by Canada and Quebec, and the obligations of the said governments with respect to such programs and funding shall continue to apply to the James Bay Crees on the
4496

June 8, 1984
James Bay Agreement
same basis as to other Indians of Canada in the case of federal programs, and to other Indians in Quebec in the case of provincial programs, subject to the criteria established from time to time for the application of such programs, and to general parliamentary approval of such programs and funding.
The allegation was that we were not doing that with them, we were not spending the same degree of program moneys for the Cree as we were for other Indians, because we charged against that anything they had won under the Agreement. Of course, we had to agree with them that that was fair.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, my question is of that general nature. If I understood the Minister correctly, we are granting-and I hate to use the word "granting" because I believe that they should have self-government-but, because of the stipulations of the Indian Act, we are passing another Bill which will grant them self-government. But we are not really sure if they will have adequate funding for health care, education, water and sewage and housing, which will enable them to provide an adequate government for their people. Are we not, in that case, building in failure by not providing adequate funding at the same time?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the Hon. Member knows the Cree leadership as I do, but I do not think they would have been urging us and pressuring all of us to pass this Cree-Naskapi Act if they had not thought that they had reached a pretty successful set of negotiations with the federal Government as far as funding is concerned. That might be unduly depreciating to their bargaining abilities. That is a dangerous type of depreciation, believe me.
The funding has been negotiated. I referred to the $11 million, which is a base. Price increases, inflation and so on will come to bear in succeeding years. It is subject to renegotiation. It cannot go below that level. The elements of the funding position have been agreed upon between the parties.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, does the Minister believe that the level of funding is adequate to provide the people of that area with adequate education, water and sewage, services and housing? Does he really believe that that money-considering how far behind they are in terms of health care, education, etc.-is adequate?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, if you look at the Tait report and the $61 million which has been negotiated and then you look at this fund, then I say, yes. The answer is yes, I do. In terms of comparability and taking into account the area and so on, yes, it is adequate. My hope would be that we could do the same-quite frankly, we do not have the money; it would undoubtedly be hundreds of millions of dollars-elsewhere in the particularly stark and depressing areas of the country. Billy Diamond and the Cree leadership are fully aware of that. It depends on what one compares it to. If we compare it to the funding in other areas in which Indian people live, it is far more adequate than some are receiving, I am sorry to say.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief question. The taxing authority which is to be granted to bands under Clause 45(1 )(h) will not be effective until such time as the Governor in Council has issued regulations. The Minister is undoubtedly aware of this. Could he tell us what progress has been made with respect to these regulations?


John Carr Munro: I would like to say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, that we must sit down and have further discussions with the Cree as to what those regulations should be. We have not had very much time. We have been under a lot of pressure lately, not only with this legislation but with Indian self-government. We will not pass the regulation until we have had thorough consultations with the concerned parties. Obviously those regulations are designed to ensure uniformity and fairness. Those are the two principal criteria which we try to ensure in any type of taxing law.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I take it then that no work as yet has been done on the regulations as required under Clause 45(4). Clause 45(6), contemplates the collection of taxes in a form other than money. Could the Minister please tell us what he means by a form other than money?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, this is a feature that the Crees themselves wanted to include in the Bill. It would give the band administration the flexibility to levy taxes against one of their members. If that member had some substance or article other than money, and it was acceptable to the band in payment of taxes, they would have the flexibility to accept it as payment.


Dave Nickerson: Does that clause contemplate the payment of taxes in labour? Are we going back to the old seigniorial system?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, after listening to statements made by the Hon. Member in the House, I dare say that I think the Cree are probably as progressive as he is, and perhaps more so. I do not know whether the Hon. Member is accusing them of running a feudal state, but I suppose it is possible. The person is not required to render a community service or labour. If he offers it in lieu of payment and the band wants to accept it, I guess they have the right to accept it.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I have a further question which deals with expropriation of the so-called lands IA and IA-N. The Province of Quebec as well as several other public bodies are to have expropriating authority. Could the Minister tell us what public bodies other than the Province of Quebec will have powers of expropriation over these lands?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member would look at page 56 of the Bill, Part VII sets out the parameters for this type of expropriation. It flows directly from the agreement entered into between the Government of Quebec, the Cree and the Government of Canada. Those powers of expropriation are stipulated in that part. "Other public bodies" obviously refers to entities and institutions such
June 8, 1984

as Quebec Hydro. The degree and the parameters to which they can exercise their expropriation powers are set out on pages 56 to 58 of the Bill.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I can read Part VII as well as the Minister can. In reading Part VII, the immediate question which jumps to mind is: What are these other bodies which have powers of expropriation? The Minister has informed us of one, namely, Hydro Quebec. Would we be correct in thinking that the James Bay Corporation or some other corporation might have the same power of expropriation? We are looking for a list of the bodies which have expropriating powers now.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member would look at Clause 118(b), it reads:
-any public body having the power of expropriation under the laws of the Province and specifically authorized by Quebec to carry out the expropriation in question.
That was agreed to. This just reflects what has already been in the agreement for some time.


Dave Nickerson: You do not list the bodies.


John Carr Munro: The agreement did not list the bodies. Therefore, the Act does not list the bodies. But I do not believe it would stretch anyone's imagination to know that it is boards such as Quebec Hydro and government agencies of that kind in Quebec as in other provinces which are given these powers. I will be pleased to supply the Hon. Member with a list of these types of public bodies if he is not already aware of them.


Dave Nickerson: It is evident, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister does not know the answer to that question. If he would be kind enough to make a list and have that list circulated at a future date, I am sure we will be most grateful.
My final question, Sir, deals with the applicability of the Income Tax Act to residents of these lands, people who would be beneficiaries. Am I correct in assuming that income tax would not be payable by people resident on these 1A and 1A-N lands who are otherwise beneficiaries under the Act?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, they have to be Indian. They have to be Cree. They are covered here, obviously. And they have to be Indians living in 1A land. It does not apply to IB land.


Eymard G. Corbin: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eymard G. Corbin: Pursuant to the unanimous agreement expressed earlier, I will now put the question on Clause 2, and its resolution will apply to all clauses up to Clause 218, inclusive.
Shall Clause 2 carry?
War Veterans Allowance Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 2 to 218 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, moved, seconded by Mr. Ouellet, that Bill C-39, An Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act and certain other Acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet).


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell (Cardigan)), who is in Europe to take part in ceremonies commemorating the landing of Allied troops in Normandy, I have the pleasure of presenting this Bill which, I hope, will receive the approval of all Members of this House.
The amendments we intend to propose today will be of considerable benefit to veterans and their families.
Mr. Speaker, the changes we are proposing today will have a short and long-term impact on thousands of Canadians. The proposed amendments will provide, starting this year, for additional assistance to veterans who are in greatest need. They will release the necessary funding so that the Department can meet the needs of aging veterans.
Mr. Speaker, all these objectives can be achieved provided we have sound and careful management. I believe we can achieve a great deal by implementing programs that are not only desirable in human terms but also less costly than other options. The Government is therefore proposing amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. The amendments, however, go beyond the purview of these two Acts. The most significant expenditures approved by Cabinet concern the Aging Veterans Program. These expenditures were not approved by the House because only a change in the regulations was required.
Nevertheless, I think it is important to provide details on improvements in the Aging Veterans Program, because they are so important and because we feel they are definitely preferable, as far as the program's effectiveness is concerned,

June 8, 1984
War Veterans Allowance Act
to all the measures proposed today, which, we hope, will be adopted. That is to say, we could improve the program offered to veterans, a program that is in their interest and also in the interest of Canadian taxpayers, in such a way that, with amendments, it will be possible to harmonize two programs administered by two separate departments.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs would certainly have preferred to be in the House himself today to propose increases in the benefits paid to more than 40,000 recipients of War Veterans Allowances and Civilian War Allowances. Those people are under 65, but right now they do not receive as much federal assistance as do the recipients of those allowances who, because of their age, are eligible for old age security benefits and the guaranteed income supplement. Parliament acknowledged the unfairness of the situation as early as 1980 when Bill C-40 was passed. As a result of the adoption of the Bill introduced today, parity between both groups of recipients will become a reality in April 1986, after a series of annual increases. In the opinion of the Government, parity must be achieved immediately. We recommend that, as of July 1 next, recipients under 65 now receiving the single rate allowance be entitled to $20 more a month, and that married rate recipients be entitled to $25 more a month. This way, all veterans allowance recipients will be on the same footing regardless of age.
I am convinced that Hon. Members will support this Bill. It is obvious that recipients under the aid program for veterans less than 65 years of age do need additional financial assistance, particularly the 26,000 veterans now receiving the single rate allowance and the 13,000 widows who need that additional assistance. There is no need to emphasize that the veterans allowance is the main source of income of those people. It has been estimated that earlier parity will cost $16.8 million. Such expenditures are in keeping with the Government's commitment to give priority to the most needy.
The Minister is proposing other amendments to the Wars Veterans Allowance Act and to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. It is a matter of technicalities in most cases and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will not go into that. However, I should like to say more about one of those amendments to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act which will enable merchant marine personnel who served in Korean waters between 1950 and 1953 to apply for allowances.
Under the existing legislation, civilians who served aboard Canadian or Allied ships in Korea are not eligible for the civilian war allowances. That is unacceptable since civilians with similar service in dangerous waters during World Wars I and II are already eligible for such veterans allowances. That is why we want those servicemen or persons who were in Korea to be eligible as well.
Hon. Members will appreciate that department officials must adapt their administrative procedures concerning veterans affairs to those of the Department of National Health and
Welfare so as to implement more equitably the old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments will certainly entail considerable savings while making it possible for allowance recipients to maintain their special relationship with the Department of Veterans Affairs which serves them and, of course, to continue to avail themselves of the services of officials who represent and defend them within the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would like to mention that these changes will make the program easier to understand and more accessible.
I want to remind Hon. Members that, in all programs designed for senior citizens, simplicity is a major factor. In addition, Mr. Speaker, a great many allowance recipients, at present and in the future, will benefit financially from this new formula. Let me explain how we shall be able to provide better services while greatly reducing the red tape involved.
At the present time, an allowance recipient who also gets the guaranteed income supplement and old age security pension must file a separate statement of income, first with the Department of Veterans Affairs, and then with the Department of National Health and Welfare. These two Departments process the statements separately, even though they contain virtually the same information. This overlapping of efforts must be eliminated, and the sooner the better. This is why the amendments we are suggesting will eliminate this duplication. Beginning April 1, 1986, all allowance recipients who get both the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement will present a single statement to the Department of National Health and Welfare. These veterans will therefore have one form less to fill in, which means that Government interference in their lives will be reduced.
The data collected under the two programs can then be directed to the Department of Veterans Affairs by way of transfers between the data banks. We are at the age of electronics and computers, and I believe that these can be used in the best interests of Government administration.
I want to emphasize that allowance recipients will not be cut off from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Department will continue to assess eligibility according to length of service and the War Veterans Allowance Board will continue with its important process of examining and hearing the appeals independently. In addition, the Bureau of Pension Advocates will offer for the first time its services to those who apply for allowances and also to recipients, which will enhance in my opinion the relationship between these veterans and their Department.
Mr. Speaker, the major changes will include a switch to the calendar year for the allowance programs, as is already used for the old age security pension and the review periods for the administration of the guaranteed income supplement. This change will benefit most recipients of veterans' assistance. At
June 8, 1984

the present time, the Department uses the current calendar year to determine income while the Department of National Health and Welfare refers to the income reported by the taxpayer for the previous year. By using the same method as Health and Welfare Canada, it is estimated that $2.5 million more will be paid out to needy veterans. It should also be noted that the formula used to determine the guaranteed income supplement is not as involved as the one used by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, only allowance recipients who are eligible both for the old age security pension and for the guaranteed income supplement will file a statement of income with Health and Welfare Canada in 1986. Those who are under 65 years of age will continue to provide all income-related information to the DVA. In order to bring both programs into harmony, the forms used in connection with the War Veterans Allowances Program will be simplified to meet GIS standards. All War Veterans Allowance recipients, whatever their age, will enjoy the benefits of the new income filing methods.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, War Veterans Allowances recipients will get the best of both worlds. They will continue to have their casual earnings and interest income exempted, something other GIS recipients are not entitled to.
To implement these changes will cost some $3 million in subsidies and contributions, in addition to $3.5 million in operating costs. These expenses are a careful use of public funds, because they will result in major savings in the forthcoming years. We expect for instance that when the War Veterans' programs, Civilian War Allowances programs, GIS and OAS programs have been brought into harmony, by 198889, the administration of all these programs will require 157 fewer person-years.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, these changes will allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to re-direct its funds, in order to meet better the increasing needs of veterans for health and social services.
I would like to say to the House that there are many more amendments of a housekeeping nature. When one refers to Bill C-39, one can realize that an effort has been made to improve the entire administrative mechanism and to ensure the satisfactory operation of the services made available to veterans.
I should also add that the Department of Veterans Affairs, once some savings are made, will be ready to extend the program to aging veterans. It is perhaps the most important aim, the priority of the Department and its minister at this time. Indeed, as the expenditures related to the administration of allowances are reduced, thanks to administrative and technological changes, we will be in a position to earmark more resources to assist ageing veterans to live with dignity and self-dependency.
War Veterans Allowance Act
The Hon. Members will remember that an innovative program was created in April 1981 under the principle that aging individuals wish to remain as independent as possible as long as possible. Every indication is to the effect that most veterans would rather receive some assistance which would allow them to live at home rather than in a hospital or a nursing home.
The assistance provided under the program can be very simple or very complicated. The problems vary as much as the services made available by the Department. Some veterans need the care of a nurse or a physiotherapist at home. Others will have to be treated at a clinic or will merely need to have snow removed at their door in the winter or the grass cut in the summer. In some cases the handicapped may need a wheelchair ramp.
The whole range of services to assist aging veterans is, and will be in the years to come, a continuing priority for the authorities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Over 2,000 veterans have already welcomed enthusiastically the benefits of this program. I need only mention the enthusiastic and determined support of all veterans' associations. The only cloud, as it were, is that the program does not reach enough veterans.
Today I can announce, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that many veterans will become eligible for the benefits provided under the Aging Veterans Program over the next five years. The program's range will be broadened in four stages. First of all, starting October 1, 1984, it will be available to veterans of 65 or over, receiving a disability pension and a veterans allowance. It will also be offered to veterans over 75 who are receiving an allowance, but not a pension.
Second, starting January 1, 1986, all other beneficiaries under this program between the ages of 65 and 74 will be eligible.
Third, after January 1, 1983, applications will be accepted from veterans who are 65 or over and receiving a disability pension but not receiving assistance from Veterans Affairs because of the benefits provided under the Old Age Security Act.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 1988, the program will provide assistance for veterans of 65 and over, who are not receiving a disability pension but who did service in a real war theatre and can not receive assistance from Veterans Affairs because of the Old Age Security Act.
Mr. Speaker, the program will be offered to a greater number of veterans. It will also offer a wider range of services. It will provide transportation services for eligible veterans. This new benefit is very important to people who would otherwise be confined to their homes. The program will provide up to $600 annually to defray transportation expenses of veterans who must leave their homes occasionally to go shopping or to carry out any of the transactions that are

June 8, 1984
War Veterans Allowance Act
customary in the course of our lives and which these veterans, having reached a certain age, are no longer able to do alone. Consequently, the $600 per year for transportation will certainly be very useful. Moreover, we will improve on present services, namely home care, out-patient care and institutional care.
All things considered, expanding the Aging Veterans Program will cost about $101 million. This is a very substantial amount, but I believe that all the Hon. Members will recognize that such expenditures are fully justified, not only in human terms, but also in terms of financial responsibility for the Government of Canada.
What are the alternatives to the Aging Veterans Program? In 1981, 67,000 veterans were over 76 years of age. This figure will double within the next few years. You do not have to be an expert in gerontology to understand that many of these people are not as self-sufficient as they used to be. There is also no doubt that the need for chronic care beds will increase dramatically during the next fifteen years. We believe that, with respect to the care given to older people, there is too much emphasis placed on institutional care in the health and social service field and not enough on the services which can be provided to these people in their own homes. I believe that, in due course, we shall have to shift the emphasis to home services away from institutional care.
Mr. Speaker, expanding the Aging Veterans Program also offers another avenue which will be much less costly for the taxpayers. Government officials have estimated that, in 1991, $57 billion will be spent under the Aging Veterans Program to provide assistance to about 14,000 veterans. In other words, if the same amount were used to help veterans in hospitals, we would be able to help only 1,200 of them, while we shall be able, under this new program, to provide assistance, not to 1,200, but to 14,000.
Mr. Speaker, over and above the financial benefits provided by the program for the Government and the Canadian public, I believe that older people much prefer to be helped in providing for their own needs under the program we are proposing
today.
During the debates on the Canada Health Act, a large number of Members of Parliament from both sides of the House have urged the Government to consider new methods and approaches to the whole issue of health care. The high cost of hospitalization has often been mentioned throughout the debates. Federal and provincial authorities were urged to find alternatives. In my opinion, it can be said the Department of Veterans Affairs has indeed been a leader in that field. The Aging Veterans Program meets their obvious needs, as it does those of elderly Canadians as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I am sincerely convinced that the people who are concerned about the aging Canadian population and who are already making plans for the day when the majority of Canadians will be over 60 or 65 years old will review with interest and attention the results of that program administered
by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans will grow older faster than the rest of Canadians. By helping them today, we are preparing ourselves to help other Canadians, and a good many of our existing social programs were set up in the first place to help veterans and their families. I think that the Aging Veterans Program is in keeping with that tradition, and what we want to do today for those veterans is what we shall be doing tomorrow for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the program I have just described is probably the last of a long series of measures Canada will have to take to fulfil its commitment towards veterans and their dependents. Our country looked after its veterans when they returned from the war zone. It cared for their war wounds. It helped them reintegrate civilian life, it gave them support when they were raising their families. Today, those veterans and spouses in many cases are or will soon be senior citizens. Canada has an opportunity to help them at the end of their lives. We owe them that much, it is a challenge we should meet.
Mr. Speaker, the War Veteran's Charter is a document that was prepared prudently by members from all parties in this House. It was supported from all sides. I am convinced the House will be happy to enact proposals that will add a noble chapter that will do credit to all members in this House, because I am confident they will unanimously support the bill.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled as to how the House can get this Bill through this afternoon. We shared time on the two Bills that were here, but we had not foreseen that the NDP would waste so much time getting the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) thrown out of the House on a trumped up case of using unparliamentary language. That was time we could desperately use now to get this Bill through.
I would like to thank the Minister for his presentation of the facts about the Bill. No doubt his speech was prepared by senior departmental officers. Listening to it I found that it came through well and I believe some of the detail he has filled in will be useful to have on the record. Bill C-39 is the first piece of veterans legislation to be introduced by the current Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Bennett). It is a shame that his other duties have precluded him from being here to speak on the final veterans Bill which this Government will ever pass. Part of the Bill is niggling in its attitude and a lot has been left out. If we were trying to get this Bill through the House in the normal course with its being referred to committee, we would have had an opportunity to move many amendments that we would like to have made to it. But in the interest of getting half a loaf rather than none, we are willing to forgo that part of the proceedings.
This Bill includes a number of provisions which address serious inequities in the way in which veterans of different age
June 8, 1984

groups, veterans' widows and orphans are dealt with under the current legislation. One of the good things is that the Bill gives veterans access to the legal assistance which they need in order to initiate appeals to the War Veterans Allowance Board, giving war veterans allowance recipients some of the resources available to veterans disability pensioners. The Bill includes a number of housekeeping measures which amend the Act in order to initiate the action which will integrate the War Veterans Allowance Program with the Old Age Security Program for all veterans over 65, and to do this by 1986.
The Minister's announcement of this legislation was coupled with an announcement that the Aging Veterans Program was to be made available to a larger number of veterans, and that some additional types of costs would be covered under the program. This is commendable, but we had expected considerably more. We expected to see some attention to the issue of eligibility for war veterans allowance for those who volunteered to serve their country but were not sent overseas. We hoped that the Minister would finally take action which would have permitted those needy Canadian veterans living outside the country to apply for war veterans allowance without incurring the expense of returning to Canada for a token 12 months. Those who can afford to come back to Canada for 12 months usually do not need the war veterans allowance as badly as those who cannot afford to come home for the year. We believed the Minister would remain true to his promise to increase the interest income deduction for veterans so that they would be able to save what they can without losing part of their allowance as a consequence.
This legislation does not accomplish any of these things. The Minister has made much of the fact that Bill C-39 will finally rectify an injustice which the Government formally recognized but did little about in 1980. Veterans under age 65, both married and single, have been receiving substantially less under the War Veterans Allowance Program than have their comrades who are over 65. In 1980, the Government decided to reduce the shortfall, which amounted to over $1,000 per year for married recipients, by the princely amount of $12 per month for these veterans each year for seven years. Now, after requiring these veterans to suffer through five years of these paltry increases, and a full year after the Minister promised to eliminate the shortfall, the Government has seen fit to do what should have been done in the first place-bring the WVA ceiling for veterans under age 65 to the same level as that which applies to their comrades over 65.
We have been calling upon the Minister for three full months to clarify his policy in regard to the GIS supplement increase. He has been unable to give a straightforward answer in the House or in committee. Now, less than a month before the first GIS increase of $25 is to be put in place, the Minister has finally announced his plans to pass on this increase to single veterans.
Many of the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act contained in this Bill are intended to make the provisions
War Veterans Allowance Act
of the Act more equitable. One will reinstate the right of a widow to an allowance if a second marriage breaks down, without concern for the length of the second marriage or the reason for the termination. This is a commendable initiative on the part of the Minister. Traditional family structures are being challenged in our society and, as unfortunate as that trend may be, it is imperative that it be recognized and provision made for its victims.
A question arises with respect to this aspect of the legislation. We would like the assurance of the Minister that all veterans' widows will be eligible to take advantage of this provision, regardless of when a second marriage took place or was dissolved. In other words, we would like to know that those veterans' widows who are currently ineligible for reinstatement of their allowance because of the circumstances associated with the termination of the second marriage, will be eligible for reinstatement of their benefits on the day on which the Act comes into force.
The Bill provides, in addition to its duties under the Pension Act, that the Bureau of Pensions Advocates shall provide a counselling service and assistance to applicants for allowances and recipients with respect to appeals to the War Veterans Allowance Board. The Minister has recognized that WVA recipients are by definition unable to afford their own legal counsel in order to undertake appeals to the board. There is no indication that he has taken into account the fact that the Bureau of Pensions Advocates is encountering great difficulty in fulfilling its obligations to disabled pensioners who have been its clients in the past. To add to the mandate of the bureau, while at the same time failing to increase its resources, will result in the same sort of backlogs in the allowance appeals system as veterans are currently encountering in the pension appeal system.
The Minister will know that this matter has been raised in committee. The representative of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates was unable to indicate that the resources of the bureau had been increased. The Minister must ensure that neither disability pensioners nor WVA recipients are forced to wait months until their claims are adjudicated.
Another provision of the Bill will make it possible for a couple forced to reside apart by circumstances such as the need for hospitalization to receive WVA at twice the single rate. In fact, the Minister made public reference to the fact that he had implemented this very reasonable policy as long ago as May, 1983. Now he has introduced the legislation to put it in place. What has been the policy over this period and under what authority has the Minister been acting, one might ask?
Another provision in the Bill removes all reference in the Act to the level of interest income which can be earned by a recipient without a reduction in his allowance. Yet, in May, 1983, in speaking to the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion, the Minister stated that the proposal for an increase in the amount of allowable interest income was under close scrutiny. More recently, on March 14, 1984, the Minister

June 8, 1984
War Veterans Allowance Act
made a definite statement in this regard. In answer to a question which I put to him in the House, the Minister said:
With respect to increasing the interest reduction, as I have indicated to the Hon. Member, I will be proposing a number of legislative amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act as a follow-up to the study which was conducted over the past number of months, and a provision to increase the interest earnings deduction will be one of those proposals.
This Bill does not live up to the promises of the Minister. The interest earning deduction is not increased. The Bill simply deletes reference to the limit on interest income from the War Veterans Allowance Act. Henceforth, the limit will be set by regulation, and there is no indication that the Minister intends to increase the limit when he draws up the necessary regulations. We cannot be sure what the Minister's intentions are because, although these regulations will have to be in place when the Bill comes into force, the Minister has not made their contents known to the House.
The Minister has gone on at length about the increased flexibility which will be available to him when he is able to adjust the interest income limit without having to introduce legislation. Parliamentarians would be much more in favour of according the Minister the control he would like, if we had some reason to believe that he will be more prepared to amend regulations in the future than he has been to amend legislation in the past.
While we had been led to expect more from the Minister in some areas, the provisions of the Bill devoted to changing the way in which the Act is administered and to integrating the War Veterans Allowance Program into the Old Age Security Program for veterans over age 65 were unexpected.
The responsibility of the district authorities in adjudicating initial applications for WVA is to be transferred to the Minister or, more realistically, to officials of his Department in district offices. This represents a fundamental change in the principles governing the application and appeal system of the program, and it has a potentially negative impact upon the interests of veterans. The right of veterans to appeal negative decisions made by administrators is an integral component of the program and must be protected from political or bureaucratic interference, and it is not. Similarly, the rights of all veterans across Canada to a consistent interpretation of the Act must be safeguarded by both the Minister and the War Veterans Allowance Board.
One of the most serious and urgent issues associated with the War Veterans Allowance Program is completely neglected by this legislation. Specifically, no effort has been made to clarify or broaden the criteria for eligibility for the War Veterans Allowance Program. A couple of months ago I drew to the attention of the Minister the inconsistency in the decision of the War Veterans Allowance Board concerning the admissibility of travel to Prince Edward Island as service in a theatre of actual war. I suggested that it was time the whole concept of service eligibility was reviewed. After extensive discussion of this issue in committee, I had hoped to see some initiative in the Bill which would have clarified the matter once and for all. I would like to see all those who volunteered for overseas service and who served for a year or more made
eligible to apply for the allowance without regard to where or in what capacity they served their country. Another omission from the legislation is any consideration for the needs of Canadian veterans living overseas.
In omitting to deal with these matters in this so-called overhaul of the program, the Minister is negligent in the performance of his duty. It is his duty to represent the interests of all Canadian veterans, including those who are unable to represent themselves. The Minister accompanied his introduction of this Bill with the announcement of a phased-in extension of eligibility under the Aging Veterans Program to recipients of war veterans allowance. I am pleased the Minister will be making the program more accessible to WVA recipients, but I should like to see this done immediately, without the four-year phase-in. All needy veterans over age 65 should be eligible now.
There are inconsistencies in delivery at the local level. The Minister cited administrative limitations as the reason for the decision to phase in the extension of the program to those veterans who need it most. We expect, therefore, that the Minister will take steps to ensure that a comprehensive policy manual will be designed to enable his officials to administer the program with a full understanding of its principles and a consistent application of the relevant regulations.
In his announcement which accompanied the Bill, the Minister made reference to the eligibility of disability pensioners who receive WVA or are unable to receive it because of their old age security benefits. One assumes that those disability pensioners who now receive assistance under the program will continue to be eligible. However, the Minister gives no indication that he is prepared to assist other disability pensioners to maintain self-sufficiency in their own homes.
Many elderly disability pensioners are not eligible for the Aging Veterans Program at present because their difficulties are not directly related to their pensioned condition. Disability pensions are deducted dollar for dollar from the war veterans allowance, so that single pensioners who receive a pension at the 60 per cent level are ineligible for WVA.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see that we are approaching four o'clock, at which time we would normally adjourn government business for the day.
As my colleague from Victoria has pointed out, we are anxious to see this Bill go through all stages this afternoon, notwithstanding the delay we have been faced with on the business of the House. There have been some discussions. I have certainly discussed this with my colleague who is bringing forward a Senate Private Members' Bill in Private Members' Hour. There might be a disposition in the House to not see the clock to allow us to proceed through all stages on the understanding that, at the conclusion of this legislation, we proceed to Private Members' Hour, at which time, I understand, the Bill being presented by my colleague will also receive the approval of the House in all stages this afternoon.
June 8, 1984


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, that is the understanding that has been discussed, that we would not see the clock and that we would continue. Certainly the Government is of the view that this Bill should receive all three readings today and be passed into law. We would ask that you not see the clock but that we proceed with all stages of the Bill now before us. Upon completion of the Bill, we will proceed to Private Members' Hour and deal only with the Senate Private Members' Bill. Upon completion of all stages of that Bill, we will adjourn the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we agreed with the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) and the Member who just spoke on behalf of the Government. We are prepared for the Chair not to see the clock until we have completed both Bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is sometimes difficult for the Chair not to see the many clocks in the Chamber. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its wisdom and generosity. I was speaking about the difficulty of disability pensioners. I can perhaps sum it up by saying that if their disability is 60 per cent, they are unable to get on the war veterans allowance, which in turn means that they cannot get the assistance allowance of up to $6,000 per year which might permit them to remain in their own home, as they could if they were on war veterans allowance. It is a kind of Catch-22 situation. The disability keeps them from getting WVA, which in turn keeps them from getting the assistance that would allow them to maintain their own homes, which would be cheaper for us all in the long run.
The Minister made reference in his announcement to the upgraded services to be offered under the program. A transportation allowance can now be paid to a maximum of $600 per year. What the Minister's announcement does not make clear is that all other maximum payments under the program remain fixed at the levels that were established in 1981. Statistics Canada figures for March, 1984 indicate that the dollar now has a purchasing power of 82.5 cents in comparison with the 1981 dollar. Veterans cannot pay 80 cents on the dollar for the home care or home modifications which they require.
There are some shortcomings in the Pension Act as a result of this which I would like to point out. Much has been made of the fact that this Bill amends the War Veterans Allowance Act to make it consistent with the Pension Act with regard to the treatment of dependent children and the right of veterans to legal counsel. No effort has been made to address other inconsistencies in these two pieces of legislation.
Under the War Veterans Allowance Act, the widow of a deceased veteran who had been receiving WVA at the married rate may continue to receive the allowance at this rate for a full year following the death of the veteran. This permits
War Veterans Allowance Act
sufficient time for a bereaved spouse to recover from the emotional shock of her loss. Many fixed expenses, particularly housing, cannot be easily adjusted in the space of a month. Other contractual arrangements which have been made for the care of the veteran can only be terminated without notice by the payment of a penalty.
The Pension Act, which governs the payment of disability pensions and other special allowances to veterans suffering from medical conditions related to their service, does not recognize the needs of newly bereaved widows. Under these provisions, any pension or allowance received by a disability pensioner ceases to be payable on the first day of the month following the death of the veteran. If the Minister were to have addressed the inconsistencies in these two Act, he should have amended the Pension Act to ensure that the widows of disability pensioners receive the same consideration as the widows of war veterans allowance recipients.
We would like to see the full disability pension of the veteran continued for a year following his death in those cases. Similarly, we would continue the attendance or the exceptional incapacity allowance received by some of the most severely disabled veterans for a full year following the death of the veteran.
Another amendment of the Pension Act which we would have liked the Minister to have included in this package, and this is very important, would entrench the principle that the 100 per cent rate of disability pension should reflect parity with the average wage of five unskilled categories of public servants or the increase in the consumer price index, whichever is greater.
In 1972, there was mutual agreement by a joint government-veterans committee established by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that the disability pension at basic single rates would be tied to a composite of five unskilled categories of public servants' rates of pay. Since then the Government has passed legislation increasing the basic rate effective July 1, 1973 and July 1, 1978, aligning it with the average of these five categories. However, this is not enshrined in the legislation and the veterans have to come cap in hand to get it each time that they have fallen behind, often quite a distance; it has been up to $600 per year.
As far as the Dieppe veterans are concerned, we had hoped the Minister would include a provision in the Bill to increase the allowance payable to those Canadian veterans captured at Dieppe who were imprisoned for years under extraordinarily harsh conditions. We would like it raised to 40 per cent of the full disability pension. The Minister, and many other Members of this House, are aware of the studies by Mr. Justice Thane A. Campbell in 1953 and Dr. J. Douglas Hermann in 1973 which described the conditions endured by the Dieppe veterans. Now the Dieppe veterans are forced to demonstrate on Parliament Hill in an effort to make their needs known to the Government. The Progressive Conservative members in this House recognize the needs of these veterans and condemn the Minister for his failure to address this important matter.

June 8, 1984
War Veterans Allowance Act
We on this side of the House welcome this legislation. It is long overdue. It rectifies a number of serious inequities in the War Veterans Allowance Program. It neglects a number of other equally serious problems which we would have expected to see dealt with in a piece of legislation touted by the Minister as a major overhaul of the program.
This Bill does nothing for the veterans receiving disability pensions or for their widows. It completely disregards the serious problems which I have identified today and which other members of my Party have brought to the attention of the Minister in committee. The Minister's announcement made no reference to these disability pensioners. He did not even clarify their status with respect to the Aging Veterans Program. His silence on the subject of the long delays which these veterans are encountering in the pension appeal process is quite deafening. However, we are not prepared to delay passage of the Bill despite our reservations about its shortcomings.
We would have had a dozen amendments had there been time available. However, we are worried. We can see the calendar as well as the clock. This Bill must get through before the end of June. There are few days left. For that reason, I do not intend to present any amendments to the Committee of the Whole stage.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister and the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) about the need to get this legislation through even though, as the Member for Victoria said, it is not good enough and does not go far enough. In light of the calendar, it is better to have this amount of the loaf than nothing.
I will touch on only two or three items. Before doing that, I draw to the attention of the House, and I know this will be greeted with agreement and approval, the contribution made since 1942, when our veterans were the Armed Forces, both in Canada and overseas being fought for, stood up for and advocated by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is in the Chamber today. He has spent many years working on behalf of the veterans of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch upon two or three points regarding the matter of war veterans allowances for those veterans who do not reside in Canada. I have never been able to understand the departmental reasoning behind requiring such veterans to return to Canada for one year in order to remain eligible to receive benefits. We received one answer to that question as recently as June 6.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), raised a question regarding veterans being denied the benefits received by every other eligible veterans simply because they cannot return to Canada and live in Canada for one year. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, the executive director to the executive assistant of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) as quoted by the Hon. Member for Beaches, said
that the only reason these veterans must return to Canada for one year is so that the Department of Veterans Affairs can get to know them. I would presume that the Department of Veterans Affairs got to know these veterans before it gave them a war veterans allowance.
Once a veteran qualifies for war veterans allowance, the country in which he lives is of no significance. Canada has reciprocal agreements with many other countries for old age pensions, guaranteed income supplements and Canada pensions among others. The place of a veteran's residence should have absolutely nothing to do with his ability to receive the war veterans allowance. I would be quite happy to stay here another 10 minutes so that the Minister could quickly draft an amendment to add to the Bill so that we may discuss it when we go into Committee of the Whole in a few minutes' time. Such an amendment would put an end to that kind of nonsense.
A problem that I have run into ever since I came to Parliament in 1968 and a problem that all other Members face is the length of time it takes for the Government to make decisions. It does not matter whether or not the decisions to be made deal with disability pensions, war veterans allowance or widows' pensions. It takes a great deal of time. I once dealt with a case that took four years to resolve. The Government finally agreed with the case as it was presented in the first place and the veteran received $28,000 in back benefits. However, it took four years for that to happen.
The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) on May 28, 1984. I must say in passing that I sincerely regret the Minister's inability, for whatever reason, to pilot his Bill through the House because it is so darn seldom that this ever happens and it takes so darn long to have a veterans' Bill put before the House.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West, wrote to the Minister on behalf of a veteran, Mr. Joseph Wrangler, who has been pursuing his settlement since 1952. That is more than 30 years. This veteran recently received a letter from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates in Vancouver, which was dated February 13, 1984. However, he received that letter on May 15, 1984. One immediately wonders about the efficiency of Canada Post, but it turns out that the delay was not the fault of Canada Post.
When the representative of the Vancouver office was questioned about why the letter took three months to reach Mr. Wrangler, his reply was that inexperienced staff were causing a backlog. The submission to Ottawa and the letter advising of it did not get mailed from the Vancouver office until a full two months after it was written. That is surely no way to serve veterans, whether their cases are justified and legitimate or not.
The Hon. Member for Victoria brought up the question of the means test and the matter of interest income. If a veteran is entitled to a disability pension or a war veterans allowance or if his spouse or orphaned dependants are entitled to such benefits, those benefits should be exempt from any kind of
June 8, 1984

means test. If, as rarely happens, the recipient of such benefits is extremely well to do, he will hopefully be paying a lot of income tax on all of his other income, regardless of its source. Surely such benefits which are paid to recipients by the Government of Canada should not be subject to means tests.
An interest income amounting to $500 a year is not extremely uncommon these days. If a veteran who is receiving benefits is able to save money and earn a few hundred dollars a year in interest, I submit that he should be able to keep that income without having anyone looking over his shoulder and hitting him up for payments under the tax system.
The benefits of a veteran who is drawing either a disability pension or war veterans allowance should have nothing to do with his benefits under the old age pension or GIS. The benefit that is received from the Department of Veterans Affairs should not be deductible from the GIS. Again, a recipient of benefits will pay tax on those portions of income that are taxable. Should a beneficiary of the Department of Veterans Affairs happen to be well to do, he will be paying taxes for other reasons.
I do not know whether or not the war veterans allowance should be integrated with the GIS and old age assistance plans. At first blush, I do not think that they should be integrated. Prior to coming to Parliament, I experienced such an integration where I was employed. We thought we would be able to receive the benefits of both a company pension plan and the Canada Pension Plan. We thought that they would be stacked, and they ended up being integrated, so we received a little bit of each instead of all of both.
It seems to me that any benefits that veterans are entitled to receive should be exempt from deduction from any other benefits like old age assistance, pension, guaranteed income supplement or Workmen's Compensation Board payments. Of course, incomes earned outside of those kinds of benefits will be taxed in the normal manner.
Although the Government has yet to act on it, we support, as do all Members of the House, the increase to the pensions received by the Dieppe veterans, and particularly those who were held in shackles as prisoners of war for months and months. We believe that even 40 per cent of the pension would be little enough. We are only asking that that benefit be raised from the present 20 per cent to 40 per cent. We can do no less than that for those veterans.
Finally, I would like to mention that just two days ago ceremonies were held and tributes were paid in this House, all over Europe and particularly in Normandy, regarding D-Day. It is not only D-Day that we were commemorating. It is a large number of other occasions, whether it was Hong Kong, Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, Normandy, Monte Cassino, Sicily or wherever. For those who did not come back, we must see to it that what they did was not done for nothing. We must see to it that those who did come back are entitled to more than what we are presently providing. Even though we are doing relatively well compared to other countries, it is nothing to brag about. Mr. Speaker, as sure as you are sitting there and I am standing here, if those who did not come back were here now,
War Veterans Allowance Act
they would be saying on behalf of those who did come back that we must do more than what is done by this Bill.
If you walk, Mr. Speaker, among the gravestones of a cemetery of Canadian veterans, you will see that, whether they be 17, 18, 19, 21 or 22 years of age, they come from all parts of the country. There are English, French, Indian, Ukrainian and other names of the soldiers buried side by side. The first thing which went through my mind is that we must see to it that what they did was not done for nothing. Whether it is for peace or for the welfare and good order of our country, and most particularly the welfare of our veterans who did come back, we can do no less than that. This is the fourth, fifth or sixth occasion in 16 years on which we have dealt with amendments to veterans legislation. Every time it has been chintzy governments who have held back. They could find a lot more money to spend on a lot of other things. However, they always held back, chiselled, or would not do what Members from all sides of the House would have supported in record time.
I would like to comment briefly on the subject of our Indian veterans. Anyone who lived in rural Canada where there were Indian reservations knows about the activities over the decades of some, if not most, of what were then called Indian agents. Most, if not all, are now gone. The Indian veterans were inadequately treated, compared to the rest of the veterans, but treated even worse once they returned to the reserve. I know that there are not many involved, but even if there are only a few hundred, it seems to me that there is room for special consideration to make up for what was either prevented from happening or should have happened a few decades ago.
I hope we can deal with this Bill in the next few minutes. We will support it. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Hon. Member for Victoria or myself to move any amendments, because that would call for the spending of money and we are not allowed to do that. I just wish that the Minister who presented the Bill on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs would bring in one or two minor amendments that would improve the legislation. If that could happen, the Government would be surprised how quickly the House would give its approval.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the Chair.
Mr.   Chairman@: Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-

June 8, 1984
War Veterans Allowance Act


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I hope this is the only time that I will rise during this stage of the Bill. I am sorry to have to put the House to so much trouble over one simple question.
Clause 1(10) of Bill C-39 amends the definition of the terms "widow" and "widower" in subsection 2(1) of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Subsection 2(3) of that Act describes those who may be deemed to be the spouse or the widow of a veteran as one who has been residing with a member of the opposite sex to whom he is not legally married.
There may well be cases in which a veteran has a legal spouse, for whom he has a legal or at least a moral responsibility, but has been living with another individual who is deemed to be his spouse under the definition of the Act. Clause 9 of the Bill amends Section 15 of the Act to enable the Minister to intervene in cases in which the recipient of an allowance is not maintaining any person for whom he has a legal responsibility.
What is the situation with respect to the payment of a widow's allowance in those cases in which the veteran has left a legal widow for whom he was responsible before his death as well as a deemed widow as described in the Act? I think there has been an omission which will mean that some veterans will have left behind two widows, and there would be a responsibility on the part of the state for both of those widows under the Act as it now reads.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Department is entitled to pay only one allowance. The general practice has been that the money would normally go to the person who spent the longer period of time with the veteran. In other words, if the second marriage had only been for a period of one year, and the first marriage had been for a period of 25 years, it is clear that the first widow would receive the allowance.
In cases in which the two widows have lived with the veteran for an equal number of years, that obviously creates a more difficult problem. However, in most cases I understand that the majority applies and the allowance would be given to the person who had spent a longer period of time with the veteran.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Supplementary to the question just raised and the Minister's response, I know of a case which has been referred to the Department in which a veteran's widow, who is drawing benefits, has had her benefits split in half between herself and a previous spouse. The previous spouse is called "a divorced widow". I have checked with a couple of lawyers and have found that there is no such thing as a divorced widow in law. Before the veteran died, he had remarried, so how can the first wife be a divorced widow? Surely the second wife is the widow. But 10 or 12 years after the fact, after his death, the benefits drawn by that veteran were divided equally between a "divorced widow" who had already received a full property settlement, half of all the property, and $80,000 in cash settlements, and his real divorced widow. This is 12 or 14 years after the fact. How many divorced widows can a veteran have?
It is not that they can do much about it after they have gone up to the great Flanders Fields, but how many divorced widows can a veteran have? Where does this end? There may have been some veterans who married and remarried three or four times and so there would be three or four widows. You are either divorced or are a widow, but you are not both. In this case the veteran remarried and, after some 10 or 12 years of marriage, he died, and his benefits are going to someone he would not have even seen for 15 years. Where does the Department get the jurisdiction or justification for that? It seems to me that if that veteran, or any others like him, had the funds to take you to court, they would probably win.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, obviously, if the Hon. Member is accurate in his facts and if the lawyers of the person could go to court and win, I am sure that they would go to court and win. I do not see this, therefore, as a case which is the rule. It is probably very unique and an exception. I even wonder if it is under this Act, if it is not under the Canada Pension Act. I would like to know more of the details of the case before giving an opinion. I appreciate the Hon. Member's point, but I would just like to find out if it is really a living case or a hypothetical case.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is a living case.


André Ouellet: If it is a living case, we will follow through on it and will see what can be done.


Mr. Peterson:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the circumstances in which the Minister finds himself today, but perhaps his officials could be of some assistance. There are a number of senior citizens in Canada today who have come to our country from other countries which were allies of Canada during the Second World War. There are not a great number of these people. However, these people find they have to live in Canada 15 years before they can receive the pension which would otherwise be available to Canadians who served in the same circumstances. Many of these people find themselves in very impoverished circumstances. I am wondering if any thought has been given to changing the law so that these people can get their pensions sooner? Has any thought been given to the question of how many people would be involved in this particular group? I do not think it would be very many. Also, has any thought been given to what the additional cost would be to the federal Government to extend the benefits to these people after a shorter period of time of residency in Canada?


André Ouellet: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Member will be happy to learn that the period is ten years residency. It is no longer 15 years.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I made a mistake. It is ten years. You are quite right.


André Ouellet: Obviously, I will pass on his representations to my colleague who will look at the possibilities of further reducing the period of eligibility.
June 8, 1984


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Minister is quite right, Mr. Chairman. It is a period of ten years now. I appreciate very much his support for this representation and I look forward to working with him and his officials in the future in order to be able to accomplish something constructive in this area.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, like many Hon. Members, I suppose, I find myself in an awkward situation. I had hoped that this Bill would go through the normal process rather than be passed in one day without what I consider to be a very adequate committee study. I believe, like many Hon. Members of Parliament, that we do have individual situations where we would like to get the Government to move on some amendments. Obviously, if we are going to go with the procedure which was outlined earlier, we are not going to have that opportunity.
I also find it unfortunate that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is elsewhere and not in the House at this time. I know where he is and I recognize the importance of those celebrations, however, I do believe that there are a number of veterans and their families who are not receiving full justice from the House of Commons because of the procedure which we are following today.
My own father was one of the people who, I believe, was mistreated by the Department in the past. Both of my parents worked for the Deer Lodge Hospital when it was a Veterans Affairs institute. I used to visit them quite often and I got to meet many veterans who certainly felt that the Government did not have their best interests at heart. I regret that we are passing this legislation so quickly. This is the type of legislation which affects a number of people who very often do not have their concerns raised in the House of Commons.
However, I have a specific question. It is my understanding that people who served in the British Merchant Marine do not qualify for any veterans' assistance in Canada. I was wondering whether the Minister, or his officials who are before us today, could respond to that.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, in response to the Hon. Member I would like to say that indeed the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) is in Europe with an important group of veterans. He is participating in the ceremonies in Normandy. I am sure he would have liked to have been here in the House today to participate in the debate on this Bill. However, I believe that he and all the other veterans who are in Europe will be very happy to learn that Parliament today passed Bill C-39. This Bill will go a long way in helping a number of veterans and their families.
In relation to the Hon. Member's comments, I believe the answer to that is, no, they are not included. I will indeed ask my officials to review this matter and see what could be done in this regard.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister's response. It is unfortunate that we do not have the "real" Minister-if I may use that term-here today. I recognize where he is and the importance of the occasion. However, I do
War Veterans Allowance Act
believe that with a bit of effort the Government could have arranged its business in such a way that this Bill could have received fairly speedy passage on a day when the Minister was here and when we could have had some opportunity, perhaps, to convince the Minister of the need for amendments such as the one which, obviously, I would want to make in this particular case. I understand that people who served in the Canadian Merchant Marine do qualify for Canadian pensions.
I understand that people who served with the British Army and Navy also qualify for Canadian pensions. It is obvious that people who now live in Canada who served in the British Merchant Marine had a very dangerous time of it. Obviously they should be given some consideration. The fact that we are dealing with this legislation quickly and without the Minister here means that we cannot make that type of presentation to the Minister and propose the necessary amendments which, I suspect, the Minister might have even favoured had he been here at this time.


André Ouellet: I share the view of the Hon. Member that the timing of the passage of this legislation is probably a little awkward. I am sure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs would have wished to be here. The Hon. Member is one of the Three Wise Men who decide on the schedule of the House. He sometimes acts as House Leader for his Party with our own House Leader and the Opposition House Leader. Bill C-34, which deals with Labour Code amendments, will come before the House next Monday. It could have come today and Bill C-39 could have come before the House next week. That would have probably satisfied myself and would certainly have satisfied the Minister of Veterans Affairs. That is not the case. I am here today on behalf of the Minister and will be here Monday for my own legislation.
In relation to the specific question of the Hon. Member, I want to remind him that any allied veterans who have resided in Canada for 10 years can qualify. I hope this has not escaped him. Indeed, any allied veterans who have lived in Canada for 10 years can qualify.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 32 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 8, 1984
Amalgamation of the Wesleyan Church of Canada

Mr. Jack Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved: that Bill S-15, an Act to provide for the creation by amalgamation of the Wesleyan Church of Canada, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and indeed proud to be the sponsor in the House of Commons of Senate Bill S-15, which is an Act to provide for the creation by amalgamation of the Wesleyan Church in Canada. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a legislative framework under which two churches, the Pilgrims Holiness Church of Canada and the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America in Canada, may amalgamate their corporate structures. I should make the point in passing that ecclesiastically, these churches have been joined for some time. What I as sponsor and the principals of the two churches are requesting of the Commons today is the legislative completion of their bonding.
I want to put on record a brief explanation of the two churches which are requesting this legislation. It is interesting to realize how the teachings of two English church priests, John and Charles Wesley, have spread. Last weekend in Belleville I took part in the one hundredth anniversary of the United Church of Canada which also amalgamated portions of, or branches of, the church which they helped to form.
The Wesleyan revival that swept England under the leadership of John and Charles Wesley in the years following their conversion to Christ in 1738 were extremely interesting. Both Wesleys were ordained priests of the Church of England. It was not their intent to originate another denomination. However, the major portion of those touched by their teaching were from the lower working class without any formal religion and mostly illiterate. Largely rejected by the Church of England, the Wesleys and their followers formed Methodist societies, a name derived from their methodical approach to the instruction of their converts. The Methodist societies maintained some connection with the Church of England until the death of John Wesley in 1791, after which they organized under the name of the Wesleyan Methodist Church.
At that time England was experiencing the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Some historians have gone so far as to credit the moral, political and social reforms that arose from the Wesleyan revival with saving England from the blood-bath that was the French Revolution. Even then, when they sent out missionaries from England initially to the American colonies, they represented the lower-class people.
In 1839, a large anti-slavery group within the Church made representations against slavery at the general conference and
was expelled from the conference by the bishops. This group formed the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America in 1843. They then stepped further away from the episcopal government of the Church to adopt a more congregational government.
The men and women who originally formed the Methodist Church of Canada, which ultimately became the founding of the United Church of Canada, came with the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists. In addition, English missionaries arrived representing the Wesleyan Methodist Church of England. The congregation that is involved in this private legislation today, was the third wave of Methodism to arrive in Canada, the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America in Canada. Its missionaries arrived to carry out their evangelical duties in the Ottawa Valley in the 1890s, and the resulting Church was incorporated 50 years later by a private Act of the Parliament of Canada.
The Pilgrims Holiness Church of Canada is an heir to the Holiness Movements associated with early Methodism in the Wesleyan Church of America and its growth in the pioneer camps. Out of the Holiness Movements arose many independent churches and groups. The growth of their number increased inversely with the decline in emphasis on holiness in the Mother Church. Later, many of these independent churches and groups, all Methodist in doctrine and tradition, were to convene and merge for their mutual supporting growth. One denomination that emerged was the International Holiness church based in Agusa, California, a Church whose doctrine continued to emphasize the evangelical and holiness aspects of historic Methodism. In Canada, the International Holiness Church fathered congregations principally in western Ontario. These were incorporated by letters patent under the Companies Act of Canada in 1920. The International Holiness Church in the United States has since become the Pilgrims Holiness Church. The Canadian Church became, in 1928, the Pilgrims Holiness Church of Canada.
In 1968, the Wesleyan Methodist Church and the Pilgrims Holiness Church voted to merge both in the United States and in Canada into one Wesleyan Church. The ecclesiastical merger was consumated immediately, but for various reasons the legal perfection of the merger in Canada has had to wait until this year, and indeed until this day. The Bill, which I am pleased to sponsor today, is the legislative measure necessary in order to allow the merger to take place in law.
I am all the more pleased at being asked to sponsor this piece of legislation as the Reverend Walter Jewel, President of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America in Canada, the Pilgrims Holiness Church of Canada, and District Superintendent of the Wesleyan Church of Canada, has been a personal friend of mine for many years. I knew Walter Jewel many years before he became the Reverend Walter Jewel, and I have cherished him as a friend ever since. I am pleased to tell the House that his dedication to his tasks and in the service of his constituents is far greater, in my opinion, than that of any Members in this House, including myself.
June 8, 1984

While it is unlikely that any Members of this House have had an opportunity to deal with this Bill in any depth, I want to spend a few moments on the details perhaps to forestall any questions that might arise.
For some moments last week there was brief concern that a church in New Brunswick bearing the same name might raise a conflict, but that church has now indicated in writing that it will not only allow the name to be used, but indeed will dissolve its charter and become part of the new church. I should also point out that the Bill does not amalgamate the two corporations but, rather, allows them to amalgamate. Within a certain period of time they have to file their amalgamation with the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in a form acceptable to the Minister. Because of this, by-laws have been pre-cleared with the Department so that there will be no delay in this regard.
It was pointed out in the Senate committee, where I attended earlier this week, that, historically, theologically, and organizationally, the two Churches are exactly the same. They operate under a common book of discipline which carries over 44 districts in continental North America and approximately 130 congregations with 8,000 adherents. The final authority of the Church really rests with the local churches since it is a representative type of government and elected from the bottom up, rather than the top down. From Canada now they do send missionaries abroad working through the International Fellowship of Wesleyan Churches in approximately 34 countries.
Once again I want to say how pleased and honoured I am to have been asked to sponsor this Bill in the House of Commons, and I ask my colleagues to join in giving this Bill passage through all three readings this afternoon so that Reverend Walter Jewell, who is in the gallery this afternoon, may take it to their quadrennial general conference which convenes next week and report there the final legal joining of these two Churches in Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Business of the House


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that we completed Bill C-39 earlier this day, I should inform the House that that has some impact on the order of business for Monday. The business for Monday will now be Bill C-34. The back-up Bill will be Bill C-10.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I presume that Bill C-10 is the Divorce Bill. Now that we have just performed a civil marriage between two churches, we will be dealing with divorce in the latter half of Monday. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if that is the offer of a deal, then certainly if the Hon. Member wants to handle Bill C-10 in all stages during the latter half of Monday, we are prepared to go along with that.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, originally the back-up Bill that was to be brought in on Monday was the Bill dealing with the financing of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. Is it still the intention of the Government that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board Bill be dealt with during this session of Parliament?


John Leslie Evans: That is the information I have, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time for consideration of Private members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 11, 1984