1968-02-29

Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should rise on a question of privilege. Several articles in newspapers have indicated that I was absent on Friday, February 19, when the vote was taken on third reading of Bill No. C-193, to amend the Income Tax Act. This was not the case; I was in the chamber.


Mr. Nielsen:: It was Monday, not Friday.


James Roy Tucker: I thank the hon. member: Monday, February 19. When the two votes were taken that day I was in my place. As a matter of fact, as reported at page 6893 of Hansard I said:
Mr. Chairman, had I voted I would have voted for the bill.
That was the vote on clause 5, which was taken just before 6 p.m.
When the standing vote was taken on third reading of the bill at about 8.20 p.m. I was in my seat but failed to get the Speaker's attention after the vote. I did not vote on the motion for third reading, even though I was in the chamber and sitting in my seat, because I was paired. Had I voted, Mr. Speaker, I would have voted for the bill.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the progress report prepared by the task force on labour relations that some days ago the Prime Minister assured the house would be tabled at an early date. This report indicates that the task force is well advanced in a thorough examination of industrial relations policies, problems and practices.
An extensive and important program of basic studies is outlined in an appendix to the report. These studies and the discussions
being held with union, employer and government groups in all parts of the country will undoubtedly assist the task force in dealing with the major issues set forth in this initial report, including special problems which may arise in the case of disputes in essential industries. The task force has undertaken to complete its work by the end of this year.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the tabling of this report by the government is not to be regarded as establishing a precedent. There will no doubt be occasions in the future when the government may decide not to table reports of task forces. A major purpose of the work of such special consultants frequently is to provide advice on the formulation of government policy, and it is the policy itself, decided upon after full consideration of the advice available to it, which a government must, of course, make clear to the house and the country as a whole. In some circumstances, however, it will also be desirable, in the interests of greater public awareness and understanding of complex issues, to make public the texts of reports by the task forces or other consultants. Hence the tabling of this report, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the tabling of the report at this time is, I suggest, a somewhat curious step. Perhaps it is meant to bring about some retroactive or advanced blessing for the promise of the Prime Minister a year ago that this report would be before us prior to the introduction of major legislation in the field of labour.
Until we have seen the report we will not know how much it impinges on Bill No. C-186, the very controversial measure that is now being studied by a house committee. However, in his brief statement the minister did refer to the fact that the report dealt with disputes in essential industries, and this is one of the problems that has bothered members of that particular committee in the issue it is facing. We will withhold further judgment on the report until it is studied, but I think it is regrettable that the final study, not just an interim study, was not before us prior to the introduction of the measure of the house.

February 29, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. David Lewis (York South): Mr. Speaker, since one does not know the contents of the report it is rather difficult to comment on it, and I intend to take no more than a minute to make one suggestion. The minister indicated that the tabling of this report is not to be taken as a precedent for the tabling of task force reports. I had assumed that it was a precedent, because another report in the field of foreign ownership was tabled the other day. I thought the minister was merely assuring us that the report he is tabling today likewise did not have government support, and this was why he emphasized that point.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I have been in touch, so far as it has been possible through reading the newspapers, with the work of the task force, and I look forward to seeing the appendix because I understand the task force is working on a large range of subjects.
I join the hon. member for Halifax in expressing my regret that the controversial Bill C-186 had to be introduced at all before the report of this task force was in our hands, because I imagine there will be recommendations relating to the entire field of labour-management relationships, which is what is important.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to pass judgment on a report that has just been tabled in the house by the minister. We reserve the right to examine the report, and then to discuss its value.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house is happy to hear that the actions of the government during the last few days will not necessarily be considered a precedent. I trust that what happened yesterday will fall into the same category, though I doubt if the government will be prepared to argue in the future that it was not a precedent.
We look forward to reading this report because it has to do with those relationships that affect essential services. If there is a strike in those services the economy of our nation is tied up.
The report is somewhat late. We know that some provinces, including the province of British Columbia, are already well launched into important legislation in this field. Despite [Mr. McCleave.l
the report's recommendations, the federal government's efforts will probably come too late.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of indications from government officials that they intend to continue collecting the 5 per cent surcharge on income tax, which was defeated in the house, does the government intend to bring before this house shortly a fiscal proposal similar to the one that was defeated?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of that question ought to be directed more properly to the Minister of National Revenue. I can say, answering both parts of the question, that the government is now taking measures to change the deductions at the source-I refer to the tables that are prepared-and it is not the intention of the government to reintroduce Biff C-193.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Is it the
intention of the government to bring forward a new tax measure prior to the recess?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is now considering the revenue measures necessary to replace those contained in Bill C-193.


Michael Starr: I repeat my supplementary question. Does the government intend to bring in a tax measure to replace the one which was defeated, prior to any recess which the government may contemplate?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think I can add to the answer I gave. The government's intentions in this respect will be made known in due course.


Michael Starr: I address this supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he consulted with and received advice from the government's financial adviser in these matters, the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. gentleman should not be so jealous.
February 29, 1968


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Will any such legislation on the tax bite be made retroactive to January 1?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it would be proper for me to answer a question of that kind. The government's proposals will be brought before the house in due course.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister considering the possibility of introducing a bill to impose taxes on the Conservatives only?


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of the government to refund the tax which has been collected illegally since January 1?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to credit each taxpayer for the taxes that have been collected since January 1, 1968, under the provision concerning this 5 per cent surtax.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Can
the Minister of National Revenue advise the house when the new schedule of deductions will go forth to employers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the personnel of the Department of National Revenue are now preparing a new table which will be sent to the employers, we hope, before March 15.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Will the minister and his
department be issuing new income tax forms?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, these tables will be sent to employers before March 15, at the same time as the assessment tables, as it is done every year.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether it is the intention of the government to bring in another tax measure to take care of the credit, which is merely a bookkeeping entry.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. Minister of Finance made a statement on this subject a few moments ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it is safe for us to assume that the government does not know what it is doing in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps that question ought to be answered by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Michael Starr: You sure ran out of ideas for answers.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO EFFORTS TO PROMOTE EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Because of the possible imminent retirement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce it becomes all the more important to ask this question now. In view of the fact that the wheat board's crop year has passed the halfway point, and in view of the fact that wheat exports are approximately 40 per cent of last year's level, can the minister say whether the government has in mind any special course of action to deal with this rather grave situation?


Hon. Roberl Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; an intensive program of hard selling.


Edward Richard Schreyer: As a supplementary question I would like to ask the minister whether in this intensive program of hard selling his department will examine the United States wheat selling program, under which they have been able to keep wheat exports running at approximately the same level as last year.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we will be following the same practices, but we are in constant touch with the United States authorities in an effort to work cooperatively to maintain order in the wheat markets of the world, and we are making some progress.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does he think the final payments for wheat, oats and

February 29, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry barley will get out in time to tell western delegates to the Liberal convention what a great guy he is?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edward Richard Schreyer: As a further supplementary question, in view of the fact that off-farm movements of grain, movements from country elevators of wheat and other western grains have slowed down, and will slow down even more, is the government contemplating an increase in the moneys available for cash advances?


Robert Henry Winters: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but as I have said on previous occasions these matters are under constant review and decisions will be taken to meet the circumstances.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the very tight quota situation in western Canada, and also because of the high interest rates, I wonder if the minister would impress upon his colleagues the necessity of increasing the amount of cash available under the cash advances legislation.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not a question of impressing anything upon my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. It is a question of consulting with the wheat board and arriving at the decision which is in the best interests of the farmers.



EXPOSITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Prime Minister but in his absence, I will put it to his parliamentary secretary.
Can he tell the house whether he received a request for official participation in "Man and His World" exhibition?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I might say that this matter will receive serious consideration and that I will be in a position to give an answer to the hon. member to-morrow or next Monday.
[Mr. Nasserden.l



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the action of the government of the United Kingdom in limiting Asian immigration from Kenya, and the expected increase in applications from those wishing to emigrate to Canada, is it the intention of the government to set up additional facilities to process these applications?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we shall set up flying squads so as to meet the needs as soon as they arise.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, according to the news, those immigrants will have an extremely difficult time crossing the British boundary.
Can the hon. minister tell us whether those thousands of Asiatics coming from Africa will have easier access to Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to change the rules of immigration. Our rules must apply to Kenya just as they do, without discrimination, to all the countries in the world; should there be an unusually large number of applications, we will organize special teams of officials to process those requests as they are submitted just as we do in the case of other countries.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, might I further ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if in view of the circumstances now prevailing in Kenya these special teams will be sent out very soon, and not in some fairly distant future?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, up to now, there has been no material increase in the number of applications for immigration to Canada. We have had an office for some time in Beirut and as soon as we find that a sufficient number of applications have been submitted-after all, we are not going to send special invitations to immigrants-we shall set up the teams I mentioned earlier.
February 29, 1968


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister, without waiting for applications, consider whether there is not a clear indication now of the need for a special team to interview would-be applicants in Kenya, to deal with the present emergency?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement in this regard today, have the minister or the government given any consideration to date to the admittance of Asians from Kenya to Canada within the terms of reference of his last policy statement, in which the emphasis allegedly is based on skill; or, in the alternative, to admit some of these people in cooperation with other commonwealth nations on more compassionate grounds?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the new immigration regulations and our restrictive criteria are extremely flexible and take into account the particular circumstances now prevailing in Kenya.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since almost 7 per cent of the labour force in Canada is unemployed at this time, has consideration been given to this fact in working out any plan with other commonwealth nations or with the nation in question?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, our selection criteria also take into account the employment situation in Canada.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: My question is supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement of the minister that he may set up special teams if the need is required, may I ask him whether he will also consider doing something to deal with the large backlog of applications which exist in so far as Hong Kong is concerned.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Hong Kong situation is improving. There are also problems in India and Portugal, but we are applying the selection criteria that have been approved by the government and that the members of this house know very well. As of
Inquiries of the Ministry now, we can accept into Canada a number of immigrants which I think can easily be absorbed, and obviously we must take into consideration the absorption limits of the country's population.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Before undertaking such an immigration program, will his department get in touch with the provinces in order to know to what extent they can absorb that immigration, in view of the employment situation prevailing at the present time in various areas of the country?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have indicated that we have not changed our immigration policy and that we have no intention of doing so.



EXPO '67 PAYMENT OF FEDERAL SHARE OF DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the government to pay off the Expo deficit, which is now estimated to be somewhere between $200 million and $250 million, by the means of selling government bonds or out of general taxation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon.
member that the question is not one of apparent urgency. I wonder whether it is not too general in nature to ask now.


Michael Starr: Just $250 million.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is a very important matter, especially in view of the fact that at the present time the government wishes to raise additional money through taxation. It would seem to me that a matter of a quarter of a billion dollars is important at this time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to reply I should like to say that I think the hon. gentleman understands that the paying of the Expo deficit will not require the raising of any additional money. That has already been financed.

February 29, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



SALARIES OF NURSES IN HALIFAX-DARTMOUTH AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the President of the Treasury Board. Could the minister now reply to the question I asked on February 9 with regard to the salaries paid nurses in federal employ in the Halifax-Dart-mouth area?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the officials of my department have been in consultation with the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to this particular matter. I hope to be able to say something about it shortly.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the government take immediate steps to revise the present statutory interest rates under the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act? I ask this question at the present time as it has become almost impossible to obtain loans under either of these acts because of present high interest rates and the short supply of money available for loans by chartered banks.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered questions of this kind, and I refer the hon. gentleman to Hansard.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I realize that questions of a similar nature have been asked; that is why I prefaced my question with the words "immediate steps".


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked the minister a similar question, at which time he informed the house he was planning to bring in amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Will the minister indicate when we can expect those amendments to come before the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not in a position to say; this depends, of course, on how long the present part of this session lasts. The matter is under consideration.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norfh):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Transport in a position to answer the questions I asked on February 19 in respect of the intrusion into commercial air lanes, if any occurred, by Russian military planes which flew parallel to the coast of Newfoundland? At that time he undertook, in co-operation with the Minister of National Defence, to obtain an answer.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it has been determined that at the time of the interception these planes were in international air space. They were followed constantly by radar throughout this period and were at all times under close observation, so there was no threat to civil aviation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Since they were intruding into commercial air lanes, contrary to international agreement, has any protest been made in connection with this action on the part of these Russian planes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Russia is not a signatory to the international air transport association agreement, although when Russian aircraft operate on transatlantic commercial flights they do so within the regulations of the agreement. Otherwise there is no requirement on the part of Russia to observe the rules, and I guess their military planes consequently do not.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very proper action by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in resigning his portfolio before becoming a leadership candidate, I should like to request the Acting Prime Minister to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to take the proper action of calling on other candidates to do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that question does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the Acting Prime Minister.
February 29, 1968



EXPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister which I believe is timely and appropriate. I must apologize for not sending him notice, but I had some unexpected broadcast appointments and was detained at the last minute by several ladies who phoned me to say how pleased they were to know that I was paired with the Canadian people yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the government giving consideration to the drafting of a new expropriation bill at the request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other property owners affected?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, within the last few days, he has met with Dr. William Haddon, the director of the United States federal automobile and highway safety program. If so, can he report to the house on the result of such meetings?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did have such a meeting which was very useful. We had a good exchange of ideas and opinions, and we agreed that the already close working relationship between our two countries would be reinforced and that at the official level particularly there should be meetings more often for a full exchange of information in order co-operatively to work out future standards which would reduce the carnage on our highways.


William Heward Grafftey: Did the minister inform Dr. Haddon that in addition to co-operating with the United States it was the intention of the Canadian government to enact specific Canadian standards in this field?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Hellyer: I suggested that it would be in our mutual interest to have standards as nearly as possible the same in the two countries, but in case we felt strongly that something was particularly required in this country, or that it was in the interests of Canadian citizens to have standards that were different, we would recommend them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs having to do with the recent declaration by U Thant that after visits he has made to various capitals he is convinced that if there was a cessation of the bombing in Viet Nam it would only be a matter of a few days before the various parties would be available at the conference table.
Is the minister of the same opinion? If so, has he given support to that view in the last few days through representations made to the United States? And in the face of the frightfully mounting United States casualty list is there any indication that the department of state is giving serious consideration to this matter, and has the Canadian representative now in North Viet Nam been in touch with the North Vietnamese government in the last few days?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the United States position has not changed. The President reiterated the other day that he continues to support the position known as the San Antonio declaration; that is, that the United States will not stop the bombing unless there is an indication that talks will take place promptly under circumstances that will not be of disadvantage to United States military operations.
We have been in touch with the Secretary General who has reaffirmed that in his view, if the bombing did stop, there would be a willingness on the part of the north to have talks within a few days. I should hope that would be the situation, but I can only say that on the basis of the reports from our ambassador who has just returned from Hanoi, we were not able to obtain any precision. We do believe the north has reaffirmed its willingness to enter into talks, but other than what the Secretary General himself has

February 29, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry said I have no reason to believe that these talks would take place within days or weeks, as he suggested. I would hope that to be the case.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman mentioned that the Canadian representative did not have the same view as to precision held by U Thant as to the cessation of bombing by the United States being followed immediately by meetings at the conference table, does he have any idea how far North Viet Nam indicated it was prepared to go?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, quite recently we have been told that they would enter into talks, but we have no precision as to when these talks would take place.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in light of the statement by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the minister's reply, and in view of the tremendous urgency of this matter and the possibility of further escalation of the war, the time has not come for the Canadian government to take the initiative in asking that the whole matter be discussed before the Security Council again, before the situation gets worse?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, for many months the Canadian government has taken the position that the question of the war in Viet Nam was one properly before the United Nations General Assembly.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister imply that the United States attitude is that it will not give consideration to a cessation of bombing except on the basis of the so-called San Antonio declaration? Also, what has been Canada's view as expressed to the government of the United States on the basis of the Canadian ambassador's visit to North Viet Nam? Has Canada advised the United States that while it has not precise information it believes, on the basis of those discussions which have taken place, that a cessation of bombing would permit immediate consultation and consideration at the conference table?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position has not been changed since the declaration I made in the general assembly in September, when I said there should be a cessation of the bombing. We could not

guarantee what the results would be, but we believed this would be a new situation and we saw no other way of bringing about meaningful discussions. That continues to be the position of the Canadian government.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Roger-E. Regimbal@Argenieuil-Deux-Monlagnes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice, as recorded on page 7038 of Hansard, has likened the authority of the Canada Year Book to that of the People's Almanac, or Almanach Beauchemin, does the minister intend to cancel publication of the Canada Year Book?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton Norlh and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who I understand is a member of the cabinet committee dealing with what we think is the most important situation to arise for some years, namely the steel crisis in Nova Scotia. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is in a position today to give hon. members a progress report as to what financial assistance is going to be available from the federal government to the province of Nova Scotia in this most serious situation.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, a letter is in the course of preparation in reply to one Premier Smith wrote to the Prime Minister a few days ago. It will be dispatched, I should think, within the next day or two. It contains the government's present position.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to questions posed by the hon. member for Grey North and myself some days ago with regard to the dumping of steel. At that time the minister said:
I understand that a report has been prepared. I am not familiar with the exact details of the report, but perhaps I could familiarize myself with it and answer a little later.
February 29, 1968

Is the minister in a position today to answer this question, which has a tremendous effect on the steel industry in Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this matter quite carefully. I believe the Minister of National Revenue is prepared to answer, and if it is agreeable to the hon. member I would ask him to do so.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are now having an inquiry in respect of this alleged dumping by some exporting countries and I think I shall be in a position in a few days to make a more detailed report to the house.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the firm refusal of large maritime shippers to accept cargoes to or from Montreal, Quebec city and Trois-Rivieres during the coming season, does the minister anticipate taking any action, other than asking for studies, to reassure the people of those cities that goods can be received or sent out from these ports?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member knows, negotiations between the shipping federation and the six or seven unions concerning the shipment of goods from the three St. Lawrence ports are still pending, with the assistance of the conciliation officer, since last January. A conciliation board has been requested. The names of the two nominees were received by me from the parties on February 23 and over the next week end the documents were prepared and signed appointing these two men and asking them to agree on a chairman.
In addition to this action, I might add that, pursuant to the assurance given to this house many months ago that on completion of the one inquiry into the activities of the ports in question there would be a second inquiry into the cause of work stoppages, I announced some days ago the appointment of Mr. Justice Arthur Smith of the Superior Court of Quebec to chair this second inquiry. That appointment has been confirmed officially. Hearings of this inquiry commission will begin, I hope 27053-448
Inquiries of the Ministry early in March. I do not know what more the government can do at this stage.


William Heward Grafftey: How about another task force to complete the delaying procedure?


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. He answered it partially a moment ago. Would it be possible for the minister to tell us what progress has been made in the conciliation talks between the St. Lawrence seaway authority and its employees?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have given a partial answer to that question, as the hon. member has said. The only thing that I can add is that the parties, in the course of their negotiations, are confronted with difficulties arising out of the interpretation of the Picard report, which I think one, if not both sides feel should after clarification be incorporated in the new agreements. I am not sure whether both parties wish arbitration on that point.


Mr. Lewis:: They sure do. They have asked for it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is up to them. One side has asked for it, the other side asked for it and there was a slight delay and that request was withdrawn. I am making inquiries into this particular matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carle-ton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a request from the government of New Brunswick concerning specific action the federal government might take to alleviate the distressed condition of the potato industry in that province?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: I do not recall any specific request from that government which has been drawn to my attention, although the low price of potatoes in New Brunswick has been drawn to my attention. I do not believe there has been any specific government request in this regard.


Hugh John Flemming: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to inquire into the matter to see whether he has received such a request?

February 29, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: I will be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker, and inform the hon. member tomorrow.



CHLORAMPHENICOLS-INQUIRY AS TO CLINICAL TESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, on February 14 I addressed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Prime Minister said he would look into this matter. I should like to know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare is ready to answer the question as to what clinical tests are now being made to protect the Canadian public against the use of the chloramphenicols which are now on the Canadian market but which were taken off the United States market about eight weeks ago.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for the Department of National Health and Welfare to conduct the kind of clinical work that my hon. friend has in mind, but I believe the food and drug directorate has taken action to remove from the Canadian market the products of two United States companies referred to by my hon. friend.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs what he has done about this situation. Does the minister know whether these products have been taken off the Canadian market? Can he assure the Canadian people in this regard?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of health. We have been in consultation with the Department of National Health and Welfare and the food and drug directorate. I want to make it clear that the importation and marketing of drugs from the safety angle falls within the direct responsibility of the food and drug directorate.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Finance. It arises from the

recent arrangements made with the International Monetary Fund and some rather ill informed, speculative stories that have been appearing in the press with regard to the temporary deposits of Canadian funds which were the result of central bank operations. I wonder if the minister is prepared to make a definitive statement in the house with regard to our position so as to put an end to these irresponsible speculations, both on the air and in the newspapers.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since I was unable to make a statement in the house I did make a statement on February 26, both on television and at a press conference, to explain the purpose of the transfer of these assets. However, I will consider the request made by the hon. gentleman if it would help to remove any unnecessary concern.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Acting Prime Minister and ask him whether it is the government's intention to implement the requests of the Auditor General of Canada (Mr. Henderson) for the recruiting of qualified personnel for the auditing of government accounts.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question tomorrow or perhaps Monday.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Last week I asked a question of the Minister of National Revenue concerning the justification the government had for inclusion for income tax purposes of gratuities received by retired Cape Breton miners. The minister said he would probably have an answer soon.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not have a reply to give to the hon. member, but I will give a reply tomorrow. I had one ready, but I forgot to bring it.
February 29, 1968



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Minister of Transport. Now that the Canadian Transport Commission has recommended the discontinuance of subsidies for air transport on the prairies, will the minister advise the house when the regional air policy announced by the government in September, 1966, will be implemented so the prairies can be assured of continued air service?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This matter is under most active consideration, Mr. Speaker. It is important, and we are searching for better methods of providing excellent service to my friend and our many other friends on the prairie provinces. We think this can be achieved.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate the reason for the delay in implementing this policy which, as he has just indicated, is very important?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Because it is so important; we want to make the right decision to assure provision of the kind of service my friend would like to see.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Does the minister not agree that time for consideration of this service on the prairies has already gone beyond the point where-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is argumentative.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Can the minister now answer the question I asked him on February 15 relating to the vocational training school program for the interlake area of Manitoba outlined in the ARDA-FRED agreement? Can he give assurance now that there will be no cut-back in this program?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are being carried on between the two departments.
27053-448J
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR FIXED DATES FOR FINAL PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: My
question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce and relates to the wheat board. In view of the increasing expectation that farmers will operate on a businesslike basis, and in view of the fact that payment dates vary from year to year, will the minister consider recommending to the wheat board that fixed dates be set upon which the final payments may be made year after year?


Robert Henry Winters: I will be glad to communicate with the wheat board. This suggestion would be very difficult to implement though because the final date depends on the size of the crop and the ability of the board to sell it. We are trying to expedite the payments; we are doing everything possible to get cheques out as quickly as the wheat board can.


Mr. R. D. McLelland (Rosetown-Biggar):: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the Canadian Wheat Board closing its books today in so far as the 1966-67 wheat pool is concerned, as previously announced, or is the board asking for additional time as a result of the government's action on Monday?


Robert Henry Winters: No, there has been no request for additional time.


Ronald David McLelland: Is the board closing its books today?


Robert Henry Winters: As far as I recall. I have forgotten the specific dates I gave to the house about a week ago, but they are the same dates.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if, following the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the minister has decided to reverse the decision to reduce the quality subsidies on hogs, lambs and cheese?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the very carefully prepared and

February 29, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry well presented brief by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is being considered by the government, but no changes are contemplated at the present time.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of which I have given him notice. In a recent announcement the president of the Quebec pension board lists as eligible beneficiaries, under certain conditions, common law wives and illegitimate children. Are common law wives and illegitimate children eligible for widow's and orphans' pensions under the Canada Pension Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to suggest that this question might be placed on the order paper. Perhaps we might allow this question and then go on to orders of the day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the benefits under the Quebec pension plan and the Canada Pension Plan are identical, so that what applies in one case applies in the other. Under certain conditions, which are rather complicated, common law widows are eligible for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. I shall give the hon. lady details of the circumstances later. In the case of illegitimate children, neither the Canada Pension Plan nor the Quebec pension plan makes such a distinction. The only requirement is that the child be the child of the contributor. The question of whether the child was born in or out of wedlock is not relevant.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise to ask a supplementary question which relates to the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to the Canada Pension Plan, in which he spoke of equity. I now ask the minister, where is the equity when gratuities given to retired Cape Breton miners are not treated in the same manner as gratuities given to retired executives of large companies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question is not one relating to the Canada Pension Plan.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: I have related the question to the Canada Pension Plan. The minister's original statement was

that since these were gratuities they could not be established as pensions and should be included for income tax purposes. The Minister of National Revenue fails to give me an answer and the Minister of National Health and Welfare says it is impossible, but the government insists on collecting this tax.



EXPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roxburgh:: I should like to ask a question. Your Honour has not looked this way.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not the only one who has not had an opportunity to ask a question. I know the hon. member wanted to ask a question, but other members who were also looking for that opportunity did not have it. We have already gone beyond the time allotted to the question period by quite a few minutes and I suggest to hon. members that we ought to get on with the business of the house.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be the only member on this side of the house seeking to ask a question today. Surely it is fair that we have at least one question from this side of the house.


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


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice, and ask whether he has had time to give consideration to the question I asked on February 19 about the Expropriation Act. The question was taken as notice by the Solicitor General.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the question of the revision of the Expropriation Act is under study in my department, but as yet I cannot report a date upon which it will be submitted to the cabinet.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I just ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received an interim report of the short but heroic trip of the transport committee to the maritimes? In
February 29, 1968

view of the tremendous impression we made in those few hours, will he make sure the committee makes an early return to the maritimes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that an impression was made both ways. The visit was short but hospitable, and it is to be hoped it will be resumed at a later date so the committee can determine the information we had hoped it would determine in advance of new legislation to assist in solving the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that we have gone quite beyond the question period. I have tried to be as lenient as possible, but the questions must come to an end at some time. I also suggest that this should not be treated as a precedent.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Nicholson) for the second reading of Bill No. C-197, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, when the regulations under the act were amended by order in council in 1957 to bring fishermen within the purview of the Unemployment Insurance Act and provide them with coverage, the then minister of labour, Milton Gregg, admitted that this action was taken in order to establish a sort of welfare scheme for fishermen to meet economic difficulties at that time prevailing in the Atlantic provinces. In fact, this coverage is still looked upon by many as a sort of welfare scheme.
The minister of fisheries of that day, Jimmy Sinclair, when this matter was dealt with in 1957, also stated on a number of occasions that this step brought about a regulatory monstrosity, that anybody who looked at the regulations would realize that the act and its concept had been distorted to provide coverage for fishermen. The difficulty that arose was in trying to assist people who found it difficult to obtain regular employment for a reasonable period of time, and grafting that
Unemployment Insurance Act concept on to another concept. As a consequence the regulations relating to fishermen are most inequitable in their application.
Primarily the regulations provide that a fisherman becomes entitled to seasonal benefits and is required to contribute to the fund for 15 weeks to become eligible. However, I am sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), coming as he does from British Columbia, knows quite well that some of the "high line" fishermen, as we call them, do make a fairly good income from fishing, at least by fishermen's standards. In some cases, to pick a figure out of the air, they make $9,000 or $10,000. Yet even with such incomes they are eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits after they have made their 15 weekly contributions.
These "high line" fishermen look upon these unemployment benefits as nothing more than beer money, and they are commonly referred to as such among fishermen. On the other hand, the man who is a gill net fisherman sometimes finds his opportunities to fish restricted by Department of Fisheries closures, and thus he may be denied the opportunity of earning a living for some weeks during the fishing season. Consequently his income during the season may amount to a paltry couple of thousand dollars, and at the end of the fishing season he finds himself in debt to the fishing company. Thus the fisherman who most needs assistance is discriminated against because he is unable to put in his 15 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. In many cases this is because the colleague of the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robi-chaud), has denied this fisherman the opportunity to fish as a result of the imposition of closures for conservation purposes.
I am not questioning the value of closures. I believe we must concern ourselves about conservation. However, it is an anomaly when regulations permit someone with a fairly substantial income to draw unemployment insurance benefits which are looked upon as pin money but at the same time deny similar payments to fishermen who really need them. I say this principle is wrong and has been so ever since 1957. Everyone in the fishing industry knows it is wrong and I am sure the minister knows it is wrong. Yet the regulation in question is still in existence. It should have been changed years ago and it should be changed now.
It seems passing strange, Mr. Speaker, in view of the extensive study that was obviously made of unemployment insurance on behalf
February 29. 1968
Unemployment Insurance Act of the government by the Gill committee more than five years ago, that such an anomaly has not been removed from the legislation. The regulations have to take into account the peculiarities of the fishing industry. For example, the employer-employee relationship is different from that in most other industries; it is not so direct or well connected. That they do so is reflected by the fact that they are extremely involved and intricate. Therefore, because of these peculiarities and the different concept involved it seems to me that the regulations should be altered once more so as to gear them to the need of fishermen for unemployment insurance benefits, which is directly related to the amount of income at their disposal. If their income is obviously low, they need assistance; if it is high they do not. I think that this misuse of the concept that people in difficult circumstances require assistance should be removed.
I should now like to pass on to another section of the act. Many times in this house questions have been asked about section 54 and the deprivation of benefits as a result of a strict interpretation of whether or not employment is available for certain people. I shall read briefly from the act in order that the section to which I refer will appear in the context of my comments. Section 54(2) reads as follows:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
An insured person is disqualified from receiving benefit in respect of every day for which he fails to prove that he was
(a)	capable of and available for work, and
(b)	unable to obtain suitable employment.
The words "available for work" need to be dealt with. The minister knows this. The matter has been raised by many members of the house on a number of occasions. I think I am right in saying that the minister's predecessor, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), agreed in essence with the complaints and strictures concerning the part I read. He intended to do something about it but the language is still there. Difficulties have continued for years, and I submit this is all wrong.
I know of instances where insurance officers by means of leading questions to applicants for unemployment insurance benefits have disqualified those applicants. In Terrace, British Columbia, a woman who had worked in a hospital went before an insurance officer who asked her questions along these lines. "Would you be available to work, in your occupation, in a hospital?" The woman said,

Yes". The officer asked her, again by way of a leading question: "I assume you would prefer to work in Terrace or in this area?" Again the woman said, "Yes". Naturally her answers to both questions would be yes. She works in hospitals and she would prefer to work where she lives because that is where her family lives. On the basis of those answers to leading questions the officer disqualified her from benefits. He said that she had confined herself, that she would want to work in a hospital in or near Terrace.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member know whether these facts to which he has just referred were drawn to the attention of the chief commissioner or the minister at the time? If not, I will be glad to have them looked into.


Frank Howard: With regard to this specific case, yes. I had correspondence with Mr. Fortier, who at that time I believe was the chief commissioner, and with the minister's predecessor. The only answer I got was that they could do nothing about it since the woman had confined herself in her availability for work. In other words, she had restricted herself. I must add that she had done so almost at the insistence of the insurance officer. I was told that there were numerous umpire's decisions to support that position.


Mr. Knowles:: That sort of thing has happened to me dozens of times.


Frank Howard: I had much correspondence but no satisfaction. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in an aside which the minister may not have heard, said that this has happened to him dozens of times. I am talking of circumstances where a person is denied his right to receive unemployment insurance benefits because of the manner of questioning by officials and the answers he gives. I could cite other cases. I know of one where a family moved to another area. The mother of the family had worked in an office in a secretarial capacity. In the new area she applied for unemployment insurance benefits and for a job, because these two matters are connected, and was denied benefits because there were no jobs available in her occupation of secretary. All that that woman had to do-and the minister knows this and I advise people to do this -was to say: Yes, within the meaning of section 54(2)(a) of the act I am available for work anywhere at any income.

<<
February 29. 19B8	COMMONS
It is unfair and regrettable that insurance officers and those who administer the act place applicants, by design or otherwise, in a position where they are denied the benefits to which they are entitled. We have raised this matter a number of times and we are raising it again. It has been spoken of by members of all parties in the house, and hon. members received assurances from the minister's predecessor that something would be done about it.
When the minister was introducing a bill to alter the act I think he could also have covered this aspect along with other aspects that have been complained of. There has been a failure by government to take action, not by the present minister alone but by the ministers of labour generally who have known about this situation and other anomalies in the act and have allowed them to go on uncorrected. No reasonable solution has been suggested to parliament as to what ought to be done. The closest we came to a solution was when the Minister of National Health and Welfare said the other day when moving second reading:	"Well, we are going to
change the act generally but at some time in the future; we are studying it carefully." This is not good enough. It may be acceptable to those members of cabinet who like to dally and procrastinate on serious problems but the answer is not good enough for the people of this nation who are denied their fair rights under this act.
We live in a computer age and we all have a social insurance number. My friend from Winnipeg North Centre calls it the "sin" number. Somewhere in the government's files we are all listed numerically. Anybody who has such a number can quickly be pinpointed by government officials. I am sure it would be cheaper and more efficient to use computers in such a way that a person's unemployment insurance contributions could be determined instantly. A computer could determine just how much has been paid in and whether a person has made sufficient contributions to be eligible for benefits.
The people of northern British Columbia, particularly in the logging industry, must use the mail service. They do not live near an unemployment insurance office and they must do business by mail. I know of cases in which there has been extended correspondence between claimants and unemployment insurance offices. The gist of the correspondence from the unemployment insurance office is: We are sorry but we did not know you
DEBATES	7109
Unemployment Insurance Act worked for this employer, we have not got your book back, where are your stamps? The individual has not got his book; his employer has it. Or it is in somebody's office or it has been sent from Prince Rupert to Vancouver to allow somebody else to look at it. And in this whole mess of administrative bureaucracy the individual claimant is unable to receive what he justifiably considers his rightful benefit under the act. He is denied that benefit week after week after week because somebody, somewhere, has goofed.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The minister knows this to be the case. Anyone who has had any relationship with the unemployment insurance structure, particularly through the mail, knows that something is wrong. The operation has been in existence for some 25 years now but it is still in an accounting mess. Surely some mechanism could be developed by means of which officials could make use of a computer somewhere and get information as to the amount of the contribution an individual has made without the necessity of resorting to lengthy correspondence and telephone calls to employers scattered across the country, as well as to various sections of the insurance set-up, in an attempt to find out why an individual is being denied what is rightfully his, namely, the opportunity to collect unemployment insurance benefits at the time he needs them, that is, when he is out of work. Surely it is not right that a month or two months should go by before somebody gets the record straightened out and authority is obtained for payments to be made.
Let me say in closing that the bill before the house is certainly acceptable. I am sure no one will object to its substance. But it leaves a great deal to be desired because it is just piddling around the edges of a system which is not applicable to present day requirements. It is most regrettable that after all the studies which have been made throughout the years, after all the application of the abilities of the minister and his predecessor with respect to unemployment insurance, the amendments should do nothing to touch the basic problems which face us.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the minister that I have had a great deal of correspondence with him on the question of the closing of unemployment insurance offices across Canada and about the wisdom of the government in following this course. I have also talked to the
February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act minister about it. He was cautious. He was stubborn-maybe I should say he was firm. In my own area he closed an office in Orillia which served 40,000 people and one at Midland which served about the same number.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did I not point out to him at the time that it was not the minister who closed these offices? Was it not a commission responsible to parliament that closed the offices? Is not the minister only the agent or instrument through whom they respond in this house? The offices were closed by the commission.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I accept that explanation but I tell the minister that he is the one who is responsible. If he is not head of that commission the people have no representative.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Then you had better press for a change in the act.


Philip Bernard Rynard: We had better change it right here, because if parliament does not control these things the people have no effective representation.
Orillia is a town with a population close to
20,000	and the population of Midland is around 15,000. The minister says that centralization is necessary. I talked to him about this. He and I are on friendly terms and we discussed the matter. When I was through I still thought he was stubborn. Perhaps he would like me to use a more polite word and say he was firm. He said that centralization was necessary in the interests of economy and efficiency, that the computer age was here. When we look at the record of this government in the field of expenditure, most of us would doubt the wisdom and economy of what has been done. It is strange to note that out of 41 offices closed, two were in the Simcoe area.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Again I do not like to interrupt but, as a matter of privilege, I am sure the hon. member would not want to go on record as saying that only 41 offices were closed. Over a hundred, perhaps several hundred, have been closed.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, I will correct that statement. I was reading the last figure I had here.
I have a list. Eighteen offices were closed across Canada in 1965, 47 were closed in 1966 and 41 more in 1967, making a total of more than 100 offices. I was referring to the 1967 figure. Will more bureaucratic control produce the advantages which are claimed? All

that has happened so far is an increase in the cost to the taxpayers. As I say, it is strange that out of the 41 offices closed last year two were in the Simcoe area. I do not think there was anything political about the decision. One of the offices was in Orillia where the rate of unemployment is higher than average. I pointed this out to the minister and so did the town council of Orillia in a brief which they presented. The council said a great many people would be inconvenienced. Is it really the function of governments to inconvenience the people? People are being put to the trouble of driving up to 42 miles one way in that riding at considerable expense to themselves. If anyone says this is not the case, I have example after example showing that it has happened. I shall not take up the time of the house by citing them but I will give them privately to the hon. gentleman if he wishes.
The submission says that many of the residents require personal assistance in making their applications because of language difficulty. This is true and 1 can substantiate it from letters I have received. It says that many of the residents require personal assistance because of their age or lack of education. Some are without transportation. Every one of these statements is correct. If the minister wants proof I will be glad to furnish it. People in the areas affected have come to the conclusion that the authorities do not believe in bringing the service to them but rather in taking it away. After the events of the past week when we witnessed the defiance of parliament on blue Monday, we can understand that the government has lost touch with the people. It is a regrettable attitude. The hon. member who represents the Liberal party in York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) indicated that the cabinet and the Prime Minister did not pay much attention even to their own supporters. Well, the time will come when the electors will settle these matters.
Now I should like to ask the minister whether any senior members of the commission's staff, say those with five years service or more, have quit because of the reorganization in the area I have mentioned. How many people engaged in the unemployment insurance service were forced to move? How many could not find suitable accommodation and were obliged to drive 50 miles to work? How much money was saved by the new arrangements? I point out that on the other side of the coin there is the inconvenience caused to applicants and the money and time spent in
February 29, 19B8

travel. All the people in my riding are in favour of reducing expenses but when we have services taken away from us, when we have taxes going up and the cost of living going up, we can only wonder about the wisdom of the minister in doing this.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Before this debate closes I would like the minister to tell us how long it will be before the central office he set up to replace the other two offices in the area will be closed? When it does close, will the people have to go to Toronto? If this is the march of time then let the minister set up a staff in Toronto and centralize the service but at least leave one person in each of the offices at Orillia and Midland and computerize the operation through the central office.
How logical and how practical is the minister's thinking? If we were to carry this approach through to a definite conclusion we could apply it to cars, boots, machinery equipment and all the other things that we use and buy. Supplies of these articles for my area could be centralized in the city of Toronto and distributed from there. No doubt the price would be cheaper but the over-all cost would be great. You would no longer have small cities and towns with their professional and business people. The effect would be to destroy them.
I now wish to deal with a question that strikes home to a good many people. I speak of the problems of men 65 years of age and over when they seek unemployment insurance benefits. I have in mind one man who is about 66 years old. He had always contributed to the unemployment insurance fund and never drew benefit from it. Now he has been laid off work because he is over 65 years of age and even though he is physically and mentally fit he cannot get another job. He has been told that there is no job available for him. He is not wanted in the work force any more.
Then there is the other side of the picture.
I am thinking of a man aged 65 years old who suffers a coronary attack and after a time tries to go back to work but cannot work. When his unemployment insurance runs out he has to go on welfare if he has no other source of funds. This is one of the saddest facts of life. Many of our citizens are capable of working at 65 or 75. What kind of society have we got when we say that a man's age is the determining factor in employment? Do we not need the brain he has developed over the years? I can cite no better example than that
Unemployment Insurance Act wonderful man in the other chamber who has celebrated his ninetieth birthday, a man who could come into this house and take his place in it any day.
I say, let us get off our high horse. Nobody should be finished and written off at the age of 65 if he is mentally and physically fit. Let us look after properly the fellows under 65 years of age who are not able to work. When unemployment insurance was introduced in 1941, in principle it was for the benefit of those who ran the risk of seasonal unemployment. Today the minister is changing the rules. It looks to me as if this legislation is now going to cover everybody. We are changing the principle. In other words, the minister is bringing in modified welfare.
I now wish to speak about the farming situation. I am not going to take up the time of the house by speaking at length on it. Possibly on clause by clause examination of the bill I will have more to say about it. A great many farmers are disturbed about unemployment insurance. On dairy farms and beef farms work goes on the year round. The people who work on those farms object to paying unemployment insurance contributions and the farmers or operators of the farms object to paying them. They are altogether different from the cash crop farmer. Yet no distinction is made.
When did you ever hear of a man being unemployed on a dairy farm? If a dairy farm employee quits it is almost impossible to find somebody to take his place. Why should this legislation be compulsorily applied to these people? This is a complete departure from the insurance principle of 1941. I shall have more to say about this matter when the bill is being discussed in committee. If the minister would like to talk to me in the meantime about the possibility of putting somebody back in the office at Orillia and in the office at Midland I would be glad to talk to him and show him some of the letters I have received.


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up too much of the time of the house or to hold up this amending bill because we in this party realize the value of it. As my colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has said, we accept this legislation because at this time with the increase in the cost of living we certainly feel there should be an increase in unemployment insurance benefits. However, also like my colleague I believe the time is long overdue for major amendments to the
February 29. 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act act and to the administration of certain parts of it.
I commend the minister for extending eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits to those whose total yearly earnings do not exceed $7,800. When I was first elected to office the majority of the complaints I received about unemployment insurance came from people who had been elevated to what could be called semi-supervisory positions and as a result unemployment insurance premiums were not deducted from their wages because then they were salaried people whose incomes were about the $5,460 mark. These men still wished to be covered by unemployment insurance because in a sense their new positions were only temporary. Any lay-off would mean that they would be sent back to their former positions, and if they lost their employment altogether they would lose a considerable portion of their benefits. I certainly commend the minister for increasing eligibility to the $7,800 mark because I think this is a very good move.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
My colleague the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) raised a point with which I agree concerning the separation of the national employment service from the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Recently in respect of an appeal I asked whether there was any indication that the applicant had refused to take any kind of job which had been offered to him in the field with which he was familiar. I was informed that the officials were not concerned about this but were only involved with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe there should be a closer tie-in between the employment service and the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I would be the first to agree that there are abuses of the unemployment insurance fund. We all know this. In any program of this nature there are bound to be abuses. However, because of these abuses I feel that many people who are legitimately entitled to receive benefits from the unemployment insurance fund find it difficult to qualify for benefits. My colleague the hon. member for Skeena referred to section 54 with regard to the matter of disqualification. He cited some of the experiences he has had in this connection.
I should like to direct the minister's attention to one case in which I was involved recently. I should not like to suggest that this
(Mr. Fawcett.]
person was deliberately led into the position of being disqualified but I believe that certain questions directed to her may have been responsible for her disqualification. Perhaps I might give an outline of the case. It had to do with a lady who had been employed in a fairly heavily populated area where it was not too difficult to obtain employment. She had been working for a considerable period of time and had been contributing to the unemployment insurance fund. When her employment ceased she was unable to obtain any other employment in that area. I presume the main reason was that it was the fall of the year when there was not too much work available in the line she was following.
When this lady went to register for unemployment insurance she was notified that she was disqualified because she had restricted herself so far as employment was concerned. The only way in which she had restricted herself was that she had stated it was impossible for her to get to Sudbury some 20 miles distant for seven o'clock in the morning because there was no bus service which would get her there for that hour. I believe this is a ridiculous situation. She lived in an area where work had previously been provided for her. Why should she be disqualified simply because there did not happen to be a suitable transportation service which would get her to Sudbury for seven o'clock in the morning?
I believe there is a need for better public relations between those who administer the Unemployment Insurance Act and the people who contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. There seems to be a belief on the part of some of the administrators that they are doling out some kind of charitable fund rather than administering an insurance fund into which these people have been paying. I do not suggest that all the administrators are guilty of this but I am quite sure some of them do take that attitude. As a result some people actually do not apply for unemployment insurance when they are legitimately entitled to it because they feel they may be degrading themselves by asking for charity rather than for something which under the law is rightfully theirs.
I believe that more information in respect of unemployment insurance should be available to the people. I fully realize that some information is available. It is true that many people do not try to acquaint themselves with their rights under the act. By the same token, however, too many administrators do not
February 29, 1968
seem to be concerned about this and do not do anything in an effort to enlighten these people. As a result they are completely lost. I believe that many of these administrators should realize that this is an insurance fund into which people pay and therefore it should not be treated as if it were some sort of a charitable fund.
I believe it was my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who referred to people with partial physical disabilities and those who are receiving pensions and cannot receive unemployment insurance benefits. I have not had too much difficulty in respect of pensioners provided they stated they were available for employment any place and were in good physical condition. I do not have any argument in that regard but I do have an argument in respect of people who are partially physically disabled.
There are many people who are perhaps unable to dig ditches or do other types of heavy work but are able to engage in other types of employment. There are people over age 65 who, because of the type of employment they had previously, receive very little, if any, pension. I believe a second look should be taken at the situation in which they find themselves. If they are available for employment as watchmen, security guards, gatemen or something of that nature, even if such employment is not available they should be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because many of them have paid into the fund ever since it came into existence.
When I rose to speak I indicated that I did not intend to say very much. I thought that perhaps some of the problems in which I have been involved were unique but after listening to what has been said I find that they are fairly general in nature. I certainly commend the minister for bringing in this amendment to the act which provides for increased benefits. I should also like to say to him, however, that like my colleague the hon. member for Skeena I believe it is high time the whole act was revamped because so far as I am concerned there are altogether too many holes in it.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in failing to take part in this debate, because having been unemployed myself more than once, I am quite familiar with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act and with the problems which arise at times. I would also
Unemployment Insurance Act be remiss in not calling the attention of the house to certain facts which, in my opinion, should be corrected.
First of all, I must say I am in favour of this bill designed to readjust benefit rates. But it must nevertheless be admitted that this piece of legislation contains certain restrictions, as evidenced by three things. It involves something "contradictory" "compulsory" and "contributory."
What I find strange and wish to stress at once is the contradiction apparent in the bill. An increasing number of people are in favour of full employment and believe this possible. They try therefore to improve the Unemployment Insurance Act. I must point out right away this obvious contradiction. They should be honest enough to admit that full employment is practically impossible in a period of rapid development, when working methods are changed by automation, with the result that a certain percentage of workers are always out of work. Railway workers know something about it, and it is unfortunate that the expected and vaguely promised adjustment of benefits has been delayed so long.
You will agree that I could also mention many other classes of workers.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
However, let us rather try to be logical in the face of the existing situation, and let us consider how the workers suffering from unemployment could be helped.
Since the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Act, more than twenty-five years ago, a number of changes have been made. In the majority of cases, it was mostly a matter of trying to secure the protection of the fund and providing employment for a growing number of government employees.
In 1942, the government's contributions and the dues paid by employers and employees were about $44 million and administration costs a little over $2 million, while unemployed workers received $27,752,000 in benefits.
And in 1962, twenty years later, the amount of contributions by government, employers and employees was a little over $325 million, the benefits paid were over $400 million with $45 million in administration costs. This is now big business, and a lot of money changes hands.
The proposed amendments to Bill No. C-197 are socialistic in spirit: to extend coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Act to all

February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act Canadians with a yearly income of up to $7,800. The government wants to include as many people as possible in the compulsory contribution system.
There is nothing in Bill No. C-197 providing for changes to be made in the established methods of making more flexible the eligibility requirements of an unemployed worker. The protection of the fund is first provided for.
The rate of benefits shall increase in proportion to the gains made by the worker. Salaries, in many regions called economically underprivileged areas, are generally low. The increase in benefits will not therefore be proportional to the increase in the cost of living.
I am not against an adjustment in the rates of dues, benefits and non deducted gains. However, one must not forget that the principal aim of an unemployment insurance act is to help the unemployed. Noting that those who prepared Bill No. C-197 seem to have taken great pains to protect the fund rather than the unemployed, I conclude that this protective spirit will reveal itself especially through the inspectors of the commission who are often inclined to take a chance on spending $100 in an attempt to find that a poverty stricken unemployed has received $5 or $10 too much in benefits.
To my mind, the most important thing the government should do, first of all, instead of paralysing construction through higher interest rates and taxes on building materials, is to undertake vast construction programs and build hospitals, old peoples' homes, rehabilitation centres for the handicapped of all ages and research centres.
The implementation of such programs would contribute to reducing unemployment and would be more in order than the introduction of medicare which will not give the people of this country one single additional doctor or hospital bed. How many other useful projects could be undertaken to reduce considerably the effects of that social evil which is called unemployment. Whether it be occasional, fractional, seasonal or chronic-those are the new words we have found since the act was passed in 1946-an unemployment period is always demoralizing for its victims.
That is why we should have an act, clearly drafted, with rules to enable understanding civil servants-I know there are some, I know many of them-to really help the unemployed through a humane application of a so-called social law.

High officials, civil servants, at middle or lower echelons, would do well to remember that they are the servants of the people and not their tyrants, that the people are individuals and not robots; in short, that the people pay them and that they expect from them services and not trouble.
A better act might keep them from evading the law of gravity, and let them keep both feet on the ground as well as keep them from getting swelled heads, which at times leads some of them to think too highly of themselves, with the result that the unemployed experience serious difficulties.
Not too long ago, we intervened through various means, including representations from local organizations, with a view to avoiding the concentration of unemployment offices in large centres. One of my colleagues pointed this out a while ago and I know it leads to inconvenience.
Mr. Speaker, this plan goes completely against the economic decentralization talked about when the designated area scheme was set up. While the government asks the industry to settle there, these same people would take the employees away from these areas.
The bill proposes to extend the act to cover agricultural workers. I fully approve of this decision, but it will be necessary to inform the unemployed of the procedure to be followed. I think the employees in the local offices can best answer the many requests for information.
Certain senior officials often proclaim that a high percentage of unemployed workers are without work because they do not have a grade 5, 6 or 7 education. However, the procedure to be followed in implementing the plan is unrealistic because it requires unemployed workers to fill out complicated forms which some officials take pleasure in drawing up in ever increasing numbers. To give an example of the kind of form which an unemployed person has to fill out, in various circumstances, I will mention a few from an average list I have here. These forms are sent to the unemployed and are sometimes difficult to fill out. Here are a few:
Statement by the claimant;
Application for unemployment insurance benefits by mail;
Request for additional information;
Notice of incomplete request for benefits;
Report of claimant by mail;
Notice of incomplete report;
Application for employment by mail;
February 29, 1968

Request ior extension of periods of eligibility;
Request for antedating a claim;
Amendment of social insurance registers;
Amendment to social insurance registers;
Questionnaire for farmers;
Request for insurance booklet;
Application for family support rates;
Family dependent certificate;
Notice to farmers.
Moreover, something else has been devised. It is a new card, about 3| by 5J inches. The other day, I found out for myself that there were 56 punched holes in those cards. Forms are made smaller; there are fewer written items perhaps but holes are punched in the forms. There are a series of holes and in many places, people find it difficult to write what they want.
If positions in the public service relating to unemployment insurance are added, as well as certain titles of officials, I submit that this is not likely to clarify things in this complex act. For instance, I have here the titles of officials in the board of referees. The "Supervisor of the decisions section of the claims operations division, Unemployment Insurance Commission," Assistant's assistant to the chief registrar, national registration branch, Department of Labour. It is easy to imagine that when a poor unemployed writes to this official, he needs a large enough envelope to write all that.
I remember something else-and this is a very important point that I had the opportunity of raising in this house and which I emphasize once again today-because I have before me an article written by myself in 1962 and which was published in the newspaper La Souche. It concerns a problem which is still with us, the possibility for Canadian citizens working in American territory to take advantage of a given social legislation. This question has been with us for a long time. I know that some officials of the Canadian government endeavoured to have contacts, or at least, we were assured more than once that contacts had been established. However, I am surprised that no solution can be found, and the conclusion I had come to in 1962, when I was at the head of local 2817, as chairman of that labour organization, and I wrote the following which is still true today and appropriate to the present circumstances. I quote:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Much satisfaction seems to be felt when neighbourliness is cited as an example; this is quite well, as long as the comprehensive outlook of the
Unemployment Insurance Act authorities does not make them forget the thousands of residents near the Canadian and American borders who cannot take advantage of a welfare legislation due to lack of understanding.
It must be noted that an agreement is in force since March 6 and 12, 1952, between Canada and all the southern neighbouring states, except Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire and Alabama. The failure of those states to be party to those agreements is especially disturbing, since a great number of Canadian workers, especially in Maine and New Hampshire are thus deprived of the substantial benefits of a welfare legislation, which should normally apply to all workers.
If the Canadian lumbermen have no further interest in seasonal jobs which they can obtain in the United States, they will remain in Canada and increase the number of those out of jobs.
Of course, a serious effort is necessary in this respect.
Now, I shall return for a while to the question of implementation methods. I have in hand a copy of a letter dating back to 1962 which will give you further information in this regard. At that time, I was greatly concerned about this-just as I am now-because we have thousands of working people who live in the parishes along the border of Maine and New Hampshire, and so I had written to a member of this house in this regard. I shall quote from his reply:
I believe the only development is the report which has been prepared following a survey conducted among Canadian employees and Canadian lumbermen employers by the Maine authorities. The main feature of the report is the disclosure that the insurance fund of Maine, which is now $26,698,000 will be totally used up within a few years, as benefits paid to Canadian lumbermen are estimated at $1,567,932.
Thus within 12 to 15 years, the unemployment insurance fund of Maine is expected to run dry. That is the problem. They are afraid to touch to the fund for fear it will run dry.
The fund presents a problem; it is always so when money and dollars are involved. The hon. member concluded:
I do not know to what conclusion we must come, and whether it will eventually be possible to reach an agreement, as happened with the other American states.
If the fund were not involved, I think this would work; even if this problem exists, it would probably be possible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Labour to try and find a formula which would enable the employee, at any time after he has completed his period of employment, to indicate how many weeks he has worked. He is ready to pay his contributions and it should be possible, I think, to
7116	COMMONS DEBATES	February 29, 1968
Unemployment Insurance Act come to an agreement which would spare him a series of inconveniences since, not being eligible for the benefits, he must count only-on unemployment assistance or social assistance. Therefore, we should try to find a satisfactory formula and solve this problem.
Right this day, at noon, I had the opportunity to write a letter for one of my constituents who was complaining that he could not draw unemployment insurance benefits. He had been declared unavailable, because last fall, towards the end of November, he had suffered an accident. His doctor gave him a certificate stating that he is able to go back to work. Now, the unemployment insurance officer, who has not examined the worker- it is exactly what I am saying in this notice of appeal to the board of referees-decided that the worker is unavailable for work, unable to do the work that should be done at this time of the year. The strange thing about it all is that, at this period of the year, the officers know very well that this seasonal worker, a lumberman, has no work available because all operations in the bush are finished everywhere for the season. Here is proof that the officers are overzealous in trying to deprive a lumberman of unemployment insurance benefits by offering him a possible or probable job in the bush.
I remember that four or five years ago, payment of benefits had been suspended for close to 300 workers in the Kamouraska riding and a good many in Temiscouata, in fact up to Rimouski. It almost created a scandal. Why? Because a high official of the commission had come at one time to the Riviere-du-Loup office and had felt that there were too many unemployed in the district.
It is not the people's fault that they live in an economically underprivileged area. It is not necessary for an official to leave the Montreal office and try to penalize all those who are having unemployment trouble. Of course, that situation has been settled; but I have seen government employees working nights to find the names and addresses of unemployed workers and sending them employment offers. Then they had to work nights too in order to pay those people their benefits, for the official's decision had obviously fallen through. We met a high official of the Department of Labour, who was the chief commissioner of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He understood the problem and the matter was settled advantageously. But why let these workers suffer a

month because they have problems due to lack of income, because they were unemployed?
Mr. Speaker, I now conclude my remarks because I did not want to speak too long on the subject since I am anxious, like most hon. members, to see this bill passed. However, I cannot resume my seat without stressing a particular point which quite impressed me.
In passing, I wish to mention at once that even if I come from the Kamouraska area, this does not mean necessarily that the examples which I give bear the signature of the officials in the offices of my area. Not at all. There are officials in the Montreal offices and in many areas. Having been in contact with workers right across the province for ten years, from 1952 to 1962, I happen to receive correspondence from almost everywhere.
I shall not mention the place where this letter came from, but the fact remains that it was written by an official on a letterhead of the commission following a decision of the board of referees. The official in question had rendered a decision by which the unemployed who was awaiting benefits was disqualified. However, the unemployed, faced with his problems, appealed to the board of referees where his situation was discussed. In its conclusion, the board says this.
It is absolutely disgusting. One would never think that people could say such things, but to write them, on top of that!
During their discussions, the members of the board of referees recognize that the reason why this man stopped working may be a valid one from the human point of view, but not in the eyes of the law, since it is considered to be a personal reason. That is why they have no alternative but to uphold the decision of the unemployment insurance office and reject the appeal.
I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) that he should be careful in choosing officials who have to make decisions. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are very good, highly competent and understanding officials-I know some. On the other hand, I know others who are not qualified to do the work they do and who come to conclusions that are very unfavourable to an unemployed man who has to contend with poverty. Those are the ones that should be watched.
February 29, 1968

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I believe this amending legislation will undoubtedly please the majority of Canadian workers. So far as I know this is the first time in nine years that an amendment has been introduced to the Unemployment Insurance Act resulting in increased benefits to employees. This, of course, is only as it should be because of the increase in the cost of living during the last number of years.
However, having said that 1 feel that at this time I must voice some severe criticism with respect to the operations of some of our unemployment insurance offices. I am highly critical of any program designed to close regional offices throughout this country which up to this time have performed very valuable services for those people who have been obliged to apply for unemployment insurance benefits. I have had examples brought to my attention of people who were unemployed, in need of benefits, entitled to receive benefits and who applied on the sixteenth of December but had not received one cheque by the seventh of February. I suggest this is nothing short of criminal because these people needed the money.
Up until the time the change was introduced by the commission, people were getting their money on time. However, by reason of the fact that the commission decided to close regional offices these delays have been taking place. The minister has attempted, in reply to the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Ry-nard), to avoid responsibility for the closing of these offices. To what point is our parliamentary system drifting, Mr. Speaker? Surely the minister cannot come in here and disclaim responsibility to parliament for the closing of these offices. He is the man who is in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, rising on a question of privilege, may I say that I am sure the hon. member would not want a statement of that kind to go unchallenged on the record. Has he read the act? The minister has no responsibility for the operations of the commission. I make that statement unequivocally. Parliament has allocated the responsibility to the commission. I am sure the hon. member would not want a statement such as he has made to go without correction, if such is not the case.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Melvin James McQuaid: I believe it goes without saying that it is the minister who answers to-parliament for the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, why, when a complaint was filed with him with regard to the closing of one of these regional offices, did he answer that complaint not as Minister of Labour but simply as "John R. Nicholson"? The letter was written on the letterhead of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He did not reply to this complaint as Minister of Labour; he replied to it on the letterhead of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and signed not as Minister of Labour but as John R. Nicholson.
I have here a letter written on May 31, 1967, by the minister to the president of the Summerside board of trade. The board complained, and I suggest rightly so, about the closing of the regional unemployment insurance office in Summerside. We now only have one regional office for the whole province of Prince Edward Island. Does the minister suggest that those who are required to draw unemployment insurance benefits can be effectively served by one office in a province? Does he realize that people who have to file unemployment insurance claims or have business to conduct with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and who live in the western end of Prince Edward Island, have to travel 150 miles to get to the nearest regional office? Does this make for efficiency? How can the minister possibly justify the closing of that office?
This matter was raised with him by the board of trade and he answered, as I say, on the letterhead of the Unemployment Insurance Commission on May 31, 1967. The following is the explanation the minister gave, and I am quoting directly from the letter:
The commission is in the process of consolidating and centralizing its operations and has already discontinued its activities in many areas and transferred its operations to other localities.
This is true, Mr. Speaker, but that is not an explanation for the closing of an office when the nearest office is then 150 miles away. The letter continues:
The commission is no longer responsible for the administration of the National Employment Service and the need for local offices is considerably reduced as mail service can be used extensively to carry out its operations.
I suggest that mail service cannot be used effectively by all those people who want to
February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act communicate with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and I believe the commission recognized that fact when, in its 1966 reports, it had this to say:
The commission continued arrangements whereby agents are appointed to complete all the necessary documents in connection with applications for unemployment insurance benefits.
The commission believes that agents should be appointed to assist the people in making application for unemployment insurance benefits. Are these people expected to travel 150 miles to get this help in making application? The report continues:
In this way, applicants who cannot conveniently visit a commission office because of their location are able to make their application with a minimum of delay. This system substantially reduces the amount of correspondence with postal applicants.
According to this report the commission apparently wanted to reduce the amount of correspondence with postal applicants. However, the minister said on May 31, in reply to a complaint from the Summerside board of trade, that mail service could now be used extensively to carry out these operations. The letter continues:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In implementing its program the commission has improved its method of operation and has developed simplified procedures. The necessity for personal contact and inquiries is thereby reduced and insured persons and employers are not adversely affected as a result of the commission's policy.
This is not in accordance with the facts, Mr. Speaker. People do require assistance in filling out these forms, and I suggest that it is the responsibility of the commission and of the government to provide it. Although this policy may save a little money, nevertheless the Unemployment Insurance Commission is an agency of government. Its function is not only to save money. One of its most important functions-and this applies to every agency of government-is to provide the people of this country with a service for which they are paying in the form of taxation. I suggest that requiring applicants to travel 150 miles in order to visit their nearest regional Unemployment Insurance Commission office is not providing service. The letter continues:
The commission's objective has always been to provide a prompt and efficient service to those applying for benefit and it was with this aim, as well as with a view to economy, that certain changes were introduced-
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is no excuse for not providing service. This is not improving efficiency; it is cutting down

efficiency. It certainly does not give the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, those services to which they are properly entitled under a properly administered unemployment insurance scheme.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) cited examples of interpretations of the section of the act that requires a person to prove his or her availability for work. He brought to the notice of the house instances of investigators employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission actually putting words into the mouths of those who apply for unemployment insurance benefits, words that he felt and which I also feel they did not intend to use. I have also had examples of this practice that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister.
I have in my files a complaint from a woman who was interviewed by an investigator from the commission. Several months ago she had applied for unemployment insurance benefits and in her application had stated she was not available for work. That was correct; at that time she was not available for work. However, later she went to work and eventually was laid off as a result of a shortage of work. Once more she applied for unemployment benefits. The investigator came to her house but instead of sitting down and asking her to fill out the form he simply said to her: "I suppose there are no changes in the statement you made when you last applied for unemployment benefits?" Not fully realizing the significance of the question she replied that there were not. The investigator entered that answer on her form, packed his bag, left the house, and as a result she was advised a short time later that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she was not available for work.
It is all very well to say that this woman had the right of appeal, but I suggest there are a lot of people in Canada today applying for unemployment insurance benefits who do not fully understand their rights in this connection. Not having anybody to advise them and being unable conveniently to travel 150 or 160 miles to the nearest regional office, they suffer the loss of their unemployment insurance benefits. I suggest that this is not as it should be.
Apparently the Unemployment Insurance Commission take great pride, and I think with some justification, in the fact that they are saving the taxpayer money as a result of the work of their investigators who travel all over the country. According to the 1966
February 29, 1968

report, in February, 1966 15 new enforcement officer positions were added to the enforcement establishment, making a total of 149. It may also be advisable at this time, instead of appointing new enforcement officers, for the commission to appoint people who can help honest citizens fill out their forms properly so that they do not disqualify themselves from receiving benefits.
These are some of the matters of which I am highly critical, Mr. Speaker. I think it is now time for the minister or for somebody else, if the minister is not responsible, to bring to the attention of the commission the complaints we have been making while these amendments to the act are being discussed. Certainly it is time that somebody took the matter in hand and did something to protect the interests of many people who unfortunately are not in a position to protect themselves.
Although I am in full sympathy with the amendments to the act, there are aspects involving the present administration of unemployment insurance that very definitely require improving. I point out to the minister, and I hope he brings this to the attention of the commission, that some of the employees of the regional offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission are not courteous to the public. I have known cases where people went to these offices and were simply given the runaround. They were unable to get a satisfactory answer to their complaints and they left the offices no wiser than when they went. This should not be allowed to happen. These employees are servants of the public. Many of them do their very best but there are some who do not, and I am highly critical of them. These are some of the matters to which I suggest the minister should give some attention and do his utmost to try to correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments on these amendments. I am sure there are a good many working people throughout Canada who are very pleased that we are now discussing this important legislation.
We endorse the principle of this bill and are very pleased to see these amendments. However, I do want to bring to the attention of the minister that the divorcement of manpower and Unemployment Insurance Commission offices has not been very well received in my constituency, and I promised to bring this fact to the attention of the minister at the first opportunity. As I think he is
Unemployment Insurance Act aware, various organizations representing several sections of the community have protested the separation of these two departments. I never quite understood the reason for it because the work of these departments is so interrelated and deals with problems that are common to both departments.
The present situation causes a great deal of inconvenience. In my constituency some communities are 150 miles or more from the nearest unemployment insurance office. I am not going to give examples. I thought the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) dealt very well with that aspect so there is no need for me to repeat what they said in this connection. However, there are people in my constituency living up to 175 miles away from the nearest unemployment insurance office or manpower office and very often they require advice. For example, in some cases they are not quite certain how to fill out application forms, what the expression "availability for employment" means, and things of that nature. I think it is particularly necessary that these people have an opportunity to complete their applications correctly or to file their appeals properly. Under present conditions it is physically impossible for them to do so.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In the meantime, would it not be possible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission to provide officers who could visit some of these communities once a week and assist these people. For example, an officer could visit Nakusp which is approximately 130 miles away from the unemployment insurance office in Castlegar. An officer might also go to Kaslo which is about the same distance away, and periodically one might go to the North Lardeau country where many are employed but where the population is less dense. These officers could advise people how to complete application forms and enter appeals. I should like the minister to reply to this suggestion when he speaks at the conclusion of the debate on second reading.
I think there is a great opportunity for an improvement in public relations on the part of the commission. I suggest it would be a good idea for some of its officials to address trade unions periodically on the subject of applying for unemployment insurance and the necessary procedures and forms. They could inform the unions about the law generally and about applications in detail. They could do the same with chambers of commerce,
February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act which largely represent employers' organizations, so that chambers of commerce would be well informed. They could also speak to various women's organizations, because women are just as involved as their husbands when it comes to the proper operation of this act.
That is all I wish to say at this time. I believe that following my suggestions would remedy many complaints in the meantime.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring a couple of matters to the minister's attention. I acknowledge how farsighted the minister has been in bringing these amendments forward. I agree with the principle of increasing payments and coverage.
Until now it has been possible for Indian and Eskimo employees in our labour force not to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Two matters relating to the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act as it affects northern Canada should be brought before the minister. One of them has to do with the regulations. In so many words they say that any person employed north of the sixtieth parallel of latitude whose livelihood is not ordinarily derived from insurable employment shall not necessarily be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. This provision was first brought in around 1959, the intention being to encourage private concerns to employ Indians and Eskimos. But the provision has fulfilled its purpose and its effect now is to bring about, if I may term it this way, discrimination in reverse.
Construction companies which move to northern Canada for summer operations bring part of their labour force with them from the cities in the south but they will also hire some semi-skilled people locally. Most of these are hunters or trappers who because of their construction skills are hired by the construction companies. Sometimes they have jobs for six, eight, ten or 12 months at any one time. The point is that though they may be eligible for benefits their employers are taking advantage of that part of the regulations to which I referred. I ask the minister to take a hard look at those regulations to see if their purpose has not been fulfilled. I think we should give our Indian and Eskimo residents full benefits under this act just as if they lived south of the sixtieth parallel.
Another point deserves the minister's attention. Some hon. members speak of unemployment insurance offices being 150 miles from

certain towns. The unemployment insurance office closest to the sixtieth parallel is at Edmonton, about 450 miles away. If you go as far north as Inuvik you are talking about 1,300 or 1,400 miles. There may be an argument that not enough people live there to justify an office but I believe other factors ought to be considered. If we are to encourage private development in northern Canada the services of government must be available to private entrepreneurs as they would be in southern Canada. Inuvik is a long way from Edmonton. Granted, the mail service is reasonable but there is the question of dialogue to consider. It would be better for our people if an officer of the commission could be stationed in the capital of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife. He would be in a good position to deal with the particular and peculiar problems which arise when private entrepreneurs operate in the north.
Another reason for having an officer there is that situations similar to the one in 1964 might arise again. One of our major mines in Yellowknife had a fire in the head frame which resulted in the mine and the mill having to be closed down for three or four months. I tried to get the Unemployment Insurance Commission to send an officer to Yellowknife to service applications as soon as possible since the situation affected not only individual workers but the entire community. The post office had application forms but naturally they disappeared quickly. With the help of the mine management and others in the community applications were forwarded to Edmonton in a hurry. Had it not been for the initiative of the local people, benefits might have been delayed more than they were.
The commission provides reasonable service in the northern part of Canada but it would help us to have an unemployment insurance office established there. People in isolated communities understand that there are problems but at least they would get to know what their benefits are and for how long they are entitled to them. I am thinking particularly of a man who worked for the federal government for a number of years as a school janitor. For some reason he left his job; he may have quit or had to leave. I do not know. But no one got around to telling him that because he had paid into the unemployment insurance fund for three or four years, he was entitled to benefits. That is the point I am trying to drive home
February 29, 1968
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In conclusion, I hope the minister will examine the problem of the exemption in respect of Indians and Eskimos living north of the sixtieth parallel. It brings about a form of discrimination which I am sure the government never intended. An examination should be made of the act to determine how it can be made of maximum benefit to those living north of the sixtieth parallel, both by changing this regulation and by opening an office in the Northwest Territories.


Eric Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief. I believe there is need for the amendment before us having regard to the inflationary situation and the high cost of living at the present time.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) said yesterday that this legislation was originally based on the insurance principle but that principle has gradually disappeared. He suggested everyone would be happy if we could return to the insurance principle, and I think he was right. The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and the hon. member for Kings (Mr. McQuaid) referred specifically to the closure of offices. I do not know whether the closure of offices has led to greater efficiency but it has certainly caused inconvenience and expense to the public. In my own riding the only office in the constituency, that at Selkirk, has been closed, greatly to the inconvenience of people in that area.
I wish to refer now to the way in which workers in country areas are disqualified from benefit and, in doing so, to support what has been said in this connection by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) the hon. member for Kings and others. Disqualification is brought about in this way: an official calls on applicants and records them as answering one of the questions by saying they prefer to work in their own immediate area. If the area is designated as a restricted employment area, as is usually the case, benefits are withheld.
I am disturbed by this type of administration. If people can be disqualified on this basis I can only conclude that the act discriminates against workers in rural areas. Indeed, it seems to me that the only way in which people can be sure of their eligibility for benefit is by living in the large urban centres. Does the government want all our people to live in the cities? If not, I suggest to the minister that he and his senior officials should look carefully at the way in which
Unemployment Insurance Act workers are being disqualified in the rural parts of Canada. A number of individual cases have come to my notice. I do not intend to call attention to them on this occasion but I shall refer them to the minister personally later. I believe it is a serious mistake to disqualify people in rural areas on the grounds that they live in a restricted employment area. I submit the act ought to be administered in a different manner if people in all parts of Canada are to be treated fairly and justly.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been very patient and I shall be brief. Some of the points I wished to raise with regard to the need for local unemployment insurance offices have already been touched on by other speakers.
I am sure the minister has received letters which indicate there is a misunderstanding of the regulations as they apply to farm labour. At any rate, I have received such letters. The inclusion of farm workers under the act took effect on April 1, 1967. It was stated by the Department of Labour that all known farmers would be contacted by mail shortly after that date. Most farmers have by now been contacted by mail, I imagine. I emphasize the phrase "by mail" because I want to point out that farmers operate individually and in a great variety of ways and that the forwarding of information by mail is not always satisfactory. There is a desire for local offices where direct information could be obtained immediately rather than through correspondence.
The minister has told us that the decision to close some 100 local offices was made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I am asking him to bring the arguments he has heard today to the attention of the commission.
I am not sure how much experience or contact the minister has had with farming operations. He understands, of course, that in this modern age there is a demand for a variety of skills and training, for tractor and combine operators, livestock handlers and feeders, poultry and turkey raisers. Each of these lines of farm endeavour calls for separate training. I mention this in relation to a case which will emphasize two points I wish to bring out.
The situation I wish to describe concerns an experienced tractor and combine operator who worked for a farmer from April 1 to November 1, 1967. Naturally, there was very

7122	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act little tractor work late in the fall and the tractor operator found himself out of a job. The farmer and his employer had kept the insurance book up to date. According to the tractor operator, when he applied for unemployment insurance later an official told him that livestock feeders were needed and he should take one of these jobs. But this man was an experienced tractor operator and he had no experience in raising livestock.
It also appeared there had been a mix-up involving the location of the insurance book. The book had been sent to a central office probably to enable some sort of computer operation to be carried out. The tractor man had applied for his benefits in December. After some correspondence with the Unemployment Insurance Commission I received a letter which stated in the last paragraph:
It is regrettable that Mr. Kessler's claim was delayed pending receipt of his insurance book. This difficulty has now been resolved and payment of benefit will be made to him without delay.
This strengthens the argument for direct contact through local offices. It also makes clear that an experienced tractor operator who contributes the necessary stamps during the summer months should be liable for benefit in the winter months if some comparable form of mechanical work is not available.
In conclusion I should like to draw the minister's attention to the brief which was presented to the government two or three days ago, I believe, by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The minister may have been present on that occasion to hear it; I understand he was. I shall not repeat all the recommendations which were made. I merely point out that in regard to unemployment insurance we find this statement:
Resolved that this program as it applies to agriculture be the subject of future study and recommendation by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I conclude by saying that fanners have problems with unemployment insurance that require further study, and I hope the minister will see to it that the officials of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture will be heard when the time arrives.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly also, but I do not want to miss this opportunity to say a few words. First of all, I want to say that I am in favour of the principle of the bill.
[Mr. Pascoe.l
DEBATES	February 29, 1968
As things are at present, with the high cost of living and the threat of inflation the unemployed surely need more benefits than they did some time ago.
I should like to add, on behalf of the labour force of Saint-Hyacinthe, how much we regret the decision to close the unemployment insurance office in our city.
At the time the decision was taken, the authorities of the municipality of Saint-Hyacinthe, the leaders of the CNTU local in Saint-Hyacinthe and myself made representations to the minister (Mr. Nicholson). We butted our heads against a stone wall, since no attention was paid to our representations which had one purpose only, the welfare of the labour class of Saint-Hyacinthe.
The minister and his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand), also know that Saint-Hyacinthe is an industrial centre and that an unemployment insurance office had been established there during the first years following the coming into force of that legislation. The unemployed are thus subjected to endless inconvenience and vexation. They are compelled to travel some distance to draw their benefits or experience useless delays.
I should also like to support the representations which have been made here about the fact that some officials often give the impression that they are taking every possible means to deprive the unemployed of the benefits due them. I do not believe that it is on account of a lack of necessary information or because they are over-zealous. It must surely be because in many cases the officials have not the necessary information and as a result, the unemployed are deprived of unemployment insurance benefits.
I believe the hon. minister should endeavour to make sure that such conditions will not recur because they are positively detrimental to the unemployed workers. Being unemployed is distressing enough for a person that he should not be deprived of benefits that could help him provide for himself and his family.
By bringing such facts to the attention of the hon. minister he may be encouraged to give special consideration to the problem and to issue proper directives to his officers, so that they may give satisfaction to the workers.
I believe, like many others, that the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act must be to serve the public. We must not give
February 29, 1968

the impression that this law tends to disqualify those who want to avail themselves of its provisions, but that it must really be of service to the workers who are temporarily unemployed.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the few observations I wanted to make, for the guidance of the hon. minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank all hon. members, who have contributed to this debate. Some very helpful and constructive suggestions have been made for improvement in the administration of the unemployment insurance program generally and I am happy to inform all hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker, if they do not already know it, that the chief commissioner of the unemployment commission and other officials have been in the gallery throughout the whole of the debate and they have had the benefit of hearing all the suggestions made by hon. members.
I might say that I am gratified, although not surprised, that all parties and groups in the house have signified approval in principle of the amendments contained in the bill. However, a great many members have expressed regret that the bill does not go farther and include more of the recommendations that were contained in the report of the Gill committee which completed its work some five years ago. In reply, I would point out that the recommendations of the Gill committee were very comprehensive, but hon. members will recall that they were made at a time of serious unemployment in Canada when the funds of the Unemployment Insurance Commission were exhausted. Those funds had to be replenished through special votes by the house on two different occasions. I am glad to say that conditions have changed since then, and while some of the recommendations of the Gill committee merit implementation, others require at least modification.
As has been stated on previous occasions in this house, the Gill committee report was referred some time ago to an interdepartmental committee. The government has had an interim report from that committee and the committee has been asked to study it further.
Unemployment Insurance Act I would like to inform hon. members that a comprehensive revision of this act, to include 50 per cent or maybe more of the recommendations made by the Gill committee, and the modified recommendations that may come out of the study being made by the interdepartmental committee, would involve months of study in this house. It would not be a simple piece of legislation. I am convinced it would require a minimum of three months study by this house, and probably much longer.
When the government was faced with this situation, realizing that there had been no change made to the act for a period of some nine years and that the scale of benefits is not realistic in view of the changes that have taken place in the economy over the last four or five years, it was our opinion that there could be no further delay and that at the least we would have to introduce without delay the amendments covered in this bill. I particularly felt a responsibility because on more than one occasion during the past 12 months I had assured hon. members that in this session of parliament I would introduce amendments along the lines covered in this bill now before us. That accounts for the fact that we have a relatively short, simple bill to take care of immediate requirements, with the assurance on the part of the government that a more detailed, a more comprehensive bill, an overhaul bill, if you want to so describe it, will be introduced at the earliest possible date.
Hon. members, who have expressed support in principle for the bill, have also raised some very interesting questions which I think call for brief comment on my part at this stage. For instance, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) referred to some calculations based on a table contained in clause 4 of the bill. In this connection I wish to assure the hon. member and others who are interested that the minor variances in the ratio, which the hon. member for Halifax noted, between benefits for people with dependants and benefits for people without dependants are due entirely to the fact that the figures were rounded out mathematically. In effect the amount is the same but there has been a mathematical rounding out. Column 2, for instance, progresses by increments of $3 and $4, while column 4 progresses by increments of $4 and $5.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I should like to assure hon. members that a study of the bill will show that there was no
February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act discrimination and no intention to discriminate against persons with dependants. A study of the bill will show that the people in the lowest income tax bracket benefit materially. The proportion of the benefit for persons with dependants has been maintained at 50 per cent or more of the new table which will apply when amendments to the act come into effect. This is in keeping with accepted unemployment insurance practice in many countries of the world including our neighbour to the south. Because it is included by them is no reason that we should accept it, but at least it is an indication that we are moving in ways which other countries consider to be fair and reasonable.
This table plus the new table of allowable earnings which can be earned while on claim means that the person with a dependant can earn up to 75 per cent of his gross wages up to the maximum laid down in the act. I consider this to be a reasonable protection unless there is a desire to encourage a man to stay away from work and draw unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) requested certain information which I am pleased to furnish. He asked for statistics concerning the status of the fund at the present time. I am happy to report that as of the end of the last fiscal year, March 31, 1967, the unemployment insurance fund had a credit of about $258 million. This is quite different from the situation we had a few years ago when it was necessary to replenish the fund in the period 1962 and 1963, the first two years that I was in this house. We can only estimate the condition of the fund at the end of this present fiscal year, since unemployment usually runs higher during the months of November through March. Five of these months are behind us, however, and present indications are that the fund will be just in excess of $300 million at the end of this fiscal year.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Ry-nard), the hon. member for Kings (Mr. McQuaid), the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and also one of the last speakers, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe), all referred to the closing of some unemployment insurance offices. I believe that there has been some misunderstanding about this. Perhaps a little information on this subject might be helpful, not so much for members but for the information of the general public.

When the Unemployment Insurance Commission was first established the responsibility for the administration of the national employment service was delegated to the commission. The commission continued to perform that function until after the report of the Glassco royal commission was published. The Glassco commission studied the workings of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and felt that there was a conflict of interest between the national employment service and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In its report the Glassco commission recommended that these two services be separated.
I was a member of an ad hoc cabinet committee which studied the recommendations of the Glassco commission and, if my memory serves me right, we recommended that this and several other recommendations contained in the Glassco commission report be implemented. As a result, at the beginning of the fiscal year, April 1, 1965, the two functions were separated. This was not done at the time the Department of Manpower and Immigration came into existence in December, 1965. It had been done some nine months earlier. As a result much of the work and the necessity for much of the staff in the unemployment insurance offices disappeared when this function was turned over to another branch of the government.
At the same time the commission, which is charged with the responsibility of administering this act efficiently and economically in the national interest, realized that a great advantage would accrue from the use of computers and other modern systems. The two were synchronized. There has been a closing of certain offices but there are manpower offices in most of these areas and there are officials of government who can furnish information to people who make application under the Unemployment Insurance Act and its regulations and they are happy to do so.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that there are officials who can furnish information. Of course they can. They have been trained to do this. I should like to ask whether it is part of their duty to supply this information.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In some cases, yes. I might say, however, that I asked for a memorandum from the commission on this point. The chief commissioner has assured me that where offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission have been closed they have made arrangements, when such action is required,
February 29, 1968

with representatives of other agencies of the government, in some cases employees of the manpower centres, to supply such information. Arrangements also are being made for a free telephone service for people who wish to call the nearest U.I.C. office.
This afternoon the hon. member for Kings spoke of the hardships which exist in the province of Prince Edward Island. He mentioned that there is only one office on the island. I am sorry the hon. member is no longer present in the house because I would like to point out to him that in Prince Edward Island, for the type of service to which the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) referred, eight agencies have been established. These agencies are willing and anxious to continue this service and if individual members of the house will either write to me or to the commission itself information can be obtained as to just where these or similar agencies are located.


David Vaughan Pugh: This is for the dissemination of information. I can understand that. I know that the personnel in these offices have been more than helpful to those who request information, but I am wondering whether this applies also to the processing of claims.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is any type of information which might be required by an ordinary Canadian citizen who needs help or advice in filling in unemployment insurance forms. I might say that it is impossible and unnecessary to have offices in every community in Canada. The hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) showed how difficult or impossible it is in areas as large as those found in the two territories and in some of the provinces of Canada. From reports that I receive weekly, and some times more often than that, from the commission and my department, there is an indication that, while many unemployment insurance offices have been closed as a result of the use of computers and other new services, this new system is working more efficiently than before.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the minister permit a question? Will he consider taking a second look at the reports he receives from his officials regarding what is taking place in southwestern Ontario which is a very heavily industrialized area? From personal knowledge I can assure the minister that in the last three months I have received at least 15 times the number of complaints I received during the previous 15 years I have been a member,
Unemployment Insurance Act mainly because applicants do not know how to fill out forms. They cannot obtain information because they cannot direct their questions to individuals in the offices.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I lived for some time, for several years in fact, in southwestern Ontario, and I can assure the hon. member that his request will receive serious consideration. There are officials of the commission here and they will follow up the hon. member's request. The commission has given a lot of thought to consolidation of offices and they assure me that where they have found it advisable to close an office they have given individual attention to all the special circumstances.
The hon. member for Simcoe East, in his persistent and persuasive way, has tried to convince me that I should bring my persuasive powers to bear on the commission. I have associated myself with his representation and also have opened the door for him. Let me remind all members, however, that parliament has in its wisdom seen fit by sections 4 and 22 to delegate the administration of this act to a commission comprised of one member representing the business and commercial community, one member representing labour and unions, and one member nominated by the government, namely the chief commissioner. The other two members can outvote the chief commissioner if they so decide. As a result of the more than two years of close association that I have had with this commission I know that I can say it has done an honest and conscientious job for the people of Canada and they should be commended for their efforts. What the commission is suggesting at this time is something that they consider to be advisable or desirable, in the interests not only of efficiency but of economy.
Yesterday I intimated that the question asked by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) had been answered to his satisfaction. Although he is not in the house I should like to assure him that if the situation has not been rectified in the way I understand it has the door is open for him to make further representations. I think, however, that he has been satisfied.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) wanted reassurance that it is not the intention of the government to convert the unemployment insurance scheme into a general welfare scheme. I have no hesitation in giving him that assurance.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Crouse:: Thank you.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Some reference has been made to the fact that there is an intention to widen the scope of unemployment insurance coverage so as to bring in other categories. This arose from a speech that I made in Kingston last summer to the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and to others who are interested in the administration of social security programs in this country. I was referring to the trend toward universality which we have seen in several programs, including the Canada Pension Plan, medicare and others. I assure the house that there was no mention made of school teachers or doctors. Where the news media picked up the suggestion that there was to be such an extension I do not know, but it certainly was not from anything I said on that occasion.
The hon. member for Skeena referred to a case about which, frankly, I am disturbed. This took place some time before I assumed the responsibility as Minister of Labour, but I shall be glad to investigate the circumstances mentioned. It is certainly our hope that situations of that kind may be avoided in the future.
The hon. member for Kings suggested that the minister is responsible for the administration of this act as evidenced by the fact that he signed a letter "John R. Nicholson". The stationery used by the minister is stationery of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which carries the words "Office of the minister" or some similar words. Under the act the minister is designated as the Minister of Labour, but he has limited responsibility under the act. As I am sure all members know, the responsibilities of a minister can be transferred from time to time under the authority of the Transfer of Duties Act. The responsible minister does not necessarily have to be the Minister of Labour. In this particular case I signed the letter as the minister responsible, and I still occupy that responsible position and I will do so presumably as long as I remain the labour minister. However, administration still rests with the commission, and I would not want it to be otherwise. If members feel that changes to the act and regulations are necessary I can assure them that I would be glad to discuss them with interested members and then with the commission and in turn with my colleagues in the cabinet.
The hon. member for the Northwest Territories pointed out the need for change in the
[Mr. Nicholson.l
February 29, 1968
regulations governing employees north of the sixtieth parallel. That has been brought to the attention of the commission as a result of their attendance here today. I assure the hon. member that this suggestion will be followed up.
The hon. member for Kootenay West made a very good point in connection with the 100 or more offices that have been closed. This public relations question is something that has troubled me. I agree that there is need for improvement in public relations operations. This has been discussed by me with the chief commissioner who relinquished his office a few months ago. It has also been followed up with the new chief commissioner. Even though they have reduced their over-all staff they are building their public relations staff to handle this very important work. There is a lot of merit in having officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission meet with representatives of municipalities, with service clubs in some of the smaller communities in order to give them this kind of information. I have the assurance of the commission that its members would be very pleased to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 1-
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed may I say I am sure we are all interested in what the minister said in closing the debate on second reading. I am particularly interested in his statement to the effect that representations of hon. members have been helpful regarding the administration of the act. I was also interested in the minister's desire to discuss any proposed changes in the act suggested by hon. members with his cabinet colleagues. This is like listening to an old record that is pretty nearly worn out.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member will admit that we have made at least a little progress here, and this is merely one of the areas in which some progress has been made.


Frank Howard: There is no doubt that the government has made little progress here and in other fields as well. I agree immediately with the minister about that. But in some fields the government has, in fact, made no progress whatever except in a backward

February 29, 1968

direction. As gracious and kind as the minister is in saying that he appreciates the helpful suggestions that have been made and that the members of the commission are in the gallery listening intently and so on, the fact is that hon. members who have participated in debates dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Act and such matters have been making these suggestions year after year after interminable year and there is still no change. It is very easy for the minister to say he would be glad to do this, that and the other thing and that he appreciates the helpful suggestions which have been made, but I am sure hon. members do not enjoy the opportunity of making these suggestions in a perennial way. We would like to have some of our suggestions, if they are helpful-and we are pleased the minister has said some of them are-transformed into legislative or regulatory form or into policy declarations within the department or the commission structure.
I cited the case of the woman who had been induced by the insurance officer to answer questions in a particular way, thus disqualifying herself from receiving benefits. This is a standard complaint that nearly every member in the house has run into at one time or another. Proposals about altering section 54 to take cognizance of this situation have been made ad nauseam but we have seen no change as yet. These complaints will continue to arise if something is not done to correct the situation.
Incidentally, it would be interesting to know whether there is any policy directive from the commission to its officers and staff in the field which ensures that questions are asked of applicants in such a way as to get this type of answer or whether this is just coincidence. It would appear that in many cases the manner in which questions have been asked has been too consistent to be coincidence. I would expect there is some directive that says the staff should try to ascertain information in this way.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I hope, in fact I am sure, that the hon. member accepted my assurance that I would look into this particular case and, if action is needed, I will take the responsibility of seeing that the matter is followed up. I cannot do more than that. If the circumstances are as the hon. member has described it should not need legislative action; it seems to be more an administrative matter. I will look into it.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Frank Howard: If it is an administrative matter, Mr. Chairman, action should have been taken a long time ago because the situation has prevailed for many years. I do not care how it is done, whether by legislation, regulation or just a straight declaration, but this matter should be straightened out. I do not refer to this case exclusively but to similar cases.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt cited a case where a woman found herself disqualified because of a peculiar set of circumstances over which she had no control whatever. This situation arises as the result of an overly rigid and strict interpretation of section 54(2)(a) of the act relating to availability for work. All the good will on the part of the minister-and I have letters stating this-cannot upset the decisions of the umpires which have been upheld in case after case in like situations.
What is required is a little more generosity on the part of the commission in applying itself to this question. As I understand it, if over a period of years the court of referees, if that is the correct title, and the umpires have made successive interpretations and declarations about what that section of the act means, it is just like a court of law. You look to the precedents and say, it happened before, and you drag out the umpires' decisions to substantiate it happening again.
By the overly rigid interpretation of this rule people are being induced in effect to break the law, in effect to betray their own consciences by answering questions in a dishonest way. They are being forced to do this. When a person hears that his neighbour was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he answered a question put by the insurance officer in a certain way, if that neighbour's case is inquired into he will answer the question in another way. He will say: You bet I am available for work anywhere in the world, for any wage, at any time and in any occupation. That person may in his own mind know he is not able to perform certain jobs but he will say he is simply in order to receive what he thinks he is entitled to namely, benefits under the act.
It would be worth while too, as I asked the minister on second reading, if he would state categorically the position of the government with respect to recommendation No. 11, 1 think it is, of the Gill committee relating tc expanding the coverage of the act to take in teachers, hospital workers, policemen and the
7128

February 29, 1968
Private Bills
like. As I understood the minister-it I am incorrect in my understanding I know he will correct me-the doubt in this regard arose because of a speech he made in Kingston which was not interpreted correctly by the news media. Does this mean that the minister is making a categorical statement about the position of the government with respect to teachers and police officers? Are they to be included or not?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will be glad to answer that question, Mr. Chairman. I thought that I had answered it. I have stated in the house more than once that it is not the present government's intention-I cannot speak for any future government-to extend the provisions of this act to cover teachers or people in the categories to which the hon. member has referred. The Gill committee has made certain recommendations. Extensions have been made in this area. Agricultural workers have been brought under the act, and others. It is quite possible that further or additional categories will be brought under it. But the intention should be to provide unemployment insurance to those who need it, not to those with no such needs.
I say unequivocally that there are great differences of opinion in and out of government as to how far the recommendations of the Gill committee should be implemented. The one referred to by the hon. member is one of the recommendations with regard to which there is a serious difference of opinion.
The Assisiani Deputy Chairman: Order. It being six o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), The Canadian Economy-steps to meet increase in cost of living; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Criminal Code-suggested amendment respecting representation by counsel; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Industry-possible change in criteria respecting designated areas.

It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-104, respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.


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


Mr. Peters:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



LONDON AND MIDLAND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-25, respecting London and Midland General Insurance Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order about what has just transpired? With respect, I think Your Honour moved too quickly. The hon. member who is sponsoring this bill was on his feet and we were expecting him to make some introductory remarks. He did not have the opportunity to do so when the question was put. I think there was a misunderstanding.


Mr. Speaker:: I looked in the direction of the hon. member and he did not rise. Nobody rose. The bill has already received second reading and can be considered in due course when it comes back from the committee to which it has been referred.



COMMERCIAL SOLIDS PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 28, 1967, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-113, to incorporate Commercial Solids Pipe Line Company-Mr. Basford-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I will defer to the sponsor of the bill if he wishes to make some comments. However, he has not risen
February 29. 1968

and we do not want to get into the same predicament as we did on the last bill. I have a few words to say on this bill. Before the consideration of the bill goes beyond the committee stage I should like assurance from the sponsor of the bill that Bill C-231, the National Transportation Act, passed by this house has been proclaimed. I am under the impression that the section dealing with commodity pipe lines was exempted from the proclamation. This, of course, leaves us in a very poor position. It leaves us in the position of creating a commodity pipe line-this, of course, will be the first one of its kind to handle solids in Canada-without any legislation under which its operations can be supervised.
A great deal of discussion of this commodity pipe line has taken place. I have had the opportunity of discussing this bill with company officials on a number of occasions. I am convinced that the company is sincerely interested in developing not only a research proposition but a commodity pipe line that will handle a product as soon as the pipe line can be made operative.
One of the reasons for discussing the problems connected with solids pipe lines designed to handle basic raw materials was that in fact we were creating a new form of transportation. I do not know what the former minister of transport, now the chairman of the transportation commission, had in mind when he excluded part II of the act from the proclamation. I am sure the government did not exclude that part but that it was the chairman who decided that section would not be put into effect. Certainly he was aware of the purpose of including the solids pipe line section. I am sure he was aware of the need for protection of the consumers of this nation who are using transportation facilities.
We have been told how many thousands of box cars will be taken off the railroads as a result of the construction of a pipe line that will handle basic commodities which are now shipped by rail. I understand this new form of transportation will reduce the price of the product considerably and will put the Shell Oil Company into a position to compete effectively in world markets. This is very worth while. If potash, sulphur and some of the other basic commodities can be carried to the west coast by this new form of transportation we will find that because of the decreased use of rail and highway transportation there will be a change in the cost of the freight that will continue to be handled by the railways and over the highways. It is essential so far as I 27053-4491
Private Bills
am concerned, therefore, that part III of the National Transportation Act be proclaimed before this pipe line is constructed.
My recent discussions with company officials indicate they are convinced they have overcome the problems that were involved in putting sulphur in an oil-based slurry to ship to the coast. They are of the opinion that they have been able to solve the problem of refining and removing the commodity from the oil base. Company officials have suggested they will make a number of amendments and I am told the amendments they will put into effect are worth while. In talking to their lawyers I was surprised that they were willing to take out of the bill some of the things I believe are absolutely necessary. We have agreed with the company that these things should be retained because this company will have immediate use for some of them. It seems to me it is no longer our responsibility to insist that certain protection be provided to the nation. The government should proclaim part II of the National Transportation Act which to my knowledge has not been proclaimed. No legitimate reason has been given for not proclaiming that part of the act.
In the transportation of a commodity such as sulphur the difficulties that accrue are many and the research requirements for the economic handling of this commodity are very great. It has been necessary for the company, through research, to arrive at a specific gravity for the sulphur that will allow the company to put the product through the pipe line in a volume equal to about 80 per cent of the total volume of the line. The specific gravity of the product going through the line has to be close enough to the specific gravity of the carrier to enable the company to get the slurry moving again following an emergency shutdown. Otherwise, of course, the solids would remain in the pipe line and a great deal of difficulty would be created.
I have had conversations with other pipe line officials and I find there are a number of ways of handling solids. We were told that commodities such as sulphur might have to be transported in capsule form. Some research has been done into the transportation of sulphur in round or oblong blocks. If for some reason the carriage of these balls of sulphur breaks down, say as a result of pumping difficulties, the specific gravity of the sulphur, being the same as the air in the line, would permit a bottleneck to be avoided.
7130	COMMONS
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Anyone who has had anything to do with sulphur knows that it comes in different forms. For example, it comes in acid form, in powder form and in slab form, in which case it is broken up with a jackhammer and then-transported in box cars. It is just like the manufacture of Smarties. They are put into formers and coated with chocolate. The sulphur operation is the same but without the chocolate coating.
One suggestion made by the Shell Oil officials was that the refining process could be dispensed with. However, it seems to me that one major factor in the refining process is the removal of sulphur from the oil. If 80 or 90 per cent of sulphur by volume is added in slurry form to the oil there must be a refining process at the end of the pipe line, and that is a difficulty the Shell company is facing.
Whether or not this bill is passed, Mr. Chairman, I am sure this company has sufficient technical know-how to make a success of its operations. I am also sure it has the financial ability to bring this pipe line to reality. However, I have great reservations about the ability of the Canadian public to protect themselves from the possible consequences of this bill. This is only a beginning. It is a little unfortunate that the Shell Oil Company is being criticized here, because it has pioneered in this field. But the interest of the public is much more important than that of any inidividual company or collection of companies, and the public have not really been given that protection. Certainly the chairman of the transportation commission is not protecting them, and we will have to help him protect them against his wishes by insisting that part II of the National Transportation Act be proclaimed before this company is licensed for this operation.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you are familiar with the National Energy Board Act and the previous transportation acts that made provision for the movement of commodities by various means. You will also be aware that for a considerable length of time many pipe line companies have come to parliament asking for a licence to construct solid pipe lines. If I can paraphrase what was said previously by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona, we have given in to some companies that have the corporate facility to take advantage of legislation in this field. We have provided a number of companies with the corporate structure that enables them to take

DEBATES	February 29, 1968
advantage of developments in the field of solids pipe line construction.
I am sure that the National Energy Board, under whose jurisdiction such operations fall, has no intention of licensing a pipe line to carry solids until that section of Bill No. C-231 to which I have referred has been proclaimed by order in council. Anyone who followed the debate on the transportation bill will be aware that that piece of legislation was very involved and complicated. They will also be aware that certain conditions were attached to the construction of solids pipe lines. In fact, one section dealt with commodity pipe lines, which included such things as combined pipe lines and solids pipe lines. There was also a section that regulated tolls and tariffs and provisions relating to common carriers. We also inserted in the bill a provision stating that the transportation act was not to conflict with the National Energy Board Act in so far as sections 26 to 39, sections 57, 58, 59 and Part V were concerned.
We also made the following provision in section 28 of the act:
(1)	Where it appears to be in the public interest to do so, the commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make an order or orders exempting a commodity pipe line or any part or parts thereof, from all or any of the provisions of this act.
(2)	In any order made under this section, the commission may impose such terms and conditions as it considers advisable.
One of the things that bothers me about that is that the draftsman of the bill must have had the Commercial Solids Pipe Line in mind because it was the only solids pipe line that was being developed at that time. Yet the application of this section and the protection that it would provide has been withheld, and for this reason I am reluctant to agree to the passage of this bill at the present time.
One of our members telephoned the Privy Council office and asked whether part III of the transportation act had been proclaimed. The secretary there informed him that everyone had gone home and she was not in a position to make any statement. We did pass a very complicated bill including a section that protected the public. I do not think anything in that section in the transportation act conflicts with the interests of Commercial Solids Pipe Line. Therefore I think its provisions should apply to this bill before it is passed. On finding that part not proclaimed I can only conclude that there is something I do not know or that some interest is not being
February 29, 1968

served. I would therefore like to know from the sponsor of the bill why proclamation has not taken place, because I think that part II is most relevant and ought to apply to the company's operation.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, I was rising to speak when you recognized the hon. member for Timiskaming and I wanted to say that at a later stage I wish to move amendments to the bill, which I understand, have been discussed with hon. members and the company.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming, surprisingly it came to light at hearings of the transport committee that part II had not been proclaimed. At that time I did not know that and I checked into the matter. Part II has not been proclaimed owing to administrative reasons. The Canadian Transport Commission has not yet drawn up the regulations which must prevail under part II. Part II cannot be proclaimed until the regulations are drawn up. That is the reason for not proclaiming part II, and there is no other reason.
I was as concerned as the hon. member is about this matter, and I have checked it with the Minister of Transport. I have his authority to say to the house and to put on the record that should anyone commence to build a solids pipe line or even to think of building one, part II will be proclaimed in time to ensure that construction of the pipe line is carried on under the provisions of part II. I hope, earnestly, that the hon. member is satisfied with that undertaking. He is a practical man and he knows that any Canadian government would be silly to allow anyone to commence construction without proclaiming part II. I hope the undertaking which the Minister of Transport has authorized me to give satisfies the hon. member.
The hon. member has discussed this matter with the Shell Oil Company and discussed the type of proposal they have. As the hon. member for Timiskaming knows, the proposal is to carry sulphur in a hydrocarbon base, which means oil or a hydrocarbon. The transportation of hydrocarbons is covered by the National Energy Board Act. The pipe line therefore could not function without an application being made to the National Energy Board. That application is something apart from the provisions of part II. We have on the record an undertaking that part II will be proclaimed before construction is allowed. If the hon. member does not accept that undertaking, he may remember that the provisions
Private Bills
of the National Energy Board Act govern the transmission of hydrocarbons.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it not true that a large quantity of sulphur will be carried? Oil is the carrier and the commodity to be carried is sulphur. For an oil carrier the National Energy Board will be involved, and with respect to the commodity, which is sulphur, part II will apply. The pipe line, therefore, will be governed by the commodity pipe line section of the transport bill. Is that right?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes. It certainly will be, under part II, but I have already put on the record what the Minister of Transport has authorized me to say, that part II will be proclaimed before anyone starts building a solids pipe line. Part II has not been proclaimed because the regulations have not been drawn up. The point I was making is that even though part II has not been proclaimed, as the hon. member knows, a proposal to carry hydrocarbons is at the present time governed by the National Energy Board Act. Since an oil base will be used to carry the sulphur the pipe line cannot operate without an application to the National Energy Board first being made.
As the hon. member knows, when dealing with a commodity pipe line which uses a hydrocarbon carrier, a combined application must be made to the National Energy Board and to the Canadian Transport Commission. My point is that though part II has not yet been proclaimed it will be, and it will cover this pipe line.
Because of the undertaking I have put on record and because the National Energy Board is involved in the matter, I hope the hon. member is satisfied. His objections were legitimate. I am authorized to say on behalf of the company that they do not want to build a pipe line except under the provisions of part II.


Edward Nasserden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think we have a quorum.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I will ask the Clerk Assistant to count the committee.
And there being only 17 members present, including the chairman, the chairman reported accordingly to the Speaker.
Mr .Speaker: I will ask the Clerk Assistant to take a count of the house.

February 29, 1968
Private Bills


Frank Howard: That is the practice we follow now-do everything twice.


Mr. Speaker:: Thirty one members are present. There being a quorum, the committee will resume its work.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The house resumed consideration in committee on Bill No. C-113, to incorporate Commercial Solids Pipe Line Company-Mr. Bas-ford-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.


William Arnold Peters: I wish to thank the hon. member for Rosthern for the audience we have. This is an important bill and I am glad to see so many people taking part in the proceedings.
I appreciate what the sponsor has said with relation to the proclaiming of part II. I may say I do not agree with him; I think this part could in fact be proclaimed before the regulations are attached. But I am certainly willing to accept his indication that these regulations are being worked out. I am sure the hon. member is correct in saying that the principals wish to operate under the combines section of part II of the transportation legislation rather than solely under the National Energy Board. I accept the assurance that this will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 6-Power to construct and operate pipe line.
Stanley Ronald Basford: I shall ask my hon. friend from Essex South to move an amendment at this point on my behalf.


Mr. Whelan moved:: That clause 6 be amended as follows:
1.	in line 32, by deleting the word "and" and by substituting therefor the following "(b) for the purpose of, and related only to, its operations," so that the last part of paragraph (a) becomes a new paragraph of clause 6;
2.	in line 37, by deleting the words "for the purpose of its undertaking";
3.	by deleting at the end of the present paragraph (a) as amended in the standing committee the words "for the purpose of its undertaking"; and
4.	by relettering paragraphs (b) and (c) as (c) and (d).


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am instructed that this covers the points which were agreed upon at the meeting between the sponsors of the bill and hon. members opposite.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Mr. Speaker.)
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
Stanley Ronald Basford: On a question of privilege, may I thank the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) for agreeing to meet with the promoters of this bill and for agreeing to the amendments. I thank them for their co-operation.


Edward Nasserden: May I say, also on a question of privilege, that the reason I wanted a quorum was this: I believe that when a bill passes third reading there should be a quorum, and that private members hour is a good time at which to have a quorum.


An hon. Member:: Quite right.



EMPIRE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
January 23, 1968-Second reading of Bill S-9, An Act respecting The Empire Life Insurance Company-Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan:: I was about to ask, Mr. Speaker, that by leave this be dropped to the bottom of the list.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



BRITISH NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, January 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. All-mand for the second reading of Bill No. S-14, respecting British Northwestern Insurance Company.
William Arnold Peters: This
measure has been before us on a number of occasions. There has been a considerable difference of opinion as to whether or not it is a Canadian company. We have from time to time been concerned about the number of insurance companies which have made petitions to parliament. When this particular bill was introduced, the impression was given that it was a Canadian-owned company. The sponsor confused the issue in his opening remarks on November 2, 1967, when he said, as reported in Hansard at page 3814:
For the information of the hon. member this company is a Canadian company originally incorporated in Manitoba in 1906 and subsequently
February 29, 1968

Incorporated under Chapter 70 of the statutes of 1910. The original company, Eagle Star, was a British company.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Although to the sponsor this is a Canadian company, the ownership of the company is totally foreign. As Mr. Humphrys said on January 23:
The British Northwestern Insurance Company is a federal company, having been federally incorporated in 1917, but it started earlier as a provincial company. It is owned by the Eagle Star Insurance Company, a prominent British company with world wide interests and a very large volume of business.
How does it become a Canadian company? If this is a Canadian company merely because it is incorporated in Canada, then we have no problem with any companies which are federally incorporated. Being incorporated here they would automatically be naturalized Canadian companies. But in my opinion, and I am sure I will be supported by every person who is interested in seeing Canadian control of Canadian industry, because this company is financed by British money it is not a Canadian owned company.
For some time we in this party have been concerned about the question of foreign owned companies. We have been urging that finance and insurance companies which apply for a federal charter should have a large percentage of Canadian ownership. It is not enough for us to say that we will not grant this company a charter because it will continue to do business under the name of Eagle Insurance. We are interested in seeing that it is made a good Canadian corporate citizen, the term used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If companies are to become good corporate citizens it seems to me that a large part of the control over them should belong to Canadian citizens.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) has written a number of books on the subject of Canadians regaining control of the Canadian economy. The Watkins report, recently tabled under his auspices, points out a number of ways by which control of companies could pass into Canadian hands. Many persons have been interested in this subject, and numerous suggestions have been made. However, many insurance companies do not care about the matter. They do not care what relationship they have with their parent corporations. The return on their investment is more important to them than the actual method by which their companies are controlled.
Private Bills
I think it can safely be said that the Bell Telephone Company, with 2 per cent American ownership by American Bell, is just as dominated by American Bell as are other companies dominated by foreign parent corporations which control 50 per cent of their stock. I believe we should be working to develop Canadian ownership of all these companies, and in particular of insurance companies which collect moneys in Canada and can reinvest those moneys either in Canada or outside Canada.
If the theme of good corporate citizenship is developed fully, the majority of stock in a company must be owned by Canadian citizens. The Canadian public must have an opportunity to buy the stock of foreign subsidiaries. Other countries have taken steps in this direction. Not long ago the majority of companies in the Scandinavian countries were foreign owned, but then the governments of those countries took steps to buy into the foreign owned companies and stipulated that one seat on their boards of directors must be held by the government. As a result Sweden now owns a great percentage of its own industrial companies.
The Japanese passed a law stipulating that no foreigner could do business in Japan unless 51 per cent of the stock of his company was held by the government of Japan. Yet the Japanese are allowed to come to Canada where they are treated so generously and are given so many concessions that they may own 100 per cent of the corporations they establish here. Solutions for this problem can be found in the Watkins committee report, in the Gordon commission report of a few years ago, and in the reports of other commissions which have inquired into the subject.
Frankly I believe the problem is greatest in the insurance industry. That industry provides a lot of the money for capital investment in municipalities, for housing mortgages and in other fields which are important to the development of our nation. I have been shocked to read some reports of concessions that have been made to insurance companies to allow them to take out of the country the money they collect in Canada and invest it elsewhere.
Recently I was surprised to read an editorial in the Toronto Daily Star which referred to a cheap tax ride for Canada's insurance industry. It pointed out that the insurance industry draws 30 per cent of the personal savings of Canadians, and dealt with the reluctance of insurance companies to invest

February 29, 1968
Private Bills
their money in the industrial growth of the nation. It gave facts and figures which I hope some day to put on the record so that hon. members can consider them.
During consideration of a previous bill this session to incorporate the United Investment Life Assurance Company we made the suggestion that within two years of its commencing business it would sell 25 per cent of its stock to its officers, directors, or if necessary to other people who are Canadian residents. That company agreed to write into its charter that if within ten years it had not succeeded in selling 50 per cent of its shares to Canadian citizens, resident in Canada, it would give up its charter and dissolve. I think that company should be congratulated because it has said voluntarily that if it operates a Canadian company in a Canadian field it will be prepared to raise the money in Canada, sell the stock in Canada, and do business in Canada, and if it is not able to do that to the extent of 50 per cent in a period of ten years, it will give up its charter.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I do not wish to put the sponsor of this bill on the spot by asking him to say that this company will accept the proposal that the United Investment Life Assurance Company was willing to accept. I shall not ask him to make a snap decision of this type today. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Since the vote has been demanded pursuant to standing order 6(7) this item of business will stand over until eight o'clock.



SEABOARD FINANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cameron (High Park) for the second reading of Bill S-15, to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada.
Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in respect of Bill S-15, to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada. The Seaboard Finance Company of Canada is an Ontario incorporated company which seeks federal incorporation under the Small Loans Act. I believe it already is a known fact that this company engages in business throughout Canada under its provincial charter. So, should this company be granted federal incorporation, the only benefit that would accrue to it would be that it would have a little greater status in the community because the federal parliament had placed its hand upon it stating that it is free to go out in the business world to conduct the business of small loans.
The Seaboard Finance Company of Canada is a totally owned subsidiary of a large foreign investment company. The Prime Minister has stated that it is his belief and wish that Canadian industry and financial institutions should come progressively more and more under the jurisdiction of Canadian citizens. We believe this to be a good precedent. I should like to support the Prime Minister by saying that these companies which control large blocks of shares in our country should be under Canadian ownership and therefore responsive more to the needs of Canada and less to the needs and influences of a foreign country.
We are reluctant therefore to grant our blessing to this company, that it should go out into the world to conduct this business. Moneylenders have been with us since the beginning of time I presume. They are mentioned in the Bible. In the old days the moneylenders went into the temples and the high priests drove them with whips out of the temple. I do not propose that the moneylenders in this day and age should be whipped, but they certainly do not contribute to the well-being of our country when they charge usurious rates of interest to the people who are placed in the predicament of having to come into their clutches.
Under the Small Loans Act the Canadian people have borrowed approximately $900 million in order to acquire for themselves the
February 29, 19G8

things they need to carry on the business of living in Canada today. When we consider that the rate charged under the Small Loans Act sometimes is as high as 24 per cent we realize that a great deal of money which could otherwise be directed toward the production of more consumer goods is being siphoned off in the form of interest. If a greater percentage of this money which is paid out in the form of interest was retained as spending power in the hands of the consumers, I am sure more employment would be created. We would have a better standard of living and the whole economy of the nation would be improved if this money which is now being paid out in the form of usurious interest were left in the hands of the spender.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we call it seven o'clock, I should like to inform the house that the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) has indicated to me he intended to ask the house for unanimous consent to withdraw the bill from the order paper.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped I would have an opportunity to ask the house for unanimous consent that this bill be allowed to retain its order of priority on the order paper, because we have not had an opportunity to examine it today. I think that would be a better course of action.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, if that is the way my hon. friend feels about it I think it should go to the bottom of the list.


Mr. Speaker:: It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand for the second reading of Bill No. S-14, respecting British Northwestern Insurance Company, and the superseding motion of Mr. Peters.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 7 of standing order No. 6, the house will now
Division
revert to private members business for the purpose of taking a vote which was postponed when private members business was being considered between the hours of six and seven o'clock this evening. The question is on the motion by the hon. member for Timiskaming, that Bill No. S-14 be not now read a second time but that it be read this day six months hence.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The house will now resume in committee of the	
whole.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-197, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act-Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Nicholson)-Mr. Batten in the chair.

On clause 1-
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Before the house proceeded to the consideration of private bills, I heard the minister admit that there is need to improve the public relations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and I am glad he said that. I assume the minister can assure the committee that no part of this bill, which is to amend the act, applies to school teachers in our schools and colleges. I note that the minister says it is impossible to have offices in every community in Canada. I submit that this government's centralization program is not providing a proper service to our people. We still ought to have unemployment insurance offices in every county of Ontario, as we had formerly. If we did that we could give our people far better service than they are now getting.
I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to comment briefly on Bill C-197, which is a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. This indeed is a timely discussion because of the great amount of unemployment we now have in Canada. That rate has reached a high point of almost 7 per cent of the work force- and that rate contradicts the boasts of the various cabinet ministers about this country's great rate of economic progress.
Conditions are not as good in Canada as they might be. They are not as good as the government tries to make out they are. Under this government, all along the line production rates are falling, and often failing. This government does not look after our export trade as the previous government did. The annual increase in our gross national product this year stands at a new low. The export markets which were built up by the former Conservative government are being either lost or crippled as the result of the Kennedy round of trade agreements. That leads to unemployment. A leading example of the former statement, to do with export markets, is to be found in our diminishing wheat export sales.
I have in my hand a page from the Globe and Mail of February 28, and the heading over one article is, "Wheat exports sliding farther from '67 level". This proves that this government is not pursuing the promotion of wheat exports as vigorously as did the previous government. Lowering the level of exports certainly brings unemployment.
February 29, 1968
This country's canning and food processing industry, which is very important to my constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox, is not prospering as it should because this government's national and world outlook precludes it from giving that industry the assistance and service that is necessary for the industry to prosper. Accordingly we have more unemployment in our counties, in areas where fruit and food processing was a sustaining industry. These remarks tie in with unemployment and with the subject of this bill; that is because the policy of this government is creating more unemployment in the canning industry and other industries.
Evidently, from reading clause 1 of Bill C-197, the government foresees no change in our present high rate of unemployment. Those who earn up to $7,800 a year are to be brought under the act as insured persons. The government knows that those who earn between $5,460 and $7,800 per annum, and who are to be brought under this act, will no doubt have a better record of continuous employment than those who earn less. Therefore it is bolstering the unemployment insurance fund pretty much at the expense of this category of salaried persons. I also recognize that hourly wage rates have increased. These increases have put hourly wage earners into a position that is different from the one they occupied in the 1950's and early 1960's, so far as the application of the act is concerned. I cannot say that I support totally this new coverage nor that I support totally the new benefit rates. I caution the government to be careful about measures that make it more profitable for one to be unemployed.
In some quarters there is at present some uncertainty about the advisability of having compulsory unemployment insurance throughout the agricultural industry. I wish to place on record two resolutions from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which are contained in a brief they presented this week to the cabinet and to various parties in this house. The first resolution is headed "Declaration of Inconsiderable Employment". This, I take it, pertains to transient and seasonal labour, and it reads as follows:
Whereas certain segments of agricultural producers must rely on part time help; and
Whereas many of these part time employees are not interested in any other employment; and
Whereas it is unlikely that these employees would or could benefit from unemployment insurance;
Resolved that the Unemployment Insurance Commission reinstate the validity of the "Declaration of Inconsiderable Employment" so that part-time 27053-4501
Unemployment Insurance Act employees in agriculture have the prerogative as to whether they desire to be covered by Unemployment Insurance.
In other words, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is asking the government not to make the coverage of agricultural workers compulsory.
The next resolution in the brief reads as follows:
Whereas unemployment insurance was introduced for agricultural workers earlier in the year; and
Whereas the regulations were modified later in such a manner as to curtail its application to seasonal workers; and
Whereas the value or effect of Unemployment Insurance for farm labour is negligible;
Resolved that this program, as it applies to agriculture, be the subject of future study and recommendation by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I recommend that the government's agricultural task force, which I assume is touring the country and looking into agricultural problems, consider these resolutions and conditions across the country and make recommendations regarding them.
I wish to bring up another point. Why is it so common for a man or woman who has paid unemployment insurance for many years, who has been a steady worker and never laid off, to have trouble collecting unemployment insurance when it is necessary to do so? Why are such people who have been steady workers and who have never been laid off so often refused cheques for extended periods? Why are they subject to humiliation and loss of money due to them, because of the runaround they so frequently get from the workers in the unemployment insurance offices? Why should these worthy insured persons be subject to the procrastination of clerks in these offices? Many instances of this have been brought to my attention, and in this connection I should like to quote from a letter I have received from a constituent calling attention, among other things, to the fact that people whose contributions have built up the very strength of the unemployment insurance fund cannot readily collect insurance when it is due to them, while on the other hand those who have been employed for only a short length of time, those whose employment record is never continuous, can usually walk into an unemployment insurance office and walk out with a cheque. I am sure I am not the only member of this house who has received complaints of this kind. This is one

February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act letter 1 received, under date of January 26, 1968:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Dear Mr. Alkenbrack,
I am writing concerning unemployment insurance. I have worked almost continuously from the time I left high school and paid into unemployment all that time. I have never drawn unemployment before, until now. I was laid off on September 18, 1967 and had to correspond, back and forth for six weeks, before I finally got unemployment insurance.
So I have actually drawn a very short time and today I got a letter saying "We are waiting a decision on your claim. When received we will send any benefit that may be payable to you." I hardly think that's fair. After all you see people who only work long enough so they can draw, they go in and have no trouble at all getting insurance, while people who are willing to work keep them going. Then, when we get laid off, we have to put up an awful fight to get insurance.
My husband had the same trouble, he has worked for 15 years and this is only the second time he has ever drawn. He also had to wait for six weeks before he got anything. If it hadn't been for the small amount I drew, we would have starved to death. He never had a cent for six weeks. He had to phone over there-*
This letter is written by a lady in Picton, Ontario. When she refers to "over there" she is referring to the Belleville office. The letter continues:
He had to phone over there, write back and forth, and what all he didn't have to do. They also went through his book and took the lowest stamp and gave him $33 instead of $36. He worked for a trucking company and the majority of his stamps were the highest you pay. When I was getting something, we could at least eat and buy oil. Now we are beside ourselves with worry for you know as well as I that $33 does not even feed a family of six properly, let alone buy fuel, pay hydro and phone, make our house payment and pay any other bills that the average family has. Also, with that amount of money, we cannot afford doctor's coverage and hospitalization which is an added worry.
We will have to lose our house and all the hard work we put into it. Then what will we do? Our payment is smaller than most places to rent so if we can't pay it, how can we rent a place?
There are quite a few families in this area in the same predicament and I think its time somebody tried to help us or give us some idea how to help ourselves. There are parents and children in this town who are actually cold and hungry and most of them are good willing workers, but we just can't find any work. And the unemployment insurance think because we are from a small town they can pull the wool over our eyes and we'll sit back and take it.
That is all I shall read from that letter. I have visited this family. The lady is certainly not exaggerating. They are having a tough time; the money should have been available to them long ago. I am now investigating the above complaint and I know the minister will

give me every consideration because I am sure he will not tolerate this sort of treatment of applicants.
Here is another complaint from a constituent of mine in Napanee, a man who has been working for one firm all his life since 1913. How long ago is that, Mr. Chairman? Fifty five years, working for one firm, during which time he never drew an unemployment insurance benefit. I quote this letter to show the kind of ill treatment to which many people in this country are being subjected. The letter is dated February 15, 1968, and is as follows: Dear Sir,
In regard to unemployment I am sending this letter to you. As you know I have worked with the Napanee Iron Works, now the Napanee Industries, since 1913 at the age of 12 years, worked through two world wars.
I was ill in September 1966 and was home for some time. I was unable to return to the kind of work I had been doing. I had to have lighter work which they did not have at that time. The Napanee Industries gave me a lay-off slip until such time I applied for unemployment in September 1967 and was told by the manpower office in Kingston-
Here again I pause to inform the committee that the unemployment insurance office has been moved out of Napanee and centralized, in this case, in Kingston.
-that I did not have enough stamps in one year, also they wanted a doctor's certificate saying I was able to work, which I sent to them with a letter from Napanee Industries and the unemployment book with the stamps for my holiday pay for 1967. They still say I do not have enough stamps. I have paid unemployment since it started. It hardly seems fair. If there is anything that can be done about this I will really appreciate it.
Thanking you,
Milton Vanalstine.
I have no hesitation about reading this man's name into the record, because I have known him for years and I know he deserves whatever benefits the law will give him with regard to unemployment insurance. Canada owes this man and thousands more like him across our country a debt of gratitude, as well as the unemployment insurance which is coming to him after 55 years in the industrial service of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, both the minister and I are investigating this case. A good many of these evils and ills can be laid against the heartless practices and narrow confined thinking of bureaucracy. I am not entirely blaming this government. One must know and recognize the workings of bureaucracy. When these evils are pointed out to
February 29, 1968	COMMONS
whatever government happens to be in power I think that government should see to it that these wrongs are righted.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We need a complete overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act to make it work in a more equitable way in serving unemployed people under present changing conditions, conditions unknown in the 1940's and 1950's. People who have contributed for many years should not be discriminated against. I find that the man who has never applied for unemployment insurance and has never drawn unemployment insurance benefits often disqualifies himself when filling out the tricky and intricate application forms. On the other hand, the man who goes often to an unemployment insurance office knows how to fill out these forms, so that thereby he does not disqualify himself.
As I have already inferred I want to impress upon the minister that I am very much against the moving of unemployment insurance offices to the larger centres. I am sure I speak for a large part of the country when I say this, because this is the general opinion across the country. This centralization is not good; it results in the power of decision being placed in the hands of officials who do not know local conditions. What does an official in Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston or Belleville know about the cases of local applicants in smaller centres like Napanee and Picton? I say to the government, quit recognizing the Unemployment Insurance Act and its benefits as a charity to be doled out in a niggardly manner to the people, and recognize the program for what it is: an insurance fund which belongs to the people who paid into it. They should have full and ready access to it in time of need.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make that I hope will receive the minister's attention, and I also want to ask him a couple of questions. First, however, I wish to state that I am very glad that he has seen fit to exempt the teaching profession from compulsory contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. In the province from which I come there is absolutely no unemployment in the teaching profession, and there is not any chance that there will be unemployment in it.
There is one other profession that is in the same boat. I am sure the minister has
DEBATES	7139
Unemployment Insurance Act received a resolution from the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses, which reads:
-Resolved that the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses representing approximately 10,000 graduate professional nurses in the province of Alberta do strenuously object to any changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act or regulations made thereunder that would have the effect of compelling graduate professional nurses to make compulsory contributions to the unemployment insurance fund.
I did not hear the minister say whether nurses are exempted, but their profession also is one in which there is no unemployment, and it would be very unfair if they had to pay into the unemployment insurance fund all the time and not get any benefit from it. I hope the minister will tell me exactly where the nurses stand, and I hope it is in the same place as the members of the teaching profession.
It seems that for some people the Unemployment Insurance Act works out very nicely, while for others it does not work so well. About ten days ago I received a letter from a lady in my constiuency, who was laid off work last fall. She lives in a small town. Incidentally in Alberta we are not faced with the difficulty of having any local unemployment insurance offices closed because we just do not have any. These offices are in Edmonton, Calgary, and perhaps in the other bigger cities. There are none in the smaller towns, even though many of the smaller towns serve large communities.
This lady informed me that on January 21 she received a letter inquiring if she would travel more than 15 miles to work, if work were found for her. She said that during the winter she felt she should not be asked to travel more than 15 miles to find work. Later on she telephoned the office in Edmonton and told the officials she would travel a matter of 25 or 30 miles, provided it was on a good road. She immediately got word back that she had been disqualified and would not receive any more benefits.
I wrote back immediately and told her she had better make an appeal to the board of referees. She did just that, but in the meantime she is not getting any unemployment insurance benefit, and she cannot get her job back until springtime. Even though it appears to be springtime in Alberta at the moment, it is just too soon for it, and so she will have her job back probably in May. However, in the meantime she has nothing to live on.
She also told me that other people who had been working in the same place, who worked
February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act exactly the same amount of time, and who are living in the same town as she is, have not been cut off. No inquiries have been made about them and she simply cannot understand why in the world she was discriminated against. I did not bother the minister by writing to him about the case. However, I did write direct to the manager of the unemployment insurance office in Edmonton, a day or two after I had replied to the lady, and he wrote back that she had already followed my advice, that she had appealed to the board of referees, and that her file had gone to Winnipeg and was now out of his hands.
I have not yet received a reply from the Winnipeg office, but it seems very strange that people living in the same town, who had been working at the same job, who had put in exactly the same amount of time, even to the hour, were not questioned, while this one account was looked up and payment stopped. Why in the world does this procedure not apply to everybody? I think that is the way it should be.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Similar cases have come to my attention concerning persons whose payments were stopped. In most instances I was able to have those payments started again. I do not know, however, what the situation will be in this particular case. As I have said, other people have been in the same position as this lady. This situation would seem to parallel that described in the 91st psalm, where it is written that-
-a thousand shall fall at thy left hand and ten thousand at thy right hand; yet shall it not come nigh unto thee.
It does seem to me that this should not be the situation when we are dealing with something as important as unemployment insurance payments. I am sure thq minister will say a few words about these things, when he has the opportunity. I hope he will pay particular attention to the resolution from the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses and to situations like those I mentioned which concern the people whom I have mentioned.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's remarks in closing the debate on second reading, when he referred to the problem concerning the closing of the unemployment insurance offices. This problem has been raised by nearly every member who has spoken.

In his explanation the minister mentioned two or three points, one of which was that he did not have control over this matter because it is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the commission, only one member of which is a government appointee, the other two being labour and management appointees. I do not think it is necessarily a bad situation to have the appointments made in this manner. It has worked in this way for a long time.
Second, he mentioned that it had relation to the computerization and the I.B.M. cards. He pointed out that it is cheaper to handle the situation in this manner. But if a service is not provided to the people, then there is no value in its being cheaper. We are trying to serve the people. We are operating an insurance plan for the workers of Canada; it is their money we are administering.
The operation of this plan should be carried out so that the needs of the people are met. I can assure the minister that there is no benefit in terms of service to the people in many of the semi-rural areas. The minister may not be aware of this but, for instance in my area, there are many people who have a limited education in the language they use. The native tongue of many people in my area is French, yet most of them attended English speaking schools. They have great difficulty understanding the forms which are provided. One question with which they have difficulty is that pertaining to transportation. They are asked whether they have transportation. In many cases the person writes "no". When I discuss the situation with such a person and have the letter from the Unemployment Insurance Commission in front of me I ask him whether he drives a car, and he answers that he does. Then I ask him whether he has a car and he states that he has. Then I say to him, "You have transportation". He replies, "No; don't have transportation". Then I ask him what he considers to be transportation and he replies, "train and bus".
This is not the fault of the person involved. If he were able to go to the unemployment insurance office they would be able to ascertain in a moment whether or not he had transportation. This, however, cannot be done by means of a computer. The computer is not able to ascertain the interpretation the applicant places on the word "transportation". There is no advantage in the computer system if it does not provide a service. That system is satisfactory when used by a large insurance company, because such a company
February 29, 1968	COMMONS
also has people who visit the policyholders and have a personal contact with them. It is all right for the head office to be computerized. If the post offices or the manpower centres were permitted to provide the services which formerly were provided by the unemployment insurance offices, we might be able to solve some of these problems. Originally these two important offices had a dual function, but they have now been separated.
I believe the minister must give further consideration to this matter of the division of these services. He mentioned that this came about before the last cabinet shuffle. I agree, but I feel sure he will agree with me that if these changes do not help the persons who are entitled to draw benefits, then the matter should be reconsidered. Almost every member who has spoken has expressed his concern about the problem of non-service to the individual and the fact that the individual does not receive any satisfaction from a computer. The computer does not do anything for him; it does not give him any money either. It may satisfy the officials in the department, but it certainly does not satisfy the people. I am surprised that the Liberal members in this house have no problems. I am surprised that they appear to come from urban areas in which there are unemployment insurance offices and manpower centres in the same town.
I am not suggesting that there should be an unemployment insurance office in every town, but I am suggesting that there should be one in every area. The people in my area can travel 140 miles to Timmins, but the office there is in a period of transition. Timmins will not be the sole depository for information concerning unemployment insurance. In the future it may be necessary for a person to go to Toronto. If one must drive to Toronto in order to find out about his unemployment insurance he may decide that it would be easier to go on the dole and obtain assistance from the municipality.
I wish the minister godspeed in any change he may be contemplating, because many people are totally dissatisfied with this situation.
I believe that if the minister wished to do so he could bring in provisions which would reverse the situation so that a service would be provided to the people. I think the minister forgets the purpose of the fund. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you must have been surprised at the statements which were made tonight which implied that after a person had been employed for a long period of time he
DEBATES	7141
Unemployment Insurance Act should be able to get his money back. The minister applauds. I think this is a ridiculous situation. This is not an endowment policy; it is an insurance program. A person should only get his money back if he is available for work and no work is available for him. There is no other reason.
It seems to me there is a grave misunderstanding concerning what the unemployment insurance program is expected to do. Certainly the statements that have been made by a number of people who have excited the teachers would indicate that there is a need for better public relations in respect of unemployment insurance. Under the former director the matter of public relations was in good hands, but ever since there has been no continuation of a satisfactory public relations policy. Personally I had great respect for Mr. McGregor, the former director.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The minister may not feel it is within his prerogative to make these changes, but we have made changes before and are willing to make more. It seems that we should be willing to make changes in the regulations as well as in the legislation. The regulations are creating a situation which as a former labour representative I feel, was not anticipated. We have heard about the many letters hon. members have received, and I could read perhaps 15 or 20 of a similar nature which I have received in the last week or two. These problems now being brought to the attention of members of parliament might well have been handled by agents in the areas, to the satisfaction of the people involved.
This fund does not belong to the government; it belongs to the people who have contributed to it. Surely they should have some way of telling the government how they feel it should be administered. This is the place where this should be done. I am surprised the minister is not more flexible in the position he takes. I am sure he could have greater influence on the commission than he has indicated.


Mr. Hymmen:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are not prompted by the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming, because I intended to say something about amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. No one questions that this legislation introduced by the Liberal government has provided benefits to the Canadian working force. Over the years there have been problems. When in the
February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act absence of the Minister of Labour the Minister of National Health and Welfare introduced this bill, I was encouraged by his explanation of the unemployment insurance program the government intended to carry out, and I was particularly impressed by the action suggested in respect of abuses.
In some respects the Unemployment Insurance Act is misnamed. Most hon. members of this house have life insurance, automobile insurance, accident insurance and fire insurance. They carry this insurance, not with the certainty but with the probability of receiving benefits. When the Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced there was a great deal of unemployment in this country. It was introduced in an attempt to provide funds to support the unemployed. Since that time our standards of education and living have increased considerably.
A close look should be taken not only at this act but at other legislation of this type on our statute books. The benefits provided under various statutes should be co-ordinated. I had occasion to speak about unemployment insurance in this house not long ago, when we were considering a private member's bill. I noted that members of the official opposition asked why the government did not adopt the recommendations of the Gill committee report. Let me say that I disagree entirely with one of the recommendations of that commttee regarding the universality of unemployment insurance. The recommendation was that regardless of the probability or possibility of an individual benefiting from unemployment insurance, he should make payments in order to provide funds for others who may benefit.
The Minister of Labour denied that there was some concern among professionals and self-employed indivduals regarding payments to the unemployment insurance fund, without the likelihood of their receiving any benefits. I have received many letters in this regard from these people expressing some concern. I disagree entirely with the principle involved in this recommendation regarding universality.
I am in full support of the higher ceiling in respect of unemployment insurance payments. Wages and standards of living have increased since this bill was last amended, and I believe that the maximum allowance for a working man with dependants is hopelessly inadequate. I am happy that the maximum has not reached that proposed last summer, because I felt at the time the suggested maximum was too high.

Some members, including the hon. member for Timiskaming, have referred to problems connected with consolidation of the activities of unemployment insurance offices. I represent a riding in which the unemployment insurance office has been consolidated with the office of a neighbouring riding, so I am aware of some problems resulting from this consolidation. While I support efficiency in any government operation, the use of I.B.M. methods has created problems. Many of those seeking benefits in this country have come from foreign lands and find difficulty in filling out forms. For this reason there is some merit in the suggestion that the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission should be co-ordinated with those of the manpower department. In this way some direct help could be given to those individuals who are legitimately eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, but who for various reasons have difficulty filling out these forms. Many of them fill out forms inaccurately, with the result that the forms are then returned to be filled out again. This causes delays.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
There is another problem I should like to bring to the minister's attention. It has been suggested to me that in some of the larger municipalities there is a problem with regard to welfare benefits paid by the municipality. In these areas people are sometimes out of work because of specific conditions in the municipality. We all know that the municipality has the responsibility to look after people who for reasons beyond their control are not able to find an immediate means of livelihood. There is here a problem caused by the remote nature of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and it is very difficult to determine whether unemployment insurance benets are legitimately claimed and whether they should be provided. This has caused a great deal of trouble to the welfare departments in these municipalities. They do not know whether to provide sustenance immediately, whether to wait until the unemployment insurance benefits are received, or what to do about the problem.
Under the old operation-and again I say I would defend any change which reduced cost and produced more efficiency in any government operation-there was more direct liaison between the unemployment insurance office or the manpower office and the municipal welfare department. It was much easier to determine whether the unemployment insurance benefits should be paid, or whether the
February 29, 1968

responsibility should be borne immediately by the municipal welfare department, so as to make sure that people who through no fault of their own were in need of assistance were not deprived of the necessities of housing and food.
I ask the minister whether this problem has been brought to his attention by municipalities and provincial welfare departments. If there are situations where a curtailment of industrial operation due to certain circumstances has brought an increase in welfare benefits, the knowledge that individuals who apply for such assistance will receive unemployment insurance benefits, and when they will receive them, would be very important to those responsible for seeing that these people are able to provide their immediate necessities.
We know that if an individual who is eligible for unemployment insurance benefit also receives municipal welfare, it is extremely doubtful that he will return that benefit to which he is not entitled. I trust that the minister will give this matter serious consideration and will take it up with the municipalities. I know there is great concern in my own municipality, and on the part of the Ontario welfare departments that are responsible for the administration of welfare payments.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words at this stage of the debate and tell the minister, in my turn, that I support the bill as far as the increase in the rates of unemployment insurance benefits is concerned.
On the other hand, while I agree with that part of the bill, I would have hoped that this piece of legislation sponsored by the minister had contained several other amendments to the present Unemployment Insurance Act and had provided for a reorganization of the U.I.C. system.
Like previous speakers, I feel that unemployment insurance offices are a little too widely scattered in rural areas. For instance, in the area I represent, namely Chapleau, one of the largest ridings of the country, there is no unemployment insurance office. In the entire northwestern area, there are only two, one in Rouyn and another in Val d'Or. But there is none in the riding of Chapleau. On the other hand, the Chibougamau-Chapais area is served by the Chicoutimi office.
From the Amos and La Sarre areas, or from the parishes to the north, especially the
Unemployment Insurance Act new centre of Lebel-Quevillon, there is a fairly long distance to cover before reaching the unemployment insurance office.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I feel it may be advisable to review that situation. I realize that applications for benefits can be sent through the mail, but as other members have pointed out, some delays at times are probably due to the fact that several applicants are somewhat less educated than the average people. Since they find it hard to understand the application forms for unemployment insurance benefits, they sometimes complete them incorrectly, which causes delays. That is why I feel that situation should be reviewed. If it is not possible to open new offices, in order to make them more available to the public, the mail application system might be reviewed and perhaps improved.
Another thing I should like to point out to the minister tonight has to do with the board of referees. There again, there is only one office in my area, the one at Rouyn, where people can lodge their appeals. Of course, those who are not satisfied with the official's decision are told that there are no costs to appeal to the board of referees. But a person must still incur travel and hotel expenses in Rouyn, and this may be quite an amount. We have to consider that a person out of work, who is claiming unemployment insurance benefits which are not given to him when he thinks he is entitled to them, is already short of money to travel, and he runs the risk of losing his appeal. Expenses are always high in such cases, and he thereby deprives his whole family of several dollars that could be used for their needs. There again, in my opinion, the members of the board of referees could be allowed at least to go to each of the unemployment insurance offices to hear the appeals, thereby sparing needless expenses to the claimants.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, when he introduced this bill, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) said, I think, that a large number of claimants were making false claims. I doubt that the number is very large. The fact that there are some such cases leads me to think that a difference should be made between those who make a false claim and those who make a faulty claim. I have often observed that when a claimant presented a faulty claim, he was acting in good faith. However, in every case, the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission think that the claimant has made a false statement.
February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act In my opinion, that is unfair. These people should at least be given the benefit of the doubt until proved guilty.
It must not be thought that claiments are the only ones who make mistakes or erroneous statements. I have noticed cases where the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission themselves had made a mistake; they are not above making mistakes. These cases should also be taken into consideration.
There is another point I should like to make to the minister-I think he was told about it in the last two days-and that is, that employers, when they dismiss some of their employees, quite often neglect to give them their unemployment insurance booklet. This puts the employee or the claimant in a difficult situation. Some do not know what to do and do not put in their claim immediately; they wait until they receive their unemployment insurance booklet from their employer. Others, on the other hand, put in their claim immediately but, since they do not send their unemployment insurance booklet along with it, they encounter various difficulties and sometimes lose unemployment insurance benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled. I think that is what happens usually.
In my opinion, the number of mistaken claims is small in comparison with the ever increasing number of unemployment insurance claims. I think this should not receive more attention than necessary, and that steps should instead be taken to help the claimants to fill out their claim forms.
In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I will point out that nearly every month, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, through the Unemployment Insurance Commission, discloses the number of unemployed in Canada and in each province. Sometimes we are told that there are 280,000 unemployed. Other times, there are 300,000, 400,000; I think that there are now 465,000, if not more.
I wonder whether these figures give us a true picture of the employment situation in Canada. The public is brought to believe that there are now 465,000 unemployed in Canada, but there is one thing I want to emphasize: among these 465,000 unemployed, some were working a month ago or will be working in one, two, four weeks or more. What I want to say is that during the twelve months of a year, there are a lot more than 465,000 people who, at a given time, are unemployed and apply for unemployment insurance benefits.
On June 8, 1964, the government gave me an answer to a question I had put in the
[Mr. Laprise.3
order paper. It pointed out that there had been in 1957,	1,256,051 people who had
applied for unemployment insurance benefits; that means that in 1957, 1,256,051 workers had been unemployed at one time or another. In 1958, this figure was up to 1,682,948 applicants or unemployed. In 1959, it has risen to 1,792,864. In 1960, it had fallen slightly, to 1,742,508 claimants, in 1961, the number of claimants had never been so high, 1,814,326. In 1962, there were 1,613,308 and in 1963, 1,507,802. In 1964, the last year for which I got figures, the number of applicants reached 1,385,142. All this to point out, Mr. Chairman, that those individuals at a certain time of the year were unemployed, only drawing some unemployment insurance benefits to provide for their needs and those of their family.
We know that any labourer who works two months a year, either in the building industry, as a lumberman or in any other field where the legislation allows him to draw unemployment insurance benefits, needs his entire income to make both ends meet. Now, how can the individuals who are out of work several weeks each year do so? Those persons always have an inadequate income and consequently can hardly succeed in living properly. Such is the situation at the present time, when the country has about 465,000 unemployed. However, in the year 1967, I do not think that the number of workers who had to live for some time on their unemployment insurance cheques exceeded one million.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the increase in the benefit rates comes at the right time and improves somewhat the condition of those people who, at some time or other, have but that source of income to live on. That is why I agree with that part of the bill and I shall support it.
However, I notice that under this bill, the minister thought of including in the scope of the legislation people who have almost no chance to become unemployed. For instance, I take the case of the professors. I have in hand a letter signed by the president of the Quebec Teachers Corporation, Mr. Laliberte, who precisely points out the fact that, as far as the teachers are concerned, at least in the province of Quebec, the probability of benefiting from that insurance is practically nil.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think that-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the hon. member would want me to correct the impression
February 29, 1968
he seems to have. The proposed amendment to this act by reason of the raising of the ceiling to $7,800 does not include teachers, nurses or any of the other people in such categories. It only extends to people, who are already covered by the act. I feel that this fact should be made clear, because many people seem to be under some misunderstanding.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. minister for putting the record straight. I really thought that even the school teachers or any employee earning less than $6,500 had to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund.
I shall also point out to the hon. minister that, at the present time at least, most people who earn a salary of $6,000 or more, as a rule, have very little chance to become unemployed because precisely they hold steady jobs.
Take the case, for instance, of railway employees who are going to contribute for a whole year and will have very little chance to become unemployed. I think the hon. minister has taken precautions so that the fund does not run dry.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a remark and, at the same time, put a question to the hon. minister. I hope that he will be able to give me detailed information, or to tell me what the situation is at the present time.
We know, at least with regard to the province of Quebec, that the employees of the departments of highways or of colonization, do not contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. I do not think the hon. minister, the federal government, or the Unemployment Insurance Commission are concerned in this connection; but the Quebec government is.
In any event, I should like to know whether there have been recent negotiations, or whether negotiations are in progress, as a result of which the province of Quebec agrees that the employees of the departments of highways or colonization, or any other civil servants, should contribute to the unemployment insurance fund, because the employees of the departments already mentioned work only six months per year for the government and must find other employment, in the bush or elsewhere for the rest of the time. As a result, there is always a slack period, either
Unemployment Insurance Act in the fall or in the spring where for a few weeks they are not entitled to unemployment insurance, because they are without work, and are therefore not covered.
I should, therefore, like to know from the hon. minister whether negotiations are under way between the two governments to help those people. I should like to know whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission or the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), who is responsible for that commission, could initiate an agreement with the Quebec government to allow those people to benefit from unemployment insurance coverage. I hope the hon. minister can give me that information.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, we in the official opposition hope that it will still be possible tonight to complete the committee study of the bill, and then give the measure a third reading. We do so for two reasons, the first of which is the uncertainty that descends upon our proceedings from time to time, and the second is our honest desire to clear the way for the political steeplechase that is going to take place in April. It is our hope that perhaps we can finish before the ides of March and let the would-be Caesars go forth to their respective fates.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am going to throw away the speech I was going to make and ask the minister one simple question. Are serious studies now going on in his department, before a government committee, or in the unemployment insurance commission itself in relation to the recommendations of the Gill report? If so, when might we expect legislation to be placed before this parliament arising therefrom?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, if I might reply to the question just asked by the hon. member for Halifax, I can assure him and other hon. members of the committee that the studies are being continued. Some studies have been completed. There is general support, I think, for many of the recommendations made by the Gill committee. Not for all of them, however; some will need modification in light of the events that have transpired since that committee made its very important and comprehensive study. However, I can assure the hon. member that this work is still under way under a committee chaired by the new chairman of the commission. It is the confident expectation of the government that legislation in the form of an important,

February 29, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act comprehensive overhaul of the act will be introduced, certainly not at this session but we hope at the next session of parliament.
While I am on my feet I should like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Chapleau regarding provincial civil servants. I understand that civil servants generally, whether employed by the province of Quebec or any other province in Canada, can be brought under the provisions of the act at the request of the provincial government concerned. The government of the province of Quebec understands this and it is up to that government to make a move if they wish such civil servants to be covered by unemployment insurance. There may be minor modifications in my statement to provincial employees, but I think I have given the accurate statement of the facts.
I think I have dealt with most of the other questions asked. When speaking on a question of privilege while the hon. member for Chapleau had the floor, I dealt with the question raised by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox in connection with teachers and certain other professions. There is no intention of including under the act teachers, nurses, doctors or other professional classes that do not need the benefits of the unemployment insurance program at the present time. I cannot speak for future governments, but I know that the government of which I am a member has no such course in mind. I gave that assurance to the house several months ago, but it may be that some hon. members of the committee were not in the house on that particular day.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox also made reference to the brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The coverage extended to employees of the agricultural industry-and agriculture has now become an industry in this country-was extended at the request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They were ably supported I might say by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, who kept pressing for action over a period of months.
The federation has now asked for changes in the act or regulations and I can assure hon. members-and I have this from the commission itself-that at the request of the agricultural industry changes have already been made in the regulations governing agriculture. These new regulations have not been in force long enough, however, to make a final determination of the extent and nature of the

coverage, but the problems that have arisen are under constant study. The commission assures me that it will listen sympathetically to reasonable suggestions for improvement which might come from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or from any other interested body.
The hon. member for Timiskaming made certain suggestions and alleged that there were defects in the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act. He also stressed that the guiding feature should not be that of economy. Perhaps he did not hear me when I said this afternoon that the commission stated, at least in their report to me, that while economies are important the efficient operation of the act is of paramount importance. They are trying to keep all these factors in mind as they apply the provisions of the act.
However, Mr. Chairman, although many of these suggestions are helpful and will be kept in mind when the over-all revision of the act takes place, I should remind hon. members that the scope of the bill under consideration is limited, and particularly that the time factor is very important. I can assure hon. members that it will be a minimum of three months, and perhaps a little more than that, after the act has been passed and has received royal assent before the forms can be printed and made available and before the act can be put into operation. Therefore early passage of the measure is necessary if we want to accomplish the results that all parties in the house seem anxious to bring about as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
February 29, 1968



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader to confirm what business the government proposes to lay before the house tomorrow and on Monday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we intend to call supplementary estimates, beginning with agriculture. When that is completed, we shall call the finance estimates.


John Angus MacLean: When does the house leader propose to take up the housing act bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not certain, Mr. Speaker. Our understanding was that we would deal with agriculture and then with finance; but I shall be happy to discuss with the house leaders when to call the housing act bill.


John Angus MacLean: I presume that when we reach the finance item we shall have a wide ranging debate on the subject, as agreed previously.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I think that is the understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To complete the record, was it not made clear that external affairs would follow finance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, that was the
understanding.


Edward Nasserden: May I ask the house leader whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce will announce the final payments for wheat, oats and barley in the discussion on the agriculture estimates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Winona Grace MacInnis: 7148	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion with all consumer problems except the most important one of price. When it comes to price, he says, no.
There is one point at which the minister's "no" has broken down, and as far as I am concerned this is the thin end of the wedge. He has been prepared to introduce legislation having to do with the Trade Marks Act and the Patent Act which, he says, will have the effect of lowering prices to the consumer. To quote his own words:
The government now has a program which it calculates will bring about a reduction in the price of drugs to the consumer.
I am not saying the entire program resides in amendments to the patents and trade marks legislation. But if the government is prepared to go ahead with a program which it believes will bring down the price of drugs, then I maintain there is nothing to prevent this administration from taking action which it believes will bring down the price of basic household essentials and commodities such as gas, oil, steel and the rest. I have no means of knowing whether the government's policy with respect to drugs will work. But they cut the ground from beneath their own feet when they introduced this legislation to bring down drug prices. I want to ask the government when it is intended to bring in such a program to deal with prices in the other fields I have mentioned. The people are waiting anxiously for this to be done. In the meantime a great many of them are no longer able even to keep up the pretence of enjoying a modern standard of living.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and tell her, first of all, that the government obviously does not have absolute jurisdiction in the field of price control.

With respect to prices it is well known that the federal jurisdiction is limited in this area. Since the federal government does not have authority to impose pervasive price controls, except in a national emergency such as war, legislation which establishes price levels is provincial legislation, and I think that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) knows this pretty well. The only exception to this in the federal field is the

DEBATES	February 29, 1968
rates set for certain public utilities, such as railway rates.
The movement of prices depends on a number of complicated factors. Some of the factors depend on world economic conditions; others relate to domestic fiscal, monetary and tariff policy. The conditions and economic expectations of the marketplace also come into play. As hon. members are aware, the department does not have responsibility for the major instruments of fiscal policy which influence the general level of prices. These matters have been dealt with on a number of occasions by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and he has clearly shown that there is no simple solution.
Our department does have responsibility for legislation that indirectly influences the level of prices, and it is our intention as effectively as possible to use the means at our disposal. Among these means there is the Combines Investigation Act, which seeks to eliminate certain practices in restraint of trade in goods and some specific services. Under this legislation a formal inquiry into price increases is made if the price increases appear to be the result of some action which is itself an offence under that act, such as a conspiracy, an abuse of monopoly power, or an attempt to enforce resale price maintenance.
It is our intention moreover to seek to have the legislation amended to include services not presently covered by it. These amendments will have to wait until the Economic Council of Canada makes its report advising on the modernization of the Combines Investigation Act, which will make this act even more effective.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs can also examine and analyse selected areas of federal activities which can influence prices, and take remedial action. There is now before the house legislation to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act, which is intended to stimulate price competition among sellers of patented and trade marked drugs, through reducing protection against imports which is provided by the present legislation. When taking part in the debate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway praised the government for bringing this important legislation before the house. This legislation is only one step in a program intended to lower the prices of drugs, while ensuring safe drugs and a viable domestic drug industry.
February 29, 19G8
The new department is also undertaking investigation and research designed to assist consumers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman's time has expired.



CRIMINAL CODE-SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPECTING REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) whether he is considering including a section in the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code which would spell out the right to counsel of any person involved in difficulties with the law. I am sorry that the minister is not present tonight because, knowing his long and active interest in the question of civil liberties before he became a member of this house, I would like to get an explanation from him for his rejection of the suggestion that such a provision be added to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.
There is no question, Mr. Speaker, but that there have been, and frequently are cases of people who have been and are treated much more roughly by the courts than they ought to be, simply because they have not been able to afford to be represented by counsel. Several weeks ago newspapers across Canada carried reports such as this one which appeared in the Toronto Star of February 10:
The Supreme Court of Canada struck a blow for common sense and humanity this week when it ordered the release of John Hadden.
John Hadden is the British Columbia man who was sentenced to what amounts to life imprisonment for the theft of a $1.25 can opener.
He was convicted as a habitual criminal. I am certain that he, like 95 per cent of others who are convicted of being habitual criminals, was not represented by a lawyer when so charged. Similarly there was a recent case in the Quebec courts of a man accused of murder, I, believe, who testified that when he was picked up by the police, was being questioned and asked to be represented by counsel, he was refused this request. While he was being held by the police he was beaten into unconsciousness-so many times in fact that he confessed to the crime which he claims he did not commit. He may or may not have been telling the truth. The fact is, however, that he did not have counsel. I believe he should have had the right to have counsel.
I should like to remind hon. members of the Steven Truscott case. I wish to refer only
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to the fact that Steven Truscott, a 14 year old boy, was picked up by the police and questioned for five or six hours-this fact has not been disproved by anyone-without having a lawyer represent him. When his father came to the police station to be with him the police kept his father in an anteroom. I believe this is the type of action we should not tolerate in this country. Many Canadians believe that the United States is much less a democratic country than ours, but the United States supreme court has spelled out clearly and definitely the rights of people who are being questioned by the police to be represented by counsel. To summarize a few things the supreme court said, I shall quote from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of November 26, 1966:
The rules laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of cases this year go much farther.
This has reference to the case to which I referred.
The police must not only warn the prisoner that he is not obliged to make any statement; they must also tell him that he is entitled to counsel, and inform him of any legal aid arrangements by which he can obtain the services of a lawyer if he is unable to pay for one.
The prisoner is entitled to have his lawyer present during any questioning.
If the prisoner "indicates in any manner" that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police must stop questioning him.
If a prisoner who does not have legal assistance makes a statement to the police, this cannot be used against him at his trial unless prosecution proves that he "knowingly and intelligently" waived his legal rights.
I cannot argue with the Minister of Justice when he says that the best way to guarantee to a person the right to counsel would be to entrench that right in the charter of human rights the minister has proposed. It is obvious that in the near future some provincial governments will not give the people of Canada this kind of protection.
It seems to me there is a very simple way in which many of the things which have happened in the few illustrations I have given could be avoided, if the minister would agree to a very simple addition to his omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code. This bill has had wonderful support, partly deserved and I believe partly undeserved, from the public. He could simply add a clause, which would state that every person who has difficulty with the police or with the law has a right to be represented by counsel.

February 29, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, there really seems to be little to add to the remarks the minister made in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Or-likow)-when the hon. member first posed this question on February 13. That answer by the minister can be found at page 6670 of Hansard.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Both the minister and I recognize the soundness of the argument which was accepted by the supreme court of the United States in the Escobedo case. The minister has illustrated his acceptance by the proposed Canadian charter for human rights which, not very many weeks ago, he proposed to be accepted by the provincial attorneys general and the heads of government of various provinces.
In regard to the answer given at that time I can add nothing more except perhaps to repeat what he said at that time, that the problem of individual liberty as it may be challenged by action in the courts is not confined to the Criminal Code, but extends throughout a much broader field. Some of the celebrated cases in the courts in recent years have not been under the Criminal Code, but under provincial jurisdiction, as in cases of mental incompetency applications. I am aware that the hon. member is aware of those cases. I find no lis or disagreement between myself and the hon. member on the desirability of this kind of change in the laws of our country.
The main question is how best to effect a change. I share the minister's viewpoint that ultimately and fundamentally this can best be affected by the kind of change in our basic law on human rights which he has proposed by the basic entrenched right to counsel before the courts.



INDUSTRY-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN CRITERIA RESPECTING DESIGNATED AREAS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the criteria established by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) in relation to areas which may become designated for assistance for the development and economic growth of primary industry are such that they may be helpful. Obviously they have been helpful in some areas because there are some 80 areas designated. However, this militates against certain other areas, because the program does not take into account in alternative criteria the factors of seasonality in certain industries.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
In British Columbia the logging and sawmill industries are primarily seasonal, as is the construction, fishing and other industries. They are affected by the seasons. Because of seasonality, people find themselves out of work on a regular basis. There is no seasona-bility factor taken into account in the criteria established for the designation of areas needing development.
It may very well be that the income derived by individuals employed in these seasonal occupations at times will be higher than the $4,250 set out as the floor under the area development criteria for designated areas. The fact is that the seasonality of this situation and the regular occurrence of unemployment tend to depress the economy of a whole area. For argument's sake let us consider the logging industry in British Columbia. In that industry there is a regular period of unemployment, and there are regular depressed periods during specific times throughout the years which should be taken into account.
I ask that this situation be looked at very carefully. I have no suggestion to make at this time about the words which might be used to spell out the matter of seasonability or seasonality of employment, but it is a fact that should be included in the criteria. If it is included, it will mean that those areas which now find themselves in an awkward position, unable to fit into the criteria, unable to receive the assistance provided by the area development program, will be able to receive such assistance and the level of economic activity and the well-being of the people, which is the prime concern of the program, will be improved.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question of seasonality is one that I think can justly be said to be of concern in the administration of the area development program, and has been so from the inception of the program. As the house may well be aware, there was originally in the criteria employed for the designation of areas to benefit under the area development program this factor of seasonality which, in the instance given by the hon. member, is a matter of such concern.
Curiously, or perhaps not curiously but naturally, because of the wide variety of economic activity in this country and the wide variety of occupations, early criteria founded on the basis of seasonality were the subject of very considerable debate and very considerable criticism. The critics maintained that the
February 29, 1968

criteria unduly favoured certain areas which did not really fall within the basic purpose of the program, which is to assist areas of chronic unemployment or underemployment of the labour force.
Hon. members may recall that the employment seasonality which was the subject of so much comment was in areas with industries of relatively high levels of employment and relatively high pay levels, such as the automobile industry and the farm machinery industry where areas were designated and which in fact, when applying broader judgment to the question, did not really seem to be areas of chronic underemployment or unemployment.
It was as a result of comments of this nature and a broader judgment of the program within this context that the seasonal factor was removed, and in the criteria to be used by the area development program it was decided to try to arrive at some kind of averaging throughout the entire year's employment to find out if, in fact, taking the year as
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion a whole, there really was a chronic area of unemployment or underemployment of the labour force such as to require the special incentives that the program provides.
I regret that I cannot assure the hon. member that the change he proposes will automatically become a change of law. I can assure him that, as has been the case in each of the years the program has been in effect, the statistics employed for the purpose of establishing the designation of particular areas will be reviewed annually. I would remind the house that as a result of this annual review the criteria have been changed from time to time. I am confident that in the course of the review of the statistics which will take place in the coming year, once again the question of the problem of seasonality as related to chronic unemployment will be considered, and not any the less because of the representations made by the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Friday, March 1, 1968