1968-02-16

VACANCY

Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with section 10 of the House of Commons Act, I wish to inform the house that a vacancy occurred in the representation in the House of Commons of the electoral district of Matapedia-Matane, in the province of Quebec, following the death of Hon. Rene Tremblay, the former member for that riding.



NATIONAL AND ROYAL ANTHEMS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first and final report of the special joint committee on the national and royal anthems. In view of the occasion may I repeat my remarks in French.

Monsieur l'Orateur, j'ai l'honneur de presenter le premier et le dernier rapport du comite mixte special sur l'hymne national et l'hymne royal.
[Editor's note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, as a member of the national anthem committee who has attended meetings regularly I should like to state that I received no notice of yesterday's meeting of that committee and consequently did not attend. I subsequently have had an opportunity to read the report, and I concur with its recommendations regarding the official anthems.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question of privilege. Perhaps the matter might be cleared up between the chairman and the hon. member.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: That the report of the joint committee on the Library of Parliament concerning salary revisions and other matters, presented to the house on Wednesday, February 14, 1968, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
February 14-The Minister of Public Works:
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to examine the progress and programs of the National Capital Commission in the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region;
That twelve members to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of the said committee be designated at a later date;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records, to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time;
That the said committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him whether
6810	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry it is proper for us to assume, from the statement made by the President of the Privy Council yesterday, that the government has not given active consideration to the formulation of any policy which might arise from the recommendations of the report on foreign investment, as tabled in the house yesterday.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Starr:: The question was directed to the Acting Prime Minister.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: So many people are aspiring for that position that perhaps I might as well join them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, replying to the question, I think I made it clear yesterday that the government is considering the report and will be formulating a policy. It has not arrived at its conclusions yet, and that was the only inference that I wished to be drawn yesterday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the President of the Privy Council whether he can indicate to the house when the government will be reaching any new policies which may be arising from the report.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should think at a very early date, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Bumaby-Coquiilam):: wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government asked for written assurance from the government of the United States that none of the Canadian war material being sold to the United States is being used in Viet Nam? If such a request has been made, what was the nature of the reply?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, Canada has a defence sharing agreement with the United States that goes back to 1945. There is no written request, but there have been consultations from time to time with the United States in this matter.

DEBATES	February 16, 1968


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the minister's reply, I ask him on what he bases the assurances he has given the Canadian people from time to time that no Canadian war materials are being used in Viet Nam.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said
repeatedly that under the policies of the government of Canada no one can buy arms and ship them from Canada to any sensitive area, whether that be Viet Nam or anywhere else.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister to give that assurance with respect to materials which may go indirectly to Viet Nam through the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just said that we have a defence sharing agreement with the United States which goes back to 1945. That was very fairly dealt with, I may say, by my hon. friend's seatmate in a television interview one year ago, in a way that put this matter in perspective and with fairness.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he means to leave the impression with this house that he has asked the United States not to use in Viet Nam any arms shipped from Canada to the United States under that agreement. Is that the impression he is seeking to leave with the house this morning?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Can
the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the house that no Canadian nickel is being used in Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because when we think of how to assist a country the export of nickel, the export of wheat, the export of many other commodities which do not normally constitute what are called armaments may be of great assistance.
Is anyone in the house recommending that Canada should not export nickel?


Michael Starr: You are not allowed to ask questions.
February 16, 1968



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: May I
ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any information to give the house on the reported appearance of Soviet bombers over Canadian territory.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My colleague the Minister of National Defence will deal with that question.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: We are aware that some foreign aircraft have been operating well off our coasts in international air space. We have used these opportunities to exercise our air intercept and identification procedures.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on the report that Soviet bombers have been over Newfoundland territory.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have to repeat that according to my information they were well off the coast-1 am talking of the foreign aircraft.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of National Defence whether our intercept and identification procedures were successful and, if so, what was the identity of the foreign aircraft in question?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The most I can say is that our intercept was successful.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister unwilling to tell the house the identity of the aircraft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question and received an answer to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was wondering whether the omission was an oversight or whether it was deliberate, and I am giving the minister a chance to rectify it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On reflection I wish to press the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to whether he will not tell the house what was the identity of the foreign aircraft intercepted; because I believe in all seriousness that it is unacceptable that parliament and the country should not be given this information.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne): I have no objection to giving the information. They were Russian aircraft, Bear D.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question directed to the Minister of National Defence by the hon. member for Kamloops. Because of the serious nature of the incident could the minister inform the house whether the intercepted aircraft was a military aircraft; and if it was intercepted in international air space would he tell us by what right the interception was made? If it was not intercepted in international air space, has the government lodged a protest with the government of the U.S.S.R.?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether we are not going a little far afield in respect of this incident. I hope the hon. member understands that if we do intercept we follow our own procedures and perform the same function we are performing all the time. If this is done in international air space we are limited to identifying the aircraft. That is all there was to it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, this matter is serious enough to warrant the house being given full information. I am asking whether the aircraft which was intercepted and identified was a Russian military aircraft and, if so, was any protest lodged?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, because of the important nature of the subject matter I suggest that the minister should inform the house fully with regard to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Even in respect of an important matter the rules are the same. The hon. member has a right to ask the question, and when the minister answers that must be the end of the matter.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the Canadian aircraft which intercepted the Russian aircraft requested that aircraft to turn back.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker. As far as the question of the hon. member for Yukon is concerned, I did identify the aircraft. I said it was a Bear D, which is a military aircraft.
6812
February 16, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has any official protest been lodged with the government of the U.S.S.R.?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Siale for External Affairs: As the minister pointed out, some foreign aircraft have been operating well off our coasts in international air space. We have used this situation, as the minister has said, to exercise our air inspection and identification procedures. That is the reply the minister gave a moment ago and that is the situation as it exists at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer the question as to whether the government has lodged any official protest with the government of the U.S.S.R.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The member has asked his question and the minister has answered.


Mr.   Neilsen@: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs requested an explanation for the presence of the aircraft referred to? If so, will he inform the house what reply he has received to that request?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, only because the matter is of great importance do I repeat what I have already said, and what was said by the Minister of National Defence. Some foreign aircraft have been operating well off our coasts in international air space. Canada has the right to do the same thing, and does.


Erik Nielsen: Nobody disputes that fact, Mr. Speaker. My question to the minister was, has the government requested any explanation?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the operation of these foreign aircraft-I don't know whether there was more than one-interfere with the ordinary flying routes of international air companies between this continent and Europe?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have no way of knowing that, Mr. Speaker.


[Later:}


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence with regard to the incident of the foreign aircraft flying off Canada's coast. Is the minister aware of the radio news report of today which said that this incident involved an encounter between United States and Russian planes?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will keep it very simple. Has there been any exchange of communications between this government and the government of the U.S.S.R. relative to this incident?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows perfectly well that there could not have been.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. President of the Treasury Board who is answerable for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We know that increasing pressures are being brought to bear on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with a view to having it approve the construction of only high-density residential buildings in Canada. Can the hon. minister assure the house that steps will be taken to continue allowing the construction of single-unit family dwellings?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are concentrating their funds this year on public housing, limited dividend housing, urban redevelopment and so on. Present forecasts are that adequate funds will be forthcoming from the private sector to take care of single family dwellings to create a total level of about 175,000 housing starts.
February 16, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker yesterday in reply to a question of mine concerning the mission of Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the Prime Minister indicated that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would reply today. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is ready to do so.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for Exlernal Affairs: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister indicated, the former high commissioner for Canada in London is on a visit now on behalf of the government to certain Francophone countries in Africa. For a long time Canada has been giving external aid to certain English speaking countries in Africa. Two years ago the government decided that it was desirable to expand our assistance to the Francophone countries. We now have total external aid of $12 million to Francophone countries, and the former high commissioner is now engaged in consultations, on behalf of the government and the department of external aid, with regard to programs to assist these French speaking countries in Africa.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a supplementary question, during the earlier part of hon. Mr. Chovrier's visit did he have an opportunity to discuss any matters with U Thant in Paris?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: No, Mr. Speaker, he was not instructed to see U Thant.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lamberl (Edmonlon West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether the government of Canada has participated in, or if it has not participated to what extent it has been kept informed, discussions between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine with regard to the construction of a super port in the bay of Fundy area?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for Exlernal Affairs: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
6813
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



ACTION TO MEET SHORTAGE OF MEDICAL MANPOWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr* Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to question the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the government has apparently made up its mind as to the future course of medicare, can the minister inform the house whether any federal initiatives are being considered to offset the increasing shortage of doctors facing the country?
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the information he is seeking now is of a general nature which normally should be given by a minister at the time of the calling of motions.


Mr. Graffiey:: May I rephrase my question. Now that the government has reached a decision on medicare-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That was done a year ago.


William Heward Grafftey: -increasing demands on medical personnel, can the minister inform the house what detailed provisions have been made to face this challenge? It is a very serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that even the rephrased question does not qualify under the rules.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of a report in this morning's press that an accused person in Sherbrooke was denied counsel on arrest, and was mistreated by the officers who arrested him, has the minister ordered or will he consider ordering an inquiry into the matter?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the administration of justice is a matter of internal jurisdiction for a province, and it is not proper for the federal government to interfere in this as a general proposition. Whether in this particular case there was some action under federal authority I do not know, but the administration of justice is something with which we do not interfere.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer was not entirely unexpected. As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that the proposed bill of rights to be entrenched in the constitution is now delayed __I hope it is merely delayed-will the minister consider an amendment to the Criminal Code to assure people arrested the right to counsel?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support of our proposition for an amendment to the constitution in the form of a bill of rights. As regards this latter proposition, I am prepared to examine it. I must say I am very hopeful with the progress being made in the matter of a charter of human rights. The hon. member will probably agree that that is the proper place to enshrine this kind of protection so it applies to all the law, but if that is not possible I will examine his very valid proposal.
February 16, 1968
the Atlantic provinces in order to help reduce the substantial economic gap which exists between the people of that area and the people in the rest of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the board will be encouraged in every possible way to carry on with its activities.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On December 1, as recorded at page 4929 of Hansard, I asked the minister whether there had been any cut-back in the funds to be made available to the Atlantic Development Board for the next fiscal year. At that time the minister said he expected that in the next year there would be considerable resources available to assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces. Is this decrease of $20 million providing considerable resources to the Atlantic provinces under the Atlantic Development Board?



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as the minister responsible for the Atlantic Development Board. Is he in a position to inform the house of the reasons for the very substantial reduction in the funds available to that board in the coming fiscal year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to give the details to my hon. friend. The suggestion that there has been any cut-back in the availability of funds to the Atlantic Development Board for the forthcoming fiscal year is totally unfounded. What has been done is an attempt to estimate as accurately as possible the requirements for the board's activities within the next fiscal year. My hon. friend will recall that the estimate last year was much greater than the actual expenditure because of the inability to get ahead with joint shared programs with the provinces. This year we are hoping to estimate accurately and go forward with available projects. If there are further requirements they will be met from the fund.


Robert Carman Coates: Would the minister indicate that every possible action will be taken to provide initiatives for the board and to see that increased amounts of money are spent in


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he is entering into a debate.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has yet made appointments to the Atlantic Development Board, or whether he is in a position to announce appointments to replace those whose terms have expired?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the governor in council has acted on the recommendations which were made during the past week. Recommendations have been made to the governor in council to fill these vacancies.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would have liked to address to the Minister of Finance. I presume there is an acting minister of finance. It is rather difficult these days to find the person to whom to address a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might ask the question.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Finance,
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
whoever he may be. The question arises from a statement which appears in this morning's paper from the Bank of Canada to the effect that there was a further decline in the public money supply during the seven days ending February 7. Later in the story some of the consequences of this are listed, such as a continuing rise in interest rates in certain categories of loans and shortage of lending funds on the part of the banks. I should like to ask whether this is a result of policy decisions on the part of the Bank of Canada and the government. If so, does the minister consider this to be a desirable development in the Canadian economy at this time.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the article in question, but on behalf of the Minister of Finance I should like to take this question as notice.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) asked whether we might accelerate the processing of applications for immigration from residents of the areas of Sicily affected by the recent earthquakes.
I wish to advise the hon. member and the house that all immigration offices in Canada and our immigration office in Rome have been instructed to give priority to all applications already submitted by, or on behalf of, any resident of Sicily. During the emergency period, we shall also give priority to additional applications submitted by Canadian residents for their relatives in Sicily.
The immigration staff in Italy will be increased in order to implement these priorities.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chaiterion (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board when the government intends to announce the future nature of
DEBATES	6815
Inquiries of the Ministry the public service surgical and medical insurance plan, in light of the fact that on July 1 medicare will not be operative in parts of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we will be making an announcement very soon as to the future of the plan.


George Louis Chatterton: Could the minister say at this time whether public servants living in provinces participating in medicare will forfeit their entitlement under the public service surgical and medical insurance plan?


Edgar John Benson: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have representations been received from several provinces pointing out the need for certain amendments to the Canada Pension Plan? If so, are amendments to be proposed during this session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not proposed to introduce any amendments of this kind at this session, Mr. Speaker.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister advise the house whether Bill C-195, to amend the Criminal Code, is being considered by the government on its priority list to be dealt with during this session of parliament?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister dealt with this the other day, but I will look at his statement. If he did not, I am sure he will deal with it next week.
6816	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO PROMOTION OF FURTHER SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whoever is acting for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, since he has left the chamber, whether in view of his discussions with officials of the Canadian Wheat Board yesterday there has been any improvement in the prospects for wheat sales abroad, the lack of which in the past few months has created widespread concern among western farmers and farm organizations.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just left the chamber. I will bring this to his attention and perhaps he will make a reply later today.


Richard Russell Southam: What action is the government taking to increase our hopes in this respect on behalf of the western agricultural community?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. In order that important reforms to election laws may be considered and perhaps become effective before another general election, will the government house leader consider bringing before the house at an early date the resolution, which I think is item No. 63 on the order paper, to refer the report of the committee on election expenses to the privileges and elections committee of this house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If there is any disposition to send this resolution to the committee without debate I should be glad to call it at any time.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if the government would consider bringing this on as the first item of business today we in this party are prepared to pass it without debate.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure members of this

DEBATES	February 16, 1968
house that the committee on privileges and elections will be called immediately so it may begin work during this session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO STUDENT USE OF HALLUCINOGENICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the anxiety of parents of high school and college students concerning the use of marijuana, l.s.d. and other hallucinogenic drugs, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government will appoint a special parliamentary committee with specific powers to look into this problem, and with authority to adjourn from place to place in Canada for the purpose of hearing evidence and to make appropriate recommendations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As my hon. friend knows, Mr. Speaker, there is at this time on the order paper a bill having to do with the control of l.s.d. and similar drugs. This bill has already received consideration in the Senate. The Senate committee on two occasions heard evidence in respect of this matter. When we have an opportunity to consider the bill it may be useful to consider whether an advantage might be gained by referring this matter to a standing committee of the house.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, can the Solicitor General inform the house whether the R.C.M. Police are stepping up activities in order to do everything possible to prevent any proliferation in the use of these drugs in Canadian communities.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I believe an answer to this question can be found in the substantial increase in the number of prosecutions.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, because of allegations of hardship for those participating in manpower retraining schemes as the result of rather stringent
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
accounting procedures which led to certain cheques being withheld last month, will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration assure us that such procedures will stress humanity rather than bookkeeping?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have improved this situation considerably through the new program.
Formerly, under old program 5, allowances were only paid at the end of three weeks. Now we make the first payment during the first week, and then every 15 days.
On occasion, because of absence, we have had to make an adjustment. This happened during the holidays, and I think that was a very bad period. However, I think that the people undergoing training will be satisfied in future.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the government has now decided to retire those serving in the sea environment of the Canadian armed forces five years earlier than those serving in other environments and, if so, for what reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question could be placed on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT FROM MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, and I have given the minister notice. In view of the concern of the drug industry over Bill C-190, could the minister advise whether he has received a report from the Medical Research Council on research in the pharmaceutical industry? If so, will he undertake to table the report before the debate resumes on Bill C-190?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this question should not be asked when the house is actually considering the bill.
DEBATES	6817
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thought the question might be asked at this time, Mr. Speaker. The minister was in the chamber the other day for part of the debate in committee, but he may not be in the chamber when the debate resumes and-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Industry.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the Medical Research Council has undertaken a very extensive survey of all medical research facilities and potentialities in Canada. This has been done in connection with the government laboratories, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the universities and the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. The results will not be available for about another month, at which time I would hope to make them public. But I can assure the hon. member that the aspects relating to the pharmaceutical industry will constitute only a very small part of the conclusions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The answer was not unexpected. I appreciate that the survey is in the whole medical research field. I am informed, and would ask the minister to check with his officials about this, that the report on research in the drug industry has been completed and is available.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his representations.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-and I very rarely rise on a question of privilege-from an opposition point of view or from a back bencher point of view, at the best of times it is very difficult to get reports on technical and involved subjects. There have been so many confusing and conflicting points raised about the research value of the drug industry in Canada that I believe a government report would certainly clarify the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that there will be ample opportunity later to clarify what he considers to be a very important matter. This should not be done during the question period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, without pressing the point too far but just a little further-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -I do not think there is much disagreement between the minister and myself. The point is that this debate could
February 16. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry start again on Monday, and I am advised that the report pertaining to the drug industry is now complete and will shed a fantastic new light on the question of research, which is part of the very heart of Bill C-190. Certainly as a backbencher in the opposition, and this applies to some backbenchers on the government side of the house, we would like to have a government report, an independent report, on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his point, as I said a moment ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. Will the minister examine the material to see whether it is possible to segregate and table promptly an interim report having to do with drug research?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that the interest of the house is particularly in research related to the pharmaceutical industry. I would take this occasion to indicate that in co-operation with the Canadian pharmaceutical industry a survey, which is rather more quantitative than qualitative of the efforts being made by the members of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada was carried out. The information was provided on a confidential basis. If it would interest the house, I would be glad to ask the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association whether they would have any objection to making public, in global terms, the results of this quantitative survey.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for that information, because that was going to be the subject of a supplementary question. There are two different reports. I understand that the minister is prepared to table the joint report if he has the permission of the pharmaceutical association, which I think he will be able to get pretty easily.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, a question was put a while ago concerning marijuana. It gives me the opportunity of replying to the question put two


days ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North concerning the policy of the government and the officials of the Department of Justice in this regard. The best answer can be found in a few lines concerning government policy as stated by the crown attorneys in Toronto:

Department of Justice drug prosecutors in Toronto will henceforth ordinarily suggest jail terms for young persons without criminal records convicted of the possession of marijuana when asked for their views as to sentence by local judges and magistrates.
The communique goes on to say there has been an increase in the use of marijuana. It indicates that judges of the superior courts have recently increased sentences, and that we are guided and inspired by those sentences.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether I fully comprehended the reply of the Minister of Justice. Do we understand from what the minister has said that in all cases advice will be given by the representatives of the crown against a suspended sentence being imposed where marijuana is involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; only when asked, and in view of the circumstances of the particular case, as the statement says. The crown prosecutor will recommend that the court follow the precedents set by the higher courts across the country in recent judgments.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the report of the committee on election expenses, tabled on October 11, 1966, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the second reading of Bill No. C-197, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is not in his seat this morning in order to open
February 1$, 1968

the discussion on second reading of this bill. I hope he will be able to return to the house later in the day.
I believe there is a general awareness of the important and very significant changes that have occurred in the economic environment in Canada since our Unemployment Insurance Act came into effect in 1941. There have been periodic amendments to the act and regulations for good and sufficient reasons, but undoubtedly there is a need to consider an up to date plan of unemployment insurance in Canada as a result of our experience with the present legislation and in terms of new and progressive ideas.
It may be of interest to state in passing that serious thought has been and will continue to be given in the months ahead to the merits, and indeed to the possibility, of a greater degree of administrative co-operation in the various segments of social security in Canada, a process which has been followed with no small success in other countries. With our changing times and circumstances there has been some overlapping of resources, and it is quite within the bounds of possibility that the concept of an integrated scheme might be drawn up in the future which could serve as a frame of reference for the revision of the unemployment insurance program.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I might say also that another valid reason for an updating, indeed for a new act, lies in a need for the modernization of administrative procedures to take advantage of the new and more sophisticated business methods in vogue today. A co-ordination of collection, for example, would be of great benefit to employers as well as for the insured population.
Perhaps it might also be well for me to mention that of late members of the public have been expressing their concern more and more frequently about alleged or suspected abuses of the unemployment insurance system, fraudulent abuses. Unfortunately, as in most if not all social security programs, there have been abuses. One very significant area of fraud has been, and still is, failure while drawing benfits to declare earnings in excess of the amount allowed by law. Under the act a person drawing unemployment insurance may earn up to one half the maximum weekly benefit without deductions being made from the benefit he is receiving. The commission is greatly concerned with this area of abuse, as is the general public.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The matter of alleged abuses and known abuses has been discussed frequently between the Minister of Labour and the new chief commissioner. The new chief commissioner has given assurance that utmost efforts will be made to control these abuses. A stepped up program to meet all forms of fraudulent behaviour has already begun with very significant results. In the last fiscal year the enforcement division of the Unemployment Insurance Commission uncovered no less than 24,486 detected cases of fraud and illegal withdrawal from the fund. These represented a total of $1,114,816 in overpayment of benefits. These figures, Mr. Speaker, speak for themselves. They provide full justification for strong measures, and these the commission intends to pursue. Every possible step will be taken to ensure that the funds which the people and government of Canada have invested in unemployment insurance shall be put to the proper and effective use that the Unemployment Insurance Act provides.
I might also say that when the general revision of the act comes before this house, changes will be put forward directed toward eliminating or at least correcting possible abuses. It should be mentioned here, however, that while the commission is taking new and stronger measures to control abuses, this is not to suggest that there is any intention of interfering with the inherent rights of insured Canadians to receive benefits as and when they are entitled. The appeal process, which is an essential part of the Unemployment Insurance Commission's machinery, will continue to serve its purpose, protecting the insured wherever there is an element of doubt.
But while a comprehensive revision of the act is a matter of deep concern, and one which should be followed as soon as practicable, nevertheless the updating of the existing program cannot be postponed. There is an immediate need for a change in the ceiling and for an upward adjustment of the rates of benefit and contribution. It is proposed in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that the coverage ceiling be raised from $5,460, the established figure since the last amendment was made in 1959, to $7,800. The purpose of this is to bring back under the umbrella of coverage large numbers of Canadians who were included originally but who, because of sharply rising incomes in recent years, have gradually become excluded from the scope and benefit of the plan.
6820	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act
Indeed, because of the marked rise in the level of salaries in recent years, a trend of which we are all aware, many who were formerly insured under the act have not had any unemployment insurance protection in recent years. This figure now represents such an appreciable proportion of the labour force, estimated at upwards of 400,000, that the urgency of raising the ceiling is clear. The last amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were made in 1959, and as hon. members are aware there has been a very sharp rise since that time in the level of the industrial composite average weekly wage. Indeed, our booming economy has seen this weekly average wage increase from approximately $73 to approximately $103 a week. As a result the $5,460 ceiling and the schedule of benefits, which has invariably been established on the basis of 50 per cent of a claimant's average weekly wage, have lost their proper proportion. In fairness and in equity it needs to be adjusted to meet present circumstances.
To explain why the ceiling for insurance coverage has been raised to the figure of $7,800, I should like to point out that from the onset it has been the established principle to set the ceiling at one and a half times the industrial composite weekly average wage. In accordance with this principle, and in view of the rise of the composite weekly average wage to $103, it is only fair and reasonable that the ceiling be adjusted to the higher figure.
In this amending bill, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing also in clause 4 a new schedule of rates of benefit. As I have pointed out, the rates of benefit in the past have been established at approximately 50 per cent of the normal earnings of a claimant with one or more dependants, and 37 per cent of the earnings of a claimant without dependants, subject in both cases to a maximum. Since 1959 the rates of benefit have been $36 and $27 respectively at the maximum levels, though the average weekly wage in Canada in 1959 of $73.47, on which these rates were based, has now climbed to more than $103. Hence the proposed new maximum rates of benefit, using the same criteria, of $53 for a claimant with dependant and $42 for a claimant without dependant.
The immediate purpose of the amendment in clause 5 of the bill is to restore the benefits to earnings ratio of 50 per cent or more for all those whose wages are not above the current composite weekly average wage. You

DEBATES	February 16, 1968
will note that the scale of benefits schedule in the clause has been amended in accordance with current earning levels, and thus conforms to the percentage relationship of the earnings of claimants which was set when the act was passed and has been reaffirmed in previous amendments, the last of which was in 1959. The principle has been to maintain the 50 per cent standard established by past legislation for claimants in higher income ranges, although it is interesting to note in passing that the ratio of benefits to earnings in the lower ranges of the table is higher because of the obvious need of this group. Incidentally, the number of benefit classes will be fewer than at present and this will also simplify administration.
This recommendation also includes $10 earnings ranges to reduce the multiplicity of contribution stamps. The addition of further $6 earnings or classes, as used now in the act, would have greatly increased the administrative burden for employers.
Concurrently we are proposing in clause 2 of the bill a proportionate increase in the schedule of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund by the government, by the employers and by those who will be benefiting under the act. The reason for this proportionate increase in contributions is to maintain the stability of the fund in the face of the more substantial weekly benefits payable. It is good business to keep the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund in balance and on a sound actuarial basis. It is the government's responsibility to see that the fund will be able to meet all eventualities which may arise.
In considering clause 2, hon. members will note that in computing the number of contribution weeks and the average of weekly contributions for any purpose under the act, a contribution week during which the earnings of an insured person are less than $20 shall be counted as one half a week. The purpose of this provision is to reduce the effect on the fund from claimants whose earnings in a week are minimal compared with the average composite weekly wage level. It is in accordance with the principle now in the act and merely adjusts the minimum earnings level from $9 to $20.
[DOT] (12 noon)
Finally we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, to substitute a new schedule of allowable earnings based on the criterion of the last amendment in 1959. Anyone receiving unemployment insurance benefits may earn up to 50
February 16, 1968

per cent of benefits payable in a week without a reduction.
As hon. members may recall, since the idea was incorporated in the act in 1955 experience has shown that the amount of allowable earnings should be high enough to encourage claimants to take casual work. The proposal, then, is to allow a claimant to earn one-half of his weekly benefit rate, rounded out to the nearest dollar, without a reduction of his benefit. By doing this, two desirable results will be achieved. In addition to creating a greater incentive among claimants to accept casual work there will be less temptation, particularly with increased benefits, to withhold advice of earnings, an area which constitutes the largest source of fraudulent withdrawal from the fund. The change with respect to allowable earnings preserves these principles.
In general, the purpose of the amendments covered by the bill is to fill the immediate need of adjusting upward the rates of benefit and contribution to place them in the current context of the considerably higher Canadian average of normal weekly earnings.
As has been stated on more than one occasion during recent months, the government is convinced of the need for the changes proposed. We believe that this adjustment will be very timely in its effects. The unemployment insurance fund has contributed immensely over the years to the stability of the Canadian economy, particularly in times of recession, and will continue to do so in the future. The purpose of these amendments is to bring the contributions and benefits in line with current wage conditions.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to commence my remarks with some general pleasantries directed to the newest appointment to the cabinet. I wanted to wish the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Mackasey), who I thought would be piloting the measure before us, a short but happy tenure of office. However, the presence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) as the acting sponsor gives me and others an opportunity to say hello to him during his visit to the house. He has been away in London on government business and in other places in the country on his own business. We welcome him back, however short his visit today and perhaps next week.
In his speech the minister referred briefly to the actuarial basis of the fund but did not deal with how the fund will fare in a country
Unemployment Insurance Act with over 500,000 people out of work. I found this passing strange especially since the minister, like myself, is a maritimer and comes from an area where one person in every nine is out of work. The minister did not deal with the closure of unemployment insurance commission offices across Canada at a time when there will be greater demands for service by those who have been thrown out of work. I found this passing strange as well. Other members of this party will elaborate on this theme in their contributions to the debate.
Neither did the minister mention the Gill report which was issued in November, 1962, though he did concede that a general overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act should be made at some time. Five and a half years ago a thoughtful report was presented to the government; yet five and a half years later no action has been taken on it with the exception of some of the Gill recommendations regarding manpower training and retraining.
I will get around to saying something about the Gill report in a moment, but first of all I should like to deal with an obvious weakness in the amendments that have been presented to us. When we go into committee I shall seek to find out how anyone can justify on an actuarial basis giving an even worse deal to people with dependants than what they now receive. This is precisely what the measure will do, Mr. Speaker.
I took the trouble to examine the weekly rate of benefits under the 1959 measure and compared the ratio between benefits paid to a person without dependants and those paid to a person with dependants. Generally I think the ratio was 1.33 to 1. That is to say, for every $1 received by a person without dependants, a person with dependants in the same general category would receive $1.33.
In the schedule that is before us as set forth in clause 4 of this measure the ratio varies, but it does discriminate against the person with dependants. For example, if we start at the top of the table we see that the weekly benefit rate for a person without dependants is $13 and for a person with dependants it is $17. The ratio between these two figures is 1.30 to 1. In other words, the person with dependants would receive $1.30 compared with $1 received by the person without dependants. If we move to the bottom of the table the two figures are $42 and $53, which produces a ratio of 1.26 to 1.
So it will be seen that in the measure the government is seeking to repeal the married

February 16, 1968
Unemployment Insurance Act man had the benefit of a ratio of 1.33 to 1 over a single man whereas in the proposal now presented by the government the ratio is from 1.30 down to 1.26 to 1. In my opinion this is a definite indication of discrimination against people who, by and large, need greater help than persons who have no obligations to others. When the minister closes the debate I hope he will give some reason for this rather unusual approach on the part of the government which in effect discriminates against married workers. If this matter is not dealt with adequately in the reply of the minister, then it will certainly be dealt with when we move into committee study of the bill because to me this is a shocking discrimination.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I made mention of the Gill report that was commissioned on July 17, 1961 and completed with the volume issued in November, 1962. Perhaps it is a good idea to refresh our minds on some of the points made by that report. However, before I do so may I say that the minister has given some reasons for bringing a more comprehensive measure before us at this time. For example, there are the 24,000 plus cases of fraud. That example, with others, shows the dilatoriness of this government in coming to grips with a contentious public issue. I think the government might have introduced the amendments which have been suggested to it. The measures which have been introduced are tantamount to a confession by the government that inflation is rampant in this country. The government could have made this measure more palatable to the public had the competent and conscientious suggestions of the Gill committee on the Unemployment Insurance Act been heeded. At page 103 the Gill report says:
A plan of unemployment insurance should therefore confine itself to payment of indemnity for wages lost by reason of the failure to obtain employment where the person concerned could, in the light of his previous employment record, reasonably expect to have obtained it.
It is another general insurance principle that the event insured against must be outside of the control of the insured person or, if it is within his control, it must be undesired so that there is no inducement for him to bring about the event of his own volition. Unemployment insurance suffers particular difficulties in this regard because the event insured against-unemployment-is not always undesired by the insured person. He may bring it about personally (voluntary quitting) or, once unemployed, he may prefer that state to employment. Thus it is important to see to it that the amount of indemnity is not so large in relation to wages as to encourage insured persons to prefer unemployment to employment. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of the social effectiveness of the plan, it is desirable to have the indemnity as nearly as possible equal to the lost wages.
[Mr. McCleave.l
On page 105 of the report the following point is made:
The present unemployment insurance plan, although satisfactory enough in its basic structure, has by reason of amendments over the years departed unduly from insurance principles appropriate to such a plan. Undoubtedly each such amendment appeared justifiable at the time in terms of the social problem that the amendment was designed to meet, but as such amendments have accumulated, the insurance concept has been pushed more and more into the background. The existing situation is one where, in attempting to assess the validity of any proposed amendment, it is impossible to determine any consistent set of principles by which the amendment can be judged. The plan is neither a valid insurance plan in its present form nor is it a socially desirable type of income supplement, since in many cases the income supplement goes where it is not needed and fails to go where such supplement should go.
In his report Mr. Gill and his confreres dealt with what may be the most vexatious problem in the field of unemployment insurance, the matter of seasonal unemployment and seasonal benefits. I read from page 129 of the report:
The benefits are "seasonal" in that they are confined to a certain season of the year and no doubt they are availed of to a very considerable extent by persons who are in seasonal occupations and who find themselves unemployed in a regular pattern during the winter months of each year. The payment of seasonal benefit is not, however, confined to persons who are occupied in seasonal employments in the normal sense in which that term is used. It might be more appropriate, therefore, if this program were referred to as a program of "winter benefit" rather than "seasonal benefit".
Under the program that we recommend, seasonal benefit in its present form would disappear. It would be replaced to a substantial extent by the plan of extended benefits to be described subsequently, and the existing unemployment assistance plan.
In that paragraph there is reference to a later part of the Gill report. I continue reading:
We may say that the existing seasonal benefit was the subject of more criticisms in briefs that we received than perhaps any other single feature of the existing plan. It appeared to us that the criticism rested on two points. The first was that to a substantial extent the recipients of seasonal benefit are persons who are engaged in seasonal employment and expect to become unemployed during the winter months of each year as a regular pattern. Thus the critics complained that the benefit is not an "insurance" benefit at all but is, instead, a subsidy to persons who are engaged in insured employment for only part of the year as a regular pattern. The objection was not so much that persons who work in insured employment only part of the year receive a subsidy during the off season, but rather that the subsidy is drawn from the insurance plan and is financed by insurance contributions.
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
In other words, Gill is saying that in its dealings with seasonal or winter unemployment there is a departure in the act from the ordinary insurance principle, which strikes at the actuarial soundness of the unemployment insurance fund.
Another major criticism that is made in the report is about the qualification for seasonal benefit. Near the bottom of the page is found this comment:
Many persons seemed to feel that the payment of seasonal benefit would perhaps not be objectionable in itself if it were financed by the general taxpayer rather than by those who were contributing to an insurance plan.
The next point to be dealt with in the Gill report has to do with abuses. I shall read the entire paragraph under the heading "Abuses" which appears on page 133 of the report:
The principal classes of alleged abuse that were drawn to our attention in representations made to us, apart from the question of payment of benefit to seasonal workers during their off season as just discussed, related to (a) the drawing of benefit by married women who are not in fact seeking employment; (b) the drawing of benefit by persons who have retired on pension and who are not in fact seeking employment; (c) the taking of too narrow a view by claimants and possibly by the administration as to the types of employment that constitute "suitable employment" in any individual case; (d) the failure by some claimants to disclose earnings during weeks of partial unemployment; (e) the failure by some claimants to disclose the true facts concerning their availability for employment; and (f) collusion between employers and employees in failing to give adequate information respecting the reasons for termination.
The report makes a strong case for an overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The public would be in sympathy with such action. But instead of doing any such thing the government has presented a measure which seeks, as I have said, to atone late in the day for the increase in inflation which this country has suffered since the current schedule of benefits was enacted by parliament. This has been done by increasing the salary level below which a person is eligible to pay for unemployment insurance and by increasing contributions and increasing benefits. Because of the social good that will flow from increased benefits I think the attempt is reasonable and worth while. Nevertheless, it is an attempt by the government to atone late in the day for the inflation it has unleashed on the country during the last number of years.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
It fails to come to grips with several important things. It fails to come to grips with the
DEBATES	6823
Unemployment Insurance Act insurance principle which should lie at the heart of unemployment insurance, and it certainly discriminates against the married worker, the man with obligations. I hope the minister and his advisers will at least look at the schedule in clause 4 to see whether a better arrangement can be made for persons with dependants so they may enjoy at least the same ratio of benefit as those who do not bear the awesome responsibility of dependants. I hope the minister and his advisers will make a quick check on this point and correct what in my view is a most obvious injustice in this measure.


Mr. T. S. Barneli (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) in welcoming back to the house the former minister of labour. His absence has been so noticeable that we wonder-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will permit me to say at this time that it is against the usage of this house for hon. members to comment on the presence or absence of other members. It seems to me this is a practice which is creeping into our debates. Last week we heard members of the government side referring to the absence of members on the opposition side. Today we heard similar comments from the opposition. I suggest to hon. members that it is not a good practice.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In spite of the somewhat unusual circumstances which prevail at the present time I will defer to your wishes in this regard. One of the points I had in mind was that I wished to indicate that the minister now in charge of this bill is a former minister of labour and this being the case we can assume he has sufficient knowledge and experience to deal with points raised in relation to unemployment insurance as this measure proceeds through the house.
In his opening statement the minister referred both to matters dealt with in the bill and to matters related to the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act which perhaps lie outside the scope of the bill. I find it much easier to deal with what is contained in the bill rather than with what is omitted. As I understand it, this measure is simply a repeat performance of a bill which was brought into the house by way of an amendment to the act in 1959. To this extent it underlines two points, one of which the minister has referred to. First, the current levels of contributions
February 16, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act and benefits have become outdated and, second, the main body of legislation dealing with unemployment insurance has not been touched since 1959. Indeed, one will find upon checking the legislation that it has not been touched to any noticeable extent since 1955 when some of us, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen), sat on a committee of this house that gave detailed consideration to the act.
The changes proposed in the levels of benefits and contributions and in the ratio between the two could perhaps be better analysed and discussed in detail in committee. The minister indicated that according to his estimate the ratio between wages and benefits payable will be roughly 50 per cent in the higher brackets and perhaps a little more in the lower brackets. The bill maintains a somewhat weighted formula in respect of lower wage earners. This is true of the act as amended in 1955 and I believe it is a principle which was incorporated in the act which preceded the 1955 version.
Consideration of what has happened to wage levels and their relationship to real income does, of course, raise a wide area of debate and covers a field far beyond the immediate scope of this bill. It is a subject which has attracted considerable attention in other debates in this house recently. I shall not enter into such consideration so far as the principle of the bill before us is concerned. I shall merely repeat the expressions of concern which have been forthcoming from many of my hon. friends about the drift that now seems to be evident with regard to the whole matter of the relationship between wages and real income, and between unemployment insurance benefits and the decreasing purchasing value of the dollar.
As we see it, in this important area about all the government is prepared to do directly is attempt from time to time to bring benefits into some rough relationship with what is happening in the economy. The unfortunate result of such an approach is that over a period such as has elapsed since 1959 a great many people have been receiving benefits obviously out of line with current wage levels or the purchasing power of the dollars they receive. This is really not a satisfactory method of coping with the situation, especially if the general drift in the economy to which many members in this group have referred is allowed to continue. Perhaps there should be greater flexibility within the act itself.


I realize that the ratio of benefits to contributions involves an important matter of public policy, but I certainly feel this house should consider whether or not, instead of a haphazard and spasmodic attempt to readjust this relationship, a more satisfactory way of achieving this result ought to be sought. Bearing in mind the needs of the people who are to receive unemployment insurance benefits, should not some mechanism be written into the act whereby necessary adjustments would take place more automatically?
I should like the minister to tell us, if he can, what the effect of these proposed changes is likely to be upon the fund itself. I do not think this aspect was covered in his opening remarks. This leads, of course, to the question of what is likely to happen to the level of employment in the economy. As I read the last annual report of the fund for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1966-I believe this is the last report available; at least it is the last I was able to find-it showed an excess of receipts over disbursements amounting to over $100 million. As a result the balance in the fund increased fairly substantially that year.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
When the minister closes the debate on second reading I hope he will be able to give us more recent statistics concerning the present status of the fund, and related to them should be his projection of what is going to happen to the fund. That projection should be based not only on the present level of applicants but also on what might happen to the fund if some of the policies which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has been putting forward continue to be the policies of the government.
The question of what happens to the fund when even a fairly modest increase takes place in the percentage ratio of unemployed is something about which we have to be concerned when we are considering the establishment of a new schedule of contribution rates and benefits. I am sure the minister recalls the days when the fund had a comfortable balance of close to $1 billion and what happened to that balance very quickly. I realize that development with respect to the fund's assets did not occur when he was a member of the government, but I suggest to him that if the present course of action of this government continues there could easily be a repeat performance and parliament could be called upon, as in the past, to replenish the fund out of consolidated revenues.
February 16, 1968

The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) made fairly extensive reference to the Gill commission report which, as we all know, was tabled in 1962. I must admit it has been quite some time since I really looked at that now rather hoary document, but I notice that my copy appears to be fairly well worn and therefore at some point I must have spent some time looking through it. If I have not looked at it recently it is because it has now become such a hoary document that one wonders whether it is worth looking at. One wonders whether we may have another commission of inquiry into unemployment insurance which will completely negate the recommendations of the Gill commission. In any event, for a long period we have had no indication from the government of what it is prepared to do about the Gill commission recommendations, and so it seems hardly worth while bringing the name of that commission into the debate on a bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to a general revision of the act. Some of us are getting a bit sick and tired of hearing references to a general revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act when year after year goes by and nothing even remotely related to such a revision appears on the order paper. One thing we should take into account is that while there has been no general revision of the act some rather radical changes have been made in recent times in the manner in which unemployment insurance is administered. These have been made without any real reference to parliament and have resulted from reorganization by the minister. Undoubtedly they created problems across the country in the application of the act.
The problems that have arisen in providing benefits must be taken into consideration. The minister made reference to the uncovering of abuses in drawing from the funds provided under the act. More than once I have stated to gatherings of working people that the unemployment insurance fund belongs to the working people of Canada and anybody who draws money from it to which he is not rightly entitled is in exactly the same position as a person who reaches into the pocket of the man sitting beside him and removes money from that pocket.
In his references to a stepped-up program to track down and eliminate abuses it seems to me that in effect the minister was admitting that many people in Canada have
Unemployment Insurance Act become so disgusted with the delay in making changes in the arrangements under the act that they have become accustomed to regard it as a form of welfare payment to which they have entitlement if in need, whether or not they meet its technical requirements. Enough of them have encountered frustrations in trying to secure what they thought was rightfully theirs under the act that they have been encouraged to short circuit some of the administrative procedures, rules and regulations. I cannot recall exactly the figure which the minister gave as the amount of money garnered from the fund illegally, but the responsibility for that must not be placed solely on the people who have been successful in getting it. Rather it should be attributed to the general state of mind which has been allowed to develop toward the fund and its purposes, caused by government inactivity in bringing about real, useful and meaningful changes in the unemployment insurance program.
When the minister referred to a general revision of the act he said this was a matter of great concern and that a proposal would be introduced as soon as practicable. That was a statesmanlike phrase in the great Liberal tradition. In fact I could not help but think that perhaps in the light of certain developments within his own party the minister was trying to wrap the cloak of Mackenzie King around himself and express the kind of concept developed by the Liberal party which is sometimes said to have begun in 1919. I suggest to the minister that in the light of 1968 that kind of cloak is becoming a bit hoary and that even among the members of his own party there are those who are not too satisfied with this slow and measured pace toward the millenium.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I suppose I could attempt to incite the minister into indicating when he thinks it will be practicable to introduce a general revision of the act, but quite frankly I do not know whether it would be worth while. I realize that unless the minister has something in his mind different from the language he used when introducing the bill the answer I would get would be evasive. In any event the question of when it will be practicable to bring in a general revision of the act has become an academic exercise at best as long as the present government remains in office because it always seems to be a question this year, next year, some time, never, proposition. One
February 16, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act merely has to hold up the antiquated, well-thumbed report of the Gill Commission in order to emphasize the point I am trying to make. Without going too far beyond the scope of the bill I believe I have indicated the general dissatisfaction some of us have about the manner in which the government has been approaching this particular aspect of our social life. After all, this administration has been in office since 1963.
In closing I should like to deal with one other point which may be discussed in greater detail by one or two of my colleagues. I have in mind the administrative change which has resulted in the closing of many local offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We have seen the development of a hodgepodge of miscellaneous programs with which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is familiar, such as the supplementary benefit, the Canada Assistance Plan and so on. Coupled with these we have the other plans which come under the provincial sphere of jurisdiction such as unemployment assistance, social welfare and others. We have now reached a point where an increasing number of people just do not know where to go in order to ascertain the benefits to which they are entitled.
I believe some sort of functional administration should be established so that some person would be available who could advise people, for instance, that while they are not entitled under the rules to unemployment insurance they may be entitled to something else. This person would then advise them to what assistance they might be entitled. In this way we might be able to reduce some of the attempts to abuse the fund. When people are unemployed, ill or in need of funds with which to purchase groceries it is not unnatural that they should want to have those funds available. The very existence of the unemployment insurance fund, as well as the publicity about the Canada Assistance Plan and a guaranteed floor under which the income of no Canadian will fall, is an indication that there is some governmental responsibility in this regard. Therefore it is not surprising that many people believe they are entitled to benefits from this fund. It is a public fund in any event, whatever its source.
The division of services between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the manpower branch of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, whereby the employment office function and unemployment insurance have been separated, means

that in many communities there is no place to which a person can go in order to discuss his unemployment insurance with someone who is officially charged with the responsibility of providing such information. He must obtain such information by letter, long distance telephone or by driving 50, 100 or 150 miles. He will have access to an office of the manpower administration but is unlikely to find anyone there who can give him information concerning unemployment insurance. A recent letter I have received would seem to indicate that in the opinion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and the commission it is not considered necessary to have even an agent at such offices who could assist in the preparation of application forms.
I appreciate any efforts which are made to reduce the administrative costs in respect of any of these plans. I suggest, however, it is not proper that people should be left sitting high and dry in increasing numbers and then have to write to their members of parliament to ask where they should go in order to make application for unemployment insurance or for assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan. I believe the idea of having someone located in a district who could give advice in respect of these various plans should be seriously considered because they have grown up more or less like Topsy. By this means we would be able to reduce the administrative overhead not only in respect of unemployment insurance but also in respect of a great number of other plans. While I realize that this point may not be directly related to the principle of the bill I believe it is a matter of importance in respect of the operation of the unemployment insurance scheme, the collection of contributions and the determination of whether or not these contributions are collected properly by an employer, as well as establishing that the application is in order to determine whether or not a person is qualified.
When the minister closes the debate I hope he will comment on whether or not such an idea has occurred to him or has been considered by the government in discussions with the provincial administrations. The basic changes in the concept of unemployment insurance have been such that they have created a good deal of confusion. One may ask whether it is merely a transitional confusion or a confusion which is inherent in the situation that is being developed at the administrative level. I believe this is an important question and one on which the minister might make some comment before this debate concludes.
February 16, 1968
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the additional assistance which Bill No. C-197 will give to the great number of unemployed in our country. However, I think that this bill will bring about no improvement for Canadians as a whole because, once again, our manufacturers, our industrialists, in short, all our employers and workers will have to spend more money.
You will recall the increase in the sales tax on building materials which led many businesses to bankruptcy and caused a decline in the rate of construction.
It is obvious that an increase in the unemployment insurance contributions paid by workers and employers will cause serious difficulties. It is unfortunate that they will be called upon, once again, to pay the price of automation since, on the whole, the problem we face is due to automation, the consequence of many centuries of efforts and experience.
New inventions and technological progress should make it possible to reduce the working hours of Canadians who could have longer hours of leisure and use them for their own development. It is true that the blue or white collar workers depend a lot on all kinds of machines, from small motors to electronic computers and heavy machinery operated by oil, electricity or electrons. The results in that field are wonderful but, at the same time, the worker feels a growing uneasiness.
The worker who should be happy about those satisfactory results, who should be proud of the methods he has developed to earn his living, is worried and his happiness is replaced by fear. In his work, he depends on the machine, but he is afraid of being displaced by it. Workers have never been so worried. Our unemployed fall in two clearly defined groups: Some who would willingly do anything to keep their jobs and others who are desperately seeking work.
The present act is a mere palliative, in that it only enables workers to earn a bare living. Both groups are handicapped. Those who keep their jobs must pay more and those who lose them must manage with $30 or $35 a week to support their families decently, when under normal conditions, they could be earning from $100 to $125 a week.
The officials who have to administer the Unemployment Insurance Act are also faced with serious problems, because they are caught, on the one hand, between a limited
Unemployment Insurance Act amount of contributions and, on the other hand, an unlimited number of unemployed. A large number of citizens are also cornered by rules requiring a certain number of weeks in a given period to be eligible for benefits.
The problem grows more rapidly than the legislation improves. The bill now under study was thought out two years ago, or last year, and it will be obsolete when it becomes law, because it will have been overtaken by the higher cost of living. I also maintain that the present legislation is incomplete, since it does not cover all workers, all Canadians. Thousands of people are unemployed and go to the welfare bureau; thousands of people who have not had a chance to work regularly in the last year or so are forced to go to welfare bureau. Thousands of young people who are 19, 20, 21 years of age and who left school last year or this year with grade 6 or 7 diplomas, or trade certificates, are up against the same problem because, all in all, the act does not protect them.
These men did not work long enough and did not contribute enough to be eligible for benefits or for the training program. They do not have the right to register for the so-called retraining courses, simply because they have not contributed quite enough. Unless they have been unemployed or seeking work for three years, they cannot obtain help to improve their lot.
Unemployment insurance, which is financed jointly by the federal and provincial governments, is therefore financed through indirect and hidden taxes. In short, the unemployed finance themselves with their own assistance through the taxes they pay on all the products they consume.
Too many people are forced to resort to unemployment insurance, which is paid only after investigations have been made, and the officials responsible for them are overworked. Since the unemployed increase in numbers from week to week, one must often wait-regrettably-two or three months before obtaining anything.
Nevertheless, I shall take this opportunity to congratulate the department; we may not like to admit it, but there are, in the manpower centres, honest and respectable employees, people who truly work and are sincere, who want progress and try to help their fellow-men, people with good understanding. However, these people are human and they may have different ways of interpreting the law.

6828	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that it is one o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: The hon.
member for Portneuf.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock, I was extending congratulations.
This morning, I brought to the attention of the minister who is sponsoring the bill, that the employees of the manpower centres were working seriously, conscientiously and intelligently. But there are a few who, because they are human beings, may interpret the law in different ways, and even though these are isolated cases, I can say that some individuals who present themselves to some of these centres may be wronged.
I have before me the file of one of these unemployed and I take it upon myself to bring it to the attention of the minister. He is the head of a family, 57 years of age, who has always worked and who applies at the manpower centre. He draws benefits during 15 days. Afterwards, the centre writes to him as follows:
The amount of benefits has been reduced on account of the days where you stated that you were unavailable and where we considered you to be unavailable.
Our man returns to the centre and he gets a letter a few days later.
We have reconsidered your application for benefits. On the strength of information obtained, you are excluded from obtaining benefits for the following reasons: You have not proven that you were in a position and available to work, as prescribed under section 54(2) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Then, the man asks to be heard by the referees of the commission at the regional office. After the hearing, he is informed that:
The claimant, invited to appear at the hearing of his case before the board of referees, was present-
I will spare you the rest.
The claimant has brought forward no new evidence which would have allowed the members of

DEBATES	February 16. 1968
the board of referees to change the decisions already taken. Therefore, the board of referees unanimously confirms the two decisions taken by the insurance officer and rejects the appeal made by the claimant.
This is rather strange. "The claimant has brought forward no new evidence which would have allowed the board of referees to change the decisions already taken". I suggest that this short sentence is quite important, Mr. Speaker. It is quite obvious that the man could not come up with something new, being a worker and not a lawyer. He is unable to invent new evidence. He has always argued his case and exposed the facts in all sincerity. Since he does not belong to any association or union, he is a little uncomfortable. He decides to meet his member of parliament, who asks the authorization to appeal to the regional office of the commission, as he is allowed to according to a commission rule which reads as follows:



RIGHT TO APPEAL

[Stage Direction]
The act provides that an appeal from the decision of the board of referees can be submitted to the referee in Ottawa:
(1)	by the insurance officer in any circumstances;
(2)	by an association of employees of which the claimant was a member during his last period of employment preceding his application, and of which he remained a member until the date on which the appeal was made;
(3)	by the claimant, if the decision of the board of referees is not unanimous;
(4)	by a claimant whom the chairman of the board authorizes to make an appeal.
This paragraph gave the member the right to make his request to the referee in Ottawa.
AH appeals to the referee must be filed with the office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
All these requirements had been met.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The answer goes on like this:
Following your letter-
That is the office of the commission which advises the member that a form has been sent to the claimant.
Following your letter in which you ask for the authorization which will enable you to take the case of the above mentioned to the Canadian referee in Ottawa, we must tell you that we have sent that gentleman a form he must complete and return to us as soon as possible.
Upon reception of that form, we will send his request to the chairman of the board of referees for study.
And the file includes the answer to all that, and I quote:
Following your letter about the above-mentioned, we must tell you that the chairman of the board
February 16, 1968
[Stage Direction]
of referees does not grant the authorization to appeal to the arbitrator. He feels that his case does not include any essential factor or any special circumstance which would warrant the authorization to appeal.
The case of a man unemployed for five or six months seems insignificant, but that is not the main point. It is not an unusual occurrence either, but that chap is waiting for his money. This does not count so much. All this because the man, a worker on the labour market, is totally unprotected, that is, outside the scope of arbitration boards or labour unions.
Since the implementation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, he has paid his contributions but has never withdrawn any benefits. It was the first time he has ever applied to the manpower centre. He always had a job and his last one required him to work thirteen hours a day. Therefore, due to his advanced age, being 57, he was forced to stop working. I think it is rather hard for a man of 57 to be working 13 hours a day. He told the official at the manpower centre that he was no longer able to work thirteen hours a day, but that he was willing to work eight hours a day, like everybody else.
Now, I claim a man has the right to be tired without being considered an outlaw. We have proof of that in the correspondence exchanged between the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. minister of transport. That correspondence can be found on page 2472 of the Hansard for September 25, 1967. Allow me to quote a few excerpts because they are really amusing.
September 5, 1967 The Rt. Hon. L. B. Pearson, M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mike:
Some time ago, I discussed my possible retirement from public life with you and you were good enough to assure me that if I wished to be president of the Canadian Transport Commission when the time came to set it up, you would recommend my appointment.
-after a good deal of reflection, I have come to the conclusion that, if you are still of the same mind, I would like to become president of the commission... While a demanding and responsible position, it would not involve the same pressures as there are upon a minister of the crown. Though my general health seems to be excellent, I have, as you know, found these pressures very great in the past three years.
-I feel that I should accept the opportunity for somewhat less strenuous public service offered by the presidency of the Canadian Transport Commission and, if you agree, ask you to accept my resignation as Minister of Transport as soon as it is convenient for you to have the commission established.
Unemployment Insurance Act
And it is signed by the Minister of Transport Mr. J. W. Pickersgill.
We know the results. It did not take long. All the minister, exhausted by a $35,000 a year job, had to do was to send a simple letter to find himself a $45,000 a year job. But, for the ordinary guy, who has worked all his life for a small salary, who has paid unemployment insurance for many a year, who has struggled along, and spared no effort for 45 years, I would consider that it means destitution. Because that builder said he was tired, he is considered an outlaw. On the simple decision of a civil servant at the manpower centre, he is treated like a mangy dog.
Now, that man will not go without food, will not die of hunger either, because we have many welfare laws in our country. He need only apply for help. He has the right to go to the manpower centre. We know unemployment insurance helps the man who is out of work, but only after an investigation. If a worker manages, in spite of a small salary, to save a few dollars during his years of work, the civil servants at the manpower centre first advises him to spend those savings and, then to come back again. There again, the simple decision of an employee of the manpower centre will force a fellow to spend the $1,000 or $2,000 he has managed to save during his 45 years of work before he becomes entitled to receiving a few cents from unemployment insurance.
I regret to say those things to the minister, the sponsor of the bill. He is not abreast of the situation, and it is too bad that the one actually responsible is not here today. In the case I mentioned, I am convinced he should not be forced to spend all his savings. It is a simple matter of honesty, justice and common sense.
If a minister is entitled to be tired and rest at $45,000 a year, I suppose a worker should have the right to withdraw what he is entitled to and expects. He has earned unemployment insurance benefits by paying thousands of dollars in dues throughout his life, and if he found a job first thing tomorrow morning, the government would find a way of catching up with him, and every week he would have to pay his unemployment insurance dues. He has been classified as "no good" to enable him to receive benefits, but he is totally unqualified to pay his dues. Yet, he simply said that he did not want to work thirteen hours a day but just eight.
February 16, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance Act
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the house to a somewhat similar case. This concerns a married woman, a widow with three children aged eight to fifteen. She had earned $85 a week for 4 years as the manager of a firm. Following a change in administration, she was fired. So she went to a manpower centre. After waiting a month, she was offered work at $35 a week. Try as she might to explain that she cannot think for a second of making both ends meet on $35 a week, that she could not possibly take that job, she is outlawed, she no longer receives unemployment insurance benefits. She goes before the board, which again rules against her. She tries to appeal to Ottawa and there again, the district office denies her permission to appeal.
That is nonsense to me and I should like the responsible department to deal with problems such as this one. I maintain that it should be easy enough to settle it, as the Unemployment Insurance Commission has all the personnel it needs. I believe it could be solved by appointing to the pay office the employees who are good collectors and to the collection office, the ones who pay badly. The whole problem would be solved overnight.
Now, all decisions of that kind are not always made in a natural way. I believe some officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission come to decisions for fear of being short of money. They realize there is not much left in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. A mere look at the Montreal area would convince anybody of that. When we consider that there were 67,771 unemployed in January 1968, it is obvious that this is disheartening for the workers, for those who are waiting for their benefits. It is also disheartening for the commission employees. They are overburdened with work and it is difficult for them to answer everyone, for they are unable to do all that work from one week to the other. It is only natural that unfair decisions should be made in some cases.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
There is the case of another person in the Montreal region, a Canadian citizen who had been working for two years in an ironworks plant. One can imagine what happened there. As soon as road construction slowed down, this man was fired. That happened on January 6. A few days later, he received a letter which said:
We have examined your benefit application. According to the information obtained, you are ineligible for benefits under sections 146 to 148 of

the unemployment insurance regulations, and payments will therefore be suspended as from January 7, 1968.
It was easy to suspend payments since he had never received any. This worker was fired on the morning of the 6th; he went to the manpower centre in the afternoon of the same day. His case had already been examined on January 7, and he had been struck off the list. It was done quite quickly and easily. He has come to the manpower centre every week since then. We are now in the middle of February, and he has not yet touched a penny. In my opinion, this is very unjust, because a person who is unemployed needs that money.
I notice that when public servants want to be pleasant, they can. For example, the members who are paid $18,000 a year were supposed to get their mid-December pay on the last day of the month, the 31st, but they received it ten days earlier, on the 21st. We, members of the house, who get $18,000 a year, are paid a week and a half in advance, but those who lose their jobs have to wait month and a half to get a scanty $30 a week.
Mr. Speaker, I would like such matters to be taken into consideration. I understand that the problem nowadays is one of automation, but we are moving in a vicious circle. We are taking money out of the pockets of those who are lucky enough to still have a job, in order to give it to those who are unlucky and do not have a job any more, but both, the working man and the unemployed, have less and less money to spend in stores. Therefore, stocks are building up in warehouses, manufacturers are laying off more employees. We are moving in a vicious circle and we do not seem to be willing to find a way out of it. From one day to the next, the gap grows wider between the purchasing power and the large supply of goods for sale.
If there are so many unemployed while stores are chock full of goods, it is because production plays its role very well, and with fewer employees at that. It is obvious that everyone should be able to do his share of work in the national production. The whole system must be restructured, first of all by reducing the hours of work. The industrialist who now has three shifts working eight hours a day, for a continuous 24-hour production, should consider, it seems to me, hiring a fourth shift and have everyone work six hours a day. That alone would mean that 50 per cent of all the unemployed in the land would be rehired in one fell swoop.
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
If that procedure were established, it is obvious that even tomorrow morning, the industrialist would play his part. The state would then have to play its own role. As fewer hours of work would give less money to the worker, the state would compensate for this reduced income by increasing family allowances, and granting a substantial subsidy to mothers who have to stay at home to take care of their family.
I should like the cabinet to study those questions, because unemployment figures prove that the present government has failed. Moreover, the government should study the possibility of making necessary improvements.
I am sorry that I have to direct some blame to the new minister, whether the regular minister or the new minister appointed last week. They are two hon. members whom I should not like to blame in the least. Let us take the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) except for blaming him because he has accomplished little in the field of family allowances, we owe him nothing but congratulations. It is unfortunate that he had to replace today the one who is absent, but, in any event, it is a fait accompli. Today's situation is due to the minister's absence, just like other situations are due to mass resignations. We are living through a period of resignations. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has resigned. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) is considering his resignation. The Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) is thinking about leaving politics. In order to resign, Mr. Speaker, I presume it is necessary to have well-lined pockets.
Nevertheless in spite of all those departures, I hope there will be enough goodwill left in the cabinet to look after those who have empty pockets indeed and lack the necessities of life.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with this bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. This is one more of a series of bills that are confessions of failure on the part of the government to tackle inflation adequately. Amounts of money that seemed sufficient a few years ago to provide for the temporary needs of people are now grossly inadequate because of the spiral of inflation, and it seems unfortunate that as each of these confessions
DEBATES	6831
Unemployment Insurance Act comes along it has a tendency to add to this spiralling effect.
We in Social Credit have for a long time advocated various changes and reforms in monetary policy. We have advocated various moves which would lower interest rates in this country but have always been subjected to a great deal of criticism as a result. It has been said that the system now in operation is the best of all possible systems, that everything will work out all right in the end and it cannot be tampered with. Yet, Mr. Speaker, over and over again we see that the present system is not adequate to meet the problems of the day and that parliament is constantly called upon to patch up, to amend, to provide a stopgap or fill-in in an effort to try to do something to ameliorate the situation. Parliament attempts to do these things without any guarantee or assurance that the government is really moving to solve the basic economic problems that confront the country.
We have had no assurance even that the whole Unemployment Insurance Act will shortly be reviewed or, much more important than the review of a single piece of legislation, that the act will be reviewed in the light of the Income Tax Act as well as a whole host of proposals for taxation reform. I speak not just of the Carter report but of the reactions to the report, some of which have produced extremely constructive proposals that merit a great deal of study on the part of the government. They are proposals that should be studied along with the policy in relation to welfare payments, pension payments and the whole vast network that has been built up piece by piece through the years, each piece having been added without relation to the rest of the system.
Let me mention the minimum wage laws we have today. Even now members of the house are advocating that the minimum wage provided for be increased considerably. Just because such a move is advocated does not mean it will necessarily be put into practice. Nevertheless that suggestion has been made. We realize, of course, that the minimum wage legislation tends to increase the pool of unemployed, of whom we have a great many in Canada, because we have failed to develop our educational facilities. We have never had any adequate proposals in relation to providing the necessary finances for this kind of non-profit, public institution. We have lacked any sound system of public financing through the years.
February 16, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act [DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
We hear criticisms about seasonal labour and the impact that seasonal labour has upon the unemployment insurance fund. Any abuses in this regard should be taken care of. However, to those who criticize seasonal labour I direct this simple question: How would they like to change places with the people who must rely on seasonal labour? From the labour point of view a season in Canada can be extremely short, often extending merely from early to late summer or early fall. This means that people who depend on seasonal labour face a long winter without income, which is a serious consideration indeed. The Unemployment Insurance Act functions at the present time in a way that aids and assists these people. Whether it should function that way is another question. Until there is a major review of the entire system and until some other way is found to put a floor under such people and to provide the type of economy that will reduce that pool to a minimum, the present plan is the next best thing.
The Carter commission speaks well of unemployment insurance, saying that unemployment insurance gives us a method of injecting money into the economy when it is slowing down. Though Carter had high praise for unemployment insurance one wonders whether, instead of being an insurance scheme, it is not a scheme to redistribute income. So long as its function is to redistribute income and so long as it is sold to the people of Canada as an insurance scheme- here we see two incompatible elements of the scheme-we are bound to have difficulties in administering the scheme and in making its purpose effective. Such a scheme will hinder the adequate development of a more comprehensive system of providing a guaranteed income to Canadians.
I could cite examples of what I mean. One example involves a gentleman who is not quite eligible for the old age security pension and whose wife suffered a severe stroke some years ago. She is almost completely incapacitated. By making heroic efforts they have managed between them to maintain a home and to function as normally as they possibly could. Because of his wife's disability the man had to give up a job which paid an adequate income. He devotes a great deal of time to taking care of her. Of course he could have abandoned her completely, I suppose, to

the arms of welfare assistance by disappearing. But he did not do that. He did not choose the easy way but chose instead to keep his family together and to take the high road of duty and consideration.
He thought that his wife obviously would qualify for assistance, and after all we heard about the Canada Assistance Plan one would think he would have had no problems in securing assistance after that plan came into effect. His inadequate income from his seasonal employment is supplemented by unemployment insurance payments. The welfare people do not consider these payments as insurance payments; they regard them as income. His fluctuating income from work, added to what he receives by way of unemployment insurance payments, brings his income to the point where the welfare people, who must dutifully follow their regulations, frequently cut off the assistance that is granted to his wife.
And so this game goes on. He is involved with three possible sources of income. To those three possible sources has now been added a fourth source. His wife has become eligible for old age security income and she now gets $75 a month, the result being that the extra assistance has disappeared. At the same time she was also sent a form which asked her to apply for the guaranteed annual income supplement. We know, of course, that this is not a true guaranteed income to her since the husband's income must be considered at the same time. This highlights a basic fault in the guaranteed supplement program that drives many to despair. The husband's and wife's incomes are considered together, whereas they ought to have a choice of lumping their incomes together or treating them separately according to which course of action will give greater advantage to each of them as individuals. The over-all amounts would not be too great, even when one considers the kind of pennypinching that goes on.
Yet another factor must be considered. The wife wonders whether she should apply for the guaranteed income supplement. She may be eligible for it when her husband is not working but she wonders whether she will be eligible for any part of the extra $30 a month when he is working. The difficulty is that he cannot estimate his income for the coming year as there is always the possibility that it may be greater than the amount which will make her eligible for the extra supplement. Should he earn more than he anticipated, will
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
this couple have to repay their so-called overpayments? It would take one who is conversant with higher mathematics or is an accountant to determine whether his unreliable income from work, when lumped together with government payments, would bar her from applying for the guaranteed income supplement.
These remarks illustrate what I mean when I say that these programs ought to be completely and totally reviewed. Couples ought not to be placed in the baffling predicament of not being able to determine by themselves the course of action to take. Our welfare officers ought not to be restricted by regulations whose application they themselves describe as harsh. Our welfare officers would much rather not have to write to people and demand repayment in whole or in part of any moneys that have been paid out. I think the answer in part is to simplify procedures under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Instead of thinking of unemployment insurance payments as income, as our welfare people seem to do, they ought to be considered as true insurance payments and should not be considered as income. After all, an insurance payment is paid for a loss; it does not constitute a gain. If you insure your house against fire and it burns down you have not gained. You have lost something, and when you are indemnified you receive only partial payment for what is lost. Similarly if a person becomes unemployed he has lost his job and the insurance payment he receives is only a partial payment to compensate him for the full salary he has lost. Even if the amendment is passed and the new figures are introduced the unemployment insurance payment will still constitute only a partial payment of what most individuals would have earned had they not lost their jobs. I wish that federal and provincial welfare authorities would look at these payments in that light. Also, I wish that those responsible would see to it that current practices carried out under the unemployment insurance legislation are simplified.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We should also bear in mind the situation faced by those who have no pension plan and are still working. Though they may have reached pensionable age they cannot quit of their own accord because the old age pension would be so much lower than what they could make if they continued to work. If they did quit, no unemployment insurance benefit would be available to them. It would be withheld because they would have left their jobs
DEBATES	6833
Unemployment Insurance Act of their own accord. But if they were employed by a company which had a pension plan they would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits over a period of time because they would have been laid off or retired by the company concerned. I suggest we could improve the act by writing into it a system whereby persons who have paid into the fund over a certain number of years would have a right to benefit in such circumstances.
Our attention has also been called to the situation of older people who lose out partly because they have never learned the ropes so far as the unemployment insurance administration is concerned. They have been too busy working steadily throughout the years until they have to quit through no fault of their own. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) gave an example of the kind of case I have in mind. I have had such cases brought to my attention on a number of occasions. All possibility of collecting at any time in the future is lost. Yet it seems to me that if this scheme is to function as an insurance scheme a person who has paid into it over a long period of time and never drawn anything out should have the right to benefit. If any private insurance company in Canada functioned like this plan does it would be quickly run out of business by government inspectors. It could not get away with collecting money for a long period and then refusing to pay anything back in the end.
I should like to refer now to a point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) concerning the consolidation of the offices and the inconvenience suffered by Canadians who find themselves many miles away from the nearest office. I used to receive numerous letters bringing this and other matters to my attention before the consolidation of the offices. The nearest one has now been moved well outside my constituency and in the last few months I have not received a single specific complaint. I would like to think this means everything is going well, that the consolidation has worked well and that people do not have any more problems. I suspect, however, that the office is now so far away that people who might otherwise write to me despair of finding any redress for their complaints. They are hesitant to spend money on a trip to the office if they lose their jobs and they hesitate to hire someone else to do it for them because that would cost even more. When their savings are dwindling and there is no prospect of another job they hold on to what they have as long as they can.
February 16, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act
I hope the greatest care is given in this consolidation of offices to seeing that people who live at a distance receive the utmost consideration. I agree entirely with the suggestion that we should appoint people whose task would be to investigate special cases. I am afraid that far from everything being marvelous at the moment, very real problems still exist.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are dealing with a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to increase the benefits payable to the unemployed and extend coverage to new groups of persons.
While generally I support these principles I have a few reservations I should like to bring to the attention of the house which I believe disturbed many Canadians when they heard this bill was to be brought forward. I refer mainly to people who are to be included in the plan for the first time and who feel they will never have an opportunity of benefiting from the program though they will be obliged to pay into the fund. Their feeling is that the scheme is riddled with abuses and that their payments will only permit those abuses to continue. I do not agree with these criticisms but I feel they should be dealt with.
In general the criticisms we receive from our constituencies can be classified in four categories. First, there are those who disapprove of any unemployment insurance whatsoever. Second, there are those who while accepting such a program feel that abuses have been too widespread and that we should correct these abuses before extending coverage or benefits. Third, there are those who merely disagree with the proposal to pay increased benefits at this time and, last, there are others who disagree with the proposal to extend coverage.
I should like to deal with the first objection, the contention that unemployment insurance is unnecessary. When unemployment insurance was first introduced the intention was to provide income for those who were really out of work and who honestly could not find employment. To this extent it was certainly most worth while and useful. There was another important reason for introducing it. It was brought in so as to maintain purchasing power during periods of unemployment and recession with a view to limiting the extension of that recession. Again, this was a most valuable objective and one which in my opinion was justified. During the great


depression men were laid off and once they were laid off and deprived of purchasing power the effect of their unemployment spread to the merchants who would normally sell them goods and services.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Unemployment insurance is in many respects like other insurance. Just as we insure ourselves against fire or automobile accidents we insure against the risk of losses resulting from unemployment. Just as we pay premiums for other types of insurance we pay premiums for unemployment insurance coverage. There are some people who believe that because they pay unemployment insurance premiums they have the right to collect at some time in their fife. I find that this feeling is rather widespread, but it is hard to understand. People who hold other types of insurance do not think this way. Many of us pay high premiums for automobile insurance-I think much too high-but we do not expect or want to collect on that insurance. We take it out to protect us against costly, unforeseen automobile accidents, and we certainly do not look forward to the day when we have to collect on it. The same attitude should be adopted toward unemployment insurance. We pay it merely to protect ourselves against the possibility that we will be out of work against our will and cannot honestly find new employment. I think it is worth while to put forward these arguments from time to time because I believe there are a certain number of people in Canada who dispute the need for unemployment insurance. It is a very necessary program, for the two very important reasons I have mentioned.
I now wish to deal with the abuses that have been mentioned by other hon. members and that are referred to in more detail in the Gill commission report. Some of the more flagrant ones involve people who draw unemployment insurance while having part time jobs or other income, and people who draw unemployment benefits but are not honestly looking for work and who use those benefits to subsidize their laziness. Then there are married women whose husbands are making rather good incomes but who draw unemployment benefits when they are pregnant. There are people who are retired on good pensions and have no intention of going back to work but also draw unemployment insurance benefits. There is also the problem of seasonal workers, and the large group of people I have mentioned who feel they have a right to draw
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
on this fund just because they have paid into it.
When the bill was introduced I had intended not to support it until I received a commitment from the government that it would do something concrete to correct these abuses and bring the act completely up to date. This afternoon I was pleased to hear the minister say that some steps have already been taken to correct these abuses and that others are in the works. However, I would like to have more detail on these measures to correct the abuses, and I would like a definite commitment from the government that it will soon bring the act completely up to date. When the minister is summing up on second reading perhaps he will give us more detailed information on what the department is doing to correct the abuses, and let us know what other measures will be introduced soon.
Some hon. members have referred to the fact that certain economists say that unemployment insurance encourages unemployment. I think this is a false argument. I do not believe that the small benefits we give to our unemployed encourage unemployment among those who are healthy and able to work. The vast majority of Canadians want to work. They enjoy working and only fall back on unemployment insurance benefits when they are honestly unemployed.
Speaking of the two specific matters dealt with in this bill I wish to say there is no doubt, if unemployment insurance is a good thing, that the benefits must be reasonable and must be sufficient to maintain a man and his family when he is unemployed. The present rates were introduced several years ago when incomes, rents and the standard of living were much lower than they are today. All these things have gone up. Nobody denies that they have gone up in recent years, and we must increase the benefits to make the unemployment insurance program reasonable and workable.
With respect to the provision in the bill extending coverage upward to include some people in the higher income groups, some people in these groups argue that they are in areas of employment, are receiving incomes, and are at stages in their lives when they are most unlikely to be unemployed. All I can say is that the statistics show that this is not so. Many people in the groups covered by this bill have been let go at advanced stages in their lives, men in their forties and fifties who had supervisory positions or who worked in clerical positions. This has been due to
DEBATES	6835
Unemployment Insurance Act automation and technical innovation in Canada, factors which will progress more rapidly in the future. People in this category must also guard against the eventuality that they may become unemployed. It is not something we want but, just as we insure ourselves against fire, theft and automobile accidents, since statistics show that men in this category could be displaced by technological change and automation they should be included in this program in order to protect their incomes against unemployment.
During consideration of this bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act we must ask the question, how does unemployment insurance and a revision of unemployment insurance relate to the new concept of a guaranteed minimum income? Many people have suggested that there should be one comprehensive program to maintain incomes in the nation, to provide a minimum income to people who either cannot work or are unable to find work, to people who are blind, to the crippled and the elderly. There are a great many arguments in favour of this concept. I would hope the government will plan an over-all review of unemployment insurance and other social welfare programs. It seems to me that there might be very real benefit, and a saving through efficiency, if these programs were co-ordinated so that they would provide income to people who are honestly unemployed and honestly unable to work.
I conclude by saying that this measure is certainly needed. The rates of benefit must be brought up to date to correspond with today's cost of living. We must protect those people who are likely to be unemployed. I think it is worth while that we do so and that we pass this bill. However, I repeat that I want a statement from the minister when he closes the debate on second reading, giving a commitment that something will be done about the rampant abuses with regard to unemployment insurance which disturb many Canadians. If that is done this bill will be accepted by the Canadian people in good spirit and with good support.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the amendments in this bill because, as has been mentioned previously, it is time they were made. We are also grateful that certain amendments will be made to the regulations in order to clarify some of the anomalies in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope that the minister who is piloting this bill through the house will be like a good judge
6836	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act sitting in his first court and will look favourably and leniently upon the proposals I intend to make.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Having listened to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), we know there is much scope for abuses of the benefits which can be derived from the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, as is the case in respect of most legislation I believe there are people who become expert at finding and taking advantage of loopholes. Therefore I hope that the mere fact that there are loopholes will not justify anyone taking a stand against this bill. I too welcome a measure which will put some teeth into the regulations so that the act may be administered properly either in Ottawa or in the field. I should like to repeat, however, that many of the persons who apply for these benefits are neither scholars nor college graduates and sometimes do make mistakes which are not intentional.
I should like to be assured that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) would not vote against this legislation because he lives in the affluent society of Montreal. I would hope that he would think of the fishermen in some areas of the country who practice a very dangerous trade and who live with uncertainty because they can neither see the crop grow nor see it deplete. The area in which they must search for their product is such that their trade is an uncertain one. They work as hard as many others who are employed in other industries and I believe should be rewarded for their efforts. I am sure the hon. member would agree that if these fishermen are able to build up sufficient benefits they deserve to draw from the fund.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) has drawn our attention to many of the problems involved in the administration of the act. I will limit myself to a reference to one of the most important of these problems. I have in mind the closing down of unemployment insurance offices across the country. I have been assured that this was done after serious study and concern in respect of those who are involved either in paying contributions to or receiving benefits from the fund. However, it would seem to me that a great amount of poor judgment has been exercised in these deliberations. I believe that those who have made these decisions certainly have not been in contact with the persons who must do business with the unemployment insurance offices. I am sure

DEBATES	February 16, 1968
the correspondence which has been received by members of parliament recently from their constituents establishes the fact that the act is not being administered as well as it was in the past before the closing down of these offices. The recent increase in unemployment may cause more problems in this regard in the future.
I should like to ask the minister to take another look at the situation which has arisen as a result of offices having been closed down across the country. I would hope he would do this in order to determine whether or not the decisions which have been taken were justified. There is always the danger, of course, that we are becoming too much involved in computerizing and centralizing the offices across the country. This no doubt is done for the purpose of bringing about efficiency. However, from the experience of the provincial governments and other agencies I am sure we realize that computer systems have not yet reached the stage where they are completely reliable, especially when it is important to make sure that those who need their unemployment insurance benefits on a certain date receive them on that date.
One of the greatest problems seems to be that we have lost contact with the people. As I said before, we must realize that we are dealing with all classes of people not all of whom are able to understand all the implications contained in this bill and in other legislation. The people who are entitled to these benefits should have offices close to them so they would be in a position to have a personal contact. I was very surprised to hear that the nearest unemployment insurance office to Whitehorse is 1,300 miles away at Prince George. When there are 20,000 people in the labour force in an area this would seem to be a rather long distance away for the nearest unemployment insurance office to be. It sometimes takes eight or ten days for a letter to go back and forth and sometimes four or five months before the benefits are received. It seems to me that in this instance the administration has gone a little too far.
In my region, which is a peninsula, two offices were closed down. The two most distant ones were closed down and the central one was retained. This has meant that the people must in some cases travel 250 miles in order to have personal contact with the office. Because of the mail situation during the past winter owing to storms and weather conditions generally the people in this area who are entitled to benefits sometimes have had to
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
wait two, three or four weeks before receiving them. I am sure the minister realizes that the recipients of these benefits cannot afford to wait that long when it is necessary that they have this money in order to be able to purchase their groceries.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As I said before, this bill which amends the rates of contributions and benefits is very welcome. There is no doubt that the actuarial studies of this insurance plan have been seriously considered. I have reservations, however, about the ceiling of $7,800. I believe we have gone beyond the original intention of the bill by extending the ceiling to $7,800 a year. I believe that the majority of the people earning over $6,000 are never unemployed and yet they will now be required to pay into the fund. These people have college degrees, technical training or are employed in a trade and because there are plenty of jobs available to them they are not likely to be unemployed. This is very much like an individual insuring his house in case of fire, when he knows for a fact that the house will not bum. Surely such a man would not insure his house under those circumstances. I am sure this bill goes beyond the wishes of the people when it includes those who earn over $6,000. There is nothing in the bill about the new categories of individuals to be included, and I wonder whether this will be covered by the regulations or subsequent amendments. I hope people such as teachers and nurses will never be included in this category in relation to this unemployment insurance scheme.
Two months ago I spoke about fishermen. I would not dare suggest that fishermen should not receive unemployment insurance benefits, but perhaps we should look at the act to see whether there is another method to assure an appropriate income in relation to their labours. These people are not rewarded according to their efforts. We should set up some kind of study of this sector of our economy in order to understand properly how to convince the people in some parts of Canada that others are proportionately unrewarded for their hours of labour. I would certainly welcome a study of this kind.
I have a great deal of praise for the officers of the unemployment insurance commission, because I have always received courteous replies and attention to my requests. It is obvious from their letters they make an endeavour to get to the bottom of my problems. This helps me to answer queries posed by my constituents.
DEBATES	6837
Unemployment Insurance Act
In 1966 I drew the minister's attention to what I thought was an anomaly. Workers in the forestry or lumbering industry are not allowed to contribute an amount to the unemployment insurance scheme equivalent to that contributed by other labourers. Let me give an example. Before certain amendments were brought forward to this act, workers in the lumbering industry were not allowed to contribute more than 78 cents on an income of $69 per week. Such individual was also limited in respect of the benefits he may receive. I suggest there should be some equalization in this regard, so that the contributions he makes are directly related to the benefits he receives. There should be some method of relating the payments made by individuals working in the forestry industry to those working in the general labour field. At this time there is an artificial ceiling on the benefits to which these people are entitled.
At the request of the forestry industry in my area I took this matter up with the minister. I also discussed this with officials of the unemployment insurance commission. As a result I discovered that the regulations were changed in July of 1966. Not being actively engaged in the lumbering industry I am not sure whether they have been applied since that time. I suggest to the minister that amendments should be made to allow those engaged in the lumbering industry to benefit on an equal basis with those engaged in other labour. They should be allowed to make proportionately higher contributions, and certainly higher than the maximum now allowed.
Let me refer to an individual who owns one truck, which he may use in the forestry, mining or fishing industry. This individual may be working for someone else. He should have the same advantage as an individual who owns a mechanical saw. I am not referring to someone who owns a number of trucks, because under these circumstances, having regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, such person is an employer. These people who own one truck and operate it themselves should be entitled to the full benefits of the act. Their allowable contributions should be related to their incomes on the same basis contributions are calculated for other labourers.
The study to which I referred earlier should also take into consideration the situation regarding persons working in the forestry industry, particularly those who own equipment which they operate on forestry or
6838	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act construction jobs. These people should be entitled to the same benefits as others. They should be in the position to draw benefits if and when they become unemployed.
There are several other points I should like to raise in relation to this legislation, but I think I should wait until we reach the consideration of the bill at the committee stage.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak about these proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am pleased to note that in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) a fellow maritimer has stepped into the breach. I refer of course to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who has taken over the sponsorship of this bill.
I listened very carefully to his remarks this morning regarding the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. According to his remarks the ceiling in respect of contributions is to be raised from $5,460 to $7,800. Anyone making $7,800 or less will be required to make contributions. I understand that employers' contributions are to be increased proportionately, to the extent of $1.40 per week for those earning $100 per week and over. The former ceiling on employers' contributions was 94 cents on earnings up to a maximum of $69 and over.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Employees' contributions are increased. They range up to a maximum level of $1.33 per week, compared to the former level of 90 cents. Allowable earnings are raised to $27.00, so that a maximum income of $80 per week is permitted: that is, the $53 plus the $27 allowable earnings. The act comes into effect on June 30, 1968.
I realize that these changes are required, and I support them; but surely it is a fact that it is the incompetence of this government that has made the changes necessary. How are these changes to be considered? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson)-I regret that he is not in his seat at the present time because I intend to refer to him, although not in an uncharitable way-stated in his speech at Kingston in July that the reason for the increase was inflation. The sad fact is that inflation has already eaten away the increase that is proposed. It hardly does more than compensate for the rise in prices since the last increase in 1959.
Speaking of inflation, who can live on $53 a week when meat is selling at $1.30 a pound?
[Mr. Keays.l
DEBATES	February 16. 1968
Second, I believe the increase itself will create still further inflation. A third point-and this was covered quite well by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) when he spoke today-is that although the Gill commission brought in its report on the Unemployment Insurance Act on December 21, 1962, nothing has been done by this government, in the almost five years it has been in office, to implement the recommendations of that commission.
The major proposals of the Gill commission were as follows: benefits for fully insured eligible unemployed to be fully financed by contributions from employers and employees; second, benefits for long term unemployed and seasonally unemployed to be financed from general tax revenues, and these people were to be removed from the fund; third, those who are unemployable or largely outside the labour force to be regarded as social welfare cases.
If the Gill commission recommendations were implemented, the effect would be to remove freeloaders from the fund and remove from wage earners the burden of paying for those individuals who are in reality welfare cases. This bill adopts none of these proposals and continues to operate the fund as a welfare proposal, with employed workers largely paying for those who are not employed or even employable.
The philosophy behind this bill is quite obvious. To find the answers, one has only to look at the speeches made by the Minister of Labour, and especially his speech at Kingston last July. The most authoritative declaration in this regard was made by the minister at Kingston-and again I apologize for referring to him in his absence, but I was unaware when I prepared these notes that he would not be in the house today-at a conference of unemployment insurance officials in July, 1967.
In his speech at that meeting the minister advanced the concepts of universality and integration, and although he later tried to back away and water down his statements there is no doubt that they represent an accurate reflection of government intentions. Basically, the minister made it very plain in his speech at Kingston that this government was abandoning, or had already abandoned, the insurance concept and the concept of actuarial soundness, and was now in the process of turning unemployment insurance into a straight welfare scheme.
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
The Minister of Labour described the major objective of unemployment insurance as "an economic stabilizer or, if you like, a flywheel". It seems to me, in view of the present approach, that the flywheel under this government has got out of control. The government's economic policies are going to burn out the motor, strip the gears, bust up the crankshaft and throw the propeller out of alignment.
After the flywheel approach, the minister's next major objective was universality. I want to quote exactly what he said when talking to unemployment insurance officials at Kingston on July 17, 1967. I quote from the official text distributed by the minister's office:
I have already touched briefly on what I believe to be the second major objective of present day unemployment insurance policy: that is, universality.
Nobody in this party has any objection to covering as many people as can possibly be covered, in line with the capacity of the program to support such coverage. Unfortunately, the bill-and this can be determined when we get into committee-does not completely define the new classifications that may be covered. Speaking as a member from the Atlantic region, I would say that we are happy with the coverage that has been provided to fishermen and agricultural workers.
However, we must be very careful before we in parliament undertake any action that will destroy the actuarial soundness of the unemployment insurance scheme. I want to say very bluntly that if we are going to turn it into another massive welfare program under this government, we will be playing false to the millions of workers who, over the years have invested their hard earned money and that of their employers in this program.
If unemployment insurance-which up to now has been an insurance program based upon actuarial considerations-is to become another welfare program, we must face the fact that the taxpayer and the economy will be called on to provide more millions of dollars to finance non-productive programs, adding to inflation, higher prices, rising costs and the continual depreciation of our dollar.
The whole capitalistic system is built upon faith in our dollar as a unit of exchange. If this government persists in implementing policies that destroy the faith of Canadians and foreign investors in the value of our dollar, it will bring about the economic destruction of our nation.
DEBATES	6839
Unemployment Insurance Act
The Minister of Labour is fully aware, I am sure, of the effects of the principles and programs he is putting forward. Speaking at Kingston-and this must have been one of his days for speaking frankly-he said:
The rates have not been changed tor several years and inflation has made them woefully inadequate in many cases.
We can all agree with that. Let me say that never have I been in more wholehearted agreement with any statement made by any minister of this government than when the minister said that inflation has eaten away the benefits. Let us face the fact that since this government took office, which in my view was a black day for Canada, there has been an unbidden and uninvited guest at every Canadian table. That uninvited guest has been inflation. And that guest was invited into Canadian homes as a parasitical boarder by this government and its policies. Inflation reminds me of a lamprey eel: It sucks onto its victim, first draining the victim of its blood, then its vitality and finally its life.
Canadians have been paying, in indirect taxation levied by inflation, for the follies and incompetence of this government's policies. Since the government took office prices have risen over a wide range that is almost impossible to compute, but the general level of the increase has varied between 10 per cent and 15 per cent right across the board. This is the indirect tax that Canadians are paying for policies that are non-productive, that do not contribute to the economy or its expansion. The only effect has been to reduce drastically the purchasing power of our dollar.
A certain degree of inflation, say 2 per cent a year, is tolerable; it is not desirable, but it is tolerable in a highly industrialized economy. This was the figure when the Conservative party was in power, led by Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. Under this government, prices have ranged and are still ranging, two to three times the 2 per cent figure. The minister is aware of this and the government is aware of this. The labour minister has said we must raise rates because of inflation. Does he not stop to think, or does the government not stop to think what has brought that inflation into being?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am not in a position to give, nor do I want to give the government or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) or even the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. 6840	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act MacEachen), who is piloting the bill through the house, a lesson in economics. I have to tell the minister the policies of his government have worked greater hardship on the working men and women of this country than have the policies of any government in our history. Some may say that is an exaggerated statement, but what has happened? Since this government took office, Canadians are paying 15 to 20 per cent more for necessities-not luxuries, but for food, lodging, houses, gasoline, clothing and so on. Medical supplies and drugs are costing a great deal more. The cost of automobile insurance has gone up, as has the cost of building materials and supplies.
The cost of every single thing that the ordinary Canadian needs to live and support his family has gone up, and away up, since this government came into power. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, there have been ten price increases in the food and lodging category in the last ten months. The price change from only one year ago amounts to 4.5 per cent, which indicates there is no slackening of inflation facing consumers. The rise in prices in Canada during the past three years has been considerably higher than in the United States. I should like to point out that we are not fighting a war in Viet Nam; we are not fighting the race in space with the Soviets. We are not supporting a massive anti-poverty program. In fact it is difficult to see where Canadians have received any benefit from the enormous amounts this government has spent.
Now we come to unemployment insurance. Canadians are paying a 4 per cent payroll tax for old age pensions. They are paying enormous income tax deductions. They are paying unemployment insurance deductions, and these are now going to increase. Does the minister and this government not realize that each time payroll deductions are increased for the employer and the employee, two things happen. The first thing that happens when the employee loses 10 per cent from his pay cheque in added tax deductions is that he immediately requests a salary increase in order to catch up. Surely the government has not forgotten the number of wage demands that took place following the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan and the deductions that were made in January, 1966. In quick succession we had the seaway workers, the dock workers, the railroad employees, and I don't know how many others, asking for salary increases.
Some comment was made by the new Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Mackasey), and I

DEBATES	February 16, 1968
am glad to see him in the house. As a matter of fact, I thought he would be piloting this bill. I wish him a happy, and short, term in his new office.
Apparently the government has not learned the lesson that what you take away from people they will immediately try to get back. The second thing that happens as soon as you impose matching contributions, which simply amount to a reduction in buying power, is that the companies pass on their contributions to the public in the form of increased prices. Who does the government think pays for this? Certainly it is the worker who pays for it. The company contribution is passed on in the form of increased prices, but never the exact amount, it is always a little bit more. The same worker who has been subjected to yet another payroll deduction reducing his buying power, is also subjected to another price increase, thus further reducing his buying power. In the next few months, the government comes along with a tax increase, always on the little people, and buying power is further reduced. The immediate consequence is yet another demand for wage increases. If that demand is granted, then that too is passed on in the form of increased prices, as it has to be, and once again the same worker pays the shot.
Neither the minister nor the government can understand how we can have such inflation. This government, deliberately or otherwise, has created inflation right across this country in every field of economic activity. They have moved in and stripped away the prosperity of Canadians. Today Canadians are running faster than ever before, just to stay where they are. Of course ministers are now so busy shining up their images that they do not have time to worry about what is happening to ordinary folk. Like the wicked stepmother in Snow White, all that comes out of ministerial offices these days is the refrain: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of us all?" We will soon know the answer to that.
In the meantime, what is happening in Canada? This government is not helping the working men and women of this country by introducing measures that bring about higher prices in costs and reduce the purchasing power of the dollar. The best thing it could do at this time, and Britain has proved this, would be to declare a holiday on government expenses, to give the economy a chance to catch its breath. Never in history have we
February 16. 1968	COMMONS
seen a government jacking up its expenditures by 14 per cent and 15 per cent from one year to the next-that is, never until this government stumbled and fumbled its way into office.
In 1963 the battle cry of the Liberals to the electorate was, elect us and we will get the economy moving again. We knew, and the Liberals knew, that the economy was rolling at that time as a result of the impact of the devalued Canadian dollar in 1962. This statement is now endorsed by history. But despite this fact the Liberal party deliberately implement policies and programs in an effort to be all things to all people. The result has been a situation in which we have inflation, rising prices, a stagnant economy and rising unemployment, all at the same time.
That is the situation. This government's measures, starting with the tax on building materials, and on through high expenditures, high taxes and the like, have created a situation where the consumer cannot buy with his dollar those things he needs to maintain a reasonable standard of living. It may be difficult to get this across to those whose annual income is in the $37,000 bracket. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this is the situation.
My next point, Mr. Speaker, is that this government's policies are taking us along the road to socialism and regimentation. Some people are not worried about socialism any more, because it has become so watered down it is almost respectable. It is a little bit like the rum down in Lunenburg county: It gets watered down sometimes, and it may not be as dangerous. It loses its appeal; but if you take enough of it, even though it is watered down it still packs a wallop.
Regimentation, however, is something of which we must all beware. Regimentation means a loss of initiative and a loss of dignity. There is social regimentation in this country today. This is the kind of regimentation where they give you a card with a number on it, tell you to fill out forms, tell you where you are going to work, how much you are going to get and what you will do with your money. This kind of regimentation is here now, under this government.
Then there is economic regimentation where they allow you to work hard, make a little money and then take it away from you in order to provide for others. We are rapidly coming to that stage under this government. The Minister of Labour in his speech at Kingston last July referred to integration. He
DEBATES	6841
Unemployment Insurance Act described as a prime example of the need for integration the duplication, even triplication, in unemployment insurance, Canada Pension Plan and federal income tax. He foresaw a time when, through the numbered social security card, an individual would be processed for his Canada Pension Plan, income tax and unemployment insurance. By the time he paid his income tax, no doubt he would be looking for unemployment insurance. This is the kind of national regimentation which Liberalism is bringing upon us. It is socialism by the back door method. This kind of system, so proudly put forward by the Minister of Labour at Kingston, in my view will reduce Canadians to nothing more than a nation of ciphers.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The Liberal party has attempted to lull Canadians into believing that these costly programs do not have to be paid for. We are paying for them now, and we are paying for them in two ways-through higher taxes and through the indirect tax of growing inflation. After all, Mr. Speaker, there is no way of getting something for nothing. The governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Louis Rasminsky, put this in words that I should like to paraphrase and which went something like this: There is no way known to man of getting a quart out of a pint jug. You either pay through direct taxes or higher costs and prices. Under this government we are doing both.
The government is committed to an extremely costly medicare program which will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to our annual budget. In his anticipated budget deficit for this year, the finance minister did not even dare include medicare or Expo. Of course, if that sort of budget was the financial statement of a private firm, it would not be passed by any auditor. How a government can put out a budget leaving out two major budgetary items is hard to understand. When the ordinary citizen files an incomplete tax return which does not reveal his true financial picture he goes to jail. But when the minister does this he pats himself on the back as the inventor of a new budgetary technique. It is a technique that in my opinion smacks too much of "Sharp practice".
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) says that there will be a balanced budget next year. If he were in his seat I would ask him how he knows. The Minister of Finance will not say when he plans to
February 16, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act introduce another budget, or whether he will even be Minister of Finance in a few months. The sad fact is that when the President of the Treasury Board announced that we would have a balanced budget next year no one seemed to believe him. His statement had absolutely no effect on the stock market or the value of the Canadian dollar, both of which continued to go down.
We now have to provide for medicare, Mr. Speaker, which will add to the burden of the ordinary citizen, will increase income taxes once again, will diminish purchasing power and will probably set off another round of price increases. On top of this the government plans to bring in unemployment insurance changes, scrapping the insurance principle and turning unemployment insurance into yet another uncontrolled welfare scheme. The government also wants to increase deductions from pay cheques of workers, along with contributions made by industry. All of these things, I claim, tend to have an inflationary effect, being passed on in the form of price increases, which in turn give rise to further wage demands.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for the government to call a halt. The economy is being crippled, prosperity is being drained off and the incomes of Canadians are being confiscated by these massive welfare schemes. If I read my mail correctly, Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot and do not want to pay any more.
I really do not know what we have to do to bring this fact more forcefully to the attention of the government. It is taking income from the pockets of Canadians simply in order to buy for itself a little extra time in office. Canadians know that the critical point has been reached; they can feel a distinct loss of confidence in the economy. Canadian exports are meeting resistance abroad and imports are picking up. The government has been warned about this situation over and over again. Surely the time has come to return to reality and to drop these undermining measures, which can only hurt the economy without benefiting those for whom they are intended. The government should put a rein on spending and follow policies that benefit Canada's economy.
While the government is tossing the taxpayers' money right and left, the essential needs of the economy and of society are not being looked after. What about housing? No money is available for housing, except at exorbitant interest rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will realize that I have to remind him that we are dealing with amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Perhaps he will attempt to limit his remarks to the bill now before the house.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was doing that when I made direct reference to the minister's statement that the reason for these changes was brought about by economic inflation. In my view-and I stand corrected-my thoughts are related to the expansionist programs that have contributed in no small measure to the inflation referred to by the minister. However, my remarks are practically finished, and if you will bear with me for a minute I shall have concluded my speech.
I ask the government, Mr. Speaker, what about development? No action is being taken to develop this nation. What about bringing our resources to market, starting new industries and providing new sources of income for Canadians? Nothing is being done to maintain the high level of economic expansion which is vitally necessary. In my view this government should be concerned with policies to provide employment instead of policies to look after unemployment. This government, intoxicated with welfare schemes, is letting the economy of the nation run down, like a watch that somebody forgot to wind. I wish to warn them, Mr. Speaker, that unless they return to reality they will find that time has run out on them as well.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, one disadvantage of speaking at this stage of the debate is that it is very difficult to find a field not already covered in one form or another by other hon. members.


Mr. Reid:: Why not try talking about the bill?


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: As the minister pointed out when he introduced the bill this morning, these are the first amendments to the act since 1959. If a piece of legislation as important to the people of Canada from coast to coast as this is amended only once every nine or ten years, more thought should go into those amendments when the time does arrive to put them in legislative form.
For example, I wonder why some attempts have not been made to correct some of the evils that have developed since the passage of the bill in 1959. I think one of the most evident evils that has become apparent is that
February 16. 1968

by their own action the government have made a farce out of the insurance principle that underlies the Unemployment Insurance Act. During the term of office of the previous government, and the past five years that this government has been in office, no attempt whatever has been made to correct this particular evil. However, I will have more to say about that later.
I also wonder why some efforts have not been made to cure some of the evils that have crept into the picture, not in the form of legislation but more as a result of policy, regulations and so forth. The most evident of these is a matter that has been touched on by one or two other hon. members. I am referring to the policy making and decision making functions that have been taken away from people in the field, the people who know the local situation, local conditions and local problems. I should like to ask the minister why this has occurred; what was the reason or purpose for it. Was this purely an economy measure, or did the government believe that these people were not properly qualified to make decisions?
I have my suspicions about this step that has been taken. Most of the complaints that have come to my attention in this regard were made at a certain time. I suspect that the purpose was to enable the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to use the unemployment insurance fund as an instrument of fiscal policy.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I notice that when the minister declared that there would be a clamp-down and that spending would be cut back, by a strange coincidence the number of complaints that were received with regard to unemployment insurance suddenly mushroomed. Shortly after that, the authority for making decisions about unemployment insurance was taken away from the Timmins office. Decisions were to be made in Toronto, which is about 500 miles away.
Most complaints which have come to my attention have come about as the result of a very carefully worded form. When a man loses his job and has to apply for unemployment insurance, he must fill out this carefully worded form, which seems to contain some carefully laid traps for the man who is filling it out. No doubt officials, in common with members of chambers of commerce and various hon. members of the house, maintain that in this country we have a great horde of people who are professionals at getting

Unemployment Insurance Act moneys they have no right to from the unemployment insurance commission.
I suppose a few in this country spend all their time in seeing what they can get out of the unemployment insurance fund. But these forms present no problem to such people. They know everything in it by heart. They know how many stamps they need in their books and how to fill out the form so as to avoid delays or problems. The men who fall victim to these forms are those who have never drawn unemployment insurance. They are men who have worked for 20, 25 or 30 years and, when the mine closes down, when the job folds up or when the business goes under, are forced to apply for assistance. They fill the form out and, not knowing what to avoid, often disqualify themselves on pure technicalities. The form must then go to Toronto, 500 miles away, for a decision. When the decision comes back the men may want to appeal it, and as a result they must go to Toronto. The legislation does provide these men with the right of appealing such a decision; they have to appear before the referee. But if a man is unemployed and looking for unemployment insurance, how can he afford to go to Toronto, 500 miles away, to appeal? If the appeal machinery were in the local area that would be fine, but it is not much good having it 500 miles away. The men are precluded from appealing because of the distance involved.
I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the objective behind all this is to enable the government and the Unemployment Insurance Commission to chisel from the workingmen of this country, who are entitled to certain benefits. I wonder if this has all been worked out deliberately with that end in view.
I have also run into the problem of language difficulty in this field. I represent an area in which half the population is French Canadian. Many French speaking Canadians work in the lumbering industry and mining industry. These are the men who are most often affected by unemployment insurance regulations. When a mine shuts down or a wood cut is finished and they become unemployed, they fill out this form I spoke of. To them it is in a foreign language. As a result they are more vulnerable to making errors which can disqualify them. If they make a mistake, away goes the form for a decision in Toronto, and back comes another form with a great big letter that they cannot read or understand, and they must go to a lawyer, a
February 16, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act chartered accountant, to their member of parliament or to others for assistance in getting their rights. I think the minister will agree that the procedure I have outlined is grossly unfair and inefficient. It should be looked into and corrected.
Another point also warrants the minister's attention. I find that the staff of the local offices are prohibited from giving any assistance to men who wish to fill out these forms. If the staff is not allowed to do that, why are they there? Why have a trained staff in the field if it cannot use its experience and training to help others who need that help? This matter should be reviewed and something should be done about it.
Another point is worthy of consideration, and that is the attitude of the general public to the unemployment insurance fund. Many people who have retired have come to me saying that they are going to apply for unemployment insurance. Some of them may have had to retire because of health or other reasons. They come to me and say, "You know, I paid into this fund for 30 years and I should be able to get back what I paid in."
You see, the general public does not look on this as an insurance fund. In a way, it thinks it is a sort of insurance fund; but at the end of their working lives our people want their money back. In other words, the fund provides protection, but in people s minds at the end of everything it becomes a savings fund. The idea is that you should get back what you paid in. There is good reason for this frame of mind, and I spoke of this earlier in my remarks. The fault lies with the government that introduced the legislation, and with the government of the past ten years.
In 1959, when the last amendment to the act went through, I remember speaking in the house and pointing out that people such as fishermen and bush workers traditionally hold down seasonal jobs. If they were to be brought under the unemployment insurance fund, the fund would no longer work on the principle of an insurance fund. I did not say then, and I do not say now that men in these brackets do not need assistance and attention. My point is that by including them in the fund the government destroyed the credibility of the fund as an insurance fund.
I remember saying that, as a result of the government's action, the people in the country would say, "Well, the fishermen never did work all year; they can't fish for 12 months; they only fish for six or eight months of the

year, and during the other four months they claim unemployment insurance. If they do that, why can't we do the same thing? Why shouldn't we work for eight months and go on unemployment insurance for the other four months?" That thinking developed from the actions of the government of 1959. No effort has been made by the government to "sell" the idea to the public, that this is an insurance fund available for the protection of people who are no longer able to protect themselves.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One last word with regard to the increases in the cost to employees proposed under this bill, and the increased benefits which will apply. Over many years a situation has developed in which, unfortunately, more and more people live from pay to pay. The young generation has been raised in this atmosphere. From the time they are out of the cradle and big enough to watch television or read magazines and newspapers they are tempted to buy goods which are beyond their means. It takes a strong minded individual indeed to resist all the lures of advertisers today. The result is that when a man becomes unemployed for whatever reason, his expenses do not decrease; they remain constant because there are usually a number of payments to meet. This is why it is a good thing in this day and age to increase these benefits, so that the problems affecting a family are at least diminished when the breadwinner finds himself suddenly out of work and without income.
I was listening to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) talking about regimentation. The regimentation which bothers me-I do not know whether it bothers him or not-is the way the working people of this country are regimented in connection with payments to finance companies, furniture companies and mortgage companies. This is the regimentation which should cause us all concern. At least to the extent that this bill tends to reduce the effects of this regimentation, I believe it warrants support from all members of this house.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: I am
glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on this legislation. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse), and the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) who has just resumed his seat. Each of them brought out sound and excellent
February 16, 1963

points in connection with the bill before us. Each of them drew attention to the "bugs", so to speak, which exist in the act at the present time and which should be corrected. This is where we are up against some serious difficulties. I would venture to say there is no act on the statute books of Canada which has more "bugs" in it than the present Unemployment Insurance Act.
The first thought of the government should be to eliminate these deficiencies. I see nothing in the bill before us which will do so. In fact there are certain implications in it which might be more harmful than otherwise. I am not opposed to the principle of insurance against unemployment through a scheme which is in fact an insurance program, but I am opposed to features in the legislation which make it a welfare program rather than an insurance program.
Those who put forth the effort to establish the legislation in the beginning never intended that it should become a welfare program. However, this element has crept into it and it is unfortunate that it should be present.
One of the problems faced by the stockmen and ranchers of western Canada is this: They want more labour for their ranches, but now they are likely to find it more difficult than ever to get labour. They did not ask for unemployment insurance to apply to ranch labour. Now, having experienced its effects, they are asking that it be removed from coverage by the act. Inclusion of ranch labour was supposed to increase the amount of labour available for ranches. The present bill, instead of helping to increase the supply of labour, will actually diminish it.
What I have just said applies not only to the operators of these big ranches; the workers themselves have approached me in delegations asking that they be removed from coverage by the act. If a worker on a ranch in western Canada is to receive 50 per cent of his summer wages in unemployment insurance, when winter comes the stockmen out there who have cattle to feed will not be able to hire anyone to do the work. No one will want to work out in the open in the cold weather if he can get half his summer wages in unemployment insurance. Indeed, I know of many who would take the course of least resistance and try to rig things in such a way as to obtain unemployment insurance benefits. All of them seem able to do it, and this is what is being done. People are getting around the act.
So instead of more labour being available to stockmen, less is available. This is why both

Unemployment Insurance Act on the labour side and on the management side there are requests for exemption from the operation of the act. The stockmen never asked to be covered by it and now they would like to be exempt.
I want to get this across to the government and to all others concerned. At the present time the Western Stock Growers are in session in Calgary. At past conventions this subject has come up for discussion and members have expressed their views in no uncertain words. Delegations have come to me privately asking that ranch workers be excluded from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. They want labour to help them on their ranches. In addition, the labourers do not want these deductions to be made from their wages. On occasions when ranchers have made deductions in respect of insurance they have lost their hired help. The labourer gets sore and says: "The other fellow did not deduct it, so I will go and work for him, or someone else".
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The stockman is faced with a problem of paying the total amount out of his own pocket in order to come under the scheme and be within the law. He must provide the worker with the stamps or else he loses his labour if he deducts the cost of the insurance from the workers salary. This is not working out. What I have described is just one of the "bugs'. There are hundreds of others in the unemployment insurance program. Surely the government will take a careful look at these things. It will not have to go far to find somebody who will give other illustrations. I hope that the one I have mentioned will receive serious consideration and that the government will eliminate these ranching people from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, because they do not want to come within its provisions.


Mr, S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a question before he rises to close the debate. Has the interdepartmental committee, which has been studying the needed broader amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, completed its work, and can we expect the introduction of those amendments early next session? Perhaps I may be allowed to sum up in one statement the essence of the remarks I would have made had I chosen to make a speech. From the contributions made by other hon. members it is quite clear that there is a feeling abroad in this land that social security
February 16, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act and welfare plans do not mix with an insurance scheme. In making a broad revision of the act I hope the government will see to it that the unemployment insurance fund is returned to its original structure, namely an actuarial plan based on sound insurance principles.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I know there is a general desire to have this bill passed this afternoon and so I will be very brief. I think most hon. members were disappointed that at least a number of the recommendations of the Gill commission report are not being implemented at this time. As the previous speaker said, we hope this will be taken care of early next session. We have been promised it for years.
As other hon. members have said, the reason for our concern is that there is no piece of legislation at the federal level that has more "bugs", in it, if I may use the expression, than the Unemployment Insurance Act. The evils one could list are clear, to say the least. I do not wish to catalogue them this afternoon because I have done so on other occasions. I shall mention only one or two.
The first concerns the enforcement of the act in recent years and the virtual reign of terror conducted among the farmers of the country by the officials of the commission. Where people have employed independent contractors for two or three hours a week, officials of the commission have been running about trying to match the efforts of the income tax department of years ago, sometimes going back ten years to see what they can dig up merely because an employee is alleged to have worked for a couple of hours a week and was unaware of the fact that he had to fill out a form to be exempted.
I commend the officials of the commission for trying to do their duty. They are very much in the same position as policemen. But if every policeman in this country enforced the letter of every municipal by-law and every federal and provincial statute, 95 per cent of the people of Canada would be in police court every day. I think a little horse sense might be exercised by the officials of the commission.
One specific feature which has affected a great many members of this house has been the division made between manpower offices and unemployment insurance commission offices. In some parts of the country this division does not make much practical difference, but in areas such as southern Ontario, southern Quebec and the lower mainland of British
[Mr. Enns.l

Columbia it makes a great deal of difference. Formerly every small industrial city, and here I speak of cities of 25,000 to 100,000 population, had their unemployment insurance commission office and manpower office in the same place. Then some persons got the idea that they would divide the departments administratively in government, and they carried this through by dividing them everywhere, at the lower level as well.
In my constituency there is an unemployment insurance office in London, Ontario, but no unemployment insurance office in St. Thomas, to serve Stratford, Brantford, Galt and other cities in between. People have not yet got used to this division. If they apply for unemployment insurance they assume that the manpower centre is automatically informed, but this is not the case in most instances.
I know that in changes like this there are administrative problems which will likely be worked out with the passage of time, but meanwhile most members of parliament, already heavily engaged, are given a vast amount of extra work. In the 15 years that I have been in this house I have had one or two complaints each year about the administration of the unemployment insurance fund, which speaks very well for the commission. But since the division of offices, with the removal of the unemployment insurance office from the local area, I have had six times as many complaints in three months about the administration of unemployment insurance as I had in the previous 15 years.
The government may say what it likes, and offer all the excuses it likes, but the fact of the matter is that the public is not being served. I do not know how many people who have encountered trouble have not written to me but, as I say, the number who have written me has increased. What may be required is more staff at the local level. Most people do not know how to fill out the necessary forms. This work may be easily done by members of parliament and civil servants who are accustomed to forms ad nauseam. We have learned by experience to make out forms, but if an individual is confused by a form he should have the assistance of someone at the local office to help him fill it out.
I have been able to clear up a great many of the complaints I have received, because they were due to misunderstandings. Only the other day I had two cases before an umpire, and one was a matter of misunderstanding. In the other the officials just would not change
February IS, 1968	COMMONS
their minds, something which is human nature, something we all share to a greater or lesser degree. These things could be avoided with more efficiency.
In heavily industrialized areas which have a lot of labour the government should carefully examine the possibility of reinstating a combined unemployment insurance and manpower office. As I say southern Ontario is a good example. The area of Quebec south of Montreal is in the same category. The public is not being served, except very badly. I have one or two other things to say, Mr. Speaker, but will reserve them to another occasion.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy this afternoon to say a few words with respect to Bill No C-197.
According to the statistics, we have 500,000 unemployed in Canada. I think this is sufficient reason to talk about it. In my opinion, the situation is alarming. In a country like Canada, where there are so many things to be done, where every citizen could be employed, 500,000 Canadians are not participating in the production and depend on others for their livelihood. Indeed, those who receive unemployment insurance benefits are getting the contributions paid by the employers or the workers themselves to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This money has contributed to the rise in the cost of living, and we talk of increasing benefits.
I think benefits should be raised, because of the great increase in the cost of living. No matter how much they are raised, they will never compensate for the increase in the cost of living, which is so high lately that a man can no longer make ends meet with his salary. Senior citizens whose pension has just been increased to $105 per month complain that it is not enough, that they cannot manage, because the cost of living is too high. All the old age pensioners, and especially the veterans, complain that they do not have enough money, because prices are always ahead of the increases they receive. The unemployed are in the same situation.
There are 500,000 names on the unemployment insurance list, but there are many workers who are being retrained or who are employed on winter works and, therefore, are not on the list.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is more alarming than we think in Canada. We have here terrible problems. Unemployment is increasing steadily and there are
DEBATES	6847
Unemployment Insurance Act surely causes for all that. One of the causes of unemployment, Mr. Speaker, is that there are not enough investments. Employment of labour depends upon investments and they are insufficient. Why? Because there are too many taxes, too many surcharges at all government levels, because the citizens have no more money to invest. As they have no more money to invest, unemployment and poverty prevail everywhere. Such are the causes of the economic situation we are experiencing at present.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In order to grasp a little better the unemployment problem and the incidence of the slowing down of investments on labour requirements, one may proceed in this manner and state that, according to statistics, there is available labour and unavailable labour; there are voluntary unemployed and a readily available labour. Once again, labour requirements depend on investments. Investments and labour are interrelated in a certain ratio which varies from one sector to another. Labour requirements are greater only when investments increase and, on that score, the Canadian economy has not done too well.
In the past few months, there have been surplus outputs, high interest rates and a shaky situation in the United States; the trends are not likely to be reversed in the next months. On the other hand, production has decreased in some areas, or is slowly increasing throughout the economy, due to the labour requirements brought about by the present level of existing investments.
Circumstances being what they are, unemployment is assuming larger proportion than usual. An upsurge in economic and non-seasonal activities would only eliminate seasonal unemployment, widespread in Quebec, and unemployment resulting from structural rigidity. A lasting reduction in unemployment will depend more upon fiscal measures designed to increase the size of the labour force and upon constructive measures designed to improve the volume as well as the size of private investments in this country.
Can we increase investments in this country when governments at all levels, are increasing the taxpayers' burden by every means at their disposal? We have direct taxes, indirect taxes, surtaxes. Then, the federal government sells bonds and proclaims in countless newspapers that those who buy federal bonds will double their capital within 13 years.
6848	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act
The same thing is true for the provincial governments, the school boards and the municipal governments. It is the same thing for several large institutions in Canada.
Therefore, how can we expect that there will be something left, some economic blood to enable Canadians to invest, to develop new industries, new natural resources? We lack capital. The present government and the present administration take it all. There is none left for the citizens.


Mr. Mackasey:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member. I wonder, however, whether he might be confusing this debate with the debate we expect to have next week on the supplementary estimates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I think the hon. gentleman probably has strayed from the bill under consideration, but I believe he meant to refer to the matter of unemployment as it relates to this bill.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I know that nobody likes to be told what is now happening under the present system and what causes unemployment. I am speaking about unemployment, and its causes. If there were no causes, there would be no unemployment and it is precisely why I am dealing with the problem of unemployment, exposing its causes and all the factors which compel citizens to remain idle and to live at the expense of others.
Those who are now working are robbed, in order to give to the unemployed. We have reached a point where the worker does not get more than the unemployed drawing welfare allowances. Such is the present system and we are led to believe that it is good and that the present economy can be maintained.
There are two prominent economists who are trying to find all kinds of solutions to our problems, but they are never in a position to apply them. The problem remains the same: it is always unemployment, misery in the midst of affluence. There has never been a balance in Canada between production and consumption, between misery and affluence.
I could go on much longer but other hon. members want to speak. Besides, I think I have said enough. Several people have made pretty speeches, but more than speeches are
[Mr. Latulippe.)
DEBATES	February 16, 1968
needed to solve the problem of unemployment. We should take concrete steps to remedy that situation. If there is a surplus of products, we should be able-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, while on the surface this bill may appear to be rather minor in nature I should like to point out that before the increased benefits to workers can become effective many weeks of contributions will be required. Therefore I should not like to jeopardize the unemployed people this winter as a result of this bill being held up. If hon. members agree I might suggest that we forgo private members hour so that I might speak on second reading in order to answer many of the questions which have been so eloquently raised this afternoon.


Mr. Monfeith:: We would be agreeable to this, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the desire of the minister to secure a relatively early passage of this bill, but I believe the hour set aside for the consideration of private bills and public bills is one of some importance. I am sure the minister will be able to arrange with the house leader to have this matter brought forward early next week, at which time he would have an opportunity to make his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Is there unanimous consent that the house forego private members hour?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: No, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, possibly the house would like to know the order of business for Monday. It will be as follows, the committee stage on the income tax bill, the supplementary estimates-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the minister mind giving the name and the item number?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not have the item numbers. I will repeat it more slowly. The committee stage of the income tax bill, supplementary estimates, second reading of the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, and then the Patent and Trade Marks Act.
February 16, 1968

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



RADIO ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-20, an act to amend the Radio Act (community antenna)-Mr. Peters.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the unanimous consent of the house I would withdraw this bill because the subject has been covered by the broadcasting bill recently passed by the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to withdraw this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-23, to amend the Weights and Measures Act (truth in packaging).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill which I have introduced on other occasions is to try to give the consumers of Canada the kind of information which would permit them to make meaningful and intelligent choices in the purchase of necessary merchandise. The problems of the consumer have been giving increasing concern to the people of Canada. To realize this one has only to consider that various provincial legislatures have studied the problems of consumer credit and have come forth with recommendations upon which legislation has been based. Also this parliament established a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study the problem of consumer credit and other problems of consumers. This committee held meetings which extended over a long period of time. It held close to 50 meetings and made recommendations dealing with various aspects of consumers problems.
The principle of this bill was endorsed by an organization which I am sure most members of parliament know and I think all members respect, namely the Consumers Association of Canada. At its annual meeting in
Weights and Measures Act June, 1962, this association passed a resolution which I should like to place on the record. It reads as follows:
Whereas there appears to be an increasing number of packages on the market whose contents are stated in fractions of ounces; and
Whereas consumers are experiencing difficulty in determining readily, while shopping, the comparative values of many products, due to the varying weights of packaged goods;
Be it resolved that the Consumers Association of Canada requests the Department of Trade and Commerce and the food and drug directorate to standardize the weights of packages of food and other items weighing four ounces and over, in units of quarter pounds, half pounds and pounds.
Since that resolution was passed there have been, as I mentioned a moment ago, extensive hearings by a joint committee of parliament, as a result of which we have passed legislation establishing the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and a minister to head the department. The joint committee looked into the question of packaging which is dealt with in my bill, and in its report the committee made a number of references to the problem. Hon. members can find the report in the Proceedings of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Consumer Credit, No. 41, of Tuesday, April 25, 1967. I wish to place on the record a few of the references made in the report to the question dealt with in my bill. On page 3452 the committee said:
Your committee perceives the need for an expert group within the department to investigate any merchandising practices which take advantage of or mislead consumers.
On page 3454 of this report recommendation (c) reads as follows:
That packaging and weights and measures be designed to inform the consumer as fully as possible;
On page 3470 of the report, dealing with the problem of consumer standards and consumer protection, the committee says:
(3)	packages should be designed in terms of size, shape or dimension in a way that will not deceive or mislead retail purchasers;
(4)	the net quantity of the contents in terms of weight or measure should be expressed as simply as possible and in terms which can be easily interpreted;
(5)	the essential information about a packaged product and its physical contents should be stated in a prominent place on the label.
Another recommendation is that there be established a department of consumer affairs
February 16, 1968


cents or 20 cents less than regular price. It is against the law in Canada for a manufacturer to direct a retailer to sell a product for any specific price, yet the manufacturer states on his package that the product is being sold for so many cents off regular price. These manufacturers do not have the right to do this. They do so, I am sure, in order to confuse the consumer. It is the retailer who decides the cost or selling price of a product.
Having regard to size, I suggest there is only one reason for this strange packaging practice, and that is to confuse the consumer. There is no other reason for the manufacturer or packager to put out these various sizes. I am satisfied that this bill would be of great assistance to the new minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner) in protecting the consumer. It would give the minister a tool with which he could persuade the manufacturer, processor or packager, to give some meaning to size information on labels. Nothing in this bill would create difficulty for manufacturers of these packaged products. It would require only that manufacturers or packagers use standard sizes, such as referred to by the consumers association report of 1962, to which I am referring.
It is obviously difficult for one manufacturer or packager to give the consumer a minimum sized product if his competitor has the authority to change the advertising in respect of size. That is the type of thing that is happening. The new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will have the right under the law to set out clearly regulations in respect of packaging. This will lead to equitable requirements. I suggest that is what this bill is intended to do.
This bill was not drafted by me. It is based essentially on a similar bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Hart of Michigan, and which has the enthusiastic support of consumer organizations in the United States.
Let me close by summarizing what the bill now before this house will do. I am sure most hon. members are familiar with the issue of Consumer Reports for May, 1963. That issue summarizes what this bill will do, in that it stipulates the following requirements:
The statement of the net weight content on the front panel of a package.
The establishment of standards with respect to the location and prominence (size of type) of the net weight declaration.
February 16, 1968

The prohibition of the use of quantity descriptive words such as "giant", "big", and "jumbo" in the net weight declaration. "Big gallon" or "jumbo quart , for example, would not be acceptable.
The prohibition of "cents-off" legends as an integral part of a package's label.
The prohibition of deceptive pictures on packages.
The establishment of reasonable standards of weight or size-the use of such odd sizes as the 13-3/7 ounce package of dry cereal, for example, would be outlawed.
The prohibition of sizes, shapes, or dimensional proportions which may deceive consumers-the bigger pack.
This all boils down to the fact that the package shall not bear false witness. It has been a long time since the consumers of this country have had a fair shake. The farmers have their organizations; the labourers have their organizations; the manufacturers have their organizations; the retailers have their organizations and the banks have their organizations. With the establishment of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, we now have a government department with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the consumer.
With the passage of this bill the minister would have the legal right to do many of those things we intended when we approved the legislation establishing his department.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21, now under discussion, deals with a statute which has been around for 15 years, and to my knowledge has not been amended since that time. In view of modern technology in respect of prices and packaging, sales of products are now being made by package advertising rather than by direct advertising. The traditional manner of selling has changed. At one time the customer went into the store, saw what he wanted to buy and made the selection, which was put into a package. Now one goes into the store, finds something already packaged, and purchases it in that form.
Women have problems because there is almost no way to make a meaningful judgment as to what is contained in a package. Advertising of prices, quality and quantity has little or no meaning. As an example, one could take the pre-mixed cake packages. One cake mix may be a pound and a half and another may be one pound. Both may contain the proper amount and weight of ingredients to produce a cake of the specified size.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
So when you come to the regulation of weights and measures, there is not only the
Weights and Measures Act question of getting accurate, meaningful measurements on the package but also consideration of the use to which the ingredients can be put. It is not the simplest thing in the world to evolve a policy or a series of policies which will make this obvious to all. When dealing with the question of weights and measures, we also have to consider the related problem of quality, which varies considerably and which to some extent this bill does not take into consideration. I use this not as an argument against the bill but merely to point out the complexity of the undertaking when you are dealing with this very important subject matter.
The other aspect to which I should like to refer before going into other considerations is the constitutional question. I understand from the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that much of what is in this bill has been based on a truth in packaging bill presented in the United States Senate by Senator Hart. There have been a large number of hearings held on this bill. I might say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that these hearings have been fully covered in the consumer reports to which I subscribe.
I find these consumer reports very interesting and useful publications. It is a pity that, in many cases, the private brands we have in Canada, such as those of Eaton's, for example, are not fully covered and sometimes the model numbers we have are a year behind those in the United States. As a result, it requires a great deal of homework if one is to use these publications properly. Nevertheless the senate hearings have been reasonably well covered in this excellent publication.
The difficulty we have in Canada in attempting to bring forth similar legislation revolves around the fact that at the moment we do not have, nor are we likely to have, the power to cover the whole area in the way that can be done under a different jurisdictional set-up, such as the United States. Repugnant as it may be, therefore, it is necessary for us in Canada at the federal level to proceed step by step without having any over-all co-ordinated plan, because we do not have the power in all areas. If we are going to be successful, therefore, and provide legitimate protection for the consumer, the new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will have to engage in an ever increasing number of conferences with the provinces in order to work out proper programs. Only in this way will legislation at the
February 16, 1968

Weights and Measures Act federal and provincial levels not be in conflict. There are other areas in which the same situation holds true.
We certainly do not want to find ourselves in a situation where there is a conflict in jurisdiction, where the legislation passed by one level of government may be made null and void by another level of government. This is quite possible. Nothing less than a fully co-ordinated attack on the problem will suffice. I feel that the bill put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is valuable because it does direct public attention to a particular problem, perhaps even to the problem as a whole. I believe it could be a very useful tool for stimulating public debate in this area.
A little earlier I mentioned the problem of quality in connection with weights and measures. I believe I should also come to the point of how you can find out just what the ingredients are that are going into many of these packaged products, particularly foods, which we are using now. Unless one is a chemist, it is almost impossible to tell what is in these packages. In most cases the ingredients are listed under their technical names and not in terms that we can understand. I do not have any examples to give at the moment. However, I am sure if you go down to your friendly grocer and look at any of the food packages, you will find it is almost impossible to say what has been added to the original product.
I really do not have any suggestions as to how this problem can be eliminated, or as to how the doubt many people have about the quality of the product going into these packages can be relieved. This problem of protecting the consumer is not peculiar to Canada, it is a world wide problem. Perhaps we feel it more because increasingly the products we buy are coming to us in a highly developed form. In other words, we are not buying raw fish, we are buying processed fish. We are not buying the ingredients for a cake mix; we are buying ingredients that have been combined so that very little labour on our part is required. Because of the complexity of this process, we have not educated ourselves to know precisely what we are buying. In other, less developed countries where people go to market on a daily basis, they see and buy precisely what they want. It is on view for them. However, we are buying highly processed products, and we are not all aware of the precise methods of processing, nor are we aware of what has been put into the product.


One criticism which can be levelled against this bill is based on the legislation which it seeks to amend, and that is that the Weights and Measures Act does not, in itself, provide a framework which is adequate to meet current practices in packaging. In many cases we are told the very requirements which the act has already laid down produce inflexibilities, prevent experimentation and improvements. This not only hampers the producer of the product but also the packager. It hampers as well any new, meaningful weights and measures reservations.
It is my information that the Department of Trade and Commerce, weights and measures branch, has had this matter under consideration for some time and is seeking, in concert with the provinces and in concert with the new Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to evolve new standards which will be effective nationally. They are seeking to co-operate with provincial standards which have applicability in this area. I am further informed that it is hoped within the next year the government will be able to recommend to parliament a new approach covering the whole area, with provincial approval. It is hoped this new approach will prove to be a flexible and equitable means of providing this type of measurement protection which is desired and needed by all.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
One aspect that has to be borne in mind is that there is no sense in changing the present regulations unless you are certain the new legislation will work. We have seen examples in this house of new legislation being proposed, but with obvious flaws in it because it had not been cleared with the people who had a vital interest in the subject. In the case of measurement regulation, we are dealing with a highly technical aspect of a very limited subject. If the new measurements which are presented are not workable, or have not been properly thought out, then their impact will be to throw the whole situation into chaos. If you adopt new regulations which do not work or do the job for which they are designed, then it will be almost impossible to revert to the former ones which, despite their limitations, some of which I have mentioned, did provide a useful measure of control. I am sure that the investigations undertaken by Senator Hart and the United States senate, as embodied in the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, will be given consideration by the appropriate
February 16, 1968

authorities when we come to develop new legislation and regulations. I hope this legislation will be debated in the house in the new session, though of course there is no guarantee that that is going to happen.
There is one other aspect to which I should like to return, and this is the question of jurisdiction in the field of packaging. I am sure hon. members are aware that this jurisdiction does not lie solely within the Weights and Measures Act, but in fact extends over a broad area. I am informed that the act includes an exemption in the form of recognition of the activities of other agencies. These are other than retail premises that pack food, but those which pack specialised products, such as pesticides, which are of course the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare, food and drug directorate, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries.
To enact legislation dealing with aspects of this sort, Mr. Speaker, would require co-ordination among many government departments, which would not be difficult, given the proliferation of interdepartmental committees that are supposed to be dealing with these questions. Somebody once defined a committee as a group of the unfit to do the unnecessary. However, with the complexities of modern government these committees perform valuable services, even though the speed with which they make decisions and process information is very slow indeed, to say the least.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, all legislation having to do with various aspects of weights and measures and packaging would have to be amended. Other provisions in provincial jurisdictions that carry specific requirements in regard to certain products and which are valid only to the extent that they do not offend federal responsibilities would have to be amended as well. This would probably require some federal-provincial conferences so as to deal more generally with the whole concept.
I hope that the new department of consumer affairs will have primary responsibility for this problem, instead of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which is more technically oriented. Their interest, their scope, their constituency if you will, is much broader than that of the Department of Trade and Commerce when it comes to protecting the rights of the consumer. How successful the new department will be largely depends on whether or not the consumers of Canada are able to take advantage of the educational
Weights and Measures Act information which, we are told, the department is to produce, as well as on how impressive are the legislative changes that we are able to make at the federal level to deal with these problems.
I think it is fair to say that the reduction in drug prices which we had hoped would take place with the repeal of the sales tax on drugs has been very small indeed. The powers which the federal government has within its jurisdiction are limited; largely, they can only attack the problem indirectly. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner) is seeking, through his bill to amend the Patent Act and Trade Marks Act to do this. The idea is that by removing some of the protection the drug industry has enjoyed, competition will be encouraged and drug prices will be forced down. Again, the government's attack in not direct but indirect. Whether that government measure will succeed will depend on two things, of course: the vigilance of the government in publicizing the lack of success it has enjoyed through following direct methods, and the ability of the consumer to take advantage of competition, to pressure companies and, if necessary, to boycott products on a national basis. I do not contend that the government has the responsibility of protecting the consumer; the consumer is responsible for his own protection. But I do think that the government should ensure that the consumer gets all the facts that are available so that he can make his own decisions.
Many tools are at hand to help consumers, and here I am referring to Consumer Reports magazine, to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) referred. Or, the consumer could join the Canadian consumers organization, which publishes a monthly booklet. Similarly the consumer can use his God-given intelligence. Also he need not buy on time; thus he can avoid being locked in with a finance company.
Another difficulty our consumers are faced with stems from the attitude of regarding as necessities certain items which are luxuries. Often people spend much money unnecessarily. One cannot blame the business firms for that; to a large extent consumers are to blame for allowing themselves to buy things which are not necessary. That has always been a problem and will always continue to be one.
I conclude by saying that I find this bill interesting since it focuses our attention on the problems of our consumers. Nowadays the consumer moves in a highly technical field of
6854	COMMONS
Weights and Measures Act packaging and it is very difficult to exercise judgment about weights, measures and that sort of thing. The bill highlights the problems which we face and I hope that the government will take heart and try to improve matters, even if that improvement is marginal only.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to say a few words about the over-all principle of the bill. Certainly the objectives of Bill C-23 are good, but they do not go far enough. The explanatory note says:
The purpose of the hill is to ensure that a retail purchaser of goods, packaged in a wrapper or container, be fairly informed of the weight or measure of the contents; and to control competitive trade practices-
It is possible that the government presently has a general power under the Weights and Measures Act, section 35(1), to remedy the grievance mentioned. That section, in part, provides;
And so on.
I doubt, if the legislation is examined carefully, whether the government has the power necessary to meet the present day advanced techniques of manufacturing and selling. Nevertheless I am heartily behind the idea of this bill.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Whether we like it or not, these days us men seem to be pulled into the business of shopping; and more than anything I do not like shopping. All the same, going shopping with our wives may do us good because we can become educated to know just what they go through when they try to choose among products which are being sold in many of our chain stores. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) spoke well on this subject.
One piece of merchandise always gets my dander up, and that is a package of bacon. The packaging may have improved, but it has not improved much. Hon. members may remember those nice packages of bacon with a nice lean strip right along the top. At one time you only saw the lean strip but now you might just see a little fat. Once, when shopping with Mrs. Roxburgh, I debated with her which package of bacon we should buy. I said we should buy this package and she said we should buy that. We had an argument about which was the leaner package. In the end we bought both packages and we both got caught, because the bacon in neither package was lean. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) gave us a few similar examples some minutes ago.

DEBATES	February 16, 1968
I happen to be in the fruit business and I want to speak of a practice that has been diminishing gradually, that of putting coloured coverings over packages. In my district we had a great old peach grower; in fact, he was the leading peach grower in Canada, with something like 600 acres of peaches. This man put on quite a campaign against coloured covering, calling it a veil of sin. I can only say that we have many veils of sin in our chain stores. They may not sin so much with coloured packages, but as has been demonstrated, they do sin with their packaging.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we cannot protect the consumer against herself-and women are the hardest of any people I know to protect. Our housewives talk about the high prices of goods, and about the money they spend to fill the larder for the coming week. I have followed Mrs. Roxburgh in some chain stores and watched her pick up a package of this and a package of that, only to realize afterwards that had she looked a little, had she shopped around a little, she could have got a similar product at a much lower price. Everybody wants everything done up in a nice little package. Our women want to reach for this and to reach for that, and to serve pop when he comes home from work with the least possible work. That is all very nice, but that sort of thing costs money.
I think that the over-all idea behind the bill is excellent, and I feel that the government should take another look at this matter of weights and measures and see if something cannot be done to make the task of the housewife easier, as she goes into the store to buy. At least she should know what she is buying.


Mr. Auguste Choquetie (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to say that I endorse what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) said this morning when he announced officially that he would be a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal party. He said then that, should he get the position he was seeking, he was determined to proceed with parliamentary reform.
Through the presence of our colleagues here and in view of the futility of the debate which has been going on, I notice that it is more and more imperative to reform the institution that is parliament and to put an end to the frivolousness of debates such as
February 16, 1968	COMMONS
those we have heard, not because the speakers did not display great ability and knowledge, but because fundamentally we are discussing things which have already been discussed, and nothing is decided, in short nothing is settled.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question? If he considers this a frivolous debate, why is he taking part in it?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I took care to mention that the members had made a useful contribution, but it is the situation itself which is unprofitable. What are we considering? A bill already introduced in this house in 1964 and in 1966. The hon. member has been harping on the same string for several years. The question has been referred to a committee which reached the conclusion that the bill, as worded, in spite of its very commendable intentions, did not cover the whole situation. As pointed out by a previous speaker, I believe, other jurisdictions, apart from the federal jurisdiction, could be affected and should help in achieving the aim sought by the sponsor.
Mr. Speaker, other acts, such as those governing imports and exports, should also be amended, if the purpose of the hon. member is to be fully achieved. He certainly knows it.
In spite of all this, the discussion goes on; a whole hour is lost really, simply in order to put this bill off indefinitely. I say that in all good faith, not in order to minimize the contribution of those who have spoken, but to show clearly and definitely that our parliamentary institutions are in need of reform, so that we may stop wasting needlessly the valuable time and energy we could use on other things.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since I must deal with the subject-otherwise you would call me to order-I must say that as a member of the committee known as the consumer credit and cost of living committee-Credit a la consom-mation, I was in a position to consider the many problems faced by the consumers, for they are subject to all kinds of exploitation. They are likely to be dazzled by tinsel, by labels that do not clearly state the contents, by some wording that may lead the buyer to think that some benefit will accrue, in short by words such as "10 cents off", "20 cents off".
DEBATES	6855
Weights and Measures Act
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The committee discussed these matters; it heard several witnesses, including managers of large businesses, presidents of the largest chain stores in Canada.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, almost everybody agreed on the necessity of giving more information to the consumer, of warning him concerning the quality and the actual quantity of foodstuffs or goods which he buys.
One of the main recommendations of the committee suggested precisely the creation of a department of consumer affairs. As we know, this recommendation has been considered favourably. Today, the department is headed by a young, dynamic and brilliant minister, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), on whom we found such great hopes, and rightly so.
The hon. minister and his officials intend to set up throughout Canada organizations whose task will be to inform the public, to undertake an information campaign as extensive as possible, in order to give the consumers all the relevant data, all the necessary information so that they will not be taken in when buying goods.
In my opinion, that is one of the most efficacious measures and one of the most likely to meet the objectives set out by the mover of the bill now under consideration and to prevent the abuses we have deplored in the past.
Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code provides that all false representation is an offence, but it has been discovered that it is very difficult to enforce those provisions.
Quite seldom have proceedings been lodged against large firms or chain stores on account of false representations, because basically, commercial advertising has developed so much, the strategy of publicity firms has improved so much that there would always be some means of finding devious methods to attract the consumer, without misleading him or being charged under the Criminal Code.
This is the reason why, without detracting from the merits of the sponsor of the bill or rejecting his commendable intention, we are entitled to express our reservations and say that the bill is not exhaustive and does not cover the necessary fields to give it the efficiency which we would like it to have. I believe it might be advisable, outside of a strictly administrative point of view, to consider measures likely to be more effective,
February 16, 1968

Weights and Measures Act rather than to merely limit ourselves to this type of bill.
I feel that the reforms would be more administrative than legislative in character, and that is why, although I accept the principle as stated, we cannot readily accept the passing of this bill.
It is our duty to advise the house of our reservations concerning the bill. Besides, Senator Hart in the United States introduced a similar measure expressing very much the same point of view as the one we are now studying, and its application proved the
extreme complexity of the problem, as well as-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: -the inevitable difficulties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that it is six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 19, 1968