1968-02-28

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might perhaps wait till I call orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I apologize; I was not taking any chances.
On the orders of the day:


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us if his department has reached a decision concerning the new legislation to replace Bill No. C-193, and does he intend to make a statement in this regard today?


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the hon. member is obviously very interesting but I suggest to him that it is somewhat too closely related to the debate now in progress and should therefore not be asked at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that, even before I put a question, you find it difficult to accept that a few questions be put today as they were yesterday.
I would like to point out, on my point of order, that precisely my question is not relevant to the debate but can influence it. Moreover, the minister cannot speak in this debate, and that is why we want some information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to make a statement before the vote of confidence concerning the measures-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that this question can be put now, because it relates too closely to the current debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will put my question differently, in such a way that it will have no relation to the debate.
Can the minister tell the house whether, in the new measures he intends to take, there will definitely be no increase in the income tax.


Mr. Speaker:: That question could be put later. I do not think it is acceptable at this time.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Can he tell us whether he has received complaints about personal income tax forms which are becoming more and more complicated and whether he intends to take corrective action?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to interfere, but the hon. member will agree once again that this question is not urgent and that, moreover, in the present circumstances, the house is most anxious to resume consideration of the motion now before it. For that reason, I cannot allow this question to be put at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Your rulings seem to be made in view of the present debate. In my opinion, this should not enter into consideration, because the debate-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question is urgent and, furthermore, the ruling of the Chair in such a case is not subject to discussion.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put another question to the hon. minister of defence along the lines of those allowed earlier.

February 28, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
I wish to ask the hon. minister of defence whether the new agreements concerning our Canadian troops stationed in Germany which are about to be concluded with that country will require Germany to pay for part of the maintenance cost of our troops, as is the case in England at present?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may put questions, but he cannot insist to obtain a reply.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, during the regular question period, I do not often put questions, but today I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell us when he intends-


Mr. Nielsen:: I rise on a question of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would allow the hon. member for Lapointe to finish his question.


Erik Nielsen: I have a point of order now. When Your Honour called "Orders of the day" the Clerk called order No. 68 from the table. It seems to me this precludes any further business, having reached this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Although I have much sympathy for the point of order raised by the hon. member, I must recognize that we are following the usual practice and the hon. member for Lapointe had been up even before we reached the point when the Chair called "Orders of the day". I think perhaps I will allow him to ask this question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, why would it be my last question? We are allowed thirty minutes and we still have 25 left.
I want to put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he tell us when he will receive the second volume of the Laurendeau-Dunton report on bilingualism and bicul-turalism?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has already asked this question. I do not think it is urgent. If the hon. member wanted to ask a really urgent question, he could do so, but he

will agree with me that he can put it tomorrow, which will greatly facilitate the business of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I see only one solution: I must desist.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



MOTION RESPECTING HOUSE VOTE ON BILL C-193

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 27, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which had been carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last night I was giving an explanation of the position of the Ralliement Creditiste regarding what happened in certain election campaigns and I was in good spirits at that time, for I said that it was never a good thing to be guided by revenge. Indeed, I think that any human being who is conscious of his duties and responsibilities must try and show that he can forgive, on occasion, the errors of political judgment of some men who sometimes forget that interest of country must supersede interest of party.
At any rate, we of the Ralliement Creditiste are happy with the results of the vote taken on Monday, February 19, and are appealing to the spirit of solidarity of the members of this house to continue to display this co-operative spirit, which would allow us to force those who impose taxes, no matter of what political party, to retreat in the face of a nation already taxed, retaxed and overtaxed, and together we shall find the means of administering the country without overimposing on the taxpayers, who require their incomes for their needs and those of their dependents.
We should be able to find ways of managing the country and keeping, in the first place, a close watch on extravagant and often needless expenditures for national defence or travelling expenses. But at the same time, we should act as responsible representatives of a sovereign parliament whose duty it is to exert a control on the people who manipulate money and credit, instead of victimizing the
February 28, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member concluded his remarks?
February 28, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote


Charles-Eugène Dionne: No, Mr. Speaker.
I noticed during this debate that several members took part in it in order to discuss various matters and I believe that it was quite in order-the debate was always in order anyway-to deal with constitutional questions, with rules, but you may recall that last night, I did mention that the main cause of the present debate was the fact that Bill No. C-193 dealt with a taxation matter.
I believe that it is not altogether practical in the present circumstances to labour questions dealing with rules, except to try to improve them. However, in regard to this question of constitutionality and of rules that arise therefrom, it always was and still is a matter of determining, as between those involved, who is going to have the greatest taxing powers. One does not have to be a wizard to realize that this problem is above all a financial one.
There is no question of being discouraged about it. As intelligent people, I believe it is possible for us to find some solution, to face the situation clearly and realistically.
I admit that all those writers and politicians, who are complicating the problem by talking about the repatriation of the constitution or the drafting of a new one, succeed sometimes in showing us their ability to deal with the subject, even to launch elections upon this matter. It is merely a play on words.
However, it would be far more important to try to reform the system which led to most of the difficulties we are facing. Nobody, even one with a string of academic degrees, would dare argue that the constitution is responsible for thousands of Canadian families living in misery in slums; it is not the fault of the constitution that schools are sometimes forced to turn away willing students for lack of space and money to build.
Who would argue logically that the poor conditions in which too many families are living, due to an inadequate income and which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), because of the propensities of the system, continues to tax to the limit, who would argue logically, I repeat, that this is a constitutional problem? It is a problem involving goods and needs, a problem involving the means of distribution of goods and existing wealth.
Let us quit beating around the bush; Canadians of all origins will get along better together when they have equal opportunities.


I feel that we should aim for a type of levelling system, restore equal purchasing power, and strive to build a world with real aspirations for happiness by giving everyone the opportunity to meet his basic requirements.
Let us first of all give back to the government the control over money and credit and, then, we can talk of the sovereignty of parliament; the solution to constitutional problems will be easier to achieve.
Canadian citizens and visitors to our country will then be able to speak of liberty at home without unnerving the puppets controlled by the system which uses every means at its disposal to prevent real liberation.
Our early history abounds with accounts of our struggles and our resistance to the pressures exerted by friendly countries that did not always understand our aspirations but which realize today that our survival played an outstanding part in the evolution of Canada. Each one of us must assume fully his responsibilities to prevent such divisions as might keep us from becoming what we should really be: a united people in a free country.
Mr. Speaker, before bringing my remarks to a close, one word about the notorious taxation problem. Could it be that most of the representatives in this house have come to the conclusion that this notorious system cannot be changed?
Do we really believe that it is natural to think that the armies of brave men who brought the cross, the plough and the civilization to the forests of Canada, as well as their successors, who for three centuries, improved agriculture, built modern towns with the road system which we know, will have toiled and sweated on the Canadian soil to leave to their descendants an heritage of debts, of taxes and privations? Let us make an effort to get out of these ridiculous social conditions which allow misery to exist in the midst of plenty.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if hon. members may have comments to make on the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member, from a procedural standpoint. Perhaps I should read the amendment first.

Mr. Dionne, seconded by Mr. Simard, moved:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "government" the following words: And that the government will not present again the said bill in this current session, and that
February 28, 1968

it will credit the Canadian taxpayers with all the sums that have been collected since January 1, 1968, in anticipation of the provisions of Bill No. C-193.
Does the hon. member for Megantic wish to enlighten me with regard to this amendment?


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few citations to offer from Beauchesne's fourth edition with respect to this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kamouraska. I acknowledge that the indications given in this respect by the government yesterday, particularly by the Minister of Justice, were quite explicit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must speak to the point of order.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, is this a point of order or is it an explanation of the amendment?


Mr. Speaker:: It is a point of order. I have serious doubt whether this amendment is in order, and I wondered whether the hon. member wanted to speak to the point of order as to whether the amendment is acceptable from a procedural standpoint. This is the only matter now before the house.


Raymond Langlois: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, and I will now come to the point. My first citation is from page 168 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. It is citation No. 201:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon-*
And there has been an indication that there will be abstentions from the vote on the motion.
-or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question.
The purpose of this is to gain the support of those who, without such an alteration being made, must either vote against a question or abstain from voting.


Mr. Fulion:: Would the hon. member permit a question? In view of the citation he has just read, do we take it that if the amendment is not carried, or is ruled out of order, my hon. friend and his associates will vote against the motion?
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Raymond Langlois: I never stated such a thing, Mr. Speaker. I do not know on
Motion Respecting House Vote what hypothesis the hon. member for Kamloops bases his far fetched idea in this regard. I am trying to solve some of the problems of his party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member return to the point of order.


Raymond Langlois: If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to continue. I hope if anyone else has a contribution to make he will do so by addressing himself to the Chair after I have finished. Citation 203 (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition states:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I think this is quite the case.
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto. The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into supply or ways and means.
May I continue by quoting citation 426 of Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 290:
In order to give legal force to a bill, or, in other words, make it a statutory enactment, the following legal and constitutional conditions are imperative:
(a) That the bill has passed through all its stages in both houses and is consequently ready for the royal assent. If it should receive the assent of the Governor General and be afterwards discovered not to have passed its proper stages in both houses or be otherwise not in conformity with the constitutional procedure governing such cases, it is so much waste paper.
In view of the bill having been defeated, all that is being attempted by this amendment is to avoid a waste of paper and provide some help to those members who are undecided as to the way in which they might vote.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of an amendment may be to add, clarify or delete something from a main motion. In the present case, I think that its purpose is to clear it up, and any amendment designed to clarify a main motion is surely in order.
The main motion reads as follows:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19 in connection with the third reading of Bill C-193, which had carried in all its previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
February 28. 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
What does this mean? That Bill No. C-193 can be reintroduced as early as tomorrow, since the vote is not to be regarded as a vote of non-confidence? This raises questions in the minds of many people, namely the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who made the same objections. The question is whether or not it is a vote of non-confidence. Does it mean that the government has the right to reintroduce the bill? The amendment, as worded, stipulates that it should not be reintroduced during the present session by the government. This does not mean that the government is committed indefinitely, but only for the current session. That point is cleared up.
The mention that Canadian taxpayers will be credited with all the sums already collected also clarifies the main motion, because before last Monday's vote, the government had seen fit to collect taxes since January 1, even though the bill had not been passed by the house.
If that amendment is defeated, it could mean that what the government has done since January 1 up to last Monday was quite correct.
So I think that an amendment to clarify a main motion cannot be rejected. Does that depart from the principles of the main motion? No, since the main motion clearly indicates that there has been a vote on third reading of Bill C-193. The amendment adds that the government will not present again the said bill in this current session, under the other rule which says that a matter once it has been disposed of cannot be revived for a second vote, either directly or indirectly.
The amendment also clarifies the main motion concerning the costs of refunds since it implies not only a tacit but a formal acknowledgment of the fact that the vote did not constitute a vote of non-confidence, but purely and simply a vote of disapproval of an increase of the income tax. That is what we want to clarify.
That is why I doubt that the amendment on the main motion can be rejected in any way whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the crux of the problem. That is why I ask that the amendment be accepted as it stands.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, just one word on the amendment moved
[Mr. Gregoire.l

by the hon. member of Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) which reads in part as follows:
-that the government will not present again the said bill in this current session, and that he will credit the Canadian taxpayers of all the sums that have been collected, in anticipation of the dispositions, that were to be provided for, in Bill (C-193) since January 1st 1968.
Now, you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment is directly related to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) said yesterday when he stated that the government would not present again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Whether the amendment relates or not to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) may have said has has nothing to do with the point of order now before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you suggest that the amendment is related to the motion and, yesterday, when the Minister of Justice spoke of the motion we wanted to amend, he spoke of it in those terms. He was not called to order, because he was in order and if the Minister of Justice was then in order, I do not see how today a similar motion or similar comments could be called out of order with respect to a motion which we will soon be asked to pass. Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you consider what the minister said yesterday about the motion before deciding whether the amendment now under consideration is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for their comments on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne).

I have looked at the amendment, and the only difficulty I have is in ascertaining whether this amendment is relevant to the motion which it seeks to amend. Hon. members have suggested that the proposed amendment is intended to give an interpretation, or clarification of an interpretation, of the motion which is before the house. Hon. members wish me to interpret this motion in one way or another, the hon. members will appreciate that I am not all that anxious to do this.
In my view the motion which is before the house is very clear from a procedural standpoint. If we remove the frills it means only one thing; that is, that this house does not
February 28, 1988

regard its vote as a vote of non-confidence in the government. This is the essence of the matter which is before us. It seems to me that the conditions or explanations which are sought by the hon. member through his amendment do not relate to the essence of the motion which is before the house.
I should like to refer hon. members to the leading citation on this point. I have reference to citation 203 (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads in part as follows:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.

I take the liberty of asking the hon. members to refer to the same citation of Beauchesne's fourth edition, that is paragraph 5 and I quote:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
That amendment is very similar to that moved by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) a few days ago. After consideration, I had ruled that it raised a new proposition and that such an amendment could only be placed before the house by way of a substantive motion with a notice required by our standing orders.
For all those reasons, I do not think that I can accept the amendment of the hon. member.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I announced in the house yesterday those reasons which prevented my voting either for or against this motion.


Mr. Herridge:: I was paired with all those Canadians who are very worried about the effects of an immediate dissolution of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen [for Mr. Nicholson] for the second reading of Bill No. C-197, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When this item was last being considered the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) had the floor.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Speaker, I had completed my remarks.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, after what has happened in the last few days our discussion on Bill C-197 will bring about a change of pace. Nevertheless, the subject matter of this bill is of tremendous interest to those seeking to collect unemployment insurance benefits.
This bill seeks to increase insurance benefits. At the same time many in this country think that some problem areas in connection with employment and unemployment insurance need correcting. For instance, in my area-and I understand that this is so in many other areas-many unemployment insurance offices have closed. They have moved to larger centres and in those centres, with the help of computers and so on, many individual unemployment insurance commission services have been amalgamated. The result is that in my area there is no qualified staff to help applicants file claims for unemployment insurance benefits. Also, there is no one to help with appeals, which have to be conducted at arms length with offices that are many hundreds of miles away. The department says that this is temporary, and that the
February 28, 1968

situation will be corrected. We are to have provincial centres where facts will be stored on an I.B.M. tape and where the entire operation will be taken over by computers.
The Liberal government did a great disservice to Canada when on the one hand, in choosing men for the cabinet it made choices on the basis of their interest and, in some cases, their ability, and then, on the other, established separate departments for manpower and for labour, thus giving one minister authority over employment and another authority over unemployment insurance matters. In my opinion I have never seen a more stupid action taken. It means that a guy can apply for benefits but that he need not necessarily apply for a job.


Mr. Nicholson:: On a point of order. I hope the hon. member realizes that that change was made nearly one year before the Department of Manpower and Immigration came into existence.


William Arnold Peters: I agree about the time when the decision may have been taken, but I think the minister will agree that the initial intention was to have two separate departments. Why, they are not even speaking cousins any longer. Originally the functions of both departments were included in the Department of Labour. As a matter of fact, in my area both these departments were in the same building. It was possible for the unemployment insurance people to make sure that applicants had registered for jobs before being entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Now the departments have been separated and they are in totally different areas. There may have been reasons for the separation, but I cannot think of them and I am not impressed by the way they operate separately.
I agree that if the Canadian labour force is to be increased by immigration, the Department of Manpower and Immigration will be involved in making it possible for people to work in Canada. Nevertheless, those who are in Canada and become unemployed will seek benefits, but this is unrelated to immigration.
I am surprised that other members of parliament have not objected to the total separation of the functions carried on by the Departments of Labour, and Manpower and Immigration. So total is the separation in my area that the people in the manpower centres are not allowed to assist in the filing of benefit applications or appeal applications. They have been told by the minister to stay out of that

Unemployment Insurance Act field totally. I have found that a person can walk into a Farm Credit Corporation office, ask for assistance, and get assistance from a civil servant in filling out a simple form. Similarly, he can go to his member of parliament or his minister for assistance with any problem.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Officials of the manpower centre have made it known, however, that they will not even help these people fill out the necessary form. They will not provide that common courtesy. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) appears to be very touchy about this, indicating that he is well aware of the difficulties which have developed in connection with unemployment insurance. The point has been reached at which consideration is being given in my area, as in others, to appointing a person who will assist applicants for benefits in all those areas where there are no offices at the present time. Everyone knows that among the 500,000 who are unemployed today there are a great many who are looking simply for labouring jobs, and who do not have the education necessary even to be eligible for a retraining program.
I admit that the training programs have done a great deal of good. But in my opinion a profound disservice was done when this scheme was taken out of federal jurisdiction and placed entirely under provincial jurisdiction, with the result that the federal government has nothing to say with regard to it and nothing to do except contribute the necessary funds.
The closing of unemployment insurance offices in so many areas has made it impossible for men of little education to appeal against decisions taken by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, particularly since it involves the completion of a form in writing. What shocks me is that we are proposing to amend the act without giving any consideration to this problem which, in my view, is a really important one. Consider the difficulty facing a man who wishes to make an appeal in my own area. No longer is there an office in the tritown district or at Kirkland Lake. It is necessary to go to Timmins in order to make an application, and Timmins is 130 miles from the tritown area. Most of the people there are unable to travel to the Timmins office in order to lodge their appeals and for this reason they either write to their members of parliament or give up their possible right to benefit.
February 28, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act
The time has come to examine what we have done. I agree with the minister that it is more than a year ago that we decided to separate the two departments. I believe the National Employment Service has been working well and that it has done great things. I know that in my own area we were able to use persuasion in some cases and the big stick in others so as to increase the volume of hiring through the National Employment Service. People seeking work were able to go to the office to fill out their application forms and in many cases they found there was employment available to them; they did not file for benefits but took advantage of the opportunities offered to them.
The Minister of Labour has travelled across the country making a number of speeches about unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, I have received about 1,000 letters from teachers who believed it was the intention to revive the old chestnut which the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) used to talk about as a private member, that is, combining unemployment insurance with the tax structure in such a way that civil servants and others in similar jobs would pay into the fund.
Nobody was saying-and the minister did not	say-that	unemployment insurance
benefits would be paid to civil servants. No, all they would do would be to pay money into the fund so that somebody else could get the benefit. This is not an insurance program. It could not be actuarially sound, because people paying into it would have no chance of receiving benefit. The only intention behind this proposal was that more money should flow in by way of revenue. Why was more revenue needed at the time this proposal was made by the hon. member for Essex East? It was needed because, in a period of recession, the fund was being depleted much faster than revenue was coming in. I believe the fund had fallen from about a billion dollars to within $100,000 of a deficit position.
The depletion of the fund was accelerated by the inclusion of two categories of workers on an actuarial basis which was not sound -categories which should not have been covered for the reason, though this time in reverse, that the civil servants are excluded. Coverage was extended to fishermen, who obviously cannot fish for half the year because of weather conditions, and to bush workers who in my opinion should have been covered in a totally different manner. Then again, coverage is available to construction workers.

Many people objected to the coverage of construction workers on the ground that they might be able to earn as much as $15,000 in six months of the year. Nevertheless they are eligible for benefit during the other six months when work is not available because of adverse climatic conditions; unemployment insurance benefit was granted as a sort of beer money. As for the fishermen, the amount they earned had no relationship to the benefits they were eligible to receive. They were in the same class as others who were covered as insurance risks, not as a sure thing.
I mention all this in the light of the discussions which have taken place on the question of unemployment insurance in recent days and the concern felt by the teachers in the light of the minister's statements. It is my belief that the minister was flying a kite to ascertain the reaction of the country to this proposal. Some suspect that changes are contemplated of a kind which would change the nature of the fund entirely. No longer would it be an insurance fund, but it would be a fund of a totally different class, probably working toward the establishment of a guaranteed minimum wage.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am totally in agreement with the proposal to establish a guaranteed annual income program. I think the country is prepared to support the principle of such a program. In the next election the people should be asked how extensive they think such an income should be, and at what level we should correlate our welfare programs with a guaranteed annual wage. However, so far as I am concerned if a guaranteed annual wage is introduced, applying to farmers and other workers alike, I believe there will still be a role for the unemployment insurance fund to play. There will be a gap between the amount of the guaranteed annual wage and the full amount of a worker's earnings when he is employed.
A man earning $10,000 a year in a construction job should be permitted under an actuarially oriented program to provide himself with unemployment insurance income during his periods of unemployment. Construction is an industry which is subject to periodic change and there will always be times of unemployment in it.
Some people say that in the foreseeable future, due to the influence of automation and technocracy, a worker may change his occupation five times during his lifetime. If this be so, and if his retraining is provided by the
February 28, 1968

nation, then it seems to me there should still be an unemployment insurance fund upon which he could draw to maintain his income at the same standard throughout his retraining as when he is employed.
I started contributing to the unemployment insurance fund when it was originally established. At that time I was employed in an industry that worked 365 days a year. It was an industry in which there was very little unemployment. In fact we were anxious to get our employment hours reduced to a reasonable level of 48 hours a week, and it took many years to get them down to 56 hours a week. Although in the gold mining industry we were not subject to the normal risks of unemployment, yet we were quite happy to be covered by unemployment insurance. There was the risk that a gold mine would close down on some occasion. There was a risk with respect to the age factor of miners.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am violently opposed to the proposal to bring people under the unemployment insurance fund who are in absolutely no danger of becoming unemployed. I do not see a teacher becoming unemployed for many years to come. I do not see a doctor becoming unemployed for many years to come. I do not see nurses becoming unemployed for many years to come. I do not see civil servants ever becoming unemployed. As members of parliament, when we will no longer be serving any useful purpose I am certain that when we find ourselves unemployed there will still be civil servants to hand out the dole, and to keep track of other civil servants engaged in that work. The history of the last depression indicated that if ever there were people who were not going to become unemployed, it was the civil servants of that day.
Changes are going to be made in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think some of the changes should be major ones, but I disagree with the change made by the Minister of Labour when he gave up half his department, that controlling the Unemployment Insurance Commission being retained, and the National Employment Service being transferred to his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), who transferred it to the national manpower centres.
I maintain that those who are providing unemployment benefits also have a responsibility to try to provide jobs. I do not like to see a manpower centre in one city and an unemployment insurance office in another.

Unemployment Insurance Act Being separated, they cannot provide satisfactory service to the people who need work. The people now offering jobs never see the unemployed. So far as the employers are concerned, the unemployed do not exist. People staffing the manpower centres do not know the number of unemployed unless they read the D.B.S. statistics, because the unemployed no longer stand outside their offices or pass through them once a week.
The amendment which we are now being asked to pass is a minor one, and I think it will receive the support of all hon. members. Since we are increasing our standard of living by increasing our wages it is only proper that the benefits paid should be in keeping with the contributions made by the workers. However, I urge hon. members to consider seriously the weakness we have created by dividing the functions of the National Employment Service and the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
The National Employment Service and the Unemployment Insurance Commission are now administered by two separate departments, and I have been shocked to hear reports from some officials in both these departments stating that they have been given instructions that there is to be no cooperation between the two departments. The reason given is that if there is co-operation, then the divorce of functions between the two departments will not have been completed.
We have watched the government's machinations with respect to the Wheat Board. From time to time members of the cabinet have asked themselves, "Who among us has a little knowledge of the Wheat Board"? To them it does not matter if the Wheat Board comes under the administration of the Department of Finance, the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Agriculture. Responsibility for that board has been shifted from department to department, and this is not a good thing.
I maintain that the responsibility for the manpower centres and the Unemployment Insurance Commission should not have been divided. In practice it is not working out, and I think that hon. members who have had experience with unemployment insurance matters should give the minister the benefit of their advice. This division of responsibility was a ridiculous change which should not have occurred.
February 28, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
So far as I am concerned there has always been an oversight in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am referring to the proposition that the contributions at all times should cover the benefits paid out. We have seen that the unemployment insurance fund rises and falls. I believe it has been evident that when it has gone up we have been enjoying good times, when a very large proportion of the population was employed. When it has gone down there has been an unreasonably large amount of unemployment in the country. I am not prepared to say whether the 4 per cent figure which has been mentioned is a reasonable amount in this regard. I believe that probably 1 per cent is a reasonable figure in respect of normal unemployment. This is the unemployment which will always take place, no matter whether or not there is a shortage of labour.
This will come about mainly for two reasons. First of all, there are the young people who try to find employment in a category in which they are interested. They are temporarily unemployed until they are able to gain entry into the employment field. The second group will always be with us no matter how affluent our society is. This is the group which transfers from one field to another. Unemployment in these groups will probably run in the proportion of approximately 1 per cent. This figure might increase as the number of years a person is engaged in an occupation decreases. It has been said that a young person who trains to be a computer operator today will find within a period of three years that his training is totally inadequate for the job that the computer would be asked to do at the end of that period. This means that retraining will have to be provided in a matter of three years. During the retraining period such a person would be unemployed. This would raise what normally would be the unemployment figure in respect of retraining and reclassification.
The unemployment figure now is 500,000. This does not fit into the figure of 4 per cent, 1 per cent, or whatever it might be. This is an indication that we are on the verge of an economic recession which is national in scope and which affects the national economy. Perhaps this is the situation we had when the workers of the country were asked to make a contribution to the national economy of $1 billion, plus the contributions they were

being asked to make daily to the unemployment insurance fund. In my opinion this contribution of $1 billion was the factor which stopped the recession in the period around 1962 and 1963 from being greater than it was. This contribution was made, not because people were normally unemployed or were being retrained while seeking other jobs, but so that the country could enjoy the doubtful advantages of a recession over which the workers of this country had no control. At that time there was a 5 per cent increase in unemployment which was totally the responsibility of the government.
It was in this context that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked that all civil servants be asked not to help out, but to provide a new tax structure that would allow the government to put more money into the unemployment insurance fund without in any way changing the risk at the other end. As one who has worked for many years in the mines with a pick and shovel I believe we should provide unemployment insurance to cover the risks, but I am not in favour of asking the people in other occupations to contribute in order to cover an economic recession which is the responsibility of the government and has relation to the tax structure of the nation.
I have no sympathy with the minister in this regard. I know he has made the statement that the real issue is whether or not the position has changed sufficiently to allow him to bring in teachers and other people in similar categories who will not be eligible to draw the benefits. If the minister would stand up and say that his colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) would provide for payment which would enable teachers to take summer courses or other courses which would upgrade them, he would find that even if they were in a category where there was some danger of their being unemployed there would be no advantage to them in being covered under the unemployment insurance fund. He would find that the contributions the teachers would make in order to be allowed to draw benefits while upgrading themselves would probably be greatly out of proportion to the amount of money they would contribute in the form of a tax against periods of recession when the unemployment insurance fund was being depleted at a rate greater than the normal actuarial rate.
February 28, 1968

It would seem to me that this is an important matter. It seems to me also that every teacher who wrote to me had a very selfish interest. They were all personally involved and, because I studied the resolutions they passed at their conventions, I believe they were well aware of the fact that they were being asked to make a contribution to an insurance plan from which they could receive no benefits. Many people take out a form of insurance in respect of which there is a benefit when they die. This may seem to be a pretty hollow victory for the payer, but he does know at least that his family, his estate or, in the case I read about the other day, the universities or somebody else will receive some benefit. In respect of unemployment insurance, we are insuring against being unemployed. It has even been suggested that when a person becomes too old to work he should get back all the benefits he has paid in. It seems to me that this is a misconception of the purpose of the fund; that is, that it is an insurance policy in the form of an annuity.
I was very interested in a fine speech made on this subject by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) many years ago. He mentioned that he had driven an automobile for 40 years and was very happy that he had never collected on the insurance he had been paying during that period. He was very glad because this meant that he had never had an accident. He had paid out a great amount of money in premiums, not to ensure that he would not have an accident but to provide for the day when he might have an accident. He was proud that he had never had an accident and therefore had never collected on his insurance. He felt that unemployment insurance was the same thing, and I agree with him. One is happy to pay the premium as long as he is employable and employed, because along with many others he is contributing to the benefits payable to those not so fortunate. Some benefit from the fund to a much greater extent than others because their contributions are less.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There are, however, abuses in the unemployment insurance program. I think it is the minister's obligation to bring these abuses to the attention of parliament in order that solutions can be found. The greatest abuses to the unemployment insurance fund have been political. On two occasions governments of the day have added categories included for contributions. These categories are for the most part uninsurable because there is little
Unemployment Insurance Act or no risk that unemployment will occur. In this way we are abusing the fund.
There are other political abuses which have taken place, and if I had more time I would be prepared to enumerate some of them. They are difficult of solution without eliminating that protection which I believe everyone agrees should be provided. We all know of specific individual cases which are not related to specific categories. Some of them have been solved by regulation, but even the regulations have on occasion been abusive to the idea of unemployment insurance benefits. The one that occurs to me is the regulation which states that a claim will be reviewed after 15 weeks, at which time a decision will be made as to whether that person should leave the area before obtaining further unemployment insurance benefits. This is particularly abusive when the fund is decreasing and unemployment is increasing.
I think we are again abusing the principle by adding the category referred to today. Surely we realize that this group should not be classified as an insurable category, because there is for them little risk of unemployment. This is only a means of facilitating the collection of moneys for the provision of unemployment insurance benefits. I know the workers of this country very well and can honestly say I find them to be very reasonable and benevolent toward their fellow workers. Most of the workers in the categories with which I am familiar have been willing to make contributions without the possibility of receiving benefits, but they do not like being taken advantage of in this way.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be too long; I merely want to draw the minister's attention to three points.
We are against the principle of the bill because we know that the government must find ways to help the 464,000 unemployed in Canada who are facing very serious problems.
We wonder though whether in 1968 the concept of unemployment insurance still meets the objectives contemplated when the act was passed.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Act is a temporary solution, a poultice. Let us say that this social legislation is needed but does not benefit the community as a whole very much.
Indeed, it can help an individual for a few weeks, but if he is unemployed for two, three
February 28, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act or four months, the amount of benefits he receives cannot, in my opinion, cover his needs and enable him to make ends meet.
That act has been useful since its coming into force and it still is-I repeat that I am not against the principle of this social legislation-but I think that in 1968, more positive formulas should be devised to help not only individuals but also the community as a whole.
Since I have been here, I have often heard, and especially when the Unemployment Insurance Act was under consideration, that the government could, perhaps, find other formulas which, as I said earlier, could be more beneficial to the whole community.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, they called it "work-insurance". Of course, hon. members objected to it then. They said that a work-insurance law would be a first step towards socialism and as such should be rejected. However, whatever name we give it, I think that, in 1968, we should pass a law which, while helping the unemployed, would at the same time allow the community to benefit from the money which is designed to help people when they do not find a job in a particular season.
I will give you an example. Assuming that in a particular area, the unemployment insurance fund amounts to $500,000, $600,000 or $1 million, the government could administer the money in such a way as to pay benefits to those who are entitled to them and at the same time undertake projects in the municipalities which encounter major financial problems.
Those projects would give work to the unemployed who would collect in salaries what they would otherwise have received in unemployment insurance. While being of personal advantage to the unemployed, those expenditures would also serve to build something for our municipalities which, as I said a while ago, have serious problems with regard to the industrial projects and developments that fall within their jurisdiction.
If our municipalities are to be helped, I feel the minister should consider this formula, even though my talking about it makes him laugh.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I think that in 1968, we should have enough imagination to make welfare legislation beneficial to the whole community and not only to individuals. I would like to point that

fact out to the minister who is very busy with
464,000	needy unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, during the past year, the minister has also decided to centralize unemployment offices. There has been one in my constituency for over 25 years; it has rendered great services to our people and I think that the principle, adopted by the minister or his department and under which unemployment insurance offices are to be centralized as much as possible, should not apply to every where in the country. In my opinion, consideration must be given to the geographic location of the areas in which unemployment offices are situated and I must add that the centralization of unemployment offices in our district will not serve people who draw unemployment benefits.
We have been told that next June, the unemployment insurance office of the Murray Bay region will be centralized in Quebec city. That will be most inconvenient in view of our somewhat special geographical position and the fact that, during winter, travel is most difficult, to the point that, very often, because of delays in mail delivery, people receive their unemployment cheque a week or ten days late. The minister should consider that for the head of a family waiting for his cheque to receive it a week or ten days late may be a major inconvenience.
The centralisation of unemployment insurance offices in the Quebec city area will of course eliminate the one now existing in the Murray Bay area and people will have to write to Quebec city. I must say to the minister that some people will have to cover a distance of 110, 120 or 125 miles to get to that office and the uncertainties of travel, the delays in mail delivery will surely be highly prejudicial to those who draw unemployment insurance benefits.
I, therefore, beseech the minister to ask his officials to reconsider their decision concerning the closing of the unemployment insurance office in the Charlevoix area, at La Mal-baie. Perhaps the minister could ask his officials to make a more detailed study of the situation. Even if the centralization principle is a good one in general terms, I say that in given areas it is detrimental to those who receive benefits under the unemployment insurance act.
I entreat the minister to take my remarks into consideration and to ask his officials to reconsider the decision to close the unemployment office in La Malbaie area.
February 28, 1968	COMMONS
However, my main object today, Mr. Speaker, is to endorse the speech made last week by .my hon. friend the member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays); but I want to insist on a specific point.
The minister knows that the provincial government has set up an inquiry regarding trucking in certain parts of the province. The investigator has submitted a report to the provincial government and made several recommendations. In my opinion, truckers because of their trade, are "penalized" with regard to unemployment insurance.
I have received recommendations, from an organization of truckers in my part of the country, the Society des artisans camionneurs. They complain that they are being discriminated against under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I think they are quite right. In isolated cases, lumber companies sometimes give unemployment insurance stamps to their truckers. But when these same truckers work for another company which does not feel the need and the obligation to give them unemployment insurance stamps, those truckers, whose trucks can be considered their tools just as the saw is the tool of the carpenter-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I hope the hon. member will permit me to rise on a point of order in the interests of saving time. The point raised by his colleague, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays), was a very good one, but I understand that the regulations were amended in the summer of 1966 to correct the situation that troubled him. I believe the hon. member for Gaspe is satisfied at this time. If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Charlevoix is directing his attention to the same point.


Martial Asselin: I thank the minister but I must say that if the rules have been changed, they are still the same in my constituency because only last week, representatives from the Societe des Artisans-camionneurs complained that certain companies were not abiding by the rules under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Such companies refuse, in many cases, to affix unemployment insurance stamps in the stamp books of people who belong to the trucking trade.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I am obviously forgetting the owners of scores of trucks, the heads of trucking businesses. But I am taking part in this debate to say to the minister
DEBATES	7085
Unemployment Insurance Act -what I said a while ago and will repeat now-that whenever a trucker, who earns his living with his truck, is unemployed, he is unemployed just like a carpenter or a worker. He is earning his living in a different way but I feel that even if the law has been changed, as the minister claims it was, investigations should be made about these companies to see whether the employers abide by that law.
Mr. Speaker, those were the remarks I wanted to make. I am convinced that the hon. minister will take them into consideration as he usually does. I must say he has always taken my interventions into account.
He will have to think of finding a new unemployment insurance formula. Otherwise, as several premiers requested at the federal-provincial conference on the constitution, it will be necessary to sort out our social legislation to prevent a mad scramble between the federal and provincial governments to see which of the two levels will give the most.
I think we shall have to sort out these questions of social legislation and knowing the minister's good will, I am convinced that he will take our representations into account.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: 
Mr. Winch:: But if you are on strike you do not get it.


Steven Otto: It is very nice to have a supplementary income. What has happened to the unemployment insurance idea? Orginally the plan was introduced as an unemployment insurance plan, but over the years, politics being what they are, there has been pressure to include other things in it, and that has been done. As the hon. gentleman pointed out, this has not helped the plan. Indeed the result has been to make it a hodgepodge of little use to anybody.
This plan was introduced shortly after the compulsory savings plan that we had during the war. Of course people knew what their contributions were, how much they had saved, and immediately after the war they wanted a return of their contributions. They considered this to be their money. Of course when a contributor looks into his unemployment insurance book he sees that he has so many stamps. It may be that this reminds people of the contributions they have made, and makes them think of it as a sort of savings plan. Since human beings are what they are they tend to say: So and so has received so much from the plan, why shouldn't I have it? It is obvious therefore it is no longer an unemployment insurance plan.
I should like to bring the attention of members today other plans which serve a similar purpose, especially the workmen's compensation plan in Ontario. This plan has been in effect almost the same length of time, but it has been a successful plan. The benefits paid are realistic. The workmen's compensation plan pays 75 per cent of our previous earnings, up to a certain maximum. An employee who happens to be making $100 a week can live on $75 a week. Surely no one can suggest that a family man who is unemployed can buy fuel, pay his rent or mortgage payments

DEBATES	February 28. 1968
and clothe his family on $36 per week. If we want to raise the benefits higher, then how much higher can we raise them? I believe that the whole concept of unemployment insurance deserves study. Many of the assumptions that have been made have proven to be wrong. I have discussed this subject with other groups. I have said that possibly unemployment insurance benefits should be paid in realistic amounts to anyone who is unemployed for any reason whatever. Immediately there has been a hue and cry to the effect that you are going to pay all these lazy people who do not want to work, people who would rather get 75 per cent of their salary than work. However, it is always the other person who would do this, never the person to whom you are talking.
The fact is that when people are happy at their jobs, they will work. No one is going to take advantage of that situation merely to stay at home. If a person does, then he is usually psychologically maladjusted. I once had occasion to test this theory. There was an employee of mine who obviously was not happy with his work, and was causing me a great deal of concern. I told him, "I am going to give you four months wages. You are to report here every Friday to pick up your cheque, but I am going to give you four months in which to find yourself a job in which you will be happy, where you can get along with your fellow employees and where you do not hate the boss." My partners said, "What are you going to do; this man is going to take four months wages and he will not be any better off." This proved not to be so. In less than three weeks that man found a job. When he was working for me he was about 10 per cent productive, but working in a place he liked with people he liked he was about 90 per cent productive. This fact alone is worthy of consideration.
If we accept the fact that we should have an unemployment insurance plan, I doubt whether it should be a contributory plan. These weekly deductions are a reminder to people that they have paid money into the plan, so the inclination is to get their money out. I am sure we could adopt a plan similar to the compensation board plan, which is not contributory. Contributions are made from the general profits of the company. Of course whether the contributions are made by government or in any other way, the plan should be all inclusive. Benefits should be payable to any person who is out of work.
February 28, 1968

If a person is out of work he receives unemployment insurance benefits and he may be on welfare or may be getting payments from the compensation board. One way or the other, the benefits still come from our economy. If we had a plan that was truly an unemployment insurance plan, then there would be a saving in connection with all the other plans whether they were federal, provincial or local. A comprehensive scheme would not cost the country any more and would be of benefit to our productive capacity. I fail to understand how we are gaining anything from constant amendments to a plan which, it has been recognized, does not work. Surely, it is high time the government undertook a study of the problem in order to formulate a workable plan. One recognizes that today shifts in labour will cause unemployment. A plan should recognize that every now and then these workmen have to be re-educated or retrained. The plan should be one in which labour has confidence that in times of unemployment the workers will be able to maintain themselves at the standard of living they have created. They will be more secure and more productive, and that is the essential aspect of any insurance scheme. We should take away any element or risk which interferes with a man's ability to contribute.
I do not say that we are going to do this immediately. I only mention these things because I believe it is high time the government faced this issue, instead of introducing more amendments to the present plan. A white paper could be produced or a study undertaken by a committee of the house to investigate a completely new concept of unemployment insurance. The plan should be one which would assure the labour force of this country that when they lose their jobs their families will not suffer, and their standard of living will not deteriorate.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: In rising to take part in this debate, one has to review the whole question of unemployment insurance. I believe the country has accepted this plan as a means of maintaining a certain amount of buoyancy in the economy, even when there are large numbers of people unemployed. In a way, if my friends from Alberta do not object, one could say we are applying a bit of practical social credit to Canada. But is it working to the best advantage of the economy of Canada, and could we not improve it more than this bill attempts to do?

Unemployment Insurance Act
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The hon. member who preceded me said it was high time a complete study was made of this question. Five and a half years ago the then government referred the whole question of unemployment insurance to a body commonly known as the Gill committee, which in due course brought down a report. I should like to say at the outset that I am very disappointed to find that this Bill C-197 is a mere continuation or enlargement of many of the abusive practices carried on under the Unemployment Insurance Act over the past number of years. None of the major recommendations outlined in the report of the Gill committee have been incorporated in this particular bill.
At page 103 of the Gill committee report there is the following recommendation:
-we believe that a plan of unemployment insurance should be designed to take the first impact of unemployment and should be based on insurance principles appropriate to a social insurance scheme-
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the essence of the question. We must first determine what we want. Are we to have an insurance scheme? If so, then let us prepare a scheme that is truly an insurance and is economically sound. If we are not to have an insurance scheme but merely an additional welfare system-a guaranteed income, some Liberal members in the present cabinet have suggested-then let us call it that. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the government could have produced a better amendment to the act than the present bill during the five and a half years since the Gill committee reported.
Then at page 105 of the report appears this paragraph:
Under the existing plan, benefit may be paid to seasonal workers during their off season, even though they have never worked in the off season and have no expectation of doing so.
So it appears, Mr. Speaker, that there are people in Canada who are seasonally employed and have no intention of working for the remaining four, five or six months of the year, yet under the unemployment insurance scheme they are paid in any event. Surely this does not constitute sound economic practice. Certainly it does not create any incentive for these people to work and improve their living conditions in this young, virile, growing country of Canada.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone would admit that Canada needs more people. People are perhaps the one thing that Canada lacks. Yet it is commonly accepted that many Canadians are not prepared to spend any
February 28, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act time improving themselves and contributing to the economy of the country in any real way. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the greatest errors into which Canada has fallen in the sixties.
I suggest that, rather than tending to promote an indifference to the Canadian economy on the part of some Canadians, we should in some way be attempting to create incentives for a large segment of the population to contribute even more to the betterment of the economy. However, this government seems intent upon allowing people to contribute less and less to the economy, at the same time seeing to it that their income is maintained at a certain level. This, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this piece of legislation does.
Then at page 106 of the Gill report appears this paragraph:
In the light of the comprehensive program that we are recommending, we believe that the existing insurance plan should be modified to bring it back to a plan based upon insurance principles appropriate to such a scheme. The amendments that we consider necessary to accomplish this will now be discussed.
These amendments are discussed at pages 106, and following.
This legislation should do more than it does to make the scheme an insurance scheme, to provide those unemployed who really need assistance with greater benefits. It is not good enough to perpetrate indifference among many segments of our working population today through the means of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Then at page 120 of their report the Gill committee have this to say:
A plan of unemployment insurance should be designed in such a way that it will constitute a protection from a hazard that threatens those who normally occupy the position of employees in an employer-employee relationship; i.e., those who would suffer by reason of unemployment. It should not be designed in such a way that qualification for benefit is so easy as to attract people into insured employment merely for that purpose.
What the Gill committee is saying in that statement, Mr. Speaker, is that unemployment insurance should not be so easy to collect. The committee is stating that people are attracted to jobs that qualify them for unemployment insurance, whereupon they work the necessary amount of time to enable them to collect that insurance. It seems to me that the bill before the house merely condones what has been going on and in fact makes it easier for these workers to use the situation to their own advantage.


Continuing at page 120 of the report, Mr. Speaker:
Under the existing plan, the test of attachment to insured employment is the requirement of at least 30 weeks of contribution in two years preceding the claim. The requirements as to recency and requalification are found in two further tests, the first calling for at least eight weeks of contribution in the period of one year preceding the claim or in the period elapsed since the establishment of the last preceding benefit period-
The report then suggests that the period of employment should be longer. Paragraph 63 at page 121 reads as follows:
In our opinion, these tests are unsatisfactory in two principal respects. The first is that they are based on weeks of contribution, and in this context a week of contribution may represent anything from one to six days of work. Thus it is possible for persons to qualify for benefit on the basis of an inconsiderable attachment to insured employment, provided it is spread over a large enough number of weeks. The second is that the tests are unduly complex. They are hard to understand and hard to apply.
They are becoming more difficult to apply, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the shift that has taken place in the Department of Labour. As the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out, two or three years ago the Department of Labour was split and the manpower department was created. At the moment we have the Department of Labour and the Department of Manpower and Immigration, neither one of which knows what the other is doing. Both compile similar statistics, neither department knowing what the other is doing.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Across the country unemployment insurance offices are being closed and their operations centralized in large areas. That makes it more difficult for the bona fide unemployed to claim their benefits from the unemployment insurance fund. Instead of simplifying application forms, the government has made them more complex. It is small wonder that there were 24,486 fraudulent cases involving unemployment insurance last year. The application forms ought to be made simpler and more to the point. The regulations have not been changed enough, the word "suitable" being retained. Page 133 of the Gill report has this to say about abuses:
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
February 28, 1968

[DOT]of too narrow a view by claimants and possibly 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.
These abuses have gone on for years. Anyone in this country engaged in business in a minor way soon runs up against the Unemployment Insurance Act, and all the abuses that have gone on for years and years. They are well known and when members of parliament discuss them with constituents they can only say, "Well, it is not right, but that is what is going on." The act is of no help to our economy.
The Gill committee says, if I may paraphrase the contents of pages 128 and 129 of the report, that many who receive benefits equal to 90 per cent of their insured wage may prefer to remain unemployed instead of taking a job.
In recent years unemployment insurance has been extended to cover the fishing industry, and other seasonal industries. It has moved into the field of agriculture. But has that extension of coverage helped farmers to get farm workers? It has not. In my province the livestock industry is a major agricultural industry, and to make a ranch pay one has to work at it for 12 months of the year. The Unemployment Insurance Act, as it is now administered, does not fit the needs of that industry. It was a mistake to make unemployment insurance compulsory in agriculture. It would have been better to make unemployment insurance payable on a voluntary basis. But, oh no; the government said that the act would apply to farmers and ranchers, and no consideration to the agricultural industry was given. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) said, at a meeting that I attended, that payments to the fund could not be made on a voluntary basis because that would be a departure from the insurance aspect of the scheme. I can only say that we departed from that a long time ago.
I would be the first to endorse a return to an insurance scheme. The Gill committee suggests that there should be an insurance scheme-and I emphasize the word "insurance"-for those who are in insurable industries and that there should be some other scheme for those who are affected by winter or seasonal unemployment. The livestock industry would go along with that.
Unemployment Insurance Act
In Canada today, to have a paying ranch, two men must work at it. Usually a rancher would hire one man. To have a paying dairy farm the farmer must hire two men. At least two extra people must work on the dairy farm in order to make it pay and in order to let the farmer and his employees enjoy a standard of life comparable to the standard of other Canadians.
Ranching and dairy farms are competitive businesses. The potato industry is seasonal. One of the great problems in agriculture is getting hired help. I asked the Minister of Agriculture some time ago in a committee if he was making any specific request of the Department of Manpower and Immigration with regard to the immigration of hired agricultural help, and he said that he had not thought of it. That was two years ago, and though I have reminded the government periodically of the basic problems facing the agricultural industry, the Department of Manpower and Immigration has apparently failed to act.
How will this affect the agricultural industry? Regardless of whether a farmer or a rancher thinks that insurance coverage is necessary for his employee, he will have to pay into the fund. There will be nothing voluntary about it. A man can get benefits, not only if he has been fired, but if he quits his job and cannot get another so-called suitable job. And here, this bill raises the maximum benefit to $53 a week. I do not know what the going agricultural wage is across Canada but I bet that few farmers can afford to pay much more than $53 a week, which comes to a little over $200 a month. Few can afford to pay that for winter employment, though in fall and spring the wheat industry of Saskatchewan and Alberta can pay more than that, especially when crops are good, markets are available and prices are close to todays prices.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We are reaching a very dangerous situation by increasing benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If the increase were accompanied by changes in the regulations I do not think the agricultural industry would object, nor do I think I would object. But under the present proposals there is to be no change in the regulations at all, to speak of, and no account is taken of the recommendations outlined by the Gill committee. No definite tour is set for winter collection of unemployment insurance.
February 28, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act
I listened to the hon. member who has just completed his remarks; I found them interesting but I do not see how his proposals would apply in all circumstances. I, am sure they would do nothing but add to the problem of unemployment and make it far more difficult for the agriculture industry to get workers.
What has this government done for the industry, when it comes to hiring help? It has recently brought in the Canada Pension Plan, a plan which in many cases has been rejected both by the farmers and by their hired help. We believe they intend to bring in medicare and workmen's compensation measures. We are told that in the years ahead there may be a guaranteed income, or even provision for a minimum wage in the industry.
I would have no objection if there were a compensatory increase in the income realized by farmers today. However, this has not been the case. On the contrary we have seen incomes and prices in the industry reduced. This measure would do nothing more than increase still further costs to the agriculture industry. It is all well and good to say that since the cost of living is going up unemployment insurance should go up, too. Again I repeat that the act should be changed so as to make it more of an insurance plan. Two classes of insurance should have been set up, one for jobs which tend to be regular and another for employment which is more seasonal. Even though a million dollars has been recovered in respect of benefits paid out to people making false claims, I believe there are still too many abuses taking place and these have a particularly detrimental effect on the agriculture industry to which this legislation was applied only in April last. This has not made it any easier to hire men to work on farms and ranches.
The availability of unemployment benefit to their workers may have helped farmers cultivating such crops as tobacco, potatoes, fruit and vegetables, including sugar beets and so on, but I say the plan should have been introduced to the agriculture industry on a voluntary basis. I cannot for the life of me see why it cannot even now be reinstated on such a basis. If this bill passes, its provisions will do nothing but increase the cost of production to farmers who are today finding themselves in a tighter cost squeeze than ever. It will not help farmers to acquire hired help. Had the minister in presenting this bill paid greater attention to the insurance factor, or given us some assurance that the regulations would be enforced to greater effect-for example, if the word "suitable" had been struck out of the 

regulations completely-I might have found myself supporting it. In the circumstances, however, I have no hesitation in saying I have no liking for it whatever. I believe it would be detrimental to an industry which most of my constituents are vitally concerned about, and for this reason I shall vote against it.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I should like to say a few words with regard to the measure before us-words of encouragement to the minister for what I believe he is trying to achieve by bringing this bill forward.
My constituency is primarily an agricultural one, but many of the people who live there in close vicinity to Saskatoon depend on seasonal labour for their livelihood. A large number of my constituents are available for work during the winter months, many of them experienced in the trades in which they are involved, and I would not like to see anything done which might endanger the possibility of their securing unemployment insurance during the period of benefit for which they are eligible.
As I look at the problem which has been posed by my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Horner) I cannot help but think that it illustrates more directly than anything else could the lack of attention which has been paid during the last few years to the whole question of agricultural prices. This, however, is a subject separate from the one under discussion this afternoon.
In spite of the additional benefits which may accrue to labour, a measure such as this should provide an additional market, or a more stable market, for farm products than otherwise might be the case. In some parts of the agriculture industry, and certainly in the construction trades it is necessary to provide something to assist the development of a seasonal labour force which will be available to undertake the tremendous tasks which face us in Canada. I think of a lag in housing and in construction generally over the past few years. We shall certainly need a large pool of seasonal labour, having regard to our climate, if these projects are to go forward rapidly.
If I have any criticism to make of the government it is that they have made it so difficult for the municipalities to undertake winter works; they have cut the feet from under the winter works program instituted when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister of this country. The effort they made to increase housing construction by means of the $500 bonus-
February 28. 1968


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would expect the hon. member to associate the remarks he is now making with the bill now before the house.


Edward Nasserden: I thought I was doing that. All these things have something to do with the question of unemployment insurance benefits. The subject of seasonal labour has been discussed at length during this debate by some hon. members, anyway. I happen to be interested in seasonal labour because there are a number of people in my area who are involved in it and I should like to lay the basis of my views before the house in that regard.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
What I was developing a minute ago is that I do not believe as many abuses have taken place as some people think. I believe fewer people would be on unemployment insurance on a seasonal basis if the government of the day had taken actions that could have been taken to provide a little longer employment for them. A month or so longer employment would make a great difference to many of these people. Very few people, if they can work, go on unemployment insurance.
The other matter which I bring to the attention of the minister is the application of the rule regarding the eligibility of people for unemployment insurance when they are going to school. I understand that if the department sends people to vocational training those people can get benefits. I have in mind the particular case of a young man who was unemployed, who was seeking to get his grade 9, who was going to school, who was always ready to take employment if he could get it, but who was refused unemployment insurance benefit. I hope the minister will give consideration to this case.
I realize there has to be a border line some place. However, the information I have about this particular young man shows that he has not been trying to abuse anything. All he wants to do is improve his education during a time when he is unemployed. Without saying anything more, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the minister for the worth-while objective of this bill.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the concluding remarks of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), when, in his most useful presentation, he said he thought the Liberals should get their heads together and come up with some policy of co-ordinated security.
Unemployment Insurance Act With this I most certainly agree; but instead of saying "get their heads together" I say "knock their heads together", so that they may come up with a co-ordinated policy.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, we now have a peculiar and complicated welfare set-up in Canada. It is almost impossible for a member of parliament to keep up with all the regulations for eligibility procedures, as they change federally, provincially and municipally. I am certain, sir, that you must get many inquiries, the same as the rest of us.
Under this mix up we have unemployment insurance, we have old age pensions and old age allowances, we have federal pensions and war veterans allowances, we have disability pensions and blind pensions, we have workmen's compensation, widows pensions and children's aid pensions. We have employed and unemployed on welfare. It is an extraordinary situation.
That is the reason I hope I live long enough to see what the hon. member mentioned, a co-ordinated security plan for Canada that will cover all those in need, whether it be because they are unemployed, ill, disabled, aged, or for any other reason. It must come eventually, and I hope the time is not in the too far distant future. However, we are not at that stage yet, so we have before us certain amendments relative to unemployment insurance, and I wish to speak briefly on a couple of aspects.
The constituency of Vancouver East is basically a working class, residential riding. Therefore unemployment hits that riding heavily. It therefore follows that there is a keen interest in the matter of unemployment insurance. I regret very much that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) has not seen fit, or found himself in a position, to introduce recommendations at this time of such a nature that we would have unemployment insurance. By that I mean insurance for everyone who is able to work and willing to work, but who because of conditions is unable to find or be supplied with work. We will not have the full meaning of unemployment insurance until by law there is a guarantee of a decent living standard and security to everyone able and willing to work, but who is denied that opportunity. This is something we should have had long ago, and I am sorry our hesitant steps year by year, parliament by parliament, still leave us a long way from the achievement of that objective.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the regulations, and I am afraid at times the attitudes
February 28, 1968

Unemployment Insurance Act of those who enforce them, to a considerable extent make a farce under our present law of the meaning of unemployment insurance. It is very hard when a member of the House of Commons has his constituents, or the constituents of some other member come to him to discuss unemployment insurance. If my memory is correct it was in 1940 that we first established the principle of unemployment insurance.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1941.


Harold Edward Winch: It is very hard for a member of this house when a constituent, who has been paying into the unemployment insurance fund since 1941, or for most of the years since 1941, who has reached the age of 65 or 67, but who is still able and willing to carry on, comes to him saying he has been told by the officials, not that he is not physically fit, not that he is not able, but that because of his years and his position, and there being nothing available in his occupation, he is not available for work. In effect they say, "We declare that you are not available." Although such a person may have paid into the fund since 1941, what does unemployment insurance mean to him and people like him? They are out.
While sitting here waiting for the opportunity to speak I could not help but think of what we read in the newspapers about the ovation given in the other place to Senator Roebuck on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday. I have no hesitation in saying, and I have said it before publicly, that he is one of the most able, one of the most brilliant, one of the most hard working members of the Senate. There is no question about that; but you know if he was to go by unemployment insurance regulations he would have been wiped out 30 years ago.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In principle this is what is going on today all across Canada. It makes me sick when I think of the number of cases which have come to my attention of men who are in the age bracket of 65 or 67, who are seeking employment after having been employed for many years and who are declared by the government office or agency to be not available. The matter of availability should be a decision for the worker, and not that of a bureaucrat in a government office. If a man is physically available and has paid his premiums he should be recognized as being available and as being entitled to unemployment insurance.


The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) comes from Vancouver in the province of British Columbia. He knows that over the past few months we have had and are having now a serious unemployment situation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member has heard the most recent figures. British Columbia is the one province in Canada in which unemployment is going down instead of up.


Harold Edward Winch: That is wonderful, but it does not change one iota what I am saying. We have had and have now a very serious unemployment situation in Vancouver and in the province of British Columbia. Yes, the figure may go down a part of one per cent, but I do not care whether it is 400,000, 300,000, 200,000 or 100,000-when a man is unemployed and his family is going hungry we have a problem; and this has been a big problem in British Columbia. The Minister of Labour knows that we have faced a critical situation in the last 12 months, particularly in the construction industry, the power industry and the shipbuilding industry. Sixty five per cent of the workers in the shipbuilding industry are now out of work in Victoria and Vancouver. Twenty two per cent of all the carpenters in Vancouver, Nanaimo, New Westminster and Victoria are unemployed right now. Those are the figures. Progress is being made in respect of the power dams on the Peace river and at Mica creek, but the federal government is so interested in Ottawa and Quebec that major construction work is going ahead there, while the only major construction in the city of Vancouver is not going ahead, under the instructions of this government.
I had to answer the interjection of the minister, because it is quite all right for the minister and me to be drawing our salaries, but those who are not eligible under certain regulations for unemployment insurance in British Columbia have quite a problem when they are faced with the matter of putting ham and eggs on the table and paying the rent. I know of many persons who have not been able to work more than five and a half months in the last 12 month period. Can they draw unemployment insurance? The answer is no. They are not eligible because they do not have six months stamps. I know that is the regulation. I was hoping it might be changed, because the man who has worked for only five and a half months and cannot find employment must provide for his family
February 28, 19B8	COMMONS
the same as anybody else. He receives no help in this regard from the unemployment insurance fund, even though he has been paying into the fund. I am not suggesting that such a person should be in the same position as those who have worked for 12 months or a period of years, but I am saying that if he has been paying into the fund he should be entitled to some return when, because of conditions beyond his control, he is unable to find employment.
It had been my hope that the Minister of Labour would go beyond what he is now proposing to the house. We appreciate the increase. We appreciate any steps forward, but surely there are others who should have been included at the same time. When because of regulations people who have only five and half months stamps, and not six months stamps, are denied assistance because of age or because the agency cannot supply work, even though they are available, I say without hesitation that the government is an accessory to theft. I say that the government is taking money under false pretences, because when one pays a premium he is entitled to a return.
It is my hope that as soon as possible further and greater advances will be made in respect of the policies and regulations pertaining to unemployment insurance, and that even beyond that greater measures will be instituted by this government in an effort to increase rather than curtail employment. I shall conclude as I opened by reminding hon. members of the house of the words of the hon. member for York East, when he said in effect: Knock your heads together, and come up with an economic social security plan for all the people of this country.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the publication of the report of the royal commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Gill some five and a half years ago there has been an expectation on the part of parliament and on the part of many people in the country that the Unemployment Insurance Act would undergo the tortuous process of being overhauled, and eventually reach parliament. Reference has been made previously to the Gill committee report, but at this time
I	should like to refer to recommendation No.
II	which relates to the extent to which coverage under the act should be applied. Certain classes of employment are exempt under the provisions of the act; they are excluded from coverage. In fact I believe the term is "exempted employment". This has been the
DEBATES	7093
Unemployment Insurance Act situation since the period just after the second world war, when the act came into existence.
The Gill committee in some of its recommendations referred to the classes or types of employment which were excluded. It summarizes section 27 in the act, which establishes the excluded categories and points out in very general terms that the people involved are government employees, teachers, members of the police forces, employees in charitable or non-profit organizations, employees in hospitals, domestic servants, and so on. They also mentioned what they call the other broad exempted class of employees, namely those whose income is in the bracket of more than $5,460 a year. As I understand it, the committee recommended that these groups, which are now exempted, should be included.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
If there was a principle involved in the act in 1940 or 1941, when it came into existence, it was that certain classes of employees should be excluded from coverage, because of the unlikelihood that they would fall within or become involved in a situation of temporary unemployment. The other reason for exclusion of classes of employees related to those who were almost guaranteed unemployment, such as loggers, fishermen, hunters, trappers and other seasonal employees. The Gill committee seeks to alter that situation by recommending that these classes should be included, not because they may become temporarily unemployed, but to share in losses in respect of the unemployment insurance fund. The commission felt that these losses should be spread as broadly as possible. If that is the case and it is accepted, then we need to change the whole concept of the act. It is no longer one of insurance but one of a general classification of welfare.
Neither the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) when introducing this bill for second reading, nor the government, has given any indication as to what is intended in respect of the recommendation of the Gill committee that teachers, municipal employees, government employees, employees of police forces and the like should be included for coverage under the act. We know it is permissible under the act to include classes of employees previously excluded by order in council. This was done, I believe in 1957, some 11 years ago in the case of fishermen. The Liberal government of that day included fishermen through an extensive set of regulations established by way of order in council.
7094	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act
It has not been made clear what government policy is in respect of the recommendation of the Gill committee to include certain classes of employees now exempted. There is a great deal of apprehension, on the part of those people who fall within those categories enumerated in the act as being exempt from coverage, that they will be included without any government announcement as to acceptance of the Gill committee recommendation in this direction. I know of no government declaration to the contrary.
In view of the fact the government has introduced some amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, it owes these people, who feel they are simply going to have their pockets picked for the purpose of offsetting losses, a declaration as to the Gill committee recommendations. The government should declare itself in respect of the inclusion of these people for coverage under the act, particularly when there is little possibility of their obtaining benefit. As long as such apprehension exists, since the Gill committee was established for the purpose of inquiring into the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act, I suppose we are entitled to assume that the government has considered the recommendations and has not come to any conclusion.
To give the government the benefit of the doubt, I am sure it has considered these recommendations. There is no more opportune moment than now, when parliament is dealing with this act, for it to make its position known by saying it accepts the recommendations of the committee and, at the appropriate time, by order in council will include these people for coverage. If that is not the case, then conversely the government should say it does not agree with the recommendations, or that it has not made up its mind.
Because of the fact that with this change some people will be required to make contributions, with little likelihood of receiving benefits, the government owes it to them to declare itself in respect of at least this recommendation of the Gill committee, perhaps between now and the time the bill comes up for resumed consideration, when the minister will close the debate. Perhaps during that interval the government will consider the
DEBATES	February 28, 1968
thoughts I have expressed and make its intention known.
May I call it six o'clock?



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill S-33, an act respecting the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company, Limited, to which the concurrence of this house is desired; and also a message informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bills, without any amendment: Bill C-163, an act to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions; Bill C-192, an act to amend the Excise Act, and Bill C-191, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker I should like to ask the government house leader whether he can give some indication as to what will be considered tomorrow, Friday and Monday?


Mr. Pennell:: Tomorrow we will continue with item 57 the second reading of Bill No. C-197, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then we will call item 64, second reading of Bill No. C-202, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954. I hope that some time tomorrow I will be able to inform the several house leaders of the business for the rest of the week.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the house leader whether the votes taken on any of these items will be considered as votes of confidence.


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is for the house to decide.


Michael Starr: You mean there will be two votes on each bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 29, 1968