1971-04-19

VACANCIES

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received communications notifying me that three vacancies have occurred in the representation, namely:
Bernard Pilon, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Chambly, by decease.
J.-A. Mongrain, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Trois-Rivieres, by decease.
James E. Brown, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Brant, by acceptance of an office.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of new writs of election for the said electoral districts.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, on the night of April 14, inmates of Kingston penitentiary seized six prison guards as hostages, smashed windows, furniture, the cell locking devices and occupied the cell blocks and the central control area.
As a precautionary measure the warden of Kingston penitentiary requested assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces and troops were subsequently deployed to guard the perimeter of the penitentiary.
On the morning of April 15, the warden, his deputy and the regional director of the penitentiary service met with a committee of three inmates chosen as spokesmen to present grievances. Inmates requested that representatives of the press, radio and television media be permitted to attend and this was authorized.
The grievances expressed by the inmates dealt in general terms with the whole area of police, judicial and correctional systems. Only in three minor areas were complaints made against the Canadian penitentiary service itself.
The inmates' committee requested that a group of distinguished citizens be asked to hear the views of the inmates. It became clear that the hostages would not be released until the inmates had had an opportunity to meet with such a group.
A committee of five citizens was subsequently formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Arthur Martin, Q.C., consisting of Mr. Ron Haggart, Dr. Desmond Morton, Mr. William Donkin and Mr. Aubrey Golden, Q.C. This committee was given a mandate to hear the views of the inmates and to report to the Solicitor General.
This committee of citizens met with the inmates' committee throughout the night of April 16 and I received a report early on April 17.
Of the number of requests reported to me by the citizens' committee, the most significant was that the hostages would be released if it were guaranteed that no criminal or disciplinary charges were laid as a result of the disturbance and the seizure of the cell blocks. The inmates' committee was informed that the government would be unlikely to discuss any matter as long as hostages were held by the inmates.
During the early afternoon of April 16, one of the hostages was released apparently unharmed and in good health. After a series of discussions between the inmates' committee and the citizens' committee which went on sporadically during the 17th of April, no agreement could be obtained from the total inmate population as to what they wanted to request of the government.
The cell blocks and central control area had been occupied by about 500 of the 641 inmates at Kingston. No disturbances occurred at the psychiatric wing, at the hospital or in the dissociation area which had remained under the warden's control. However, very early in the morning of Sunday April 18, there were outward visible signs that internal control among the 500 inmates was deteriorating rapidly. There was apparently some sporadic fighting among these inmates.
As a result, I decided to go to Kingston penitentiary. After consultation with the penitentiary authorities on the spot, I authorized that a plan be put into effect permitting those inmates in the cell blocks who wished to do so to come out with hostages. Shortly after daylight, some 200 inmates were allowed into the courtyard and at about 7 o'clock movements of inmates to other institutions began. These movements continued throughout the day and the hostages were released gradually.
I know that hon. members and all Canadians were greatly relieved when the last hostage was released apparently unharmed and in good health at about 5.00 p.m. on April 18, 1971.
Unfortunately one inmate was killed and a number of others were injured by other inmates while they were in control of the cell blocks. We have notified their families.
I would like to make it clear that there was no use of force at any time by penitentiary guards or the Canadian Armed Forces.
The whole question of improvement of penitentiary services and methods of rehabilitation presents both

April 19, 1971
Penitentiaries
short term and long term problems which involve not only the government, the Penitentiary Service and the inmates, but also the Canadian public. In addition to the on-going programmes of the department which the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs now has an opportunity to examine, I decided two weeks before the recent events in Kingston to appoint a working group composed of outside and departmental sources to look into the Canadian Penitentiary Service rehabilitation approach for maximum security institutions and to recommend the type of new programmes and facilities that should be developed. These appointments will be announced shortly and I will ask that a report be made to me in six months.
So far as Kingston penitentiary is concerned, a decision had been made many months ago to phase it out by September 1971. This plan was already under way with the transfer from Kingston of a number of inmates to the new institution at Millhaven before the recent disturbance.
Inmates of our correctional institutions remain members of our society though temporarily segregated. Programmes which meet the needs of this group in society must be based on the acceptance of the principle that chances of rehabilitation are enhanced if inmates are given an opportunity to socialize, work and participate in activities under conditions as close as possible to what is found in normal society.
The government intends to pursue an increasingly progressive penitentiary program, but this can only be done in an orderly manner. The speed at which changes can be made depends jointly on the co-operation of inmates with the department and on public understanding and support.
With regard to the events at Kingston penitentiary, I have directed that a board of inquiry be established to review the events, to assess responsibility and to report to me.
On behalf of the government and on my own behalf, I would like to express sincere thanks to Mr. Arthur Martin, Mr. Ron Haggart and to the members of the committee for the very important role they played in helprng to bring about a solution at Kingston. I should underline the valued co-operation of the Canadian Armed Forces and the police forces at the municipal, provincial and federal level. In concluding, I should like to express my personal thanks to several hon. members for offering to assist in any way they could.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to open my remarks by thanking the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) for his courtesy in providing me with a copy of his statement. I, like him, also, believe that thanks should be given to the citizens' committee, to the officers and staff of Kingston penitentiary, and to the members of the armed forces for keeping their cool in a somewhat critical situation. I wish I could be as effusive in my thanks to the hon. gentleman regarding other parts of his statement. In particular, I wish I could thank him for advising Your Honour, members of the House and the country why this riot took place at all; in

the main, his statement is silent on that point and we are still left with what is a multi-million dollar mystery.
The hon. gentleman does say that there were three minor areas of complaint about the operations of the penitentiary service. We are not told what those three minor areas are; therefore we cannot assess whether, indeed, the adjective "minor" should be used at all.
Most of us have had the advantage of watching Mr. Jack Webster, a very senior Canadian newsman, interview on television last night a person who had been an inmate of that penitentiary. Certain factors were revealed which seemed to shed some light on the events in the penitentiary during the last few days. More specifically, there was the fear or the dread that most of the inmates there had about going to the new maximum security prison at Millhaven. I will return to that point in a few minutes' time or, rather, in a few moments' time; I do not want to wear out Your Honour's patience so quickly after the Easter recess that you lose the benefit thereof.
The point that this inmate made related to electronic snooping on inmates, even when they were engaged in private toilet activities. This was the talk of the inmates at Kingston and might have given rise to what happened. If this was their fear, surely there must have been some means of communication between the inmates and those looking after them so that it could have been dispelled. I suggest that these fears could have been dispelled by taking a few of the inmates to Millhaven and showing them what they would be up against, or films could have been taken and shown to the inmates in order to dispel their fears. Either these fears were justified or there was such an abysmal lack of communication that the whole country now has to suffer a multi-million dollar destruction of one of its institutions. One thanks the citizens' committee for its work, but one would have appreciated learning from the minister what reports, if any, it has so far made to him.
The Ottawa Citizen in its Saturday edition, in one of the reports it carried on this continuing story, quoted guards as saying that they were expecting a riot at Kingston. One would like to know what measures were taken to head off that riot. I suggest a similar situation to Kingston prevails at Dorchester, at British Columbia penitentiary and at Prince Albert-in short, at any institution built years and years ago that is being used to try to serve the needs of today. I think the simple answer to the problem is to be found in that fact. As a member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee which visited some penitentiaries but not all, I know that the members were impressed by the modern institutions. Hon. members will have noted that these modern penitentiaries have remained free of the disturbances that have racked others such as St. Vincent de Paul which, thankfully, has now been closed.
I suggest to the Solicitor General that the inquiry should deal with the points of criticism in respect of Millhaven. The government is apparently going ahead with its plans for Millhaven come hell or high water or
April 19, 1971

even more riots, although it has been criticized over and over again and referred to as an "electronic 1984". I suggest that the board of inquiry should deal with the lack of occupational training and with the Parole Act. Both these topics have given rise to complaints by the inmates. The board of inquiry should also suggest steps to avert another riot. Let me return to the point I made a few minutes ago. Surely some permanent method must be devised to provide for discussions between a committee of inmates and a committee of prison guards in order that intolerable situations that exist can be rectified immediately before they reach explosive proportions.
Finally, I think that the committee of inquiry should deal with that small group in penitentiaries which constitutes, even in the eyes of the most hardened criminals, the dregs of society. This little group needs protection from the other inmates of penitentiaries. I refer to sex deviates, Crown witnesses, stool pigeons, informers and the like. During our visits to certain penitentiaries in Canada we noted friction building up whenever that group of people was in close contact with the general prison population. It may surprise hon. members to know that the most hardened wife beater is still entitled to look down his nose at someone. The person he looks down his nose at is the sexual deviate. To this extent the element of segregation is involved in penitentiaries. I gather this was a factor in the Kingston riot although the Solicitor General has not dealt with it. That factor must be considered by the board of inquiry.
The members of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee had an opportunity to visit some of the penitentiaries and to observe some of these problems. We will be very anxious and eager to learn the results of this inquiry and what steps the minister will take to head off future incidents of this type.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we owe a debt of gratitude to the members of the citizens' committee who spent many hours during the daytime and at night in an attempt to resolve the problem at Kingston penitentiary. It may well be that we will have similar committees in the future. Periodically over the years we have experienced riots at different prisons throughout our penitentiary system. Some of these riots have been worse than others. The riot some years ago at Kingston during which there was a fire and a great deal of burning occurred, as at St. Vincent de Paul, involved a great deal more damage in one sense than the riot which concluded over the past weekend.
We all regret very much the death of one of the inmates. Presumably an attempt will be made to discover how it occurred and criminal charges will be laid if the person who caused this death can be identified.
I am wondering about the government's attitude on the matter of destruction of public property. I understand the damage has been estimated at $1 million, but who knows what it is in terms of dollar value. We should realize, however, that under the Criminal Code there is provision for a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment for destruction of government property. As a result of riots in the past certain individuals have been charged in the
Penitentiaries
criminal courts and, following conviction, have had the maximum sentence of 14 years meted out for participating in a revolt against the system. I suggest very sincerely that the minister and the government should look very warily at the approach that has been adopted in the past, that of laying criminal charges in an attempt to counterbalance the situation for the future, because it probably will not work.
The government response to such situations in the past has been to punish the individuals involved either within the system or by laying charges in court. It has been one of punishment of the whole inmate population by in effect putting the lid on the joint, by removing all privileges, recreational facilities and the like for long periods of time, by segregating individuals and keeping them locked up in cells for 23J hours out of 24 hours every day and permitting them only half an hour for exercise. I believe that the government's response in the past through this type of retaliatory oppression, removal of privileges and punishment for all regardless of their participation or non-participation in such things really will not serve us very well in the future if that is to be the sole action taken as a result of the riot at Kingston.
A number of questions have not been answered and I think two are of extreme importance. It would have behooved the minister well to indicate from his point of view what he knows concerning the answers to these two questions or what he may have surmised as to the situation. One question is, what are the recommendations, if any, that have come from the citizens' committee which spent hours in that institution talking to the inmates' committee. The members of the citizens' committee were liaising back and forth and undoubtedly have a far greater insight into the feelings which led up to this revolt than could possibly be derived through any board of inquiry or working group such as the minister seeks to establish. I believe it would serve the public interest well to know what the recommendations of that citizen's committee were or whether there will be any forthcoming in the future.
I also think it would have been well for the minister to give some assessment of his views concerning the real reasons behind the riot. I am sure it was not just a riot by people who objected to the prospect of being transferred to another institution, Millhaven, on the basis of rumours concerning what existed there and what sort of oppressive and electronic devices might be there to invade their privacy. I believe it goes much deeper than just being another riot in a penitentiary. I believe it represents partly a revolt against the judicial system and concern that we give lip service to the idea of rehabilitation in the penitentiary system but do not in fact do anything about it. It is a revolt against the fact of life that some penitentiaries are there just as places for people to be locked up in.
Any attempt at effective rehabilitation work within the prison system as we know it today will run counter to the idea and concept of security and custody and the obligation on the part of the penitentiary service to carry out the instructions of the courts, namely, to keep a person in jail for a stated period of time. We can talk

April 19, 1971
Penitentiaries
about rehabilitation programs within our penitentiary system but by and large that is not the place in which they will work. Generally speaking, inmates participate in chaplain's groups, therapy groups or rehabilitation groups and talk with their counsellors in great detail, but their prime objective is to get out of jail and therefore they will use those mechanisms, those systems and those structures that are set up supposedly for rehabilitation for the prime purpose of getting out on the street.
Rehabilitation means parole and the proper and full use of the parole and probation systems. We could probably release tomorrow on parole one-third to half the inmate population of our federal penitentiaries and not a single additional criminal offence would take place while those inmates were on parole. It would be in that period of time while they are on parole that rehabilitation would work to the full. In 1956 we had eight federal penitentiaries; today we have approximately 35 to 40. I do not know the exact number. If we had spent even half of the millions and millions of dollars on parole and probation that we have poured into building bigger and more glamorous institutions, surely we would have done something more worth while and realized more of the benefits of rehabilitation than we have until now. We have to try to establish a relationship with outside voluntary private groups such as the St. Leonard Society, the X-Kalay Foundation in Vancouver and others of a similar nature which have worked wonders in the rehabilitative field in helping to get people back on the straight and narrow and off that merry-go-round which repeatedly puts them back into the penitentiary system.
I noted that a couple of weeks ago the minister appointed a working group. I gather that he has not yet named the personnel of that group. I wonder whether it will really be a worth-while functioning group because many studies and examinations have been made in the past of rehabilitation both in maximum security institutions and in other parts of the system. However, if the minister is going to proceed and really thinks it will be a worth-while working group that will come up with something valuable, I suggest he should appoint to that group some ex-convicts, people who have gone through the mill, who know what rehabilitation is all about and who have worked at it, people who, for instance, participate in organizations, such as the St. Leonard's Society and the X-Kalay Foundation, people such as Mr. Earl Allard who is associated with the X-Kalay Foundation and who could tell the minister and the government more about rehabilitation and the necessity for it than all the professional working groups one could find both in the Public Service and outside it.
We need to be concerned about the damage that was done, the loss of life and the injuries to individuals, all of which are important, but above all we need to take instances of this nature and look upon them as revolts against the judicial and penological systems and structures and learn by them to develop something beneficial and helpful in the future for the individual. Our concern must be with the salvation and rehabilitation of the
individual, and that will not be achieved by constructing bigger, more elaborate and more modern buildings and the like. We have had riots in the past and undoubtedly we will have them again, but I think our best guarantee of keeping riots to a minimum is to treat inmates as human beings and to work for their salvation and not for the continuance of an antiquated penological system which brings about frustration and riots.


Mr. Andre Forlin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we wish first to thank the officials of the Kingston penitentiary and each member of the citizens committee for their efficiency in seeking an immediate solution to last week's disorders and for remaining calm despite the seriousness of the situation.
Mr. Speaker, this was certainly not an easy situation and the deeper causes of the problem which created this unrest in the Kingston penitentiary baffle us, at least from the minister's statement. Be it as it may, the government certainly acted in good faith and we are willing to commend it.
But there is one point that I should like to raise immediately, namely the fact that one inmate was killed and several others injured, and that hostages were held by inmates, the Canadian Armed Forces were called in and damages amounting to thousands of dollars were caused to the premises.
Mr. Speaker, this is violence and as far as we are concerned, violence cannot be accepted under any circumstances. It is hard to justify an act of violence so long as there is a chance of a dialogue between the differing parties. I wonder whether the federal authorities responsible for penitentiaries across Canada could have avoided this riot through frequent and regular contact with penitentiary officials, and representatives from the inmates and the general public.
In his statement the minister repeatedly said that the government intends to undertake a thorough reform in this field provided that they can get the co-operation of the public, of the inmates and of the authorities concerned.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt the government can depend on the support and co-operation of the people, of all those concerned or skilled in this field. There is no doubt, the most interested of all, the inmates, those who can be recuperated or rehabilitated, are ready to co-operate in order to improve the situation.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the government has made all the necessary efforts to promote continuous consideration-not only at a critical time,-of problems that could be foreseen. Violence should never be allowed, and the troubles that occurred in Kingston are most regrettable and sadden all Canadians, particularly in the case of the dead and injured inmates and in respect of the damages that have thus been done.
Mr. Speaker, if on one hand, violence cannot be approved, on the other, we can ask ourselves to what extent the methods put forward by the government will be effective, especially the establishment of a work group

April 19, 1971

which will file a report and a board of inquiry on the troubles which we have just known. We ask ourselves if those studies coming after hundreds of others on the Canadian penal system will really be effective.
There has been violence in Kingston and there has also been violence elsewhere in Canada. Quebec experienced a crisis which was no laughing matter, and in any event we must ask ourselves a basic question.
The disorders at Kingston penitentiary are putting hon. members and the Canadian people right at the heart of the problem, namely what are our objectives.
Our first goal is to reduce crime in Canada. Year after year the crime rate is on the increase. The government has abolished capital punishment on the ground that it would reduce crime. In my opinion, the initiative has been a total failure, and I wonder whether the disorders at Kingston penitentiary do not once again revive the advisability of re-establishing capital punishment, not for the inmates who organized the riot, as we should thank them rather for having provided the opportunity to discuss again the advisability of restoring capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, in a country we can succeed in bringing about respect for authority only if we deserve it. In creating an economic, political and social climate where each individual can achieve fulfilment in freedom and security, crime can be reduced. If an effort is made to bring back the prisoners to a normal life through an efficient rehabilitation system adapted to each individual, we can hope to insure order.
Under our present penitentiary system, dangerous criminals and milder types, are thrown together, which does not improve the situation of either one.
Mr. Speaker, the government is indefinitely postponing a complete overhaul of the Canadian penitentiary system, alleging lack of funds. There as elsewhere, the reason for our failure to take action, for our apathy, is again, it must be recognized, lack of funds. When-and it is with that question that I want to close my remarks-when will we finally make up our minds to finance not only peace, but also respect for the individual, in order that each Canadian citizen may be given every opportunity for fulfilment in freedom and security. Every individual, whether free or incarcerated, is a human being, and nothing should be left undone for his welfare. To this end, we must resort to financial means other than those the government now uses since no price is too high for healthy and normal fulfilment of human beings.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, in spite of the minister's promises, which only appease us for the time being, we hope that from now on he will agree to carry out a thorough overhaul of our penitentiary system and will not hesitate to make money available for human beings and to finance their security and freedom, giving each one an opportunity to return to normal life or, if has so deserved, to be punished accordingly.
Revised Statutes of Canada



REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is with much pleasure, and a sense of achievement on the part of the department and of the commissioners, that I am able to announce that the Statute Roll for the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, has been deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This revision will be the fifth revision of the federal public general statutes, and the fourth in this century. Earlier revisions were those of 1886 begun in Sir John A. Macdonald's administration, 1906, 1927 and 1952.
With the consent of the House I wish to table the seven volumes of the 1970 revision and the first supplementary volume that contain a consolidation of current federal statutes that were passed by Parliament prior to October 7, 1970. A second supplementary volume is in the course of preparation and will contain the amendments made in the present session to the statutes in the revision. An appendix volume containing constitutional legislation and documents will complete the ten volume set.
I might say that when the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, are proclaimed in force the proclamation will have the effect of repealing those public general statutes on the statute books that are included in the revision and replacing them by the statutes in the revision. The Revised Statutes do not operate as new laws but are to be construed and have effect as a consolidation and as declaratory of the law as contained in the statutes and parts so repealed for which the Revised Statutes are substituted.
There is, however, a technical repeal and replacement brought about by the revision, and this aspect of the revision caused the Revision Commission to omit that part of Chapter 44 of the Statutes of Canada that is entitled the Canadian Bill of Rights from the revision, and to include it in the appendix volume where constitutional acts and documents are contained. The result is that the Canadian Bill of Rights may be cited still as the Statutes of Canada, 1960, Chapter 44, as it is not repealed and replaced by inclusion in the revision. Because of the nature of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the wide circulation it has received, it seemed desirable that it should retain its original form and chapter designation.
In addition to the bound volumes I also wish to table, with the consent of the House, and for the first time in the history of the Canadian Parliament, the revision in the form of magnetic tape containing the machine-readable database used in the production of the revision.

An initial decision by the Commission was to prepare the revision by utilizing data processing and photocomposition techniques rather conventional printing meth-

April 19, 1971
Revised Statutes of Canada
ods. This decision required the development oi a software system that would support an automated, bilingual page format. The Revised Statutes, 1970 as tabled, represent a "first" for Canada. To the best of our knowledge, no other country has produced statutory material in this manner in a two-language page format, lining up marginal notes and columns of type automatically. Because of the uniqueness of the revision in this respect, Canada has been asked to provide magnetic tape of its Criminal Code for a demonstration of legal information retrieval at the next combined World Peace Through Law Conference and World Assembly of Judges to be held later this year in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

The decision to use computers has resulted in the production of a machine-readable database of about 40 million characters containing the current public general statutes of Canada. This database will support information retrieval programs and will be the base for the development, now under way, of computer assisted drafting, editing and publication of laws system, the acronym for which is CADEPOL. The machine-readable magnetic tape provides a flexible storage medium from which it will be possible to update and reproduce statutory text. Thus, subsequent revisions of the Canadian statutes can be prepared more rapidly in the future.
Heretofore, the only way to store statutory text in a flexible form was by the costly and cumbersome method of holding vast quantities of lead type, which was rarely undertaken by any jurisdiction. The long delays involved in typesetting in the conventional manner can now be avoided in the case of future consolidations of the federal statutes.
I should add that the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, represent the culmination of a challenging and imaginative program undertaken by the Statute Revision Commission, and I draw the attention of hon. members of the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the members of that commission, and to the presence in the ladies gallery of a few of the great number of people whose combined efforts, co-operation and dedication have made the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, the achievement that it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The commissioners and staff of the Statute Revision Commission have received the full co-operation of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. Many of the innovative techniques used in the production of the revision were developed by the printing bureau, and on behalf of the commission I extend sincere thanks for a job well done.
The Revised Statutes tabled today will not have the force of law until proclamation by Order in Council at a later date. Distribution of this revision will begin almost immediately, and members of the public will have an opportunity to inspect the revision before it comes into force.

Finally, I wish to table a short history of the Statute Revision Commission which outlines in brief the work of the commission from its appointment in 1965, as well as a copy of the report of the commission to His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Peace River I should indicate to the minister and to the House that I have serious reservations as to the authority which the minister has to table-as he says in his own words-"for the first time in the history of the Canadian parliament" a magnetic tape of deliberations. My recollection is that some years ago when a motion for the production of such documents was made by the then hon. member for Pontiac a ruling was sought from the Chair, and the ruling was that under our existing Standing Orders there is no authority for seeking from the government the tabling and the submission of such documents.
I again say that in this case this tape should be accepted only with reservations, and if it is done now hon. members on the treasury benches should not complain in future if a motion is made by other hon. members seeking permission or seeking authority for an order of the House for the tabling of documents other than what have been interpreted in the past as being documents that can be tabled under the terms of Standing Order 41(1).
All this having been said, it is obvious that the House is master of its own rules and can accept the tabling of any document, whether it is a magnetic tape or any other kind of tape. Subject to those reservations I would seek the authority of the House to accept for tabling the documents to which the minister has alluded, including the magnetic tape. Is this agreed?


John Napier Turner: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, after visibly having produced the tape-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Has it a cable licence?


John Napier Turner: It is for public use only-I shall accept the reservations put to me by the Chair. We will keep the tape of the consolidation in the government printing bureau, but I hope the House will accept the tabling of the statutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we would have been quite prepared to accept the tape as an exhibit, without prejudice. However, the minister has probably handled the matter in the best way. We are going to review the rules in any event, and who knows what we may do with them or what the minister may be able to do later.
I join with the minister in welcoming the completion of this massive task. I also join with him in congratulating
April 19, 1971

all those who were in any way involved in the task. Speaking as one who has had something to do with statutes, I think it is excellent that we are finally getting these consolidated statutes. The task has taken some time. I am not blaming anybody for that, but in these times when the government is intervening more and more in the rights of individuals it has become essential for those in this House, members of the bar, judges and others to find out exactly what a statute does without having to search painstakingly through many statute books. I hope we can look forward to the next revision being completed in a shorter period of time, especially since contemporaneously we have a government that legislates by moving radically in all directions at the same time in trying to enact new statutes.
In addition to congratulating the minister and those who were involved in the task, may I say that this is one of the times when we should pay more attention to the message than to the medium. In other words, I think that the government and members of the House ought to be more concerned about what goes into statutes rather than with the way they are issued. I say that more in sorrow than in anger because these statutes probably contain the chronicle of the fall and decline of what was to be the just society, and I would hope that the government in the short period which lies ahead will do something to repair this omission.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, mankind has come a long way in the matter of law. Once upon a time a great man came down from the mountain with ten commandments. Today the Minister of Justice came down with 40 million characters.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is one of them.


Gerald William Baldwin: There are 40 million characters in the cabinet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We welcome the completion of this important and monumental job. Your Honour found today to be unusual in that the Minister of Justice was seeking to table a magnetic tape. We have learned to deal with red tape around here; this is the first time that magnetic tape has been presented to us.
I should like to point out something else which is significant about today. The last time I asked the Minister of Justice about the Revised Statutes of 1970, I put the question in these terms: could the minister undertake that the Revised Statutes of 1970 would be tabled before the end of 1971. He said yes. This is a red-letter day. The government has kept its commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, it is exTemely important to have our federal legislation in this consolidated form so that we can find it, appreciate it, understand it and also amend it in its many weak spots. We welcome the completion of this job. We join with the Minister of Justice in paying tribute to the members of
Opportunities for Youth Program
the Statute Revision Commission and to the others who have taken part in this piece of work.
As an old-time printer, I should like to underline the tribute that the Minister of Justice paid to another group of people. I noted his reference to the ancient ways of printing that involved much time spent in the setting of type or in setting it over again. I am glad to note that he paid tribute to the printing industry and to the Canadian Government Printing Bureau in particular for developing many of the innovative techniques which will help to make it possible for our laws to be dealt with in this way.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we would like to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) for having tabled today, as he had promised, a copy of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970.
Mr. Speaker, federal acts have thus been codified, which will make them more readily understood.
The point that I should like to raise does not occupy much place in the hon. minister's statement, but that revision has certainly required considerable work from the members of the Commission, since it has been published in both official languages, something we rejoice about. We wish to thank the hon. minister for this initiative, which is an extremely important point.
Mr. Speaker, we seize this opportunity to congratulate the members of the Commission who worked more or less actively at this enormous task and we wish to tell the minister that we hope to see the greatest possible distribution of the statutes to the people interested, at a reasonable price. For instance, I have in mind university students who cannot afford to buy the statutes. It would be a very good idea if the government agreed to a compensated discount policy on the revised statutes, in order to allow each law student to have them.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion. As students are now becoming available for employment and very few applicants for the Opportunities for Youth program have received any notification from the department concerned, or have even received notification of the receipt of the applications, as a number of municipalities have been fenced out of this program, as there has seemingly been no consultation with the post-secondary community across Canada in the preparation of criteria and objectives, as there is no indication that the program will be directed toward those married or underprivileged students who would most need the income in order to be able to return to school, as there have been numerous reports of absolute chaos and complete lack of organization in the secretariat proc-
5024

April 19, 1971
Income Tax Act
essing the applications, and as it is necessary to have full
disclosure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member knows what the rule is. It has often been stated from the Chair. Hon. members cannot argue a case in substance. They can only indicate to the House, for the guidance of hon. members, the urgency of the matter which they wish to bring to the attention of the House.
I have indicated on a number of occasions that I think it is not quite in keeping with the spirit of this rule and the spirit of debate in the House of Commons for hon. members to take advantage of the Standing Order to submit an argument to which no response can be made by virtue of the wording of the Standing Order itself. I think hon. members should keep in mind, when attempting to bring forward motions under Standing Order 43, that they should limit themselves precisely and essentially to allusion to the urgency of the matter which is proposed for discussion under the Standing Order.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to that. I wanted to say a word or two prior to coming to the urgency as to the reasons why this matter must be considered by a committee of this House, because it is necessary to have full disclosure of the pertinent problems and difficulties of the program before it becomes fully implemented and thousands of young people are disappointed. Since we have not had information in the House to date, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the House refer the entire matter of the operation and criteria for the Opportunities for Youth program to the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration for immediate public examination in order that the Secretary of State and his officials can clarify and resolve these problems enabling the program to achieve optimum effectiveness.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not consent so the motion cannot be put.



INCOME TAX ACT


John Napier Turner: the first reading of Bill S-15 (from the Senate), respecting the consolidation of the Income Tax Act in the printed Roll of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont) .1



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Robinson: How many (a) doctors (b) dentists (c) accountants (d) chemists (e) engineers (f) architects (g) university professors and/or lecturers (h) other professionals migrated to the United States in each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is concerned: statistics are not collected on people migrating to the United States.


AIR POLLUTION AND EXHAUST EMISSION CRITERIA
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What air pollution and exhaust emission criteria does the Department of Supply and Services apply when evaluating motor vehicles for possible purchase by the government?
2.	What is the maximum sulphur content acceptable to the Department of Supply and Services in its purchase of fuel and heating oil for government use?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The department applies the objective performance standards on the levels of emission from motor vehicles in accordance with the Regulations Respecting Safety for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Components issued by the Department of Transport and printed in Canada Gazette, Part II. No. 22 dated November 25, 1970.
2. The maximum sulphur content acceptable in fuel and heating oil purchased by the Department of Supply and Services is governed at the present time by the plant design, by local conditions and by ordinances that apply in the localities where the individual heating plants are located. It is anticipated, however, that the co-ordination of the Government's interest in environmental control under the proposed Department of the Environment will result in new standards which will be put into effect in Government procurement of fuel.


EMPLOYMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANTS DURING 1969-70
Mr. Mazankowski: How many public servants were employed by the government during the fiscal year 1969-70 and (a) what was the total cost of the payroll (b) what was the average salary (c) what was the percentage of increase over the previous year?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Number of continuing employees on strength as at September 30	197,684
(a)	Total salaries of continuing employees (in thousands of dollars in effect on September 30)	$1,332,450
April 19, 1971

(b)	Average Salary ((a) divided by number
of employees)	$6,740
(c)	Percentage negotiated increase over 1968-69 salaries, including any retroactive effects of agreements negotiated up to March,
1971	5.8
Source: Central Personnel Records System, Department of Supply and Services. September, 1969.
Notes: 1. The data provided in October in answer to a similar question was based on the Federal Government Statistics published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. As the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is not publishing the data for 1969 we are unable to provide comparable data. 2. The data in (a) and (b) contain only the information reported by the Central Personnel Records System as at September 1969. The rate of increase, however, contains the negotiated increases granted up to March 1971, but applicable retroactively to the 196970 period.	.


AVERAGE PERCENTAGE INCREASE SINCE 1961 FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS AND ARMED FORCES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	By year since 1961, what has been the average percentage increase in the pay of (a) federal public servants (b) members of the armed forces?
2.	What are the total respective increases for each category over those years?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The average percentage increases since 1961 in the pay of (a) federal public servants and (b) members of the armed forces are as follows:
Federal Public Servants Armed Forces
1961	-	-1962	2.9	2.71963	1.8	-1964	3.0	9.01965	7.7	1966	7.8	9.81967	8.9	4.01968	6.8	6.51969	5.8	6.51970	(not available)	6.1
The total percentage increase (a) for federal public servants for the period 1961 to 1969 was 54.0 and (b) for the armed forces for the period 1961 to 1969 was 44.6. 1970 figures for federal public servants are not available since many collective agreements have not been signed for that year. The total percentage increase for the armed forces from 1961 to 1970 was 53.7.
Questions


USE OF COST OF LIVING INDEX AS BAROMETER FOR DETERMINING INCREASED COST ALLOWANCES
Mr. Robinson: Is the cost of living index a valid barometer for determining increased cost allowances to (a) rural areas (b) urban areas (c) the Maritimes (d) senior citizens (e) welfare recipients (f) pensioners?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: The Consumer Price Index for Canada relates to middle income families of two to six persons living in urban centres. For that group, it is considered a valid indicator of the impact on living costs of changes in prices. The extent to which the index is applicable to other population groups has not been determined. However, the families to which the Canada index relates would include senior citizens, pensioners and Maritime families living in urban centres, in so far as they meet the income and family size criteria of the Canada index.


ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENCES TO INDIANS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Barnett: How many commercial fishing licences were issued to Indians in British Columbia in each of the past five years and how many boats (a) owned by Indians (b) operated by Indians, were engaged in the commercial salmon fishery for each of these years?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Information on the number of commercial fishing licences issued to fishermen of Indian origin is not available as no record is kept of the ethnic origin of the recipient. Complete information requested in parts (a) and (b) also is not available, but as a result of special studies carried out for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the following can be provided:
1968	1969	1970(a)	624	573(b)	416	361CANADIAN	CONTRIBUTION	TO SUPPORT OF	THE WORLDCOURT AT	THE HAGUE


Mr. Robinson: How much per year has Canada contributed to the support of the World Court at The Hague since it was established?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State of External Affairs):: Canada does not contribute directly to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The Court is financed from the Regular Budget of the United Nations which is approved annually by the United Nations General Assembly. The Canadian contribution to the Court may be considered the product of the Court's actual expenses and the Canadian percentage assessment to the United Nations Regular Budget as approved by the General Assembly. Because of certain factors such as contributions to the United Nations Regular
5026

April 19, 1971
Questions
Budget by non-member states, some of which are members of the Court, this calculation results in an estimate. The following table shows the estimated Canadian contribution to support the Court.
Canadian Contribution to Actual Expenses* of the International Court of Justice (In U.S. Dollars)
1946* **	$28,200
1947	16,800
1948	19,100
1949	18,800
1950	18,900
1951	19,700
1952	21,000
1953	19,300
1954	18,400
1955	19,600
1956	21,100
1957	23,300
1958	21,300
1959	22,600
1960	22,800
1961	23,700
1962	29,300
1963	27,800
1964	31,800
1965	35,200
1966	35,000
1967	35,700
1968	42,000
1969	46,300
1970 (appropriations)	43,400
1971 (estimate)	44,800
* The Canadian Contribution has been estimated from the percentage Canadian assessment to the United Nations Regular Budget and the actual expenses of the International Court of Justice. Appropriations were used for 1970 and expenditure estimates for 1971. Source: Annual UN Budget Estimates.
** The 1946 expenses covered part of that year only.



DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

['Government intentions on matters of this nature would be answered at the appropriate time.']
James Armstrong Richardson: (a) Nil; (b) 44 per cent; (c) to (f) nil.
Note: As a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Government Organization (Glassco Commission) the Computer Services Bureau was formed and commenced operations in 1965-66 to provide data processing services to government departments. The Bureau acquired a large computer in 1966; financing its operations from a revolving fund. In order to recover start-up costs for the computer, the item of $1,242,551 for the
Computer Services Revolving Fund was submitted in Vote 10a of Supplementary Estimates "A". This amount comprises 56 per cent of the total amount voted by Parliament.



Mr. Sulaiycky: What percentage of Canada's Gross National Product is derived from the fishing industry?


Eymard G. Corbin: The contribution of various industries to the economy is measured from the Gross Domestic Product at factor cost rather than from the Gross National Product at market prices. In the National Account Statistics, trapping is included with fishing and fish processing with manufacturing. It is not possible, therefore, to arrive at precise data on the contribution of the fishing industry, i.e. the primary and secondary sectors, to the Gross Domestic Product. A rough estimate can be obtained, however, with the use of the weighting system of the Index of Industrial Production. On this basis, the combined contribution of fishing and fish processing to the Gross Domestic Product was
0.3 per cent in 1969.


WASTE PAPER DISPOSAL BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Sulaiycky: 1 How Is paper waste disposed of by government departments in Ottawa?
2. Is any paper waste of the federal government recycled?


James Armstrong Richardson: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. Waste paper from government departments is disposed of by award of contract after public tender through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
2. No.


INFORMATION ON DISPOSITION OF DUES PAID BY CANADIANS TO INTERNATIONAL UNIONS
Mr. Deakon: Does the government receive or collect information regarding the disposition of dues paid by Canadians to international unions and, if so (a) what amount of dues were paid by labour union members to Canadian unions having head offices in the United States (b) what percentage of these dues were forwarded to the parent office in the United States (c) what percentage of these dues were invested in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics, under the provisions of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, collects and compiles certain information relating to dues paid by Canadians to international unions. This information is published annually in the Annual Report of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce under

April 19, 1971

the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act (Part II, Labour Unions). However, the data collected under the Act do not provide the information needed to answer specifically parts (a), (b) and (c) of this question.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTI-ALCOHOLISM OR TEMPERANCE, 1970
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, was the amount of federal contributions to anti-alcoholism or temperance in 1970?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Under the Public Health Research Grant an amount of $37,306 has been approved for the fiscal year 1970-71, to assist the provinces in carrying out research activities in the field of alcoholism. In addition, a sustaining grant of $15,000 was provided directly to the Canadian Foundation on Alcoholism.
Furthermore, during 1969-70, the following Welfare Grants were made for Alcohol Education: Yukon Territory, $6,656; North West Territories, $56,616.
A number of welfare institutions and welfare agencies supported under the Canada Assistance Plan are also involved in programs which treat alcoholism. However, expenditure for this particular purpose cannot be segregated or identified.


INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY CANADIAN MEMBER OF ICC TO CIA AID TO SOUTH VIETNAM
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Did the government investigate a claim in 1969 that a Canadian member of ICC had handed information to CIA?
2.	Was an investigation instituted and, if so, with what results?
3.	Does the government intend to further investigate the matter?
4.	Since August 15, 1968, has the federal government contributed aid, in any form, to the government of South Vietnam, and, if so, what was the total amount of such aid?
5.	Are there Canadian-funded hospitals in Quang Ngai and Qui Nhon serving the Vietnamese civilian community and, if so. to what extent?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. No.
2. and 3. Not applicable. 4. Normal accounting procedures are to calculate expenditures on a calendar-month basis. Using those figures, Canadian aid to South Vietnam from 1st August 1968 to the present, totals some $5,700,000.
5. There are two clinics in Vietnam which are meeting the needs of the civilian population. At Quang Ngai, there is a two-storey T.B. Clinic which was built and equipped by Canada. The construction was completed in December 1967. The Clinic functions primarily as an out-patient, ambulatory service of the province public health program for the detection, control and prevention of tuberculosis. A five-year plan calls for the gradual phasing out of Canadian support for the project. A Rehabilitation Centre at Qui Nhon, which was built and
Questions
equipped by Canada, has been open since mid-1969. As at Quang Ngai, emphasis is on out-patient treatment. Under the terms of a five-year plan, there are up to eleven Canadian advisers to the Vietnamese staff with a gradual phasing out of Canadian participation.


CMHC PERSONNEL
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many individuals have been employed by CMHC in the past two years at a salary of $15,000 a year or more and, what are (a) their names (b) their responsibilities (c) their present salaries?
2.	How many of the individuals in Part 1 are members of the staff of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Housing and, in each instance (a) what are their specific responsibilities (b) what are their qualifications?
3 Is Douglas Bailey an employee of CMHC or the Minister's staff and, if so, what is (a) his position (b) his salary (c) his qualifications?


Hon. Roberf K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has taken on strength 22 employees during the past two years at a salary of $15,000 a year or more, (a) (b) (c) The names, salaries and duties of employees of CMHC are internal administrative matters. It has not been the practice, nor is it considered appropriate, to answer questions relating to the internal administration of the Corporation.
2.	None of the 22 individuals in Part 1 are members of the staff of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Housing, (a) (b) (c) Not applicable.
3.	Douglas Bailey is not an employee of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Minister's staff, (a) (b) (c) Not applicable.


CONSUMPTION OF EGGS IN CANADA, 1968-70
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1 What was the consumption of eggs in Canada during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2. What was the consumption, by province, during the same years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. Domestic disappearance (consumption, spoilage, etc.) of eggs for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 was as
follows:	
Year	Domestic Disappearance
	of Eggs*
	'000 doz.
1968	442,734 (excludes Newfoundland)
1969	456,964
1970	464,925
Excludes eggs for hatching.
2. The data are not available to answer this question mainly because figures on interprovincial movements are not complete.

Questions


PRODUCTION OF EGGS IN CANADA, 1968-70
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the total production of eggs in Canada during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2.	What was the production, by province, during the same years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. The total production of eggs in Canada for the following years was:
Year	Production ('000 doz.)
1968	452,985*
1969	471,231
1970	495,650 '^Excludes Newfoundland.
2. The production, by province, during the same years was:
Province	1968	1969	1970
		-'000 doz.-	
	not		
Newfoundland	available	8,088	9,147Prince Edward Island	3,027	2,956	3,102Nova Scotia	20,340	20,968	20,095New Brunswick	9,073	8,999	8,459Quebec	78,249	77,445	78,885Ontario	176,331	179,800	187,659Manitoba	50,967	53,577	60,534Saskatchewan	19,759	20,756	25,329Alberta	39,189	40,620	43,879British Columbia	56,050	58,022	58,561Total	452,985	471,231	495,650


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Labour (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: (a) $1,399 for keypunching services to Solicitor General and Penitentiary Services, (b) Nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.


RESEARCH INTO MATTERS RELATED TO BACTERIAL WARFARE
Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): Is the government presently engaged in research into matters related to bacterial warfare and, if so (a) what is the nature of this research (b) what is the annual cost (c) how many departments participate and which ones (d) what other countries are participating with the government in these studies?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Yes. The work is carried out by the Defence
April 19, 1971
Research Board of the Department of National Defence; (a) to develop protection for Canadians against biological attack; (b) $400,000; (c) the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture are represented on the Defence Research Board Advisory Committee advising in this field; (d) no other countries participate. In accordance with established practice between allies, information is exchanged with the NATO countries and with USA when justified.


BEAVER HILLS PASTURE, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Nyslrom: 1.	Were any cattle turned away from Beaver Hills pasture in Saskatchewan (a) this spring (b) the spring of 1969 (c) the spring of 1970, because of a positive reaction test for Bangs and, if so, how many?
2.	How many cattle tested positive when they came out of the pasture in the fall of 1969 and 1970?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a) No;
(b) no; (c) no.
2. 1969, none; 1970, none tested.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Agriculture (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry, (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: (a) Income derived from other departments during 1970-71 was $17,260.95. (b) Nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.


REDUCTION IN PERSONAL AND CORPORATION TAXES
Mr. Southam: Is it the intention of the government to accept the advice of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and cut personal and corporation taxes in the spring budget to speed the rate of economic recovery and improve employment opportunities?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Government intentions on matters of this nature would be answered at the appropriate time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Douglas: 1.	For each of the latest 15 years for which figures are available, how many farmers as defined in the census, were there in (a) Canada (b) each province?
2.	How many and what percentage of such farmers in Canada and by province filed taxable income tax returns?
3 What was the average income tax paid?
Return tabled.

April 19, 1971


PUBLIC SERVICE-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PERSONNEL
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many government jobs In the Northwest Territories are held by the wives of public servants located in the Territories?
2.	In what communities?
3.	In what occupational categories?
4.	Is any preference given to permanent local residents and. if so, what is the nature of such preference?
Return tabled.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. Valade: 1. During the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970, what have been the total (a) imports of (i) finished or processed products (ii) raw materials (b) exports of (i) finished or processed products (ii) raw materials?
2 For each of the same years, what were the total (a) imports (i) directed to the Province of Quebec (ii) directed to the Province of Ontario (iii) directed to other provinces (b) exports coming from (i) the Province of Quebec (ii) the Province of Ontario (iii) other provinces?
3. What is the breakdown in Parts 1 and 2 for each of the following countries (a) Japan (b) United States (c) Western Germany (d) Continental China (e) Formosa (f) Poland (g) Russia (h) France (i) Italy (j) Czechoslovakia (k) England?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General if he is prepared to table in the House or otherwise divulge, to the extent to which it is not confidential, the report of the citizens' committee which met with the inmates and, as indicated in his statement of April 17, reported to the minister?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have met Messrs. Martin and Haggart who made an oral report on the prisoners' requests and gave me a note, but I do not know whether it is official. However, I have considered their report as being official.
I would now have to determine whether the document they delivered squares with what they told me and if according to them, it is truly representative of the requests made by the prisoners.


Gerald William Baldwin: In order to make available to the House at least the very useful information which this committee has probably gathered in connection with this problem, will the minister facilitate the appearance of a member or members of the committee before the Parliamentary
Inquiries of the Ministry
committee which is now considering the question of correctional services, since their contribution would possibly be helpful to the committee when making recommendations to the House?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the mandate given to this committee was quite clear. It was supposed to hear the prisoners' grievances and report to me personally.
Now, if the members of the committee wish to tell me about their experience, I will certainly consider their views.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister might like to review his statement. He did not quite answer my question. Possibly he might do that tomorrow. The minister indicated in his statement that he has directed a board of inquiry to be established to review the events, to assess responsibility and to report to him. I wish to ask generally the same question. After that committee has reported, will the minister be prepared to make all or part of the contents of that report public and have the members of the board appear before the Parliamentary committee for discussion?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it has always been agreed that those would be the boards created to consider the internal problems and that accordingly, the report was of a private nature.
I am seriously considering the opportunity of appointing as members of this board persons that are not employed by the department.



KINGSTON RIOT-NATURE OF INMATES' COMPLAINTS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Solicitor General's commendation of the citizens' committee, particularly Mr. Arthur Martin and Mr. Ron Haggart, can the minister inform the House as to the nature of the complaints transmitted to him from the inmates' committee, and what steps the minister is taking to rectify the situation?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the complaints submitted by the inmates had to do with the judiciary, the police and the penitentiary systems generally. They somewhat fall in line with the complaints brought forth by modern society and they refer not so much to the standards of living as to our way of life. Therefore, the physical conditions of detention as such are not involved but rather the conditions under which liberated inmates are reintegrated into society and this is why we want to review the conditions of detention.
On the other hand, I mentioned that three types of minor complaints were also brought up to our attention.

April 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
The first type concerned the fact that an inmate was reportedly beaten. As hon. members will recall, about three months ago two inmates of the Kingston penitentiary detained hostages and eventually the guards were left uninjured. Still, one of these inmates had a knife which had to be taken from him by force. No serious injuries were inflicted on the inmates. Later, a Mrs. Redmond, who had been called to intervene and convince this inmate to surrender his knife and his hostages, was able to see the inmate and discuss with him and she told us firmly that no more force was used than was needed.
The second grievance was related to the fact that when members of the House write to inmates, letters are opened and remarks from the Warden of the institution are added to them. This problem has already been raised in the parliamentary committee and I indicated that we were considering the possibility of revising this practice.
The third grievance was related to the fact that the acting assistant director of the institution had denied an inmate a remission of 15 days that had been granted to him. I inquired about this and it turned out that this is not in the least consistent with the facts. This inmate was never denied 15 days of remission.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Solicitor General if one of the complaints transmitted to him by the inmates' committee through the citizens' committee was the boredom arising out of the fact that the inmates are not given adequate opportunities for training? If this is the nature of the complaint, I ask the minister whether steps are being taken to rectify it, particularly with regard to those who are moving to the new institution at Millhaven?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, this was not a matter of complaint on the part of the inmates. On the other hand, I know that a problem exists in our institutions with regard to the industrial programs which must be implemented. In this connection I am expecting the report of an inquiry commission which was established a few months ago, and I will certainly study this report very closely in order to find out how this commission's recommendations may be carried out.



MILLHAVEN-ALLEGED INSTALLATION OF ELECTRONIC SPYING DEVICES

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Have electronic viewing and/or spying devices been installed in the new Millhaven maximum security prison and, if so, where have they been set up?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No, Mr. Speaker. If there were spying devices, I would not want to reveal them, but I can say that there are no bugging devices at the Millhaven institution.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the Solicitor General say categorically that there are none of these bugging devices in the cells or bedrooms of these prisoners?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are no spying devices. That is the question I was asked. Now, if the hon. member has information, he might give it to us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the minister has replied to the question.



SUGGESTED VISIT BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE TO KINGSTON AND MILLHAVEN-STEPS TO REDUCE PRISON POPULATION

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: In view of the fact that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has the power to visit Canadian penitentiaries, will the Solicitor General facilitate attendance of the committee at the Millhaven and Kingston institutions to observe the conditions there, speak to the inmates and report back to the House?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the members of the committee and myself were to visit the whole Kingston complex and take the opportunity to visit Millhaven as well. Unfortunately, I did so in rather unusual circumstances, in which I should not like hon. members to find themselves, all the more so since a coroner's inquiry is now under way as it was discovered that one of the inmates was dead. Besides, the inquiry board has to look fully into the circumstances surrounding events and will certainly want to visit the institution before anyone else. Therefore, taking the situation into account I shall give the hon. member's proposal the most sympathetic consideration.


John Gilbert: Since the Ouimet Commission expressed the view that the prison population should be reduced very quickly, and requested that a research committee be set up to study conditions affecting prisoners held in maximum, medium and minimum security institutions, would the minister make a statement on motions setting forth what he has done to reduce the prison population and set forth the criteria with regard to inmates of penal institutions?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, to reduce the prison population is directly related to the number of persons sentenced to jail terms by the judiciary system.
That being said, perhaps we have stressed too much in the past the punitive aspect of the law and detention in general. Also it may be that the judiciary system should be revised so that the sentence be more consistent with the criminal act which has been committed.

April 19, 1971



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since some provinces are taking new steps to end the free trade of farm products between provinces, what approach does the federal government intend to take with regard to these restrictive measures that may prevent needed competition and balkanize trade between Canadian provinces?
tEnglish]


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I heard the question correctly, I should like to advise the hon. member that 1 do not intend to take any measures which would balkanize trade between provinces. All the Ministers of Agriculture have indicated to me, even very recently, that they are prepared to negotiate a plan in accordance with which all the marketing regulations would be applied uniformly across the country. As soon as Bill C-176 is passed and we have authority to do this, we believe we can alleviate this problem.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not what Thatcher says.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
What immediate steps does he intend to take to remove the embargo that certain provinces have put on a given farm product coming from other provinces?
[English\


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What we intend to do is to move, as rapidly as the provinces and this House will allow us, to put into effect plans which will in fact remove this problem which is causing some difficulty in connection with provincial borders.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not there have been any discussions between various members of the Commonwealth, or whether any tentative arrangements were made at the recent Prime Ministers Conference, whereby Governors General shall hereafter be regarded as heads of state?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: There was no such general discussion at the Singapore Conference or at the London Conference which I attended. Beyond that, I imagine each government is giving thought to the problem in the way it best can.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that answer indicate that the Governor General, who is now visiting countries in continental Europe, has been given a direction by this government that he is the head of state of this nation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Governor General is in Europe on an official visit, obviously with the authority and consent of this government. It might be important to add, however, that the advice of the Queen was sought and that she did give her consent to this trip also.


John George Diefenbaker: That still does not answer the question. As for Her Majesty, the Queen, being consulted, she naturally takes the advice of her Prime Minister, so the Prime Minister does not get away from the question by that evasive answer. I ask the Prime Minister: Is the Governor General travelling, with the knowledge of the government of Canada, as head of state? If so, is this another step in the erosion of our monarchical system by the present government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It could hardly be that because the head of state, under the constitution, is the Queen-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -as the right hon. gentleman knows.


John George Diefenbaker: I enjoy the Prime Minister's evasive answers, but I want an answer to this question, and Canadians have a right to know. Is the Governor General properly representing himself to be the head of state rather than Her Majesty the Queen who now has received the official imprimatur of the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the answer can be put quite simply by saying that the Governor General of Canada is travelling abroad in his function and capacity as, and under the title of, the Governor General of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: And not as head of state; it is the old game.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. I should like to know whether Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island was correct when he stated that RCMP dossiers are kept on all cabinet ministers in Canada. If so, are similar dossiers kept on other elected Members of Parliament and, in that case, on which members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is in order to some extent, though not in the form in which it has been asked. The hon. member is inviting the minister to express his view on whether or not the premier of a province was correct in something he has said, and in those terms the question cannot be accepted.


Charles Terrence Murphy: May I rephrase the question and ask whether or not it is the policy of the RCMP to keep dossiers on cabinet ministers or on any other elected members of Parliament?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I feel the RCMP should treat all Canadians the same
5032

April 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
way. It does not rest with the RCMP to say that because a citizen is a university professor, or the head of a large company, or a member of Parliament, he enjoys a certain immunity.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilon West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a supplementary question. In view of the fact that some time ago one of the officials of the RCMP indicated to me during a meeting of the justice committee that perhaps there would be files on Members of Parliament in the event that complaints were made by constituents or members of the public, would the minister now advise whether, in the event of such complaint against a Member of Parliament, it is the policy to compile a dossier relating to that member?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems once again there is some difficulty about the form in which the question is asked. I think that, as asked, it is extremely hypothetical.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I ask whether, in the event of a complaint by a constituent against a Member of Parliament, the RCMP, rightly or wrongly, would compile a dossier relating to that member?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that what I said in the first instance still stands. The hon. member is asking a hypothetical question, and in those terms the question cannot be asked. The hon. member might find some way to rephrase his question. I appreciate that the matter is an important one, but a question cannot be asked in those terms.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I ask a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am just trying to seek information. Would the minister, at his earliest convenience and preferably this afternoon, indicate to the House and to the people of Canada just what is the policy of the government in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not want to cause difficulty. The question is not quite in order. I understand that the hon. member is asking the minister whether such a statement would be made on motions; I am presuming he is not being asked to make a statement now.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a statement on motions. I feel I have replied to the question and if the member does not understand me clearly, I wish he could be more specific.



ALLEGED RECOMMENDATIONS TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PREMIER RESPECTING PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC GATHERINGS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. In view of Premier Campbell's statement that the RCMP advised him of the necessity of introducing the public order act in the province of Prince Edward Island, may I ask the minister whether any such recommendations were made by the RCMP to the premier of Prince Edward Island? If so, were these made with the minister's knowledge and consent?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, if this was done by the police authorities of Prince Edward Island, it was done as such, by police authorities that are under contract, but are necessarily employed by the province, and are required to give advice on the requests made by the government concerned.



SURVEILLANCE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS IN WHICH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT PARTICIPATE

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Some weeks ago I placed on the order paper a question with regard to the security investigation procedures of that branch of the RCMP. I hope the minister will shortly answer that question. However, at this time I should like to ask him, through you, Sir, whether it is now the practice of the RCMP to photograph, and in other ways cover public meetings in which members of this House as well as civic officials, might participate, as was recently indicated by the premier of Prince Edward Island.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members seem to think that they are in the United States. I do not know whether it is the practice or not. What motivates the dec.sions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the need to take action. There is certainly no systematic policy about citizens. Events lead us. If some methods have to be used with regard to an individual, it is because there is a clear indication that it is necessary.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is obvious that the Solicitor General has today failed to clear up a very important point that affects this member of the House inasmuch as reports in today's papers indicate that possibly RCMP surveillance, and by way of implication some form of intimidation, may in fact be exercised by members of the RCMP with respect to members of this House. I would invite the minister, at the earliest possible date, to clarify any possible danger that this kind of intimidation will become a consistent practice in this country.

April 19, 1971


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. minister rising on a question of privilege?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I merely wish to point out that no over-all accusation of this sort may be brought, for this would truly amount to irresponsibility towards a department of the government. If the hon. member has a specific case in mind, he should spell it out and I will gladly have it investigated properly.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the hon. member but perhaps we should move on. This is the third question of privilege we have had on the same matter. The hon. member rose on a question of privilege. The minister raised a second question of privilege and now we have a third. The Chair will recognize the hon. member in view of the importance of this matter, but we should try to make progress.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to Your Honour, to the Solicitor General and to other members of the House that I did not indicate that it has now become the practice of the RCMP to give extensive security coverage to public meetings in which members of this House and civic figures may happen to participate.



KEEPING OF DOSSIERS ON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so important is this matter to the independence of Parliament that the minister, now having opened the door as far as he has, must let this House know whether or not the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have dossiers on Members of Parliament. This is something that cannot be cleared up by evasive answers. Dossiers are the first step toward the control of the independence of parliament. Will the minister give his unequivocal answer that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for whom he speaks in this House, have not, and are not continuing to have, dossiers on Members of Parliament? Let that be clear and let the House have the answer.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police enjoys the greatest respect from Parliament and I do not think that Parliament as such has grounds for complaint about the methods used by the RCMP. Some individuals may have such grounds, and I am still waiting for specific complaints to be made.
Now, I find no provision in the law-and if there is, I should very much like to be enlightened about it-to the effect that members of Parliament are not also citizens, that they enjoy complete immunity and that they can do
Inquiries of the Ministry
anything. If the House wishes to pass such a provision, the people will think that hon. members constitute a special category of citizens in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must ask a supplementary question since the last answer is worse than the first.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the right hon. gentleman in a moment, but I suggest to hon. members that there is not much point at this time in having this very important matter develop into a debate. This is still the question period. For the time being, the Chair will recognize the right hon. gentleman who has a supplementary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no debate. I asked the minister the simple question: Are there dossiers on Members of Parliament? Members do not expect to be treated differently from anybody else, but Members of Parliament have the right to know whether this government has launched upon a system of looking into the lives of individuals through the Mounted Police.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I said that the department applied no general policy in this respect, and I might add that for the time that I have been Solicitor General, I have not seen the file of any member.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The statement that has just been made and the failure of the minister to answer adequately have left a very bad situation in this House. This is a breach of privilege. I will not bother Your Honour at this time with a review of the privileges of members of this House. I am not referring to privileges in addition to those to which all citizens are entitled but specifically to the privileges of Members of Parliament. The issue raised is the extent to which these privileges are being infringed. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the whole question of the statement by Premier Campbell regarding dossiers on M.P.'s be referred to a parliamentary committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course the hon. member realizes that he cannot make this kind of motion without first establishing that there is a question of privilege.


Gerald William Baldwin: I recognize that, Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter would have to be considered. The hon. member has sent a piece of paper to the Chair which indicates that he wishes to have this very important matter referred to a committee of the House. If the matter raised is that important,, the hon. member would be the first to recognize that it would have to be consid-
5034

April 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ered by way of a question of privilege. This is the only way such a matter can be referred to a committee. I am not sure whether the terms of the motion would be appropriate. In any event, the Chair will give the matter some thought. If the hon. member wishes to submit advice to the Chair as to whether there is a question of privilege, this might be done in due course. I should think that would be the time the motion might be moved. In other words, the hon. member is indicating indirectly to the Chair and to the House that he will in due course seek to have the matter referred to a committee by way of a question of privilege. The Chair will consider the matter in this light.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, by way of a point of order, that Your Honour has custody of the rights and prerogatives of the members of this House. I suggest to you that this is so serious a matter you ought to look into it personally in the next couple of days with a view to ascertaining the facts. You need not reveal them to the House at the moment, but this is something which contravenes every basic principle of Parliament. Your Honour is the protector of the rights-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Not for those people over there who say "oh, oh". Those prospective heirs-apparent as parliamentary secretaries who interrupt continuously in this way do not understand Parliament. I suggest to you that this is something deserving of the fullest investigation, which should start with Your Honour, to assure that the kind of uncertain and evasive answers we have had today shall be cleared up by a proper conclusion as to whether or not Members of Parliament are subject to Mounted Police dossiers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Terrence Murphy: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is rising on a point of order.


Charles Terrence Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the right hon. gentleman on the other side as to who raised this very important point.
* # *



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding an entirely different matter. Is he able to tell us when he is going to make his budget presentation? Does he intend to include in that presentation changes to the Income Tax Act, or is he going to take alternative steps to introduce those changes and, if so, when?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot indicate that date at the present time, but I shall do so at the earliest possible moment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of the situation and the anticipation in the country, can the minister tell us whether before the end of this month he will be in a position to disclose the date of his budget presentation and when he will introduce his tax changes?


Edgar John Benson: I shall try very hard, Mr. Speaker. I can assure my hon. friend that it will not be before the end of this month that the introduction will take place, but I will try at the earliest possible date to indicate the procedures involved. As I indicated previously, the problem in this matter of tax legislation is one of drafting. I cannot give a precise date as yet, although I hope to be able to do so in the very near future.



INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTION IN RIDING OF ASSINIBOLA

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the date of the by-elections to fill four vacancies in this chamber has been announced, and in view of the fact 35,000 people in the riding of Assiniboia are not represented, is it his intention to call for a by-election in that riding at an early date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at an early date.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that over the Easter recess the minister went home and has had the benefit of the thinking of the various cattlemen's associations, can he now say if he is prepared either to move or accept an amendment which would exclude cattle and calves from the ambit of Bill C-176?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. During the question period an hon. member cannot raise matters which are being discussed by the House. The hon. member is anticipating an order of the House. In the terms his question has been asked, it is not in order. Perhaps the hon. member might find some way to rephrase the question, but I doubt that he can find a way to make it acceptable from a procedural standpoint.

April 19, 1971


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to indicate the attitude of the cattlemen's associations with which he discussed this matter during the Easter recess.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, all the views of the various organizations, some pro and some con, are well known to all members of the committee.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Having seen into what deep waters his colleague the Solicitor General was drawn, can he now advise whether he has given consideration, under the appropriate section of the Supreme Court Act, to requesting a review by the Supreme Court of the Prince Edward Island act to prevent public gatherings?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we would not initiate a reference to the Supreme Court on a matter affecting provincial legislation. If that legislation is to be challenged in any way on constitutional grounds, the courts are open.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate when, and in what form, this House will be discussing the question of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, at which time the question of the constitutionality of the Prince Edward Island legislation could be discussed?


John Napier Turner: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Roberi Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Further to my question to the minister on April 1, I should like to ask whether he can now advise if he has received the report of the Cape Breton Development Corporation on the so-called master plan for future development of Cape Breton Island, and can he also advise when action will commence on the implementation of such a plan?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this plan has yet to the formally approved by the board of directors of Devco; once approved-and a study is now being conducted-I will be glad to relay its findings to the hon. member.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask whether the minister intends to table the plan. He continues to insist that he has never seen the plan and knows nothing about it. In light of the fact that the front page of the Cape Breton Post of Wednesday, April 14, carries a complete and comprehensive-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask his supplementary without making an argument in support of the question.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have to lay some background for the benefit of the minister who is so vague and at a loss in respect of the whole situation. He does not seem to know where the plan is or if there is such a plan. In view of the fact that this newspaper report is so detailed and comprehensive that it cannot be speculative, surely, members of this House ought to be given-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Will the minister now give some information on the report?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might want to reply briefly. Let me bring to the attention of hon. members that we are running short of time. We have only three minutes left for the question period and a considerable number of members have not had an opportunity this afternoon to ask questions.


Jean Marchand: I merely hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member will kindly send me a copy of the paper in which the report appeared.


Robert Muir: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should be very pleased to send a dozen copies to the minister if that will assist in stopping this government from playing so fast, so ruthlessly and so callously with the unemployed people of Cape Breton Island where unemployment is now up to 25 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



RAPESEED-CLOSING OF VANCOUVER FUTURES MARKET BY WINNIPEG GRAIN EXCHANGE-CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the decision by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange to close the futures market for rapeseed at Vancouver, will the minister inform the House whether or not he was consulted before this decision was taken and whether the action can be at-

April 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tributed to the unsatisfactory operation of the futures market in respect of west coast operations?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I had some discussions with members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, at least indirectly, about this matter. The explanation, of course, is one which would better come from the exchange than from me. The indication from members of the Grain Exchange was that they thought a single futures market operating on a base in Thunder Bay, with a premium for Vancouver delivery, might in fact lead to a steadier futures situation in the Vancouver market.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question I asked the minister. According to reports we have had, it would now appear that purchases of rapeseed at the west coast can be made only on a spot basis at day-to-day prices, which is a rather difficult operation for purchasers. Can the minister inform the House of the outcome of the meetings held over the weekend in Vancouver in respect of these operations, and has he any plans for establishing a sound basis of marketing and pricing there?


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the minister's reply will be shorter than the question asked because there are about 30 seconds remaining in the question period.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment on those meetings at this time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my queslion is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have given him notice of it. Would the minister consider having his department take over the sailors' monument at the south end of Halifax so that there will be a properly kept memorial for those Canadian servicemen whose grave is the Atlantic Ocean?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the interest of the hon. member in this very magnificent monument, but there are no funds in my estimates for such an undertaking. There are quite a few monuments of this kind throughout the country and usually they are looked after by local associations.



BROADCASTING


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State.
Is the minister in a position to give some clarification about the request from the province of Quebec to retain its jurisdiction over cablevision?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Quebec Minister of Communications gave all the clarifications in his speech and I am not his official agent.


Léonel Beaudoin: I would like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Is the government prepared to leave to provincial authorities cable-transmitted television programs of educational nature?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government in the field of educational television was outlined a few months ago in a comprehensive statement I made on motions and to which I refer the hon. member. It would take too much time to explain once again the whole situation and the agreements we concluded with the provinces.


André-Gilles Fortin: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member for Joliette and as soon as he has received an answer, the Chair will call orders of the day. The hon. member for Joliette.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the hon. minister.
Since the Quebec Minister of Communications has announced the introduction of a law concerning cable television, could the minister say whether he wiil soon meet with his Quebec counterpart to discuss this subject, or whether he really intends to let the Supreme Court settle the question?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the alternative as formulated by the hon. member is a valuable one. I think that there are several other actions that both governments can take, further to personal conversations with a minister and the appeal to the courts. I feel that strategy, on either part, can be much more intricate, and procedure as well. I believe there is a possibility of preventing this difference of views from turning into a fruitless quarrel and, as far as we are concerned, we do intend to use all means to avoid a useless quarrel.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before the question period began I attempted to gain unanimous consent of the House to deal with the growing concern and apprehension over implementation of the Opportunities for Youth program. Since the Secretary of State may not be here again for some days, and since there is urgency connected with the question, I wonder whether the House would allow the minister to clarify what steps are going to be taken to clear up the uncertainty about the criteria in respect of the program and the adequacy of funds.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the House for unanimous consent to return to motions

April 19, 1971

to allow the minister to make a statement. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, I was not asking for a statement on motions but for a brief indication in answer to my question or a willingness to come here tomorrow to make a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, this would require unanimous consent of the House. We have now gone beyond the question period and there are a number of members who have been waiting for an opportunity to ask questions.


An hon. Member:: About the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member for Egmont, and perhaps tomorrow he might be given some priority to ask the question and to invite the minister to make a statement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can we be assured that the Secretary of State will be here tomorrow because, in view of the halfhearted system under which the government operates, we can never be sure what ministers are going to be in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-229 is a bill designed to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act once again, but perhaps for the first time in a more comprehensive manner than has been the case on previous occasions. I do not intend to dwell at any length on the history of the existing act. The proposed bill is a very long bill. I think it would take too much time to cover it adequately. I hope, however, that during the debate on second reading, and perhaps in my closing remarks, I might do justice to this bill which I believe is for the general betterment of workers in this country.
I should like to remind the House that the original Unemployment Insurance Act has been around since
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 1941, almost 30 years. It has been one of the stable pieces of legislation in this country and has become familiar to all of us. Upon reflection, I think it is one of the most progressive pieces of social legislation ever introduced in Canada. It is interesting to note that back in 1941, when unemployment insurance was first implemented in Canada, the ceiling was at earnings of $2,000 a year. We can see that in 30 years times have changed considerably because even the existing act which we are proposing to amend has a ceiling of $7,800.
Before going into the details of the proposed changes, I should like to mention the work of the standing committee which discussed the white paper that was made public many months ago and tabled in this House, although not necessarily in that order. From that particular committee, which worked for many months and heard, I presume, some 60 odd briefs from labour and management, came, I gather, a unanimous report which was tabled in the House and which includes at least seven recommendations for improvement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope the minister does not mind my interruption. He said it was an unanimous report of the committee. I do not want to be placed in the same position as the chairman of the standing committee found himself in some time ago. So there will be no mistake, I must say that the report was approved on division.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to imply that amendments by any members of the committee would not be entertained. I am not aware of a minority report, but we never are during committee stage and second reading. Nevertheless, in accepting the reservation of the hon. member, I still think the work of the committee deserves some commendation in the House of Commons because, as I recall the events, the committee members were called upon to sacrifice some of the summer holiday period and meet in Ottawa to hear briefs, from labour, management and many different groups of people. Although the report may not be as unanimous, as I assumed it was, it is nevertheless a reflection of the committee's work at its best.
One thing from which we have not departed in this bill is the fact that the proposed new legislation will deal with a specific group of Canadians, essentially those who can be identified as being part of the work force of Canada. One of their basic characteristics, of course, is that they are in the work force but that periodically they suffer an interruption of earnings for a temporary period of time. In other words, unemployment insurance was never intended, nor is it intended, to look after the particular problem of people who are chronically unemployed or who are without jobs for considerable periods of time. These less fortunate people must turn to other programs for the type of financial assistance that is needed. There has been no basic departure from that particular condition.
The bill that is before us reflects to a great degree the recommendations in the committee report by implementing many of the recommendations that the committee

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
made to the House. If there are a few that are not-and I will explain it later when we get back to committee- there could very well be other clauses. It is a lengthy bill. I might say, before I get into the bill itself, that it represents many months if not years of preparation, many meetings of the committee and much consultation with the provinces. As a result of consultation with the provinces there have been one or two changes in the bill which I think have made the bill a better one, for instance as I previously mentioned once or twice in the question period, we are no longer limiting referrals to the Department of Manpower and we are taking advantage of other social agencies across this country that can help people without work. We also indicated that when and if a province were to introduce on the provincial level, and for all residents of that province, features equal or similar to those provided by the new unemployment insurance act in the case of illness or maternity, we would gladly take this into consideration in assessing the rates of the workers in that particular province in order that there may not be duplication, overlapping or double taxation of the individual worker in that province. Particular clauses in the bill make this possible, when and if a province introduces some form of universal health insurance, which would provide income to workers who are out of work as a result of illness.
I think that those members who have been in close touch with the particular problem concerning the Unemployment Insurance Act in the past agree that the benefits paid to workers were very unrealistic if the act was to fulfil its main purpose, that is to help people who are temporarily out of work to find work without having to face the problems of insufficient income during the period of unemployment. In other words, we have substantially increased the benefits to which a person is entitled under the proposed act so there will be a direct relationship between the benefits received and the level of income that he has achieved over a period of time. It has been widely heralded in headlines that everybody on unemployment insurance would draw $100 a week. Of course, this is not true. People would draw two thirds of their income in most cases, with a maximum of $100, and people drawing $100 would be those whose average income over a set period of time was $150 a week or more. So there may be consistently with the proposed tax reform, and with equity of all types, benefits will be taxable in the same way as other forms of income are taxable. This is a departure from the present act. I might remind hon. members that at present benefits are not taxable, but the new benefits will be.
The second change makes universality possible. Universality was one of the recommendations in the Gill report and basically is the cornerstone of this legislation. We have tried, and I do not apologize for this, to make the coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act as universal as possible. We have not included selfemployed people for a variety of realistic reasons, one of course being the administrative problems that this would create and another the fact that a self-employed person, has control over his destiny, over his profits and loss. Unemployment insurance is not intended to be insurance against a bad business venture.
However, we have extended universality by removing the $7,800 ceiling on salaries and generally extended coverage to any member of the work force whose employer we can identify. This includes groups which have traditionally been exempted in the past, such as school teachers, army personnel, firemen, policemen and federal civil servants. These people will be included in the act for the first time. I think this is consistent with social insurance, social policy and social legislation. I would be the first to admit that many of the groups coming in are less likely-I hope for their sake-to ever have to draw the benefits of unemployment insurance than others who are less fortunate. Nevertheless, there will be many people coming in who should have been included many years ago, people who were left out for traditional reasons, such as social workers, casual workers working for different governments and municipalities.
It is significant that of the 1,200,000 who will be coming under the act for the first time, at least 700,000 are earning less than $7,800 at the present time, and only about 500,000 of those people coming into the plan for the first time earn above that figure. From this we can see that there has been unintentional hardship all through the years as a result of our not broadening the coverage to bring in many people who have had to get by as best they could. I refer to the chronically unemployed people and other people who, for one reason or another, have not been covered. This is one of the progressive features of this proposed legislation.
We have received many representations from groups who have opposed the concept of universality, particularly teacher groups. I have appreciated their contributions to the debate. I have met with most of their provincial organizations and, in the main, found that the concept was fairly acceptable to them, although there were exceptions in each group. But Mr. Speaker, there are many teachers who are prepared to come into the plan, understanding that we live not only in a new type of society in which technology can almost make a trade or skill disappear over night, but that in a period of high unemployment across the country the traditional characteristics of unemployment are changed. It used to be the case that the undereducated and the younger people were most affected, but now for the first time people with 20 or 30 years seniority-here I am thinking of people in the railway industry, of architects, engineers and bookkeepers-are finding that they may be threatened with unemployment. I am also thinking of many people who, even ten years ago, could reasonably be satisfied that they would not become unemployed, depending on their seniority and the development of the particular skills they possessed. But that is no longer characteristic of any industrial nation, and unemployment insurance will be of benefit to these people.
I would not want to leave the impression, Mr. Speaker, that all teachers across Canada are prepared to come into the plan, but I am saying that their organized opposition to its universality is not nearly as consistent as it was a month or six weeks ago. That has been due to the many

April 19, 1971

meetings we have had with their responsible representatives, and to the many hours we have spent exchanging views and ideas. Now, I think the dialogue with the teachers centres more around regulations, and ways and means by which the plan can help them under certain circumstances.
I found that statistically almost 70 per cent of teachers are women, and they have absolutely no maternity coverage at all under the present collective agreements. We propose to provide unemployment insurance benefits to those people in the work force who are temporarily without earnings as a result of maternity. This is quite consistent with progress in an advanced industrial society. It is not revolutionary, because many countries around the world have already incorporated this feature into their plans. This is a way by which we can provide some security for the person who must retire from the work force in order to have a child.
I think that before we get too smug about women in the work force, we should realize it is a sad commentary that at least one million women in the Canadian work force are in it not because they want to buy a second automobile or a coloured television set but because their income means the difference between poverty and survival. When, in such instances, a woman is deprived of her income as a result of maternity, this creates a terrible hardship. I am hopeful that drawing unemployment insurance, after a two weeks waiting period, for at least 15 weeks will help the working mother.
Another reason for the proposed increase in benefits stems from the fact that many Canadians today drawing unemployment insurance must also draw a welfare cheque in order to support themselves and their families. There are very many Canadians who just manage to survive on two cheques, their unemployment insurance cheque and their welfare cheque. I do not want to bore the House with a great many statistics at this stage, but when the legislation is being examined by the committee we can provide full statistics for hon. member's who may be interested in them.
By increasing unemployment insurance benefits substantially we will affect savings of some $80 million under the Canada Assistance Plan, $40 million to the federal treasury and $40 million to the provinces. At this stage I am not going to bother breaking down the amount with respect to each province. This depends on the rate at which they pay out welfare, but the increased unemployment insurance benefits will mean that for the first time many Canadians will not have to live on two cheques.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the increase in benefits will postpone the day when people chronically unemployed must turn to welfare if they have no other sources of income. It can be said that the benefit structure has been developed by people who care about people. The argument that this will breed laziness, that it is catering to lazy people, is an argument that should not be raised in this chamber. But, Mr. Speaker, it is an argument that we hear too frequently. It is said that people are inherently lazy. That has not been my experience. Tests made in
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 New Jersey indicated that even people living on a guaranteed income, everything else being equal, will seek work if at all possible. In fact they prefer to work rather than live on a guaranteed annual income, and I do believe that the overwhelming majority of Canadians in the work force would prefer a job rather than unemployment insurance or welfare, if they have that choice.
Universality, Mr. Speaker, will make it possible to reduce the contributions per week. At the present time a person earning $100 a week pays $1.40, and incidentally has no tax deduction for that $1.40 if perchance that person never draws unemployment insurance. It is now proposed that the rate be adjusted to somewhere between 80 cents and 92 cents, depending on the statistics that we are now finalizing. In any event, there will be a fairly substantial drop from the $1.40, and in addition the contribution will be tax deductible in the same way as are medical expenses.
Perhaps I am rather disjointed in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because I am not following my text closely, but one thing about which I am most excited is the financing of the plan. What we propose to do in the main, is to limit the cost of the plan, up to a particular threshold which I will discuss in a moment, to the employer and the employee. The question of collections and that type of thing will be transferred from the Unemployment Insurance Commission to the Department of Revenue. In other words, on his T4 slip a person will receive a record of his contributions for tax purposes, and also for tax purposes a record of what he received. But what intrigues me about our format, so far as financing is concerned, is that the employer and the employee both will be paying their share when unemployment in the country is under the level of 4 per cent. This is the threshold that we have decided, and in a little while I will explain why it has been set at 4 per cent and not 3 per cent or 5 per cent, above which the state will contribute. But to that point, the employer and the employee will finance the plan.
Once again, and perhaps this has been due to lack of communication on my part, there has been the mistaken idea circulated that people with eight weeks contributions paid will get 44 weeks benefit. I have heard this said on radio and television by some well meaning people. It has also been said that a person with 20 weeks attachment in the work force will draw 52 weeks benefit. This is not the case. What a person with eight weeks attachment, between eight to 15 weeks attachment, will be eligible for is benefit for 18 weeks, and the person with 20 weeks attachment will draw 25 weeks benefit.
At the end of the eighteenth week when this normal benefit has run out, the probability of the person being re-absorbed into the work force will be assessed according to basic criteria, and part of the criteria will be the rate of unemployment in the country and the rate of unemployment in the specific region in which the person lives. It is logical to expect that with a 2 per cent unemployment rate, a draftsman in Toronto or an engineer in Newfoundland has a better chance of being absorbed back into the work force than if the unemployment rate were 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent.

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 However, I repeat that it is following that assessment that we extend the 18 weeks benefit in movements of six weeks, depending on the deviation of the national rate of unemployment from the figure of 4 per cent. In other words, if the rate of unemployment across the country is 6 per cent, as it is now, this will extend the 18 weeks by 12 weeks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Automatically?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, sir. Then, of course, if you are still unemployed we would take into consideration the regional rate. The purpose of this is logical. It is sound insurance. We are insuring not what happened in the past; we are insuring the probability of your being reabsorbed into the work force and we must take into consideration the economic conditions of the country at the time.
Those hon. members who know more about economics than I, and I suppose that includes almost all hon. members of the House, can appreciate the effect that an injection of approximately $100 million for every one, per cent of unemployment in this country can have when we reach this particular plateau. The financial critic of the New Democratic Party would understand something that has evaded economists for years, the mechanism by which we can inject into the economy and into the hands of people who have a propensity to consume and spend, the money that is necessary when the economy needs stimulating. That is not hard to do. The problem has been to retrieve the money when the economy has been booming and when too much money has been in the economy. This feature of the bill will make this possible. If the rate of unemployment happens to be 6 per cent, that will mean an injection into the economy by the government, through the unemployed people in this country, of approximately $200 million. However, if unemployment were to drop to 4 per cent, by shortening the benefit period under which people are entitled to unemployment insurance, we will remove from the economy approximately $200 million.
Many features of the plan can be criticized objectively. I expect this and welcome it. On balance, I think these are all questions of degree. Should the waiting period be two weeks, or one week, or no weeks? We think it should be two weeks. We set two weeks because of the master plan we had in mind. We considered the cost of the plan and the need to provide maximum benefits at the lowest possible cost to the Canadian worker, particularly since he will be partly financing this plan. That has been one of the considerations. If you were to reduce the waiting period to zero, the cost would be astronomical. At two weeks we think the cost will be bearable and will permit us to build in this two thirds relationship as between benefits and a person's actual income. It is very easy to criticize or take objection to certain specific features of the bill. I only hope that hon. members who are here will approve of these changes, suggest modifications and improvements and try to look over the bill so that we can come up with the best possible legislation for Canadians.
There have been the usual criticisms, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment insurance is welfare in disguise. It never has been that and it was never meant to be. We have attempted to close up the unintentional loopholes that previously permitted welfare connotations to creep into the plan. One of the weaknesses of the present structure is this: it has been difficult for people legitimately in the work force for the first time to become identified as legitimate members of the work force. After you leave university or high school or teacher's college and enter the work force for the first time, you must be part of the work force for two years and accumulate by a tortuous formula 30 contributions-hon. members know all the rest of it-as well as so many contributions in the last year before you are eligible for any type of assistance. We propose to reduce that period. We shall consider someone as attached to the work force if that person has as few as eight weeks of contributions. I say that because we are interested in the future of that worker and not in his past history. I think this will be of tremendous advantage to the Canadian worker. This is his fund.
I have heard people saying, and read editorials to this effect, that after a contribution of $1 or $10, say, a person can draw $5,200. I could make a similar argument about the man who buys insurance on his home today and sees it burn down tomorrow, or about the poor fellow who buys life insurance today. It is small consolation for the widow to hear, "Well, your husband invested $50, and you got $10,000 four days later." Of course, the whole concept of insurance, which I need not explain to hon. members, is the pooling of risks. This is what we are doing. Of course, there will be some of these cases. However, our plan is actuarially sound in general and we know it.
I have mentioned pregnancy, Mr. Speaker, and we do not apologize for the inclusion of that feature. One of the greatest unintentional abuses under the present plan has stemmed from the fact that women who were about to have a child, as is their right, have gone to their employer and said, "I am sorry but I cannot continue working because I am expecting a child." In more cases than we realize, the well meaning employer has falsified the reason for that woman's dismissal. Then, the lady, either through the mail or by visiting the local office, will say, "I have been laid off owing to lack of work." She could begin drawing unemployment insurance and, unfortunately, in many cases draw it for 52 weeks. Now, we are making it possible for an employer to be honest. He can fill out a declaration that Mary Jones is retiring from work temporarily because she is to have a child. She does not have to falsify the reason for quitting and she need not feel like a criminal. She may go to the unemployment office and draw exactly what she is entitled to, 15 weeks coverage-that being nine weeks before the termination of pregnancy and six weeks after.
I think the inclusion or recognition of sickness as a legitimate reason for drawing unemployment insurance is long overdue. May I remind hon. members that, at the moment, if you are dismissed on Friday and establish your claim at the local unemployment insurance office on Monday then fall sick on Tuesday, you can draw unemployment insurance. On the other hand, if you fall sick

April 19, 1971

between the day on which you are laid off and the moment of establishing your claim, you are ineligible. If you become sick and are laid off for that reason, you are not eligible. What we are saying, to simplify the matter, is nothing more than this. If you are laid off as a result of sickness, we are willing to weigh the conditions under which you can draw unemployment insurance if you are ready, willing and able to draw unemployment insurance. We will be prepared to recognize the fact that, because of a legitimate illness, you will not be able to work during the prescribed period of between two and 15 weeks. I think that all those who have looked in horror at this plan will understand that this is logical.
Another source of unintentional abuse has been seasonal benefits. As of November this year, seasonal benefits will be eliminated. These have been a source of abuse in a sense that many people were drawing unemployment insurance in our harsh winters who were not supposed to be drawing it. This plan is part of a total, social plan and is directed towards and earmarked for that particular group of Canadians who have contributed to and are normally part of the work force. The payment of seasonal benefits, as most hon. members know, stems from nothing more than a relaxation of the normal rules and regulations that apply during the rest of the year. We are paying unemployment insurance benefits in the winter months to many people who cannot really say that they are legitimate members of the work force. There are people who have collected stamps or the necessary attachments 24 months ago, say, and they can take advantage of the loophole. In addition, of course, seasonal benefits are no longer needed because one has only to be attached to the work force for eight weeks to qualify. This is basically the logic behind dropping seasonal benefits. I think, and I may be mistaken, that even if the present rules are relaxed a person must have 15 weeks of contributions to be able to draw seasonal benefits now. There may be some variation of that formula. Now, people will be able to draw seasonal benefits if they have a period of eight weeks of attachment to the work force.
Another source of abuse-and I use the word "abuse" in the sense that it can be demonstrated that the group I am about to refer to draws an awful lot of money out of the plan in comparison with the amount it puts in-has to do with people who are over 65. We have discussed this with many of their representatives. People drawing the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan have indicated to all of us that they are prepared to withdraw from the work force. Many such people in all probability are drawing the old age pension, supplemented by some payment, I suppose, which is based on a needs test. They could very well be drawing a company pension as well. We do not feel as some felt in past periods of Canadian history, and I am referring to 1940 when the act was brought into force and to subsequent decades, that the average person over 65 should be forced to work. The Canada Pension Plan was introduced to make it possible for senior citizens to live in dignity. We now suggest that people who are over 65 and drawing Canada Pension Plan benefits are out of the work force. If they remain working they are not obliged to pay unemployment insurance premiums, but when they cease
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 working they will not draw unemployment insurance. The relationship between their other pension plans and the unemployment insurance benefits they may draw is something we can discuss at the committee stage.
I made a promise in the white paper which I will repeat today. The fishermen will remain in the unemployment insurance plan until such time as a suitable plan is brought forward by another minister that is acceptable to their representatives and which in effect provides some form of insurance for these people. I am not talking about all fishermen. Many fishermen are easily identifiable as legitimate employees. I am talking about employer fishermen, the type who share their catch, but who have been identifiable by regulation as being employed. We will continue this until such time as a suitable alternative plan is brought in through legislation which is acceptable to the fishing industry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister permit a question? The minister has quite properly stressed the principle of universality. I think the new group being brought in represents a forward step. I ask the minister why we are then taking the backward step of taking the fishermen out of the unemployment insurance. I appreciate his statement that some other plan will be introduced. What is the rationale behind removing the fishermen from the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not want to get into a debate on the little issues. The rationale is that at the same time as I am bringing in this plan, I want to eliminate as much as possible anything that can be considered as having a welfare connotation. This is one of the legitimate criticisms of the plan across this country. Incidentally, anything that may be considered to be a welfare insurance plan becomes available when the government pays the cost rather than the employer and employee. I am not talking about fishermen in general but only a particular group, fishermen who can be identified normally as adventurers or self-employed people in the same way as self-employed machinists or self-employed lawyers. Many fishermen can be easily identified as self-employed.
A problem arose. Some of them earned $20,000 a year, but the bulk only earned a subsistence income. Ways and means were found which, in effect, stated that despite the fact that someone was classed as an employer, for the purpose of drawing unemployment insurance he is an employee. We are trying to be consistent in our approach to universality in the sense that we are trying to extend universality as widely as possible to people who can be identified as being employed, and identify that person's employer. This is not quite true of fishermen who sell their catch to a broker or dealer and, as part of the payment for the catch, ask the dealer to act as an employer for the purpose of providing coverage in stamps. I do not think the fishermen are particularly happy with this arrangement, but it has been traditional. It has been the tradition for 12 or more years. I made it quite clear in the white paper that we intend to continue this practice for the time being.

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
I do not know if and when an alternative plan satisfactory to the fishermen will be introduced. I have no way of knowing. I have given my assurance, and do so once again, that despite our efforts to reduce the welfare connotation, we are not going to eliminate the fishermen from the plan until we are satisfied that we have an alternative. By the strict definition of the act, they are employers, entrepreneurs, adventurers or whatever you like to call them. Again, my remarks do not refer to normal fishermen, people who work on trawlers and are easily identifiable as working for someone else.


Mr. Barnett:: Will the minister permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The Chair allowed a question previously without any request to the Minister of Labour. We are not in committee at the present time. I invite the Minister of Labour to indicate whether he wishes to answer more questions at the present time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would prefer not to, Mr. Speaker. There will be an opportunity to discuss this feature in greater detail. At that time, I will be able to be more specific. I will have the facts and figures. As I am not using a text, I hate to be interrupted and then have to start all over.
There are two areas which are very important. I do not think I have emphasized them as much as I should have since the white paper was tabled. I refer to the implementation date of the act. Essentially, the implementation date of the act is January 1, 1972. I doubt whether anyone has a copy of the white paper in front of him. I do not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister like my copy?


Mr. Perrauli:: He knows it all by heart.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, I do not. As hon. members know, the implementation date is important. We do not want half the people in the country to start thinking that, commencing July 1 they will be eligible for unemployment insurance. The concept of universality comes into existence on January 1, 1972. This is an important point. New entrants will start contributing January 1, 1972, and be eligible for benefits as soon as they acquire the proper attachment to the work force.
What will happen in the interval between July and January? As some of the more learned members of this House know, this is a complex problem. The present rates are established, not in a haphazard manner, but in ranges. Those earning $100 a week are paying $1.40 and those earning $150 a week are paying $1.40. When it comes time to receive benefits, these benefits are calculated on the value of the stamp rather than what was actually earned. Administratively, this is very easy. Everyone with a $1.40 stamp receives $53, plus 10 per cent. In the transitional period between July 1 and January 1, there will have to be some adjustment of the rates for this short period for people earning over $100 but below $150. This means an upward adjustment of a few cents a week, not only to establish the actual salary, but

to get ourselves on a sound financial basis. On the other hand, we will have to adjust the rates downward for those people earning $100 a week or less.
Because of administrative reasons, because we are turning over the collection and so forth to the Department of National Revenue and because the tax features only come into effect in January, 1972, any benefits drawn between July and January will be non-taxable. They will be at the new rate. In other words, benefits will be two thirds of the wages. They will not be subject to tax, therefore the contributions will not be tax deductible. I think this is a very fair adjustment during the transitional period which will be a very difficult period for the department.
On January 1, the Department of National Revenue will be seized with the responsibility of collections and keeping the records of contributions. This will eliminate many of the problems which create delays. People with three, four or five years attachment to the work force discover with horror when they come to our office that there is no record of their contributions. This is because they have not assumed their own obligation. They do not keep their record of employment which they receive from their employers. They do not keep these slips. Some may have worked for six different people. We have to help build the record for these employees. This takes weeks. All these delays should be eliminated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: From July 1 to January 1, which eligibility provisions will apply, the present ones or the ones in the new act?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will check the white paper to be sure. I am a bit confused. I have asked my parliamentary secretary to check it. I think it is the new provisions. If someone presently in the plan established a claim before July 1, it may be better to re-establish a claim with then-new eligibility rather than the old. I think upon reflection I am correct in saying that the new provisions will apply for the present group of people, including the new benefits as well as a slightly revised structure of contributions for the present group of people for the period between July 1 and January 1, 1972.
This is joined to a concept of universality. The only people who may not be in the plan, and be identified as employees, are public servants of the various provinces. At the present time, public servants of the provinces, civil servants, if you like, are in or out depending on the whim of the province concerned. The present act makes their entry optional. In some of the provinces, at least, I shall not specify them, we get all the bad risks in a sense-we get the casual workers or the people who have no permanence. What we are saying now to the provinces in the new law is that there are no more options-either you are in, or you are out. The province then has to face the responsibility and the financial burden of providing some form of remuneration in respect of all employees, including those presently in the plan. In the light of the fact that collectively the provinces will be saving $40 million under the Canada Assistance Plan, it seems inconceivable that any one of them would wish to remain
April 19, 1971

outside the plan, but as the bill is designed they do have that right.
I have pressed the provinces to say whether they are coming in or not. My communications so tar have all been verbal in nature; I am meeting with the ministers of labour on Thursday and Friday hopeful that I shall be able to get firm decisions from some of the provinces on whether or not they intend to include their public servants.
Since the figure of 4 per cent has attracted a good deal of attention, I imagine somebody is going to suggest that the government has determined 4 per cent to be an acceptable rate of unemployment in Canada. Well, it is not my criterion. Like everybody else, I believe the acceptable rate of unemployment is the least possible rate. This is what we should be working toward. This should be our goal as a country. Our system is really on trial if we cannot operate on the basis of lower rates of unemployment than have been traditional, particularly in the light of the fact that the working force is growing at a tremendous rate. We have used the 4 per cent figure because 4 per cent, according to our computer estimates, triggers the government's contribution to the fund at a realistic level. If it were lower, the government's injection would need to be extremely massive, so massive that some form of additional income by way of taxes would be required. Five per cent would practically eliminate the government's contribution. So, we think 4 per cent is a realistic figure.
However, I am sure that when the rate of unemployment is running at 6 per cent the economists who work with the government planning fiscal and monetary policy cannot be immune to the thought that these additional two percentage points mean $200 million of injected capital into the economy, money which must be found somehow. So we have not set the figure of 4 per cent as an indication that the government is regarding it as an acceptable rate of unemployment for the future. The Economic Council suggested 3.8 per cent, and years ago it suggested 3 per cent. However, I am not interested in that debate. The 4 per cent happens to be a convenient point at which the government's injection of money into the plan is triggered. It could easily have been 6 per cent if 6 per cent would in some way provoke the government's participation at a realistic level. But it is interesting to note that over the last decade the rate of unemployment in Canada has hovered between 4 and 5 per cent on an average. This is due, I suppose, to many reasons which we do not wish to debate today-at least, I do not.
I believe I have covered most of the aspects of the plan. I now await the participation of other hon. members and later, perhaps when I close the debate on second reading, I may cover some of the points I have missed. We are bringing in a plan designed to increase benefits, reduce contributions, extend the period of benefit and make the plan much more acceptable. Maternity and sickness will be recognized as legitimate reasons for drawing unemployment insurance. Under certain circumstances, extended benefits will be paid for entirely by the government. The plan will be financed mainly by the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
employers up to the 4 per cent level of unemployment. When assessing the period during which workers are entitled to benefit we shall take into consideration not only the national rate of unemployment but the rate in the particular area where the worker lives. This can be considered in more detail during the committee stage. Admittedly, the waiting period would be extended to two weeks but, on the other hand, we have for the sake of simplicity got away from using the word "stages". We now refer simply to two phases, regular benefits and extended benefits. Reference to stage one, stage two, stage three and so on, was proving complicated. We speak now of two phases only, regular benefits and extended benefits. I think this is much simpler and hon. members will probably be able to understand the process a little better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I know the entire country has been awaiting an explanation from the minister of this extremely important piece of legislation.
Many people have complained that the type of measure before us today is not concerned with unemployment insurance but, rather, with welfare. The minister has sought to explain that it is not. There are many who believe it to be a means of transferring payments made by people who would perhaps never-I use the word with some hesitation, because one cannot be sure-be in a position to draw benefits under this plan. The position taken by the teachers comes to mind. I know the minister has encountered some difficulty with them, indeed, all Members of Parliament have done so, in consequence of the argument that teachers enjoy security of employment. In this connection, it occurs to me that in the past month or so certain events indicate that the conclusion the teachers have reached in this regard is perhaps without good foundation. We have heard of provinces and local school boards in various parts of the country crying out because of the increased costs of education, and giving every indication that they intend to hold the line.
The minister will no doubt begin telling me how much the provinces and the cities will save as a result of bringing schoolteachers into the scheme. I do not quarrel much with him in this regard since I believe the universality of the program will in the long run benefit the schoolteachers themselves. What concerns me more is that this proposal seems to be an unwarranted intrusion upon the jurisdiction of the provinces in the field of education. I refer particularly to the Province of Ontario. It appears that if and when the legislation before us takes effect, and I am sure we all believe it will, since, after all, there are 155 members of the other side-


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: There are 160.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We are whittling them down. In the near future, on May 31, they hope to bring themselves back to strength.


Charles Humbert Thomas: You are right.

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am engaged in a serious debate. I should like to point out that in the province of Ontario-I can only speak for this province as a result of information received

school boards will be facing, if numbers continue to remain constant until 1975, education costs of $3,319,000 in 1972, $4,917,000 in 1973, $6,639,550 in 1974 and $8,299,230 in 1975. This will reflect a corresponding increase in the level of contributions of employers in the province over that period.
The minister says that, having had several discussions with the provinces, everything now seems to be all right in terms of legislation emanating from the white paper, in view of give and take on both sides. In the long run, he says, we have now satisfied the provinces. I am just wondering whether this is the fact. Is the province of Quebec quite satisfied at this particular time? Similarly, is the province of Ontario quite satisfied? The great cry in Ontario now is "cut education costs". I do not want to be partisan but there are politicians in all parties who want to reduce the cost of education today.
I suggest that with this plan the minister has usurped provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps not intentionally, of course; knowing the charm of the minister, he just would not do that intentionally. Perhaps his officials were unaware of the importance of the problem of education costs. Many people in the province of Ontario and in other provinces too, and I say rightly, are asking how the federal government can do what it proposes to do. The people in the city of Hamilton are not only concerned about the cost of education in the year 1972; they are also concerned about what this cost means by way of increased property taxes. They realize that the system is antiquated, but nevertheless they can see no direct relief in sight.
The province is also concerned because it is attempting to hold the line on education costs. Members of all parties admit this. On the other hand, the minister is now involving himself in a matter about which, I am afraid, we shall have to have more definite answers, Mr. Speaker. Either the provinces know what sort of situation they are getting into or they do not. The minister has stated that the provinces will be glad to join the plan. I see the minister shaking his head. I understood the minister to say to the provinces that by getting into the plan now, and bringing in teachers, the government is going to save them money in the long run because they will not be required to devote any funds to welfare, at least to any great degree.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to clarify something that I may have said unintentionally, so that he may continue his speech in the right vein. Whether or not the provinces come in has nothing to do with the school teachers. I do not want to leave the inference that the provinces are satisfied to come in as employers of public servants. The provinces have been satisfied with the changes in this bill. In so far as the department of manpower is concerned, whether the teachers come in or not has nothing to do with the provinces.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the minister is only partially correct, but I am sure he realizes that the moment we start increasing school board assessments the provinces become directly involved. This is all I am saying. As a matter of fact, there are some provinces that, because of peculiarities in their legislation, will be able to opt out as far as the teachers are concerned. Although I cannot put my finger on any province right now, one or two provinces hire teachers directly. I think they are New Brunswick and Newfoundland. So, you have the peculiar situation that some provinces that are concerned about rising school board costs would be able to opt out. At the same time, the province of Ontario is paying something like 56 per cent of education costs, and if all goes well is going to increase its participation.
This whole question is so interwoven with the government's unemployment policy and its fiscal and monetary policy that I would be remiss if I did not bring home to the minister several factors that I think he chose to ignore. He kept strictly to his act and said he would not become involved with government fiscal and monetary policy, a policy that has created hardship for a great many Canadians. Now, the minister becomes the shining knight charging into the fray, declaring that the solution is to pay benefits of $100 a week to those who can qualify. The minister is quite right; not everybody will receive the $100 a week, and these payments will not come into effect until January 1, 1972. A man would have to make $150 a week before being entitled to unemployment insurance of $100 a week.
The minister was fair to point out something that the media neglected to mention, I think, namely that the moneys received would be taxable. This is extremely important, and I am glad to have the minister repeat it. I know my hon. friends to my left will have something to say in this regard. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: we are for the principle of unemployment insurance. When the minister was explaining how interruptions in earnings can be carried further in terms of sickness and maternity benefits, I was surprised that he did not mention our senior citizens in that regard.


Mr. Hales:: Yes, he did.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then, perhaps I was busy with something else at the time instead of paying strict attention to the minister. We recall that the Liberal government set out to curb inflation by creating mass unemployment. They did this by adopting a tight money policy which pushed interest rates sky high, increased taxes, limited the supply of new money, discouraged commercial building in certain provinces, placed severe restraint on federal spending, froze civil service hirings and lowered tariff barriers to force Canadian products to meet stiffer competition from outside.
In my opinion, these measures have not enabled us to win the battle against inflation, though in December 1970 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
We have won last year's victory, the one against inflation. It is obvious from the statistics of the past two months that inflation no longer exists in Canada.
[Mr. Thomas (Moncton) .1
April 19, 1971

When we see that during the first quarter of 1971 inflation has soared upward by 1.2 per cent and unemployment remains uncomfortably high at around 6 per cent, this is quite a victory. The continuing large number of persons who are unemployed during 1971 points to a stagnation of the Canadian economy. The cost of the programs that the government insists on bringing in to revamp the entire social welfare system, whether people like it or not, will have to be met by many of those people who are starting to question government spending. I am just wondering who is going to have nerve enough to stand up and tell the government it must cut its spending and also cut taxes. I am wondering what would happen and how much support one would receive across the country. The outlook for 1971 would appear to be an unemployment rate fluctuating around the 6 per cent mark, a level we in this party find unacceptable, plus a cost of living index which will hit 4 per cent over the year if the present rate of increase continues.
The continuing large number of persons unemployed during 1970 and 1971 has a long-term dimension as well. The extremely rapid growth of the Canadian labour force requires the creation of an immense number of new jobs, about 1.3 to 1.4 million by 1975 to attain the full potential of the Canadian economy. To get this number of new jobs, the Canadian economy will have to grow at a rate in excess of 6 per cent per year. Dr. Haviland, a senior economist with the Economic Council of Canada-I am sure the minister is aware of him-has stated that a growth rate which taps the full potential capacity of the Canadian economy, about 5.25 per cent a year, is needed just to prevent existing unemployment from worsening. Since 1967, the Canadian economy has not been growing toward its full potential.
What I am trying to say is that a higher priority must be placed on the expansion of the economy in order to provide a higher level of employment throughout Canada. Only in this way can we develop a sufficient tax base on which the government will be able to finance the social programs it is attempting to implement at this particular time. We have made suggestions in this regard. We must get the economy moving. We have talked about the 3 per cent surtax and the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. We have talked at length about the white paper on tax reform. We are pleased to note that as a result of the dogged efforts of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) now has second thoughts about many areas of that white paper on tax reform.
We are all waiting now to find out just what the minister has in mind. We cannot continue having programs suggested by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and others, which will increase taxes to the average Canadian. I understand the Minister of Finance wants a big chunk of the worker's dollar. I do not know how much we can spend. I wish these ministers would get together in order that we might know the combined total of their requirements. We might then have an atti-
Unemploymerit Insurance Act, 1971
tude as to how much the Canadian people can stand. I have in mind taxation from the municipal level right through all levels of government in all the provinces and the implications of such taxation. I also have in mind taxation on the part of the "big daddy" who perpetually wants to put his grubby hands into my pockets. We, as politicians, are going to have to start taking notice of what is happening.
We must create a climate in which we can have full employment, or employment in the neighbourhood of the level suggested by the Economic Council. What does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have to say about this? Let me quote from an article by Richard U. Needham dated April 5, 1971 under the heading "The gospel according to Pierre".


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I heard someone laugh, and I do not know what he is laughing about. I hope he is going to get up later on and make his own speech rather than sit there needling me. I should like to know what you have to say, knowing you come from an area which is sufficient in terms of work people. I want to know whether you think it is all right that we should have an extension of unemployment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I got carried away. Let me return to this article headed "The gospel according to Pierre" of April 5, 1971. I quote from this article in which Mr. Needham states:
-Pierre Trudeau stated them with exceptional candor at Niagara Falls over the weekend, telling an audience of businessmen that they would have to become accustomed to the idea of large-scale unemployment-"if you want a highly developed technological society, you will not easily get full employment."
And then Mr. Needham goes on to state, and I refer this, through you, to my hon. friend:
One might comment on this that Japan and West Germany have full employment-over-full employment-in a highly developed technological society. Both these countries have far more jobs standing open than they can fill. One might also ask whether Canada is, or has prospects of becoming, a highly developed technological society; aren't we still by and large, producers of raw and semi-processed materials? But let it slide. What Mr. Trudeau is saying is that we must accept high unemployment rates (right now, one worker in ten) as a necessary part of life.
I was prepared to think that the Prime Minister was attempting, in all seriousness, to say something in depth. Let me again quote from this article:
Finally, we must note the Prime Minister's suggestion that people should not be compelled to work; they should do so only as, when and if it suits them. He agreed that Ottawa could use young Canadians (rather than West Indians) to get in the harvest; or it could send them to Northern Ontario, where the mines need workers-"We can do this if we are willing to do away with a free society. But if you have a free society, you will have a tendency for unemployment to rise."
The message is clear. Where people are free not to work, free to be supported without working, a rising number must be expected to make use of that freedom. They will constitute a new leisure class, which the rest of us-the minority, it would

April 19, 1971
Guaranteed Minimum Income
seem-must accept; and not only accept, but maintain. Such is the Canadian future, as our Prime Minister sees it. Such are our new values, our new way of life. The prospect may well depress the middle class, the tired and worried people working the treadmill. Keep at it they must, no one's going to support them, they aren't even offered the alternative of the gas chamber.
That is the end of my dissertation on the comments of Mr. Needham.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this might be an appropriate time to interrupt the hon. member. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Veterans' Affairs-Suggested maintenance of Halifax Sailors' Monument by department.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the possibility of passing a law under which every Canadian citizen, who is without work or other source of income, would receive a guaranteed minimum income as a way of recognizing, in a special fashion, the dignity, the value and the economic rights of the human being, in the context of the economic life of the nation, that the amount required for the payment of the guaranteed minimum income be derived from the national product so as to increase neither the taxes on individuals and companies, nor the cost of living, nor the price of any product or service; that this measure could, with advantage, replace the contributions and payments of all the systems of unemployment insurance, social welfare, family and personal allowances, Canada Pensions and Quebec Pensions, that the economic recognition of the guaranteed minimum income would be to the greatest advantage of all the citizens of Canada, and, at the same time, would be of great benefit to all the principal sectors of the national economy.
Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to quote statistics to show the importance of the problem we are dealing with.
According to poverty distribution in Canada in 1967, 18.6 per cent of Canadian families and 39 per cent of people without dependents had an income below the poverty level, namely $1,740 in the case of person without dependents and $2,900, $3,480, $4,060 and $4,640 respectively for families of 2, 3, 4 and 5 persons or more.
When considering special classes, more than 500,000 people over 65 years of age have an income below the above-mentioned levels. Moreover, there are about 180,000 disabled people who are in need, between the ages of 18 and 65, and nearly 200,000 mentally retarded youngsters under 18.
There is a total of about 150,000 mothers who bring up alone 330,000 young children and more than a third of those families have an income below the above-mentioned level. Almost 25 per cent of the 3,500,000 families with children under 18 are below the poverty level.
About 30 per cent of the unemployed people have a low annual income which classifies them as poor people. That becomes all the more serious at a time when there are more than 700,000 unemployed.
In face of such a problem, what is the solution offered by this government? The minimum salary was increased, but that does not concern unemployed people. They tried to increase family allowances in favour of the poor. However, that money was taken away from families whose income was in excess of a certain amount and that was done regardless of the taxable income and in making all family allowances taxable. We have seen an increase in the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security pension, but the basic pension has been the subject of no worthwhile change.
In fact, people who receive only this pension will find themselves worse off than before since only the supplement will be escalated.
Then the white paper on tax reform brings this messing round to a climax trough taxation of the income of those able to meet their own needs.
Under such a policy, this government takes away from one in order to give to the other. Accordingly we are witnessing, instead of an integrated income security system beneficial to everybody, an equalization of revenue prejudicial particularly to the middle classes. Considering the solutions resorted to by the governments up to now, one can readily see that no federal government ever dealt with the most important problem, that of garanteed minimum income. This is the solution that we of the Ralliement creditiste have been advocating for a long time, that is a solution which would recognize the dignity, the value and the economic rights of the human being.
Although we are convinced that such a system would be easier to implement under a Creditiste government, we believe however that it could be done under our current outmoded financial system. One fact is obvious: the present income security and welfare system does not work too well. The temporary changes repeatedly made by the government can only lead to chaos with a multiplicity of programs solving no specific problem. Under such circumstances, administration costs and disorders created by various administrations are also multiplied. That is why we are proposing the consolidation of all programs against poverty into a guaranteed minimum income. The guaranteed minimum income we are propos-

April 19, 1971

ing is not directed against the honest workers now heavily taxed to ensure the livelihood of certain citizens whose only work is to deceive overworked social welfare agencies which are poorly equipped to separate legitimate claims from others.
We advocate the implementation of a minimum guaranteed income plan which would permit the government to set the tax exemptions at the appropriate level, which would permit the individual to keep his dignity, the unaided woman to take care of her child, and each unemployed to maintain his essential standard of living as long as he is jobless. Finally, we are advocating the implementation of a guaranteed minimum income plan which would keep our senior citizens and many other individuals from having to beg to live.
This plan would first fill the gap between the individual's income and the poverty line. It could be improved as our society goes forward. Obviously, the guaranteed minimum income concept is neither new nor original. It seems that most Canadians are in favour of it. All the opposition parties in the House have indicated they were in favour of this policy as well as several government members and some ministers.
Outside the House, other groups have advocated the concept of minimum guaranteed income. Almost all provincial governments have asked the federal government to establish it. Recently, the Castonguay-Nepveu Commission in Quebec has recommended a minimum guaranteed income of $2,000 for each individual, $3,400 for a couple and $405 for each child.
In January 1969, the Canadian Welfare Council stated that a program aimed at providing an adequate guaranteed income for all Canadians should be established as soon as possible. It has been noted that there is no right more important than an adequate income. We must introduce immediately that socio-economic objective in our system of values.
Likewise, the American committee for economic development has supported the setting up of a minimum guaranteed income based on need alone with concrete incentives for those who could work.
Colin Hindle in a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research has noted that a minimum guaranteed income system would be from 30 to 40 per cent more efficient than the present system which is aimed at fighting against poverty through various programs.
The hon. senator Croll, Chairman of the Senate committee on poverty, has been asserting for a long time that we should do away with this system and replace it by the guaranteed minimum income plan.
To these individuals and groups can be added several others, but because the government is opposed to it, we can only rely on grass-roots support.
In November 1970, delegates to the Liberal convention voted 659 to 187, and 117 abstentions, in favour of an income maintenance program to replace the present social security schemes. Furthermore, they asked through a vote of 594 to 250 that such a program be implemented before January 1, 1971 for all those whose income is
Guaranteed Minimum Income below the poverty level as established by the Economic Council of Canada.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied that a guaranteed minimum income plan would be too complex and too expensive to administer.
Since the National Council of the Social Credit Party of Canada gave almost unanimous support to this proposal at its convention two weeks ago, and notwithstanding the right hon. Prime Minister's analysis of this plan, I now wish to seek hon. members' support so that the motion I have introduced be accepted, since it is also the right of the people of Canada.
The implementation of this measure can be considered in several ways. Since this government has many bright minds in its employ, I would let it up to them to take a stand and to select the most efficient way to allow Canadians to have a share in the consumption of goods and services which, for fiscal 1970-71, will exceed $80 billion.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: The motion before the House this afternoon, as put by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), refers to the desirability of a guaranteed minimum income for all people in this country. The interesting part of this proposal is that he suggests this should be done without increasing taxes, causing inflation, or any change in the cost of goods and services. A few moments ago he referred to the ability of government technicians and people in the civil service, who have all the facilities to study this problem and come up with a solution. I respect the ability of our civil service, and I am sure that they are very capable, but whether they can pull this off and provide a guaranteed minimum income without increasing taxes is a large question.
The hon. member also suggested in the motion that this plan could replace our whole system of social security, including our old age security system and many other plans, including the Canada Pension Plan. Motion No. 31 calls for the establishment of a government program to provide a guaranteed minimum income to every Canadian citizen who is without work or other source of income as a way of recognizing the dignity, the value and the economic rights of the human being, in the context of the economic life of the nation. The motion also indicates that the funds required to finance such a guaranteed minimum income should be derived from the national product in a way which would not increase taxes or the cost of living or the price of goods and services, and that the proposed scheme should replace the wide range of government measures which provide income security payments to individuals and families in Canada.
In speaking on this motion, I would like to talk about the concept of the guaranteed minimum income first, and then say something about the suggested means of financing this proposal, followed by a discussion of the general proposition advanced in this motion that a guaranteed income program could replace certain of the existing income security programs such as the unemployment insurance and the Canada and Quebec pension plans. The

progressive rates and, depending on the purposes of the guaranteed income program, these could apply from the first dollar of income, or from income above a prescribed base. Because payments under this universal approach will be high, a high rate of tax recovery will need to be applied. Normally, this approach envisages the replacement of all other income security schemes. However, this need not happen as such an approach could guarantee a basic income for all, even though other income security programs continued to function.
The social dividend approach integrates the income security system with the income tax system. An example of the social dividend approach is the old age security pension. This pension is paid to all persons satisfying residence rules who are aged 65 and over. The pension benefit is taxable, and is recovered from pensioners liable to pay income tax not at a special rate of tax but at the normal tax rates that apply on taxable income.
The other approach to the guaranteed minimum income is the negative income tax approach. This approach involves the making of cash payments by government to families and individuals whose incomes fall below a prescribed income level. This level could be the level at which a person would be liable to pay income tax, or it could be another level of income which is either arbitrarily determined or calculated because it bears a relationship to the amount of income needed to purchase a minimum standard of living. And as the hon. member for Portneuf mentioned, the Economic Council of Canada set the poverty line at something like $1,740 in their 1967 report.
Benefit payments can be calculated in a number of ways. In the pure negative income tax approach, benefits could be calculated on the basis of the unused tax exemptions and deductions to which the person would be entitled in determining his taxable income. Other variations offer a benefit based on the gap which exists between his actual income and the income level which corresponds to the minimum standard of living. The negative income tax approach normally involves a prior determination of eligibility in order that the benefit may be calculated.
Whatever technique is used, the guaranteed minimum income attempts to provide a person or a family with sufficient income to achieve a minimum standard of living. I suppose this is what is intended when the motion refers to "every Canadian citizen, who is without work or other source of income, would receive a guaranteed minimum income as a way of recognizing, in a special fashion, the dignity, the value and the economic rights of the human being, in the context of the economic life of the nation."
Many of the features of the guaranteed minimum income are excellent, and have advantages over the approaches under existing income security programs. Using this technique, benefits can be directed so as to provide large benefits to persons in the low income categories. Payments can be made on the basis of an income test and this would overcome the social stigma normally associated with welfare payments. Beneficiaries
Guaranteed Minimum Income
are not forced to undergo the social degradation of having their incomes and assets scrutinized and their way of life examined.
But while the approach has a number of advantages there are also a number of problems and limitations associated with it which cannot be overlooked. One of these factors is the cost of such a scheme. The motion suggests that the plan be put into effect by financing it "from the national product so as to increase neither the taxes on individuals and companies, nor the cost of living, nor the price of any product or service." This would be possible if certain of the existing schemes of income security were abolished and replaced by a guaranteed minimum income, provided the costs of the new guaranteed income scheme did not exceed the costs of the plans which it replaced, either at the time that the transition occurred or in the foreseeable future.
In this circumstance, we would be faced with the question of what type of guaranteed minimum income could be implemented, and of determining how adequate this scheme would be. Consequently one would need to ascertain which programs could be replaced, how much money would be released, and with this budget constraint decide who should be covered by the guaranteed minimum income plan, and what level of benefits could be provided. If minimum incomes can be provided so as to ensure a minimum standard of living within the constraints just mentioned, then and only then could you say that you had met the requirements as set out in the motion for financing such a proposal. However, if coverage is not complete enough and if benefits are not sufficient to provide a basic minimum, then obviously costs will rise, taxes will increase, and quite possibly prices will rise in the future as well.
I contend that a guaranteed minimum income plan cannot replace all of the guaranteed income plans now existing. Consequently, the amount of funds released will not be sufficient to finance a guaranteed minimum income plan which will provide a minimum standard of living. Costs will increase, taxes will rise, and prices will increase in consequence. This brings me to the final point with which I want to deal, the question of replacing other income security and social security measures with a guaranteed minimum income scheme.
One of the important questions is whether the guaranteed minimum income will replace in whole or in part, or supplement the present social security system. The existing social security system has evolved slowly over time in response to emerging social and economic needs. Programs have been designed to provide solutions to underlying social and economic problems, but the extension and scope of plans for development have often been limited by availability of financial resources, and by more urgent and important priorities for other areas of government spending.
The present system is not perfect, but it is a good system Which is continually being improved as social and economic conditions change over time. The proposed changes in the White Paper on Income Security with respect to the guaranteed income supplement, the family incomes security plan, the Canada Pension Plan and the

April 19, 1971
Guaranteed Minimum Income
Canada Assistance Plan are examples of such changes. These will go a long way toward improving the social security system now and in the future. The existing structure cannot be slightly tossed aside in favour of a technique which is largely theoretical, and as yet untried in practice except in certain limited areas, unless there is a considerable amount of research and investigation into all aspects of the guaranteed annual income. Furthermore, the existing system provides health and welfare services as well as income support, so that the guaranteed annual income could only replace in whole or in part those programs providing income support.
With respect to possible replacement of existing income maintenance programs it is doubtful whether a guaranteed annual income could replace all income security programs. A program such as unemployment insurance, which we have been debating this afternoon, is designed to provide income for short-term unemployment to all covered members of the labour force regardless of annual income. It replaces temporary wage loss due to unemployment without requiring recipients to have less than some subsistence level of income to qualify.
The Canada Pension Plan and the old age security pension programs have as one of their objectives the provision of income support to aged, disabled and widowed beneficiaries regardless of their other income. Workmen's compensation is designed to provide for income support and health services arising from work-connected accidents or industrial disease. Consequently, the effect of introducing a guaranteed minimum income program on existing programs needs to be examined closely in relation to the social and economic objectives being served by many of the existing social security programs.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Sl. Barbel: Mr. Speaker, may I speak for just a few moments in support of the motion of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin). Although I am not aware of all the complexities of the guaranteed income plan, which certainly is a complex idea and will need a great deal of further study, I think it is a worth-while idea to put before the House. At the same time I would point out the need of another group of people in this country, a group we all seem to have forgotten. I refer to those who are disadvantaged in Canada. One need only visit the poverty-stricken areas of this country to see how great is the need for guaranteeing a decent income in order to provide these poor people with the means for a basic existence.
Today in this House, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing unemployment insurance. We have legislated recently in respect of the old age security pension and veterans pensions. However, for some reason we have ignored those people who cannot work because of incapacity. There are provincial assistance plans in existence. Neither those nor the Canada Assistance Plan cover the needs of the people to whom I refer. We also have massive housing programs to which the government
proudly points. They exist all across the country. We are told that the interest rates are low and that down payments are low. But there are people in this country who cannot afford even these low down payments or any rate of interest however low it may be. They cannot afford any kind of home and are forced to live in hovels that embarrass anyone who has seen them.
These people, Mr. Speaker, cannot invest one copper in an attempt to provide accommodation for themselves. They are the people of this country who cannot move. Some of them do not have legs and some are blind. We continue to expound about the wonderful assistance programs that we are introducing in Canada and all the while we ignore those who most need assistance. I have received many letters from people across the country who are existing on welfare. All they want to do is work and perhaps catch a little fish in order to augment their income, and they are not able to do so because of our system.
We have committees like the Senate Committee on Poverty which went across the country for a couple of years at a cost of $1 million. We have councils like the Canada Welfare Council looking into the problem. The government has given money to various organizations which are involved with the poor and try to show us what is needed to assist the poor. All the time, however, the poor remain poor and nobody here seems to want to do much about it.
Although I agree with the guaranteed income concept which the hon. member has suggested, it might be too early for such a program to be instituted. At the same time, I think we should help the people of this country who need our help. We should help the poor. No matter how one considers the gross national product should be divided, we must help our poor people.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased that this motion is before the House because it gives us a chance to discuss the important question of the guaranteed annual income and its relationship to poverty. Sometimes I think that the idea of the guaranteed annual income is an example of misplaced humanity. We may be making a great error in thinking that we can solve all our social problems by instituting a guaranteed annual income. I agree with hon. members who preceded me and I agree particularly with the mover of the motion. I agree with their sentiments and their concern for the poor. In my intervention I shall try to deal with the point: Can we really accomplish the worth-while objectives referred to, through a guaranteed annual income?
Without doubt, those who are old are entitled to their pension. When a person reaches a certain age he ought to be given his pension. There is nothing wrong with our present system that more money would not cure. There is nothing wrong with the idea of an old age pension helping those who are old. What is wrong is that the old age pension is not large enough. Pensions like the old age pension need to be larger. We need to enlarge them instead of talking about systems as if systems alone will

April 19, 1971

solve anything. You need money to help the old and you must devote certain resources of the country to this end.
In many ways we are short-changing the aged in our society. We debate the form that the assistance should take. They do not care what you call it. They do not care whether you call it a demogrant or a guaranteed annual income. The name does not matter. What counts is the amount of money they get with which to buy medicine and with which to obtain the relaxation to which they are entitled after a lifetime of devotion to their country and paying taxes.
We could do a great deal more through family allowances. It has been my experience that people in this country are poor for one of a number of reasons. One major reason is children. Often people are poor when they have more children than they can support. Others are poor as a result of old age or illness. Surely we can take care of these problems through family allowances and larger old age pensions. We could take care of the problem of children by increasing taxes for some and by recognizing how much it costs to raise children.
In our market system we do not take into account a man's needs. The market system says, "We do not care about your responsibilities. We do not care how many children you have. This job is worth so much, and that is what you will get." The single man without any responsibilities except his girl friend, and the married man with a wife, children and other responsibilities, are paid the same salary for doing the same job.
The family allowance is a transfer of money and recognizes the failure of the market system to take into account the needs of people. The socialist, of course, believes in this sort of thing. He does not talk about paying people more than they are worth. He believes that when people need things and are entitled to those things, they should obtain them as a matter of right because they are human beings and members of society. But that is not what the market system says. We need a way of compensating for the absolute inhumanity of our market system which says that no matter what your needs are, the job pays so much and that is all you will get.
We can do a great deal simply by improving our approach to family allowances. We should do a great deal more for those who are obviously ill and who cannot work. We could do something for them simply by giving them a disability pension and by recognizing that they are not in the labour market. If they cannot work, we should pay them a disability pension of decent dimensions. To some extent we have done this sort of thing with our veterans allowances. I agree that the war veterans allowance is not the most perfect instrument in the world, but at least in giving veterans this allowance our approach to them has been far more worth while than has been our approach to society in general.
I think the time has come for us to treat members of society generally in the way that we have treated veterans under the veterans allowance approach. Veterans are paid an allowance when it is recognized that they are not capable of doing certain work. Sometimes they are par-
Guaranteed Minimum Income tially disabled and we pay them a pension for life. We should let these people go into the labour market and earn more money, if they want to, without taking away their pension in the form of graduated income tax.
There are many advantages to the demogrant system. Under it we can make social value decisions and judgments about all kinds of things which we think are important. We can decide the kind of transfers that ought to take place as between one group and another in order to bring about a society with greater justice than at present. The system has great flexibility. Transfer payments that are made should be made on a universal basis and without the means test.
If the old age pension is paid to a millionaire, we can take back the amount paid by way of income tax. It seems to me that the approach we have adopted to the old age pension is good. The old age pension scheme is probably one of the best schemes ever devised in this country. The remarkable change that has taken place among the older people of Canada is attributable to the old age pension. I think it is the kind of program which ought to be continued. We ought to concentrate on making similar payments under a demogrant system.
I do not believe there should be any payment to those who are capable of working or being in the labour force. I think that such payment would be a total disaster for our society. I want to give Your Honour two reasons for saying that. I am very suspicious of governments which hand out welfare and try to cover up welfare with economic policies that are mad. The economic policies of this country have gone mad. There is no substitute for full employment. That is where our emphasis should be. There should be jobs for those who are capable of working. We should not back off that goal one iota. There should be a program of income supplement for those who are not in the labour force for one reason or another. For those who are capable of working, there should be full employment, training and mobility programs. Unemployment insurance should be available to take care of shortterm unemployment or transfers between jobs.
The guaranteed annual income has become a motherhood thing in this society. I became suspicious of it when I discovered that the extreme left and the extreme right agreed on this program. I asked myself if it were possible for the left and the right to agree on the program. Was this program so desirable that it warranted such universal approval?


An hon. Member:: Strange bedfellows!


Max Saltsman: Strange bedfellows is right. I think it was the extreme right, not the left, that was right. I suspect that the argument for the guaranteed annual income consists of simply shrugging your shoulders and saying we will always have some poor and some misfits. The argument is not to worry about changing or retraining them. The basis of much of our charity is to simply pay them off. As in any kind of production, they argue

April 19, 1971
Guaranteed Minimum, Income
that we must expect a certain amount of loss which is to be written off. I refuse to write off any human being.
If a person is capable of being retrained and improving his position, we should concentrate on this instead of putting him on pension. People should receive a pension if they are old or ill: no one argues against that. However, if they are capable of joining the labour force, jobs should be available for them. The situation is something like motherhood. Motherhood can be a great joy and blessing, but it can also be a curse. Excessive motherhood can be an excessive curse.
We have to be careful with all these programs. I might not have said some of these things 20 years ago when we lived in a society which was very much work-oriented. We had a strong Calvinist tradition. That is changing. Our society is not as work-oriented as it once was. To say that we can depend on the work motive to overcome people choosing welfare rather than work is less true today than it was years ago. It is good that it is less true today. In my time we were too work-oriented; we were inclined to say that work was an end in itself rather than a part of life.
The situation is more difficult today. At one time work had some meaning. People took pride and satisfaction in the creativity of work. This is becoming more and more difficult in our modern society when we push buttons or file fenders as they go by on an assembly line. Work is just plain, dogged hard. A person receives little joy or satisfaction from standing in an assembly line eight hours a day working in tune and in time with machinery. The young people today want meaningful work. Who can blame them? They want work in which they can express themselves. While they have the desire for more expression and meaning, work is becoming less and less that way. There are fewer and fewer opportunities for people to develop and express themselves within the context of the factory system.
Another structure is developing in our society of which we must be aware. There are classes in every society, although many people would like to ignore this fact. The traditional class has been the working man against the entrepreneur. There have been classes of religion against religion, race against race, free trader against protectionist and resource industries against manufacturers. We have always had these groups.
We now have another group which is overlaying our whole traditional structure. At the first level of this group are the young, those who are attending school and not yet in the labour market. There are more and more of these people. They are staying in school for longer and longer periods of time. At the other end of the scale are the old. There are also more of them. As we improve our approach to medicine and science there are more opportunities for people to live longer and enjoy life more.
In the middle is the group that has to pay for both ends. That group is becoming relatively small in comparison with the one at the beginning and the one at the end. There is a limit to what this group is prepared to bear in the way of taxation at any given time. This is something that we must face. I wish this group would be
willing to pay for anything we want, but there is a constraint. We have been lavishing far more of our resources on the young than the old.
Our old people are getting short-changed. We must do something about this situation. Young people are remaining in school beyond the point of real education or training. They are kept off the labour market because the government has not been able to solve simple economic problems such as providing employment opportunities. They are being kept in cold storage, which is very expensive. They are being kept in school beyond any real necessity for keeping them there. If we had all the resources in the world, and if the question of cost and resources was not involved, we could say "So what" and let them stay there as long as they like. However, if in order to keep them there we let the position of the older people, the poor and the sick deteriorate, we are wrong. The young have many years ahead of them. Those at the other end of the spectrum have only a limited time. To say that we will solve the problem 20 years from now is of no use to them. They are entitled to our consideration and compassion. The old are entitled to a fair distribution of the wealth of our society.
We are faced with a very great problem in the sense that we live in a society that has wealth side by side with indescribable poverty. This is our shame. Something must be done about it. My plea is that if we decide to do something about this situation, we do not go for slogans, fancy language or forms that have appeal but we take a hard and realistic look at the problem. We must develop our resources in order to provide full employment. If not, we will not do very much. We must concentrate on sound economic policies, something which this government has not done for the past few years. Once we have sound economic policies, we must make a value judgment of their importance in order to help the old and sick in our society who are most in need of our compassion.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks on this subject by commenting on certain observations made by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). I do not believe it is necessary to go back almost three years, when this government came to power, to demonstrate the concern it has shown for those in receipt of the old age pension and those who have to live on low incomes generally.
Within the last few months the government has brought in legislation pertaining to a guaranteed income supplement. Old age security benefits have been increased, veterans pensions and allowances have been increased and increases in unemployment insurance benefits are, of course, currently under discussion in the House. Changes designed to benefit many people are being undertaken in the family allowance program, and the Senate, through one of its committees, is currently considering this aspect of the subject.

However I would like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin). In fact, the

April 19, 1971

principle of a guaranteed annual income is extremely attractive and has raised considerable interest particularly in Canada and the United States.
Many people from all ranks of society and representing the right as well as the left have advocated a guaranteed annual income plan as a novel means of income support. Some of these people are opposed to social assistance, but they consider the guaranteed annual income a better system than the various social security programs being implemented at the present time. They add that this system would cost less and be more realistic. Such a project has also been advocated by many other people who consider the present system as inadequate and would like a much larger income support to be provided.
Even though the principle of a guaranteed annual income has recently been much publicized, it is not a new idea. Several aspects of a guaranteed income plan are excellent and advantageous compared to the measures now in effect to maintain a certain level of income.
Indeed the system allows for bigger payments to families and people with lower income, and would cost less than some existing social security programs. Certain amounts can be paid subject to a simple means test, which does away with the feeling of shame often associated with welfare benefits.
This method does not require that potential beneficiaries submit to the degrading procedure of a means test, an assessment of their assets, their standard of living, measures provided for by provincial systems which fall partly within the scope of the Canada Assistance Plan. Although those benefits are important, the plan entails certain inconveniences and limitations which must be questioned. Too often, those who advocate the adoption of a guaranteed income know nothing of the obstacles, or, if they are aware of them, they choose to ignore them or minimize their consequences. It might be useful to speak about the problems related to the use of the guaranteed annual income plan as a means of income support.
One of the important questions is to know whether the guaranteed annual income will take totally or partially the place of the present welfare system or if it would be added to it. The present plan was slowly developed so as to meet social and economic needs. Programs were established in order to bring solutions to problems, but their scope was often limited by financial resources and the importance of other budget items.
The present plan is not perfect, but it is a good one and it is improving as social and economic changes take place. It is not possible to give up inconsiderately the present structure for a new and mostly theoretical formula, since it has been tested only in limited areas, without conducting a considerable amount of research and studies on the various aspects of the guaranteed annual income. Furthermore, the existing system provides health and welfare services, while the guaranteed annual income could only replace, in whole or in part, the programs providing financial assistance, and even in such cases, it is not sure that the guaranteed annual income could replace them all.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
We find, for instance, that the unemployment insurance plan is designed to provide workers with an income during short unemployment periods, whatever their annual income. Benefits temporarily replace the loss of income caused by unemployment, without requiring that the income of the recipients be lower than the vital minimum.
The Canada pension plan and the social security system have another object, that is to assist the old, the disabled, widows, whatever their income may be.
The workmen's Compensation Board aims at meeting financial and medical needs resulting from accidents or industrial illnesses.
This is why the establishment of a guaranteed annual income system, under existing plans, should be closely considered, keeping in mind the economic and social objectives of the present social security system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The private members' hour having expired, I now leave the chair until eight o'clock.

Perhaps I may be allowed to express my personal regret at losing a good companion and seatmate in the popular and effective former member for Brant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: At the same time, I should like to offer congratulations and best wishes to Jim Brown on his appointment to the bench of the province of Ontario, where I am sure his fairness and good judgment will continue to be of service to the province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you speak for all of us.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackasey that Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks by indicat-

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 ing how appreciative I am oi the attendance of the minister this evening. I do not like to pat him on the back to any great extent-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pat him a little lower down, then.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -but it shows that he, among very few of his colleagues, not only started the debate on this bill but wants to hear the views and submissions, and I think constructive criticisms, of the members of this House.
When I was speaking at five o'clock I was giving the House some indication of the Prime Minister's attitude to working and not working. This leads me to ask what this piece of legislation will do for the people in the Atlantic provinces where presently exists a situation of chronic unemployment due, I contend, to the policy of the government. Its regional expansion program, according to what I have heard in this House, is not the best legislation, nor is its implementation benefiting to any great extent those people in need.
Unemployment figures as at the end of March indicate that in the Atlantic region there were 70,000 people unemployed. This is why I continually emphasize the fact that if the development of this great nation is to go forward, the main priority should be that government policy ensures that as many people as can be absorbed into the labour force are given gainful employment. I cannot help but re-emphasize that in order for us to raise sufficient funds to achieve this objective we must have an adequate tax base.
There are several sections in this bill raising questions of interest and concern and calling for deep consideration, not only by members on this side of the House but by members on the other side. Unemployment insurance programs should maintain a proper balance between providing temporary income maintenance and facilitating reabsorption into productive activity. Therefore, with ail due respect to the arguments of the minister, I question whether the reduction of the qualifying period to an e'ght-week attachment to the labour market is practicable in view of the probable abuses that this will encourage. Further, such a short period of time does not indicate even a strong seasonal attachment to the labour force.
I should like to know why the minister picked on the period of eight weeks. Would not 12 weeks have been more in keeping with creating incentives to enable people to help themselves? The reduction of the qualifying period to eight weeks would be of little assistance even to the growing number of young persons with no experience who are neither eligible for unemployment insurance benefits nor for retraining programs. It is significant that the white paper and the legislation which follows it is silent on this very important matter.
I think we have to create a climate wherein employment is available. Unemployment is not unemployment when it is self-induced, self-inflicted or a matter of choice. I suggest that the eight-week period should receive close examination because I believe there are many people in Canada concerned about this aspect of
the legislation. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, a person becoming eligible for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act after a minimum period of eight weeks. As the act now stands, people qualify if they work 32 weeks out of 52, though I stand to be corrected on that. I should like to know why there has been such a big reduction in the period, and I hope the minister will provide an answer. We feel that it is a disincentive, that it will stifle initiative and, most important and lasting, it will encourage people to take the attitude: Why should we work, when the government will look after us? This is an attitude taken, not by the majority of people but by too many of the minority.
We may be able to make some improvement in this particular area. In this regard I should like to draw the attention of the minister to an article that emphasizes very graphically the point I am trying to make. I refer to an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on Thursday, September 24, 1970. I should like to read it in depth because it illustrates the thinking of many people in connection with the new unemployment insurance legislation. The article reads in part:
The flaws in Mr. Mackasey's proposals are more basic. He appears to have made little effort to separate the seasonal worker, who does not expect year-round employment, from genuine members of the labour force. There are many seasonal workers, who do everything from packing apples to picking tobacco to serving as clerks during the Christmas rush. Many of these people not only do not expect to work full-time, they do not want to. What is more, they can never expect to pay enough into the insurance pot to balance what they will withdraw from it. Therefore they are not insuring themselves against unemployment; they are taking a cheap ride on the backs of those who are.
This is a point that concerns many people and it is why I feel the eight-week period must be examined closely. The article continues:
Mr. Mackasey proposes far too easy access to benefits, which are already too accessible to seasonal workers. The present plan requires 30 employment weeks in the previous two years to establish eligibility for benefits. The new plan would provide some benefits after eight weeks of work in the previous 52 weeks and full benefits after 20 weeks in the previous 52.
Plainly the need is to separate seasonal jobs from full-time jobs, with only the latter being insured. Income supplements to seasonal workers should be provided as welfare on the usual means test; and those seasonal workers who work only for pin-money would not receive benefits at the expense of the real work force.
That is the bone of contention, whether in fact the eight-week period is consistent with the initiative and desire of a person to become a productive member of the work force. We have to give this question consideration. I was impressed when the minister indicated that he would like higher benefits to be paid at this particular time. He then became concerned with the administrative hang-up and was not able to bring himself to accepting a suggestion the opposition has continually made. Because of the gravity of the situation we have suggested that these people should be collecting more money at this time. In view of the unemployment induced by the government, it is amazing that the minister could not see his way clear to do this now instead of waiting until some time in July.

April 19, 1971

I remind the minister of the gravity of this situation by stating that at the end of January, 1971, there were 844,000 claimants, some 26 per cent more than the 672,000 registered for benefits a month earlier, and 28 per cent more than the January 30, 1970, total of 659,000. We are talking about a significant number and saying there is no technical or legal reason why increased rates should be withheld until some time in July, 1971. I hope that when the minister replies, after listening to several speeches, he will give us a better reason than he has given so far as to why he cannot implement the suggestions we have made, thus alleviating some of the pain, suffering and hardship of those who are confronted by unemployment.
We have argued for an acceleration of the implementation of the new rates, and continue to do so. The government has admitted responsibility in the area of cyclical unemployment, and since the new act suggests that the government assume the costs of financing when the unemployment rate exceeds 4 per cent, it is reasonable that the government should accelerate its program to respond to the present employment crisis. The urgency of the unemployment situation in terms of numbers and the present inadequate level of benefits, keeping in mind the recent cost of living index, suggests that moral considerations at present far outweigh bureaucratic ease of implementation some time in July.
There are other matters in this bill and I will touch on a few of them. My colleagues in this part of the House will elaborate and perhaps bring home several points which because of time I will not pursue. I should like greater elaboration in respect of the self-employed. As far as I am aware, no argumentation is made by the minister for this categorical exclusion. Since the proposals of the white paper are designed to broaden coverage rather than restrict it, a better explanation from the minister is required.
Of course, there are difficulties to be encountered in the inclusion of the self-employed. However, it would be sheer intellectual and moral laziness by the government to exclude the self-employed rather than attempt to surmount these difficulties. Unemployment insurance is basically a plan of income maintenance. Consistent with the philosophy of the Carter report and the tenor of the white paper on tax reform, which call for taxation from all sources, the white paper on unemployment insurance and the ensuing legislation with which we are now dealing should be concerned with the maintenance of income from all sources. Here we get a picture of universality once again.
However, the insurance principle militates against the inclusion of self-employed persons per se because no effective regulations have been established to screen those who have voluntarily severed self-employment. In many situations the integrity of the fund demands the exclusion of the self-employed where checks against fraud are totally lacking. Nevertheless, it is my respectful submission that the government should make a serious attempt to develop regulations for inclusion in the legislation so that the insurance principle will not be endangered and the principle of income maintenance can be
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 properly extended. Also, they must be more precise in that endeavour. The Canadian economy is far more interdependent than the government seems to imagine. For many individuals, the semantics and characterization of self-employed are extremely misleading. By far the majority of those who are today called self-employed, whose annual income is derived from a form of selfemployment but whose self-employment clearly depends upon a third person, could easily be incorporated into the act with the aforementioned considerations in mind. These are the "franchisees."
I was very impressed when the minister first started to deal with this bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) posed a question to the minister. The subject was of vital concern and I thought the minister would see his way clear to explain the situation. He indicated it was a marvellous suggestion but not one he had heard just recently. He indicated it was being considered and that he hoped to delve into the matter and come up with some answers.
Let me indicate to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that "franchisees" would include taxi drivers, gas station operators, chain food and entertainment operators, life insurance salesmen, door-to-door salesmen, farmers under supply management, etc. The franchise factor would be quickly ascertainable by the commission, allowing it to determine whether the applicant had lost his franchise or had surrendered it; whether he has been laid off or had quit. I think this is probably what bothers the minister, although I know he is always concerned about constructive criticism. I hope he has second thoughts, because we intend to talk about universality. The suggestion is that 96 per cent are covered, which means that 4 per cent are not. A reasonable suggestion is that this 4 per cent represents the self-employed or the "franchisees" who are deserving of more consideration than the minister and bureaucrats have given them.
I should like to touch upon another controversial issue, the experience rating factor. This is a highly controversial and ill-advised proposal of the new act, at least as far as I am concerned. The proposal is to institute experience, or what is more commonly called merit rating, whereby adjustment of employers' contributions may be applied according to their record of lay-offs. The government has made no final decision on the proposed formula for determining merit rating to establish contributions by employers. The Commons committee suggested it be judged in accordance with the industry involved. Whatever the formula, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully state that I will not accept in any way, shape or form the proposal of experience or merit rating, whatever the term may be.
The arguments presented by the white paper is really attractive rhetoric. We have heard many comments on this question both pro and con. There was some merit in the arguments of those who were against this type of proposal. The white paper suggests that the introduction of experience rating will more properly allocate the cost to employers according to their lay-off pattern as well as serving as an incentive to create more stable employment patterns. No one is quarrelling with such motives. How-
5056

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 ever, I should like to re-emphasize what is said by the Gill report as well as by many economists and representatives of both employees and employers. They state that this type of involvement requested by the minister is an ineifective and counter-productive tool to accomplish the aspiration of stable employment pattern. I think it is necessary to refer to the Gill report and place some of the thinking expressed there on the record. The minister and I had a little discussion about this matter and he said, "This report is not quite appropriate in 1971." For the life of me I cannot see why it is not. I should like to refer to a few passages in the Gill report:
It will, we think, suffice for present purposes to indicate, as follows, the main reasons why we do not recommend the adoption of a system of merit rating.
We favour a system of broad pooling of risk and this is the foundation of our recommendations for universal coverage. We believe that the frictional unemployment that can properly be taken care of by a plan of unemployment insurance is a more or less normal phenomenon of a free economic system, but it emerges strongly In certain industries and occupations in the system and scarcely at all in others. This variation is not, however, the result of particular management decisions. It is, instead, a function beyond the control of the employers concerned.
The report states, further, that merit rating would have the result of raising the contribution rates for some of the basic industries that play an important part in Canadian export trade and that this would put them at a competitive disadvantage in international markets.
Also in the report we find this sentence:
We have not observed any decisive evidence to substantiate the claim that the operation of a merit rating system would have any significant effect in reducing unemployment.
That is a very significant and important phrase. I do not know whether it has been ignored by the minister and his department. The report continues:
There is some evidence to suggest that the existence of merit rating encourages undesirable practices on the part of some employers. They may tend to oppose claims merely for the sake of improving their position with respect to merit rating. They may oppose socially desirable extensions of the unemployment insurance scheme for the same reasons, and they may indulge in practices relating to hiring and firing of employees designed to minimize the effect on the unemployment insurance plan.
The Canadian Labour Congress opposes merit rating because of this danger. In the United States, where merit rating still largely persists, General Motors employs a team of lawyers who automatically challenge every applicant for unemployment insurance benefits. Other criticisms have been raised. The merit rating system has regional and structural bias. Government officials insist that industry by industry merit rating is administratively and politically impossible. However, juxtaposing all firms against an average national lay-off rate would heavily favour mature, central Canadian business and industrial structures and would actively harm growth and depressed areas.
Growth industries have higher lay-off rates simply because of their dynamism. Many stagnant industries have low lay-off rates and would be rewarded even
though they often require, according to government policy, swift, efficient out-mobility. The textile industry, for example, could be penalized for rationalizing even though that is the intent of other government policies and accounted for by special manpower programs. Generally, merit rating would encourage rigidities which government policies and the Canadian economy cannot afford.
Merit rating may bias hiring practices. The incentive, if it worked, could bring direct hardship to the very people it aims to assist-working people in search of permanent employment. Since students and casuals are excluded from the merit rating, industries with fairly flexible work patterns might be encouraged to lower the quasi-permanent or permanent component of their work force and opt for a higher percentage of student and casuals for merit rating considerations. Although government officials have not seen such a possibility, it was accepted as possible while quite extraneous to the intent of the new act. Clearly, it is unacceptable to improve the employment problem of students and casuals at the direct expense of the regular work force. The risk should not be taken.
While the private sector must be more involved in the amelioration of frictional unemployment, the experience rating proposals should be rejected. More creative and informed government action is required in this regard. I would suggest the following proposal to significantly assist the Department of Manpower in finding work for the frictionally unemployed. Manpower is presently hindered from making a full contribution primarily because very few employers provide advance notice of lay-offs, commonly called manpower's low penetration rate. It is significant to point out, also, that the provinces are moving in the area of frictional unemployment with legislation to provide notice of lay-offs to employees in order that they can take early steps to reduce the injury of frictional unemployment. Ontario has such a bill and, as a matter of fact, so has the federal government. The federal bill I believe is Bill C-228.
However, I should like to emphasize that on constitutional grounds federal notice of lay-off legislation will be irrelevant to the majority of the work force. I conclude in respect of the experience rating, or the merit rating as the case may be, by stating that this is a move away from the principle of universality. It is a penalty placed on the employer who accepts willingly or unwillingly the high risk enterprise and it constitutes an administrative nightmare which cannot have a helpful effect on the employment situation.
We urge the government to include a penalty, by way of unemployment insurance contribution rates, for employers who do not simultaneously notify the Department of Manpower when they notify their employees according to the provincial notice of lay-off legislation. The federal government should insist that Manpower receives the same courtesy as employees in each province.
We have heard a lot from the minister about administrative costs. This has bothered many people. I heard the minister say that he picked out a figure of 4 per cent

April 19, 1971

whereafter the federal government would become involved. He said he could have picked 5 per cent or 6 per cent. I would like to know why he chose 4 per cent, because notwithstanding what the minister indicated I believe it can be related to policy. 1 knew the minister would smile when I said this because he pre-empted me by saying he knew what I would say. However, I still say it. I say that so long as the minister thinks we can get away with 4 per cent, it would seem to be quite logical- he gave some indication of the government's fiscal and monetary policy earlier-that the government does not necessarily take a very active interest in what has happened.
This is why I would like further information on the figure of 4 per cent. Here we are faced with 6 per cent and I do not think we will get away from that area in the near future. Perhaps the government can justify, through the minister, in more detail the implications and requirements and why 4 per cent was chosen. I believe one must consider the fact that the government, through its fiscal and monetary policies, has brought upon this nation unemployment to an unprecedented degree.


Mr. Bell:: Deliberately.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, deliberately. When I think of that, it would seem more obvious that we should have an explanation from the minister. There is one thing I should state in respect of administrative costs. The Gill report also had something to say about this question. I notice the minister is looking at his watch. I think I have time to deal with this matter and I would appreciate it if the minister would stay and hear me.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was looking at my watch because I have to take a pill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the Gill report was very emphatic in this regard. It recognized the dangerous conflict between proper administration and high benefit costs and proposed a plan of extended benefits to be financed by the state at the time of high employment in part to regularize the burden of the fund. However, it concluded that the federal government should continue to cover administrative costs nevertheless. The Gill report's arguments have been neither accepted nor rejected by the legislation with which we are now dealing. The report states:
p.ra.)
It is in the national interest... that unemployment insurance be administered in such a way that it is fair to all and that abuses be kept to a minimum. The responsibility for seeing to it that the established rules are adhered to is one that is linked to the responsibility for applying the compulsion that makes all employees members of the plan ... Further, the administrative machinery should be designed in such a way as to make available as much information... as will be useful in the carrying out of a national employment and manpower program. For all these reasons, we recommend the continuation of the present practice whereby administrative expenses are met by the government from its general revenues rather than by the insurance fund.
This is from Mr. Gill, the acknowledged expert in this matter whom the minister has chosen either to ignore or
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 on whose opinion he places little emphasis. Let me go on to another very tricky area which is also very controversial-the first benefit period. The new act suggests that first benefits be paid after a two-week waiting period at which time a three-week payment may be made. At whose discretion will the payment be made? Will it be by way of ministerial prerogative? I do not think anything in the act qualifies "may" or explains it.
The rationale of the government for this structure is twofold. They claim it is designed to provide an incentive to find work. How in heaven's name can you say that when you give a man $300, which is the maximum benefit he can receive, it can be called an incentive to work? The Minister may have an answer but I doubt very much that he can convince this House. He may be able to convince the government, but I think it will take much of the minister's verbal gymnastics to convince me that when you pay a man $300 this is not a disincentive. I do not see how it can be anything else. It is also stated, as the other portion of the rationale, that it reduces the administrative costs normally incurred as soon as the person enters the regular benefit stream.
In the committee analysis of the white paper, let it be known now that we in this party rejected this proposal and still do. The act now has a one-week waiting period and the first cheque is for only one week of benefits. The three-week advance in inequitable because it is made no matter whether work is obtained one day after the benefit payment, in which case it would be a bonus, or three weeks after. Since the bonus factor could amount to as much as $100 a week, it is probably better to maintain the higher administrative costs in the interests of equity and the preservation of man's initiative to become a member of the work stream.
The legislation presents no evidence or argumentation that this structure would in fact provide an incentive to find work. It is an experiment which I believe this country can ill afford to accept. On the contrary, it appears to provide an incentive to wait for two weeks before seeking employment in order to obtain the three-week benefit. How you can read into this portion of the legislation any other rational conclusion is beyond me. Accordingly, we in this party will be emphasizing that this factor can be looked upon as a disincentive, stifling personal initiative, which should not be the object of unemployment insurance legislation.
The minister mentioned sickness and pregnancy benefits. It took me some time to appreciate that this was an extension of interruption of earnings. It was difficult for me to figure out how it could be called that, but I am prepared to accept it, particularly because of the anomaly which exists with respect to a person who is unemployed, then becomes sick and can receive unemployment insurance, whereas those who are sick initially cannot benefit from the unemployment insurance scheme. The scheme includes women, of course, who are part of the work force to an increasing degree. This is a problem we must face; I hope that one of my colleagues will have more to say on this subject, particularly with respect to sickness and pregnancy benefits, because it is wide open to potential abuse. I think that in this area we must be extremely
5058

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
careful. We must try to improve this act. I hope the minister will understand that I am not being facetious or partisan when I say that I hope, because of the newness and earth-shaking implications of this legislation, the minister will consider safeguards to possible abuses.
We say that the proposal has merit in maintaining the integrity of the unemployment insurance plan. The Canadian Labour Congress and government officials suggest that assistance in this area is practical for the fund because present disqualification clauses cannot stop fraud and invite health hazards to pregnant women. Some women remain at work until the last moment, with possible detrimental effects to their health and productivity. Some women are in collusion with their employers to be fired or laid off in order to be eligible for benefits which they would otherwise not receive.
Who will determine who is sick? Will it be determined by doctor's certificate? When will he have to supply this information? These are the type of questions that make the average taxpayer extremely concerned when he sees people taking advantage of a system. Because of lack of proper investigation we might not prevent even minimum abuses. Teachers may have more interest in the pregnancy section when they start to rationalize their inclusion. But it should not be considered that this is an effective welfare plan for pregnant women for two reasons. First, the burden of support rests with only two sectors of the tax base-employers and employees. Second, it is inequitable as a welfare scheme because it gives benefits, not according to need but according to previous income, and it only provides benefits for working women.
I should like the minister to answer this question regarding the family unit: Should we not consider that a woman whose husband is making $15,000 is in a position to have, through her husband, the required treatment out of their joint income I think this is extremely important. The maternity benefit plan should be considered as temporary income maintenance in light of its removal of the human and institutional damage caused by cheating. However, the act's proposal should be integrated with broader aspects of social welfare policy regarding the needs of all pregnant women. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) will be interested in this question, because we should not deceive these people. If we are going to look into the entire needs of women we should use a fine-tooth comb.
In closing I would like to touch on another area which gives me some concern. I refer to our senior citizens. It is hard to pick the proper word. I do not want to say that the government has shown unconcern for our senior citizens, but it has certainly adopted some unrealistic approaches to them. This makes me a little worried. However, in all fairness I have to admit that we are now talking about retirement benefits. This was a very touchy topic during the committee meetings. In this regard I quote from issue No. 9 of the committee proceedings, page 9:28, as follows:
5. Unemployment benefits for interruption of earnings due to retirement.
The case for the provision of unemployment insurance benefits for interruption of earnings due to retirement presents certain difficulties. Indeed, a number of witnesses fully in support of UIC benefits in the case of interruption of earnings by sickness or pregnancy expressed opposition to the provision of the proposed retirement benefits.
While in the main concern in the matter of sickness and pregnancy included interruption of earnings benefits related to a discussion of the type of program and vehicle appropriate for such benefits, the very existence of a valid contingency at the time of retirement was denied by several witnesses and briefs. It was maintained that if a need exists-
This is what is important just as the committee recommended.
It was maintained that if a need exists in the transition from work to retirement, it cannot be said to constitute an interruption of earnings.
A number of witnesses also drew attention to the fact that by accepting Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan, an early retired person would have access to $720-while if he did not retire, he would receive as much as $5,000 in the first year.
There is another matter which I would bring to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker. This was contained in a submission by the Canadian Fertilizer Association- and I do not stress so much the name of the association as the content of its submission. At page 9:62 there appears the following:
While it may not be desirable to provide retiring workers with a nominal lump sum payment in lieu of benefits, the proposed five weeks lump sum payment-
There was an error there: it should have read "three weeks."
-could easily be abused and apply an unnecessary burden on the unemployment insurance fund. It would, we suggest, quickly become normal practice on retirement to forgo application for Canada pension and old age security benefits for a time to take advantage of the proposed five weeks lump sum handout.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it should have read "three weeks lump sum handout." The problem I am faced with in respect of the lump sum payment in the initial instance, after a person has a 20-week involvement with the work force, is that it becomes almost possible to accept a further lump sum payment even though this may affect our senior citizens. I want the minister to convince me that what he is doing is right, because it is not my intention to quietly sit here and not see our senior citizens, those on the verge of retirement, get what they deserve after spending considerable time in the work force.
Why are they getting a lump sum? Is this a gift? Is it to tide them over a certain period? If they are on the verge of becoming involved with the Canada Pension Plan, they may be about to retire and may have money coming in from another pension scheme. I would like the minister to explain this to me so there will be no misunderstanding about what the government is attempting to do. In the first instance, as I said, it seems the government is attempting to create a group that will get the three-week payment. Now there is to be another group with a three-week payment. I suggest these are bonus payments. Even the first case is questionable, but we must have conclusive evidence with respect to the

April 19, 1971

second. We must know why the minister believes it is necessary that people who are about to leave the work force and get a pension, be it the Canada pension or the Quebec pension, should get this $300.
There are many other points that I could raise with respect to this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I know that a number of my colleagues wish to raise certain matters which they believe the government should be interested in and upon which it should be prepared to act.
I hope that through the minister's efforts, those who are in need right now will be permitted to acquire benefits under the new scale. We all know that the maximum now, $53 or $58-I forget which-is totally inadequate in view of rising costs and the frustrations that accompany the provision of non-deferrables such as clothing, mortgage payments, food and medicine. I hope the minister will show consideration in this area. His reputation would be greatly enhanced if our suggestions were put into effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, among my souvenirs I have a number of items that came to me from the files of my predecessor, the late J. S. Woods worth. One of them is a leather-bound copy of one of the first unemployment insurance books which was given to him, along with a letter from Hon. Norman McLarty, who was Minister of Labour at the time, in recognition of the part Mr. Woodsworth had played over a number of years in urging the adoption of unemployment insurance. I mention that, Sir, so that our credentials in this area will be established. We have long been advocates and supporters of the principle of unemployment insurance.
Our understanding of unemployment insurance, so far as its essence is concerned, is that it is an arrangement under which those whose income comes from employment pay into a fund, so that if they are out of income there is something they will receive that is theirs as a matter of right. One of the critical requirements is that there be no means test on such benefits, no looking at what o.her members of the family may have. Rather, it is an arrangement under which workers have their income protected when that income is interrupted because of loss of employment.
Even though we have long been advocates and supporters of unemployment insurance, it is our strong contention, as was suggested this afternoon in another debate by my colleague from Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), that the main aim of any government should not be just to come up with a perfect unemployment insurance plan but to come up with policies that provide for full employment. We recognize that in the course of history this has seldom been with us for any extended period of time, and so we assert that we must have a program of unemployment insurance. But, Mr. Speaker, we urge the government not to use such a program as an excuse for policies that lead to unemployment.
Having mentioned one or two items of history, and bearing in mind some of the remarks of the hon. gentle-
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 man who just resumed his seat, may I mention that in 1940 the British North America Act was amended. There was written into it, in section 91, authority for the federal Parliament to pass legislation with respect to unemployment insurance. I press the point that workers who happen to come under provincial labour jurisdiction are not out of bounds so far as federal unemployment insurance is concerned. Indeed, I suggest that no workers are out of bounds so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, because authority for such legislation is contained in our Constitution, the British North America Act.
There are a great many details in this legislation and it is only natural that the place where we shall go into those details and try to bring about changes-indeed, a number of changes are still desirable-will be the standing committee to which this bill is to be referred. Therefore, those of us who speak on second reading do not feel obligated to cover all points. There are a few points, however, that I should like to mention at this stage of the debate. The pattern of my remarks is one that I have followed quite often. To begin with, I shall indicate a number of things in this new bill that are good and that we warmly welcome. While I am discussing those points the minister's face will be as bright as his shirt and he will enjoy what I have to say. But then we shall come to the other side of the coin, to the three or four things in the bill that we find not satisfactory.


An hon. Member:: Then his face will be as black as his suit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the minister was about to say that he would have to change his shirt at that point, but there is no provision in our rules for that being done in the House of Commons.
May I refer to some of the reasons for our welcoming this bill. I indicate, first, our pleasure that the scale of benefits that may be paid under this legislation represents a considerable increase over the benefits now payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act. At present the maximum is $53 a week, plus the 10 per cent "Benson bonus" that was provided a short while ago. That was about the only time that that man ever provided for a bonus.
Once the new legislation is in full effect, a maximum payment of $100 a week will be possible for those whose normal wage is $150 a week or $7,800 a year. Not only are there these higher benefits which are based on the proposition that benefits shall be 66J per cent of the wages that a person has been earning, but there is also provision-I think the minister referred to this matter this afternoon-for those benefits to escalate to 75 per cent if a person's period of unemployment continues beyond a certain length of time and if that happens at a time when there is a high level of unemployment in the country.
You will not hear any remarks from me to the effect that those benefits are disincentives, or anything like that. For far too long we have been concerned about what happens to people whose earnings are interrupted

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 because of lack of employment, and we will not indulge in that kind of approach. We welcome the higher benefits that will be paid under the new unemployment insurance legislation. They will not be benefits at a level at which one can merely keep body and soul together; they will be benefits that will bear some relation to a person's wages, that will enable people who are out of work to keep in the swim, to keep up their hopes and to keep up their morale.
A second feature that we like is the wider coverage that is provided under the bill. This coverage is wider and more extensive in two main respects. On the one hand it brings within its scope a number of employed persons who for many years have been exempt from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think that perhaps it was a mistake that they were ever exempted. I think, since we were introducing unemployment insurance that was to cover people who made their living from employment, that all these people should have been included from the start. If they had been, many heartaches might not have been experienced and we would not have, heard the kind of arguments that we have had to deal with lately.
Not only does this bill widen the coverage in that it seeks to take in all those who are employed, but it abolishes the ceiling that exists under the present act. As the minister said this afternoon, when the legislation was first introduced 30 years ago, that ceiling was $2,000 a year. At present it is $7,800 a year, but even that ceiling is being abolished. As I understand it, workers will pay unemployment insurance premiums on their income, but only up to the ceiling of $7,800 a year. If employed persons earn more than $7,800 a year, they will not go off the unemployment insurance rolls but will continue paying premiums at the $7,800 a year level. As a result their benefits will be geared to that figure. We think this is good. We approve this wider coverage and this approach to universality. I shall say something more about that when I speak about the other side of the coin, about those parts of the minister's bill that contain shortcomings.
The third thing we welcome in this legislation is the inclusion of coverage for loss of income due to a person's being off work as a result of sickness or pregnancy. When the legislation was first brought in many years ago there was no provision for unemployment insurance to be continued in the case of a person who lost his job, qualified for benefits, began drawing them and then took sick. That injustice some of us in this House railed against for many years. It was finally corrected and I am glad that we are now going a step further and saying that when workers cannot receive their normal income because they are sick or pregnant, they shall be covered by this legislation.
Some people have said that with this kind of provision perhaps the name of the legislation ought to be changed. What is in a name? Some suggest that a change in name might make the bill a little better. At any rate, let us agree that we are concerned not only about whether people are at work or not, but whether workers have an income. If workers who depend for life itself on employment and on the income from that employment suffer a cessation in that income, there ought to be legislation to cover them. We are glad that the sickness and pregnancy provisions are included in this legislation.
I make the comment, in light of something that was said a few minutes ago, that I think we should accept the principle advocated in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, namely, that women stand on their own feet. We have to move more and more in that direction. I do not think there should be a means test on unemployment insurance. I do not think that a pregnant woman seeking a benefit, one who is off work because of pregnancy, should be asked any questions about the income of other members of her family. Once we get into the business of means testing we destroy the basic principle of unemployment insurance.
The fourth element in this legislation that we welcome is the provision for shorter periods in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefit. Some people think the periods have been made too short, that it will make it awfully easy to obtain benefits, and so on. The possibility of obtaining employment is becoming more and more beyond the control of the individual. Whether or not employment is available is a social fact. It is something about which government policy has a great deal to do. As long as people can establish genuine attachment to the labour market, they should get the benefit of this legislation. As a matter of fact, I suggest that we might have to go further.
There are times when people such as teachers-and in this respect I take their side-undergo several years of training to become qualified and then find there is no job available. They are just as much attached to the labour market as the worker who has had eight weeks unskilled labour in a factory. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) nodding his head. He agrees that in some cases we will have to find a way to provide these benefits for those who have worked for fewer than eight weeks. What the government is doing through this legislation is recognizing the right to coverage, provided a genuine attachment to the labour force has been established. I believe I have said enough that is good about this bill to bring a smile to the face of the minister. I would not want him to think-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Lower contributions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister wants me to refer to the lower contributions. That is good. Is there anything else that I have missed?


Mr. Francis:: You are doing very well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister, who is adding to my list of favourable items, will be ready to add to my other list. He probably has one or two he will mention.
The first point I want to make with regard to shortcomings in the legislation is in connection with the wait-

April 19, 1971

ing period. I know the argument. I heard it in committee and the minister gave it again this afternoon. It is really the old trade-off argument which we get from this government. The minister said we could have a shorter waiting period but it would cost so much we would not be able to provide certain other benefits.
The workers of this country have been studying this bill. They are not unsympathetic toward it. They regard it as their legislation and they take a certain amount of pride in it. One of the things that worries them is this longer waiting period. It gets a bit confused. Although there was not supposed to have been a waiting period for the last while, there really had been a week. Now there is to be a two-week waiting period. As I work it out, there will be three weeks. During this period people will have to wait before they can collect unemployment insurance benefit.
The previous speaker was concerned that once people have established a benefit period they can pick up the benefit for three weeks. He was concerned about that being a disincentive. I think it is the other way around. A person who is genuinely attached to the labour force- and he has to be that to get the benefit-after a couple of weeks receives pay for three weeks. He is told that if he can get a job before his three-week period expires, he will be that much money ahead. That is what he will do. Far from being a disincentive, it is an incentive to people to get back into the labour market.
Apart from that, I am afraid that this period of having to wait before there is any income from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, income that is the right of the workers, is something we will have to tackle all over again. We tackled it very thoroughly when the committee was studying the white paper. The minister, his officials and others were very persuasive. They used the cost argument, the trade-off argument, and so on. This is one instance where we are having a bit of participatory democracy. We did not get it with regard to the old age security legislation. In this case the workers and trade union bodies have been seeing it. I say to the minister that this point is of very real concern. I hope that when we get into committee we will be able to shorten the waiting period rather than lengthening it.
The second matter about which there is great concern among trade union bodies and workers generally is the whole question about the definition of earnings, particularly the earnings that a person might have in a waiting period or during a period when one is receiving unemployment insurance benefits. This is one of those cases where the definition is not in the legislation. The definition of earnings will be left to regulation, but it will be very important that the definition be such that people will not be given something with one hand only to find that it has been taken away with the other. The minister is a member of a government that is very good at that. This was done to the old age pensioners on the guaranteed income supplement, and to recipients of war veterans allowances. I hope there will be a different kettle of fish in this instance and the minister will not do the same as his colleagues have done.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Speaking of fish, I might say in passing that one of the angles of this bill that is causing concern is the position of fishermen under it. But I do not intend to go into that question: my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), promised the minister this afternoon by implication that he would go into it very thoroughly. The point that my colleague and others wish to make is quite sound. It is fine to have the minister's promise that fishermen will continue to be covered under this legislation until one of his colleagues introduces something else that is satisfactory. However, it is very difficult to know in advance whether that something else will be satisfactory.
I move on to another point which is perhaps one of the most crucial with regard to this legislation. I refer to this business of setting a threshold at 4 per cent. I suppose this is an area in which we can engage in debate, use of words, semantics, and so on. We can do this on both sides. But it seems to me the minister and the government are not going to get away with their insistence that writing this 4 per cent figure into the bill will not sanctify a level of unemployment at 4 per cent. I can see this coming just as sure as anything. As long as the level of unemployment does not exceed 4 per cent, hon. gentlemen on the other side will say, "This is full employment."
The minister said this afternoon that he was proud of this legislation because when the level of unemployment rose above 4 per cent it triggered the flow of government money into the unemployment insurance program, and since such a flow of money would be triggered, government economists and other who make government policy would say to themselves, "We cannot continue doing this. We must do something to establish policies which create unemployment." I say that if this is the way it works on the basis of an unemployment figure of 4 per cent or 5 per cent, it will also work at unemployment rates of 2 per cent or 3 per cent. Two per cent is no better than 4 per cent for the unemployed man who is down at the bottom. But from our point of view it would be a lot better if government involvement in the financing of unemployment insurance began at a much lower level. In the committee we argued that it should be 2 per cent. If we could even get a compromise between the two figures, it would be an improvement.
My contention is that the present procedure will give an air of respectability to 4 per cent unemployment which will vex us for a long time to come. Don't tell us the government is not prepared to countenance 4 per cent unemployment; we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is prepared to accept 6 per cent, and got even more. I urge the government to reconsider this part of the program.
The old Unemployment Insurance Act involved the government right from the start. We presently have a 50-50-20 formula. Hon. members who were on the committee understand that formula. Even the white paper made the mistake of saying it was 40-40-20. I wonder who wrote that? We have a program at the present time


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister also told us this afternoon that under the new legislation certain benefits will accrue to unemployed persons when the national rate is above 4 per cent, benefits which would not accrue to them when the national rate is below 4 per cent. It would be hard to explain to an unemployed person, whose need is just as great when the national figure is 3.9 per cent as when it is 4.1 per cent, that although in one case he will get the additional benefit, in the other case he will not.
It seems to me that the benefits which accrue to workers drawing unemployment insurance should, if they are to be flexible, be geared to the duration of that person's unemployment rather than to the national average, the general condition in the country. This whole concept of a 4 per cent threshold is one which needs to be examined all over again in committee. We went into it exhaustively, in both senses of the word, in the committee which considered the white paper, but it is so crucial to the legislation before us that I urge that we do so again when this bill gets back to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker, I come now to one of the principal items of criticism which I wish to raise. Here I am meeting the minister with respect to the attribute of this legislation of which he is most proud. He is proud of the fact that this bill has adopted the principle of universality. This is true up to a point but-and this is the trouble-it is true only up to a point. The minister has tried to bring within its four corners all persons whose living depends on the money they received because they are employed, whether they are shopworkers, railwaymen, teachers, doctors, lawyers or whatever-if they are employed as opposed to being self-employed. But even though he has widened the net and brought in many more people than were eligible before, he has not touched the self-employed at all.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) reminded us that we raised this question in committee one day when the minister was there; the minister took it seriously and undertook to have it studied, but later we were told it was too complicated. In this age of
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
computers which can do the wonderful things the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) told us about this afternoon, I do not think it is beyond the wit of the people in the department to devise legislation which would protect the incomes of all our people.
The argument the minister used in defence of the payment of sickness and maternity benefits-and I agree with him 100 per cent-was that what he is protecting is the income of these people; the purpose of unemployment insurance is to see to it that those whose income is interrupted have a source from which to draw income to replace it. This is just as important a need for selfemployed people as it is for employed people. If the minister really wants to bring in legislation which measures up to the billing he has given it, he ought to go a lot further and introduce a bill which would protect the incomes of all our people whether employed by others or self-employed.
Many of the criticisms of this legislation which are being made-I do not agree with them, but one can read them in some of our newspaper editorial columns-are to the effect that this is not really unemployment insurance, but welfare; that it really involves the taxing of certain groups, and so on. I suggest this would disappear if we were presented with a plan into which everybody would pay in order to protect his income against a time when that income might be interrupted because of loss of work or conditions over which the person concerned had no control.
Some of the people who do not like being covered say that the plan is not really universal after all; that they are being brought in while others are not. Let us get everyone into the plan. As a matter of fact, what is wrong with Members of Parliament being in the plan too?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Agreed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Agreed.


Raymond J. Perrault: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have three votes. Are there any more? There seems to be more support for my proposal on the Liberal side than on this side. I guess they are anticipating the result of the next election. When I have advocated this proposal in some quarters, the retort has been made, "You mean, if a member is defeated at the next election he gets paid out of the unemployment insurance fund?" I suggest that while there is no means test in the Unemployment Insurance Act, there are provisions about going on pension and some MP's around here will be going on pension when they are defeated; so there could be a relationship between those two situations. Others would get other jobs. The result would be that not too many would collect from the plan. I think the moral effect of the answer it would provide to some of the critics would be worth our making a payment as well. The minister does not need to throw in his little piece about the premiums having been reduced, because they have not been reduced by very
April 19, 1971

much. In view of the little bit that it is, less than $1 a week-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: For new entrants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, for new entrants-I think it is a shame that we are not paying into the scheme. We are saying that the virtue of this legislation is its universality. This afternoon the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) told the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that in this country universality means all citizens, including Members of Parliament. So I ask, why are we not in this plan too?
The feature of this legislation of which the minister is most proud, namely, universality, does not quite stand up. He has made the legislation just about universal for those who are employed and receive wages or salaries. This is what the scheme is-a plan under which people, whether poor risks or good risks, pay into a fund so that if their employment is interrupted they receive a benefit. The principle is a good one, but it would be better for society if it extended to all of us. I hope that some very serious thought is given to this proposition of real universality so that with respect to this and some of the other points I have mentioned the bill will come out of committee an even better bill than it is now.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the remarks I intend to make on Bill C-229, an Act respecting Unemployment Insurance in Canada, I wish to point out a few aspects which I consider important, particularly the existence of unemployment here in Canada before the legislation was passed in 1940.
I am trying to be realistic and to tackle this subject while taking into account the actual facts. I do not believe any serious people would ever claim that an unemployment insurance legislation can solve the unemployment problem, since it has been proved that unemployment existed before the passage of the legislation. As a matter of fact, it is higher today, in spite of the many years of implementation of that legislation and its regulations.
I do not believe that Bill C-229, which is the subject of our debate today, includes appropriate proposals to solve the unemployment problem. The proposals included in the white paper were examined in committee and used in the drafting of the bill now before us. But that does not represent a solution to the unemployment problem and it is quite easy to prove it.
The object of this measure is to help unemployed people either by reducing the inconveniences due to the lack of income, by paying them benefits or helping them <o get suitable employment.
I admit that many investigations were made since the passage of the measure in 1940 and that many changes were made in the attendant regulations. A commission of inquiry of the Unemployment Insurance Act presented quite a voluminous report in November 1962, and in 1970 and 1971, we studied the proposals included in the white paper tabled by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey).
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
I am happy to point out here that those proposals were studied with that spirit of co-operation that always prevailed among the committee members.
Representations were made by several organizations that had the privilege, through their representatives, of expressing their opinion on the advantages or disadvantages of the implementation of the proposals included in the white paper.
Judging from Bill C-229, I find that very few changes have been made even though the officials of various associations have objected to certain provisions of the white paper.
I propose to make some suggestions which I find practical and which, in my humble opinion, would make it easier to understand the various requirements of the act and regulations. I hope that the decision-making authorities will take them into consideration in due course.
I wished to make these few points at the beginning of my remarks so as to give the House a better understanding of the reasons for my attitude towards the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In short, Bill C-229 is not the solution to the unemployment problem but a palliative required by an ailing economic system. It would be more logical to set up an economic system based on natural order and on the logic of facts instead of putting up with the disastrous consequences of an economic situation based on a financial system continually in conflict with current economic realities. Obviously, the situation would be quite different if all the workers could find a suitable job at will.
I also wish to point out the inconsistency between the supporters of full employment

"everybody harnessed", as in some socialist countries-and the supporters of the financial system responsible for inflation and unemployment.
For our would-be socialists, lack of planning is usually responsible for all those unfortunate happenings. It has become the fashionable expression. In the meantime, full employment is still being urged although any sensible person will recognise it as almost impossible in a world where machines have been replacing man to an astonishing degree these last years.
I shall not dwell at length on this contradiction so obvious to the reasonably well-informed observer. It is clearly difficult to reconcile those two contradictory proposals: full employment and unemployment. Even though we are living in a society where the supporters of contradictions seem bent on convincing themselves that their claims are well grounded, we must nevertheless try to be logical.
Failure to be logical among the supporters of this same financial system has largely contributed to creating periods of unemployment. The Canadian people who have been through the 1929 to 1939 recession know that it is following that sad period, which showed the absurdity of the system, that we heard about an Unemployment Insurance Act. The party politicians created study groups, convened their projects officers who travelled through
5064

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 various countries, trying to discover the causes of unemployment and the means used elsewhere to fight it.
Programs aimed at the distribution of direct relief were tried. Some valid men were even enrolled for 20 cents per day at Valcartier and elsewhere. There was no question of classifying the unemployed into categories; it was a total economic chaos. More than half the people were experiencing hardship and lack of money was responsible for all those periods of anguish. The gamblers in matters of money and credit had lost their bearings on the stock exchange in the course of that crisis of collective hysteria.
Having in mind this situation, I wish to say this respect ting Bill C-229: I invent nothing when I say that the Unemployment Insurance Act which was enacted several years ago and amended now and then, is not sufficiently well understood by the workers, and I may add that this can be attributed to several reasons. One of the main reasons is that politicians elected with the support of financiers ask their legal counsels to draft a piece of legislation with enough restrictions to ensure the Fund's protection while allowing workers who become unemployed to receive benefits if they meet the requirements established under the plan; the first requirement is that they must have paid their contributions. The politicians in power are thus treated to some political campaigning at the taxpayers' expense by playing up an increase of weekly benefits up to $100 though it is obvious that the number of those who will qualify will be quite small.
But this helps keep hope alive among the thousands of unemployed who find themselves in a demoralizing position.
I have often said in this House that legislation should be drafted in intelligible language so that misinterpretations or even confusion could be avoided.
To prove my point, I will quote a few clauses of the bill, which contains 157 of them. Clause 23 reads as follows:
Waiting	23. A claimant is not entitled to be paid benefit
period	for a week in an initial benefit period until following the commencement of that initial benefit period he has served a two week waiting period that begins with a week of unemployment for which benefits would otherwise be payable.
Can you imagine what an unemployed will take that to mean? In clause 24, under the title "Rate of benefit", one can read in subparagraph (i), and I quote:
... but the maximum weekly amount of benefit payable shall not exceed sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the maximum weekly insurable earnings and the minimum weekly amount of benefit payable to a claimant described in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) shall not be less than seventy-five per cent of one-third of the maximum weekly insurable earnings.
Let us imagine what a poor unemployed will make of that. It is well known that that allows public servants- and I will explain it presently-to prepare the kind of regulations which leave all kinds of openings. There are loopholes in the law which will let anything through.


An hon. Member:: An elephant.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Yes, an elephant.

Such drafting requires public servants, who are responsible for implementing the law, to formulate regulations which will have to be enforced and which will be used to establish the eligibility of unemployed to benefits.
That is why numerous misunderstanding problems occur regarding the recognition of the rights of some unemployed.
Let us remember the measure provides that there must be communication between officials of the Commission and those of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and, sometimes, those of the regional offices of the welfare department in order to help people without income find some means of subsistence. Let us try to imagine what could happen in some cases.
I hope all unemployed will be understood. Their problems are complicated enough without their having to suffer the bad temper of some officials who do not always realize they owe their jobs to jobless, and the demoralizing effects that ensue.
A better legislation might hold them under the law of gravity, allowing them to keep both feet on the ground, and would doubtless spare them swollen heads, which often lead some of them to think better of themselves than they should, with the result that some of the unemployed suffer real hardships.
I feel that it would be in order, as I have already mentioned, to make a few suggestions which could, to my mind, be included into the new law. They could replace harmful clauses or be added to the 157 clauses already incorporated into Bill C-229.
The necessary steps should be taken to indicate on the insurance cheques what period they cover. With computers, it should be possible to add that detail; it would help clear up many problems and let the unemployed know for what period insurance is being paid. It seems to me this should be simple enough to do, and it would do away with many inconveniences.
In the second place, we should find a way to cover operators of equipment such as trucks, tractors, caterpillars, skidders and others.
A rate could be set for the services of the equipment and another for the wages of the operator.
Those adjustment procedures for unemployment insurance are quite important, since in many cases, the owners of those machines are not included in the class of workers to which the legislation and regulations apply. They are often considered as truckers and craftsmen or sub-contractors.
One should reconsider the possibilities of entitlement to benefits of some employers who have gone bankrupt. According to their type of work, they may have been considered as employers, since their undertaking required the employment of a few workers, and because of particular conditions, their business becomes unprofitable, and after having paid unemployment insurance contributions, being occasional employers, they cannot get any help, when they are struggling with serious problems.
April 19, 1971

Appropriate means should also be found to make casual workers, such as carpenters, labourers and others who work for several employers eligible for benefits. According to the principle of universality, these workers, who do some repair jobs at different periods, do not contribute to unemployment insurance and, therefore they cannot draw benefits. Yet they could show that they have worked for three, four or six months for various employers.
An exclusion notice should also mention in large letters that the applicant may appeal the decision and this without any expense, which is very important.
Moreover, the department officials' names should be typed at the bottom of their letters, as generally their signatures are not legible.
In my opinion, various matters should be taken into consideration, such as the number of weeks of waiting, and regions should be determined with regard to the percentage of unemployment rate. This is not mentioned clearly enough in the bill.
It would be in order that the new legislation be flexible enough in its administration so as to favour really those who are the victims of unemployment.
While seeking to determine the advantages and the disadvantages of the new legislation for a married worker without children who would earn $100 a week, I tried to figure out what would happen after 40 or 52 weeks of work and I let my colleagues free to draw their own conclusions about it.
Let us assume that an individual works 52 weeks at $100 a week. He would receive then a gross salary of $5,200, and for the same time, his $1.40 unemployment insurance would be $72. The federal tax for 52 weeks at $8.30 would amount to $431.60. The provincial tax, at $4.95 a week, would amount to $257.40. Premiums to the Quebec Pension Plan, for 52 weeks, at $1.59 a week, would amount to $89.68. Medicare, at 80 cents a week, would total $41.60. There remains a net salary of $4,313.92.
If he works during nine months or forty weeks, he will earn a gross salary of $4,000. At the rate of $1.40 a week, unemployment insurance will cost him $56. Federal income tax will amount to $332 and provincial income tax to $198. Contributions to the Quebec Pension Plan will total $63 and those to Medicare will be $32. His net salary will therefore amount to $3,318.40. Furthermore, at the end of the year, there would be a reimbursement on federal income tax in the amount of $137, one from the provincial income tax of $198 and another from the Quebec Pension Plan of $2.44. Medicare would reimburse $32. and for twelve weeks he would receive unemployment benefits that would amount to $58.30, producing a total of $699.60. The government would have reimbursed $1,069.04 leaving him a net salary of $4,387.44. Thus, the employee who would have worked nine months would have received $75.52 more than the one who would have worked the whole year.
Those who have worked throughout the year will have paid out $886.03 to the government and those who have worked nine months will have cost the government
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 $1,060.04. The cost of the proposed reforms must also be taken into consideration. Since the government is to assume total responsibility for payment of contributions so long as there are to be unemployment percentages, taxes must be expected to increase in some way or other as under the present system our administrators have no other source of revenue. Care must be taken not to exhaust the reserves of forbearance of those who are fortunate enough to have an income but are beginning to show signs of impatience when faced with the amount of taxes they have to pay. This should be looked into carefully.
To obtain an idea of the cost of the proposed reforms, a comparison should first of all be made between present contributions and those which will come into force under the new system. An index of present costs appears on page 20 of document No. 72-516 (December 1969) entitled: "Labour costs in the manufacturing industry in 1968." Under the heading "Unemployment insurance", it is found that in the manufacturing industry, the contribution rate has increased to $48 in 1968, representing 8 per cent of the gross earnings.
For the employers engaged in the manufacturing industry, the weekly cost of unemployment insurance, therefore, comes to 91 cents. And as employees pay the same rates as their employers, their contributions are then 91 cents per week on the average.
The 26th annual report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission published in 1969 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967, shows both the employees' and the employers' contributions for the year under review.
Employers and employees together have paid $343,800,000 into the Unemployment Insurance Fund. One wonders what their contributions would have been had they been subject to the plan advocated in the white paper.
According to the proposed plan, employees earning less than $100 per week would have to pay contributions varying from 71 cents to 88 cents, or an average of 80 cents per week.
At the same time, for salaried people earning more than $100 a week, contributions will range from $1.06 to $1.32, or an average of $1.19 a week.
Now, according to the 1969 issue of the publication "Taxation Statistics", which gives an analysis of the returns of individuals for taxation year 1967, some 5,365,269 returns indicated incomes of less than $5,200 a year, or less than $100 a week.
Granting that all of these individuals, or most of them, come under the new plan and that their contributions average 80 cents a week or $41.60 a year, they would have paid a total of $223,195,190 into the Unemployment Insurance Fund in 1967.
For the same year, there were 2,768,426 returns indicating incomes of more than $5,200 a year, or more than $100 a week.
If their contributions to the Fund had averaged $1.19 a week, or $61.88 a year, as proposed in the white paper, they would have paid the sum of $171,310,200 in 1967. In other words, if all individuals had contributed according to the scale of the white paper, they would have paid the
5066

April 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 sum of $394,505,391. Since professionals, self-employed persons, dealers and others are not subject to unemployment insurance, one must take into account only salaried persons or employees of concerns or institutions, employees of various governments and other unclassified employees, to discover that employees represent 83.5 per cent of individuals who filed income tax returns.
Thus, the employees would have contributed approximately $329,412,001 to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in 1967, according to the scale of the white paper, namely a sum almost equal to the total of aggregate contributions by employers and employees for that year.
We have seen previously that the average contribution of employers in the manufacturing industry in 1967 was $48 per year or 91 cents per week.
Now according to the white paper proposals, the group of employers accounting for a low unemployment percentage will pay from 71 to 88 cents per employee per week and the group of employers registering a heavy percentage of unemployment will have to pay between $1.42 and $1.76 per week per employee, which is almost double the 1967 average, and the group of employers between the first two will have to pay between 99 cents and $1.23 per week per employee.
If the share of the state earmarked for the re-establishment of the unemployment insurance fund could be easily figured under the former system, it is almost impossible to know what the state will have to pay under the proposed system.
In conclusion, employees will pay on the whole almost twice as much as in 1967; most of the employers will pay as much as regards the first category and almost twice as much for the two other categories, while the taxpayers may expect tax increases when unemployment exceeds 4 per cent. For three years, unemployment has exceeded this level and in some areas it is almost twice as much. Therefore heavy tax increases should be expected.
Also, the white paper says very little about what it will cost the state to help the unemployed.
Under the current system, it is easy to calculate this share. It amounts to 20 per cent of the contributions plus the administration costs.
Under the new system, the state alone will bear the cost if unemployment exceeds 4 per cent as well as the additional cost of the benefits of phases 1 and 2 and of the first part of phase 3.
In addition, when the regional rate is over 4 per cent and exceeds the national rate by 1 per cent or more, the state will assume the costs already mentioned, as well as the benefits of phase 5 during 18 other weeks.
Tables 7 and 8, which appear on page 36 of the Canada Statistical Review of July 1970, show the number of unemployed by region, as well as the regional rate of unemployment.
One realizes that the rate of unemployment exceeds the standards proposed in the white paper for areas in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.
Considering all those circumstances, we must be careful in enacting this bill and amend it according to what
the circumstances require. I do hope that these few suggestions I have made will be considered in the best possible spirit.


Mr. David Wealherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that I have before ten o'clock I should like to make a few comments with respect to our committee's work and, with your permission, I will continue my remarks tomorrow afternoon.
As chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration I might say that last fall we spent much time studying the white paper on unemployment insurance. It is a pleasure for me to make some comments at second reading stage of this new act. Last June the white paper on unemployment insurance was referred to our committee, and later that month the committee issued an invitation for briefs on the subject from all interested individuals and organizations. The committee began its hearings in Ottawa in mid-September during the summer recess and continued until early November. Thirty-six meetings were held and we heard the presentations of 33 organizations representing management, labour and the new groups of employers and employees which it was proposed to insure for the first time.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and Unemployment Insurance officials were heard and questioned by our committee on many different occasions. After numerous in-camera sessions by the steering committee and the whole committee, and with the reliable assistance of our consultant professor, Mr. Gilles Paquet, and our committee clerk, Mrs. Santosh Sirpaul, the committee reported to the House of Commons last December 18.
I would like to thank all members of the committee who devoted so much time to this study last fall. I am sure they will find it a very viable background for a clause by clause study of this bill when it is referred to us after second reading. In particular I would like to thank my vice-chairman, the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault), the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) who spent much time in discussion and in drafting our committee's report.
While our committee's proceedings were not as nonpartisan as those of another committee in which I have spent much time, namely, the Committee on Veterans Affairs, we have been able to get along quite well and I believe I am very fortunate in being chairman of such a conscientious, hard working and courteous group of Members of Parliament.
During our extensive hearings a few particular aspects of the unemployment insurance proposals were raised frequently. I would like to deal with some of them in the short time I have tonight, and tomorrow. First of all, I suppose that the basic question was whether we should

April 19, 1971

have as universal a coverage as possible. As hon. members know, the legislation proposes covering all employees except the self-employed, with the exception of a very small group that will be exempted mainly because their earnings are either too casual or too intermittent in nature.
Our committee heard groups such as the Canadian School Trustees Association, the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, the International Association of Firefighters, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Teachers Federation, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service in Canada, which represented a great many of the 1,200,000 new employees to be insured for the first time. The briefs from these associations, on universal coverage, varied from that of the Canadian Teachers Federation, which was against it, to the Canadian Nurses Association which favoured the concept.
I think many of us have always thought that nurses had one of the most secure professions in the world, that they could move anywhere and easily pick up a job because of the high demand for their services. I believe our committee members were astounded to hear that nurses were unemployed in some parts of the country, particularly in some of our cities. So they saw the proposal to give nurses unemployment insurance coverage as being of real benefit to the 50,000 nurses in Canada.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) a question concerning the sailors' monument which looks out over the Atlantic from the south end of Halifax. This monument was built a few years ago by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in co-operation with the Royal Canadian Naval Association. It had previously reposed on Citadel Hill, but because the hill was shifting and they could not get a firm foundation, it had to be taken down to more level land. For some years the Royal Canadian Naval Association has paid the light bill to keep the monument lighted. Now the association has indicated it can no longer pay this bill which I think is in the amount of approximately $1,500 a year.
On February 22 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) or his parliamentary secretary, on the "late
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion show"-this mystic hour to which all Ottawa flocks-whether the Department of Transport could use the light on this memorial as a beacon which would be of help to shipping. I must report that the department was kind enough to check out the request. Unfortunately, it decided that the light could not fill the purpose of a beacon. So now I try again, with the Department of Veterans Affairs to keep this memorial fight alive.
The minister gave his answer earlier today. Since he and I are very civilized people, I will not quarrel with the answer he gave and will not even try to repeat it, because he will give it in a few minutes and we will have it on record, but more amplified than the answer he gave in the question period. I have to accept his answer in good faith, because I put to him a question some weeks ago and he and his department were good enough to look into it and to give a serious response. But I am left with the fact that there is no answer regarding keeping this memorial light going.
It is a fact that 24 naval vessels were lost in the various battles of the Second World War in which Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy engaged-these battles being primarily in the Atlantic, some in the Mediterranean and one at least in the Pacific-and that 1,981 members of the Royal Canadian Navy lost their lives in these battles. I presume that most of them lost their lives in the Atlantic. For those facts I used as a source the Encyclopedia Canadiana, at page 380.
To put my request in a final sentence, Mr. Speaker, if the minister indicates that the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot take this on as a national monument-my argument has been that for the 1,981 men who lost their fives in the Atlantic Ocean, this memorial at the south end of Halifax is in fact their gravestone-and undertake its perpetual lighting, I shall turn to the Department of National Defence and finally to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development because of the historic site connotation; and if these three steps fail I will turn toward setting up some kind of private trust.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, as I said this afternoon in reply to the question put by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), I can well understand the interest which he has in this monument. I believe that the Halifax memorial is a very impressive one and I know it means much to many people in the Halifax area and elsewhere. This monument was erected jointly by the government of Canada and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in 1967. The land for the monument was provided by the Point Pleasant Park Commission and the monument was built near the site upon which the original memorial was erected following the First World War.
The floodlighting of the memorial was arranged by the Royal Canadian Naval Association in conjunction with the Point Pleasant Park Commission. At that time, in 1967, it was pointed out to the association that it was not within the authority of the Commonwealth War Graves

April 19, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Commission to instal floodlighting at memorials and crosses of sacrifice. There are some 22 crosses of sacrifice throughout Canada and no provision has been made for the floodlighting of any of them.
As I said this afternoon in reply to the hon. member's question, there are no funds provided in my department for this purpose. It has always been felt that local initiative could be enrolled and should be enrolled for this type of embellishment, thus creating more local interest in the memorial. I am sure that the hon. member, with his power of persuasion and his very civilized manner
which I regard very highly, could succeed in enlisting the support of local veterans' associations and community associations. I am sure this would be a great source of satisfaction to himself as well as stimulating local interest in the monument-not only in the monument but in the supreme sacrifice of those to whom it was erected. If the hon. member wishes to tackle other departments on the subject I can only wish him good luck, but my advice is that he should try to enlist local support.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.06 p.m.

Tuesday, April 20, 1971