1971-06-11

NEW MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificates of the election and return of Claude G. Lajoie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Trois-Rivieres, and Elmer M. MacKay, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Central Nova.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in the two official languages-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the outcome of a Canada-United States ministerial meeting on Great Lakes pollution which was held in Washington yesterday, and which was attended by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and myself, along with Mr. Kerr, Ontario Minister of Energy and Resources Management, and by Dr. Victor Goldbloom, minister responsible for environmental quality in the Quebec government. The United States government was represented by a cabinet level delegation headed by Mr. Russell Train, who is the chairman of the council on environmental quality, and Mr. William Ruckelshaus, the head of the environmental protection agency; the United States delegation also included senior representatives of the Great Lakes states governments.
At our meeting yesterday we agreed that Canada and the United States should conclude a formal agreement which would have the objective of cleaning up the Great Lakes and protecting them in the future. We also reached general agreement on the contents of this agreement, on the basis of recommendations by a joint working group which was established by a first ministerial meeting on Great Lakes problems held in Ottawa last June. We
agreed that negotiations should begin right away on the precise text of this agreement, in the expectation that it can be ready for signature in the early autumn.
The decisions we reached yesterday reflect the determination of the governments concerned, at the federal, province and state levels, to take action to deal with the critical pollution situation in many areas of the Great Lakes, especially in Lake Erie and its connecting waterways. The proposed agreement will be solidly based on extensive scientific investigations by the International Joint Commission, and on recommendations submitted by the commission in a report which was tabled in the House in January.
This agreement will establish common water quality objectives which will be based on objectives proposed by the International Joint Commission. On the basis of these common objectives, the governments concerned will establish compatible and legally enforceable standards; and they will also commit themselves to carry out the pollution control programs and other measures to achieve the common objectives within agreed time periods. These programs will include accelerated municipal and industrial pollution control programs; the reduction of phosphorus inputs, which is causing particularly serious problems in Lake Erie; the elimination of mercury and other toxic heavy metals from discharges; control of thermal pollution and pollution from radioactive wastes; control of pollution from pesticides and the development of controls for pollution from combined sewer overflows.
This agreement will also provide for effective and compatible regulations throughout the whole Great Lakes system designed to reduce the risk of pollution from shipping and land transportation, including regulations to control waste discharges by ships. The International Joint Commission will be requested to conduct an intensive investigation into pollution from agriculture, forestry and other land source pollution and to create new arrangements for the better co-ordination of water quality research.
The International Joint Commission will be given additional responsibility and authority in the surveillance of the water quality in the Great Lakes and the control of programs of all the governments concerned. The commission will be requested to make recommendations to the governments on the improvement of their pollution control legislation and programs. We agreed to provide the International Joint Commission with the additional staff and other resources it will need to carry out its expanded role.
At our meeting yesterday we also announced a number of co-operative measures which will be put into effect immediately. These include a new joint contingency plan which could be implemented quickly in the event of a

June 11, 1971
Great Lakes Pollution
major spill of oil or other hazardous substances. Under this new joint plan the national plans of each country and the Ontario contingency plan will be co-ordinated, so that there will be a joint response to any emergency situation under procedures and arrangements agreed in advance. It was also agreed yesterday that the International Joint Commission should be requested to make a thorough study of pollution problems in Lake Huron and Lake Superior, similar to their recently completed study of the lower lakes pollution problems.
This proposed agreement on Great Lakes water quality should lead to an early improvement in the condition of Great Lakes water, especially in the lower lakes area. The United States will be assuming firm commitments to carry out by 1975 accelerated municipal and industrial control programs, and these programs should greatly reduce the extensive transboundary pollution which exists in many areas. These programs will require expenditures for pollution abatement by the United States many times larger than on the Canadian side.
It will, however, be necessary to accelerate municipal and industrial programs on the Canadian side, particularly in the lower lakes area, so that by 1975 our programs in Ontario will be adequate to achieve the agreed common water quality objectives. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Kerr, because the implementation of many of the Canadian commitments under the proposed Canada-United States agreement will be the joint responsibility of the federal government and the government of Ontario. We have agreed that the apportionment of responsibility among the Canadian government, the government of Ontario and the municipalities concerned for financing the required accelerated program of improvements to municipal sewage treatment facilities in the lower lakes area will be the subject of a detailed agreement to be negotiated between the Canadian government and the government of Ontario. These negotiations will commence right away, since we shall need to conclude our agreement with Ontario before entering into the proposed agreement with the United States next autumn.
It was the view of all who participated at our meeting yesterday that the proposed agreement and the other measures we announced represent a comprehensive and positive response to the recommendations of the International Joint Commission. It will be a precedent for the two countries in dealing with other environmental problems along our boundary, and it will also be a model for other countries in attempting to control pollution across international borders.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to table the joint communique which was issued at the conclusion of our meeting in Washington yesterday.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by welcoming the minister back from his Washington tour. It is a long time since we have seen the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), however. I should like to commend the minister for the promptness with which he reported on this
matter to Parliament. I think this is the way ministers should relate themselves to this chamber.
I also say that we join in approval of the declaration of intent which followed this meeting and we look forward to the more concrete and precise statements which the minister has outlined in this program.
I note with some little concern that there was some imbalance in the joint talks. The minister uses the expression "cabinet level delegation". I had thought the minister would be meeting with ministers of the United States government, but that was not the case.
I note no projection concerning the cost of this program, and this matter will concern us, but I do commend the steps that have been taken by this government, the government of Ontario and the United States. I do hope-that the minister's forecast that something will be done soon will be borne out. This will be an extremely difficult job; much has to be done. I think it was very wise to-give the International Joint Commission greater authority, greater scope of action and, of course, additional trained and qualified personnel in this new and very important role which they must carry through.
I am sorry, however, that this meeting which was-designed to be a high level discussion on the TAPS route apparently took no cognizance of that very important matter. We were told on May 17 and on May 26, despite the Prime Minister's lapse of memory yesterday, that there would be a ministerial discussion on June 10 on the TAPS route. I find not a single reference to TAPS in the minister's statement nor in the communique. I wonder whether, instead of accusing the member for Hillsborough of having a lapse of memory the government itself is losing interest in this very important matter. The government has failed to fulfil a firm commitment given, in the House to discuss the TAPS route. We are allowed to gather from the press inferentially that tacked on at the end of the formal discussions the matter was mentioned in an informal way. This is not sufficient for a problem of such great concern as the trans-Alaska pipeline route with all its potential hazards to the people and the coast of British Columbia.
On this matter I take exception, express concern, voice alarm and say to the minister charged with this matter, who is from British Columbia, that it should have been taken up and that the government of British Columbia should have been represented at that part of the meeting just as the governments of other provinces were represented on those matters dealing with the Great Lakes. The government is remiss in this regard. I think it must take seriously the question of the TAPS route, get its ministers together soon, outline its policy, make a statement in the House and then go vigorously to Washington and present the point of view of the Canadian government and the Canadian people on the terrible dangers of the proposed TAPS route. For this omission I criticize the minister most severely.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of our group welcome the report the minister has given the House on the conference held yesterday

June 11, 1971

with representatives of the United States in connection with the problem of pollution on the Great Lakes. It is very encouraging that the talks have progressed at least to the point where it is expected that a formal *agreement will be signed this fall in respect of measures to be taken to clean up the pollution in this great waterway.
There are one or two points on which I should like to have clar.fication from the minister some time within the next few days. 1 note in the press release that the committee yesterday agreed to accept most of the recommendations of the International Joint Commission which were made last December, its report having been presented to us last January. I should like the minister to tell us some t.me before the end of June which of these recommendations were not acceptable to the committee because somet mes such recommendations are extremely important. I think Canadians are entitled to know which of the recommendations did not meet with general acceptance by the two groups which met yesterday.
As I looked over the report of the International Joint Commission very quickly to refresh my memory, I noted that the commission pointed out very clearly that one of the keys to keeping the Great Lakes free of pollution was control over the rivers and the streams running into the Great Likes from the states and the provinces bordering the lakes. They pointed out that controls must be exercised over the rivers and streams running into these great bodies of water. In this regard provincial jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the various states that border the Great Lakes are involved. If anything crystal clear [DOT]came out of the meeting held yesterday and the recommendations which the minister read to the House today, it is that we must have national standards for Canada and strong international standards which must be enforced nationally. The states bordering the Great Lakes cannot be allowed to carry on their own enforcement. The whole area is involved in the pollution problem and one body must exercise some kind of authority in regard to enforcement throughout the whole area. I point out that there is a lesson here for members of the House that we have to progress nationally and make sure that standards are set up which can be enforced in such a manner as to cure the pollution problems in the Great Lakes.
I should like to make one comment on the remarks made by the speaker for the official opposition on the TAPS program and the proposed tanker route down the west coast of Canada. I feel that some reference should have been made to this vital and important problem. It is one which the government must tackle without delay. I hope the government will take a firm stand and present its views to the United States government before an agreement is reached which will allow the TAPS line to be built across Alaska and the establishment of a tanker route down the west coast of North America. We hope we will have some information on this matter before the end of June.
That is all I have to say. Again I should like to commend the minister and the group who went to Washing-
Disturbance in Kingston Women's Prison
ton. It is encouraging to see that at least we are making progress in this regard.


Mr, Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate this statement from the Minister of Fisheries to the effect that an agreement has been signed between the United States and Canada. In my view, this agreement is a striking example of co-operation between neighbouring nations on a very current problem, pollution. We are not talking about pollution of streams but rather about pollution of major inland waters, like the Greak Lakes and, hence, probably the great St. Lawrence River which flows through the whole of the province of Quebec.
It was a pleasure to hear the minister say that the Quebec government had delegated Dr. Victor Goldbloom as its representative at the meetings. I regret however that Ontario was not represented at that conference, for Ontario actually borders extensively on the Great Lakes.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this agreement, I am sure, will help in cleaning up our Canadian waters and will tend to protect our waterways from the pollution which we are currently faced with.
Therefore, we welcome this announcement and we urge the minister and the government to pursue their activities along these lines so that Canadian waters may be cleaned up.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The immediacy of the motion is sparked by the disturbance, yesterday and Wednesday, in the Kingston Penitentiary for Women. Of that disturbance this House knows only what members have read in the papers and heard on the air, but it is only the latest in a series of riots that have erupted with frightening regularity in our prisons. They have brought with them death and destruction. I think that surely in a civilized society, ruled by the standards of religion and morality, all people should be treated with justice and fairness. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be authorized to visit our prison institutions, in particular the Kingston Penitentiary for Women, Kingston Penitentiary and Millhaven, to question prisoners and members of the staffs, and to make such other inquiries as to the committee seem necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. Under

June 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion requires unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Peters:: May I ask who objected?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a point of order. It has nothing to do with this motion. It is a suggestion more than a point of order, and Your Honour might be interested in it. Because of the extension of the hours of sitting, if a member wants to move a motion under Standing Order 26 and has to give the necessary two hours' notice, it is almost impossible to get the notice ready that day.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Oh, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe not, but it is next to impossible. Mr. Speaker also has other duties to attend to. In the circumstances I wonder whether the notice could be shortened to one hour during periods when the hours of sitting are extended. I throw out that suggestion for consideration with the thought that the House might agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the suggestion made by the hon. member on a point of order might be considered by the party representatives, the House leaders, who apparently meet from day to day.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What reaction did the government express yesterday to the offer of the Japanese delegation who visited Ottawa to build a plant in Canada to produce enriched uranium at a cost of $14 million, and does the government expect that such a plant will be built in Canada in the reasonably near future?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was not present when the subject was discussed. I have a feeling that the subject was raised in the afternoon when the businessmen's mission met with officials of the Canadian government. I would like to remind the hon. member that this is a businessmen's group and is not negotiating on behalf of the government of Japan.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, having had some experience in dealing with businessmen's groups and finding them far
more satisfactory to deal with usually than government delegations, and especially knowing that any delegation from Japan speaks with the authority of that government on a matter of this importance, would the minister look into this most important offer and advise the House as to the reaction of the Canadian government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to communicate the opinion of the hon. member on the operations of the government of Japan to the government of Japan.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, having done that, would the minister do his best to see that this matter is proceeded with as quickly as possible?



ITINERARY FOR FORTHCOMING VISIT OF RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGICAL DELEGATION, NAMES OF OFFICIALS TO BE VISITED, SUBJECTS TO BE DISCUSSED

Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister give the House the itinerary for the forthcoming visit of the Russian technological delegation, their program, the names of the officials they will be visiting, and the subject matters for discussion?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will try to see what I can do on this subject. There is nothing secretive about it. A number of working groups have been constituted. Some have already met. Others will be meeting in the coming months and in the fall. I will try to see if I can provide the information in further detail.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the minister also check to see who is going to pick whose brains?



DEVELOPMENT OF PIPELINE AND NATURAL RESOURCE


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the announced intentions of development of pipelines and natural resource industries I should like to ask the minister whether he is working on a policy to plan the distribution of various kinds of investment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the purpose of the Canada-U.S.S.R. agreement, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister has indicated on a number of occasions, the Soviets know things that we do not, while we know things better than they do. The purpose of the working groups is to bring together this information. On the basis of this information decisions will be taken by the proper departments and the proper ministers on what course of action to take in the future on each one of these items, and pipelines will be one of them.

June 11, 1971


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a communication from Prime Minister Gandhi of India requesting him to approach personally the government of Pakistan with a view to promoting a political settlement and, if possible, mounting a massive and co-ordinated relief operation in East Pakistan as well as in West Bengal?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I have received no recent communication on this subject, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister does receive such a communication would he be willing, of course with the consent of the government of Pakistan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that the question as asked is hypothetical. I would not think that in those terms it would be in order.
4	4

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: My question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister been made aware of severe problems facing a group of Canadians, former residents of Springhill, who are employed by a coal mining firm in Pennsylvania, have worked there for one year and have now been informed by the United States immigration and naturalization service that they must leave the United States by June 30?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question on behalf of the minister, Mr. Speaker. I have not been notified personally.


Robert Carman Coates: If I send over a copy of the correspondence I have, would the Prime Minister be willing to forward it to the Department of External Affairs to see what can be done to assist these people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Does the Minister have further information regarding the coming closing down of Chemcell in Montmagny? Is there any possibility that the company can continue its operation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new about keeping the plant in operation. The only significant development is the fact that the Textile and Clothing Board has agreed that the employees of the plant be eligible for social benefits provided in the legislation on textiles with which I believe my hon. friend to be familiar.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of the fact that the provincial government has, now I believe, brought forward suggestions for use of the plant in another kind of production? Is the minister now in touch with Quebec provincial authorities in this regard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not personally, Mr. Speaker, but it may be that my officials are involved in that operation. I will look into it and will of course do everything possible for such co-operation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Would the Meaford tank range be one of the areas the minister had under consideration when he offered to provide training facilities for NATO militia in Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: No, Sir.


Percy Verner Noble: A supplementary question. Does the government have any plans to release any defence property in Canada to War Assets Corporation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there are large quantities of assets, both mobile and land, which from time to time are declared surplus and are transferred. It is very difficult to answer in any general sense the hon. member's question.



INVENTORY OF EQUIPMENT NOT IN USE-STATEMENT ON PROPOSED DISPOSALS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary. Has the Minister of National Defence or his colleague made a complete inventory of all equipment not being used and is it possible to have a statement in reference to equipment that is going to be disposed of and in what manner it is going to be disposed of to save the taxpayers' money?

June 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Do we have an inventory of equipment? Yes. Do we have a good indication what we will be using and what we will not be? Subject only to the white paper on defence policy, the answer would be, in general terms, yes. As to when the hon. member can get a statement as to equipment currently up for disposal, I would see no difficulty in that but it would fall under the responsibility of my colleague who is responsible for the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.



PENITENTIARIES


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he is prepared to make a brief
statement to the House regarding the disturbance in the women's section of the Kingston Penitentiary and the orders or instructions that were given that warranted the use of tear gas in this disturbance involving a number of women?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, when minor troubles broke out, 93 women were detained at K ngston; nine of them, for reasons still unknown, decided to cause trouble by refusing to get back into their cells. Finally, they re-entered their cells during the night between Wednesday and Thursday. On Thursday morning, they decided not to eat or leave their cells. Gas was used on the order of the prison superintendent. In the end, one of the women came out and joined the population, another one had self-inflicted injuries and was sent to the hospital; the seven others are in isolation cells, and the situation is entirely under control.



KINGSTON-DISTURBANCE IN WOMEN'S PRISON-RIGHT OF INMATES TO WRITE TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether his staff have instructed that some of these women be kept in solitary confinement and have instructions gone out from his office-and I am informed that they have-that no prisoner can write to Members of Parliament about complaints? I should like to find out these facts.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether those women keep their privileges. I shall inquire.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I might have an answer to the second part, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister instructed the wardens of the various penitentiaries that no longer can prisoners correspond with Members of Parliament and even may be denied the right to correspond with
their lawyers? I am asking the question because I have had information.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. Today, hon. members will receive a letter advising them that from June 15 on, prisoners will be allowed to write directly to all members, without their letters being opened. Naturally, hon. members will be able to do the same.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the statement that the minister has just made indicating that he believes there should be free correspondence between those in penitentiary and Members of Parliament, does he not agree that it is a rather idiotic process if members are not allowed to visit these people? I am sure he is in the same position, that there is absolutely no point in a member gett ng a lot of mail if he is not in a position to know what to do about it. The visits that members made to the penitentiary were an integral part of our responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North on a supplementary.



USE OF HANDCUFFS AND LEG IRONS ON INMATES APPEARING IN COURT

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether it is government policy that prisoners who have to appear in court, such as those who were charged as a result of the riot, have to have manacles on their wrists and ankles in moving from prison to court?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I find it as hateful as the hon. member, but circumstances are such that we must take security measures. In the case at hand, in view of the number of prisoners and the accusations made, the authorities of the institution felt it advisable to use those methods.



KINGSTON-CLOSURE OF WOMEN'S PRISON AS RECOMMENDED BY OUIMET COMMISSION

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. When will the minister be implementing the recommendation of the Ouimet report that the women's prison at Kingston be closed?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, 58 of the 118 recommendations of the Ouimet report are already in force. As for that one, it is now under consideration and gives rise to many problems, but I hope that we will soon find a solution.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Obviously that means another study.
[Mr. Woolliams.)
June 11, 1971



POLLUTION


Mr. Waller Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister responsible for the environment. In view of the minister's statement this morning, has he any estimate of the cost of the clean-up of the Great Lakes? If so, what proportion of that cost will be borne by Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my statement earlier today, the cost to the United States will be many times the cost which has to be shouldered by Canadians. The detailed report, published last year by the International Joint Commission, suggested that the cost to the United States would be between six and seven times the cost to Canada of this clean-up.



PROPOSED TAPS OIL TANKER ROUTE-PRESENTATION OF CANADIAN POSITION AT WASHINGTON MEETING

Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the discussions in Washington during the last couple of days, was the Canadian government's position on the TAPS line and the oil tanker route down the west coast of British Columbia taken up? If so, with what result?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this question was taken up by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He and I talked with Secretary of State Rogers yesterday for some time. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be back in the House on Monday and he will report on this subject.



AIR-CONTROL PLANS FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO-DISCUSSION AT WASHINGTON MEETING

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Keni):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The report of the minister dealt almost exclusively with water pollution. Were any plans discussed, or what plans does the government have, for the control of air pollution in southern Ontario, 90 per cent of which, according to various estimates, is caused by our neighbours to the south? Was this matter discussed?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at some length. It was decided, however, in respect of the agreement for the fall, that we confine our attention to water. A report is expected this summer from the International Joint Commission dealing with air pollution problems in the Detroit and Windsor areas. When that report has been received we shall have an opportunity to set up similar working groups and perhaps end up with a similar international agreement for action.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROPOSED TAPS OIL TANKER ROUTE-POSSIBLE STUDY BY INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION-DISCUSSION AT WASHINGTON

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, was the possibility discussed of the International Joint Commission being charged with a study of oil pollution in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia, similar to the studies it is carrying on with respect to the Great Leakes, with a view to having such study presented to the United States Department of the Interior's analysis of the Prudhoe Bay to Valdez to Puget Sound oil tanker route?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this subject was not discussed formally. However, it is a possible development and one which should be considered carefully.


David Anderson: With regard to the joint U.S.-Canada oil spill contingency plan for the Great Lakes which the minister mentioned in his statement and said was designed to work in advance of problems, was there discussion also about extending this plan to include Canada's west coast as well as the east coast?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, again the answer is no. The discussions yesterday related to the specific recommendations of the International Joint Commission and embodying these specific recommendations respecting the Great Lakes in a formal document to be signed this fall. However, outside the meeting there were references to the extension of arrangements of this kind to other areas along the boundary with the United States.



GREAT LAKES-AGREEMENT WITH ONTARIO ON SHARING OF COST OF CLEAN-UP

Randolph Harding: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the federal government and the province of Ontario discussed the costsharing in connection with problems they will meet in the pollution clean-up?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was necessary to have an agreement in principle with Ontario before we went to the meeting in Washington yesterday. However, the details of this agreement which involve finance will now have to be hammered out. We agreed on the basic principles. The precise dollar figures have to be arrived at.



PROPOSED TAPS OIL TANKER ROUTE-DISCUSSION AT WASHINGTON MEETING

George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When such an excellent opportunity presented itself for discussing the TAPS route with the United States Secretary of State, why did the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Canadian minister in charge of pollution and the gentle-

June 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
men in the United States in charge of the program not take advantage of this opportunity to proceed with discussions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is more in the form of argument. If I did not interpret the hon. member's question correctly, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, my earlier answer was that the question was discussed with Secretary of State Rogers. I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be reporting on this as well as on other matters on Monday when he returns to the House.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the discussions which the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs had with Secretary of State Rogers, since the minister himself is charged with the responsibility for dealing with the environment can he tell the House, first, whether the Canadian government asked the American government to abandon the TAPS program? Second, has the government received any indication at all that the American government is prepared to reconsider this program, or has a final decision been made with respect to it?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, these are important questions. However, I would prefer to leave the answer to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will be here on Monday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: During these discussions did the minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs make any representations regarding any future nuclear testing on Amchitka Island?


John (Jack) Davis: No, to my knowledge there were no representations on that subject, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the export of our leaf tobacco brings $60 million in foreign exchange and since the legislation introduced yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare dealt a body blow to the tobacco industry, what steps will the minister be prepared to take to minimize the effect of this over-restrictive legislation on the normal production and marketing of a legitimate product?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is perhaps in the form of argument, but as the matter is important the minister might be allowed to reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this matter could be debated fully when the bill is debated in the House.


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


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: I should like to put a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Joliette.

The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster rises on a point of order.


Mr. Bell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare made a statement, not in the House but outside, on a matter that will affect the tobacco industry for many years to come. We have absolutely no way of getting at it. Surely the minister, as a courtesy to the tobacco farmers, should say something so that we will know what their position is.


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


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask-


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Joliette a second time, but there is another point of order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the minister made it clear yesterday that this bill would be proceeded with in the fall, three months from now. This is a vitally important question for some very important producers in Canada, and it is an insult to them and to the country to suggest that they have to wait three months for the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SUGGESTED MEETING OF MINISTER AND COMPANY


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that I am having many troubles with the conservative members!
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the cigarette industry is concerned because of measures announced yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and considering the economic consequences it may suffer, would the minister tell the House whether he intends to meet as soon as possible

June 11, 1971

with the leaders of this industry so as to avoid any misunderstanding which might arise between the latter and the government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if Freud were here, he would find that we are all a bit ambivalent. I was listening this morning to a statement by a spokesman for the tobacco industry to the effect that the act would not change anything. So, it will be the one or the other: things will change or they will not! If the industry states that not much will be changed, then I do not see why we should worry unduly.
But in this case we shall continue, until the bill is studied in the House, to apply our present policy. My department will maintain its efforts to help the sale of tobacco outside Canada, and I imagine that the companies will do as much to sell it on the Canadian market.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he could save the lives of many Canadians who could be harmed by nicotine?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question was for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who was supposed to be here today according to the information provided by the government. In his absence may I direct it to the acting minister who may wish to take notice of it. In light of information that an agreement was made at the regional level with the Union of Nova Scotia Indians that funds would be provided to the union for another six months to enable a study of economic development on Indian reserves in that province to be continued, and in view of that fact that the union has now been advised that these funds have been cut off, would the minister be good enough to investigate this problem immediately and ascertain whether corrective action can be taken to replace these funds?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: will be glad to bring this question to the notice of the minister and get a reply as soon as possible.



NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION


Thomas Miller Bell: My question is for the minister in charge of housing. In my effort to get some information on the E. B. Eddy plant I asked 24107-681
Inquiries of the Ministry
questions on June 3 and 8 about this matter of both the minister responsible for housing and the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry but received negative answers. May I ask the minister responsible for housing whether the plans which have been noted in the papers for the E. B. Eddy plant will now go forward in any shape or form and, if not, why not?


Robert Knight Andras: made a fairly elaborate statement on this matter before a standing committee of the House the other day. I will simply say we have held some discussions about the Eddy plant. There are no deadlines for action at this stage, and there really is nothing further I can tell the hon. member.


Thomas Miller Bell: In other words, there was a lot of hot air blowing over from Hull.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two-way.



POLLUTION


Randolph Harding: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will the International Joint Commission be given all the expanded powers necessary to oversee pollution control activities on the Great Lakes?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the refugee and cholera crisis in India and the need for OXFAM to make an emergency public appeal for greater voluntary contributions in Canada, is the government itself considering providing further financial assistance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall have to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I announced the other day some steps which have been taken in this direction. I do not know whether any further action has been taken since then.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the Prime Minister consider suggesting to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he make a statement on motions on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will discuss it with him, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS

June 11, 1971


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I should like to have directed my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but he is not in the House today. Perhaps the acting minister or another member of the cabinet might take it as notice. It concerns the great interest shown by a large number of Canadians in the opportunity being presented to them to view the famous Lippizan stallions. My question concerns a rumour that the animals being presented in Canada may not, in fact, be from Europe or belong to this famous breed. Would the Minister of Consumer Affairs have his staff investigate the advertisements regarding these public events in order to evaluate the veracity of the claims which are being made?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall call the minister's attention to this matter.



Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him how his investigation of the Ascot arms case is progressing? Has he yet ascertained the identity of the arms?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have not identified them yet. We have no information from the British authorities on what source they emanated from and what the types are.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport in the absence of the minister. On May 25 I asked the Minister of Transport a question concerning the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in cutting out pass privileges for its employees and pensioners. The minister said he would make representations about this matter. Have these representations yet been successful?


Hon. James Richardson (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is away on government business but he has asked me to reply on his behalf on the basis of a statement which was received this morning from the CPR. The statement is to the effect
that the CPR has decided to reinstate pass and half-fare transportation privileges for pensioners, widows and employees who wish to travel on The Canadian. The move revokes a previous decision made public May 10, 1971, which would have cancelled the transportation privileges on The Canadian beginning June 15. Naturally the Minister of Transport and the government are very pleased with this action by the company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of this welcome success which the government has had with the CPR, will the Minister of Transport continue his efforts to get the company to give a better deal to its retired
employees in the matter of their pensions?



INDUSTRY


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask the minister whether he will be making a statement before the end of the session on the findings of the Textile Review Board so that we may assess exactly what they are doing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think so, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he would report to the House on the meeting he had with the Minister of Mines of Nova Scotia on the extinguishing of the mine dump fire at Springhill, Nova Scotia. Is the hon. gentleman now in a position to answer that question?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 

THE CENSUS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question with reference to the census. I am advised that the census has been extended to students in high schools and elementary schools. Why is this being done when their parents have completed their forms at home? Is this a check on the parents? What is the reason for taking a separate census from students in schools?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Students who are so asked to fill census forms must know that their parents have already done so, and should answer accordingly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I take it, then, that students have the right to refuse to answer these questions which appear to be checking up on the answers given by their parents?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Similarly some hon. members of this House were telling me that they received a questionnaire both at their official address and at their home address and they asked me which one they should fill out. Obviously the answer is where they live in normal times and that is a decision they have to take.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are normal times?
* * #



NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON AGREEMENT FOR UNLIMITED ACCESS OF CANADIAN CRUDE OIL

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the suggestion by President Nixon that negotiations should begin with the Canadian government regarding unlimited access of Canadian crude oil to the United States. I want to ask the minister whether any negotiations have begun or whether he has received any intimation from the government of the United States as to what such an agreement might contain?


John James Greene: Discussions have been going on for some months at the official level and they are continuing. I have nothing to report at this time but I feel quite sure that they will progress satisfactorily as the President of the United States has envisaged.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the decision to drop the restrictions on Canadian oil to United States markets is a unilateral one, what is involved in the agreement which is being discussed? Are there other energy resources or commodities under discussion as a quid pro quo for allowing Canadian oil to enter the United States market?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think I said to the House previously that Canada's position in the discussions has at all times been that the unilateral restriction by the United States was unwarranted and benefited neither country. We have been attempting to persuade the United States equally that their total embargo on uranium is also an unwarranted restriction on trade between our two countries.



DISCUSSIONS ON SHARING OF RESOURCES WITH UNITED STATES-ACCESS TO AMERICAN MARKET FOR MANUFACTURED GOODS

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question that is supplementary to the earlier question asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his discussions with the United States on the sharing of energy resources, has the minister made it a condition for Canada entering into an agreement that we have access to the U.S. market for our manufactured goods?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there has been no discussion at any time with the United States on the sharing of energy resources. The subject of the discussions has been that there be free and unfettered opportunities for trade.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his discussions with the United States on free and unfettered opportunities for trade, has he asked the United States to consider the removal of their tariff barriers on Canadian manufactured goods?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, tariff negotiations do not take place specifically within the ambit of bargaining for removal of restrictions on trade in respect of energy resources, but certainly this is a very interesting suggestion and one that will probably be pursued in the future.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has declared that the government is committed to proposing a foreign investment policy. My question is: Is the Gray report now going to be made public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as the Gray report. The minister is going to propose in a memorandum to cabinet certain positions for discussion by the government, and the government will announce its policy in due course.

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government had any success at all in persuading anybody to take over the presidency of the Canada Development Corporation?
I should like to ask a supplementary question since I do not seem able to get an answer. Obviously there has been no success, even after about 25 tries. Has the government given consideration to upping the salary from the proposed $75,000, which has had no takers, to $100,000 so as to try to get the government out of the very embarrassing position in which it finds itself?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question that is supplementary to the question asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings of the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the present Minister of Finance will not "pull a Pickersgillian" and take the position of manager of the Canada Development Corporation?



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is not with us this morning, but because of its importance perhaps I could address it to the acting minister or to a member of the treasury benches who is concerned about this matter. In view of the fact that the proposed increase in first class postal rates amounts to a 100 per cent increase in the cost of local mail delivery since this government took office in 1968, has this matter been referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission for their approval in view of its inflationary impact?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the minister will certainly give an answer to the hon. member in due time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 10, consideration of Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the
Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose last evening motion No. 9 had been disposed of. The House will now proceed to motion No. 10, standing in the name of the Minister of Labour. Mr. Mackasey-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is he?


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Greene, for Mr. Mackasey-


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that this motion stand and that we proceed to the next motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is coming in now, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's intervention is very useful.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour) moved:: That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by striking out lines 30 to 32, inclusive, at page 19 and substituting therefor the following:
"section 46,
(c)	payment was retained under subsection (3) of section 49, or
(d)	he was fully employed during such period."


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the motion?


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister will give us some clarification as to the need for the amendment. As Your Honour knows, we have been pursuing this bill with some vigour in committee, so I hope the minister will inform the House what he is attempting to do through this amendment, for the edification of hon. members.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is entitled to an explanation of my reason for making this particular amendment. It arises from discussions and debate in the committee, and particularly as a result of some of the representations made by the members of the committee that resulted from the brief presented by the United Auto workers. If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, in establishing the period of 29 weeks-


Mr. McCulcheon:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the microphone at the minister's desk is not functioning properly. I wonder whether the rules could be changed to allow the minister to go to another desk so that we can hear what he has to say. I am sure all hon. members are interested in his words.


Mr. Speaker:: trouble, I am sure all hon. members want to hear his
remarks and will allow him to speak from another desk.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this point on several occasions. Perhaps we should return to the good old days when the microphones were above us. We did get into the definition of a speaker yesterday, and I was embarrassed about it. I am sure it left the Chair embarrassed as well. I will try again if it helps. I was mentioning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see from the reaction of hon. members that apparently they have the same difficulty. I am sure it would be easier if the minister were allowed to speak from another desk and to try another microphone. Then, we can determine whether it is the microphone or the voice of the minister that is causing the trouble.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can assure the House it is not a Freudian slip, Mr. Speaker, it is just an order from the boss. I am getting further and further from the left, and I can see I am going to be influenced all afternoon by the very positive force opposite.
During the committee hearings the United Auto Workers pointed out what they thought was an anomaly in the act. This was after we had discussed the exercise of the 15 weeks' benefits over a period of 29 weeks. There was also some discussion of the period being terminated after four weeks without claim. It was presumed, of course, that the individual would have been working or some thing of this nature.
As a result of that discussion in committee, it occurred to the department and to my staff that we were unintentionally penalizing certain workers or creating a situation where certain people in the work force could be penalized. As you are aware, the major attachment claim entitlement is three weeks' payment, then 12 weeks and then 10 weeks for a total of 25 weeks' benefits. The first 15 weeks can be drawn over a period of 29 weeks. After that period, the 10 weeks' entitlement must be drawn consecutively, and I think we all agree with this. However, this section provides for four weeks in this period for which no benefits are paid, and then the individual must re-establish a claim. That is, he must prove a minimum of eight weeks' attachment. This is what the United Auto Workers complained about and suggested could, in fact, be a disincentive to work. The effect of the amendment that I am proposing, with the unanimous consent of the House, of course, would be to withdraw this restriction; that is, first where the individual was fully employed during that period or where no payment was due to previous overpayments. What we are saying in effect is that if you are not drawing unemployment insurance for four weeks as a result of working, you are not penalized by having to re-establish your claim, thus losing your two weeks' benefits.
An hon. member for the opposition pointed this out to me a week or so ago, and I think he was quite right. Consequently, this would be a disadvantage. So a worker who had an opportunity while unemployed and drawing
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 insurance benefits to pick up four weeks' work would have the tendency to reject the work, because if he accepted it this would mean that when the four weeks were up and he went back to the unemployment insurance office he would have to lose two weeks' benefits all over again and go through the same procedure. Rather than do this he would pass up the opportunity to work for four weeks.
We say if you are divorced from unemployment insurance benefits for four weeks, specifically because you are working during that time, you will not be penalized and you can return precisely as though you had not accepted the part-time job. This is the sole purpose of the amendment and I hope the House concurs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion No. 10 agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting paragraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 44, in lines 21 to 24 at page 27, and by substituting therefor the following: "(a) he is not directly involved or participating in the labour dispute that caused the stoppage of work; and"
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have made a good beginning this morning in that the first amendment to be proposed has been carried. I hope that pattern will continue in respect of this one. I am happy to move motion No. 11 on behalf of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) who presented this same amendment in the committee. I realize that the committee did not accept it, but I hope the minister and his officials have given further study to this matter in the meantime.
This amendment goes into the bill at that place where we are dealing with the effects of a strike or stoppage of work on unemployment insurance benefits. It is accepted that there are certain conditions under which participation in a strike itself disentitles one to benefits, but then there is subclause (2) of clause 44 which provides for exceptions to the practice of disentitling such a person from benefits.
We feel that the wording of paragraph (a) casts too wide a net. We feel that it creates a danger of catching too many people and, indeed, of denying unemployment insurance benefits to persons who ought not to be so denied because of their participation, their interest or support of a strike, it not being direct. The words of the clause as they are in the bill read:
Subsection (1) is not applicable if a claimant proves that
(a) he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labour dispute that caused the stoppage of work-
We would like to suggest that this be reduced to the words of the amendment so that it would then read "the

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 subsection is not applicable if the claimant proves that he is not directly involved or participating in a labour dispute that caused the stoppage of work".
As I say, this matter was fully debated in the committee. It seems to me the proposal made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is a reasonable one and I hope the minister might now be prepared to accept it.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset in respect of the remarks just concluded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I agree with his summation. This wording is pretty woolly in the phrase used, "directly interested". We are leaving a loophole there that could cause great consternation and difficulty in matters as delicate as labour disputes. We should approach this problem directly, and since this wording seems to be very woolly I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this clause is aimed at discouraging a union which is not involved in a work stoppage or dispute from financing a union that is on strike. I would agree with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), that the wording of this clause is very woolly. If there is to be any amendment to this clause it should be one that tightens it up to make the objective clear. I cannot see why somebody should expect to receive money from the unemployment insurance fund while at the same time the union to which he belongs and is paying dues is financing another union that is directly involved in a work stoppage. While the present clause is fairly loose, that is probably its intention. I certainly would not want to support any amendment which would derogate from that intention. I certainly cannot support the amendment by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I hope the minister will give some consideration to making it absolutely clear that we are not going to have one union financing another union while its people are drawing money from this fund.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. gentleman who just spoke is quite accurate in his analysis of the existing clause and the purpose behind the clause. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned, this matter was debated at great length in the committee. Perhaps I might have a minute to explain the philosophy behind the whole thing. Periodically, we should be reminded that unemployment insurance is not something which exists exclusively for the benefit of the workers. The fund is financed by the employers and the employees of the country. The general rule is that we have no intention to use our unemployment insurance fund to finance a strike. Therefore, one of the basic things the commission makes certain of is that we do not finance strikes out of funds that are equally proportioned between employer and employee. In other words, I do not think anyone would want to finance a strike with moneys which partly
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
belong to the employers of the country. I believe that is clear-cut.
However, we go a little further in protecting the fund. We might take the example of a person who is not a member of a union but who became unemployed as a result of a strike over which he had no control. He may be a janitor or a person sweeping the floors. He may come to the commission and say he is out of work because of a strike in which he is not involved. Our answer to him would be that, even though he is not a member of the union and may not have a direct voice in the decision to go on strike, he would benefit from the end result of the dispute because the collective agreement covers not only the unionized employees but all employees. While he may not have a direct participation in the strike he does have, in most cases, a financial interest in the outcome because the end result would mean an increase in his income. If that same company owned three, four or five different operations or, let us say, had activities spread over various branches, and if these branches were affected by a strike or were in some way affected by lack of material and things of this nature, then in that case the employees of these other branches would not be deprived of their unemployment insurance.
We have a case in Flin Flon, for instance, where the craft unions are on strike and the steel workers are not. The steel workers will not benefit by the settlement of the craft workers' dispute and therefore, at the moment, are eligible for unemployment insurance because the plant has been closed down as the result of an action over which they had no control and because when the financial settlement is reached they will in no way be involved. So, they are eligible. Really, we are protecting the fund, but we give as much latitude as possible to the commission to make certain that no one is intentionally deprived of his normal right. Fortunately, because of the way the commission operates, there is sufficient jurisprudence which has been accumulated over the past 20 or 30 years which can be used by the officials, referees and umpires in making certain that justice is done in the case of people who may not be members of a union but who are affected by the labour dispute.
So, I must recommend that this amendment be rejected because, although I understand and sympathize with the reasoning of the hon. member who proposed the amendment, and who unfortunately cannot be here today, I must remind myself and others must remind themselves that we have an immediate obligation to the employers as well as the employees of this country who participate financially to the same extent to make sure we do not finance a strike with the employers' money. On the other hand, we cannot encourage people who remain outside a union and refuse to participate in any shape or form to come lamely to the unemployment insurance commission and say that if they had given in there would not have been a strike so, therefore, they would like to have the unemployment insurance money. We cannot encourage this because eventually these people will get the pay raise or the advantage of the improved conditions which the collective agreement will bring about.
June 11, 1971


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would accept a question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking information. I know the minister has had more experience than 1 have had in union affairs. It is possible that one class of workers, A, and another class of workers, B, could belong to the same union, C. The A workers are on strike and the B workers are not on strike. Under the terms and conditions of this bill would B, with no responsibility, be entitled to the benefits? The thing about the financial participation is that both workers A and B may be contributing to the same union and the contribution of both may be assisting A from the union's point of view. Would B then be entitled to the unemployment insurance benefits even though contributing to the union and therefore indirectly contributing to the workers A?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if I did not quite grasp the hon. member's point, I am sure he will understand. I do not know offhand of any cases where a union would be legally on strike when that strike would not be binding on all members of the union. I think this rarely occurs. On the other hand, there could be in that same plant members of another union. I mentioned the strike at Flin Flon in which the steel workers who have completed their collective agreement and who are prepared to work are out of work because the plant is now struck as a result of a labour dispute between the employer and members of a group of unions called craft unions. The craft union members are not entitled to unemployment insurance because the strike is the result of their direct decision, but the steel workers are entitled to unemployment insurance because they had no participation in the decision-making that brought about the strike, nor will they benefit in any way from the ultimate result of the strike in so far as increased pay or benefits are concerned. The criteria are, first, whether the person involved has a voice in respect of the creation of the strike and, second, even if he is not a member of the union and did not have a voice whether he will eventually benefit from the strike.
In passing, I might point out that through jurisprudence and through our past decisions, a precedent has been established that when people are laid off as a result of a deliberate slow-down prior to a strike, thus reducing productivity or impeding the productivity of that particular employer with the result that he may have to cut back his work force, if these people apply for unemployment insurance and if it can be proven that this has been due to a deliberate slow-down, they cannot draw unemployment insurance. Sometimes these cases go to appeal. Sometimes a decision is made on the side of the employee and sometimes on the side of the employer. There is an effort to maintain a balance between the employer and the employee. The two basic rules are, first, that one should not benefit in any way materially from the end result of the labour dispute and, second, that one should have had no voice in fomenting a strike
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 because if he had a voice he could not draw unemployment insurance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could make myself a little clearer.


The Speaker:: I understand the minister is willing to entertain these questions. I think it is understood that the minister is still deemed to have the floor at the present time but is replying to questions of hon. members.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I may not be quite right in respect of what I have in mind, but I shall give an example. Suppose in respect of the railways the engineers went on strike and the trains were stopped. The conductors belong to the same union and they are paying their dues to the union, as are the engineers. The conductors may not want to go on strike. Would it be possible for the conductors to draw unemployment insurance because they are not working and the engineers who belong to the same union have stopped the trains?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will be accused of giving an ambiguous answer but the determining factor is probably the reason the conductors are not working. If they choose not to work because they respect the picket line put up by the striking union, they cannot draw unemployment insurance. If the company were to shut down all operations, thus divorcing the conductors from their weekly pay, then in all probability the Unemployment Insurance Commission would rule that these people were denied their regular income for reasons beyond their control. If workers choose not to work because they want to respect the picket lines, then they do not draw unemployment insurance. It requires no courage to respect the picket line if they know their loss of income will be offset to some extent by unemployment insurance.


Mr. Ritchie:: It seems to me that this subclause is a continuation of the previous subclauses (b) and (c). How easily could a worker laid off under this clause be able to obtain bona fide regular employment in the same occupation as under (b) and (c)? In other words, if a worker were laid off and obtained a job even for one day, would he qualify for the full unemployment insurance?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What this really means is that if a worker is laid off and he found work for, say, eight weeks, he would begin once again to accumulate benefits. In that event, if he is unemployed, he is entitled to unemployment insurance, but the insurance would take into account also other attachments which he had before being laid off.


Mr. Barnett:: : I realize that we are not in committee of the whole, but I suggest that this is one of the most delicate areas in the whole application of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would permit me to direct a rather extended question to the minister so that I can have a response from him.
6626

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the purpose of the hon. member, but we still have to proceed in an orderly fashion. The minister has the floor or has not. If he has relinquished the floor, he has spoken once and cannot speak a second time unless by unanimous consent of the House. I certainly do not want to stand in the way of the minister making a second statement but, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has pointed out, we are not in committee of the whole, and we should follow the usual procedure when we are not in committee of the whole.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Also, Mr. Speaker, I am very suspicious of extended questions.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If there are other hon. members who wish to ask unextended questions, which you are prepared to permit, I will yield the floor to them.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the minister has now relinquished the floor.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: In speaking on this measure, I should like to point out to the minister that there is a great deal to be gained in this place by such exchanges and discussions as we have had. My first comment was based directly on reading what appears here. Having regard to the minister's explanation, and to the fact that ladies have the prerogative of changing their minds, which I also trust extends to Members of Parliament, I thank the minister for his explanation and I withdraw my previous objection.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have just a short statement on the point being debated now. As members have indicated, the amendment is extremely important and I have every sympathy for what my NDP colleagues are attempting to do. However, I think the important word which they left out is "finance". This point has been clarified by the minister. It has many ramifications which are not clearly understood but, as I understand it, there is no hard and fast rule. I do not wish to interrupt the minister's conversation but I hope he is listening to my comments. As I understand it, this situation is being dealt with under the regulations, and every instance is dealt with on its own merits. Therefore, there is room for correction of any injustices or ambiguities. I notice that the minister is nodding his head, so it appears that there is some safeguard in the bill. I will, therefore, join my colleagues with great reluctance in not supporting the amendment put forward by the NDP.


William Arnold Peters: I have been interested for a long time in the interpretation by the Unemployment Insurance Commission of the words "directly interested in". This has, in many cases, been used in various ways and changes have taken place for various reasons in the decisions that the commission has made. In the matter of financing, I presume the minister is not referring to persons who are making a donation. He is more interested in the direct financing of a situation and this probably has a different connotation. Many unions assist
in the financing of a labour dispute and yet they are in no way involved in the process of making the decision that there will be a strike, or whatever the negotiations may be, nor in any way would they receive remuneration from that. The minister has made decisions in these situations, such as the one he made with regard to the Hudson Bay Mining to separate the trades and the industrial union involved. These decisions have not always been made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. On many occasions their decision was different.
This is one of the reasons that my colleagues and I are concerned about leaving in the words "directly interested in". If you work for the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Corporation, obviously you will be directly interested in what they do and what are the financial and other implications of their actions. Whatever the company does will have some effect on what happens to you if you are one of their employees, even if you are in a different area or a different town. This has been misinterpreted many times, and it lends itself to various interpretations. I have no qualms about the minister making the right decision, but I have many qualms about the commission making a decision. They have made various decisions on both sides. Sometimes they have allowed payment of benefits, and sometimes they have not when, in my opinion, the reasons were unclear. For this reason many thousands of regulations will have to be made under the bill. These regulations will be in the form of decisions made at various stages. Each may become a precedent. I am sure the minister is aware of cases, apparently identical cases, where totally different conclusions were reached. The words here are subject to varying interpretations, and I do not think they will achieve what the minister wants.
I am also interested in some protection being provided against a situation in which a number of employees might decide they were going to have a holiday and collect unemployment insurance while on holiday. I am sure this might be arranged by a small number of employees acting together in one very large plant. If we leave the words "directly interested in" in the bill, I know that the umpires and all others involved in the decision making process in the Unemployment Insurance Commission may interpret them in different ways. The minister mentioned the Hudson Bay decision in which he had some interest, but I know of at least half a dozen cases where that decision was reversed. Once this bill is enacted we, as Members of Parliament, will have no influence on the decisions that are made. We will be left totally at the mercy of the interpretations that are made.
I know of one case where one union did have two bargaining units operating in a plant. As an industrial worker I was always of the opinion that there were three levels in a plant, the management, the office staff, and the other workers. I had no relationship with the office staff or management, but management did have close relations with office staff. At the Hollinger Mines we organized the office staff into a separate unit of the United Steel Work-
(Mr. Barnett.]
June ll, 1971

ers, but when the other section went on strike the office staff was not able to draw unemployment insurance. The office staff had not attended the strike meetings and had no influence on the strike decision. We were using the CWS program and a wage structure that did not apply to them. They may have been interested in seeing that members of an associated local of the Steel Workers did not get beaten, but they had no financial interest in the strike. Yet the commission interpretation went against them.
The minister and other hon. members who have had anything to do with labour negotiations are well aware of the problem. If we do not amend the bill, then the Commission will introduce regulations that will change our interpretation of it. I speak from experience of attending tribunals and finding the regulations totally changed from what I had expected them to be. If we leave the words "directly interested" in the bill, the Commission may make whatever interpretations it deems warranted.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister would agree with me that basically what we are concerned about when discussing a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Plan is that the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the operations of the plan should be as neutral as possible in any situation involving a labour dispute. All we are concerned about is how to achieve this.
Certainly, in the union to which I belong there is a feeling that since the inception of the Unemployment Insurance Commission the jurisprudence that has developed, as a result of Commission interpretations and umpires' decisions, is weighted on the side of the employer interests and against the worker interests. Because of that widespread feeling, I think this is a matter that should receive the closest scrutiny. I am sure it did receive a great deal of discussion in the committee, but apparently my colleague from Moose Jaw was not satisfied that the wording of the bill will create the neutrality desired.
As I read the proposed amendment, I think it is pretty clear that the hon. member wants a distinct statement stipulating that in future umpire decisions should be even-Steven down the line. The way the bill and the existing act are worded means that the onus of proof is on the worker-and this would apply even under the terms of the proposed amendment-to establish that he is not directly involved or participating in the labour dispute that has caused the stoppage of work.
I would remind the minister of some of the situations that developed as a result of the towboat dispute on the coast of British Columbia. I am convinced that the employees in some of the logging operations in the northwest part of Vancouver Island were not directly involved and were not supporting that dispute. But they were laid off because the towboats were tied up. Their claims for unemployment insurance have been in process, and the last word I heard was that there is soon to be an umpire's hearing. Those workers have been left up in the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 air for months, wondering whether they are going to get the benefits they feel they are entitled to as a result of being laid off by the companies because work operations could not continue due to the tie up of the towboats.
When we talk about this question of financing and participating directly or indirectly as the clause is worded in the bill, this leads to almost any kind of interpretation in the future by an umpire. The whole concept of the labour movement is that it is interrelated. I have voted many times to send a contribution to workers on strike somewhere else. If one wants to take these words literally the fact that a local union has voted $1,000 or $25 to support a group of striking workers in another place, could lead to an umpire's decision that any member of that union who happened to be laid off could be denied benefits because he was financing and had a direct interest in that other labour dispute, though it might be on the other side of the continent.
I do not think the existing jurisprudence has gone in that direction, but this is so complex a problem that only a full-time professional could keep a clear picture in mind of where the matter stands or where it is heading. I cannot understand why the minister is insisting that this phrase be retained. The amendment would provide that a worker would have to prove that he was not directly involved or participating in the labour dispute that caused the stoppage. That seems to put it fairly clearly from the point of view of any future decisions by an umpire on what at times are going to be pretty difficult lines of demarcation.
We all know that under certain circumstances groups of workers who have not been involved in a labour dispute have to make a decision about whether they will handle hot goods or hot cargo. The interpretation of whether or not that action would involve them in the dispute is one on which there may be some disagreement. If the words about financing and direct interest are left in the clause it seems to me that the possibility of a worker proving that he is not involved is weighted against the worker. I urge the minister to recognize that there is no provision that the employer has to prove the worker is involved; the onus is on the worker to prove that he is not involved before he can accept benefit. In a sense, that weights the application of the act in the direction of protecting the employer interests against having their contributions to the fund used to assist workers with whom they may have a dispute. That is one of the considerations the minister should have in assessing the merits of a clause such as this, that you start by putting the onus of proof on the worker. It should be made as simple and as straightforward as possible for the worker to prove it. The wording in the act on which an umpire is going to have to base decisions should enable him to draw a line that is as clear and simple as it can be.
We hope that, as a result of the new act, some of the very messy and unhappy situations that have developed
24107-69J

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 in this area in the past would be eliminated and that we could start afresh to build some new jurisprudence in this area which is a difficult one to deal with.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 11?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Jerome:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Your Honour has just deferred another division in this matter, it might be an appropriate time to indicate that discussions have taken place about the taking of these deferred votes. It has been generally agreed that it would meet with the approval of all members that Monday night at eight o'clock would be an appropriate time.


William Arnold Peters: Why not five o'clock tonight?


James Alexander Jerome: I might also say at this time-perhaps in a mood of optimism which I always carry with me-that since this matter is proceeding so well and since the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), the respective spokesmen on the Judges Act, are both present today, if this debate should conclude before four o'clock this afternoon we would go on to the Judges Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the Labour (Standards) Code?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the second statement under advisement and tell the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) about the Judges Act. With regard to the votes on the Unemployment Insurance Act, we are in agreement that they come before the House on Monday next at eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We also agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered. Is it the wish of the House that the Chair call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When the House rose at one o'clock we had just completed a study of Motion No. 11 on which a vote was deferred in accordance with Standing Order 75 (11). It had been decided, also, that the House would consider Motions Nos. 12 and 13 which would be grouped for debate.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are perfectly right in what you have said but I was wondering whether, with the unanimous consent of the House, there having been discussions with representatives of the other parties, I could be permitted to introduce an amendment to section 58. I seek permission now because this is the proper time, having regard to the progress we have made.
The purpose of the amendment is strictly to rectify a drafting error. I have made this clear to representatives of opposition parties, who have copies of the amendment. I do not know whether the table has a copy. I should like to read it, anyway, and then I will give a copy to the table.
I should like to ask the unamimous consent of the House to introduce an amendment to clause 58, subclauses (t) and (u). This amendment is required because of an inadvertent omission in drafting and the misplacement of some words as between the two subsections. The white paper on unemployment insurance clearly specified that when the rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada were to be used to determine the length of extended benefits, these rates would be averaged to smooth out fluctuations from month to month and avoid the situation where the duration of benefits could swing up or down on the basis of a single month's figure. I might add that this would cause undue hardship to some of the claimants. In the case of national rates, these would be averaged over a period of three months for the purposes of Section 34.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I wonder whether it would not be more correct procedurally to put the motion at this time. The minister could then make his remarks afterward. The Chair would like to know whether the House gives unanimous consent for the minister to present a motion at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That Bill C-229 be amended by striking out lines 41 and 44 inclusive on page 34 and lines 1 to 3 inclusive on page 35 and substituting therefor the following:
and delineating the boundaries thereof and determining residence within such regions;
(u) averaging any rates of unemployment for the purposes of paying extended benefits and prescribing the manner in which such averaging shall be carried out.
He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the purpose is to be a little more specific, a little clearer as to how the extended benefit period would be determined.
June 11, 1971

Rates would be averaged so as to smooth out fluctuations from month to month. The averaging of rates would work to the advantage of claimants by avoiding frequent changes in duration based on month to month variations in the rates of unemployment compiled by Statistics Canada.
The wording used in section 58 (u) did not make this clear and I have proposed an amendment which would clarify the requirement and make it clear that the Commission has the power to average the national and the regional rates as described in the white paper. There was no disagreement on this point in committee and I am sure the amendment will be accepted. As far as subclause (t) is concerned, the amendment proposes to return to that clause the words "as determining residence within such regions" which were inadvertently placed at the end of subsection (u) and which should have appeared at the end of subclause (t). It was simply a printing error.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This
may sound complicated, but the minister let us have copies of the proposed amendment this morning and I believe those of us who have been following this matter are satisfied that the purpose of the amendment is simply to correct an error that was made inadvertently. We support the amendment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I echo the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and thank the minister for letting us have a copy of the amendment beforehand, thus giving us the opportunity to examine it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I return now to the
point I was making prior to the intervention by the Minister of Labour. Motion No. 11 has been discussed and a vote on it was deferred in accordance with Standing Order 75(11).
The House will now consider Motions Nos. 12 and 13 which are grouped together for the purpose of debate. A vote on Motion No. 12 would automatically dispose of Motion No. 13. The Chair will at this point put the two motions before the House.
The hon. member for Hamilton West moves Motion No. 12 as follows:
That Bill C-229 be amended by deleting subclauses (1), (2) and
(3)	of clause 64 at pages 41 and 42 and substituting the following:
"(1) The employer's premium to be paid in a year by an
employer of an insured person shall not exceed 1.4 times the employee's premium for that year."
and by deleting the words "but subject to paragraph (a) of section 65" where they severally appear at the end of subclauses
(4)	and (5) of the said clause at page 42 and by renumbering these subclauses as (2) and (3) respectively.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
The hon. member for Hamilton Wes* (Mr. Alexander) also moves Motion No. 13 as follows:
That Bill C-229, unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting clause 65 at pages 42 and 43.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe that during the committee hearings members found that, as a result of this new experience which has been brought into the Unemployment Insurance Act, the vast majority of the members questioned the usefulness and the acceptability of what is called the experience rating or the merit rating system which is being introduced by the government.
I recall that yesterday the minister accused members of this party as well as hon. members of the New Democratic Party of being confused inasmuch as we were continually reaching conflicting conclusions. It seems to me the minister has now indicated to the House, and I accept this philosophy in that regard, that many of us must be our brothers' keepers. On the other hand we said we should abide by the universality of the unemployment insurance scheme. It seems to me that rather than being confused on this side of the House it was the government which is confused because the government has now indicated that it is not interested in universality when it comes down to industry. They believe we should get away from the pooling of risks by saying there should be a penalty placed upon industry as a result of high lay-offs.
What concerns many of these people in industry who are making a great contribution to the ultimate destiny of this country is that in many instances lay-offs are beyond the r control. For example, I do not want to become political this afternoon but one of the reasons industries occasionally lay off people is the fiscal and monetary policy of the government; there can be no question of that. This is something beyond the control of employers. The external ramifications of capital and money exchanges certainly affect lay-off patterns, as do seasonal adjustments.
If we increase premium rates of employers, the extra cost must of necessity be passed on to the consumer. For the life of me, I cannot understand the thinking of this government when it says that we should pool the risk. After all, they brought in an additional one million people to enable them to pool the risk. They have included in the plan school teachers, firemen, nurses, public servants and armed forces personnel so that the risk can be pooled. The government feels that some industries, perhaps through their inability to compete, should be penalized or driven out of business, but at the same time it forgets that the main theme running behind the entire act is that there should be a pooling of risk and that universality should prevail.
This is one occasion when we found that even labour took a pretty dim view of what the government was doing in this instance. I admit that the senior chamber of commerce took the opposite view and said there should.
June 11, 1971

Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 be a pooling of risk. But what is important is that the vast majority of the briefs submitted on this matter were very much opposed to the introduction of experience rating.
It is also of extreme importance that the Gill report dealt with this question. I do not know whether the Gill report is relevant or not, but I do know that he took a pretty dim view of experience rating. I should like to refer to some of the arguments Mr. Gill put forward for the benefit of the government dealing with this particular clause. The Gill report stated:
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 statement "beyond the control of the employers concerned" is very important in this context. Further the report states 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: this would put them at a competitive disadvantage in the international markets.
A further point made by the report is this:
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.
I am putting forward these points so that the people of this country, as well as my colleagues in the House, understand what is taking place. Another point made by Mr. Gill is this:
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.
As I said earlier, the Canadian Labour Congress is very interested in the last point. They indicated that they would oppose merit rating because of this danger. Other criticisms can be made of merit rating, and I would refer to one in particular. Merit rating has a regional and structural bias. Government officials insist that, industry by industry, merit rating is administratively and politically Impossible. However, juxtapositioning 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
IThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
though they often require, according to government policy, swift, efficient mobility.
Another criticism that can be made is that 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 quasi-permanent or permanent employment.
Other objections have been made to experience rating, which is why we on this side of the House deem it advisable to put before the House criticisms that have been directly voiced very vehemently and strenuously by those concerned. It is not going to help the employer, it is not going to help the employee, and the ultimate payer, as usual, will be the taxpayer who has to absorb the additional cost of any increase in premium as a result of experience rating being applied in any particular industry.
I am sure the minister and his colleagues will tell me that I have not made a bad speech but that once again I am off the beam; that things have to be this way because some industries are taking advantage of a good thing. But let me repeat that pooling a risk and universality are at the basis of the unemployment insurance plan. Starting with that premise-and I do not think anyone can disagree with the premise-you cannot then turn around and say that you must make an exception in this particular instance. With all respect, this then brings into question your credibility. I am not being offensive in saying that, but this argument does have us on this side puzzled. Without pursuing the matter further and becoming too repetitious, may I conclude by saying motions Nos. 12 and 13 are being moved primarily to eliminate what I call this very offensive clause in terms of its effects on the Canadian economy.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support what was said by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and to congratulate him on going further afield than his own particular locality. He is taking an interest in other parts of the country that are not as well developed as his home city and province. There are, of course, vast areas of the province of Ontario that would be adversely affected by this legislation, as well as the area of the country that I have the honour to represent.
I should like to say it escapes me how the bill, as proposed, will encourage stable employment in types of industries mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton West because in most cases these industries are totally dependent on factors outside their control. Of course, the major factor in that regard is the weather. The weather pretty well dictates the operations of the construction industry. We are making progress toward extending the construction season into a year-round business but, the fact remains, winter construction in the climate which prevails in most areas in this country is more expensive than in spring, summer and fall.
June 11, 1971

Apart from the construction industry, we have a problem in respect of another major industry in the country being affected by the weather, namely, the agricultural industry. It is completely dependent upon the seasons. Farm labourers are subject to the provisions of this bill. I do not think it can be argued that they will not find themselves in an industry which will have a bad merit rating regarding lay-offs. Once the harvesting of any particular crop is completed, a great number of farm labourers are laid off. This can only result in higher costs to the employer, being the farmer. He is already subject to a terrible cost-price scheme. It has been admitted by both sides of the House that the farmer is in no position to pass on this cost. In some seasonal industries, such as construction. I suppose it can be argued that this cost can be passed on. This might get the business itself off the hook, but it does not get the consumer, or the people we represent, off the hook. We should have some consideration for them.
One of my basic objections to this bill is that generally speaking it will increase costs throughout. In this bill, we find an added means of increasing the cost in what I would consider to be a totally, unacceptable and unjustifiable way. In addition to weather conditions, I think my hon. friend mentioned pressures or conditions creating instability of employment in certain areas. We have found that, for the past year or so, it has been a firm policy of the government to discourage construction in certain areas of this country. The city of Calgary, part of which I represent, is in the position of being discriminated against in respect of depreciation as a result of a desire to cool off the economy. I might say in passing, it has had a very good effect, but the construction industry in that city has suffered as a result of this conscious policy of the government.
I do not see how the imposition of higher employee contributions will help to stabilize employment in the construction industry in places like Calgary, when it is singled out from other cities in the country for discrimination by the government with a view to creating unemployment.
I agree also with the hon. member for Hamilton West that this legislation seems to be based on the view that industry is developing to the same extent throughout the country and we have a homogeneous working force. I suppose the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) would be very happy with this aspect of the legislation because his view would seem to indicate that all industry should be concentrated in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and that the outlying areas of the country should be forgotten. I am sorry I cannot take that position. I urge the government to have some consideration for the growth areas of this country, and accept this amendment which would remove a real discrimination, particularly against the construction and agricultural sectors of the economy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in so far as these two amendments before us are designed to eliminate experience rating from the new Unemployment Insurance Act, we shall support them. We
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 debated this matter at great length in committee and I do not think it is necessary to rehash that debate at the report stage. In an effort to achieve that goal, may I say simply that there are three main reasons for my opposition to experience rating.
In the first place, employment conditions are to a very large extent beyond the control of the employers. Some spokesmen for experience rating have tried to relate this situation to workmen's compensation where there is a form of experience rating. I suggest that employers can control the safety conditions under which their employees work and can control the number of accidents that take place. So far as the economy of the country is concerned, on which employment is based, that is to a large extent beyond the control of employers. There are various regional and seasonal factors that come into the picture, but we think that because this sort of thing is beyond the control of employers it is unfair to impose experience rating.
The second reason for our opposition to this measure is the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress and other representatives of labour have expressed the view that this would lead to an abuse. An employer who might need a certain number of employees would refrain from hiring them temporarily lest the firing of them shortly thereafter would spoil his record. We think abuses of that kind are possible and we should not encourage them by this so-called experience rating. We think there are hiring practices in reverse which are an abuse, but that they can be dealt with by an amendment such as the minister has made to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which we hope will be copied in provincial statutes.
My third reason for opposing this is that if we are going to permit employers to pay lower premiums because of a better record than others, we will have the argument from employees that those who have had long periods without drawing unemployment insurance benefits will feel their premiums should be reduced. This is a one-sided proposition and we feel this is a defect. As I have sa d, we went into this at great length and argued it with most of the delegates who appeared before us. We tried to persuade the government to drop the whole idea of experience rating. Since we did not succeed there we are indicating that is still our position, and we shall do so again by voting for these two amendments.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in this debate for just a few minutes. I begin by commending the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for the amendments he has proposed. As a member from the Atlantic region of Canada, I feel that the legislation as proposed by the minister will only place one more impediment in the way of industry in that part of Canada. I feel as a result of this legislation these industries will continue to have more than their share of difficulties, day in and day out, in maintaining themselves in business.

June 11. 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
I think this places an extra burden on the shoulders of the employer concerning what he should or should not do in given circumstances. I would be fearful that what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) alluded to might happen. An employer who had been trying to make up his mind concerning whether or not he should take on additional staff for a short period of time would look at the merit system and say to himself that if he did this he might become involved in difficulty. He might consider that it might involve an extra expense, whereas if he used his present staff or kept his staff to a minimum and did not provide additional employment even for a short period of time, he would not be involved in this extra expense. Therefore, this system might work against a great many people in our part of Canada who wish to secure work even for a short period of time. In many instances many people in our labour force are under-employed. These people will now discover they will have less opportunity to secure employment, even for short periods of time. I do not want to see this happen.
I believe there is something else involved here which is even more basic. I refer to the fact that we are living in a capitalist system in this country in which we say to the employer and the unions, in effect, that they must work out a system whereby between them they will know best how industries can operate and how they can secure the best return on their investment. However, we also say we will interfere. We tell them that unless they operate in such a way as to provide constant and stable employment for their employees, whether there is work for them or not and whether or not it brings them return, we will impose upon them a special tax which they will have to pay. I know in my constituency, which is in the agricultural area, we are involved to a very substantial degree in the production of small berries such as blueberries, strawberries and so on. There are frozen food plants which operate there and provide not-year around employment but employment for a specific period of time. People have come to expect this. Certain people involve themselves in this type of employment. They arrange their schedule so that they can work here and do other things at other times.
Now, the people who operate the frozen food plants and other operations of this type will find themselves forced to bear additional costs in carrying out their operations. In facing these additional costs, there is only one conclusion for them to reach. They will have to tell the consumer they are facing additional cost because of the new unemployment insurance legislation and that, therefore, the consumer will have to pay a higher price for the same product than was the case in the past. The cost of living will go up and up and up, as it has been doing all along. In many ways, the cost of living in this country is going up because of the unwarranted interference by government into the private sector of the economy. This is a glaring example of what is happening and will continue to happen so long as the government insists on this type of legislation. So far as I am concerned, the hon.
member for Hamilton West has been very persuasive in his arguments concerning why this clause should not be accepted in its present form. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated that so far as he knows labour does not want this merit system.
Why does the government insist upon adding additional burdens on the backs of industries which are having so much difficulty today in surviving? If I might anticipate, if this budget comes in and places many new taxes on the back of industry, just where is industry going? What will happen and how will we ever produce a boyant economy that will look after the hundreds of thousands of people who are in the labour force today and who are looking for work. How can we do this if we continuously heap on the shoulders of industry additional burdens and taxes industry could get along without? In view of the fact that labour itself is neither looking for nor asking for this, and indeed is objecting to the system, why should we be adamant in imposing it upon them or upon the industries which must survive if we are to produce employment in this country to look after the labour force. I cannot quite understand why the minister is so adamant about the merit system. I really do not believe it will be beneficial to either industry or labour. I believe the minister should give very serious consideration to supporting the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not elaborate further on the reasons advanced by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in proposing the motion other than to say I agree with everything he said about the bad features of including a system of merit rating in this legislation. I heartily agree with him that it does nothing for the plan. It is a bad principle. It is not consistent with the rest of the bill. There is no merit rating, for example, so far as the employees are concerned. The employee pays the same rate regardless of how many times he collects a claim. I agree with my colleague that if universality is a desirable feature of social insurance it must be applied on a consistent basis. I agree with everything that has been said in favour of this amendment.
I should like to refer briefly to some of the evidence presented before the committee. For example, in the submission by Robb Engineering on behalf of the contractors, we find a statement to the effect that it is unfair and unjust to apply experience rating to employers in the construction industry on the basis of lay-off patterns resulting from factors beyond the employer's control. I think that is the important phrase in that submission. It has been pointed out that most employers really have little or no control over their employment patterns. I do not believe they should be penalized for the lack of action or unfavourable action the government takes which affects their employment pattern.
What I should like to refer to specifically are the conclusions reached by the standing committee on the particular question of merit rating. While the committee's

June 11, 1971

report agreed that there should be a system of merit rating, the report was by no means unanimous; it was approved on division. However, even though they endorsed the principle of merit rating, they could not agree on it unanimously. Also, the committee stipulated that if we had to have some type of merit rating, it should be different from the type of merit rating proposed in this bill. This is not the final report, I think, but I believe the wording in the final report was basically the same. The report reads:
Indeed, the rating of a firm would seem to he more reasonable if based on the industry average instead of a national average. But there is absolutely no reason why one should not extend the experience rating system: an experience rating of industries defined on the basis of the national average and an experience rating of firms defined on the basis of the industry average. Industries could very well have an industry rate. This would provide a much more flexible system and one which would allow the basis of comparison to be fairer.
I simply want to ask the minister the following question, even though I do not approve of the principle of merit rating. I think I mentioned it in the committee and it seemed to me there was some disposition on the part of the minister or of the officials to study the whole question of merit rating. Possibly, by way of regulations, they might be able to break it down so that it would not work a hardship on all industries. As I said, I do not approve of the principle of merit rating, but half a loaf is better than none, and I would like to have an assurance from the minister that something will be done in this regard.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words in support of this motion, which I find very acceptable. That clause of the bill as well as the proposal of the white paper on which it is based have greatly surprised me and have caused some concern to a number of small employers in my area. In fact, if some employers have to lay-off one or many of their employees at certain times in the year, the cost of their contributions to the unemployment insurance fund will be higher. This is unfair to some small employers who, for one reason or another, do not enjoy the benefit of annual contracts.
There are, in my riding, road contractors, for instance, or forest contractors, who use heavy machinery and, at times, following a contract, need additional labour. When the contracts are completed and if they have no other work to carry out, they are obliged to let their employees go, sometimes temporarily, sometimes for a longer period. Under clause 65 of the legislation they will be penalized, that is, they will have to pay higher contributions to the unemployment insurance fund.
This is unfair to those employers, as well as to other employers, such as those in the construction business-as it was mentioned previously-who, at times, need additional labour. Then, should this clause be passed, those concerned might use other means in order to respect their contracts, and a number of workers will not find jobs, not even temporary ones, in those operations. Therefore, it is unfair to the workers, to the unemployed who want to work and who are looking for jobs.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
For all those reasons, although this matter has been considered at length in committee, even if we did not succeed in having this clause removed from the bill, if the minister wants to show the wisdom we know he has, it is important for him to consider all aspects of this clause. He will see then, I am sure, that there is more bad than good in it. I am therefore in favour of this motion which tends simply to remove clause 65 from this bill.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker. my remarks on this particular section will be brief. I listened with attention to hon. members. I think the contributions were all useful. Some have shown a very deep knowledge of the concept, but others, I am afraid, are not quite aware of what the bill intends. I do not say this sarcastically, but there is no real relationship between the original concept of merit rating that we envisaged in the white paper and the merit rating that is now in the bill. The merit rating system that is in the bill is really a compromise arrived at as a result of the contributions of members opposite on second reading and at the committee stage. The difficulty of the situation was perhaps amplified by the remarks made today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-the unofficial minister of the socialist party. If he needs to be convinced about the merits of merit rating, he should read the very knowledgeable speech made on second reading by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), indicating that even that party has mixed views and that they are not all quite as doctrinaire as might appear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister agree with everything that the hon. member for Waterloo said in that speech?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was referring only to merit rating. I am sure the hon. member does not agree with everything the hon. member for Waterloo said about fishermen either. If he disagrees with much more, he will be disowning his own party and he will become all too moderate for the party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are avoiding the issue.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Merit rating does not, of course, have any relationship at all to the concept of universality. We all know this. We are not violating the concept of universality by introducing merit rating. Universaility simply means that all employees of companies so identified will be included in the plan, and it means that the widest spectrum of employees in the country will be included in the plan. What we are saying is that the employers in the country will have different rates based on the lay-off patterns in their particular industry. We are saying also that certain employees, despite the fact that this plan is universal, will be paying higher or lower contributions than others depending on what their normal income is at their place of employment.

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
That is what makes the concept of merit rating as we now have it acceptable to all members of the House, and I am surprised that there have been any amendments at all. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was persuaded by the CLC, but I must say in all fairness to the CLC that their view is based on fear, not logic. They feel-and perhaps I have greater confidence in employers than they do-that employers in some Machiavellian way may tend to keep the work staff as low as possible. I do not know too many employers who do not keep their work staff at the minimum possible level, I do not know too many employers who play Santa Claus and have a bigger staff than they need.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is especially true if they wish to remain in business long. We talk about the Canadian Manufacturers Association opposing merit rating, but no one has yet mentioned that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce endorsed merit rating, indicating that there is a difference of opinion even among employers. But what makes the plan acceptable to everybody, possibly in line with what the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, is that in order to assess the lay-off pattern of an industry we have eliminated all students hired. In other words, whether students are hired for one, two, five or ten weeks and then laid off, this will not affect the merit rating status of a company. Neither will its lay-off pattern be affected by maternity and sickness lay-off, voluntary withdrawals from its work force and those who are dismissed for misconduct.
To make it further acceptable to industry there has been a wide departure, I might say a dramatic departure, from what I first envisioned. I originally thought that through the marvels of the computer age it would be possible to merit-rate each individual company in the country, something which is quite feasible with the records and the computer systems which we have. What we are now proposing to do, and I think this meets the logical arguments that were advanced by hon. members opposite about the construction industry, is not to merit-rate the construction industry against industry in general but, rather, to compare companies in the industry with, or rate them against, the industry itself in general. What we are proposing to do is rate one company within the industry against the companies in general in that industry. In other words, if you had a private firm in the construction industry it would be rated against other private firms in that industry.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask one question in this regard. Canada being what it is, with its enormity of size and varying climatic conditions, would regional factors be taken into account in rating these businesses?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this is the type of observation I might answer as we go along. I am not unaware
of the problems of the construction industry. As Minister of Labour, I deal daily with components of that industry. I know their dependence on government; I know that many of them live on government contracts; I know that they are subject to the Labour (Standards) Code. They come to us time after time for exemptions against minimum wages, against the 40-hour work week and against the eight-hour day. These exemptions are given because of the nature of the industry. I think I understand their problems pragmatically, but there are always two sides to the coin when we talk about regions. When we had the winter works program in effect, contractors in British Columbia had a bonanza during the winter months as opposed to contractors in Quebec and Ontario who had to contend with severe climatic conditions.
In any event, we are not taking into consideration student employment, maternity or sickness leave, voluntary withdrawals or dismissals for misconduct in our merit rating; and in view of the fact that we are not going to rate companies in one industry against another industry we have made the proposal even more palatable. Further, this program will not come into effect until 1974, and even then only one-third of the effect will be felt, with the second thud to come along in 1975 and the last third in 1976.
In the interval between now and January, 1974, we have arranged for the utmost in co-operation and negotiation with the representatives of industry, through the advisory council. I think I have mentioned previously. Through regulations we can take into consideration the suggestion of the hon. member with respect to the problem of regional factors. These can be taken care of through regulations if the advisory council, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and representatives of the employers think that this is desirable.
Mr. Speaker, the merit rating that people may have feared for many reasons when it was first envisaged has very little resemblance to what we are now proposing. We are now proposing merit rating within an industry rather then with industry in general. We have eliminated the categories I have mentioned which could unduly distort the lay-off pattern of an industry. I do not look on this as a penalty against certain industries but, rather, as a reward to others; and I think this is the way the Chamber of Commerce looked at it.
Where the contribution now is 1.40 per 100, the figure in comparison will be 1.26. In fact, the cost to the employer and the employee is substantially lower under the new plan. Employers who have a fairly stable work pattern, such as school boards, municipalities, and secondary industry in general, will pay substantially less per individual than they are now paying. Some industries will pay a little higher than others, but their lay-off patterns will have to affect two-thirds of their employees in a year to really affect the cost of their unemployment insurance. When it is said that the lay-off of one or two employees would vary the rate, this indicates an ignorance of the bill: it would take as much as a two-thirds variation in work pattern to affect drastically the contributions required to be made.

June 11, 1971

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take advantage of the indulgence of the House. I know that we want to finish this bill by four o'clock so I will just repeat that I recommend that we reject the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: According to Standing Order 75(11), this vote is deferred. The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 14, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) as follows:
That BiE C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting from subclause 3 of clause 125, in lines 10 and 11 at page 85, the words "or for data processing purposes".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House had some fears about where the data processing machines would be kept, but after thorough discussion with hon. members on the other side and with officials of the minister's department it is my understanding that the data processing machines will be kept in Canada. They are located in five regions and the information that is compiled in them will only be used interdepartmentally with respect to the government itself. Accordingly, having given the matter some thought I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw this motion. My fears about the data processing equipment being located outside the country have been allayed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are happy to agree to the withdrawal, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House unanimously consent to allow the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to withdraw this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Alexander) withdrawn.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 15, moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), for the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), as follows:
That BiU C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by adding to clause 138 the words "together with the report of the Auditor General thereon" immediately after the word "year" in line 14 at page 91.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief with respect to this amendment. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) who as you know is chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, has been concerned about this matter in view of the fact that the Auditor General has never audited the unemployment insurance account. All this motion is attempting to do is bring the unemployment insurance account under the audit carried out by the Auditor General. I understand that the government is willing to accept the amendment.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to accept the amendment introduced on behalf of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) who has been very objective and useful in committee in the whole area of finance. I think it would strengthen the bill and allay the legitimate fears of members if the unemployment insurance account were presented to the appropriate committee with approval for the Auditor General to do the auditing. In effect, what this amendment is saying is that the report of the Auditor General will be attached to the report of the unemployment insurance committee at the appropriate time. We accept the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 15?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Alexander, for Mr. Hales) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now consider motions Nos. 16 and 17 which have been grouped together for the purpose of debate. The vote on motion No. 16 shall automatically dispense with motion No. 17. Shall I put the motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) moves motion No. 16 as follows:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting from paragraph (a) in subclause 2 of clause 140, in lines 26 and 27 at page 91, the words "the minister considers" and substituting therefor the word "reasonably".

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member also moves motion No. 17 as follows:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting from subclause 1 of clause 143, in line 9 at page 93, the words "the minister deems advisable" and substituting the words "may reasonably be necessary for the purpose of this part, and"


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, these are not significant amendments but they try to make the bill more presentable and get away from the arbitrary decisions that may have to be made by ministers involved-in this case I believe it is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang). Clause 140 (2) (a) provides:
The minister shall collect Information concerning employment for workers and workers seeking employment and, to the extent the minister considers necessary,-
This is the part that we find offensive and arbitrary. It is left to the decision of the minister. In the amendment, the power of the minister to make a subjective evaluation as to when he will release information is deleted and the reasonably judicial test is substituted. If the government cannot go along with what I am suggesting, I hope they can give me reasons. I do not think I have to pursue this matter any further except to reiterate that the provision, "to the extent the minister considers necessary" should instead read, "to the extent reasonably necessary," which takes it away from the minister alone.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: If I could speak in support of this motion, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is too modest when he refers to the proposed amendment as being somewhat insignificant. In many instances this Parliament delegates far too much authority to individual ministers of the Crown or to the executive branch in general. I think it has to be taken as a practical situation that the minister will probably never be the one to make the decision; it will be made by an administrator on his behalf.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is just hearsay.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) says that is just hearsay, but maybe he will be prepared to prove that statement by evidence. He probably will not attempt to do it at this time and it is unlikely that a convenient time will ever arise.
I am sure we have confidence in the present minister, but the fact is that ministers are not permanent and this legislation in all likelihood will stay on the statute books for many years. I suppose the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce intervened because this question deals with the collection of information. He is closely connected with the current census which is causing so much dissatisfaction among certain segments of the population, so he is probably somewhat sensitive on the subject.
In my view, the question of privacy arises here. All governments have a penchant for collecting information. They do this with the best intentions in the world, but in
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
many cases never use it and it just turns into a "make work" project. I suggest that any legislation along these lines should be based on the criteria of what is reasonably necessary. A great number of businessmen, small farmers and small businessmen in this country feel they are being driven to the wall by having to make voluminous returns to the government. Sometimes an examination of the questionnaire does not indicate what they are looking for. So I think a determined stand should be taken at every opportunity against this type of legislation which makes it easy for large staffs to be built up in departments for the collection of information even when there is no requirement or need for that information.
It is just not good enough to say, "where the minister considers it necessary". I think there will be further empire building if this legislation is passed. Empires are still being built. It is too bad that the government cannot institute more austerity programs. On the other hand, of course, our last austerity program did not have a great effect on empires built around the city and in federal government offices across the country.
Certainly, there has been no let-up in increasing the size of our bureaucracy. Bigger bureaucracy has led to increasing demands on bill payers in this country, the people who are trying to make a living, trying to make businesses grow and create jobs for other people. There has been a growing tide of demand on these people to meet administrative expenses which are really not justified nor necessary. I strongly urge the acceptance of this fine and important amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if a vote is called on these two motions I shall probably vote for them, but I trust my friends will forgive me if I say I cannot get excited about the issue either way. May I abbreviate what is in the bill. It says that the minister shall collect certain information and, to the extent the minister considers necessary, he may make it available. The amendment would have the bill read- again I abbreviate-that the minister shall collect certain information and, to the extent reasonably necessary, make it available. Is there really any difference?
Perhaps my hon. friend will take me behind the curtain and point out to me just who is to decide, in the second case, what is "reasonably necessary". Surely, in the end it will be the minister who decides. I think the wording, as my hon. friend has suggested it, is less offensive. As I say, if there is a vote I shall probably support the amendment, but I do not think it is all that important.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a few minutes in defence of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Perhaps because I live in a relatively small community with a Manpower office I can see events happening that hon. members who live in larger, more impersonal areas may not see. About 9,000 people live in
June 11, 1971

my town and employers who go to Manpower offices know a great deal, personally, about persons who are available for work. The same holds true of employees. The people of my community have access to a great deal of personal information.
Obviously, the minister cannot look after all the Manpower centres across the country. This means that his officials, including many small officials in lesser positions, will have to make these decisions. I therefore think it is most important for the word "reasonably" to be inserted in the clause. It would provide a defence against prosecution if certain officials consider that information which ought to be made available to them has not been made available.
I think the amendment is important from the point of view of personal privacy. This applies particularly to areas which are relatively small where the people know a great deal about each other. For this reason it is most important that the amendment be incorporated in the bill. The amendment would blunt administrative and bureaucratic trust and prevent officials from being overzealous. I think it is a useful amendment and hope the minister will accept it.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, several speakers, including the mover of the motion, have indicated that they think there is not a great deal of difference between the bill as it stands and as it would stand if amended. According to one interpretation, that could be so. There is, however, a possible significant difference, if the amendment means anything. The amendment would tend to transfer-the mover of the motion said this-the decision as to what information should be made available to the courts and away from the minister.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the difference.


Otto Emil Lang: The difference, if taken that way, is fairly important. I urge hon. members not to support the amendment when viewed in that light. The information is collected so that it is available for providing a service. It would be undesirable if the placing of that information in a particular spot became subject to judicial argument instead of simply to political argument that could quite properly follow if the proper service is not being provided.
The objective of the department in this connection is to provide the maximum level of service. If there is a grievance, it can be brought to the attention of a Member of Parliament and in that way be brought to the attention of the department. Actually, a political or ombudsmanlike remedy through a Member of Parliament is available. Secondly, the amendment would affect the statute.
There is the additional difficulty that we are dealing with confidential information and in certain circumstances it could be important for the minister to assure the person giving the information about any extension of that information beyond the employees of the department. The minister would not be in the position to give that assurance if the amendment carried because we
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 would, in effect, be substituting a judicial decision for the decision which he could make.
I emphasize that this is part of a service which is meant to be provided. The best assurance is the determination of the department to provide that service as well as the kind of control which exists through Members of Parliament and through the minister. I therefore urge hon. members not to accept the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on motion No. 16, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The vote on this motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider motions Nos. 18 and 19, standing in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). First we will take motion No. 18. These motions will be debated together and the vote on motion No. 18 will dispose of motion No. 19.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni moves motion No. 18 as follows:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting subclause 2 of clause 146, in lines 27 to 31 at page 94 and lines 1 to 3 at page 95.
Also, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni moves motion No. 19 as follows:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting subclause 3 of clause 146, in lines 4 and 5 at page 95.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I believe the purpose of these two amendments will be apparent at once. I am happy they are being considered together because they are part and parcel of the same thing. Arrangements for covering fishermen are, regrettably in my opinion, contained in part VIII of the act which is headed "Transitional and Repeal Provisions". The effect of my amendments would be to place arrangements

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 for the coverage of fishermen in that part of the act which deals with the coverage of working people generally.
It is a matter of great regret to me that at this point, when we are moving much closer to universality in coverage of working people than many hon. members are prepared to accept, we should be taking a retrograde step toward depriving those who work in a basic industry from coverage when unemployed. In the various speeches which he has made at the report stage the minister has repeatedly emphasized his belief in the principle of universality. Yet this clause as it stands makes provision for fishermen to be denied coverage by a simple proclamation on the part of the Governor in Council.
The two clauses we seek to amend are redundant and unnecessary even within the context of the statement made by the government of its intentions with regard to a still undefined plan to provide certain benefits for fishermen. We all know that, procedurally speaking, should the government decide to bring in a bill as an alternative to the present unemployment insurance arrangements for fishermen it would simply have to include in that bill a clause asking the consent of Parliament to delete the section dealing with the coverage of fishermen in the existing act. So from a procedural viewpoint alone the provisions to which I object, and which are contained in the bill before us, are unnecessary.
The records of proceedings in this House give us some indication of the government's intention with respect to an alternative plan. Announcements were made by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) on more than one occasion. Up to a point one is prepared to accept with an open mind suggestions made by the government in this area, but I want to make it clear that at this stage we have no idea when the government is likely to bring forward this alternative plan or what the nature of the plan might be.
On April 22, when we were called upon to deal with a new unemployment insurance bill, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether he would bring his plan forward so that we might intelligently appraise the proposition and come to conclusions about it one way or the other. The minister replied that he would be glad to bring this matter forward as soon as it had received full consideration by the government. Apparently it has not yet received such consideration; we are still very much in the dark. On May 12, questions were addressed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) seeking information about this alternative plan. The Minister of Labour replied:
I think this promise has beeen made many times by the Minister of	Fisheries	and	Forestry.	The present plan providescoverage of	fishermen in	the same	manner and on the samebasis as in	the past.	I understand	it is the intention of theMinister of	Fisheries	and	Forestry	to introduce some time in
the indefinite future, I think he said, a plan that will be comparable and acceptable to the industry.
Whether or not it will gain acceptance by the industry is, of course, a matter of opinion. We do not know in what manner a determination will be made as to whether
or not it is acceptable to the industry. On May 19, a week later, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry contradicted the statement made by his colleague the Minister of Labour. He said:
Mr. Speaker, as a point of clarification may I say I have never said this scheme must be acceptable to the fishermen. It has, of course, to be acceptable to my colleagues in the government and also to Parliament.
So there we have it. This is a scheme about which we know nothing, a scheme upon which up to now the government has reached no decision. Yet we are asked today to agree that fishermen can be taken out of the present unemployment insurance plan as a result of a simple proclamation by the Governor in Council whether or not any alternative plan which might be approved by the House is acceptable to them.
Certainly on the Pacific coast the fishermen do not consider this to be good enough. They feel that the time when we are extending the coverage and benefits of the plan is no time to be squeezing them out. I should like to return for a few minutes to the phrase used by the Minister of Labour, "The present plan provides coverage of fishermen in the same manner and on the same basis as in the past." What is in the mind of the government is obvious from the fact that they have placed arrangements for the coverage of fishermen in the part of the bill which is headed "Transitional and Repeal Provision."
I should like to call attention to the phrase "in the same manner ... as in the past". This means that an unsatisfactory situation is to be perpetuated. It means that the silly approach which has consistently been taken when dealing with fishermen will be allowed to continue at least during the period in which they are left in limbo. Again, this is partly the reason I have put down amendments which say, in effect: We want the fishermen to be left in the plan. We want the commission, when the new act goes into effect, to take a realistic look at the principles in accordance with which fishermen have been covered. We do not want to leave the situation stagnant so that some of the stupidities that have developed as a result of the present regulations and arrangements are continued into the indefinite future.
I shall try to relate some of my remarks to what I believe has been a very unhappy history behind the move to cover fishermen under the unemployment insurance plan. Obviously, I cannot do it in the course of one speech on one afternoon in this House. However, when this clause was before the Standing Committee I did make some references to the discussions that took place when the last major overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act was made in 1955.
I urge members of the House to read the proceedings of the industrial relations committee when considering the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1955. Among other things they will find that a very unusual procedure developed whereby a minister not responsible for the bill came before the committee and made a special presentation on this subject along with his departmental officials.

June 11, 1971

I am referring to the then Minister of Fisheries, Hon. James Sinclair. There was also a brief from the then hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, now a member of the other place and, as is well known, there were representations on the subject made by the then Secretary of State, now chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, who was also a member of the government representing a constituency in the province of Newfoundland.
I suspect that those records do not by any means disclose the whole story of what was going on at the time in regard to unemployment insurance coverage for fishermen, but I do know that the then Minister of Fisheries was interested in the subject, that the member of the cabinet from the province of Newfoundland was also interested and that there was considerable pressure on the then Minister of Labour to take steps to bring the fishermen into coverage. In fact, of course, that did not happen at the time. It was some time before action was taken in that regard. Indeed, not till 1957 did coverage for fishermen become operative under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Some members will recall that in 1957 we had a new government. One of the first acts of the new government was to introduce an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act generally extending the period of seasonal benefit coverage in view of the increasingly high level of unemployment that was developing at the time. I am not asking anyone to go back and read the record of Hansard, but to try to put this matter into perspective I should mention that I made a speech in the House on that occasion suggesting that the general move toward seasonal benefits with no relationship to the level of premiums, and without reference to any special grant into the fund, was attacking the root principle on which the Unemployment Insurance Act was supposed to have been founded.
History has shown that in the period shortly after that the balance in the fund began to take a drastic plunge and that over a fairly short period it dropped from almost $1 billion into the red. It is in that context that the first assessments were made of the coverage of fishermen under unemployment insurance, and I submit that it was out of that situation that the Gill report developed.
Some comments were made by the unemployment insurance advisory committee on the question of coverage of fishermen. I submit that the initial reaction of the unemployment insurance advisory committee, perhaps partly because of lack of experience, was very shallow and incomplete and that the Gill committee really did not go into this question-I have checked their recommendations on the coverage of fishermen-except in a very superficial way. Their recommendations stem from the fact that the fishermen were receiving consideration at a time when there was a drastic, general decline in the level of the fund, partly as a result of the extension of seasonal benefits and partly as a result of the generally prevailing high level of unemployment. So the coverage of fishermen had two strikes against it almost from the start.
As a result of the first reaction and resulting recommendations on coverage for fishermen embodied in the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 report of the committee of inquiry, generally known as the Gill report, the people who devised the white paper on unemployment insurance, without any real background study, simply carried forward the rather superficial opinions expressed in the Gill report into the white paper; and this in turn has now been brought forward in the bill before the House.
I would invite the Minister of Labour to read the brief submitted to the Gill commission in 1961 by the spokesman for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, the late William Rigby-and I say this advisedly, Mr. Speaker. Before commenting on what Mr. Rigby had to say, may I tell the minister a little story that I heard about William Rigby in another context which I think illustrates that many people who did not share his political views, of whom I was one, had a healthy respect for the keenness of his intelligence and for the lucid manner in which he could put forward a case.
Mr. Rigby appeared before a commission of inquiry into workmen's compensation in the province of British Columbia which was conducted by a former chief justice of the province, Chief Justice Gordon Sloan. Apparently there was a lot of high-priced legal talent there and some of the QC's and others objected to Mr. Rigby appearing before the commission because he had not been admitted to the bar of the province. The Chief Justice, in his capacity as commissioner, very quickly set them back on their heels by saying that of all the briefs submitted to him regarding possible changes in the operation of workmen's compensation in British Columbia, the one presented by Mr. Rigby was the most lucid and penetrating; that far from disqualifying him from appearing before the commission, he wanted to tell everyone that he had made an impressive contribution to the question of possible changes in the composition of the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia.
I would suggest that if the Gill commission, and those responsible for the preparation of the white paper, had paid more attention to the analysis of the whole question of coverage for fishermen as presented in this brief we might not be playing around in the dark about an alternative plan which apparently the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has not been able to produce in a manner satisfactory even to the government.
Indeed, as I look through this presentation in its earlier part which deals with general questions of principle in respect of the application of unemployment insurance, I find that many aspects of this bill which are being hailed by the Minister of Labour as advances, including one of universality and the technique of financing the plan above a certain level of unemployment, are all outlined by Mr. Rigby in his brief as a prelude in which he describes the special case of the fisherman. At page 13 of the brief he said:
If the general principles we have advocated in the foregoing section of our brief were accepted as guidelines for a reconstruction of the act the present section would be unnecessary, except as an illustration of the deficiencies of the previous structure.

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
That is the section he refers to as the special case of fishermen. He goes on to point out the pattern and the conditions of groups of employees and workers excluded from the act which, as the minister might recall, included lumbering, logging, transportation by water and stevedoring. They were excluded under the original act. He goes on to cite the pattern of how one by one these groups were covered under the act, the fishing group being the last, in 1957. Mr. Rigby points out that while it is recognized that it is more difficult for fishermen to gain recognition of the fact that their occupation is different in form, but not in essence, from other industrial employments, they are engaged in employment which is essential rather than exotic or archaic. This is a followup of his earlier suggestion that fishing is historic, being among the very first of man's employment endeavours.
He goes on to deal with the question I touched upon about the unfortunate juxtaposition of the final agreement to cover fishermen, with a definite period of high unemployment and the drain on the fund which developed in 1957. He goes on to analyse the drain on the fund, which was commented on by the advisory committee, resulting from the terms and conditions under which fishermen were covered, pointing out that there was a great hue and cry about this annual drain on the fund. He also pointed out that in the general picture this was a pretty small part of the decrease in the fund because for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958, the balance in the fund declined $134,241,000, in 1959 it declined $244,389,000 and in 1960 it declined $133,919,000. So as Mr. Rigby said:
When these amounts are compared with the committee's own figures, purporting to represent the drain on the fund resulting from fishing coverage, we can only advance a subconscious need of finding a scapegoat to explain the following comments of the committee-
He was referring to what the unemployment insurance advisory committee said in its report dated July 27, 1960, as follows:
The second major drain on the fund is caused by the extension of coverage to the fishing industry. The loss to the fund during the past three years has been approximately $23,000,000-
This is in response to what we were talking about in terms of a drop in the fund in the order of $500 million. This is a point I tried to argue at the time the coverage was being developed. I remember telling the then Minister of Labour that fishermen in British Columbia in their wildest dreams never expected the government to come up with the kind of plan it did which, as Mr. Rigby and many others have pointed out, has operated in such a way that those who need it least are the ones who benefit most.
I am trying to suggest that because of this sequence of events, and because the government initially came in with an ill-conceived plan for covering fishermen, it is assumed that there is something wrong with including fishermen in the plan. No one has really gone back to the fundamentals of what might have been done in the first place but was not done. I have here a copy of a resolution adopted by a fishermen group in British Columbia.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What year was it?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This was a resolution adopted at the seventeenth annual convention of the UFAWU of 1961. In other words, this was about the time this question was being reviewed by the commission. These are the points they suggest should be considered as far as fishermen coverage is concerned. They said that fishermen should be fully integrated with other employees under the act in all respects, since the majority of fishermen combine fishing with employment in other industries whenever such employment is available. As a matter of fact, I well remember that at the time I expected the government to make it a condition of eligibility under the act that a fisherman make himself available for alternative employment and that he only claim benefits if the had done that and no other employment was available.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you call it four o'clock, I wonder if unanimous agreement has been reached in respect of carrying on with this debate. There has been discussion and I believe there is disposition to continue this debate past four o'clock, in the hope that it will be concluded not later than 4.30. I think we are very close to the conclusion of the debate and perhaps by 4.30 we will have concluded it. At that time private members' hour could be started, to continue until five o'clock.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have just one brief speech left.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I cannot consent to this being done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has not asked for consent, but the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) has indicated he will not consent.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to reconsider. There is no intention to deny any member the opportunity to speak. We will provide time for anyone else who wants to participate, in addition to time for the regular private members' hour. We could, in effect, extend the time to allow anyone who wishes to do so to participate in private member's hour. I think the hon. member who was speaking has almost exhausted his time.
If we were to extend the time now it would provide an opportunity for other members representing fisheries areas to state their opinions. The hon. member has been very eloquent and I learned a lot about the fishing industry in the 40 minutes during which he spoke. The only thing remaining would be about five minutes for amendments and then we could move on to private members' hour and give the sponsors, to whom I apologize, an opportunity to speak during that hour.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has made a suggestion. It was four o'clock and there was not unanimous consent for the House not to proceed to private members' business.
June 11, 1971

If hon. members are in unanimity, as the Minister of Labour has indicated the House could continue the debate which was in process before four o'clock. But the Chair sees little purpose in hon. members expressing varying opinions. If there is unanimity I will put the question now.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to members, but I misunderstood the situation and so far as I am concerned I am willing to withdraw my objection.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the debate is to be adjourned at 4.30 so that private members' hour may commence at that time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair wishes to be sure about this. Do hon. members wish the Chair to ask whether then the time of the debate is to be extended until 4.30, at which time the House will proceed to private members' hour? Is there agreement that this be done?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, may I announce that on Monday it is our intention to begin the day with the Judges Act, followed by the pilotage measure, then the clean air bill and at eight o'clock take the deferred votes on this bill. Then afterward-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Afterward would we have third reading on this bill?


James Alexander Jerome: We would hope so.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, I understand, and I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, if we continue to have points of order, and so on, we will soon reach 4.30. My point of order, which I am not making seriously, is in respect of the minister's remarks about my having taken 40 minutes. It may have seemed like 40 minutes to him but I am sure I had not taken up more than 20 minutes. However, I shall not make a deliberate attempt to continue for another 20 minutes.
I had been outlining some of the principles which might be followed in respect of coverage of fishermen as put forward in 1961 by the main fishermen's organization of British Columbia. They pointed out that employment in the fishing industry should be fully integrated with other types of employment. They suggested that so far as contributions are concerned there should be no distinction between contributions in respect of fishing and other employments.
In respect of benefits it is stated that every contributor should be governed by similar qualifications, whether for regular or seasonal benefits, without regard to the industry or industries in which he may have been employed. Secondly, in respect of weeks of employment it is stated that fisherman's earnings, whether payment is received by the trip or by seasonal settlement, should be averaged over all the weeks engaged in fishing, from the time he sets out for the fishing grounds to the time the boat is tied up at the end of his trip or season.
Mr. Speaker, I would comment on that matter but there is all this talk about it being difficult to determine whether or not a fisherman is actually working. I suggest that a large part of this question has been conjured up. Indeed, the time a fisherman is or should be working is determined by regulation made by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. It would not be at all difficult to develop a formula which would in fact meet the need clearly in respect of when the man who calls himself a fisherman was working so far as the purposes of this act are concerned. The submission goes on to talk about the system of working out the weekly earnings. I am attempting to condense this a little in the hope that the minister may agree to further consider these matters. The brief reads:
In case of high earnings during a good season not only would higher contributions be paid but it would also be equitable for an additional waiting period to be established (by some formula to be based on earnings as shown by contribution record) before a benefit could be paid, in case of unemployment immediately following fishing employment.
This is a perfectly reasonable proposition and I think it is one which could be worked out if there were in fact a determination to do it-but in my submission there never was such a determination at the time the plan was first introduced. The basic concern at that time by members of the government who were able to persuade their colleagues to go along with this type of coverage-I believe I am correct in my analysis-was to provide immediate assistance to those who earned a living as fishermen on the Atlantic coast of Canada. In my view the legislation was rushed through without proper consideration. Then, because of the developments I have tried to outline, the

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 quick conclusion was reached that it really was not a very practical arrangement to try to cover fishermen.
The only other point I should like to emphasize before I sit down is that in the brief of Mr. Rigby there is a very penetrating analysis of the question sometimes referred to as the difference between self-employed people and those who have a direct hourly contract for the payment of wages. He points out that unless one were to accept the principle that anyone whose income comes from a piece-work system is to be excluded from the coverage of the act, there is really no more logical basis-if one understands the nature of the fishing industry and the historical pattern on which it has developed-under which to exclude fishermen, whether they be sharesmen or lone fishermen, from the coverage of the act than there is to provide coverage to any other group of industrial workers.
Hopefully, some day I shall be able to say the computerizing of administering of the act has been a good thing- but surely the necessary data upon which a reasonable plan could be developed on a permanent basis is much simpler to obtain today than it was in 1957! Therefore I would seek the support of the House on these two amendments which in effect say that the commission would be directed to provide proper coverage for fishermen and a plan which would be in effect unless and until it was amended by direction of the Parliament of Canada.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly-and I assure the minister that I will be very brief-on the two amendments before the House. The amendments were moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), but I assure the House that there are other reasons for opposing them. The bill states that notwithstanding anything in this act, the commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make regulations for-
(a)	including as an insured person any person who is engaged in fishing (hereinafter in this section called a "fisherman"), notwithstanding that such person is not an employee of any other person;
Those of us who have been closely associated with the industry for many years realize that a fisherman is a self-employed person. He has been classified as being a sharesman in a joint venture and as such he can be classified as a self-employed worker. However, in an effort to take care of some of the exigencies of the industry and some of the hardships with which fishermen have been faced over the years, it was decided, although they are sharesmen in a joint venture, to make them eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and therefore fishermen pay a certain percentage of the cost while shipowners at one time, and now buyers of fish, pay the other percentage. When the weather in inclement, or during the winter months when it is impossible to carry out fishing operations, fishermen in turn receive benefits.
This is spelled out in the bill and I find no fault with the wording. Paragraph (b) of clause 146 provides: including as an employer of a fisherman any person with whom the fisherman enters into a contractual or other commercial relationship in respect of his occupation as a fisherman-
These words adequately cover the situation. There are, for example, many forms of fishing activity. They start out with inshore fishermen operating alone in their boats and they carry on through to the deep sea operation where 20 or 25 men operate a commercial fishing trawler or dragger. In all cases there are times when these men may, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.
We know of the recent example of mercury pollution which affected a large segment of the fishing industry which operates out of my home town of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. I refer to the deep sea swordfish fishermen. Without the benefits provided by an act of this type it is certain that some of these people would have suffered genuine hardship. Therefore I find these amendments rather strange and complex. I find it almost impossible to understand them. Amendment No. 18 seeks to delete the following words from clause 146:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, premiums collected pursuant to any regulations made under this section shall be paid into and credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund-
These are the key words.
-and benefits paid pursuant to any such regulation shall be paid out of and charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The key words are "benefits paid", as I read this section of the bill and I for one cannot vote for the deletion of this section of the bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member not realize that what this means is that these moneys are to be paid into and credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, instead of generally being paid out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund account as is the case for everybody else who is covered? The point is not that the money would not go in and out of the fund, but that it would go in and out of the unemployment insurance account of the fund.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I can only interpret what I read in the bill, and these are the words that become part of the statutes of Canada. The words are very clear. They say that benefits will be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As I understand it, this wording is used in view of the circumstances under which fishermen operate. But I would point out to the House that our fishermen, in times of real hardship, are not overly concerned about the source of payments under unemployment insurance. They are concerned about the protection provided by the unemployment insurance plan. I am a representative of a large area where inshore fishermen as well as deep sea fishermen operate and I would be loath to see any changes made which would affect their benefits.

June 11, 1971

The second amendment calls for the deletion of subclause 3 which provides:
This section shall be repealed on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
I cannot vote for this amendment because we would be projecting ourselves into the future not realizing the intent of the minister or the exact nature of the legislation which he plans to introduce. I hope 1 will be in this House to see the legislation and will have an opportunity to study it, and after studying the plan which the minister and the government propose to put forth I will reach a decision on whether to support or reject it. But I believe that at this time it would be premature to vote against these clauses in the bill and to reject them, because we do not know the type of legislation which the government will be introducing in the future for our fishermen. With these remarks I have indicated the position of our party and the reasons we cannot do other than vote for the bill as it stands.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour I want to say that the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has expressed his point of view very succinctly and I do not think I could do better. I am impressed by his contribution. He made his points briefly. If he had had more time he would have elaborated on some of the problems which fishermen of this country face. Mercury pollution might be one.
What we are doing here is in effect ensuring that they receive their benefits. Their payments are coming out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We are asserting here for the first time our moral obligation to the fishermen and the realization that they have particular problems and it is the obligation of the government to help them. The question in the future will be whether the best way of helping them is through unemployment insurance or through another plan that meets with their approval and it will be our responsibility to bring in an alternative plan to provide stabilization, rationalization and a guaranteed income for our fishing industry.
Employed fishermen who in the regulations are classed as employees will be the responsibility of the minister of the environment and fisheries. We are saying that until a plan is brought in which will meet with the approval of the House and the representatives of fishermen, they will be covered by unemployment insurance and entitled to the new benefit structure as will any other Canadian. If we did not have this section in the act, employed fishermen would not be able to qualify in the same way as other employees. Therefore, our provision is badly needed and I would urge that the amendment be rejected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to speak on the substance of the matter but to call attention to an error in clause 146, which is the one being amended. Perhaps the minister's officials would note it. In line 9, after "146" I think there should be the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 figure "1" in brackets in the English text, just as there is in the French text.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Barnett) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This note also disposes of motion No. 19. We now have for consideration the last motion, No. 20. Mr. Mackasey, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale), moves:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by striking out lines 21 to 24, inclusive, at page 95 and by substituting therefor the following:
"(c) paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 3:
(d)	Parts I, II, V, VI (except paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 135 thereof) and VII; and
(e)	sections 146, 150 to 157, 159 and 160;"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion No. 20 (Mr. Mackasey) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As hon. members will recall, this leaves for consideration motion No. 3 which was stood yesterday. It was put yesterday and is before the House for consideration at this point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to repeat what was said yesterday. This motion almost went through except that there was some confusion about the wording. In order to make it acceptable and achieve what was intended, I will read the amended motion now, hoping that it will be acceptable to the government. The motion will read:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by adding next after subclause (1) of clause 4, following line 35 at page 5, the following:

June 11, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
" (2) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, make regulations for including in insurable employment any person who is employed or otherwise engaged in a business within the definition of "business" in the Income Tax Act." and renumbering subsequent subclauses accordingly.
The intention of this motion is to include self-employed persons in the event that they would want to come under the plan.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may speak briefly to the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). We have had discussion about it and his amended motion as far as it goes is quite acceptable to the governement. However, in view of the fact that we intend to amend motion No. 3, in the few minutes left may I refer to the committee discussion about whether or not Members of Parliament should be included in the unemployment insurance plan. There was a sharp division of opinion, for various reasons. Some felt that we should be included, particularly school teachers who said we were imposing something on them that we were not prepared to impose on ourselves. Another school of thought was that by including ourselves under unemployment insurance we would be protecting those of us who may not be back here next June. I have wrestled with this problem in the interval.
No one wants to be included in unemployment insurance just for the purpose of accepting benefit but most of the members of the committee were prepared to be included, as an example to school teachers and others. Mr. Speaker, you may want to dispose of the hon. member's amendment to clause 4 first and then I may be permitted to introduce another amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister suggesting an amendment, in addition to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander)?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It would be an amendment to the same clause, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister would like to conclude his remarks I will ask for consent on both amendments at the same time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The purpose of the amendment is simply to permit the Unemployment Insurance Commission, by regulation in the future-this does not mean it will happen-if after further consultation over the winter months or during the next session of Parliament it were felt desirable that members of the House of Commons should be included after the next election, to rule that this could be done. It would mean adding the following paragraph to the clause, stating "the tenure of an office as defined in the Canada Pension Plan."
Members of Parliament are covered under the Canada Pension Plan. All the amendment would do is permit the Unemployment Insurance Commission to include Members of Parliament, by regulation-at least those of us who have tenure of office as defined in the Canada Pension Plan-if at some future date it was felt desirable to
do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a happy solution to the problem and I hope it can be accepted between now and 4.30.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a rather difficult position. In view of the fact that there seems to have been general agreement expressed among parties, I hope it will be understood that at this time I am speaking as a private member. I would like an opportunity to put on the record my views concerning this matter. I appreciate the intent of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and of the other persons involved in agreeing on the proposed amendment. It appears to me that their intention is to allow small private businessmen to come under the plan if they wish to do so. However, I do not think we are reaching any happy solution this way.
We must understand our system of government when considering these matters. If the executive decides that a certain group is to be included, a resolution will be proposed to Parliament and it can be pushed through without any real demand from the people concerned. What is wanted is an amendment allowing people to come under the plan if they wish to do so.
During discussion of this bill we had examples of groups of people, in particular school teachers, who did not want to come under the plan. As a result of the provisions of the bill there will be fewer people outside the plan. I fail to see how the amendment as proposed, in operation will be voluntary in nature. It will permit a government, by resolution, to bring additional people under the plan even though this may be against their wishes, and they will not be in position to defend themselves. If people want to come in, then by all means they should have that privilege; but it should be on their initiative and not the initiative of the Parliament of Canada as appears to be the case with this amendment.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think the hon. member's remarks* which were pertinent, refer primarily to the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West. What it does is permit the Unemployment Insurance Commission upon request to define certain self-employed people as employed people and employees for the purpose of the act-taxi drivers, barbers and small entrepreneurs who need this type of coverage. It gives the Unemployment Insurance Commission the right to cover them by regulation in future if it is found desirable. I think that primarily what the hon. member had in mind was that it does not have to come back to Parliament and if it is found desirable in the view of hon. members, the commission would have the power to adjudicate on the question. I think this is all it is intended to do.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Can I ask the minister a question? Did I understand him to say that even though the commission can make regulations covering a certain group, they still will not have to come under this coverage?

June 11, 1971


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It simply involves the subject of universality. Teachers are no problem; they are identified as employees and they are included. Although we have been asked to bring in self-employed people, we have found it administratively impossible as a general rule. However, there can be exceptions. What the hon. member's amendment does is permit the Unemployment Insurance Commission, by regulation, to bring in particular groups of people where there is an administrative problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), having stated his position, would not at least be willing for the amendments to be put to the House, realizing that that part of it takes unanimous consent. He could vote against it and perhaps speak against it again on third reading. I think there is a general desire among all parties that both these amendments, the one by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the one by the minister, be placed before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must ask hon. members for consent to deal with the question in that way. It would seem that procedurally we should withdraw motion No. 3 proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and then put the amending motions. Would that appear to be the situation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that motion No. 3 as put yesterday is to be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Alexander) withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) moves the following motion:
That Bill C-229 (reprinted as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration) be amended
(a)	by striking out line 32 on page 5 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"thereto"
(b)	by deleting line 35 on page 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"consent thereto; and"
(c)	by adding immediately following paragraph (f) of subclause 1 of clause 4 on page 5, the following paragraph:
" (g) the tenure of an office as defined in the Canada Pension Plan".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion (Mr. Mackasey) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the divisions which have been deferred at the report stage of this bill will be called at eight o'clock on Monday evening.
In accordance with the order made earlier today we will now proceed to private members' business.
Criminal Code



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


William Kenneth Robinson: that Bill C-45, to amend the Criminal Code (vagrancy), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I first had the opportunity to present this private members bill on November 7, 1968. I was prompted, in part, to present such a bill by an article that appeared in the Toronto Telegram on October 24, 1968, entitled "Vagrancy charge threat scares off students Biafra Sleep-in" and also because as a lawyer I have on occasion acted as counsel for citizens charged with vagrancy, and as a social worker I looked into the problem to some extent when I was preparing my master's thesis some ten years ago.
I welcome this opportunity to bring before the House a matter that seems to me to require the close scrutiny of hon. members. I am not talking about a problem that has only recently arisen, nor am I speaking of a situation that necessarily requires an immediate remedy. What I am saying is that since the introduction of the original Criminal Code there has been perpetuated in successive statutes an offence that runs contrary to the best principles of criminal justice.
I would hope that if the members of the House do not see fit to support me in this motion, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) might consider including the subject matter of this bill in the proposed omnibus bill on the Criminal Code to be introduced later in the session. 1 am of course referring to the crime of vagrancy as defined in section 164(l)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, which reads:
(1) Every one commits vagrancy who
(a)	not having any apparent means of support is found wandering abroad or trespassing and does not, when required, justify his presence in the place where he is found;
(b)	begs from door to door or in a public place;
What you have just heard is a law which deals with individuals who have the misfortune to be poor and unemployed at a time when Canada has perhaps the greatest number of people unemployed in its history. Vagrancy is a crime of status which brands a convicted person as one who has failed to live up to the demands of society as far as pulling his own weight is concerned. Thus, vagrancy arrests serve our aesthetic sensibilities by removing temporarily an unsightly group of men from the streets. A conviction for vagrancy is punishment for conduct of the individual which in no way impinges on the rights or interests of others, and which has in no way been demonstrated to have anything more than the most tenuous connection with the prevention of crime and the preservation of public order.
In practice, vagrancy statutes today are used against (a) alcoholic derelicts and other unfortunates whose only crime, if any, is against themselves and whose main offence usually consists of their leaving the environs of

June 11, 1971
Criminal Code
skid-row and disturbing, by their presence, the sensibilities of residents of nicer parts of the community, or (b) suspected criminals with respect to whom the authorities do not have enough evidence to make a proper arrest or secure a conviction on the crime suspected.
Vagrancy statutes are however, couched in equivocal terms. As such, they may be applied at one time or another to any and every citizen, law-abiding or lawless. This is where the danger of their application lies. For example, university students are notorious for living without apparent means of support. The greater danger lies, however, more in groups that have traditionally been an anathema to law enforcement officers, the so-called "hippies" who tend to inhabit the larger urban centres of Canada. This group, too, lives without apparent means of support and yet contrary to popular belief infrequently presents any real danger to public order or peace.
What is involved here is a life style outside the customary life style of Canadian society. Unlike those in the general milieu, people in this secondary culture do not have to have means of support or justification for their presence in order to be accepted by others in society. But the vagueness of section 164 allows selective and discriminatory enforcement against just such a minority without any proof of particular harm. I do not intend to fault the police for this. Any time there is an opportunity for abuse it is natural for abuse to result.
This has not been simply my own analysis. It is that also of Ronald Crenshaw, writing in the South Dakota Law Review in the spring of 1970, of Gary Dubin and Richard Robinson in the January, 1962, edition of the New York University Law Review, of Raymond Nimmer in Judicature, volume 54, August-September, 1970, of William Sydney Davis, Jr., in volume 35 of the Tennessee Law Review, of the editors of the Washington University Law Quarterly, and of Cliff Nelson and Ray Steele in the January, 1970, issue of the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.
There are those who will argue that the American vagrancy laws are different from those in Canada. I can only say that they are correct, at least in one sense. The wording of the legislation does differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But-and this is far more important-all vagrancy laws have a common origin, common purpose and a common pattern of enforcement. Others will say that the 1953-54 amendments to the Criminal Code did away with the concept of status criminality and replaced it with conduct criminality, meaning that a vagrant is no longer arrested simply for "being" a particular kind of person but only for "doing" something proscribed by law. In technical, legal theory those who take issue in this manner are probably correct.
The then Minister of Justice, Hon. Mr. Garson, argued to this effect in the 1953-54 session, is found at page 2274 of Hansard. In fact, however, such an argument is statute semantics. In practice the offences consist not in doing, but in being. You have only to look at section 164(1) of the Criminal Code. As far as I am concerned, the gravamen of the offence in subsection (l)(c) is "being a prostitute". Anyone else found in a public place does not have to give a good account of himself or herself.
Even under subsection (l)(a) there is an additional requirement that the individual must have no apparent means of support. Thus, under subsection (l)(c) the particular conduct is proscribed only if the individual involved is a common prostitute. Surely, where the essential element of the offence is status, then the crime is itself a crime of status. In this particular subsection of the act there is an additional distasteful hypocrisy. Most Canadians believe that prostitution is an offence. It is not. The Minister of Just ce quoted correctly during debate of the Criminal Code amendments in the 1953-54 session, at page 2286 of Hansard, as follows:
The mere fact that a woman Is a prostitute, however, does not make her a vagrant-
Prostitution in Canada is completely legal. Only if all the constituent elements of section 164 (l)(c) are met-I hesitate to use the word "satisfied"-does it become a crime. Thus, we have the odd case of a naked prostitute who is found not guilty because her policeman client had not asked her to give a good account of herself before he arrested her. If, as some people assert, subsection (l)(c) is intended as a public health measure, it would be better to establish regulations outside the Criminal Code. If not, then I would suggest, without being in favour of such a move, that prostitution itself be proscribed. This discussion is, however, peripheral to the subject matter of the bill now before the House, which seeks the repeal of subsections (l)(a) and (l)(b) of section 164 of the Criminal Code.
There is some history to vagrancy and it is important to realize that all vagrancy statutes owe their origin to the Statutes of Labourers passed in England in 1349 and 1350 confining the labouring population to stated places and fixing wages at specific rates, largely because of the shortage of labour engendered by the black plague and the increasing transient nature of the population follow-ingt he enclosure laws.
This original rationale later gave way to the "probable criminal" theory, and thus to economic and status criminality. The justification for the original vagrancy law, as carried over now in its application, was threefold: first the Protestant ethic dictated that work was necessary for the preservation of society; therefore the vagrancy laws encouraged the idle and the indigent to engage in productive activity and thereby to contribute to the general social and economic welfare. In this way vagrants were discouraged from becoming dependent on public assistance or charity. Second, the state had a right to recognize social sensibilities and to protect the decent citizens of the community from contact with undesirable elements of the general population. Third, since idleness was conducive to criminality, vagrancy laws prevented crime.
The problem, of course, is that the laws originating in this rationale have now become embodied in the Criminal Code. The vagrancy concept operates on a theory of suspicion causation and ignores actual causation. But in

June 11, 1971

traditional criminal theory there must be a relationship between the harm to be prevented and the behaviour punished. With vagrancy offences, the essential elements of criminal theory, that is, conduct and causation, are ignored or distorted in an attempt to prevent crime through the punishment of vagrancy. The customary mens rea and actus reus, the guilty mind and the guilty act, are clumsily passed over in an arbitrary and inefficacious attribution of criminal responsibility. The results are nothing short of catastrophic.
Police forces are able to use the vagrancy provisions with unparalleled ease. First, with respect to a substantial proportion of suspects, and despite existing legal aid plans, the utter impotence of the accused is usually ample guarantee that he will not employ lawyers or otherwise annoy the police. Second, the vague definitions of "vagrancy" confer on an officer a discretion so broad that technically he can seldom be held not to have had reasonable and probable cause for the arrest. Arrests on suspicion, discriminatory enforcement and capricious administration are all made possible by the continued existence of the offence of vagrancy. There is probably not a member in this chamber, and certainly no lawyer, who does not know of abuses under the present vagrancy laws.
This then is the extent of the problem. What are the solutions? It is undoubtedly necessary to give the police some residual power to prevent crime in its inception and to apprehend persons who in the police officer's opinion are seeking the opportunity to commit crime. In my view this is a justifiable purpose of the criminal law, but it is also ill-served by present legislation. What I would suggest is something along the lines of the American Uniform Arrest Act, permitting the detention and questioning of persons whom a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to suspect of committing, having committed or being about to commit a crime.
This detention and questioning would be for a limited time-two hours under the Uniform Arrest Act-and would not be recorded as an arrest in any official record. At the end of the detention the person detained would have either to be released or arrested and charged. The advantage of such a system, hopefully, would be that it would be confined to the true criminal element in society and would inhibit harassment by police of those who now fall under section 164 (1(a) or (b). Furthermore, the principles of arrest would be consistent with those of traditional criminal theory.
With regard to the other elements of society who have the great misfortune to fall within the purview of the present vagrancy laws, there is no justification for dealing with them under the criminal law. Either they commit a crime or they do not. For these people the vagrancy conviction is an unpleasant though generally brief interference with an otherwise undisturbed pattern of life. If it provides anything at all, the process of arrest, conviction and sentencing provides only minimal temporary assistance. Recidivism rates for vagrancy demonstrate that no more than short-term help is provided.
Criminal Code
The obvious way to treat these people is not through the criminal process, wh'ch is already greatly overburdened both in terms of case loads and in terms of inadequate facilities for treatment, but through adequate social legislation. A master of social work thesis completed at the University of Toronto in 1960 and entitled "Public Attitudes Toward the Criminal Transient" states:
The work-shy constitute only a minute fraction of the whole population of tolerably able bodied and able minded men and women. It appears that if jobs are available, most people have shown a readiness to try them out. If you exclude the obviously unfit, the number of near unemployable is practically negligible, and idleness has proved to be far more a matter of faulty social and economic organization than a personal shortcoming.
Failing the introduction of an adequate social organization, it can still be argued that attribution of future criminality to vagrancy is for the most part unfounded in fact. The only conclusion I can reach is that there is no justification for the unique treatment now afforded so-called vagrants under the Criminal Code. My conception of criminal law does not encompass the serving of aesthetic sensibilities by removing an unsightly and often unattractive group of individuals from public view, and yet in my opinion this is, on analysis, the only possible rationale for the retention of vagrancy offences in the Criminal Code.
In conclusion I should like to thank hon. members present for their attention. Section 164 of the Criminal Code does not include the specific reference to the person who "lives without employment" that was contained in section 238A of the old code. Yet, Nelson and Steele are forced to conclude that in effect the section still deals with the down and out, the unemployed and the unemployable. In my opinion the vagrancy provision forms the catch-all when no more specific offence can be pinpointed. It is the direct ancestor of a long series of penal enactments ordering imprisonment, flogging, enslavement and death whereby the English legislature strove some 700 years ago to grapple with a steadily mounting migratory population. It was legislation designed to correct, among other things, the evils arising from the mendicancy of such wanderers as did not obtain employment and the dishonesty of many of those who did not even seek it. It has now become an anachronistic survival of a past age, unjustified in principle and abusive in application.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that a criminal sanction to enforce an Elizabethan Poor Law concept is grotesquely out of step with the current evolution of criminal justice. Surely in this twentieth century it should no longer be a crime to be poor. I hope all hon. members will support me in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all indebted to my hon. friend from Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for raising this important question. Society has advanced greatly in the past few
June 11, 1971

Criminal Code
years. There must be very few people nowadays who think the proper treatment of people who are styled as vagrants and who are really, for the most part, unfortunates in our society, is to class them as criminals. The problems which they face and which they create are not properly problems for the criminal law but, rather, as my hon. friend has said, questions of social justice. He has proposed that two only of the governing paragraphs in the section should be removed. There is a third about which he has spoken and which in a modern society is equally offensive-the one which deals with common prostitutes and which many women find an offensive relic of the past.
There is very little I can add in the time available to the excellent argument which has been presented by my hon. friend from Lakeshore. It might be of interest to the House to know that there are people in this country who have given deep consideration to the vagrancy laws and have advocated their abolition and the substitution of other methods of treatment. I cite first the recent report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, which states at page 392:
The inappropriateness of most of our present methods of handling such behaviour is a matter for concern in relation to
both men and women offenders. The fact that there has been little use in Canada of shelters other than a jail can be assumed to be related to our failure to provide the appropriate alternate resources rather than to a conscious decision that the treatment of vagrancy should be equated with the treatment of other "crimes".
This report, together with the recent report on the Status of Women, indicates how discriminatory these provisions have been against women in this country. At page 371 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women the following is said:
Even though they have committed no offence, many young girls are arrested and charged with vagrancy, simply because they do not have homes or money or because there is no place to send them for the night. It is relatively easy for homeless men to find shelter in hostels in most large cities but there are few hostels for women. Most charges of vagrancy are not contested and, once convicted, these girls will have a criminal record. They may also have their first encounter with criminals while they wait in prison for their court appearance. The commission considers section 164(1)	(a) of the Criminal Code unsound
in its treatment of vagrants because we hold that vagrants are not criminals.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.