1971-06-10

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF FRENCH DELEGATES TO MEETING OF CANADA-FRANCE INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of the French delegation to the annual meeting of the France-Canada Inter-Parliamentary Association. The National Assembly of France has again shown the importance it attributes to the Association by the eminence of its delegates to this year's meeting. I particularly want to note the presence of the head of the delegation, Mr. Lucien Neuwirth, hon. member for the Loire department, Questor of the National Assembly and Secretary-General of our Association.
Mr. Neuwirth and the other members of the delegation come to Canada and to Parliament not only as parliamentary colleagues but also as friends. On behalf of this House, I extend a most cordial welcome to these gentlemen.



NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Yvon L'Heureux, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Chambly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to consider a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to all hon. members. I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau): That this House do order an immediate and thorough public inquiry into the operations and fund disbursement procedure of the Opportunities for Youth program, with a view to the allegations made by an alderman of the city of Toronto, and with a view as well to the widespread concern about modified
criteria of approval, the reticence of the minister to publish statistics about provincial and per capita breakdowns that do in fact exist, and, above all, the failure of the department to have the decency to acknowledge all those applications received or to maintain regional consistencies in the awarding and approval of projects.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont.
This motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent of the House.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.
...



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity.
This matter concerns the potentially tragic situation created by the sinking of the CMHC financed Richmond Square limited dividend apartment house project. This 13-storey, multimillion dollar building has partially sunk into the ground. Floors, ceilings and bearing walls have obviously settled and are perhaps 10 to 20 inches out of line. There are approximately 80 apartments whose windows have popped out. The structure was apparently built on an old creek bed, and when the frost came out of the ground this spring a portion of the building subsided. The building is untenanted but is a hazard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make a speech at this point. Will he kindly resume his seat. The Chair has to remind him of the terms and practice under Standing Order 43. The hon. member should indicate what his motion is so the Chair may inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs forthwith inquire into the faulty construction of the Richmond Square project, the responsibility of CMHC officials in approving and inspecting its site and construction; that the Committee recommend what action must be taken to remedy

June 10, 1971
Canada Council Grant
the existing danger; and that the committee report back to this House before the House rises for the summer recess.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



CANADA COUNCIL


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask for unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This urgent matter arises from the disclosure that a questionable piece of literature entitled, "The True Eventual Story of Billy the Kid", authored by B. P. Nichol, recently received a Governor General's literary award, and its author was the recipient of a $2,500 prize from the Canada Council.
In view of the fact that many respected reviewers, plus members of this House, have assessed this work as an affront to decency and a discouragement to serious literary effort and that, furthermore, it should be noted that many serious and competent students are being denied research grants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should indicate what his motion is. I suggest to hon. members in a general way that perhaps we have reached the point where the terms of Standing Order 43 ought to be reviewed by the House or by a committee. In any event, the hon. member might indicate what his motion is so that the House can determine whether there is unanimous consent for consideration of the motion.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That this House expresses its displeasure with the award recommendations in relation to the work entitled, "The True Eventual Story of Billy the Kid", and requests that this matter be immediately referred for consideration by the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts; and further that the Secretary of State, under whose administration such award recommendations are made, be summoned before the Standing Committee accompanied by the selection board who recommended this award.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion which can only be put to the House by unanimous consent. I will inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put at this time.



CIGARETTE PRODUCTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-148, respecting the promotion and sale of cigarettes.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the charges of mishandling of funds by the federal government in the administration of the Opportunities for Youth program in Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has given the Chair notice of his intention to propose this motion under the terms of Standing Order 26. I might say that a similar intention had been indicated to the Chair by the hon. member for Egmont, but there was a slight difficulty in relation to the time of notice and it was agreed that perhaps the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would apply equally to the motion indicated by the hon. member for Egmont.
The Chair has studied very closely the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. With his knowledge of the rules, precedents and practice in reference to Standing Order 26, I believe he will appreciate that it would be very difficult for the Chair to accept the motion at the present time. It seems to me that this is the kind of proposal which should be put to the House by way of a substantive motion for consideration in due course, perhaps by the House itself or by a committee, rather than under the terms of Standing Order 26.
I might suggest that perhaps this is more of a proposal to be put to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43, as was done, rather than under Standing Order 26, but that is a question of judgment, I suppose, or even of taste. One hon. member might prefer to put it under Standing Order 26 and another under Standing Order 43. But I do not believe this is the kind of subject which can be considered by the House under the terms of Standing Order 26.
I must also suggest to hon. members that there is the possibility of debate on other occasions. In fact I have had the opportunity during the last few days on a similar

June 10, 1971

ruling to indicate that there will be many such opportunities during the days ahead to debate these matters. I would assume that hon. members would want to avail themselves of these opportunities to consider the very important matter raised by the hon. members for Egmont and Winnipeg North Centre.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Prime Minister, since the Secretary of State is away.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he or another minister will answer the charges laid by a Toronto alderman concerning the Opportunities for Youth program and if a statement will be made in the House in this connection?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of those charges and I do not know if they are justified. Anyway, I will inquire and discuss the matter with the Secretary of State.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-AUDIT AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURES-PROVINCIAL BREAKDOWN OF GRANTS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might direct my supplementary to the parliamentary secretary. Can the parliamentary secretary inform the House exactly what audit and verification procedures are to be followed by the government and exactly what assistance is being given the young people in dealing with bookkeeping and payroll control?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I might also in part answer the question raised by the hon. member for South Western Nova. I think the most relevant fact I can produce at this point is that there have been no moneys sent to Toronto yet. The contracts are still under negotiation. We hope to be able to confirm them as soon as possible. The other point that I think is relevant is that the charges made by Alderman Crombie are charges we would like to look into. They are not particularly specific at this point, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will be going to Toronto this afternoon to try to find out more specifically what these charges relate to in terms of specific projects.
As hon. members know, the process of approving projects has involved widespread consultations with voluntary agencies, with provincial governments in many
Inquiries of the Ministry
cases, with government departments, with citizen's organizations and with the young people themselves. None of the funds will be sent without a series of checks throughout the summer.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the parliamentary secretary. Since concerns similar to those expressed by the Toronto alderman have been expressed by others, particularly in relation to the regional balance and provincial balance in awarding projects, can the parliamentary secretary inform the House whether or not provincial breakdowns of expected expenditures now exist and, if they do exist, when they will be presented to the House so that members will be aware of the administration of this program?


James Hugh Faulkner: The Secretary of State has said he will make a statement dealing with this and other questions which have been raised previously, and I would hope that that statement would be made as early as possible because it is understandable that there is impatience in the House on this matter. But it is a matter of all projects being finally approved and, as I think the Secretary of State indicated last week, there are still one or two projects which are not finally approved and any statement prior to that final approval would be premature.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO ADMINISTRATION-ADDITIONAL FUNDS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State who according to the roster was to be here today, whether, in view of all the problems that have arisen and the charges of mishandling or mismanagement-the latter is perhaps a more appropriate word-of funds, the Prime Minister will agree to suggest to the Secretary of State that he refer this whole matter to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts so that a full inquiry may be made not only into the criteria which the department has set up but also into the legitimacy of all the projects which have been approved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State is attending a telecommunications meeting in the Mari-times. The parliamentary secretary has presented adequate answers to Parliament. It is obvious that the opposition is seeing a scandal in the spending of money which has not even been paid out yet.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any scandal in it at all, but if the Prime Minister, instead of being so touchy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order.

June 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member has the floor.


David Lewis: In view of the anxiety, not about scandal but about the uncertainty whether these programs will produce the results they are intended to produce, will the Prime Minister assure us that there will be a full statement within the next day or two on all these matters? May I also ask the Prime Minister whether consideration is now being given to providing additional funds for the Opportunities for Youth program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. When these programs were announced it was said that we would analyse their efficiency and when the summer was over would look at the ways in which the program was successful or in what ways it might have failed in some of its objectives. At that time we will decide if we should continue with them or change them in some form.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. A moment ago the Prime Minister remarked that the Secretary of State had adequately answered in the House all questions with respect to this program. I should like to state that during the period of the last two months I have had occasion to send both letters and telegrams to the Secretary of State on this important program and none of them have been answered either in the House or directly by mail or telegram.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course that is not a question of privilege. I would not think that the matter should be pursued along those lines in any event.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-APPROVAL OF PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY ABITIBI APPLICANTS

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State.
A short while ago, he said that some projects were still being considered. Since some regions have been almost ignored so far, could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the projects submitted by young people from Abitibi are under consideration, and is it possible that some might be accepted?


James Hugh Faulkner: I would have to look into that. The projects that remain are very few in number. I think they number three and there are specific questions about the three. That is why they still remain unapproved. But I will certainly look into the matter to see if they relate to the Abitibi region.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS AND TORONTO CHARGES

Mr. James A. McGralh (Si. John's East):: I have a supplementary question for the parliamentary secretary.
In view of the serious charges that have been levelled against the operation of this program, would he undertake to contact the minister today with a view to having the minister make a statement with respect to the distribution of funds under the program and with respect to the charges that have been levelled in Toronto?


James Hugh Faulkner: I must say I am astonished at the position taken by opposition members. There has been a charge made, generally unspecified, by an alderman of the city of Toronto. A parliamentary secretary, a member of this House, is going to Toronto to speak to him on this matter today. It would seem to me that it would be, at the minimum, at least courteous to wait until we find what the charges are. The only figure I have is a figure relating to $12,000 to which the alderman referred. I have looked through the Toronto projects and that refers to an air pollution project undertaken by engineers in the department of chemistry at the University of Toronto. It seems to be quite a respectable project. I think what we should do is wait until we find out what the specific charges are, and if there is a statement to be made it will be made.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the parliamentary secretary
undertake to contact the minister today to ask the minister to issue a statement today with respect to the distribution of funds under the program?


James Hugh Faulkner: Frankly, I do not see the utility of that suggestion. The minister is in the Maritimes and the charges have come from Toronto. I think we will work it out in our own way.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Egmont rises on a point of order he will be recognized. The Chair will then go to the next questioner on a different subject.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary suggested that the only concerns that have been raised are those raised by one Toronto alderman. I have expressed concern in a number of letters and telegrams which have not yet been answered. I should like to know when Members of Parliament can expect to receive reasonable answers from the responsible ministers in this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Forestry which flows from questions I asked last week. Has the department been informed through the regional office in Vancouver that the United States Coastguard has waived

June 10, 1971

the 24-hour notice period which they have hitherto required with respect to Canadian fishing vessels before entry into west coast American ports?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries who I believe should be here tomorrow.



CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the delegations of some provinces to the Victoria conference will include representatives of the opposition parties, does the right hon. Prime Minister intend to invite representatives of the parties of the opposition in the House? We have been invited to the opening of the conference, but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that question was put yesterday in various ways. In any event, the right hon. Prime Minister might be allowed to answer briefly the question of the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question was asked yesterday and has been asked again today, but like so many other questions from opposition members recently, it is based on false grounds. To our knowledge, no province will bring opposition leaders as members of its delegation. If the hon. member or other Conservative members say otherwise, I would like some evidence.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State being absent, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if the government has decided to accept the recommendation contained in the Duhamel report to the effect that Quebec should be made a bilingual district?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated that, according to the report, 90 days must pass before the government may make a decision. This delay has not yet expired. We shall inform the House in due time.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Charlevoix a supplementary?


Martial Asselin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that no decision will be taken about this matter before the latter is submitted to an appropri-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ate House committee to enable Quebec associations to come before the committee and express their views on this important question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a suggestion that I will convey to the Secretary of State. It may have some good points, but I would suggest to opposition parties, and particularly to the Conservative party, that they do not have to wait for such a committee being convened before expressing their opinions. I hope that we will very soon hear the opposition's point of view on this matter.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Prime Minister should read what I said before when I expressed my views on this matter. So, if the Prime Minister addresses me, I am in a position to answer him.



CANADA COUNCIL


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. In view of the recent Canada Council grant based on the writing of a treatise relating to the life of Billy the Kid, can the parliamentary secretary say if this is a change of direction from subsidizing Marxism to marksmanship with short guns?


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether the hon. member should have a supplementary on this question, but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oxford on a related question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you, Your Honour. I would direct a related question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. Will the government take immediate steps to make appropriate changes in the personnel of the Canada Council in order to prevent future scandalous, ridiculous, and outright silly awards such as the one referred to this morning and others such as the one-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister stating government policy when he assured the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Toronto on Monday night that big business has nothing to fear from this government, and was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs also stating

June 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
government policy when he told the Canadian Association of Consumers in Halifax that big business would have to be subjected to government controls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question could easily be answered if the hon. member would take the trouble to read the transcript of the speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, will the government be introducing legislation along the lines expressed in Halifax by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs so that big business can be controlled, both in Canada and in terms of foreign ownership?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the minister said in Halifax-


Mr. Muir:: It was a ho-hum speech-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I do know he intends presenting to the House-


Robert Muir: Just another speech.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Pardon?


Robert Muir: It was a ho-hum speech, something like the one you delivered in Toronto.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ah-ha.



HOUSING


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Is the 13-storey, multi million dollar limited dividend housing project in Toronto, known as the Richmond Square project, going to be condemned and demolished because of the settlement of all 13 floors and the menace of its collapse?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: In light of this situation and also the tragedy at Saint Jean-Vianney, will the minister forthwith refer the whole question of the design, engineering and selection of sites for both these projects to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for thorough investigation of the incompetency of his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should realize that a question cannot be asked in those terms.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Chemcell Company Limited, which announced last week the impending closing of its Montmagny plant, is reported to have received from the federal government the tidy sum of $497,000 in grants for modernization purposes.
Can the minister tell the House whether the project presented by that company to get grants mentions the modernization of the Montmagny plant?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we have granted incentives to the Chemcell Company for three of its plants. The amount of $497,000 referred to by the hon. member does not relate to Montmagny only. I believe that only a small portion of this amount applies to Montmagny, with the balance for Drummondville and another location. However, I will ascertain whether this grant relates to modernization or expansion of the plant.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask a supplementary.
Since the hon. minister is well aware of the disastrous situation which will prevail in Montmagny, is he prepared to discuss this question further with the officials of the company with a view to helping them if necessary to modernize their plant and thus avoid its shutdown?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the problem in this case is that the company has not requested assistance. So we should have to beg them to accept it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the Washington ministerial meeting which we were told some weeks ago would deal with the TAPS project. Can he advise if the point of view of the Canadian government on this important matter will be presented today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, if so, what is the Canadian attitude?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the meeting being held in Washington on the pollution question in Lake Erie, the answer is that such a meeting is being held and that the government is discussing with the government at Washington and I believe with some state govern-
June 10, 1971

ments, and with the government of the province of Ontario, ways in which this situation can be met.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the
Prime Minister's answer that the earlier intention indicated to the House that the TAPS route would be discussed at the June 10 meeting has been abandoned and that this important subject is not up for consideration today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was my recollection that the meeting to which the hon. member refers was to take place on June 3 and not on June 10. I believe he may be confusing the two dates, but I will check with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his discussions in Washington today with Secretary of State William Rogers will be discussing two important questions of particular interest on the Pacific coast, namely the TAPS program already referred to and the proposed continuation of nuclear testing on Amchitka Island? Will either of these matters be raised at the meeting in Washington today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss pollution problems in the Great Lakes area. However, as I said in answer to the previous question, I will check to see if these other matters are also on the agenda.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether any discussions are to be held today or in the immediate future regarding the offer by President Nixon of unlimited access to the American market for Canadian crude oil and what terms are being proposed with respect to a possible agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I could not say, Mr. Speaker, but I shall refer the question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.




Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, whose duty it is to be in the House today, Mr. Speaker. He was here but has slipped out somewhere; perhaps we can entice him to return and face the music. If not, I shall address the question to the acting minister
Inquiries of the Ministry
and ask him to pass it on to the minister. In view of the fact that all components participated in the sharp decline of the index of industrial production in April, as reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics yesterday, would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take the first opportunity on motions to report to the House what steps his department intends to take to reverse this very serious trend so that the country may begin to experience the upturn in business which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have so often told the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Malpeque.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have asked a very serious question in a serious way, and the Minister of Finance, having some responsibility in this matter, rose to answer. I should like to know why Your Honour considers my question was not in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I interrupted the hon. member because I thought he was going on to make a speech.


George Harris Hees: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If he had reached the point where he had effectively asked the question, certainly the minister may reply.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question yesterday. If one looks at the details, in the durable goods manufacturing group six industries showed gains while only two showed declines. In the non-durable manufacturing group eight showed gains while four showed declines. I explained the particular declines yesterday.


George Harris Hees: As the index of industrial production-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Mr. Lang:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the first comment of the hon. member I should like to make it clear to the House, and I am sure the hon. member will be glad to hear it, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce left the House a few moments ago to meet a Japanese trade mission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I would say, thank Heaven he does something useful once in a while; I am very glad to hear that he has gone to this meeting. I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Does the fact that the index of industrial production rose during the latest month reported on at a rate of 10 per cent a year

June 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
mean that we are just doing fine or is that the kind of business upturn that the minister and the Prime Minister have been telling us for some months past we are going to have?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member will allow me to interrupt, I would suggest that this is argument and not a question.


George Harris Hees: If that is a win, I would hate to see a loss.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is prompted by a number of answers given to previous questions. I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if he has given instructions that remaining stocks of the pamphlet issued by his department some time ago should be retained so that an adequate supply will be readily available for the use of himself and his colleagues on the treasury benches? The pamphlet to which I refer is entitled, "Don't Let a Sense of Failure Throw You".



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In light of the information given about extravagant squandering of money in reference to trucks purchased by the armed services and for the armed services at a cost of $4 million, which trucks, either wholly or in part, were not used at all and were later sold for $236,000, would the Minister of National Defence be prepared either on motions or perhaps today to make a short statement giving the House an explanation for such extravagance with the taxpayers' money?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the trucks were acquired in the time frame 1951 to 1953 as potential wartime reserves at that particular time. They had been held for a period of nearly 20 years and had become unserviceable just by the passage of time. It is for that reason that these 20-year old trucks were disposed of at the best price that could be obtained on the market.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax East):: My
question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know whether the government has as yet identified an alleged Canadian
military arms cache found in Great Britain and, if so, could the minister inform the House whether these arms had been sold to a foreign government or whether they had been disposed of to private individuals in Canada and subsequently resold?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. The Canadian representatives in London have sought to find out from the British authorities the details of the weapons in question referred to in the news story but up to the moment no information has been received. So far as I can determine from the Department of External Affairs, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services, we have had no inquiries whatsoever from the British officials with respect to these weapons. If we did have some specific information we could obviously determine more quickly the circumstances under which, if they are Canadian, they got there, but at the moment we have no information whatsoever as far as I can find out. With regard to possible disposal, I should indicate that there have been disposals of weapons in Europe by the Canadian Armed Forces in years past to the agencies of foreign governments but strictly on the condition that they were to be rendered into scrap. If these conditions have not been honoured, this is another question, but we do not have identification of the weapons yet.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder if the minister could clarify one other question surrounding this problem and get some information on whether the Canadian Armed Forces have had quantities of machine guns and other arms of this nature stolen from them at any time in the last eight or ten years?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, I gave a detailed report on this some months ago in the House. There have been thefts both overseas and at various locations in Canada but nothing near the amount that would appear to be indicated in this news story.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When the minister referred to the period 1951-53 and the responsibility at that time, can he say who the stupid Deputy Minister of National Defence was at that time who was responsible for this mess?


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



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services. Has he received a telegram from representatives of the machinists in Winnipeg

June 10, 1971

pointing out that the commitment made by the government that Air Canada and Canadian Aviation Electric would provide enough work at the old Air Canada overhaul base so that employment would be maintained has not been honoured and that there is large-scale unemployment? Does the Prime Minister propose to do anything about the failure of the government to meet its commitment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall whether I received such a telegram but I do know that the matter is being discussed within the government and that the Minister of Supply and Services is looking at it very actively.


David Orlikow: The Minister of Supply and Services has been looking at it for some time. He may have lots of time but the unemployed workers who now number-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Robert Muir: My question is directed to the hardworking Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. May I ask the minister whether he is yet in a position to advise or suggest when the positions of chairman of the board of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and vice-president of industrial development may be filled?


Jean Marchand: I hope it will be soon, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. The minister's reply indicates the callousness he has for the unemployed in Cape Breton also. Is the minister giving consideration or is any consideration being given to having Mr. Tom Kent, his deputy minister, become the senior officer of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


James Aloysius McGrath: Silence is consent.



WHEAT-FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1969-70 CROP YEAR

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to address my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Is the fact that Bill C-244 has not been passed by the House one of the reasons why the final payment on wheat for the 1969-70 crop year has not been made?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry
\Translation]



FINANCE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
During the last weekend, the Quebec Minister of Education stated that his province had lost $300 million in federal grants at the post-graduate level under the fiscal arrangements legislation. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he knows of this statement and whether he intends to establish a policy to enable the province of Quebec to recover this amount of $300 million?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am totally unaware of this statement, Mr. Speaker. I am taking the question as notice and shall inquire as to what the situation is.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. During his Russian visit did the Prime Minister at any time raise the question of Russia's participation in providing aid and in seeking peace for the people of East Pakistan? If so, can the Prime Minister state what position was expressed by the Russian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Norman Thompson: Is it the position of the government that the present military government of Pakistan is the legitimate government of East Pakistan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question as asked is an invitation to express an opinion or to make a statement of policy. I appreciate that it is a little difficult to draw the line. On reflection, it would seem that the question asked by the hon. member is acceptable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we recognize no other government than the government of Pakistan.


Robert Norman Thompson: Will the Canadian government consider accepting the refugees from East Pakistan as political refugees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question has not been considered, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION


Mr. Max Salisman (Waierloo):: My question is for the
Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Have instruc-

June 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tions been issued by his department to manpower and immigration officials in the Kitchener-Waterloo area stating that pursuant to the Official Languages Act employees must answer the telephone in French and English and if the caller starts to speak French the employee will interrupt-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question might well be placed on the order paper and that it is not the kind of question that should be asked at this time. If there is urgency, it can always be considered at the time of adjournment.


Max Saltsman: There is some urgency to this question as instructions have been issued and there is a danger of the instructions being misunderstood. If I might be permitted to conclude my question, the employee will interrupt and point out that the people in that office do not speak French and ask the caller to repeat the question in English.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister was rising to answer my question regarding whether instructions similar to what I outlined had been issued to manpower and immigration officials in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there were really two parts to the hon. member's question. The attempt in manpower offices generally is to make available services in the official languages as may be required. While we certainly are not performing perfectly in that regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have allowed the minister to reply to the question, but I still believe it is the kind of question that ought to be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, there is provision in the Standing Orders to have the matter considered later in the day.
[DOT] * *



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. In light of the call by the Canadian Medical Association at their recent meeting for legislation to remove the possession of marijuana as an offence under the Criminal Code and to do away with jail sentences and long criminal records for such people, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to introduce legislation in this area, and when?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: The government will want to study the text of these resolutions and we are, of course, still awaiting the final report of the LeDain commission.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: My question is for the Prime Minister. It is in relation to his apparent communist sensitivities and bias as applied to the removal of the flag of Nationalist China from their pavilion at the British Columbia trade fair. In the interests of developing much needed trade and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question. The hon. member is making a speech. The hon. member should ask the question and I will indicate whether I believe it is the kind of question that ought to be asked now.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I was just stating the reason for the question.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the point. The hon. member should not state the reason for the question. I appreciate that it is difficult to ask a question without laying down some sort of basis for it, but hon. members should not go too far in that respect.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Will the Prime Minister instruct that the Nationalist Chinese flag be allowed to fly at this fair in the interests of common international courtesy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not
really a question of courtesy, Mr. Speaker. We recognize only one China. It would be inappropriate for another government of China that we do not recognize to fly its flag under the guise of being the government of China.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A supplementary question. I ask the Prime Minister whether those conditions apply even where they pay rent?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister please indicate to the House why there has been a sharp decline in the immigration figures released yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the minister to reply briefly, but the question as asked certainly invites the minister to make a statement which normally ought to be made on motions. The minister will be allowed to reply briefly to the hon. member's question.


Otto Emil Lang: The figures reflect the immigration situation in the first few months, which are certainly down. Some time previous I speculated on the combination of the point system operating in this fashion together with economic conditions in some of the source areas.

June 10, 1971



CIGARETTE PRODUCTS ACT


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister reconsider and make a brief explanatory statement on the introduction for first reading of his bill with regard to cigarette advertising? With the unanimous consent of the House, perhaps we could revert to motions for that purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. Is the minister's department or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation making a study or survey of the housing needs of the native people of Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I think I already indicated in committee or in the House, there are studies of this nature going on, particularly with regard to the Indian and Metis people in the western provinces.


John Gilbert: Is a firm operated by Bill Lee and Bill Neville, known as Executive Consultants Limited, making a survey on behalf of CMHC?


Mr. Speaker:: That question ought to be placed on the order paper.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that in many communities in Canada all householders are being required to complete the long census form and are obligated to have the canvassers fill in these questionaires despite the fact that all the advertising indicated this would be a do-it yourself census?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asked me whether I was aware. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Simpson: Will the Prime Minister make an inquiry
into the publicity and advertising which has been issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to every householder, which he will find is very misleading and in many cases false?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly draw the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to that suggestion.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that he visited the city of Hamilton in order to help celebrate its 125th anniversary-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -and as I understand that some 4,000 children were eager to see him-


An hon. Member:: Seven thousand.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the Prime Minister, in order to give the people of Hamilton a birthday present, look with great sympathy and understanding upon a request to be made shortly by a delegation which will be coming from Hamilton with respect to the urban renewal problems of that city? In keeping with the atmosphere yesterday, perhaps the Prime Minister might feel himself in a position to give the city a birthday present by allowing it more funds in order to complete the York Street urban renewal project.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I think the Prime Minister understands the importance of the question, and I noticed he gave every indication of rising.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We were not looking at the same Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Will the real Prime Minister please stand up?



CIGARETTE PRODUCTS ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-While Rock):: I have a question for the government House leader. Having in mind the introduction this morning by the Minister of National Health and Welfare of an excellent bill which would prohibit cigarette advertising, when may we expect to consider this legislation in the House?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Hopefully it will go to a committee during this session.

June 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



WEEKLY STATEMENT

John Angus MacLean: I would ask the leader of the House if he has any announcement to make regarding the business of the House.


Mr. MacEachen:: We will begin today by considering the bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, followed by the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. After that we shall take the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the pilotage bill and the Judges Act.
I should mention that there will be two opposition days next week to complete our round of opposition days for this part of the session, and I propose we should choose Tuesday and Wednesday for this purpose. However, I shall be happy to discuss that item and others with my colleagues later.


Stanley James Korchinski: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it will be necessary to dispose of Bill C-239 before the other items are considered, or are we to proceed with it only until one o'clock as announced yesterday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hope is that we could complete the bill to which the hon. member has referred by one o'clock, or shortly thereafter. We would then go on to the unemployment insurance legislation. But I will review the situation at one o'clock and see what progress has been made.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 9, consideration of Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose last evening it was considering motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie. The hon. member for Mackenzie had the floor.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, last night toward the end of my remarks I was commenting on the fact that the committee had been studying suggestions made by various farm organizations with regard to the bill now under consideration. I pointed out that these submissions were carefully considered by all committee members. I also volunteered the information that some of us in the opposition understood the submissions which were being made. It seems to me, however, that the government or the executive branch of the governmentthe minister, if he is to be singled out-has been frustrated either from within or without.
First of all, the minister has to respond to advice by civil servants that certain amendments are necessary for administrative purposes. I maintain that far too much consideration is given to making things comfortable for the administration and far too little for the people who are affected by the legislation we pass. Only second or third grade consideration is given to their convenience. This comment applies not only to the present bill but to every piece of legislation with which I am familiar. I do not say it happens 100 per cent of the time but it happens for far too much of the time, if I can speak from my own experience in this House. Too many things are done to make it easier for those in administrative positions who begin their work at eight o'clock and leave at five; during the summer, during the hot weather, they leave their offices at four o'clock because of the lack of air conditioning and the inconvenience of rush hour traffic. If you talk to a farmer along those lines, he will say: Hot days are best for killing wheat. Provided the tractor does not heat up he is out there working. In this case, only one side of the question is being considered. The government is in a hurry to get its money. It is determined to get it, and the devil take the consequences.
The attitude of the government has to change in favour of people. If we are to serve the people effectively and look after their requirements, the committee system must function more effectively than it is at present. There were great hopes for the new committee system when it was created by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). To some extent we went into it with enthusiasm regardless of the fact that it overloaded hon. members in many cases and regardless of the fact that certain work was being done in other committees to which we would have liked to dedicate ourselves. In terms of committee membership, we tried to concentrate on people who were particularly interested in the subject matter, people who were better informed, if you wish. Being more informed, I was willing to suggest that the government supporters should vote at that particular stage for two amendments I had presented and they accepted one. I thought that the consideration given by the committee would be far more valid than any consideration the House might have given, that is to say, if the committee system is to have any value at all. It was the Liberal whip who appointed government members to the committee and the committee was comprised of members who know something about the subject. The committee decided that in the interests of improving the legislation that this particular amendment should be accepted.
Reversing such a decision made by the committee is an indication that the government has no confidence in its own members on the committee. In view of the flippant attitude taken to the committee I suggest that perhaps the whole system of committees should be disbanded and that we should forget about committees studying legislation. The only thing left to the government is to take authority unto itself by executive order and to state that

June 10, 1971

since legislation is presented by civil servants the government feels it is adequate as such and about any representations that might be made thereon are irrelevant, that people who know something about the subject need not be heard, that any amendments that might be made would be useless, that any opposition in this House of Commons is unwarranted, that any member who dares speak in opposition to the government is wasting his time, and that it is unnecessary to have any elections.
This goes to the heart of what I suspect, and have suspected for some time, we have as a government in this country. This government has gone farther than any of us dared think in its haste to outrun the NDP and their philosophy and the communist philosophy. I do not know whether they are more scared of the NDP than they are of themselves. Let the government listen to some of the criticism that comes from within, because it is more valid now than ever before.
It is becoming more and more difficult to preserve democratic institutions in the western world than ever before simply because pressures against them are mounting. If the committee system has now been changed to the point where its considerations do mean something, then let some of the amendments moved in committee be accepted. Let them not be rejected on the basis that they were moved by members who do not support the government. I have been a member of the House for 13 years and have sat on various committees, interesting myself in many of them. But I feel we have now reached the point where the minister tells his own supporters what amendments to accept and what not to accept. In turn the minister gets his directions from the man sitting beside him, either the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister.
This is not democracy, Mr. Speaker. What we are now witnessing is an attempt to reverse a decision made by elected Members of Parliament which, if successful, will be a slap in the face for all Canadians and for democracy. If the government values democracy at all, then let it reject the present committee system or else accept amendments made in committee. Simply to say that the fact that my amendment is moved by a member of the opposition makes it invalid is no argument at all. To say the least, I feel very frustrated, as dedicated as I may be to any particular bill under study. Many members of the House on both sides are dedicated, and they too find they are being frustrated because they are given instructions from above.
These members are highly regarded in their communities and many of them were elected to this House because they were experienced men. They are now being told by the minister or by a civil servant that they know nothing about the matters they are considering. I would suggest to the minister that regardless of what value a man places upon himself no man is so all-knowing that the combined opinions of people knowledgeable about a certain matter are of no consequence. For example, industrial conditions are constantly changing, and so that we can change at the same time we have to make amendments. You cannot view the subject from one side alone.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
The other day the committee accepted very readily an amendment that I moved. In the afternoon I moved another amendment that I suggest was identical to the previous one. But somewhere along the line the members of the Liberal caucus must have held a conference and said to themselves: "Look, we cannot accept too many amendments from the opposition; otherwise it will be an opposition bill and we cannot have that. We must not give the opposition any more credit than we dare, so we must throw the other amendments out." As a result, my amendment was defeated.
What recourse do I have, Mr. Speaker? All I can do is bring the matter to the House and record it for posterity in the hope that those who read my speech or listen to my words will understand the futility of the whole system. This government, which wants to promote itself and itself alone, is dedicated to only one thing. The government thinks it can get more co-operation from its civil servants by following their line. I suggest that in the interests of building a better country the government had better listen to opposition members. I do not expect, and neither does any other member of the House, opposition amendments to be accepted 100 per cent, but the proposition that an opposition amendment must be rejected because the ideas of the mover are all wrong is absolutely unacceptable today. We do represent an area. As a matter of fact the opposition members in the Conservative party represent a far larger rural area than members of the Liberal party ever did. To suggest at this time that the government has absolute knowledge of the requirements is wrong. It follows logically that somewhere along the line it must listen to somebody.
[DOT]	(12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must do so to advise that his time has expired.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in respect of the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) regarding Bill C-239. The four amendments deal at length with the principles to be followed by applicants or farmers taking out cash advances, how they must repay and whether or not an interest charge will be levied against the advance.
It is interesting to note what the minister had to say in reference to the third amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie. This is to be found at page 61 of committee proceedings No. 53. He said:
[DOT]	3 Tan ,has this money, is not delivering grain, and then is found to be m default, he should pay interest on the whole penod that he had the use of the money, because that is in effect converting it to what he did, which is using it as a loan instead of an advance. And I urge this very strongly upon you.
That is what the minister stated and it is perfectly clear what he is trying to do is narrow the scope of cash advance legislation in order to save the government as much money as possible. We heard in the committee that cash advance legislation, being interest free, in essence cost the federal government in the neighbourhood of $3

June 10, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act million. It is quite clear that the main object of this bill is to narrow cash advance legislation and apply interest on part of the advance. The amount of cash advances the government will provide interest free will be reduced. This is the whole theme of this legislation and it fits a pattern this government is following right along in respect of agricultural legislation.
The government has withdrawn all the financial assistance it can withdraw effectively. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has reduced bonuses for hogs, for land and for wool. He has repeatedly made reductions. The present minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and I say that because the way the Saskatchewan election is going he may not be in charge very long, has given some indication in Bill C-244, the grain stabilization program, that he intends to withdraw money the government committed itself to in the past. Apparently it will not make this commitment in the future. It is regrettable that all this legislation should be concentrated toward this one objective or goal.
The hon. member's amendments are very pertinent because on many occasions a farmer will take out a cash advance on grain he has on hand for delivery. Let us take last winter or the present time as an example. The price of barley selling at the Lakehead is in the neighbourhood of $1.17. For some reason there is a 12 cent charge per bushel on grain from the Crowfoot area delivered at the Lakehead. That brings the price down to $1.05 per bushel. Again for some unknown reason, when the farmer delivers his grain he receives between 71 and 73 cents per bushel. The farmers wonder what happens to this other 30 cents. Will they receive it in their final payments or is it absorbed by storage costs? Where does it go?
A farmer might want a cash advance on his barley. He is faced with a difficult decision. He must ask himself whether to deliver it to the elevator and accept 72 cents per bushel or sell it to a feed mill or feed lot down the road at 80 cents per bushel in cash. Suppose the farmer takes a cash advance on his grain in storage under this legislation and sells it to the elevator. After doing so the price on the market at the feed mill or feed lot goes up over 80 cents per bushel, much more than he would receive by delivering it to the elevator, and he sells it to the feed lot. He might fully have intended when he took out the cash advance to repay it with the barley. He has a difficult decision whether to sell to the feed lot and pay interest on his cash advance from the time he received it, or deliver it to the elevator.
Even the interest rate he will have to pay is not spelled out. The minister said that the rate would be announced at the beginning of every crop year. I suppose that is better than nothing. In most cases cash advances will be taken out in the fall of the previous year, so the farmer would be taking the advance without knowing the exact interest rate he might have to pay. The minister shakes his head in a negative fashion; he can correct me if I am wrong, but that is the meaning of his remarks as I understood them.
To date many cash advances have been taken out and repaid with cash. I forget the exact figure but I think the minister stated that something like 15,000 or 16,000 advances were repaid partially in cash. The minister has stated that if the cash portion amounts to more than $500 the farmer will have to pay interest on the total cash advance. If it is less than $500 no action will be taken and he will not have to pay interest.
In any case the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie clearly states that the interest on a cash advance taken out on grain should apply only to that grain, and there should be no retroactive action by the government which would in fact penalize the farmer because he made a shrewd decision to sell the grain to another commercial outlet at a higher rate.
I can see a great deal of merit in the four amendments now before the House and for that reason I commend them to hon. members.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply in part to the point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr, Horner). The interest rate for a crop year will be set prior to the crop year and any default which occurs in connection with an advance, no matter how much later it occurs, will be related to the interest rate for that crop year. So the farmer taking an advance will know his position exactly.
The first amendment of this group really follows a decision taken earlier in the House in favour of an amendment which stood in my name. Amendment No. 3 is difficult in that it would be technically impossible in terms of no interest being payable at all even if no delivery at all was made, because there would be no point or date from which the interest rate could be set.
The point in this-and this applies as well as to amendment No. 5-is that these interest rates are payable only in relation to loans which are in default; that is to say, where the person has undertaken to deliver grain when quotas are available and has failed in that undertaking, has had notice from the board to do so and has still failed in the undertaking. It is only then that interest is payable and it seems perfectly reasonable that it should date from the time of the loan and not from any particular later time.
The technical difficulties with amendment No. 3 include the fact that a person who attempts to misuse the system could avoid an interest payment simply by delivering a single bushel of grain. The technical wording would absolve him from the interest claim. It is important to keep the system of cash advances working well. It is respected; it is well received. Abuses where persons take a loan and never intend to keep their undertaking only bring the program into disrepute. The very great majority of farmers use the system well. They use it when they need the money. They do not even take an advance if they can avoid it. For them we should try to keep the system working as well as possible. This is the point of the original form of the bill.

June 10, 1971


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also make a comment in respect of motion No. 4, please.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the point of motion No. 4 was really covered in the committee by debate and suggestions which led to an amendment to the bill in committee which is a far better one. That is the amendment which allowed the repayment of up to $500 in cash without any interest being accrued. This one is simply another form of making a cash payment. It would be very difficult indeed to follow it through in any accurate way in the system. It would create some difficulties. This is why the other amendment was moved and accepted in the committee. Not only was that amendment accepted but another one which is next before the House was agreed upon in general even though we had to come back for a recommendation in order to bring it forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 2?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay


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


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is negatived on division
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Korchinski) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with an earlier order the result of that vote disposes of motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is now to be considered. The Chair did indicate in respect of motions Nos. 6 and 7 that there were procedural problems at least in the opinion of the Chair. It was also indicated that when these motions were called the Chair would be very pleased if hon. members would assist in respect of their procedural acceptability.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier when there was some discussion about which motions we should proceed with that we would seek to introduce this amendment as a result of discussion in the committee about the problem dealt with here. In respect of the point that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the amendments I do not think I could argue that point. I therefore wish to seek unanimous consent of the House to proceed with the amendment which could then be discussed on its
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act merits. I would therefore ask if hon. members might give that consent so that we might proceed to consider the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your Honour's view that amendment No. 6 is really an amendment to the act and not an amendment to the bill. I am quite sympathetic with the problem but I cannot see how we could proceed in an orderly fashion in the House if by unanimous consent we were to allow ourselves to link together two things which mechanically would not be proper.
If as Your Honour stated at an earlier time this is an amendment to the act and not to the bill we are considering, then I believe this is regrettable, but I believe the minister or the people in the legal department might have foreseen this and have drafted a better amendment which in essence would be an amendment to the bill. For this reason I believe it is regrettable that I am placed in the difficult position of being asked to grant unanimous consent to something which is technically wrong. Therefore I cannot bring myself to give unanimous consent and I urge the Chair to rule concerning whether or not the motion is in order. If it is in order, then we can proceed with it. If it is not in order, I believe it would be wrong to ask the House to turn a blind eye to it. I just could not do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further comments from hon. members in respect of motion No. 6, the Chair has before it the question of the acceptability of the motion. I indicated on Monday or Tuesday when this matter was last before the House that there was a problem which I need not elaborate on at this time. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has indicated that he would not want to argue that it is in fact in order and therefore I would have to rule that motion No. 6 is out of order.
The Chair must now consider motion No. 7. At the same time that I remarked on motion No. 6 I indicated there was some concern in my mind about motion No. 7. I would be pleased to hear hon. members on this point. I might indicate there are two problems here in repsect of motion No. 7. Motion No. 6 has been ruled out and I believe No. 7 in essence, although this is not perfectly clear, should follow motion No. 6. In any event, even if that should not be the case I would have to rule that motion No. 7 involves a charge against the treasury.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped that somewhere between motion No. 6 and motion No. 7 an accommodation would be found. However, in view of the fact that you have ruled motion No. 6 out of order I guess we will have to lick our wounds and accept the same ruling for motion No. 7.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That concludes the motions on this bill which are before the House. The House will now revert to the deferred divisions on the motions in the order set out by the special order of the House. Call in the members.

June 10, 1971
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time, now?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Under the relevant Standing Order, it might be appropriate if the Chair were to suggest a grouping of the motions which are now before the House. Of course, these are only suggestions. I know that hon. members will not hesitate to advise the Chair if they have other suggestions. It is suggested that motions Nos. 1 and 2 should be combined for debate, but voted upon separately. Motion No. 3 is to be considered and disposed of separately. Motions Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 should be grouped for debate. A decision on motion No. 4 also will dispose of motions Nos. 5, 7 and 8.
Motions Nos. 6 and 21 should be combined for debate, and a vote on motion No. 6 also will dispose of motion No. 21. Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 should be considered and disposed of separately. Motions Nos. 12 and 13 should be grouped for the purpose of debate and a vote on motion No. 12 also will dispose of motion No. 13.
June 10, 1971

Motions Nos. 14 and 15 to be considered and disposed of separately. Motions Nos. 16 and 17 to be grouped for purposes of debate and a vote on motion No. 16 also will dispose of motion No. 17. Motions Nos. 18 and 19 to be grouped for purposes of debate and a vote on motion No. 18 also will dispose of motion No. 19. Motion No. 20 to be considered and disposed of separately. If hon. members are in general agreement with that-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of the members of this party that we believe this is a fair proposal Your Honour has made with regard to these motions. We are prepared to accept the groupings you have suggested. Naturally, we would have preferred a vote on motion No. 5 covering motions 4, 5, 7 and 8, but the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) got his motion on ahead of us so we shall accept a vote on No. 4, hoping, of course, that it will be favourable.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, may I say we appreciate the simplicity Your Honour has brought to the proceedings in terms of considering how best this matter can be expedited. I will only add that there are certain agreements which might perhaps affect the schedule you have proposed, particularly in respect to motions No. 1 and 2. I believe something will be said on that aspect by one of my hon. friends which will clarify the situation. But in any event, this is an excellent way of dealing with a complicated subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there general agreement to this arrangement, subject to such other agreements as may be made? If so, we shall proceed on that basis.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could make one further observation. Hon. members will notice that if all the groupings are decided on division there will be a total of ten divisions. Notwithstanding the brilliance and the alacrity of our Clerk Assistant-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -it seems to the Chair we might be overloading him. I suggest, therefore, possibly about half way through this part of the proceedings hon. members might look at the number of deferred divisions, and if they feel the number might be unduly onerous for the Clerk Assistant who calls the names, maybe we could group the various divisions further about half -vay through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would agree to that. The whole process, of course, would be simplified if the government were to accept a number of these amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will now put motions Nos. 1 and
2.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
The hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) moves:
That Bill C-229, An Act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting paragraph (d) of subclause (2) of clause 3, lines 29 and 30 at page 4, and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
The hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) (for Mr. Downey) moves:
That Bill C-229, An Act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by adding the words "or under any municipal authority" in paragraph (e) of subclause (2) of Clause 3 immediately after the word "province" in line 32 at page 4.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, the present unemployment insurance act defines as one category of excepted employment, employment where the person employed is the husband or the wife of the employer. I have no quarrel with that, but I feel that the provision in Bill C-229 which extends this provision further, making it apply to relatives or dependants of the employer is too broad and could lead to the exclusion of many people from insurable employment. I have therefore proposed an amendment which would, in effect, extend insurable employment to relatives or dependants of an employer. Since I put down my amendment, I have had some discussion with the minister's staff and I believe there is agreement on the part of the minister to accept a compromise. In other words, he would agree to take out the word "relative" but leave the word "dependant" in. That is to say, we would extend coverage to relatives but not to dependants. Because I believe there is general agreement about this, I would seek unanimous consent to change my motion so that instead of deleting the whole clause as originally proposed it would seek only the deletion of the words "relative or". So the clause would read -employment where the employee is a dependant of the employer."


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I agree. 1 think such an amendment improves the clause. It does not make it quite as stringent and it has the effect which the hon. member has pursued with so much diligence during the committee stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) and the minister's comments. Shall motion No. 1 be amended in the terms set out by the hon. member for Moncton?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: It is so ordered. Shall the motion
be adopted as amended?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Thomas), as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to debate motion No. 2 which I have already put to the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This motion, Mr. Speaker, is in the name of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey). As clause 3 presently stands, excepted employment is, in terms of subclause (e)
6570

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
thereof, employment in Canada under Her Majesty in right of the province. This means, in effect, that the province would be in a position to opt out of a scheme presented by the government. Mr. Speaker, the municipalities are extremely concerned about the extra cost they would be bound to incur if measures were taken to include them in this plan. This point has been emphasized more than once by the municipalities who may be affected; as a matter of fact, it has been taken up by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. They say that a choice of whether to be involved or not has been offered to one level of government. Now, let me read from the brief which the federation drew up under date of May 12.
We request that local authorities be given the same option as provincial authorities are given to cover either all or none ol their employees.
The municipalities argue strongly that their resources are already extremely strained as a result of fiscal and monetary policies, yet they are faced with extra costs consequent upon the inclusion under the terms of this clause of firemen, policemen and, in particular, of schoolteachers-some 250,000 of them. This would mean that the cities would incur an extra cost burden, one which is really related to an increased burden on the taxpayer. Moneys for government purposes, regardless of level, come from the same person. The hon. member for Battle River is seeking to impress upon the government that if this provision is enacted the taxpayer, who is already burdened by heavy taxation for municipal services, will be forced to pay additional taxes consequent upon the inclusion of employees of municipalities in the insurance scheme. You can never calculate the amount, but I do not think anyone would deny that there is an onerous responsibility on any individual now who is faced by taxation from all levels, in all ways and by all means.
9 (2:20p.m.)
The brief goes on to say that, in view of the present unco-ordinated state of tax and spending policies, the very least that each level of government deserves is some measure of choice in deciding on programs and policies within its jurisdiction. I think the minister will reply to the suggestion I have been making because he is concerned about universality. But many municipalities have very extensive coverage of their employees, and in one or two provinces school teachers are direct employees of the province. This creates an anomaly in that in certain cases school teachers will be in the position to say: "I will not have to participate in the plan because I know that my province is not going to be a member". As a result, they will opt out.
In conclusion, if I interpret the intention of the hon. member for Battle River correctly, what he is attempting to say-and I hope I have presented the intent of the motion, Mr. Speaker, in a reasonable way-is that he wants to relieve the taxpayer from the further burden that would definitely occur in the event that the municipalities were brought within the scheme without any possibility of opting out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this amendment will be brief, but I have to make it clear that we shall oppose the proposed amendment. The aim of the amendment has just been stated by the hon. member for Hamilton East; it seeks to give municipal authorities the right to opt out of unemployment insurance, which for many civic employees would, of course, be a retrogress.ve step.
I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. member for Hamilton East for the financial plight-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton West on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am not attempting to discourage the hon. member from making his usual brilliant contribution, but I would appreciate it if he would refer to me as the hon. member for Hamilton West. The hon. member for Hamilton East is the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West has made his point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And I apologize to him as profusely as I can, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I would not want to confuse him with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I had started to say that I appreciated the concern of the hon. member for Hamilton West for the financial plight of the municipalities, but I suggest that this is a plight that should be dealt with in some more substantial and direct way. You do not solve this problem just by relieving the municipalities of the cost of paying unemployment insurance premiums; that problem calls for a recasting of the division of taxation revenues in this country among the federal, provincial and municipal levels.
The fact of the matter is that the aim of this bill is to make unemployment insurance coverage as universal as possible. I am in accord with that principle, and I think that any exceptions to it should be only those for which there is an unanswerable argument. As a matter of fact, there are some exceptions that I think should not be here; but as I understand it the reason that provinces are excepted is that there is a constitutional rule-maybe it is a myth but it is such a firmly rooted myth that it is practically the law-that the Crown cannot tax the Crown. In other words, the Crown in the right of Canada cannot pass a law to tax the Crown in the right of the provinces. I understand that is the reason the provincial authorities are excluded from compulsory coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act, though in the next clause of the bill provision is made for the provinces to be included, if they so desire and thus indicate to the federal government.
No such inhibition obtains in the case of the municipalities. Therefore, I think we should keep the exclusions from unemployment insurance coverage to a minimum. We have to do it in the case of the provinces, but we do not have to do it in the case of the municipali-

June 10, 1971

ties. There are many thousands of employees who work for government at the municipal level, and their employment is subject to uncertainty as it is in many other areas of work. I think we would do the workers who are employed by municipal governments a service if we kept them under unemployment insurance coverage, and therefore I hope that my hon. friend will not press this amendment.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) put forward an argument that I have heard many times to the effect that somehow it is not fair for the taxpayer to pay for unemployment insurance premiums as if they were a tax. This argument has been raised by school teachers and others and I want to deal with it for a moment because, with all respect, it just does not make sense.
The fact is that every unemployment insurance premium is paid by the employer and the consumer. If as a consumer I buy goods, I know very well that I am paying for the premiums paid by employers. Certainly, I do not think the employers are for one moment making a gift. In reality, the same ratepayer or consumer pays for both insurance premiums. To put forward the argument that somehow this is an exceptional tax on municipal ratepayers just does not make sense. In addition, the purpose of unemployment insurance is to give a benefit to the employee. That really is the essential element. How can anyone justify the position that I, as an employee of a municipality, will not get the benefit of this legislation- which I say here and now is very meaningful legislation-while the employee of another corporation or private enterprise concern does get the benefit? How long does the hon. member for Hamilton West think that this situation will last? Public or municipal employees will immediately demand that there be an equivalent municipal fund from which they can draw. All you will have is a fragmentation of this scheme. With all respect, I cannot see the sense in this amendment.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have carefully listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).
I cannot accept them nor approve the motion as put since, to my knowledge, in my region-and I imagine it is so all across the country-municipalities hire workers temporarily, especially during the summer months and lay them off in the fall. If these workers are not protected by some social legislation, such as unemployment insurance, they will have to apply for welfare assistance should they be unable to find employment elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, were the motion now being considered passed and enforced, the workers would be in a very bad predicament as is often the case in Quebec. A large number of temporary employees of the Public Works and Highway Departments, for instance, are not contributing to the unemployment insurance fund because they are prevented from doing so by the provincial authorities. These people are laid-off in the fall and if they are unable to find employment elsewhere, they have to rely 24107-651
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
on social welfare which has nothing left but crumbs to give them.
Hence, I think that even if the municipalities find it somewhat constlier, they should nevertheless be required to pay contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, together with their employees so that the latter may benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The unemployment insurance act is perfect, I know. In fact, I think that if we could have full employment, that would be much more effective.
But as we have to live in such a situation, we have to try and protect the greatest possible number of workers by this legislation, and I believe that municipal employees should be among those.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two about this proposed amendment. I support it for a basic reason. I take strong objection to one level of government taking the attitude that it knows best and then proceeding to act as God in the conviction it is right and therefore knows what is best for everyone.
The municipalities of this country have a segment of jurisdiction wh.ch, in my judgment, should not be impaired by any other level of government. It is my belief that an option should be open to municipal governments to decide whether they want their employees under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If the act has all the merits, the government says it has, it is obvious what their choice will be. Nevertheless, it is not for us to say that some municipalities might prefer, under perhaps unique circumstances, to not have its employees covered by unemployment insurance and, therefore, as employers not have to pay a tax which is imposed by another level of government.
There should be a right to an option rather than an imposition on one level of government by another level of government. I know bureaucrats and perhaps socialists-I look to the people on my left and I hope they will excuse me for using that term-like to see everything standardized and shoved into neat, watertight compartments. They are everlastingly trying to put Canadian citizens and municipalities into a kind of Procrustean bed of their own choosing. If they are short they like to stretch them, if they are too long they like to chop pieces off. I think this is bad legislation from that point of view and, therefore, I heartily support the purpose of this amendment. It is not intended to cut off unemployment insurance from employees of municipalities who wish to be covered. Rather, it gives municiplaities the same option as the provinces.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I find myself rather intrigued by the extraordinary kind of logic or lack of it displayed by my congenial friend the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). While I am quite happy to have him refer to me as a socialist, I am not really rising to speak on this amendment as a social-

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
ist. I rise to speak on it as someone who attempts to have a practical interest in the welfare of the working people of this country, and to deal with a bill presented by a government which is certainly not prepared to call itself socialist.
This argument that the laws made by one level of government should not impinge in any way on the functions of another level seems to be extraordinary. If one were to follow that through, it would mean the people working for a municipality would be completely exempt from provincial legislation setting minimum wages. In fact, the muncipalities would be separate little feudal kingdoms within a kingdom. I think that if the hon. member would reflect upon this he would realize how absurd his logic is if it were brought to its ultimate conclusion.
I have listened to many arguments in this House, some of them advanced by political colleagues of the hon. member for Malpeque, regarding the matter of the federal government accepting its responsibility to pay municipal taxes on federal property lying within the boundaries of municipalities. This is a position I was prepared to support long before it became the accepted practice for the federal government to more or less automatically make a payment equivalent to and in lieu of taxes.
As far as I am concerned, I do not feel we should stand on these fine points of constitutional jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of each level of government should apply to its own field. I would be quite happy to see this strange constitutional fiction about municipalities not being able to tax the Crown on property just as it taxes any other property in municipalities done away with, but the hon. member for Malpeque and his colleagues, in putting forward this argument, are proceeding in a direction exactly opposite to that of the principle of equity of function among various levels of government.
I submit to the hon. member that despite his eloquent plea his argument is not well founded in principle, nor indeed is the amendment. I certainly would be much happier with the bill if this provision exempting the provinces were not included. I do not want to make an issue of it at this time, and obviously I cannot because I have not put down a report stage amendment in my name to that effect, but my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did suggest that perhaps it was only fiction. Inasmuch as federal jurisdiction over unemployment insurance is embodied in the British North America Act, we might have been wiser simply to have said, all employers, either public or private, will be treated the same way under the same circumstances as far as the question of unemployment insurance is concerned.
Now, the amendment suggests we should move into the area of the municipal level. The question of the distinction which might be drawn between private employers and public or semi-public employers is one which has been discussed quite often. In the 1955 review of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the big debate in this area
was over the question of hospitals, and whether hospitals as employers should or should not be required to participate in the unemployment insurance scheme. So, I would suggest the amendment is a retrograde step. In some respects I believe the provision in the bill which exempts the provinces is a retrograde step, because if one ties that particular clause to the next clause it becomes apparent that many provincial employees across the country may be worse off than they are now. This is why I should like to say a word in favour of the principle at least of arriving at a point where neither municipalities nor provinces will be listed here as excepted employers.
Certainly, the employees of the government of British Columbia are concerned about the situation because with the provision of the exemption here and the provisions in the succeeding clauses, those who, at the option of the government of British Columbia, have long enjoyed the benefits of unemployment insurance coverage may suddenly be pulled out of a scheme which the minister and others have said is designed to move in the direction of greater universality. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, may have smother word or two to say on that subject in respect of the next clause. However, in view of the line the debate is taking, I should like to indicate that far from supporting the approach in the amendment we are dealing with I believe we should delete that clause and remove the exemption for both provincial and municipal governments. I believe this suggestion is perhaps particularly apt because the government is taking the position that federal employees should be participants in the scheme. That puts a different complexion on the whole thing than that which existed at the time of the earlier major re-write of this legislation when the government did not take that position.
I hope that, as a result of this bill, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the commission will be able to convince the provincial governments of the logic of agreeing that all their employees must be covered on the same basis as private employers will be required to cover their employees.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this amendment because I believe it is in line with an option which is already available to the provincial legislatures. We heard in the committee that a province, if it so wished, could exempt its employees from the operation of this bill, presumably through the BNA Act. This amendment, I think, would simply tidy up the situation and allow the municipalities the same privilege. Until this privilege is taken away from the provinces then a certain amount of inequity will be created unless the municipalities are allowed the same privilege. We are dealing with provincial and municipal employees as well as groups of workers who are allied to municipal and provincial jurisdictions. These, in the main, are new workers who are to be taken into the plan. Out of one million odd extra people in the plan, I believe perhaps
400,000	come from these two groups as well as 250,000 from teachers, 400,000 from hospital workers and 50,000 from nurses, plus the armed forces and so on.

June 10, 1971

I should like to point out that teachers in some provinces are direct employees of the provincial government and in others fall under some sort of quasi-municipal jurisdiction. I believe the teachers, as a group, have strongly objected to inclusion in the unemployment insurance plan, believing the mechanism would be a means whereby if one province decided to carry its teachers this would mean that other areas would follow suit. The teachers point out that their unemployment will occur at the beginning of their careers before they have paid into the plan and that this will make it difficult for them to take advantage of the plan. Indeed, for the teaching profession it would seem these people would have to so organize their lives as to be unemployed in order to take advantage of the plan. If this amendment is adopted it will permit some uniformity in dealing with those teachers in provinces where there is a municipal authority involved.
There is a similar situation in respect of nurses- approximately 50,000-who are employed by municipal hospitals. Generally speaking, these are young people who have a high degree of mobility in their employment. There has been no significant unemployment in respect of nurses in the past 25 years. Indeed, we have scoured the globe to find registered nurses to fill our hospitals. This amendment would allow those nurses, who are municipal employees and who do not wish to be included in the unemployment insurance legislation, to be taken out. I think this would be a means of equalizing the application of the unemployment insurance payments or deductions until at least all provinces agree to participate. In any case, if the unemployment insurance legislation should prove to be so good, there would be a rush of people to be included and there would be no problem in enticing groups to enter.
This amendment would make the principle of universality more flexible and would decrease its application to some extent. I realize that the inclusion of one million workers who have little or no chance of being unemployed will make the statistics look good. I would make an exception in the case of certain hospital workers who, in my opinion, should come under unemployment insurance. There are workers in professions or trades which can make their demands felt, so that at the time of the next pay raise they will get sufficient take-home pay to make up for the deductions they may have lost. I believe it is a good idea that this amendment be adopted. I think it would remove some of the universality of application of this bill which I do not believe is in the best interests of the unemployment insurance principle which we all defend to the best of our ability.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking briefly to the amendment which has been proposed, I should like to indicate I am opposed to it. It would seem to me if we are to have a successful unemployment insurance plan, we must cover as many workers in Canada as possible. The amendment calls for the inclusion of municipalities in the opting-out provision, thus allowing them to exempt their employees from
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 making unemployment insurance payments. I think this is a foolish amendment. There are thousands of municipalities across Canada, some of them with two or three employees many of whom are only part time employees. Are we going to allow some of these small municipalities that might not have too much cash to say "we are going to save a few dollars by not allowing any of our casual employees to get stamps in their books for unemployment insurance benefits in the event they are out of work"? There is no doubt that some of the municipalities hire teachers, but out where I come from the schools do all the hiring. We are not too worried about the municipalities hiring teachers or nurses, but it seems to me to be very foolish to suggest that the thousands of municipalities from one end of Canada to the other be given the right to opt out of the unemployment insurance plan. We will not hesitate to vote the amendment down.
There is one more point which was raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and which I, too, would like to draw to the attention of the minister. It deals with this very section. As I read the bill, it gives the right to the various provinces to be all in or all out. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the bill, but in British Columbia we have 6,000 civil service employees who are covered by the plan. They are casual employees, and the rest of the employees who are not covered are upset. They want to be under the plan. I suggest to the minister that he look at clause 4(e). All we have to do is move an amendment to insert the words "in whole or in part" in that clause. Let the provinces come into the plan in whole or in part. This is the way around the problem, and I suggest that the minister look at it in that context. If the province of British Columbia decided to opt out, there would be 6,000 casual employees who would then not be covered by the unemployment insurance plan and they could get into trouble. I do not think this should be our objective, and I suggest that we find some way of getting around this point.


William David Knowles: I rise to support this amendment because, over the years, I have had considerable experience with school boards, having served as chairman of one for a good number of years and having, in that time, wrestled with school budgets. I do know something of the cost that will be added to the school budget if and when this program is put into force. We have talked about this from time to time. While the amendment refers to municipalities, let us not be under any illusion that the municipalities will supply the funds to the school boards who will be paying the employer share of the contributions. I should like to put on the record what this will cost approximately. I have a complete table for all the provinces in Canada. I do not wish to take the time of the House by reading it all, but I would like to cite what it will cost the province of Ontario and then to refer to the total cost.

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
In Ontario we have approximately 103,000 teachers. The average salary in Ontario is approximately $7,767. The teacher contribution per week would be roughly $1.19. This is based on teacher premiums over a four year period, and this table is based on the situation if this act were in full force today. The employers' share for these teachers would be $86.63 per teacher, making a total addition to the school budget in the province of Ontario of $8,922,890. Taken all across Canada, the total bill comes to $22,666,407. This is certainly not peanuts.
All across the country, and particularly in the province of Ontario, people are screaming their heads off about the high cost of education and the share which the municipalities must bear, which in many cases approximates 60 per cent of the municipal taxpayer's bill. So we are not talkmg about small amounts of money. For this reason alone, I think this amendment deserves the support of every member in the House if he is at all interested in what his local people are having to pay in municipal taxes. I could go on and talk about teachers being drawn into this plan unwillingly, unable and unlikely to benefit from it. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) has already pointed out that the time when the teachers would most benefit from the plan would be the time when they had no equity in the plan, that is when they are at the beginning of their teaching careers. I could argue along that line, but the point I want to make as strongly as possible is the great increase in cost to the municipal taxpayer if this plan is implemented.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the various members who have spoken about this proposed amendment. I must say at the very outset that I cannot support the amendment, nor can 1 suggest to the government benches that we should support it. Of course, members from some of the other parties have indicated the same. The whole concept of unemployment insurance is that we intend to make this plan as universal as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some uncertainty as to what word the minister used. I hope he said "other parties".


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, other major parties. All parties in the House are major. I am simply saying that all enlightened parties oppose the amendment. The point I want to make is that the basic concept that we have proposed, which was accepted by the House on second reading and accepted in the committee, is to make this plan as universal as possible in so far as employees in Canada are concerned.
Our relationship with the provinces has been such that at present, under the old act, the provinces have been permitted, as one hon. member just suggested, to be partly in and partly out. Of course, the consequence of this is that the only groups that have been covered by the provinces in the main have been, what you might call, seasonal workers. This has been unfair to the other people who have to finance the plan, the other employers and employees who do not have the same privilege. It is

insuring bad risks as opposed to good risks. One of the features of the existing plan is the option of the province to cover segments of workers. This option is being removed by saying, in effect, to the provinces that if they want coverage for their employees they should cover them all, not just those whom they think it is in their financial interest to cover.
I want to stray from the amendment which deals in particular with the municipalities and get on to the subject of teachers. Under this plan teachers are in, and if this provision is knocked out there will be no plan. We have been engaged in these discussions for several months. We have done all there is to be done to satisfy the teachers. The cost to the school boards has been analysed. I have met with representatives of school boards across this country. They are relatively satisfied, as are the teachers. While admittedly it is an added burden to the school boards to cover teachers, this is true of all employers in this country. However, the savings to the provinces, and therefore to the municipalities, under the Canada Assistance Plan more than offsets it. Because of the lower eligibility and higher premiums, for a period of 51 weeks we are covering people who would normally be forced to go on the welfare rolls of their municipalities. For instance, in so far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean) may be interested to know that if we were to extend to the municipalities the same right as we have proposed in the bill for the provinces, over 60 per cent of the municipal employees in P.E.I. who are presently covered might not be.
I think the hon. member who spoke for the Social Credit party quite properly pointed out that many municipalities across the country do what they can for the casual workers, the less fortunate in the community, by providing work for them for six, seven, eight or nine months of the year. These people would be denied unemployment insurance while they were out of work. At present 79 per cent of the employees working for civic governments in Newfoundland are covered by unemployment insurance. The other 21 per cent could be workers in certain categories. They could be teachers working as civil servants, and also they could be employees earning over the $7,500 or $7,800 threshold. These figures run from approximately 30 per cent to 79 per cent, and so this amendment is contrary to the effect of some of the amendments that will be proposed by the same party later to other clauses of the bill.
This bill broadens the concept of universality. The party opposite cannot have it both ways. We stand for universality, and as has been pointed out it would be even more desirable if all the provinces were to fall in line like all other employers in the country. However, I am confident that when this bill is passed the overwhelming majority of the prov'nces will be glad to enter the plan. Frankly, it is inconceivable to me that any province would stay out, particularly in light of the figures I have quoted which show that the majority of civic employees will now be covered.
June 10, 1971

This amendment, if adopted, would tend to deny coverage to the municipal worker. The decision would not be made by the worker. It would be made by the civic authorities, by elected aldermen who in some communities may be people who have never known what it is to be out of work. Since they would be worrying about administrative costs they might autocratically, without consulting their employees, decide that municipalities should not be covered by the act.
I suggest that if adopted the amendment would weaken the act rather than strengthen it. It certainly flies completely in the face of the principle of universality which has been the cornerstone of the act. The desire and thrust of all the members of the committee, representing all parties, were directed to making the act as universal as possible, as later amendments will show, and so I would hope that this amendment is defeated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour 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.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Downey) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As hon. members will recall, motion No. 3 is to be considered separately.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 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:
"(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 business within the definition of "business" in the Income Tax Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the minister dealt with universality when speaking with respect to motion No. 2. Perhaps hon. members may think that I am now attempting to do a flip-flop, but having listened to the brilliance and eloquence of the minister's remarks on universality, I wish to give notice that I would like this motion amended. I can advise the House that the government is prepared to go along with this motion, subject to it being amended in such a way as to make it more acceptable to the government, and to strengthen the intent of what we are attempting to do. All that the motion attempts to do is give those in the category of self-employed persons the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
opportunity of becoming involved in unemployment insurance. We are attempting to open a door whereby those who are sufficiently in need, even though they may be self-employed, can be covered by unemployment insurance.
I refer to certain significant parts of the motion. It reads "the Commission may-". That is a permissive word. Then, it continues, "with the approval of the Governor in Council and subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, make regulations for including in insurable employment any business within the definition of "business' in the Income Tax Act." Certainly a lot of selfemployed people may not want to become involved with unemployment insurance, but on the other hand a lot of others may want coverage. I am appreciative of the government's helpfulness to the opposition in this respect, and I will be seeking unanimous consent to have four words included in the motion in order to bring it into an area of acceptability. In the fourth line of the motion after the word "any" I suggest that the following words be inserted "person employed in a" so that it would read "make regulations for including in insurable employment any person employed in a business within the definition of "business" in the Income Tax Act." I am grateful for the assistance of the government. I am sure that, as a result of this co-operation, this amendment in the long-run will be of some assistance to those who are presently excluded from the act. I also hope that hon. members to my left will see the reasoning behind the amendment and agree to support it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member may only amend the motion at this stage of the proceedings if there is unanimous consent of the House. Hon. members have heard the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) state his suggested amendment. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is amended as outlined by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the amendment as reworded. What this simply reiterates is the power of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to define by regulation employers as employees for the sake of the act. The amendment just makes this a little more specific, giving the commission power to include for coverage at some later date, if necessary, certain groups of people. I think the act would be stronger as a result of this amendment and I am pleased to accept it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are prepared to give our support to the amendment to the motion. However, Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled that the hon. member has added these words because it seems to me he has departed from his desire to cover self-employed people. The hon. member says he does not think so, but this is a matter

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
that has to be ruled upon at some point. With these words in, it is now allowed to the commission to pass regulations which will include a person who is employed in a business which is defined as such in the Income Tax Act. It is still limited to an employed person, and does not cover a self-employed person. We accept this, but I still hope the day will come when a way will be found to include self-employed persons under the provisions of this act. We have spent a good deal of time on this in committee, and those of us who were there realized the complications and difficulties that exist but it is still a fact that there are many self-employed persons who lose their income just as much for reasons beyond their control as is the case with employed persons. After all, I have just alluded to the reason for unemployment insurance, namely, to provide for the continuation of income of persons who lose their income for reasons beyond their control. We think that should be applied across the board.
While I am on my feet, I will look the minister in the eye and he will know what I am about to get into at this point. Because we are talking about including other classes of people by means of regulation, I should like to suggest either that the act be amended or that the minister tell us that he will have it looked at under the provisions of this amendment, to deal with the question of covering Members of Parliament under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
This has been suggested a number of times, Mr. Speaker, and it has been taken up in two ways. Those of us who have proposed it have done so because we believe in the principle of universality. We think that, just as we are requiring other people to pay into the unemployment insurance fund, we should be required to pay into it ourselves. Other people have taken it in a different light, and indeed some newspapers have suggested that this was just a proposal to add to the many perquisites and benefits that flow from being a Member of Parliament. When we have debated the pensions, salaries and expense allowances of Members of Parliament, I think I have made it pretty clear that we have to exercise restraint. I have said very clearly that we have gone too far in these areas and, therefore, I do not think I can be accused of proposing to add more. I think that some people being brought under unemployment insurance coverage have a legitimate grievance when they say, "You are bringing us under it but you have not brought yourselves under it."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I have some grave doubts that he is in order in making the suggestion that Members of Parliament should be brought under the act, at this time when we are dealing with motion No. 3. If the hon. member feels that he is in order, he might indicate his reasons to the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think I am on the fringes of being in order, but I think I can state the case in less time than it would take to prove that I am in order. I will simply say that I hope the minister at some point would get the consent of the
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
House to extend the principle of universality, which is the aim of this motion, so that we will be included. I hope it will be done in such a way that we will not get the benefit of unemployment insurance if we go out on pension and so on, but I hope a way will be found to see that we carry our fair share by paying our premiums into the Unemployment Insurance Fund, as we ought to do.
If I may, I go back now and say that I think what I said was at least on the fringes of being in order. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the principle of universality and I should like to see that extension include Members of Parliament.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If I might, I should like to take advantage of the invitation of the hon. member who is on the fringe of being in order, therefore I am on the same fringe. In view of the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and in view of the possibility which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised that the objective of the hon. member has not been reached by the additional words, I wonder if 1 would be in order in suggesting to the House that this section stand. In that way, I would have an opportunity to speak with the legal officers of the department in order that we may, through the proper wording, obtain what the hon. member for Hamilton West has suggested. Possibly at the same time, we could have it worded in such a manner that in the future, through regulation the Unemployment Insurance Commission, when it is deemed appropriate, could include such groups of people as Members of Parliament. If the time is appropriate, and if after study we find that we can convince people that the thing will not be abusive, perhaps the clause can be worded in such a way that the pension benefits of retiring Members of Parliament and things of this nature are taken into consideration in conjunction with the benefits of unemployment insurance for those Members of Parliament who might not be returning next year.
Possibly I would be able to do both those things with a reworded subamendment. Mr. Speaker, after consulting a little later in the day with the officials of the department. Before the supper hour, we could perhaps come back and clear up that particular clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take much time. I am very grateful for the judgment that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has brought into the picture. In trying to extend this coverage to the self-employed, it appears that perhaps I have restricted. Of course, that is not what I am attempting to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are only a
lawyer, Lincoln.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Maybe that is the problem; maybe we have too many lawyers here and we are not used to drafting a document in terms that people will understand. I am appreciative of the suggestion made by the
June 10, 1971

minister, and I think we should defer this clause until we can reach some agreement on words that would extend coverage to the self-employed. As far as Members of Parliament are concerned, I have no thoughts on that subject at this time. I am just interested in the particular question of the self-employed. Whether we are selfemployed or not is another question that has to be determined, and I am not too interested in that phase of the argument at the moment, just the general theme of the motion in attempting to bring in the self-employed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that motion No. 3, as amended, shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Motion No. 3, as amended, stands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with the order made earlier today, motions Nos. 4, 5 7 and 8 shall be grouped for debate and a decision on motion No. 4 shall also dispose of motions Nos. 5, 7 and 8.
The Chair has some difficulty here. Motion No. 4 stands in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) but the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) has indicated that he would move it. There would have to consent to do this. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) for the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) moves motion No. 4 as follows:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting the words "two weeks" in paragraph (g) of subclause (1) of clause 16, lines 35 and 36 at page 10, and substituting the words "first week".
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) moves motion No. 5 as follows:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting the words "the two weeks" from paragraph (g) of subclause (1) of clause 16 in lines 35 and 36 at page 10, and by substituting therefor the words "one week".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that the same sequence of mover and seconder be followed with motion No. 7?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) for the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) moves motion No. 7 as follows:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting the word "two" in clause 23, line 23 at page 13 and substituting the word "one".
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) moves motion No. 8 as follows:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting the word "two" from clause 23 in line 23 at page 13, and by substituting therefor the word "one".
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us one of the most important amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. This amendment deals with the waiting period, that is the period of t me to establish one's rights to benefits. Under the present Unemployment Insurance Act, the waiting peiiod is one week. The government proposes to extend this waiting period to two weeks. My amendment proposes that this should not be done and that it should remain as at present with a one week waiting period. I shall try to put forth my arguments why the waiting period should remain as at present.
This is an insurance bill. An insurance bill is always drafted to provide insurance and protection. When one is entitled to protection or insurance, he wants it right away. He does not want to wait for two or three weeks or even one week. This is the case in such insurance plans as accident and sickness, life insurance or automobile accident. Indeed, if you are involved in an automobile accident, an adjuster is on the job almost immediately. Fire insurance operates in the same way. With other forms of insurance, the adjustment or claim is attended to immediately. The government is now asking these persons to wait one week longer for their unemployment insurance benefits.
Under our present economic situation in Canada, we have a very high rate of unemployment. Welfare costs average as high as 68 per cent. Indeed, in the city of Toronto last year, welfare costs were $45 million. If people must wait an extra week for the'r unemployment insurance, I am convinced there will be only one result. More people will have to go on welfare to tide them over until the'r unemployment insurance cheque arrives.
I am sure all hon. members realize that there are thousands and thousands of people who live from week to week. The amount of their Friday n'ght cheque is already committed before they receive it. It is required for rent or they go shopping on Saturday for food and clothing for the children. When a person becomes unemployed, he needs this unemployment insurance cheque immediately. He cannot be expected to wait a week longer than he is now waiting.
I am sure all hon. members have had experience with situations in which something has happened to unemployment insurance benefit cheques. Either the computer went haywire or the form was improperly filled out. As a result of persons not receiving their benefit cheques, they get in touch with their Member of Parliament to see what they should do. They have no money on hand and there is no food in the house. The money is due to them but they have not received it. What do we expect them to do? How are they going to feed their children? The government is now going to ask them to wait an additional week before receiving this benefit. I am convinced that this will increase the welfare costs in this country.
If we are putting forward an insurance bill, we must provide proper insurance. I know the minister will say that this suggestion will cost more money and by extend-
6578

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 ing the waiting period another week the government will save approximately $160 million. This does not interest the unemployed. They are interested in proper coverage and an immediate settlement of their claims. I know the point will be raised that the premium will be reduced from $1.40 to 77 cents. Why drop it down to that level? Why not strike a half way mark and still provide the one-week waiting period rather than the two-week waiting period?
I am sure that every member in this House has received many letters and telegrams from many organizations and people pleading for the government not to include this extra waiting period in this new plan. I received a telegram from one union, Local 541 U.E. It reads in part:
We have grave concern about the increased waiting period, the possibility of reduced benefits for many of the unemployed

There is grave concern about this extra waiting period among those people who are covered by unemployment insurance schemes. The added welfare costs to which I have referred will have to be borne by the municipalities. It is the taxpayers who will have to pay for this. The unemployment insurance scheme is contributed to by the employer and the employee, and the cost of administration is paid by the federal government. If people are going to be forced to accept welfare because of the added waiting period, the employer and employee, particularly the employer will have to pay in two ways, through his municipal taxes and through unemployment insurance. I plead with the minister and his officials to give this amendment very serious consideration.
Another argument that might be made by the minister is that the benefits are going to be higher under the new plan. The unemployed person is not as concerned about this as about having the benefit available immediately. He says "I need it now; I do not need it in the future, I need it when I am unemployed. That is today." As I said before, the waiting period is being extended to two weeks. Even with a one-week waiting period, from the time the form is filled out until the cheque arrives takes two or three weeks. By extending the waiting period to two weeks, it will be three weeks before he receives payment under this new unemployment insurance bill.
This is the most important change in this new bill. I hope the minister will give it a second thought. If the minister cannot see his way clear to accepting this amendment in its present form, I plead with him to give serious consideration to leaving the one-week waiting period the way it now is until such time as he gets the new bill into operation and gets the administrative problems ironed out. Goodness knows, the administration of this new bill will be a Midsummer Night's Dream for the officials concerned. They will be so busy ironing out the wrinkles in this new bill that it would be a great relief to them I am sure if the waiting period were left at one week, as it is now. Possibly the two-week waiting period could be introduced later on.
If the minister does not wish to do this, I will offer an alternative. Why does he not tie the waiting period in

with the national average unemployment figure? In other parts of the bill we find that the period of benefit entitlement is related to the national unemployment figure. If the national average is 4 per cent, the period will be ten weeks; if it is 5 per cent it will be 14 weeks, and so on. Why cannot the waiting period also be tied in on a similar basis? The length of the waiting period is an important part of the bill. I have therefore no hesitation in recommending motion No. 5 for the consideration of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At this time we are considering four proposed amendments, Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. Two of them are on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and two of them in the name of my colleague from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Although their wording may vary slightly, they seek precisely the same thing. They seek to amend clauses 16 and 23 so that the waiting period under the new Unemployment Insurance Act will be one week, as it was under the old act, iiistead of two weeks as is now proposed by the government.
The workers of Canada have felt for a long time that the Unemployment Insurance Act is their legislation. They have become very familiar with its provisions and with its details. If I might speak particularly for the organized workers, I would say they have studied this legislation very thoroughly. Naturally, there are a number of provisions in the new bill which are of concern to the workers who have considered it, but I must say this point is one which seems to have provoked the widest misgivings, namely, the extension of the waiting period from one week to two weeks. The hon. member who has just spoken has called attention to some of the difficulties which will arise if this is done. I would like to underline what he said and to express the hope that the government will yet consider the request we are making in this respect.
The minister and his officials have been quite forthright with us in giving us the reasons for proposing this increase in the length of the waiting period. They have stated that it is their desire to improve the benefits available to unemployed workers and to reduce the premiums. More people are to be covered, benefits are at a higher rate, benefits are to be extended in the sense that sickness and maternity are to be covered, and so on. And the minister and his officials have made it clear to us that if Parliament is to provide these things, things which provide more money, funds have to be found in some way. So, they are to be found by bringing into the scheme people who have not been participants up to this point, and by cutting some benefits here and there. Here we are considering one of the benefits which is to be cut, namely, the right to draw unemployment insurance after a waiting period of only one week.
It has been my experience that workers, particularly the organized workers with whom I have had some connection, have never objected to any extra cost which would be involved in extending unemployment insurance benefits. I remember years ago when we first started arguing for coverage in times of illness that the question
June 10, 1971

was put in committees of the House of Commons to workers' representatives: Are you prepared to pay an extra premium if necessary for this extra benefit? The answer was always a ready and unqualified yes. I believe that is the story now. I believe that if we give the workers the right to a shorter waiting period, in other words, to begin collecting benefits in the second week rather than in the third week, they would be prepared to agree to contribute to the higher cost incurred.
As the bill stands, the amount of premium to be paid by the employee and the employer is to be fixed annually. Rates will be determined each fall for the ensuing calendar year, based on what the experience has been. No amendment to the monetary part of the bill is, therefore, required for the kind of amendment we are proposing. The extra cost to the workers as well as to the employers will be automatic. It is, of course, a fact, that the workers have been used to the one week waiting period. But one must make the point even more strongly that at times such as these when there is so much unemployment, when so many people have to live on a hand to mouth basis, it is not very acceptable to tell someone he should be willing to accept a waiting period of two weeks instead of one week because the benefits he is eventually to receive will be somewhat greater. I do not think we need take the time to argue it. This is one change on which we in the opposition parties are united. It is our hope that the government will agree to these motions when the vote is called. It would be even better if it were not necessary to vote, if the minister, who has already shown he is ready to agree to some changes, would tell us now that he will agree to this one.
In any case, I make it quite clear that we in this party support the necessary amendments to the act to provide that we keep in effect the one week waiting period rather than moving to the two weeks waiting period, which would be extremely difficult for those in this country who become unemployed.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the four amendments that are now being studied together, to the effect that the waiting period before receiving unemployment insurance benefits be one week instead of two weeks as set out in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support those amendments because as the mover pointed out a few minutes ago, by the time the worker receives unemployment insurance benefits his income has already been reduced and if he has to wait one more week-two weeks instead of one-he is being penalized, his income is further reduced.
As the hon. minister and others who took part in the debate on this bill pointed out, our aim here should be that the worker who is laid off should not be deprived of his income and have to face financial difficulties in supporting his family.
Mr. Speaker, I think the worker is not responsible for losing his job. He has nothing to do with that, as it is due to uncontrollable circumstances.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Therefore, I do not believe we should penalize more than is necessary the worker deprived of his job, by having him lose two weeks of unemployment insurance benefits instead of one.
I think that the current one-week waiting period is amply sufficient for anybody who lost his job to determine whether he can find another one. If he cannot succeed within one week I doubt he would in two.
Mr. Speaker, in the centre column of page 17 of the white paper on unemployment insurance, introduced a few months ago, you can read and I quote:
The traditional stability of occupations such as nursing, teaching, police work, the armed forces and the public service can no longer be taken for granted. Supply may become greater than demand; austerity measures can cause redundancy;
Everyone knows to what extent the government used restraint measures in its administration to fight inflation, for example, and each time restrictive measures have been adopted for one reason or another, the worker has always suffered from it. Because of the current administration and its predecessors, workers have been sufficiently penalized and should not be even more penalized.
I am confident that the minister and the other cabinet members will understand the arguments put forward and the reasons why the movers have suggested reducing the waiting period to one week. I wonder why anyone would try to extend the waiting period to two weeks.
I strongly support the movers and I hope that the government will consider this motion favourably as it did the first one at the very beginning of this debate.


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


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the last speaker for my attention being diverted and not realizing that he was coming to the end of his remarks. I am not unaware, of course, of the very persuasive arguments for the reduction of the waiting period from two weeks to one week. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, quite accurately, that this is one of the areas in which workers, through their representatives in the trade unions, the Canadian Labour Congress and other responsible groups who appeared before the committee, have suggested that the ideal plan would, in effect, be to have no waiting period at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member says "hear, hear". The point is that I am rarely accused of being very conservative-and that is quite a feeling-in my approach to social legislation that affects the workers. However, when we sat down to formulate this proposed change and many other fundamental changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act for the first time we took, perhaps, a global picture of how best to help the work force of this country at reasonable cost to employee as well as to employer.

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
While the workers of this country have, with some degree of justification, looked upon the Unemployment Insurance Act as their own, we all know that the cost of the plan since 1940 or 1942 when it came into existence has been borne not only by employees but also in equal amount by employers. The plan, therefore, is not the same as the one in the United States which is financed entirely and exclusively by employees; our plan is equally financed by the employers of Canada.
The hon. member has already alluded to the cost factors of many of the features of the plan. For example, the cost to the plan of reducing the two week waiting period to one week, as suggested, and which the workers claim they would be quite pleased to pay for, would run to about $160 million for the normal features of the plan. In addition, of course, you would have to meet the cost of the sickness and accident benefits which would come into effect after one week instead of two, which would mean that the cost would go up to somewhere around $300 million to $400 million.
If you try to apportion that amount of money into weekly contributions, this would run from a minimum of 65 cents a week to up to $2 a week for every employee and employer in this country, an astronomical figure. So, although this proposal may be desirable, it just is not realistic at this stage.
As I said in the committee, since it is the intention of the government, and presumably of subsequent governments, to review the Unemployment Insurance Act with much more frequency, it is quite possible that over the next three, four or five years, after we have had an opportunity to assess-


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Abitibi rising on
a point of order?


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I regret to interrupt the minister, but the translation system seems defective and I wish I could hear the minister's remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Possibly the minister could resume his remarks. We shall then determine whether the hon. member can hear the minister's comments. Perhaps the necessary adjustments will then have been made.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been told previously on many occasions that there was a screw loose in the speaker, and I am not sure which speaker they were referring to at the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the Chair.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did not really realize how all-embracing that word is.
I was saying, however, that to reduce the two-week waiting period to a one-week waiting period would cost
$160 million minimum and could run perhaps as high as $400 million, depending upon the effect of the inclusion of the sickness and maternity features of the bill. So, although it may be desirable one day to get down to a zero waiting period, it is not practical or realistic now.
The second problem we have results from the introduction for the first time of these features in the unemployment insurance, that is, the extension to include people under unemployment insurance as a result of sickness or maternity. Quite frankly we need the two-week waiting period to make certain that people drawing unemployment for these particular reasons are in fact eligible. The administration period is bound to be greater with these new features than was previously the case when we did not have unemployment insurance benefits extended to cover sickness and maternity.
Hon. members are certainly very knowledgeable about the operation and know that the two weeks in many cases could mean eight days. People who register under the plan on Friday could become eligible in as little as eight days. So, the two-week period is highly desirable from an administrative point of view. For that very reason we want, and will make certain, that the unemployment insurance extended to those workers who are off because of illness or maternity is applied properly. Every effort will be made to make sure this is not intentionally or unintentionally abused. From an administrative point of view, we need those two weeks. As I mentioned, this could be as little as eight days or as much as 14 days, depending on when an individual applies and how long it takes to process the application. There are certain functions I do not want to get into in detail.
In addition, it might create a situation where such an individual would receive more money by staying at home than by working, so it would pay an individual to stay on unemployment insurance. We do not want to introduce intentionally any such disincentive. For those two reasons; the fact that the reduction in the waiting period from two weeks to one week would cost anywhere from $160 million a year and up, and the employees of the country would be glad to absorb it, and the fact that we need the time for administration purposes, we feel we cannot accept the amendment.
Such a reduction in time would place an equal burden on the employers of the country who, in the main, have been very responsive to our plan. These employers have advanced a minimum of objection to the features of the plan and generally find the bill very desirable. I suggest when the next review of the act takes place, three, four or five years hence, this could be one area of discussion, whether we can make an improvement by reducing the waiting period to one week. We will then have had five years' administrative experience in operating the plan. We would be able to anticipate the cost of the plan with even greater precision.
Although it is politically attractive to me, as the Minister of Labour, to recommend the acceptance of such an amendment, I must resist the temptation. As desirable as this amendment may be from a humanitarian point of

June 10, 1971

view and as a step in the direction toward an Utopian plan, we must look at what we have tried to do with this. We have tried to construct it in such a way that the workers in this country will get maximum benefits at a reasonable cost. We think we have been able to do this, which you will see it you look at it in the total picture rather than at segments of it. If we were to reduce the two-week period to one week we would substantially increase the weekly contribution, not only to employees at 65 cents a week minimum, but by a dollar or more a week to employers, or conversely we might reduce the benefits and thus reduce the pay-outs.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) quite honestly and properly suggested that the two-week period represents a savings to the plan. It also provides something equally as important. It provides an opportunity to administer the plan with a maximum degree of efficiency. These two things have made it possible for us to introduce maximum benefits with the smallest possible burden on the working force. While the principle of the amendment is socially desirable, I think it is premature, and in a sense this will be the main area on which amendments to the act in five years' time might centre.
Let me say in conclusion that we have to make certain the new features of the act in relation to sickness and maternity are administered properly. We need this time to check out many aspects of eligibility. This would be very difficult with a one-week waiting period. And I point out again that if an applicant registers on Friday this will mean really only eight days required to process a claim properly and ascertain whether the sickness is in reality a real sickness. We must check other aspects in respect of maternity as well.
Equally as important is the fact that the reduction from two weeks to one week would place an added financial burden on the plan amounting to $160 million to $400 million depending on the use of the sickness and maternity features. Even though employees might be quite happy to share the load in this regard, it would cost an extra 65 cents or a dollar a week. Furthermore, it might well interfere with sickness plans now in existence, some paid for by employers who provide some form of payment during a period of sickness. For all these reasons, I would respectfully ask the House to reject the amendment.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the amendment before the House. I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement just made by the minister. He gave us the additional cost involved in cutting down the waiting period to one week. I must say I still do not accept the argument put forward. It seems to me if we are going to save between $160 million and $400 million in cost that sum of money still has to come from somewhere. It has to come out of the pockets of the workers, and these are the people receiving benefits from the sickness and maternity features, but these are workers without jobs. They can ill afford to lose this benefit because of the additional costs,
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
even though it will be spread nation-wide among these unemployed.
There is another point which I do not think was covered. If it was I must have missed it. The act as it now exists provides for a one-week waiting period in a benefit year of 52 weeks. The proposed legislation calls for a two-week period. The question I ask is what happens to those workers who have a series of jobs during the summer? They will not only lose two weeks but perhaps four weeks in a year, or maybe more. This waiting period is not going to be just a one-shot affair, at least as I read and understand the bill. If an individual is unemployed twice during the year, he will have a full month during which he will receive no unemployment insurance at all. There are a lot of people in this category. A very large number of casual workers in every part of Canada do not have just one job but a series of jobs. They lose considerable benefits, as I see it, unless the minister has more information on this. Is there to be more than one two-week waiting period in a year? They should be able to continue receiving benefit without interruption if they have sufficient stamps. I would like an explanation on this.
Some of the groups which have been writing to me are as worried about this aspect of the legislation as I am. I feel we should have left the one week stipulation in the regulations. I would have reversed the condition the minister has given this House. I think we should have tried this legislation for the first year or perhaps for the first two years. The government certainly will not be paying nearly as much in unemployment insurance costs as it paid under the old plan. As I read it, they will not be paying part of the cost of running the plan until there is over 4 per cent unemployment. Why do we not experiment for a year and let the government pick up the tab so that we might find out what it is to be, and then have a review at the end of the first or second year. This would be the proper approach.
Let us give the unemployed people in Canada a break. Let us tell them this is really a new plan. This is what it should be. This is the object of the legislation. There are some substantial improvements in the legislation, but this is one of the particularly weak sections of it. I still feel the amendment to cut back the waiting period to one week, as presently exists under the old plan, is a sound one which ought to be accepted by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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:

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Orders the division stands deferred. As agreed by the House earlier during the debate, this will apply to motions Nos. 5, 7 and 8.
I have indicated before that motions Nos. 6 and 21 have been combined for purposes of debate, it being understood that a vote either negative or affirmative in relation to motion No. 6 would also dispose of motion No. 21.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That Bill C-229, An Act respecting unemployment insurance In Canada, be amended by deleting the word "eight" in paragraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 17, line 16 at page 11, and substituting the word "twelve".
That Bill C-229, An Act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting from Schedule A at page 106, under the column titled "Weeks of insurable employment in qualifying period' in Table 1, the figure "8" in the first entry thereunder and substituting the figure "12".
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is not too much enthusiasm from the other side at this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is not too
much on your side either.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, we have quality here which is extremely important. We do not need quantity. I have always been particularly concerned, and in fact I would say perturbed, about what would happen in respect of this particular clause. If I recall correctly, the present act indicates that those who will be entitled to unemployment benefits must have had an attachment to the labour force for 30 weeks in the past 104 weeks, with eight weeks being in the last year. When I think of that, I recall that our party has indicated not only in this House but also across the nation that we beg the minister not only to increase the benefits but also reduce the period of eligibility. I do not think anyone would attack us in that regard, particularly because of the cost of living these days, but I shall not go into that because we are not talking about the maximum benefit. I hope when we asked that the eligibility period be reduced the minister did not think we wished to give away things on a platter. When I look at the eight-week period it would seem to be a considerable change, in my humble opinion. The explanation I heard would lead me to believe that it was just a question of judgment whether it would be 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks or 12 weeks.
I became increasingly concerned when I found that an eight-week attachment-if I recall correctly and if all things are equal-would allow one to receive 44 weeks of benefit. This is really what I would call a good thing. Surely, we are all in the position where we think about helping one another and being our brother's keeper. Certainly the government must at times, according to my philosophy, help people to help themselves. I wonder, however, whether in fact we are really helping people to help themselves when we reduce the eligibility period to eight weeks. I know I have been misquoted in the newspapers. I have been misunderstood as a result of these misquotations from not only the newspapers but also the radio. I have been quoted as saying the Canadian people are lazy. I have never said any such thing and do not
intend to say it. I realize I said that if I were involved I would be tempted to work for eight weeks only with the expectation of receiving 44 weeks of benefit, but certainly it would seem to me that when you hold out some inducement to a person all you are doing is trying to influence people to have little personal initiative in an effort to get ahead.
This is what concerns me and this is the reason I object most strenuously. I know the minister and his officials have indicated to me how important they feel this change is. For the life of me, however, I cannot understand it, particularly when in the committee we were given the impression that the eight-week period was just taken out of the air and was a question of judgment. When I look up at my friends, the officials sitting in the gallery, I wonder why their judgment did not allow them to pick 12 weeks, which I would think would be more in keeping with allowing a person to have initiative. If we are trying to follow the new line of thinking, which is to the effect that governments must be involved with people, it would seem to me we should try to leave people with a will to continue to work and make it on their own. How can we do that when we indicate to a person that all he has to do now is become attached to the labour force for eight weeks in a year and, if all goes well, he will be allowed 44 weeks of benefits. He might be earning $100 a week. Let us put it at $150 a week for eight weeks, and with the new benefits which he will be able to obtain, it appears to me that a person can acquire 44 times $100, which is $4,400.
Of course, the other important point is that it is taxable. Many people will understand that these benefits are not free. The minister indicated, rightly so, that we are going to give some benefits, but we will get something back from them. If you make $150 a week during the eight weeks you contribute, it seems to me that if things go well eventually you can take out $4,400. Perhaps I am wrong. I hope that the minister will clear that up, but as I understand it and as the officials have stated, that is the gist of it.
I could go on and on with it, but I just want to register my dismay and my lack of understanding of how the government can possibly think that this is an incentive. I thought that when we talked about unemployment insurance we meant temporary income maintenance. But 44 weeks is not temporary, it is permanent; as a matter of fact, it is a whole year's salary. I am not saying it is the best of salaries, but I am wondering what we are attempting to do. This is supposed to be temporary income maintenance to facilitate re-absorption into the productive activity of the work force.
All I can say in conclusion is that I am dismayed by this particular clause, and I am afraid that with all the good intentions the government may have, this clause is open to abuse. It removes the incentive that we are all seeking. It certainly does not enhance personal initiative. So, my two motions are an attempt to make the act more reasonable. What we are trying to do is to allow people

June 10, 1971

to help themselves. I think this is what the government should be doing.
The philosophy of my party is that the government should not move in until it is actually and really required. In other words, the individual should be able to help himself, and this is what I like about our philosophy. Governments should not just look after people from their birth to their death, but we are starting to move in this direction. Whether or not Canadian people can afford this is questionable. But I hope that the minister, as well as my colleagues in the House, will appreciate what I am saying. It is not that the Canadian people are lazy. Heavens, no, I would never say that. What I am saying is that when you hold out these enticements, these inducements, these carrots, there is bound to be abuse. I hope that the administration which will be set up will be able to cope with these abuses effectively, because I can foresee problems for the department and for the minister. What he has done, in effect, has been to remove the initiative from people to continue to seek work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was very pleasant when we were debating the last set of amendments to be associated with the members of both of the other opposition parties. On that occasion we were unanimous. That unanimity is at this moment shattered by the stupidity of the motion that my friend has put down. I cannot say I am surprised in the sense that I am taken unawares because it is an amendment which my friends in the official opposition moved when we were in committee, but I thought it had been sufficiently dealt with there so that they would not be so foolish as to raise it again on the floor of the House.
I must say also that I find it quite inconsistent for my good friends to the right to want to improve unemployment insurance for the workers by cutting the waiting period from two weeks to one in the last debate and now wanting to make the whole scheme less attractive for the workers by making it necessary for them to have a longer attachment to the work force before they can collect benefits.
I also find it a piece of inconsistency for hon. members to my right to say that one of the things that is wrong- and this was said today-about bringing teachers under the plan is that the plan will not provide them with benefits when they need them, namely before they start to work at all. So in that instance they are really asking for no attachment. They were asking for benefits to be paid to certain people before they start to work, and now when the act proposes that they shall receive benefits after a period of eight weeks, they say, oh no, that is too soon, that is offering a carrot; it is a contribution to laziness, so we must make it 12 weeks.
I really think that the argument which my good friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), put up in which he builds a case of people paying this small unemployment insurance premium for eight weeks and then automatically collecting benefits, as he says, for 44 weeks, is a poor one. Although he did not put the actual multiplication in cold language, he gave the impression that they would receive $4,400 for a few weeks contribu-
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
tion, namely eight weeks contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. It does not work out that way.
Surely he knows that there are two kinds of claims, a minor claim and a major claim, and surely he knows that eight weeks does not entitle you to the full benefit. There are other conditions to be met. Surely, he also knows that you do not get a benefit of $100 a week unless you have had a certain period of employment at $150 a week. This kind of attack on the unemployment insurance scheme is all right when you read it in some of the Tory newspapers in the country, the financial papers and others.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is getting mean.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to be mean, I just want to get my good friend back on the track. In the debates up to his point he has been speaking for the workers, trying to improve things for them, and a number of his amendments are in that direction, although not all of them. But I think this one is completely out of character, at least for my good friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West.
We debated it at length in the committee, so I do not need to spin it out now. I still think that my hon. friends are right when they express concern for people who make no contributions at all. I think that a person who has trained to be a teacher or trained for some other job, who has spent a few years at it and who has spent money, and once he has graduated and has his skill and his documents and cannnot get a job at all, should have some coverage. But at least the government has got it down to eight weeks, and the committee has agreed to eight weeks for a minor attachment claim. It takes longer than that for a major attachment claim. The minister no doubt will deal with that, but I think that to suggest it should be lengthened is not like my hon. friend.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You should never trust me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I still have confidence in my hon. friend. He has been in character when he has been pleading for a better deal for the workers. I am just sorry he has proposed this amendment and, as he knows, we shall vote against it vigorously.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this amendment because I had trouble following the arguments of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).
As the previous speaker, I am surprised to note the difference of opinions about his two motions. The hon. member for Hamilton West suggests that the period of employment entitling to unemployment insurance benefits should be raised from eight as mentioned in the bill, to 12 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this period of eight weeks is acceptable. I did not have the opportunity to check all the clauses of the bill but I understand that this eight-week period will exclude the clauses of the legislation

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 providing for a period of benefits during the slack season. I believe this is so. In my opinion, if we extended this period to 12 weeks, as the hon. member for Hamilton West requests, we would have to bring in other changes to the law or leave as it is the present provision concerning the seasonal period.
In my opinion, it would be preferable to approve the proposal in the bill providing for an employment period of eight weeks only.
There is another point that was not mentioned in this debate. In the remarks on the white paper on unemployment insurance, the students' problem has quite often been referred to. For instance, someone asked what the white paper on unemployment insurance provided for students. Obviously, a youth who has just completed his studies is very seldom credited with contributions to unemployment insurance. But with this short qualifying employment period of eight weeks it will happen often enough that during the holiday period students will have been able to work for these eight weeks, even during a single vacation, and so will have accumulated enough contributions to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits when their course is completed if they do not find immediate employment.
Thanks to these eight weeks of employment accumulated during the preceding vacation, students will be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. If this period is extended to 12 weeks, they will be in difficulty.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose the motion moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) sort of ridiculed the members of this party because we had fought for this amendment in the committee and had been beaten. He said the matter had been threshed over and therefore we should not discuss it again. If we follow that line of thinking, it means that once a member has lost any motion in this House he should never return to it, but I point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has fought for the same motion year after year in this House-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not when it's stupid.


Charles Humbert Thomas: It must have been stupid because the House has always turned it down. When a member is beaten in committee, that does not prevent him from presenting his argument to the House. Therefore, I have no hesitation on speaking on this motion. The same hon. member talked about this party being inconsistent. Mr. Speaker, if we appear to be inconsistent, it is only because the bill is so full of inconsistencies that one cannot talk about it without appearing to be inconsistent.
The minister has said that the basis of the bill is universality. Throughout the committee hearings members of this party pointed out instances where the government had departed from the principle of universality.
But I must admit that the minister, with a display of co-operative spirit, has granted us some of the things we sought. The bill makes provision for a certain attachment to the labour force. It refers to increasing benefits because people need more money due to the higher cost of living. There is also a reference to extending benefits to people who do not have a long attachment to the labour force. But on the other hand, the government says that we must lengthen the waiting period otherwise the provisions of the bill will cost too much money. Just how can you talk consistently on a bill which contains so many inconsistent principles? This is a most illogical and inconsistent piece of legislation.
I was one of the members in committee who spoke about the qualifying period. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) asked the officials to tell him the basis for the eight weeks qualifying period, and in reply they gave what in hockey is known as a judgment call. In other words, they decided that eight weeks was a nice sounding figure. My hon. friend was told that this was the same as in the present act. I do not agree with that. It is true that under the act a person must have eight weeks attachment in the current year, but there is a stimulation that he must have a bit more than that going back over 104 weeks. We asked the officials why it should not be ten weeks, 12 weeks or 14 weeks, and the answer was that if it were extended to ten weeks it would exclude many people from the benefits given by the act. I attended many of the committee hearings and I did not hear any logical explanation from anyone with respect to the eight week figure. Why couldn't it be ten weeks or 12 weeks? That is the question we want answered. If we had asked the officials why not reduce it to two weeks, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would probably have said, hurrah. If the theory behind this legislation is that it is to look after all the people who are out of work, then why not reduce the period still further?
I do not want to be misquoted, as the hon. member for Hamilton West was, but I do want to express my belief that all the people who are out of work through no fault of their own should be looked after, but not all through the Unemployment Insurance Act. We have other general legislation. We have welfare legislation. Why destroy the whole intent of the Unemployment Insurance Act by extending much needed welfare through it to people who are out of work but who are not really in the labour force? When I say "not really in the labour force" I would like to give one or two examples of what reducing the work period to eight weeks can do. Take the example of a seasonally employed housewife, of a woman working in a department store at Christmas time. Her husband may be making $10,000 or $20,000 a year and not be in need of any assistance. If this clause is passed as it stands, the woman may work for eight weeks and draw benefits for 44 weeks. I am not going to quibble with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre about whether this is $100 a week; to me the important thing is that by working for eight weeks she can draw benefits for 44 weeks.

June 10, 1971

I took this up with an official one day in committee because I thought I must be on the wrong track and I could not believe the answer he gave me. I asked, "As a matter of law, if a person works eight weeks a year, he can draw benefits for the other 44 weeks?" He said, "That's right". So then I asked, "Can a person go back to work for eight weeks the next year and draw benefits for another 44 weeks?" He said, "That's right". I cannot find the logic in this provision or understand how it can be called insurance or how such a person can conceivably be classed as a worker.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) rising on a question of privilege?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I am merely asking the hon. member if he would allow me a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) allow the hon. member a question?


Charles Humbert Thomas: Yes.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member, a person may work for only eight weeks each year and receive unemployment insurance benefits during 44 weeks. Could he tell us what would happen to the worker who lost his job through his own fault at the end of eight weeks?


Charles Humbert Thomas: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question; that is up to the officials to decide. I am talking about a person who has the eight-week qualification. If all things break in his favour, he can draw benefits for 44 weeks and he can do the same thing the following year. The minister and I have had good natured exchanges on this point in committee. He said that he assumes all Canadian people are honest and not lazy. I agree with the minister but I qualify the word "all"; I say some Canadian people would take advantage of the regulations. There is an old saw that anything you get from the government is not stolen. That is what will happen here. People will feel that if they have satisfied the minimum requirement and have worked the eight weeks, they can draw the benefits for 44 weeks and be within the law. It is the same thing as taking advantage of the loopholes in the Income Tax Act; that is not regarded as breaking the law.
I differ with the minister on this point. The hon.
member for Hamilton West made the point that if you dangle a carrot in front of a person's nose long enough he is going to snap it. I agree with him and that is what we are doing here. In most large cities, the department stores take on seasonal help. It is a common practice for
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
people to work several weeks around Christmas time, and then get laid off so that they can curl all winter. These people then go back to work for another seven or eight weeks in the spring, and get laid off again so they can golf all summer. While it is true there is an enforcement section in the act, I am using this illustration to point out what will happen if the rewards are made great enough that people do not mind cheating a little; it is not dishonest, it is cheating.
Another thing that bothers me about reducing the period to eight weeks is how it will affect students. I asked the officials whether a student who works eight weeks this summer, goes back to college in the fall and is ava lable for work again the following May probably for the balance of the year, could draw benefits as in the previous illustration. I was told that conceivably he could draw benefits up to 44 weeks. We all know the propensity of college students for travel and I can just see what will happen here. The student will say, "All right, I worked eight weeks last summer, I will take benefits for eight or twelve weeks and travel across the country". He can say that he will be available for work because he can get from Montreal to Toronto overnight if necessary. These are some of the abuses that can creep in when the plan is made so attractive. In committee one Liberal member said that we should be trying to help students. Of course we should, but this is not the way to do it. Let the government get the economy going to the point where we can give employment to students in summer and then they won't be tempted to take unemployment insurance benefits.
These are some of the reasons that I am in favour of this amendment to increase the qualifying period to 12 weeks, Mr. Speaker. I say again, it is only a judgment figure. I have not received any satisfactory explanation from the officials why eight weeks was chosen other than the fact that is the provision in the present act. I say it is not the same as the present act and, therefore, we could take any figure out of the hat. I feel that extending the period to 12 weeks, as my colleague has suggested in his amendment, would at least remove some of the dangers and ensure that those people who are applying for benefits are really in the labour force rather than just itinerant workers who work long enough to qualify and then draw benefits. By increasing the period to 12 weeks we would plug some of the loopholes that exist at the present time.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) because I believe it will help to restore to the proposed bill principles more in keeping with an insurance scheme than those measures now proposed by the government. In my opinion, the proposed act departs from the insurance principle by being universal and extending benefits to too many people who are basically not employed in the work force. If these people are to be assisted, and I think many of them should be, other vehicles are available and should be used to look after them.

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Under the present Unemployment Insurance Act, and as stated on page 10 of the government's white paper on "Unemployment Insurance in the 70's", a claimant must have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund for at least 30 weeks over the preceding two 1-year period to qualify for benefits from it. The government now proposes to reduce this qualifying period or period of attachment to the labour force to eight weeks in any one year in order for a participant to receive benefits.
In its calculations of the cost of its new unemployment insurance plan, the government's financial assumptions were based on a national rate of unemployment of 4 per cent. Using this rate, it was estimated that the lowering of the eligibility period for the receipt of benefits would cost an extra 160 million dollars. Thus, even on a national basis of 4 per cent unemployment, a rate which we have not had for very nearly two years, by extending the proposed eligibility period from eight to 12 weeks, the government would be saving considerable money and could use it in other areas.
Even by increasing the eligibility period from eight to 12 weeks, Mr. Speaker, it will be entirely possible for someone to collect benefits from the unemployment insurance fund totally out of keeping with the government's publicly expressed desire to have an insurance scheme which will act as an incentive to work rather than the reverse. When one considers that most people in the country are engaged in tasks which are often unsatisfactory or unpleasant to them it seems to me that these people, with every good intention in the world, can use whatever means is available to make their lives happier.
As I recall, one of the reasons given during committee study of this bill for the government's removal of seasonal unemployment insurance benefits from the new act was that by lowering the eligibility period to eight weeks, a large measure of the need for seasonal unemployment insurance benefits would be eliminated. I would like to illustrate just how expensive an elimination this may well be by citing certain testimony which was brought out at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration on May 5. The example which I shall cite concerns someone who works for as few as eight weeks a year, thus making him eligible for the receipt of benefits under the proposed new Unemployment Insurance Act. If he earns $150 during each of these eight weeks and pays into the fund a mere $1.19 weekly in premiums, which is the proposed new premium rate for the maximum weekly insurable earnings, or $9.52 for the eight weeks in which he works, he can draw a total of $4,000 in benefits from the fund.
The following exchange of remarks occurred at the committee meeting on May 5 between the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) and the general legal counsel to the unemployment insurance committee:
MR. Thomas (Moncton) : All right. I think Mr. Alexander will have an amendment. I will ask Mr. Steele or Mr. Douglas, one of the officials about a claimant who has the minor entitlement of eight weeks. If he has the entitlement, how many weeks benefits could he actually draw if he qualified for all phases of the situation, if at all?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If he has the minimum?


Charles Humbert Thomas: If he has the minimum of eight weeks what are the maximum benefits he could draw?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He can draw eight weeks in his initial benefit period-


Charles Humbert Thomas: Right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Ten additional in the extended, which is
eighteen, then if the national rate is favourable to him, that is, over 5 per cent, he could draw eight more, but it would depend on the national rate of unemployment at the time he finished the ten. Then if the regional rate at the end of that period were favourable to him, if it exceeded the national rate by at least three points and was over 4 per cent, then he could go on for another eighteen. In most cases it will be a matter of his having the eighteen weeks plus some extended benefits.


Charles Humbert Thomas: So if my arithmetic is correct, that gives a maximum of forty-four weeks, for eight weeks' work he could draw forty-four weeks benefits. He could work eight weeks this year, draw forty-four weeks benefits, conceivably he could work eight weeks next year and draw forty-four weeks benefits. Is that correct?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would be possible if everything worked right for him.
Considering the application of this provision to my own area, I would like to point out that there are many farmers who must leave the land at the ages of 50, 55 or 60. They are still in good physical condition. They usually are not attached to the labour force. A farmer helping his neighbour with planting and harvesting would work slightly over eight weeks; that is the usual period in western Canada. This person could qualify for benefits. If the conditions were right, he could conceivably draw benefits for 44 weeks. Generally speaking, these people are not part of the work force. However, with this provision, it would be to their advantage to pay unemployment insurance in order to qualify for the extended benefits. With this in mind, I believe that the eligibility period of eight weeks is too short. It should be extended to at least 12 weeks. I do not disagree that there are some people who only work eight weeks who are in need of some help to sustain them through the year. However, for those people who consistently work only eight weeks a year, some other means must be found to assist them. In any event, the maximum benefit of 44 weeks is not enough to see them through the year. Therefore, I hope the House will see its way clear to support this amendment.
fTranslation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the amendment.
I will say right away that I am not quite in agreement with the sponsor. One could ask: why not two, three, four, twelve or fifteen weeks?
To my mind, the bill in its present form really fits into the context. After listening to comments of some hon. members I am under the impression that there has not been sufficient recognition of the present context. The department is now making a commendable effort, in keeping with the unemployment problem we now face.
I also recognize that some individuals would be tempted to work only eight weeks to obtain benefits during 44

June 10, 1971

weeks. If I was assured that the bill would be in effect during 10, 15 or 20 years, I would probably object to such a clause. However, I think that the present situation was taken into account and considering the difficulties which we are experiencing-I imagine that it is always possible to annul the bill with the approval of the House-it is quite acceptable under the cirmum-stances.
I wonder if it would not be advisable to ask the minister to consider seriously the situation, in order not to tempt workers to work eight weeks to be entitled to 44 weeks of benefits.
It would be to the advantage of the minister and the government to consider, in the future, requiring a given type of work for a given benefit. I believe that is where the problem lies. If we continue to increase unemployment insurance benefits, we are tempting the people and we are inviting them to take the line of least resistance. And that is dangerous.
Always within the present context, I believe that this clause is acceptable, but I must take advantage of this opportunity to tell the minister that any work that is of benefit to society should be considered. Municipalities and provinces would find it useful, I think, to enter into agreements with the federal government for certain projects that are urgently needed and that they cannot afford to carry out alone.
If we keep on constantly increasing unemployment insurance benefits and relaxing the requirements, we shall be responsible, for instance, for spoiling a generation because we are inviting them to abuse their rights. We must be careful not to allow the people to get the benefits too easily.
Considering the present context and the difficulties we know, this clause of the bill is acceptable in 1971 and I hope we shall be able through the co-operation of hon. members to set up some programs and projects in consultation with provinces and municipalities so that benefits will always be available.
We shall better serve the interests of the nation by ensuring a fair distribution of benefits, but it is still alarming and annoying for the people who work all their lives to see others collect benefits so easily.
Indeed, some workers wonder why they spend their lives working, year after year, while others manage to survive without doing so.
To my mind, even though they will be increased, unemployment benefits will still not be high for many people. I think most Canadian workers have more ambition than that and always try to work.
Still, the limit of eight weeks is logical. Surely, with a much lower rate of unemployment, we could perhaps increase these requirements to 12 or 15 weeks. But I believe that for the moment, these eight weeks are welcome and we will try and demand a minimum of work for the good of society rather than give more in return for lesser requirements.
In closing my remarks, I would say that I am in favour of the clause dealing with the qualifying period.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: should like to take part in the debate for a few moments. First, I would indicate my full support for the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I commend him for the action he is taking in this regard. A great many politicians today seem to believe that anything which results in giving anything away is something they should support; they are most reluctant to speak out against it. My hon. friend has indicated both by his remarks and by his amendment that there are principles associated with the unemployment insurance scheme which must be adhered to, namely that the fund must not be subject to such a drain that it is again placed in the precarious position in which it found itself on several occasions in the past as a result of too many people drawing out large benefits as compared to the amounts paid in.
If eight weeks is all that is required before a worker qualifies for benefit, there is a real danger that the fund will prove to be actuarially unsound. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas), has pointed out that a great many people who are not really full time labourers in the work force are drawing huge sums of money from the fund as compared with the contributions they made to it. It is all very well to extoll the virtues of the worker, to say he is honest, progressive and willing to work under any circumstances. I think it is probably true that most Canadians have those qualities. But if we ignore the fact that people will take advantage of any piece of government legislation, we show ourselves to be so naive that we should not even be in this House. Because they will take advantage. They have taken advantage of the legislation which is on the statute books at the present time. The minister knows this as well as I do.
As parliamentarians, it is our obligation to the taxpayer and to the working man to pass legislation which eliminates this exploitation as far as possible. To make it a requirement that one should work for only two months in order to qualify for ten months' benefit does not really assist in keeping people in the labour force. In this day and age, we ought to do things which ensure that people stay in the labour force once they can find employment. It is difficult at this stage to talk about these things because there are a great many people who cannot get two months' work even if they wished to qualify. I can understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) being concerned about this at the present stage of our affairs. But we hope this is only a short-term affair and that in the not-too-distant future there will be employment for those who wish to work in Canada, that the economy will be able to produce the employment needed. What I am saying is that if a person wants to work, he should be required to work at least for three months before he becomes eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
I return to what the hon. member for Moncton said. He drew attention to the fact that there are a great many people who work part-time and who desire to work only

June 10, 1971
Royal Assent
part-time. For example, there are university students who work in department stores and places like that which provide part-time employment. They will now find themselves in a position where they can work for two months and collect unemployment insurance for 44 weeks. If this is allowed to happen a very heavy strain will be placed on the fund and, as I say, it is likely to become actuarially unsound.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Transport- review by government of ferry rate increases imposed by Canadian National Railways in Maritimes; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs-Request for statement on NATO foreign ministers meeting; the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan)- Housing-The Richmond Square project in Toronto.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:


[Stage Direction]
10 June 1971
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 10th of June, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
1 have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General.
[Stage Direction]
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on the order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions for papers, and public bills.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-12, respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Peters (for Mr. Skoberg) moved:: That Bill S-12, an act respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, be amended by adding the following to clause 1 at line 27 on page 1:
"on the condition that sections 52 to 56 of the Bank Act apply to the company mutatls mutandis notwithstanding the provisions of part I of the Canada Corporations Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Same old speech.


William Arnold Peters: -those who believe in Canadian ownership and want to ensure that this country has Canadian ownership, particularly to preserve as such companies that are now Canadian, make the same old speech from time to time and those who are opposed, like some of my Liberal friends, either make a speech in favour of the sort of speech you would expect from those interested in selling. Then it all depends how much they can get for it; it is a tradeable commodity. I am happy to have my speech bear the stamp of "Same old speech" because we in this party have always been in favour of Canadian ownership and thus it is a pleasure to come before the House today to ask for certain considerations in this regard.
My colleague the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) would want to indicate that we apply to this company the provisions of Sections 52 to 56 of the Bank Act that are laid out in the Canadian statutes. Because of expediency, as well as necessity, the Bank Act provided that foreign-owned banking institutions in this country would be permitted, but foreign-owned banks-and there was a small one in Canada at that time-were to be given a number of alternatives. The Bank Act also provided that a particular bank or company could decide whether it would remain a small investment organization in this country or, alternatively, take a ten-year period to expand very rapidly with the intention of disposing of their operation at the end of that time.
The Bank Act was worded in that way to permit an honest transfer of stock to Canadian shareholders. It allowed the company to make a reasonable profit on their banking ventures in Canada because for a ten-year period they were able to take advantage of expansions of the market and of the provisions of the act. Then they were given the opportunity to sell the operation at a reasonable profit. Those involved in passing the amendments to the Bank Act were of the opinion that the banking institutions of Canada were so important to our development and to the operation of this country as a nation that they wrote into the act these concessions in response to the decision that we had made that the banking institutions of Canada must at all times be under the control of the Parliament of Canada and must react in a predictable way to the policies of the Bank of Canada.
This has been an acceptable position. It is not the kind of position that would be taken in countries which nationalize industries for the sake of nationalization. It did allow for the orderly expansion of the operation concerned. If companies decided to remain in this coun-

June 10, 1971

try with modest growth so they would retain a very small portion of the financial market, then they would be able to do so. However, if they wanted to get the benefit of the normal financial expansion that they could expect if they were allowed to use their banking skills to increase their operations in Canada, then they could do so provided they sold the operation after ten years.
I agree with those who may speak on this subject later and say that the application of the Bank Act to this particular company does make for a ponderous type of legislation in that it takes into consideration some of the difficulties that develop in financial institutions, the fact that financial institutions often have lending problems that may extend over a period of years, and the difficulty of orderly liquidation in the market. This may not apply to this particular company, but we have had companies come before us which on a voluntary basis, with the prodding of the sponsor, the prodding of Members of Parliament and the knowledge of several other companies that they were operating in Canada in a field that was of importance to the development of the economy and resources of our nation, made the concession to members of this party, who for a long time have been interested in Canadian control of our development and of our institutions, that they would remain Canadian and would make this a condition of their incorporation.
There have been other companies-not numerous, unfortunately-which have voluntarily made the concession that if granted the incorporation they were asking for they would make a commitment to Parliament and to the corporate affairs department responsible for our corporate structure that if they did not become 50 per cent Canadian-owned, at the end of the ten-year period they would relinquish their charter and cease to exist as a corporate entity under federal law.
I admit that I do not know whether the corporate structure that we have established in Canada, particularly the provisions of the Corporations Act, has the machinery to ascertain in a meaningful way whether or not companies are Canadian. I am not sure whether companies are in a position to know whether 50 per cent of the stock is in the hands of Canadians normally resident in Canada or whether in their shareholdings there are holding companies which meet the criterion of Canadian-resident ownership yet are in fact controlled from outside the country. In my opinion we have not given consideration to devising a method of ascertaining the nominal control of a company through the stock procedures we allow in Canada. We do not have the machinery necessary to make this assessment and do something about it.
Representatives of this company appeared before the committee and made several commitments. I am not aware whether those commitments have been carried out. If you lcok at the Financial Post survey on oils for 1971 you find that this company has a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries, an interest in more than 705 million net acres of oil rights and 20 million net acres in oil and gas rights, chiefly in western and northern Canada. As of
Central-Del Rio Oils Limited
October, 1969, these companies had issued 20 million shares through Canadian Pacific Investments Limited for all the issued and outstanding shares of Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited.
The purpose of this bill is to amalgamate Central-Del Rio Oils Limited and Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited. They would be amalgamated under the Canada Corporations Act, with the shareholders' approval to be sought at a subsequent annual meeting. The shareholders of this company are at this stage, from my reading of-


Mr. Mahoney:: Why don't you say it from memory?


William Arnold Peters: I have not been closely connected with the oil industry long enough to name the board of directors without at least looking them up. I suppose the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) could do this. He would say that former Premier Manning is probably a director of every oil company in western Canada. He has been well rewarded. I suppose he would say that Duff Roblin could reasonably be expected to be on the board of directors of this and every other oil company in western Canada.
Then it would become a little more difficult because you run out of premiers. In reading the list of the executive of various oil companies I cannot find the name of a former premier of Saskatchewan. This may be an oversight or it may reflect to some extent the policy of the Saskatchewan government and its interest in having Canadian ownership and Canadian rights in the hands of Canadians. This is particularly so in respect of oil companies on a provincial basis. I suppose the other provinces were not so fussy. In reading this list of directors I find the names of both gentleman whom I mentioned. It is interesting to note that the address of Hon. Duff Roblin is listed as Montreal, rather than Manitoba, but I presume it is the same person. It is also interesting to note that Mr. Taylor is president of this company and several subsidiaries.
It is surprising that a few years ago this company was almost entirely owned or controlled by Canadian Pacific Investments Limited, which was operating almost entirely on pension moneys of the workers of Canadian Pacific Railway. This very large sum of money represented Canadian investment of a very basic kind.
This bill was considered by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. It is to be noted that the Canadian Pacific Railway pension funds constituted, I suppose, a controlling interest in this company. Suddenly the fund did not appear to represent a major investment in this company. This fact gives rise to the problem referred to by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. He noticed that there was a change almost overnight. The fund did not represent a major investment in a Canadian-owned operation, but an operation held or controlled by another company.
We believe, as I hope some Liberals-


Thomas Miller Bell: Don't count on it.


William Arnold Peters: -and some Conservatives do, that a company which is involved in a resource-based industry in

June 10, 1971
Central-Del Rio Oils Limited this nation should play a very important role in the development of our natural resources. We also believe, as I am sure most members do, that if a company is Canadian-owned it will play a role consistent with the wishes and aspirations of the Canadian public at large.
I am well aware that we are asking a great deal of the people who control Canadian corporations operating our development industries, in that they operate side by side with United States corporations involved in industries of which they have no particular knowledge or interest except profit making. I am sure most members agree that a Canadian appointed as president, as we have in the case of Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, will be interested in ecology, conservation and the orderly development of a corporate structure operating in the resource fields and will represent to a greater extent the aspirations of the Canadian nation in this regard than will the president of a United States or a foreign-owned corporation.
There have been changes in the shareholders and in the operations of this company. Mr. Taylor, as president of Central-Del Rio, could not give the assurance that the shareholders would remain Canadian. He could not give a commitment that the board of directors would remain Canadian. I suggest that the decision to have this company under the control and direction of Canadian nationalists can only be made by Parliament. If we include in this bill those sections of the Bank Act which apply to control and ownership by foreign corporations we will have decided that as long as this corporation is under the Canada Corporations Act it will reflect the aspirations of Canadian nationals and will be controlled by Canadians.
I suggest that many members of this House would agree that Canadian ownership is an important factor in the development of a resource-based area. I refer particularly to hon. members who have been connected with the mining industry and the oil industry. They know that many companies which are buying up Canadian resources do not have any interest in the development of our natural resources. These companies have no interest in or knowledge of the development role they should play in terms of the relationship of the commodity they are producing to the needs of the nation.
When a United States company buys up or obtains control of such a corporation its only motive, and rightly so, is to derive a profit from the resource. Why should a large United States corporation not buy an oil company which will produce a return of 7 per cent, 8 per cent, 10 per cent or 12 per cent on its investment? Why should it be concerned about whether or not it is exploiting the country in which it operates? I do not blame these people a bit. But representing a portion of the Canadian people, I believe I have a responsibility to take every opportunity-and such opportunity arises when company incorporations come up for consideration-to ensure the retention of ownership of industry in the hands of the Canadian public.
There are those who have said, and correctly so, that many entrepreneurs in Canada are engaged in buying up
lucrative portfolios. They are not all foreigners. I have seen it in my own area, where Little Longlac gold mine-a little, two-bit company-moved into Kirkland Lake and bought the Lakeshore mine. This company drew out all the Lakeshore profits and closed the mine. I am not familiar with the company or its board of directors, but I can say they are as much scavengers as any foreign-owned company could be. I want to curtail that kind of operation in respect of any company which comes before us, particularly in the area of our resources. For this reason 1 commend and support the amendment of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, it could be said that we are pouring oil on troubled waters, but you know from past experience that when my colleagues in the New Democratic Party speak on this subject, they speak with persuasiveness and strength. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) is very important, not only to the members of the New Democratic Party but to Canadians at large. I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) in the House, because he comes from Calgary, Alberta. I am also delighted to see our football star, who is also a member from Calgary. I am sure they wish to participate in this debate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am not from Calgary but, rather, from Edmonton.


John Gilbert: I apologize to the hon. member. I am sure these gentlemen will listen very attentively to the comments of my colleagues and will probably participate in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to present an historical and constructive point of view on this matter. I recall in the early 1960s a voice from the wilderness. I refer to Walter Gordon who sensed the problem of Canadian ownership. He wrote a book. He attempted to take some action because he appreciated the problem of foreign ownership. Unfortunately, his voice was not heard. He left the Liberal cabinet. The result is that we have seen an increasing trend toward foreign ownership. I shall not repeat in detail the tremendous United States and foreign penetration that has taken place in the Canadian economy, particularly in oil fields and natural resources. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance could do it far more ably than I and I am sure he will be glad to do it.
On its face this bill would appear to be innocent. According to the explanatory notes the purpose is simply to permit the company to be continued as a company incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act. Then the explanatory notes read.
The company will be permitted to carry out in Canada its existing objects. If the shareholders approve of an application to continue the company as a company incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act, any amalgamation agreement thereafter adopted by the shareholders shall be deemed to be an amalgamation agreement for the purposes of such act, provided that the agreement complies with certain requirements of section 128A of such act.

June 10, 1971

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out the valiant attempts this party has made to retain Canadian content in companies and more especially companies which may be subject to foreign control. The easy approach to this question would be for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) to bring forward an amendment to the Canada Corporations Act which would include what is set forth in the Bank Act, which is the substance of the amendment of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
When I came here in 1965 I was made a member of the finance committee when it was studying the Bank Act. The question of foreign ownership came up because of the operations of the Mercantile Bank in Canada. I recall the Minister of Labour playing his usual important part in going down to New York and speaking to Mr. Rockefeller. He pointed out to him how necessary it was to retain Canadian ownership of our banks. The result was that Mr. Rockefeller appeared before the committee and gave evidence.
Then amendments were made to sections 52 to 57 of the Bank Act to the effect that any non-resident may hold up to 10 per cent of the shares in a Canadian bank, but that the total number of shares of a non-resident may not exceed 25 per cent. We in the New Democratic Party feel that although other measures should be taken to regain control of our economy, the measure set forth by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is a step in the right direction. In other words, if it is good enough for the banks it should be good enough for other Canadian companies. This is why the amendment has been brought forward. When the hon. member attempted to bring it forward in the committee he was met with strong objection from some members and did not have the opportunity to present it. The reason he is bringing it forth is to persuade hon. members that it is a vital amendment which should receive the acceptance of all members of the House.
On various occasions I have asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) when he will bring forth his report concerning foreign ownership. He has, to put it midly, delayed making a definite commitment on when this legislation will be brought forth. I, like many Canadians, feel that by the time it is brought forth we will be in a far worse position regarding foreign ownership in Canada than we are today, because foreign penetration is increasing rapidly.
As the former leader of my party puts it, we do not mind our U.S. cousins coming to Canada to visit us, but we would like to stay in the house rather than move to the garage. It appears that Canadians are being moved to the garage while our guests are taking over control of the house. That trend should be stopped. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brings forth his budget on Friday, June 18, I am sure he will have in mind the tax impact that oil companies have on the Canadian economy. When you study the effects that our tax laws have on oil companies, with their tax holidays, depletion allowances and all the advantages that accrue to them,
Central-Del Rio Oils Limited
you realize how important it is not only to change the tax laws but to change the corporate laws of our country to protect Canadian ownership.
I notice that the parliamentary secretary is listening attentively. He has a wealth of information and experience and I am sure he looks forward to the budget and to what may happen with regard to oil companies and the tax policy. But more important than that is the key question of ownership. I have yet to discover any country that has laws which permit the penetration into their economy that prevails in Canada. When you look at Sweden and Japan you see that when they borrow money for purposes of developing their economy they do it on a loan capital basis rather than on an equity basis. It is high time that we in Canada took the same approach.
If a commentary were written about the former Premier of Alberta, it would be much like that written of Esau-that he sold the natural resources of Canada for a mess of pottage. As Canadians we should see that Esau's conduct is not repeated in Canada; and the former Premier of Alberta being rewarded with a seat in the Senate is not what Canadians want. That is why the hon. member for Moose Jaw is to be commended for his approach to this problem.
I note that the former Solicitor General is present. He has been in the House for more than 30 years and has greatly contributed to the well-being of Canadians. He has been in the forefront of many social measures and I am sure that if he were given the opportunity to become Minister of Finance one of the first steps he would take would be to impose tax laws which would protect Canadian ownership. If he were Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I am sure the first step he would take would be to adopt the same approach that we took under the Bank Act and have it applied mutatis mutandis. The hon. member knows the real meaning of that phrase; it means "to the same effect".

not only to the Bank Act but to the Corporations Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It means tit for tat.


John Gilbert: I believe the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is asking what I mean by mutatis mutandis. It is a legal, Latin phrase which has an important meaning. The meaning that we want to apply here is the one included in the Bank Act, that a non-resident of Canada should be confined to 10 per cent of the ownership of a Canadian company and ownership by a group of non-residents should not exceed 25 per cent.
I am sure it is not necessary for me to continue. The hon. member for Timiskaming has been so persuasive that I feel I am being repetitive. I am sure that other hon. members will support us.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on Bill S-12, an act respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited. In reading the legislation I believe there are several points which should be put on record. Anyone checking the record of the committee proceedings which

June 10, 1971
Central-Del Rio Oils Limited
took place on May 20, 1971-the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-will understand why members of my party are apprehensive about the way in which the bill is presently drafted.
We are seeking an amendment to the legislation which will guarantee that this corporation will remain under Canadian control. We do not have to apologize to anyone for the fight we are putting up for Canadian control of our economy. We have been talking about it ever since our party was formed. We will continue to preach this philosophy until Canadians wake up to the fact that we are rapidly losing control of our economy and that once you lose control of your economy, you also lose political control.
I would like to tell members of the House what Central-Del Rio Oils Limited really is and the extent of its holdings in Canada. Questions were asked in the committee of those who were presenting the bill and I should like to read into the record part of the proceedings of the committee. Mr. Beaven was speaking. He spoke about Central-Del Rio Oils Limited and said:
Mr. Chairman, I have some figures here. Central-Del Rio Oils Limited is controlled to the extent of 89.27 per cent by Canadian Pacific Investments Limited, which in turn is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Our shareholdings are divided as follows. This was at December 11, 1970, and there has been no significant change. We had a total of 8,374 shareholders, of which approximately 7,200 were corporations and individuals resident in Canada holding in the aggregate just about 30 million shares out of an issue of about 30.5 million. We had 999 shareholders who were individuals and corporations resident in the United States holding in the aggregate 390,000 shares. This is out of 30 million shares. The remaining 128 shareholders were individuals and corporations residing outside of Canada and the United States and holding in the aggregate 319,000 shares. So, of the just over 30 million shares which are issued and outstanding, 29,800,000 are held by residents of Canada.
That is a very satisfying statement and no one would object to it. It is an excellent record and we want to see it maintained. The following question was asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg):
What assurance is there in the bill before us that this company, your Central-Del Rio, would not become predominantly owned by U.S. shareholders or outside shareholders-I will not say U.S.; I will say shareholders outside of Canada? Is there anything in the bill right now before us that would spell out in clarity that this company will remain predominantly owned by Canadian investors?
The answer by Mr. Taylor was:
No. there is nothing in the bill which spells out that. We cannot give our firm assurance that we will not have foreign shareholders so long as we are listed on the Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver stock exchanges. But we can give you the assurance that the ownership in the company by Canadian Pacific Investments will never be less than an appreciable percentage above 50 per cent.
This is the very point that our members are trying to make. While the company is predominantly owned by shareholders in Canada, there is absolutely no guarantee that this situation will remain unchanged. That is the crux of the debate and gave rise to the amendment we
have placed before the House. In the context of that answer I should like to read the amendment:
That Bill S-12, an act respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, be amended by adding the following to clause 1 at line 27 on page 1:
"on the condition that sections 52 to 56 of the Bank Act apply to the company mutatis mutandis notwithstanding the provisions of part I of the Canada Corporations Act."
What does this mean? It means that if the amendment is accepted we will never lose Canadian control of this company. This is something in which all members of the House should be interested. We should be taking steps to make certain that Canadian control is retained over a corporation such as this. We have had debates in this House about Canadian ownership. Those debates will continue. They will spill over into the next election campaign. The Canadian people are beginning to realize that this is one of the major issues facing our nation.
As has already been pointed out, much of the resource development that should be taking place in Canada is not taking place, principally because we have lost control of the resource-based industries. Canada is used as a supply house for industries which are located elsewhere. When bills such as this come before the House of Commons we will seek amendment of them to assure retention of Canadian control of our natural resources.
Anyone who notes the tremendous acreage controlled by this company must be alarmed. We must take the necessary precautions to ensure that it remains under Canadian control. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) told us about some of the holdings which the company has in northern Canada. I understand it is one of the group participating with Panarctic Oils in the exploration of the Arctic Islands, and just the other day we learned that one of the biggest gas finds in history was made in the north. Foreign corporations must be interested when they see that a company like this has an interest in that kind of discovery. It is up to us as Canadians to protect the company.
There are one or two other points that I would like to make with respect to this company's holdings in the various provinces. Again I shall quote from the committee proceedings. Those who appeared on behalf of the company were asked what holdings they had in the province of Saskatchewan, for example. This passage is recorded in the minutes of May 20:
-I see that under the affiliated company, Minerals Limited, Saskatchewan Incorporated owns 20 per cent of the minerals underlying approximately 750,000 acres


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

June 10, 1971
[Stage Direction]
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the packaging, labelling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products An act respecting the consolidation of the Income Tax Act in the printed roll of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970 An act to implement a Supplementary Income Tax Convention betweeen Canada and Finland An act to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act An act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto An act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and an act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. This House stands adjourned until 8 p.m.
At 6.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[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.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock we were discussing amendment No. 6 and amendment No. 21 which, if adopted by the House, would have the effect of increasing the eight-week qualifying period to 12 weeks. These amendments were introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: West, not Wentworth.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I must say the hon. member for Hamilton West does have one thing going for him that few of us have and that is that he is a very charming person.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So far, so good.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am always at a tremendous disadvantage in debating with charming people. I have been sitting here quietly admiring his technique most of the afternoon. He is one of the few members who can, with
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
some confidence in success, play both sides of the street when it comes to moving amendments. Both he and the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) are very knowledgeable persons by reason of their active participation in the committee.
The hon. member for Moncton has suggested that this bill is not consistent. Although I think that is a matter of opinion, I would suggest that any amendments that have been brought in today have done nothing to remove the inconsistency if there is one. A good example of this is when on one hand we suggest a reduction of the two-week waiting period to one week, at a cost of $160 million or more, and then two minutes later introduce another amendment which would in effect negate what the original amendment was supposed to be doing, namely, help the workers, by increasing the qualifying period from eight weeks to 12 weeks. This would mean that several hundred thousand workers every year who had eight weeks qualifying attachment to the work force but less than 12 weeks-be it 9, 10 or 11 weeks- would not qualify for benefits. We have estimated that this would affect a quarter of a million people who through no fault of their own find themselves temporarily without earnings and who would be ineligible for unemployment insurance.
We talked today about a question of judgment. Before we get into that question I think the whole of this proposed program, as opposed to the basic philosophy of the present program, was to insure members of the work force against the probability of financial loss on those occasions when they are temporarily without work. This is fundamentally different from the old plan where, in effect, your number of weeks benefit was geared or related to your work attachment. In other words, more often than not under the existing plan the people best able to survive or to exist without any income usually find that unemployment insurance benefits come more easily to them and for longer periods than those who need them more by reason of their underemployment or the fact that they are in and out of the work force fairly frequently.
What has pleased me in all of the contributions made in respect of this amendment is that all hon. members have said, I am sure sincerely, that the average Canadian is not lazy. Certainly I have never heard the hon. member for Hamilton West make such a statement and I am sure it would be a distortion of his words if it appeared in print that way. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Moncton that human nature being what it is, some people will try to abuse unemployment insurance no matter what the qualifying period is.
To say, for example, that a person who has eight weeks attachment to the work force and then stops work and draws benefit for 44 weeks is to oversimplify the plan. It is true that some people with eight weeks attachment to the work force could draw 44 weeks under certain conditions. The same is true of a man with 9, 10, 11 or 12 weeks attachment. But if you had eight weeks attachment you could easily plan your work pattern to stop at, say, 12 weeks and then draw 44 weeks benefit.

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) got a little excited about that proposition.
However, I do not think that life insurance, for example, is any less consistent in its approach. After all, a man could be unfortunate enough to drop dead after paying the first premium. What we are saying in this bill, in effect, is that there will be some members of the work force who after 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 weeks in the work force may be unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work and will draw benefits. However, since the plan is actuarially sound, the probability of this happening is such that, in general, due to the universal coverage of the fund we will be able to absorb the payment of benefits to the number of people who could theoretically draw from the fund for 44 weeks following an initial eight weeks attachment.
I am sure that no one wants to leave the wrong impression on the record. I must underline that you do not automatically draw 44 weeks' benefits after an attachment to the work force of eight weeks. You are entitled to eight weeks' benefits, but from there on it all depends on the economic conditions in the particular region of the country concerned. Since we are trying to help a person financially during the period in which he is out of work, it is only logical that we should extend the period of benefit in relationship to the probability of that person being reabsorbed into the work force. The probability of his being absorbed into the work force is directly related to the rate of unemployment in the country and in his particular community.
All other things being equal, people are better working than not working. I have met very few people who would rather draw unemployment insurance than work. Perhaps I am naive or idealistic, but I am of the view-and most hon. members have said the same thing-that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are honest. We must not lose sight of the fact that a man who quits work at the end of the eighth week has a waiting period, one some hon. members think is too long, before he can draw benefits. He must be interviewed and be ready, willing and able to work. He will be subject to the discipline of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and to the spot checks that they make and to visits to the home.
Neither can we lose sight of the fact that 86,000 people last year were disqualified because they were not ready, willing and able to work. Indeed, the Unemployment Insurance Commission are doing their job zealously, to the point that at times we are asked whether they are not being overzealous in making sure that only people eligible for unemployment insurance draw from the fund.
Then the question came up as to why we had chosen eight weeks and not 12. When we put together our model on the computers when this plan was first visualized, we took a sampling of some 250,000 people in the work force. The economists, both internal economists and those hired to work with the group, worked on this model of 250,000 as representative of the five million people in the work force, which is a larger than average sampling for this type of study. As a result of this sampling we found that with eight weeks we were able to do all the things we
wanted to do in the act with regard to the relationship between benefits and salaries, periodical extensions of the benefit structure in relation to the unemployment pattern in the country, sickness and maternity benefits, and so on. All these proposals are feasible with an eight weeks attachment period to the work force.
Let me come back to make the point that if the period were set at 12 weeks it would not in any way reduce the number of people who are dishonest enough intentionally to try to defraud the fund. We have other ways of preventing this. Neither would such a period in any way change the system of interviews or the necessity for people to be ready, willing and able to work. No one knows when spot checks will be made or when telephone calls will be put through to find out whether a man is in or out of the city, or is ready, willing and able to do a job that Manpower may have available for him.
e (8:20 p.m.)
It is not just a matter of being attached to the work force for eight weeks and deciding to draw benefits for 44 weeks. It means attached to the work force for at least eight weeks and then being legitimately unemployed. That means waiting two weeks and drawing benefits for eight weeks. It means that at the end of eight weeks the situation is assessed and evaluated in light of unemployment figures in the region and in the nation, then assessing the probabilities of the man finding work with that rate of unemployment. If, according to the formula, it is highly probable that work is not easy to find because of the burden of unemployment, this is taken into1 consideration and the period is extended. It is not fair on the part of hon. members to leave on the record the presumption that one can automatically draw 44 weeks' benefits.
We then get into the question of students. This is a problem in our country and it is hard to rationalize the arguments I sometimes hear against students drawing unemployment insurance, as though they were second-class citizens. They are not. If a student leaves university in May and goes to work in a legitimate business the same as his father, brother or people in the normal work force, pays unemployment insurance, goes back to university in the fall and comes back to the work force the following May and cannot find work, provided he has the specified attachment-which is eight weeks or more- there is no reason why he should not draw unemployment insurance just because he happens to be a student eight months of the year. If we find work for him, he must work. If he is not ready, willing and able to work, then he does not draw unemployment insurance.
If students want to travel across Canada, take advantage of other forms of summer activities, go to Europe or do one of the many things students want to do today, they are not eligible for unemployment insurance. On the other hand, if they want to stay and are eligible for work, ready, willing and able, and society cannot provide them with jobs, it is not the fault of the students. If they have paid their stamps and are eligible in every other way. shape and form, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to draw unemployment insurance like every other citizen in this country.
[Mr. Mackasey.l
June 10, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I find nothing wrong or ridiculous about this. I think it will go a long way to help provide some form of income for students who are not as affluent as others and who do not have wealthy fathers to provide pin money.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't look at me.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am disqualifying myself by saying "wealthy fathers." I think we all know that some people are more affluent than others. This will, incidentally, answer the question about students graduating or coming out of teachers college after two years, who work for the summer months and go back to university. If they are unable to again join the work force the following summer, they should draw unemployment insurance in relation, of course, to the number of weeks to which they are entitled.
I do not want to become too political about this, but I should point out to the hon. member for Hamilton West that you cannot have it all ways. You cannot in one amendment reflect the thinking of the CMA, in the next amendment reflect the thinking of the CLC and in the next amendment reflect the thinking of the Chamber of Commerce. If you have a philosophy it should be consistent all through your amendments. Let me say this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). His philosophy or ideology may not be the same as ours, but at least he is consistent. I think consistency is a virtue in this day and age.
Let me say in conclusion that I think there is nothing wrong with the eight-week waiting period. I listened objectively today for one good reason why the amendment should be accepted, making the eligibility period 12 weeks instead of eight weeks. There is nothing in this to offset many of the possible abuses mentioned during the debate. The amendment does nothing to prevent a dishonest person attempting to defraud the fund. At the end of eight weeks he would be as dishonest as he would be at the end of 12. He may just have to wait longer to try his luck.
I think the eight weeks period makes sense, particularly in light of the large work force in Canada and the fact that so many young people are coming into the work force for the first time. Our experience over the last five years indicates that several hundred thousand workers each year are ineligible for unemployment insurance because they have not accumulated a sufficiently long attachment to the work force to be eligible.
We have a tendency to criticize our welfare agencies. We should be honest about the alternative to unemployment insurance. If you are not eligible and have no other income, there is the Canada Assistance Plan. If you draw money from the Canada Assistance Plan you become a financial burden upon your community, the towns and cities, and you become a financial burden on the province which pays half the cost of the Canada Assistance Plan. It is very difficult for young men to find work even under the best of circumstances. It is twice as hard if at the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 same time they are living on welfare. I think we all know and agree with that.
One of the legitimate features of this plan is that it at least postpones the day when you have to turn to the Canada Assistance Plan for financial assistance. It postpones the day by providing higher benefits with easier eligibility. In this way we give a man an opportunity to seek work while he still has the dignity of an income. Welfare should not be looked down upon by society, but unfortunately it is.
I would ask the House to reject the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I always like to hear my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) take part in a debate because he has the ability of being very personable and being loved by all sides. He is one of those fellows who, when he sees the debate going one way and needs a little support, analyses the philosophy of an hon. member or a party and then makes a great appeal and is very complimentary, as he was with one member, although he was somewhat critical of another.
I am not worried about being personable in my feeling about the question of eight weeks or 12 weeks as the attachment period. What I am concerned about is the hypocrisy in calling this act an Unemployment Insurance Act. I listened this afternoon to the Minister of Labour and other hon. members speaking about insurance. As I understand insurance, when you pay the premium you are insured. After you have paid a few premiums and the commission to the agent-and I never overlook that-you are insured and your policy will build up a cash value.


An hon. Member:: That is private insurance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am talking about private insurance. That is what the Minister of Labour was talking about. What the Minister has done under this act is include a lot of people to pay for the plan. That is why there should be a 12-week period rather than an eight-week period. He is bringing in a lot of people who will never benefit. When one takes out life insurance-there are various types of plans, which I am not here to discuss-you are gambling with the company as to whether you are going to live. You build up a cash value and dividends, unless it is short-term and that is very cheap insurance. Right from the beginning of the old plan, thousands of Canadians who have contributed have never drawn a dollar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair fails to understand how the hon. member's remarks can be related to the amendment now before the House. He seems to be debating the bill generally. I hope he will come back to the amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will help you to comprehend my argument, Mr. Speaker. I will read the clause so that even the Chair will appreciate it. Perhaps then the House

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
will appreciate what we are talking about. Clause 17 provides, and this is what we are talking about:
An insured person qualifies to receive benefits under this act if he (a) has had eight or more weeks of insurable employment in his qualifying period-
When you shorten the time, the plan will cost more because you are bringing more people under it. That is the point I am making and that is the argument I am answering so far as the Minister of Labour is concerned. I am sorry if the Chair thought my remarks were not relevant. I am saying that by extending this plan you are bringing in school teachers and other people who have never been under it before, including thousands and thousands of Canadians who will never draw a dollar out of the fund.
The hon. member for Hamilton West is attempting to ease the problem by changing the period from 8 weeks to 12 weeks. It will cost the country less money, because under the policies of this government-I hope you think this is relevant, Mr. Speaker-if people are unemployed, whether they have 8 weeks or 12 weeks they will be on unemployment insurance for some time. The percentage of unemployment is so high at this time that a large number of people will need help under this act, and when they run out of benefits they will require social assistance. As I see it, the reason for the amendment is to make the act as reasonable as possible. The Minister of Labour is bringing in thousands and thousands of Canadians who will never benefit. Do you think the teachers of the country want this legislation, or the nurses-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister says yes. His mail is different from mine. I am prepared to send him 3,000 or
4,000	answers to questions I asked of school teachers and others. These people have not been covered and do not want coverage. This amendment is really an attempt to relieve the situation; that is the purpose behind it. The Minister of Labour talks about an insurance plan, when it would seem to me that he is bringing in a new tax. I say to the members of the NDP that there will be less take-home pay for many of the people they represent. There will also be less profit to people who hire workers, and there will be a higher cost to the consumer. If the NDP wants to go for a higher cost to the consumer, then I agree with what one minister said the other day, namely, that you cannot have it both ways. If you increase the cost of production, you have to increase the cost to the producer.


John Gilbert: Very little.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says, "Very little". Let us get down to sound economics. We change the Canada Pension Plan, we increase the surtax and income tax, we increase unemployment insurance deductions from industrial concerns and management, and then we increase the cost of labour, widen the scope and increase taxes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member explain, for my benefit, how there is a difference in the cost to the consumer between paying under an insurance plan and paying taxes levied under a welfare plan, if he is talking about the total cost to our society?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is one of the most intelligent questions that has been asked. So long as this government is creating unemployment, I agree that there is not much difference. But let us not play games. This is not an insurance plan at all; it is really a new system of taxing the Canadian people. This is the point I am making. I see an hon. member opposite shake his head. He shakes his head whenever anyone on this side speaks. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told him at supper time to go for a swim, he would go for a swim. I am glad the big fellow, the acting House leader, has left because he can never understand logic.
With reference to the amendment, when you increase the period from 8 weeks to 12 weeks at least you are cutting down the cost of this kind of insurance, if you can call it insurance at all. So it is basically a compromise between the position of the minister and the position of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Let us make no mistake about it: this is a brand new tax against Canadians-not only against the workers but against the employers. That is what it is all about. This legislation is dragged in to cover up unemployment caused deliberately by the nineteenth century economic policies of the government.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly on this amendment. At the outset may I say that I intend to oppose the amendment brought in by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). It does not make any sense to tell the unemployed of Canada that we are bringing in a new act in which the limit is set at eight weeks after which they can draw benefits, and then have someone tell us it should be increased to 12 weeks. I bebeve the question asked was very much to the point. If people who are unemployed do not receive money from unemployment insurance, they will obtain it from welfare. Don't try to kid yourselves that this money will not come out of the pockets of the taxpayers.


An hon. Member:: That is what we are saying.


Randolph Harding: We believe that if a worker can receive some income from the unemployment insurance fund or pension scheme it is much better for him to have this money as of right than to get it from welfare. This is something the workers understand. They at least have tried to work and have made their contribution to the fund, and this money should come to them as of right. Whether or not the members of the Conservative party understand it, there is a big difference between welfare and unemployment insurance.

June 10, 1971


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Randolph Harding: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does he not think there is a group of workers in this country, including teachers, registered nurses and others, who would probably never benefit under this act, and that other people who made payments under the old act-I am not making anything of that- endorse this act and its changes and want to pay into the fund? I will put a second question. Would it not be better to say that we will increase income tax and in that way be honest about it, because it really is not insurance at all but a new tax policy?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair fails to understand how the question is relevant to the amendment before the House. The Chair cannot allow the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) to answer the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The change here is from 8 weeks to 12 weeks, so the cost is less. If the cost is more, more people must be included in order to pay for it. It is that simple. I would hope the Chair would appreciate that. That is the question I put to the hon. member. Surely it is plain and clear, and should even be clear to you, Sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair appreciates the point made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), but it is the Chair which must make the final decisions in this House. It is a question of appreciation, and the Chair has decided that the question put by the hon. member does not meet the requirements of the procedures of this House; it does not relate to the very specific amendment before the House. If this question were to be allowed we would be opening the door in respect of any amendments and would be introducing a new procedure. Therefore, the only choice I have is to ask the hon. member for Kootenay West to pursue his remarks.


Randolph Harding: There are only a few comments I wish to make. The impression was left earlier that all some workers had to do was work for eight weeks and somehow or other they would be laid off, following which they would be able to draw benefits for the balance of the year. The minister has very ably explained the situation in which unemployed workers will receive benefits. I will not repeat it, but I want to make my position crystal clear. The impression has been left that the maximum amount is $100 a week under this legislation, but the number of unemployed workers receiving $100 a week will be very limited. A vast number of unemployed people will be much below the $7,800 a year income bracket which would give them the $100 a week benefit.
There is another point which I do not think has been made by anyone else in this debate. For the first time, unemployed workers have to pay income tax on their
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 benefits. This takes another big chunk out of the increased benefits which they will receive under the legislation. The point I am making is that the benefits which people will receive after eight weeks or more will certainly not be all gravy because there are taxes and charges against them. They have to pay the unemployment insurance contribution.
To leave the impression that workers will deliberately leave a job to draw unemployment insurance is wrong: I think it is an unfair statement to make about the Canadian work force. It does not matter where you go, whether it is in business or any other industrial activity there is always someone who will swing the lead, but generally the vast majority of our people want jobs; they will work if they can get jobs. This is the kind of protection that we should give to the working people of Canada. I am surprised that the Tory party would bring in such an amendment at this time when there are vast numbers of unemployed in our nation. I have no hesitation in saying that I intend to vote against the amendment.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the persuasive arguments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and of the last speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), I shall take only a few minutes to speak against the amendment.
I have heard the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) try to compare private insurance with unemployment insurance. In trying to draw an analogy he pointed out that private life insurance includes protection and savings. The immediate question that arose in my mind was, what happens to the savings when a person dies? He never collects them. The only time he collects his savings under a life insurance plan is when he surrenders the policy during his lifetime. This is one of the harsh criticisms which should be made against life insurance companies. It is term insurance, it is protection; and this act provides protection.
May I give my wonderful friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), a little bit of political advice and remind him that back in 1948 when we attempted to pass one of the main social measures in Canada, namely the family allowance legislation, the leader of his party called it iniquitous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was in 1944.


John Gilbert: Yes, I stand corrected. It was a foolish political mistake on the part of the then leader of the Conservative party. When medicare was introduced, which was another step in providing security for Canadians, members of that party opposed it until the time of the vote, and then they had to vote for it. When guaranteed annual income legislation is introduced in the House, which will probably not happen within the next ten years, I can picture the Chamber of Commerce opposing it.
I cannot understand the progressive member for Hamilton West espousing that type of philosophy, because he comes from a workingman's riding. He appreciates
June 10, 1971

Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
the problems of workingmen and I am sure that he wants to protect them. To suggest increasing the eligibility-period from eight to 12 weeks is not worthy of the hon. member. I am sure it is not his proposal; he has just put it forward but really the Chamber of Commerce presented it to him and he has been taken in by them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not know whether it is a question of privilege or a point of order, but I will start with a question of privilege. I have a great deal of respect for my friend, but when he attempts to question my integrity and the sincerity with which I put forward this motion I take a pretty dim view of it. I did not follow any instructions from any particular organization when I placed this motion before the House. I feel, in all seriousness and after due deliberation, that what the government is attempting to do is not in keeping with an attempt to maintain personal initiative among the workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member should state his question of privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am speaking on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that it takes guts to stand up and bring forward a motion which perhaps is not in keeping with the thinking of the government or with the thinking of the NDP, who is not even attempting to delve into the questionable aspects of this matter. All they claim is that it is motherhood. Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my question of privilege. I would like to say that the member for Hamilton West will stand by any motion which he brings before the House. I do not intend to be browbeaten, berated or embarrassed by the loose-tongued members of this House into thinking that I have done the wrong thing. I stand by the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair does not feel it has to make a decision on a question of privilege. The point was made and now I think the House should go back to the debate.


John Gilbert: I would like to speak for a few moments to my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West. I will always remember the first speech he made. This is the philosophy that he enunciated: judge not a man by the colour of his skin or the way he fights or loves or sins, by the gods he worships or the vintage he drinks, but judge a man by the way he thinks. I think that this really sets forth the philosophy of the hon. member for Hamilton West. When he brought forth his amendment I thought he was not thinking correctly and I tried to protect him by suggesting that perhaps another person proposed that he bring it forth. If this is his amendment, it worries me a little.
However, to get back to the second point with regard to teachers, nurses and students, may I say with regard to teachers that they are having a great problem in obtaining appointments. I am sure that many teachers and nurses will appreciate in the near future the coverage that is being imposed upon them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Hon. members should speak to the young graduates from teachers colleges and listen to the problems which they are having in finding placements in schools. I come from a workingman's riding and I am a workingman's son. I have heard from young students many plaintive cries with regard to employment. I feel ashamed when they call me and think I have a special pipeline through which to get them jobs. Frankly, I have not. I think they should get employment on their own initiative, but unfortunately there is much unemployment at present.
I was rather proud of the Minister of Labour when he said that students should not be treated as second class citizens, that if they work this summer, return to university and next year they find difficulty getting jobs, provided they are not travelling and are available for work they should be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. That is quite progressive on his part. Again speaking of unemployment, I am surprised at the members of the Tory party because their record regarding employment from 1958 to 1962 was not a proud one. In fact, in 1962 it was one of the reasons they were turfed out of office. For them to be self-righteous now concerning employment does not hit well with the Canadian public.
I would like to see full employment but, Mr. Speaker, the day is coming, and coming quickly, when work and income will not be closely related. This is why we have to think in terms of a guaranteed annual income. This bill is a step in that direction. If full employment could be obtained by introducing the four-day work week, I would be the first to agree to that step. But full employment is not easy to attain, especially in this technological age. As Members of Parliament we must find ways and means of ensuring income security for all Canadians. This bill, I repeat, is a step in that direction.
As the minister said, the bill will not bring utopia into existence. That would happen if, when a person becomes unemployed, he automatically receives unemployment insurance benefits. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I will vote against this amendment. I hesitate to speak about the reasons the proposer of the amendment had for introducing it, because really he is a very fine man and wants to protect the workers. However, I think he may be mistaken in this instance.


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:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
June 10, 1971


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred. The House now has before it for consideration motion No. 9 which, pursuant to the order made earlier today, will be considered separately. Mr. Alexander, seconded by Mr. MeCutcheon, moves:
That Bill C-229, an act respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be amended by deleting clause 28, at pages 15 and 16 thereof.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, as a result of my involvement in this debate I think I have made my mark because not only the minister, on behalf of the government, but members of the NDP point their finger at the member for Hamilton West. Indeed, I would be much disturbed if my remarks had gone unnoticed and unsung.
Clause 28 is what I call the Santa Claus clause. Under its provisions, if a person has been involved in the labour force for some 20 weeks, instead of paying him benefit on a week to week basis on the grounds of the amount of money that will be saved he will be paid three weeks benefit in advance. This is supposed to be an incentive to him to go out and find work. I stand here in utter amazement trying to rationalize this type of thinking. Just what are we attempting to do? No matter what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) may think, I believe this would destroy personal initiative. It is a disincentive, and I have maintained this ever since I first saw the clause.
To use round figures, if a person is earning $150 a week he will be entitled to $100 unemployment insurance benefit. If he receives a total of $300 in unemployment insurance benefits all at once, is this an incentive for him to go out and look for a job? This is what the minister says. The vast majority of Canadians will do just that. Again, what disturbs me about this bill is that it is holding out inducements and I would not blame people if they took advantage of the legislation. But why do we attempt to create such a climate? The minister says that this provision will save money. Are we not concerned about the results, the implications, the ramifications of this attempt to save money? What are the equities?
The hon. member for Broadview seems to think that I have forgotten about the problems of the workingman. Mr. Speaker, I come from the great city of Hamilton which is presently celebrating its 125th anniversary. I don't stand here playing footsie. I am looking at both sides of the question. A lot of workers have told me they wonder just what is going on in connection with this Santa Clause clause. A lot of people involved with unem-
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
ployment insurance, workers who will be contributing, just do not understand the philosophy behind such a provision.
Mr. Speaker, I could add word upon word upon word. I
could be as repetitious as possible. Perhaps that is the problem with a debate such as this, that we continually repeat ourselves. But as long as we have legislation with clauses such as this, I personally would say to the Canadian people, "Go and take advantage of it. You are not breaking any law, but in taking advantage of it you are destroying your initiative and adopting a questionable philosophy".
I brought this motion before the House in order that we may bring some sanity back to the legislation. Certainly we are all interested in upgrading the Unemployment Insurance Act, certainly we all want higher benefits and reduced eligibility periods-but within reason. That is all we are talking about. So, Mr. Speaker, I end on a note of concern. I hope my remarks this evening will have some effect on this particular clause. I therefore take issue with clause 28.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr,
Speaker, may I in my opening remarks use a word that my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) used in his opening sentence. He said that he stood in his place amazed at this proposal. I stand in my place amazed at his opposition to it. Throughout this debate I have been puzzled by the way in which my friend and some of his colleagues at times seem to be on the side of the workers and at times against what I think are their best interests. I want to say categorically that I think the proposal in clause 28 is a good one. I commend the author of it, whoever he may be, the minister or even his parliamentary secretary or one of the bureaucrats upstairs. The minister is pointing upstairs, so the author can take a bow.
Let us look at a few of the details of this provision, Mr. Speaker. As the language indicates, it is a provision for paying in advance the first three weeks of an unemployment insurance benefit to which a claimant becomes entitled. In order to obtain that so-called advance payment the claimant in the first place must have gone through a two-week waiting period during which he received no benefit of any kind. If he has had a day's work in that period the amount he earns will be deducted from the advance of his unemployment insurance benefit. In addition to that, when he became unemployed it must have been because of a shortage of work. He cannot come under this program because he decided he was ill, and a female employee cannot come under it because of pregnancy. In addition, the employer must have certified that the lay-off will be for at least five weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But he might go to another employer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he goes to another employer-just a minute now; I appreciate that my friend wants to understand this.

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I understand it. I am asking you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he goes to another employer and gets a job within the first two weeks, of course he collects no benefit at all. Remember that the claimant who is going to collect this advance payment will not be able to get back where he was working His employer has already certified that the lay-off is for at least five weeks. The person who cannot get back to his former place of employment and cannot find work somewhere else during the first two weeks is, by the law of averages, likely to be one who is not going to find work for another three or four weeks. I think I have used the right figure in terms of the history of unemployment insurance.
What this provision offers is that the individual who has been off for two weeks, who was told by his employer, and for whom it was certified in writing, that he would be off for at least five weeks and who cannot find work anywhere else, in the third week of his unemployment is given benefit for that week and for the next two weeks. So he has gone two weeks without money, he is in the third week and gets money for that week and two more. He is going to have a tough time to find a job.
I cannot understand why my friends have any criticism of this at all. Maybe I am just idealistic, but I think there is a lot of good in human nature. I think the person who receives that extra money will feel it is an incentive to find a job before the five weeks are up.


An hon. Member:: You just said he cannot find one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Experience says he will not; the chances are against him. But he knows that if he can find a job he can keep the money he earns, if he gets a job in the middle of the fourth or fifth week,' without having to return what he received as unemployment insurance. He also knows that if he cannot find a job he has got that money coming to pay his bills and make ends meet. Experience shows that a large number of cases run into the four or five week period unless we find ourselves in a period such as now, with pretty severe unemployment where people are out of work for a long time.
Far from this being a violation of the principles of insurance, and far from it being something based on the lowest instincts of human nature, I submit that this is a good thing. I think it is also true, as was demonstrated in committee, that it will simplify administration. Many of these cases will not have to be dealt with again. By the end of that period many persons will have found employment and will not have to return for three different payments. I think it makes administrative sense. I think it is an incentive to a person to try and find work if it is there at all. I think it meets the problem that an unemployed person faces to say to him, "You have had to wait for two weeks, but at least in the third week you will get the extra money".
My friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West, and I are supported by our seconders. I have the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and the hon. member for Hamilton West has the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. 
Thomas). We are sparring, but we are good friends and we have gone over this in committee and in this House. However, I still do not understand his logic or his alleged consistency when he complains about the two-week waiting period and wants to put it back to one, and then when we get a proposal that makes up to him in part by saying to the unemployed person, "In the third week you will get an advance to last you for weeks three, four and five," he says we must not do that. Which side is he on? Is he on the workers' side or is he not? I think this is a good measure and I commend the author of it.


Charles Humbert Thomas: He is on the taxpayers' side.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are all taxpayers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does my hon. friend not realize that as long as unemployment is under 4 per cent-maybe that would be utopia under this government-unemployment insurance is paid not by the taxpayers but the entire cost is paid by employees and employers? Surely these are the people who have an interest in the employment situation. Surely some sort of security or income is part of the wage package that people who work in industry in this country have a right to expect.
If there is any question about taking sides, the side that should be taken in this is the side of the worker. It is false to say that this is a case of workers versus taxpayers. There are no general tax funds going into the first 4 per cent of unemployment. When we get to another place in the bill I will argue that they should. The point is that people have a right to the best deal they can get. This bill does not give them as good a deal as I would like to see, but there are a few improvements. This is one. I think the hon. member for Hamilton West believes that he is on the side of the workers. If he is, I hope he will withdraw this amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wants to know which side we are on. I am prepared to support this amendment. The amendment would delete all of clause 28. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has properly said, if a person is unemployed, provided the employer certifies in accordance with paragraph (b) that "at the time of his interruption of earnings neither he nor his employer expected that he would be re-employed by that employer for a period of at least five weeks", he receives an advance of three weeks benefits provided he has been out of work for two weeks.
When asking which side we are on it is necessary to consider who is paying for this program. Somebody has said that it is the taxpayer. I will particularize. Unless the money comes out of the treasury it will come from contributions by the worker and the employer. No one will deny that ever since the act came into effect the rates have gone up from time to time. If this money comes out of the treasury it still comes from the taxpayer
June 10, 1971

who is either an employee or employer. It is the same class of people. I will particularize this clause in a minute. The money will come from the pocket of either the employee or the employer. If the fund runs out of money it must be replenished by money from the treasury, which actually comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleagues always leave the impression that they are the only ones who speak for the working man. This covers a broad section of the vote. The fact is that employees are contributing to the fund. If a man is out of work for two weeks and his employer has certified that he probably will not get work for five weeks, if he finds work two weeks and one day later he keeps the advance and his salary. He makes no contribution to the fund. My idea of insurance and the idea of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre certainly differ. With the greatest respect, I do not think this is insurance. I say that anyone who supports the amendment and opposes this clause is on the side of the worker.
Everywhere in this country workers have a fear about their security, particularly with this government. They are complaining that they have very little take-home pay compared to the amount they are earning. Clause 28 makes gifts; it does not matter how the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dishes it up. I have faith in my fellow men. However, if a man receives and advance for three weeks and gets a job within two weeks and a day, and does not make any contribution to the fund, somebody has to make up that amount.
What is this all about? I hear the members of the NDP talking. I hear them hammer the government. Tonight the NDP and the government are in the same bed; they have married the same partner. But tomorrow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will get up in a pious way and complain about the cost of living.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do that, too. Surely a man that has worked and has experience with the unions-I do not know whether he draws a pension from them or not- must know that the moment you increase costs, the employee will strike for more money. I can understand that. When he strikes for more money, then the cost of production increases. And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre starts complaining about the cost of living! I wish the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were here; he might agree with me.
Clause 28 will increase the cost of living. All the employer will do is pass the increase on to the consumer. Before I left home I heard over the radio that Chrysler Products in the western United States is closing. There will be 1,600 people out of work. Why? Because Chrysler Products cannot compete with Japan in manufacturing automobiles. It is therefore necessary to close the plant. The United States is importing automobiles and putting Americans out of work. The same is happening in Canada.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be as pious as he likes about these things, but when there are increases in costs, the workers which he supports will strike. I have heard all the hon. member's arguments. The employer passes the increase on to the consumer, and if the consumer is a workingman he will again strike. It becomes a vicious circle. This is exactly what happened with the Wilson government in Great Britain and this is what will happen here with this kind of clause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is very easy for somebody to stand up and say that the Tories are against giving anything away. I am against giving anything away. The average worker in Canada does not want gifts; he wants to work and receive a fair wage. He does not want less take-home pay. That is what this clause means. I have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talk. He can say what he likes but he cannot tell me that it is equitable for a man who is out of work for two weeks and one day to draw three weeks advance when he really does not deserve it. He is taking this money from the other fellow. If the clause stated that it must be paid back when the person goes back to work, it would be fair to the other workers of Canada.
You can always win votes by promising bread and surpluses; that does not take much brains or character. It sounds awfully good. It sounds so good I can almost see the headlines. It almost touches my heart. But let's get down to the facts. This clause means increases in the cost of production, more strikes, trouble in management and more war between labour and management. The hon. member can dish it up any way he wants, but don't paint the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) with any other brush. If there is any sincerity in this, it comes from this party and not from members to my left.
I am prepared to support the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member means to question the sincerity of either of us. I do not know which one of us he was pointing to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't care how he dishes it up. I am not questioning your integrity, but those facts as far as I am concerned do not ring true. Now, when the hon. member says this is a wonderful system, as far as pointing out the conditions of the clause he is absolutely correct. But he did not say that a person would be able to get the three weeks provided he worked two weeks and one day, and he did not say it would cost the workers of Canada more money, that they would have less take-home pay. He did not say it would cost the consumer more money. If he does not understand the economics of this, then he and I went to different schools.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the heart-touching remarks, as
6602

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
he described them, of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). If I wanted to start an argument I would say they were more heart-touching than head-touching. He conjured up the picture of a country virtually in a state of economic chaos, a country paralysed by strikes.


Charles Humbert Thomas: He did not say that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If he had spoken a little longer he would probably have had us in a state of civil war over the proposals of this bill. Let us take the individual central to the hon. member's argument, the man who has been unemployed for two weeks and one day. As I read the clause, this is a situation which could arise: I believe the hon. member would admit that while some people might draw three weeks' benefit after having been unemployed for two weeks and one day, not all the people who draw unemployment insurance would be in that position.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not say so.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Statistically speaking, the mass of those who come within the ambit of this clause will have been unemployed for at least three weeks.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Now we Eire getting at the truth.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We are getting close to assessing the costs which are really involved to the other workers paying into the fund. Let me refer to the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) objecting to lengthening the waiting period from one week to two weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agreed with that, too.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If he claims that this is a retrograde step as far as the application of this bill is concerned, he is bound to agree with the suggestion of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the amendment in part compensates for the change to which he objected. He was speaking ordinary common sense and stating the facts of the situation.
I do not pretend to know much about the patterns of work followed in Hamilton or in Calgary, but I would invite both the hon. members to my right who have spoken on this issue to visit my constituency if they wish to assess some of the virtues of this proposal. I did not take part in many of the meetings of the committee. I certainly was not present when the arguments about this clause were presented. But I can tell the hon. member for Calgary North that when I first read the proposals in the bill this clause struck me as being one of the most realistic and helpful changes being proposed as far as many of the workers in my area are concerned.
We are faced with this situation: if a person works, having been unemployed for two weeks and one day, the most he stands to get as far as net income is concerned over and above what he has lost, is four days' pay. Even disregarding the fact that remuneration from the unemployment insurance fund will only amount to a percentage of his regular pay, a percentage of four days' pay
will be his net gain if he goes back to work after being unemployed for two weeks and one day. I urge the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Calgary North to put this matter into perspective before they start talking as if this proposal would weaken the morale of the working force of Canada or add great new impetus to the rise in the cost of living, precipitate strikes, and so on.
This clause is not mandatory. The key word is "might". I suggest this applies to people who have established a fairly regular pattern of attachment to the labour force, usually over a period of years, people who are subject to only occasional, periodic interruption of regular employment. As soon as they return to work they begin to make contributions to the fund again. As a result of their pattern of work they will soon pay back the extra four days' pay they may have gained. They will pay it back out of their own contributions; they will not be leaning on the contributions of other workers.
In my view this arrangement may eliminate a great many headaches which occur in my constituency. The provisions may well apply to the whole group of loggers on the Pacific coast who regularly have what we call a fire season in the summer or a shutdown because of snow conditions in the winter. At times like these there are massive lay-offs of workers in a whole industry and there is not much alternative employment. This situation has created a great many difficulties as far as administration of the act is concerned and, hopefully, the change proposed will do much to remedy it. These are predictable lay-offs which create a situation where opportunities for alternative employment are, shall we say, virtually nonexistent for a short and rather specific period of time.
Perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West will come to Vancouver Island some time during the nice, warm summer weather so that he can do a little fishing and also see what happens in the logging industry where workers are normally employed on a quite regular basis and are in a fairly well paid wage bracket, which meEins they make substantial contributions to the fund. I think he would come to appreciate the practicality of what this clause proposes, at least in respect of certain segments of the Canadian work force. This clause may be of no benefit to people who work in an industrial city like Hamilton; he may see it as a provision that will drain money from the pockets of workers in Hamilton to fill the pockets in some other parts of the country.
What I am trying to suggest to the hon. member, if he will examine the picture, is that the clause applies to the group of workers that I suggest can statistically be shown to be self-supporting and self-sustaining as far as their contributions to the fund are concerned. The way this clause will work, as I see it, is that it means there will be a lot less headaches for the workers as well as for the Unemployment Insurance Commission administratively; and within the established framework of a two-week waiting period it makes plain, good, ordinary common-sense to me to put this kind of clause in the bill.

June 10, 1971

I am trying to point out to the hon. member for Hamilton West that in considering the desirability of removing this clause from the bill he may have overlooked the real and practical situation that applies to some segments of the working force. At the present time there is a slackness in demand for pulp and paper products in the markets of the world. One of the pulp mills in my constituency has announced it is going to shut down for a period of five or six weeks. I would see this clause applying to the workers of that mill. It is possible that the workers of this mill may find an opening at another pulp mill that is not closing down, either within two weeks, after two weeks and one day, or after three weeks of unemployment. But such openings in the industry at other plants in the region are going to be few and far between.
I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite right in saying that if, under circumstances like these, those workers have an opportunity to get a job at another plant where their employment may be more regular than is the case at the plant where they have been working, they will take it. They will not stay unemployed for another week, if there is a chance of a job, simply to draw what is just a part of their normal income by collecting an extra three, or four or five days' unemployment insurance benefits.
Therefore, I hope the hon. member for Hamilton West will reconsider his position on this amendment. I think it is in contradiction with what I have come to feel is a general appreciation of the basic value of an unemployment insurance scheme.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, we in this party have been accused more than once during this debate of being illog.cal and inconsistent. Without admitting that, I will say that it is very difficult to be consistent in this debate when we hear members to our left trying to justify all positions and using all sorts of arguments in support of those positions. This clause is a good example.
We were told during the committee hearings that the whole purpose of the three weeks' payment in advance is to provide an incentive to get people back to work. However, I have suspected right from the start that the main reason for this three-week period is that the department figures this is the easiest way out. There is less administrative cost involved if these people are paid three weeks' benefits than in trying to get them back to work.
Having listened to the members of the NDP this evening, my suspicions are confirmed. Both speakers who preceded me stated that once these people have got past the two-week period they will probably be unemployed for at least five weeks. In other words, they are admitting it is difficult to get these people back to work and therefore it is easier to pay them three weeks' benefits in order to get them off their hands.
The previous speaker talked about the situation in his area where it is difficult to get people back to work. In effect, what he said was that we should give these people 24107-674
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
three weeks' benefits and get them out of our hair for a while. As I say, I suspect this is tne real reason for this clause. Certainly it was indicated by the departmental officials that this would mean lower costs administratively. In that way they will only have to deal with these people once, or perhaps twice if the payment is split in half as has been suggested.
All through this debate we have been accused of lack of logic. I stated earlier this afternoon that the whole bill is illogical and has many inconsistencies. We are told that this provision was put in as a;i incentive to get people back to work, but as far as I am concerned, no one has yet justified that argument. What incentive is there for a man to go back to work if he is paid three weeks' benefits after he has been out of work for two weeks?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Humbert Thomas: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not know whether the hon. member was listening to my illustration of a lay-off in the pulp and paper industry, but would he not agree with me that if a man has his three-week benefit cheque and he knows there is a chance of a job at another pulp mill that may be more permanent than his present job and which is 100 or 150 miles away, he is much more likely to look for a job at that mill with three weeks' pay in his pocket than sit around at home waiting for his next cheque to come along?


Charles Humbert Thomas: That may or may not be the
case. On the other hand, a man who has settled in a community may not find the three weeks' payment sufficient inducement to travel 150 miles to get another job. But that is a specific case and I am not talking about specific cases. In some cases people may do that, but I think the main reason for this clause is that the department figures it is cheaper to handle the men in this way. This is where our friends to the left are not consistent. Far from being an incentive to a man to go back to work, this three weeks benefit is an incentive to stay at home.
Another thing that bothers me is the administrative nightmare that will result from this bill. I asked the officials about this matter in committee. I told them that as I understood it the only way a man could qualify for the three weeks' payment in advance was if he had a certificate of separation from his employer to the effect that he expected to be laid off more than five weeks. The officials agreed that I was correct, that in that case he would qualify for the three weeks' advance payment.
On the other hand, if an employer was perfectly honest and did not know how long the man in question would be laid off, and perhaps thought he might only be laid off three or four weeks, then after the second week, since the man did not have a certificate of separation that he expected to be laid off for more than five weeks, all he could receive from the fund is the weekly payment in. advance. Certainly he would not get the full three weeks.

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
In this area I say the bill is an administrative nightmare. It places the onus on the employer to estimate the period of lay-off. This can be done by a large corporation like General Motors where there may be a lay-off for six or eight weeks, but I suggest the small employer cannot do this.
It was very illuminating to me to hear what one of the hon. members to the left had to say about a question I asked in committee. This shows that hon. members to the left try to justify ah positions. I asked the officials whether this provision would not place too much onus on the employer and create a great deal of dissatisfaction. It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) say that then the employee will probably try to seduce the employer into giving him a separation certificate. These hon. gentlemen point accusingly at us and say we suspect that all men are dishonest. Apparently these thoughts run through their minds. Why would that member of the NDP make such a statement as this, because it could lead to collusion between employer and the employee.
I point this out as another example of the nightmare this measure will create. If on the one hand the employer says he has left for four weeks, he gets no payment; if the employer gives him a certificate for five weeks or more, he is immediately handed a three-week payment in advance. If this is an incentive for a man to go back to work, I am very badly mistaken. I strongly support this amendment because I feel the whole purpose of the clause is to take the onus off the department, by allowing it to say to these people, "You can have three weeks' payment, but don't come back for three weeks; we do not intend to find you a job."


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the minister in connection with one or two points referred to in the remarks of the previous speaker. I realize that most Canadians are honest, but the thought has occurred to me after reading the clause that a racket might be worked out through collusion between a crooked employee and a sleight-of-hand employer. Having made that observation, what provision or restraint has the department thought of in order to avoid a situation such as that taking place? I am not suggesting for a moment that anyone would do this, but after all there are 21 million people in this country and I have reason to believe that some of them are not as full of integrity as they should be. While I am not of a suspicious nature, it seems to me there is here a beautiful loophole for a dandy racket. I would ask the minister to explain the safeguards against such a possibility.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer to deal with that question when we reach the clause of the bill that provides penalties and regulations. I will not forget to deal with it then. Quite properly, the hon. member has pointed out that there is a possibility and a danger here of collusion between a dishonest employer and a dishonest employee. This is true of any part of the act; it is not restricted to this part. If you have a dishon-
[Mr. Thomas (Moncton) .1
est employee and a dishonest employer in this combination, this could exist because it is human nature. We have ways and means of dealing with it.
When we get to that part of the bill dealing with the fines and court action available to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the procedure to eliminate this type of abuse, I will deal with it. I will point out the legal action that can be taken against such a dishonest employer and employee. I think you will find that the fines and penalties provided therein are more than ample in the way of deterrent to prevent any such widespread fraud, because that is what it would be in the case that has been presented. When we reach that point I will deal much more specifically with the question.
I might say while I am on my feet that the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) made a very valid point. It would be wrong and dishonest on my part to deny that administratively this tidies up or makes the role of the Unemployment Insurance Commission much easier. I think this is the point that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned. If a person is unemployed, the commission will ascertain whether he can take advantage of this feature, or to whom this clause of the act applies. There are people, for instance, who are unemployed as a result of sickness or maternity and who therefore are not eligible for advance payment. This advance payment does not apply to anybody other than those with the proper period of attachment.
If an employer believes that his employee will be without work for at least five weeks, then a certificate is issued. In that case, if the person happens to be unemployed in a region that is very badly affected by unemployment- and the hon. member for Moncton has quite realistically suggested that the chances of his getting back to work are not good,-then the chances are he will be unemployed for the five-week period, in which case this provision makes sound sense administratively.
The hon. member made quite a good case for keeping this clause in, having regard to the administrative feature. He suggested it will save a considerable sum of money in respect of unemployment insurance. We cannot have it both ways. If we want an administratively good plan, and if this is going to save money, we should not remove a clause which accord ng to the hon. member for Moncton would make it possible for the administrators of the plan to save that money. I think this clause should be supported for that reason, in addition to the valid reason suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member from British Columbia regarding the incentive features of the plan.
I think the hon. member from Moncton quite properly pointed out that the three weeks' advance payment will be paid in two payments. Quite frankly, the reason for this is that in long periods of unemployment we felt that the time between the first cheque and the next would be about four weeks and this would mean no income for a month. This is essentially the basic reason for dividing the three-week payment into two cheques.
June 10, 1971


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister
answer a question? I take it he is saying the only way you can get a conviction or even a direction under the board, so far as this act is concerned, is if you can prove fraud. Is that the case? The question that follows is, does this preclude an employer rehiring his employee, presuming he was in the business of supply, received a big order and wanted to get back his experienced workers in two weeks? Would he be precluded from hiring those workers, or would he have to hire from outside?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Dealing with the first part of the question, in the circumstances outlined by the hon. member this would not preclude an employer from hiring the same employee. I was answering a specific case of collusion described by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon). He referred to a situation involving a dishonest employer and a dishonest employee. That is the case I referred to when pointing out that there are penalties in the act to protect the Canadian public and the fund against this kind of combination of a dishonest employer and a dishonest employee.
In so far as the second question is concerned, I am sure there will be cases where an employer has filed a certificate stating that an employee, according to the act, will be unemployed for five weeks. He might subsequently find himself in the happy position, both for himself and his employee, of being able to bring the man back to work sooner than anticipated because of unexpected circumstances. It is not our intention in that case to deal with the employee any differently than if the employer had hired someone other than his normal employee.
To answer the second part of the question, may I say that in those rare occasions when an employer certifies that an employee will not be rehired, and there is a change and the employee is rehired, in that five-week period he is still entitled to assistance.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak for only a few minutes. For the second time this evening I disagree with my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). This rather disturbs me. But surely the crux of this matter is whether we should have an incentive payment. I would be more persuaded if my hon. friend could have assured me that he could provide an alternative to an incentive payment, because time will be the test in respect of this provision. The cost will be very slight. I think we should give it an opportunity to be tested. After a year's time I am sure the minister will appear before the estimates committee and give its members the benefit of his experience concerning this incentive provision. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the hon. member for Hamilton West the experience they had in New York state with regard to their scheme for a guarenteed annual income.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have read it.


John Gilbert: There were two main points. One was that if they gave people certain moneys they would not work
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and, secondly, that they would cheat. Experience has shown, in respect of the cheating aspect, that less than 5 per cent of the people who received the money in New York took advantage of cheating. I believe the same might be said with regard to our Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not know the figures; the minister probably knows them. I am sure the number would be less than 5 per cent. Surely if the figure is that small we should be big enough to give the plan a chance to operate. I believe it would provide an incentive. The New York experience indicated that when people received the money it gave them an initiative to go out and obtain employment. The hon. member says he has read about the New York experience. I think he should accept this conclusion and give this section a chance to operate.
I become rather fed up when I hear people talk about fraud being committed against the unemployment insurance fund. A very small percentage of the people are involved in this practice. There is fraud in other fields. Doctors cheat, lawyers cheat and other workers cheat. We do not level criticism against professional men, although we do against the workers. Let a few workers cheat and a cloud is cast on all workers. This is hardly fair. It is not really worthy of my friends to the right in the Progressive Conservative party to tag this bill as welfare legislation, because it is really insurance legislation to take care of people during a period of unemployment. I have said to them before that if they tag the family allowances as iniquitous, and now if they tag the unemployment insurance as welfare they will take the same political nose-dive that the leader of their party took when he tagged it as iniquitous.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow just one question? Does he not think it is commendable for a person to stand up with conviction for what he believes is constructive criticism, and does he not think that is part of the life of a Member of Parliament; or does he continually have to pussy-foot looking for votes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question. He has spoken in the debate, but I understand that he is rising on a point of clarification.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of all members to speak from their own personal convictions and experience. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity, conviction and integrity of the hon. member for Hamilton West. What I doubt is his process of thinking in respect of this legislation. In my Irish, persuasive way I would like to persuade him, but I can see he becomes more adamant the more I penetrate his argument. Therefore I shall leave him to think about it overnight and he will probably come to me tomorrow and say, "John, you were certainly good last night".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I appreciate that the hon. member for Broadview may be Irish. I appreciate his good nature and it might be easy to pass off what he said. But as I understood it-and I hope

June 10, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 I am interpreting him correctly-he said we have left the impression, and I do not feel any member over here did so, that we were reflecting on all workers.
My question of privilege that men in the Manpower office said there were 100,000 cases in which the Unemployment Insurance Act, even the old act, was misused. We did not say that. What we are trying to do, with honesty and integrity, is see that whatever act does get through Parliament is the kind of law which will attempt to avoid the type of fraud that could happen under the act. Every speaker who spoke tonight emphasized this. I do not think my good friend from Broadview-who is a member, with me, on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and a member whom I know very well- would want to leave that reflection on members of this or any other party.
He may have used an unhappy phrase and played the game of Anthony as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did tonight, but the fact is that the reflection was made and I would hope he would now stand up and clarify his position as not being a reflection on any member of this party individually or on the party as a whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadway-I mean Broadview.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope hon. members will excuse the Chair for confusing Broadway and Broadview, but at this time of night Broadway is rather more appealing. I recognize the hon. member for Broadview. I point out to hon. members that the hon. member for Calgary North has a point which he wants clarified. I know the hon. member for Broadview would like to have the opportunity to reply and I would ask that he do so rapidly.


John Gilbert: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker. Never have I met a more personable friend than the hon. member for Calgary North. He is friendly but he is tough. This is what we like about him. He speaks not only from his heart but from his soul and mind. I am sure he would forgive me if I unintentionally cast any reflection on any member of his party. He has a great sense of forgiveness and I am sure he will forgive me if I have made a mistake.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
(Mr. Woolliams.]


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

["If there are any errors in this reply, and there may be some in the hon. member's presentation, we will investigate further. But to bring the matter up to date, as I think the hon. member knows these units were designed under section 16 for families of low and moderate incomes. The plans and drawing of the proposed building had the endorsation of consulting engineers and inspecting and testing engineers. Construction commenced in mid-April of last year and proceeded through the winter. By April 2 the construction was reported as being 60 per cent completed. On or about April 16 it was reported that settlement had taken place along one line of caissons. The city of Toronto immediately placed a stop order on the project and independent consulting engineers were brought in. These engineers ordered the building to be shored. This has now been done and the construction of the building is being proceeded with.\nTo date, CHMC has advanced $949,000 and, depending on engineering reports to be obtained, it looks as though the corporation will continue its advances as the project nears completion. That is the information I have at this stage. I will further investigate the matter raised and if there is any deviation from the information I have just given I will report it to the hon. member.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.", 'Friday, June 11, 1971']
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in this adjournment debate perhaps I should first inquire whether either the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) or his parliamentary secretary are prepared to answer this question. I do not see either of these gentleman in the House. It would be useless to put the question in some detail unless someone is prepared to answer for the Minister of Transport. It is obviously a vital question for Prince Edward Island. Perhaps the fact that neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary saw fit to be here is a further reflection of the growing lack of concern and interest in the transportation problems of Prince Edward Island.
It was on June 2 that questions were put in the House during the question period with respect to the increase in ferry rates both to the province of P.E.I. and to Newfoundland. The rate increases with respect to P.E.I. were in the range of from 50 per cent to 100 per cent and, as in so many things in recent years, there was no forewarning that such action would be taken, even though this action was taken without any obvious consultation with the government of P.E.I. I should hasten to add that if there was any consultation in advance, certainly no evidence of it was forthcoming from either the Premier or the Minister of Tourism.
Second, it becomes apparent that there was very little forewarning to those who operate the ferry service. I think that that again must be considered to be an example of an unilateral decision that is taken without adequate consultation and without adequate concern for the needs and the rights of the people of P.E.I. It is the smallest province but surely these people deserve the same kind of consideration that people in other parts of this country have a right to expect.
In a general way, since this government took office three years ago there has been a continuing decline in interest on the part of the government in the transportation problems of P.E.I. It began first with a callous disre-
June 10, 1971

gard of the commitment of more than one government of this nation to build a permanent link with the people of P.E.I., and when this government cancelled the P.E.I. car crossing project it was the first indication that there was not that kind of continuing concern that Prince Edward Islanders thought they had a right to expect under the terms of confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Again, recently this year we saw another unilateral decision taken to remove the flagship of the line, the John Hamilton Grey, for a portion of the year from the P.E.I. service. Again there was no consultation, forewarning or indication that this ship, which had been christened with the names of two Fathers of Confederation from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, would be so cavalierly removed from its basic area of service.
In its place, two summer ferries have been added. Having travelled on these ferries I can say that in terms of transportation they are adequate if not luxrious, but they have particular faults which I think bring great dangers to the federal government. If the minister had been here this evening I would have pointed out the great danger to life which exists in the staircase and fire doors that have been installed in these ferries which make them literally unsafe for persons travelling. I should like to ask the minister at some point what steps he plans to take to deal with the various lawsuits that I am sure he will encounter from people who are more than likely to suffer grievous accident because of these inadequately installed staircases.
I want to deal specifically this evening with the rate increases because it is in this area that most recently the people of P.E.I. are aware of the government's lack of concern, the lack of willingness to consult with the elected authorities of the province, the lack of willingness to state the reasons for which the increases are necessary, and the lack of willingness to state why the subsidy in the case of Northumberland Ferries was to be decreased by a substantial sum, close to $200,000, and that these rates would go into effect at very short notice before anyone has had a chance to ascertain their effect with regard to the second most important industry in P.E.I., namely, the tourist industry.
The minister is not here this evening and neither is his parliamentary secretary. Again, it seems that we are going to be served up with some kind of formalized answer with respect to transportation, which is a binding part of the commitment between this country and the province of Prince Edward Island, entered into at the time of confederation. I think it is a sorry fact that during the last three years we have seen the transportation needs of the province of P.E.I. downgraded and the erosion of decades of progress made in improving transportation to the province. It is about time the minister and the government treated seriously both the long-term and short-term transportation requirements of that province.
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance': Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Duquet) I have the honour of replying to the hon. member on behalf of the minister. I would like to provide some information relevant to the question of passenger ferry rates which now are in existence on the east coast and to which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) announced changes on Tuesday.
I am sure the hon. member is familiar with the changes to these rates announced by the minister which affect ferry services under Department of Transport jurisdiction, namely, the Gulf Service to Newfoundland and the Borden-Tormentine service. As a result of the minister's intervention the rates which were originally introduced for the summer ferry services were substantially reduced. I should like to read from the very brief public statement which was made by the Minister of Transport on Tuesday, affecting the Borden-Tormentine service:
In view of representations I received today upon my return to Ottawa I have instructed that the proposed summer rates not be introduced on the Borden-Tormentine ferry service. This means that the new winter rates will apply year round. These involve an increase per passenger of only 15 cents, with no increase for children, and an extra 50 cents only for automobiles. The rate for trailers will increase by just 5 cents per foot with no change in the present minimum.
In addition to this, the minister indicated that he had spoken to the president of the Canadian Transport Commission regarding the Wood Islands-Caribou service. Late Tuesday the water transport committee of the CTC accepted an application from Northumberland Ferries Limited to cancel the new summer rate schedule for that service and to revert to the winter rates announced June 7. While these rates are higher than in other years, they are considerably less than the summer rates which were announced.
I believe the hon. member is aware that there has been little change to ferry rate schedules on the east coast for many years-in one service I believe it was 1949, and in another 1955. Over that period of time the cost of maintaining the service has been increasing steadily. In the past few years considerable expenditures have been made by the federal government in order to provide our two island provinces with fast, comfortable and efficient ferry service. There is no doubt that tourists and the travelling public, while they will be paying a little more for transportation to and from the islands will be getting a better quality of service than has ever before existed in terms of accommodation, frequency and speedier vessels.
The minister's announcement on Tuesday has been understood and appreciated in the Atlantic area. The hon. member has made a number of points which I have not covered since there was no indication in the original question that they would be raised. I will certainly bring these to the attention of the minister.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that under the Standing Orders there is no provision for points of order during these proceedings.

June 10, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 7, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether the House could expect a statement from a member of the government following the meeting of the NATO council at Lisbon. Considering that the Lisbon meeting concluded on the preceding Friday, I thought it incumbent upon some member of the government to make a statement thereon. I state this noting that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who spends a great deal of time abroad, had not deigned to return to Ottawa before leaving for a Washington ministerial meeting where, incidentally, he failed to discuss the TAPS project despite undertakings given previously. I may also say that I am not disturbed by the Prime Minister's posture of condescending indifference, having grown accustomed to it. However, I find it something less than a proper attitude to adopt to an inquiry on a matter so important as a top-level meeting of NATO.
It has been a fairly well-developed pattern in this country that ministers returning from NATO gatherings would report to Parliament and to the country on the main lines of deliberation in this alliance of which Canada is a charter member and was once a very important participant. Perhaps it is the intention of the present government to downplay and denigrate the NATO alliance and Canada's membership therein. From some recent actions and many utterances we might well be inclined to believe that this is the case.
Perhaps this glibness on the part of the Prime Minister merely reinforces a growing opinion in this country that it is a part of the present government's intention to downplay, denigrate and diminish the importance of Canada's role in this organization which has long been regarded as a bulwark of western defence, a buttress of western freedom and a meeting place wherein leaders of friendly nations could consolidate their positions and advance the interests of peace, prosperity and stability in a much broader way.
In recent weeks the foreign policy of the Canadian government has received severe strictures from many Canadians who fear that their Prime Minister is leading them into policy paths which do not reflect this country's aims and interests. It strikes me that the Prime Minister, in the face of widespread misunderstanding of his Russian visit, would seize an early opportunity to clarify the role of Canada in NATO. The fact that this occasion was not used but that the Prime Minister showed his usual impolite cynicism on the matter aggravates rather than ameliorates, the feelings of many alert and thoughtful Canadians whom he is supposed to lead in the realms of foreign policy.
I hope that whoever speaks on behalf of the Prime Minister will be able to explain this seeming lack of interest in the NATO meeting and will tell us why so scant attention is paid to this top-level meeting in Lisbon. Perhaps we will be told, also, if and when the Parliament
of Canada, representing the people of Canada, may hear a report on the actions and utterances of government representatives in the meetings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization recently concluded.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that this occasion was to be used for a diatribe against the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) nor to suggest a further downgrading of Parliament by not permitting the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to reply and report to Parliament on his attendance at the NATO meeting in Lisbon.
As the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) knows, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is attending meetings in Washington on very important environmental problems. He will be returning to the House on Monday, when he will make a complete statement to the House on motions. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is the reply that this Parliament deserves and which it will get.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Hillsborough has used the occasion to also suggest that the foreign policy initiatives which this government has taken, particularly in relation to the recent visit to the Soviet Union, are not reflecting the views of the Canadian people. Certainly they reflect leadership on the part of the government, leadership that I think is well accepted and understood by the Canadian people. Perhaps they are not understood by the opposition but I think the people of Canada look with the same hope as this government to the outcome of the recent initiatives with the Soviet Union.
To answer the specific question, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in the House on Monday on his return from this very important meeting in Washington, and will report fully to Parliament as is the practice.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, this matter concerns the potentially tragic situation created by the sinking of the CMHC financed Richmond Square (Limited Dividend) apartment housing project in my riding of Spadina, in Toronto. This project covers half a city block on the north side of Richmond Street West between Niagara Street and Walnut Avenue. It backs on a lane at the rear of stores and service stations on the south side of Queen Street West. I understand that the whole project was designed to contain 545 suites, the majority of which are likely contained in the 13-storey high-rise building that is now posing the menace of this collapse.
My information is that a private contractor agreed to build this project as a low-rental housing project under the terms of the National Housing Act, by which the builder's profits are limited. If this information is incorrect, the minister is here this evening to correct it. I do not know whether the mortgage loan for this project from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an 85 per cent or 95 per cent mortgage. I would be interested in
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
June 10, 1971

knowing the exact situation. I have not seen the application or the terms of agreement between the parties, nor do I know how many thousands or millions of dollars have been advanced under the CMHC commitment to this private builder.
I do know that the building permit was obtained last fall, that despite the usual soil testing, the footings were improperly placed and in any event were probably inadequate. There should likely have been a reinforced concrete pad under at least part of the substructure. Such footings or sills were built lengthwise with the bed of a former creek and have failed to support the structure. I say this because the 13-storey, multimillion dollar part of this project has sunk into the ground and every floor has a sag in it. Local people say that this is symbolic of the Trudeau depression.
I am advised that the interior of the building was finished during the winter and one can see from the outside that the interior painting appears to have been completed. The floors, ceilings and bearing walls have obviously settled and are perhaps 10 to 20 inches out of line. There are approximately 80 apartments in which the windows have popped in or out.
I am advised by an official of the city of Toronto that as the building went up and the frost came out of the ground this spring, a large portion of the building subsided. Apparently the building should have been tenanted long before this but no one who sees the obvious fault in construction wants to move in. Even to a layman's eye the sag in the building poses a hazard to the unaffected parts of the building, adjacent buildings and passing traffic. The sag is obvious on both the north and south sides of the building and in the garage area underneath, where some attempt has apparently been made to support or raise the footings that have sunk. It may be that this building will stand for some while without further settlement, but obviously it will continue to be a menace and with the return of frost in the ground next winter it may be weakened further.
It is imperative that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation look into this matter forthwith. I am sure he will. I think that the building should be condemned and demolished either in whole or in part. There is no question but that the 80 units are and will continue to be a dead loss. Expert engineering advice is needed, and reassessment of the whole project. In view of this grossly negligent, if not criminally negligent chance taken with people's lives and public money, the Minister without Portfolio's supervision of CMHC comes seriously into question.
Section 13 (3) of the National Housing Act reads:
No contract shall be entered into with a builder unless
(A)	The project is completed and is built in an area satisfactory to the corporation and in accordance with standards of construction approved by the corporation and
(B)	The project consists of 8 or more family housing units and is designed to provide housing accommodation of a size and type prescribed by the corporation.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In addition, there is the duty of thorough inspection by CMHC officials. In this they have failed. In their inspections and approvals they are not using good methods and good judgment. The tragedy of St. Jean Vianney is another example of poor judgment and inefficiency in this corporation. It was a CMHC-built subdivision that was involved in that landslide. If many more of these cases of negligent engineering, negligent inspection and poor selection of sites come to light-and according to present experience they well might-the corporation's Mortgage Insurance Fund and will be as bankrupt as this government is of competence.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) is unusually full of fire and brimstone tonight. From the information I have been able to gather since he raised this question this morning, I cannot recogn'ze the project he is describing as being the same one that goes under the name of Richmond Square. This is a project for which a loan was approved in July of 1970 in the amount of $2,300,000 for a project under section 16, comprising 228 housing units-not 500, the number he mentioned-to be built on Niagara Street in Toronto. This is known as Richmond Square. So I think we are pretty close to talking about the same project.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I think the minister is dealing just with the apartments and not with the whole project.


Robert Knight Andras: If there are any errors in this reply, and there may be some in the hon. member's presentation, we will investigate further. But to bring the matter up to date, as I think the hon. member knows these units were designed under section 16 for families of low and moderate incomes. The plans and drawing of the proposed building had the endorsation of consulting engineers and inspecting and testing engineers. Construction commenced in mid-April of last year and proceeded through the winter. By April 2 the construction was reported as being 60 per cent completed. On or about April 16 it was reported that settlement had taken place along one line of caissons. The city of Toronto immediately placed a stop order on the project and independent consulting engineers were brought in. These engineers ordered the building to be shored. This has now been done and the construction of the building is being proceeded with.
To date, CHMC has advanced $949,000 and, depending on engineering reports to be obtained, it looks as though the corporation will continue its advances as the project nears completion. That is the information I have at this stage. I will further investigate the matter raised and if there is any deviation from the information I have just given I will report it to the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Friday, June 11, 1971