1971-04-21

VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely:
Albert B. Douglas, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Assiniboia, by decease.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the two official languages-Mr. Clermont.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. Before members on the other side of the House respond with an automatic "No", may I indicate that I have given advance copies of my motion to the government house leader as well as to certain other members of the House. I believe it is a motion that calls for no argument whatsoever. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That this House, as a matter of principle and in defence of its undoubted privileges, records its opposition to any wiretapping or other electronic eavesdropping on its members by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or by any agency on behalf thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. I notice that the President of the Privy Council wishes to rise, but I have to bring to his attention and to the attention of the House that no debate is permitted by virtue of the Standing Order. The Chair is limited to asking whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said no?



WIRETAPPING, SURVEILLANCE AND PREPARATION OF DOSSIERS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter requiring the urgent consideration of the House, in a vein similar to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Therefore I ask the unanimous consent of the House to consider the following motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That this House do now require the Solicitor General to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to consider the following matters:
1.	The criteria upon which wiretapping, surveillance and the preparation of dossiers are initiated in this country;
2.	The process by which dossiers are compiled and/or verified in this country by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;
3.	The freedom that the security and intelligence directorate of the force has to initiate surveillance of any nature on M.P.'s without prior approval of the Solicitor General;
4.	The wiretapping of the home of one J. M. Cossette, a resident of the province of Quebec;
5.	The responsibility of the Solicitor General, either by omission or commission, for infringements upon the rights and privileges of all Canadians who are presently under surveillance, whether they be members of this House or not, and,
That such meeting take place between the Solicitor General and the Standing Committee before the first day of May, 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 before this motion may be put from the Chair it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of unanimity, the motion cannot be put.

April 21, 1971
Questions



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-238, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Bailsman: Since the beginning of the IRDIA program, for each year, what is the total of (a) tax free cash grants that have been paid to industry in Canada (b) credits against tax liabilities provided for industry in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: (a)
(b)
IRDIA grants paid directly to corporations in respect of scientific research and development
Credits against tax liabilities on behalf of corporations in respect of scientific and
research development	Total
10 Mar. 1967 to 31 Mar. 1968 1 Apr. 1968 to 31 Mar. 1969. 1 Apr. 1969 to 31 Mar. 1970. 1 Apr. 1970 to 31 Jan. 1971..
$	1,560,690.17
19,202,701.18
21.737.754.86
18.538.690.86
$	570,663.50
384,077.36 1,262,259.71 579,461.07
$	2,131,353.67
19,586,778.54 23,000,014.57 19,118,151.93
Total

$	2,796,461.64	$
63,836,298.71


CBC-&quot;THE NOBLEST OF CALLINGS-THE VILEST OF TRADES&quot; FILM
Mr. Robinson: With regard to the film entitled "The Noblest of Callings The Vilest of Trades", aired on CBC Wednesday, January 6, 1971, will the government advise (a) who chose the members appearing on the program (b) on what basis were they chosen (c) who edited the film (d) who edited the audio portion (e) did those appearing on the program receive any remuneration and, if so, how much (f) what was the total cost of the program (g) by whom was the cost borne (h) what was the cost of the Canadian portion (i) what was the cost of the British portion (j) what was the cost of the American portion (k) was the program shown in the United States and Britain as well as in Canada (1) was the film censored as to the use of profanity and vulgar language and, if not, for what reason (m) was any other film made on members other than those who appeared, that was not shown (n) will the film be shown again and, if so, where and on what date (o) are any future films of a similar nature contemplated and, if so, on what date and who will be the "stars" (p) is it proposed that the film will be shown in the United States and Great Britain or any other countries?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) Members of Parliament appearing on the program were chosen by the producer in consultation with his associates, (b) Members were chosen in relation to the character and structure of the program, having in mind their representativeness as backbenchers and their willingness to cooperate in the production at all stages, (c) and (d) The producer and his associates edited the film and the audio portion, (e) to (j) No fees were paid to the Canadian political figures. Certain other participants received fees, but it has not been customary to require the Corporation to disclose details of internal management and administration such as fees paid to participants in its programs and individual program costs, (k) No, but interest has been shown in the U.S. and U.K. for a showing. (1) Normal editing was carried out. (m) Yes, as often happens, some of the film shot was not used, (n) There are no present plans for further showings, (o) There are no present plans in this direction, (p) Refer to "k".


CONTROL OF COMPANIES BY CAPE BRETON CORPORATION
Mr. Fortin: 1	Has the Cape Breton Development Corporation obtained control of the companies which it now manages and, if so, is it the intention of the Corporation to indemnify the former owners (a) in cash (b) in bonds yielding interest?
2	Has the Corporation finished the inventory of properties to be expropriated and, if so, has this inventory been registered at a Registration Office?
3. Will the appraisal be based on (a) the value of the assets on the balance sheets (b) the direct evaluation of the assets (c) the stock capitalization (d) others?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. The Cape Breton Development Corporation (Devco) has never controlled or managed the companies mentioned in S. 2(d) of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act. The assets (but not the shares) of those companies were expropriated by Devco on March 30, 1968. On May 15,

April 21, 1971

1970, the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of Devco, commenced proceedings in the Exchequer Court of Canada to have determined the amount of compensation payable for the assets expropriated; in these proceedings the companies concerned were offered the sum of eleven million dollars in full settlement of all claims for compensation for the assets expropriated, subject to the set-off mentioned in S. 12(3) of said Act.
2.	Pursuant to S. 10 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, a plan of the real property expropriated by Devco was filed in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds for the County of Cape Breton, at Sydney, Nova Scotia, on March 22, 1968, as Instrument No. M612. The inventory of personal property expropriated by Devco was registered the Office of the Registrar General of Canada on March 19, 1968, on Film 217, Document 183.
3.	The Crown's appraisers have valued the assets expropriated upon the basis set out in S. 12 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act."
IEnglish]


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Since the establishment of the Cape Breton Development Corporation (a) who was appointed auditor and under what authority (b) what is his annual salary (c) has the Auditor General been appointed auditor or co-auditor and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What progress has been made in the nationalization and expropriation operations of this Corporation?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. (a) Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart of Halifax, N.S., under authority of P.C. 1967-2099, November 2, 1967. (b) Charges are based on services rendered in respect to each year's audit, (c) No. It has not been the practice, where independent auditors have been appointed to audit the affairs of a proprietory corporation, to appoint the Auditor General as well.
2. Please refer to the answer to Question 994.
{English]


PERSONNEL OF AMERICAN SUBSIDIARIES, 1970
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	In 1970, how many employees, hired by American subsidiaries in Canada, were laid-off?
2.	In 1970. how many employees, working for American subsidiaries in Canada, went on strike?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1 and 2. Information not available.
Questions


FOOD AND DRUG DIRECTORATE PUBLICATION RX
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Does the January issue of the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Wealth publication RX list prices from different manufacturers for three different drugs and, if so, is one such company Empire Drugs?
2.	Was the Empire Drug Company delisted between January 1 and January 15, 1971, from the list of companies conforming with standards 74-GP-lb?
3.	What is the purpose of deleting a company from the list of companies conforming with standard 74-GP-lb?
4 Are federal departments and agencies restricted or prevented from purchasing drugs from companies not conforming to standard 74-GP-lb?
5.	Did the official publication of the Food and Drug Directorate omit any company that conformed to the standard from the list?
6.	On what date was the January issue of the RX bulletin released?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Part I, Yes. Part II, Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Canadian Government Specifications Board Standard 74-GB-lb is considered as a guide to assist drug purchasing agents of the Government of Canada. In general, companies deleted from the list of those conforming with standard 74-GB-lb are not considered eligible to tender on drugs purchased by the federal government. On occasion, however, drugs are purchased for federal use from firms whose names do not appear on 74-GB-lb, if the product involved is of a specialty nature.
4.	See answer to question 3.
5.	No.
6.	The January 1971 issue of RX was released on February 17, 1971.


PREFERENTIAL TRADE TREATMENT
Mr. Haidasz: To which countries does Canada give preferential trade treatment?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Canada extends the benefits of the British Preferential tariff to goods of the following countries: United Kingdom, Republic of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, India, Ceylon, Eire, Bahamas, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua, St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, Dominica, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Ascension, Bermuda, Guyana, British Honduras, Brunei, Sierra Leon, Singapore, Cocos Islands, Swaziland, Tonga, Western Samoa, Lesotho, British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Cyprus, Channel Islands, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Fiji, Falkland Islands, Ghana, Gambia, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Isle of Man, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Zambia, Malawi, Nigeria, Norfolk Island, New Guinea, Nauru, Papua, St. Helena, Christmas Island, Seychelles, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda and Botswana.

April 21, 1971
Questions


NEWFOUNDLAND-ASSISTANCE UNDER DREE
Mr. Marshall: Has the Province of Newfoundland applied to the federal government for assistance under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to establish air landing strips at (a) Cartwright (b) Mary's Harbour (c) Springdale (d) Grand Falls (e) Wesleyville (f) Bonavista (g) Catalina (h) Winterland (i) Harbour Buton (j) Channel (k) Port-aux-Basques and, if so. what assistance will be given by way of grants or loans?


Abram Ernest Epp: No.


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


Abram Ernest Epp: Nil.


AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE-OFF-TRACK BETTING OPERATIONS
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Since the 1969/70 amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, has the Minister of Agriculture received from any provincial government any request for the Minister's approval of offtrack betting operations to be conducted by governmental, municipal, community or private interests and, if so, how many applications were there from each province?
2.	What was the decision in the case of each of the said applications?
3.	If any were refused, what were the reasons given for such refusals?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The Attorney General of Alberta has requested the Minister of Agriculture to authorize off-track betting to be conducted by the Western Canada Racing Association Ltd., at their Edmonton and Calgary Race tracks.
2.	No final decision.
3.	The Attorney General of Alberta and the Western Canada Racing Association Ltd. were advised that the decision in this matter would have to be delayed and considered in the context of off-track betting generally, which has been discussed by the federal and provincial Attorneys General.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SELECTION OF TEACHERS FOR OVERSEAS POSITIONS
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What are the criteria used for the selection of teachers for overseas positions with the Department of National Defence?
2.	For the 1971-72 program, how many applications were (a) received (b) accepted from the Province of New Brunswick?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minisier of National Defence):: 1. Applicant's academic qualifications, special skills, ability and training; degree of competency based on the assessment by the local responsible superintendent of schools; personal suitability; age, marital status and, if married, the number of children in the family. Each candidate must also pass a medical examination for duty in Europe.
2. This year slightly over 800 applications were received for some 130 vacancies. Competition for each-position was keen and only the best qualified and most competent teachers were selected. Thirty five school boards in New Brunswick were asked to nominate teachers for overseas assignments. Only eight boards responded, nominating a total of 18 candidates. Of the 18 candidates, one was selected, one failed to complete and return the required documentation and the remaining 16 were not given assignments because no suitable vacancies were available.


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


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Juslice):: None.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Fortin: 1.	During each of the past five years (a) what was the production of plywood in Canada (b) what were the exports of plywood (c) what were the imports of plywood (d) what were the custom duties on plywood?
2.	Is the government considering the problems of the plywood industry in general and more specifically those of the Sogefor Company, and (a) if so, what solutions have been or will be applied (b) if not, for what reasons?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 209 is acceptable to the government.


INFORMATION CANADA KITS, FEDERAL EXHIBIT PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 209-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Information kits prepared by Information Canada for all of its exhibits in the federal exhibit program.
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Benson.)
April 21, 1971

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 206-Mr. McCleave:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the letter dated in March sent by Catalina Exploration and Development Limited to the Prime Minister, and the reply thereto.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 206 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 207 and 208.
STUDIES UNDER "FEDERAL PRESENCE PROGRAM" Motion No. 207-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all consultant studies, research studies or publications prepared by Information Canada in its "Federal Presence Program".


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Hon. Robert Stanbury that no studies or publications have been prepared for the "Federal Presence Program" of Information Canada. Under these circumstances I would ask the hon. member to consider withdrawing his motion.


Mr. Mather:: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


FILMS PRESENTED AT TERRE DES HOMMES BY INFORMATION CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 208-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a transcript of the special films presented as part of Information Canada's federal exhibit program at Terre des Hommes.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Hon. Robert Stanbury that the film being prepared for the Information Canada exhibit at Terre des Hommes is a short animated treatment of the theme of the citizen solving problems through a democracy. Since there is no voice or verbal presentation, there is no manuscript in the usual sense of the word. I therefore ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Barry Mather: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should remind the parliamentary secretary that it is preferable and indeed required by the rules to refer to an hon. member either by his constituency or by his responsibility in the administration and not by his name. I appreciate that at times, in some respects, there are difficulties, but I am sure the parliamentary secretary will want to bear that in mind.


Mr. Baldwin:: There should be more anonymity.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport who I see is on the roster today. It is prompted by the information given the Leader of the Opposition in Alaska yesterday by Professor Weedon indicating the paucity of research concerning possible effects of coastal and water pollution from the TAPS route. Is the minister in a position to assure the people of Canada that the government of Canada will present to the United States government its strong opposition to the TAPS project which threatens the Canadian people with an ecolocatastrophe?


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to inform the minister of this question as soon as possible.
tEnglish]


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is a cabinet-wide position on the TAPS route, and will this be made clear to the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament at an early date?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. The subject has not been the object of policy by the government.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Considering the fact that the British Columbia government, in contradiction to his own government, has a strong and clear-cut position on the matter, will negotiations be entered into with the United States so that the government of British Columbia might be invited to the May 3 conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the May meeting in Washington between officials of our government and the United States government is to discuss this position and

April 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
to express the views which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has expressed in the House, that is to say, our very serious concern about the possibility of pollution if this route is adopted.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate whether there have been consultations with British Columbia about the forthcoming meeting on May 3?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I could not say, Mr. Speaker.


WELFARE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan government by Order in Council has decreed that no person on strike is considered to be eligible for assistance under the Saskatchewan Assistance Act, and in view of the fact that the money paid under that act comes in part from the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan, can the minister say whether he is getting in touch with the government of Saskatchewan concerning this breach of the agreement under the Canada Assistance Plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have to advise the hon. member we would have to know the particulars of each individual case involving an application for social assistance. We would have to have knowledge of the facts concerning whether or not it was a case of genuine need and whether in fact the assistance was denied contrary to the basic criteria as to need established under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister ascertains that this is the case, will he be in touch with Saskatchewan about it?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


TRIP BY INDIAN AFFAIRS MINISTER TO AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND-FAILURE TO INCLUDE RALLIEMENT CREDITISTE MEMBER
Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Yesterday, in his reply to a question put to him by the member for Athabasca, he said that he had visited several countries, including Australia and New Zealand, for the benefit of Canadians and he added:
-and I know that the hon. member deeply resented not being chosen by his party as a member of the delegation.
So, my question is the following: Can the minister outline the reasons that prevented him from asking our party to appoint a representative in the delegation that was visiting those countries?


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have formed a delegation comprising three government members and two members of the Opposition. I thought that it would be sufficient to represent the House of Commons. The delegation did quite a good job during that trip.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to know whether the delegation did a good job, but if the minister recognizes that there are four political parties in the House and that each party is entitled to be represented on any Canadian delegation.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise the House whether Canada has joined other members of the World Bank in indicating to Pakistan that its overdue indebtedness to the World Bank can no longer continue and that in this way the World Bank is taking a position of putting pressure on Pakistan in light of the recent troubles in that country?


Edgar John Benson: I should like to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the apparent conflict between the Prince Edward Island Public Order Act and the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Canadian Bill of Rights, and the dubious constitutional validity of the act, is the government giving consideration to an early referral of that act for the judicial determination of the Supreme Court of Canada?

April 21, 1971


John Napier Turner: I was in
Prince Edward Island yesterday where I met the premier of the province on several matters including the current recently enacted piece of legislation. I also met a delegation from a committee which has been formed to protest that particular piece of legislation. I said to them, as I have said to the House, that the federal government does not intend to refer the provincial act to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of a reference, and that, if citizens of Prince Edward Island feel that it should be challenged the ordinary courts are available to them. I also said to the citizens committee that the power of disallowance had not been used since 1943.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the practice of disallowance has, for all intents and purposes, gone out of use in recent years, would the Minister of Justice say whether in his discussions with the premier of Prince Edward Island the premier gave any indication that this act might be withdrawn or amended?


John Napier Turner: Whatever action the premier intends to take, he will make it public in the ordinary way, I would imagine.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPORT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for the
Secretary of State. In view of the questions in the last couple of days with respect to the Opportunity for Youth program, may I ask the Secretary of State, because of the considerable concern and interest in this program, whether he might be prepared to appear, along with the staff responsible for the program, before the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration to give a progress report about the program and to reply in detail to many of the concerns and criticisms that have been expressed over the past two or three weeks in order that the program may be implemented with full effectiveness?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, should I be invited to appear before a committee of the House because the committee feels my presentation to be useful, it would not occur to me to elude this appearance. However, I should like to tell the hon. member that as early as tomorrow, on motions, I intend to make a statement on this program which will represent, to a certain extent at least, a report on the present status of the project the hon. member mentioned in his question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his willingness to make a statement tomorrow. When he makes it would he address himself particularly to the criteria and objectives of the program and
Inquiries of the Ministry
whether there will be sufficient funds to handle all the worthy projects that have been submitted by the youth of the country?	,


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, when the Secretary of State makes his statement on motions will he indicate to the House whether programs will be fully approved or will some of them be given only partial approval in order to allow the $15 million allocated to be spread out to cover a greater number of projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member and the previous question are in the form of helpful suggestions to the minister. The House must assume that the suggestions will be taken into consideration by the minister. If they are not then hon. members will have an opportunity to ask other questions again tomorrow.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INVOLVEMENT OF MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this program I would like to ask the Secretary of State if it is the policy of the government, as stated by a government official, to keep municipal civil servants from getting involved and, if so, to what programs in other departments does this policy also apply?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the question surprises me as I have said here repeatedly that any civil servant of whatever level of government could get involved in these projects and contribute as much as possible to them. However, it is clear that if "get involved" means receive a salary from the budget of the project that is excluded, as was moreover clearly stated from the start.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize a last supplementary on this subject. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


SUMMER LANGUAGE PROGRAM-ISSUING OF INSTRUCTIONS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the summer language program. Have specific instructions been issued to the AUCC which administers this course and, if not, could the hon. gentleman inform us when this information might be going forward?


Gérard Pelletier: Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is one year behind our time. Indeed this year, according to the latest news, this project is not administered by the AUCC but by the Council of the Ministers of Education of Canada who have agreed to consider the matter and to advise the department of the Secretary of State as to the way these courses could be organized.

April 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF RAPESEED AND FLAXSEED UNDER CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD JURISDICTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who reports for the Wheat Board. While normally the question I have in mind to ask might be subject to criticism at this time, because of rumours in western Canada to the effect that rapeseed and flaxseed are now going to be brought under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, and as there is naturally widespread interest because the number of farmers who have gone into the production of these crops runs into the thousands, is the minister prepared to say that, in so far as granting power to the Wheat Board, on proclamation, to include either or both of these grains within its jurisdiction is concerned, it is not the intention of the government to have the Wheat Board do the marketing of those two types of seeds either during the present crop year or in the next succeeding one?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to make clear what the position will be in the proposed legislation which is now before the House. There has been no decision at all to put rapeseed, flax or rye under the Wheat Board but only to include the power, by proclamation, to extend the Wheat Board Act to these grains. No decision of that sort has been taken by the government. The question has been under consideration and study, both by farm organizations and by a group under my direction, for some time, but certainly there is no imminent decision in this regard. The rapeseed market has in fact been working rather well in its existing shape.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the simple question is this: if the government does not intend to use the power, then why is it bringing in legislation to permit the use of power that it has not in mind to use?


RAPESEED-CLOSING OF VANCOUVER FUTURES MARKET BY WINNIPEG GRAIN EXCHANGE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, further to a question I asked the minister earlier this week regarding rapeseed to which he replied that the explanation for the closing of the futures market at Vancouver had better come from the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, since no public explanation has come from the Grain Exchange can the minister now inform the House of the reason for closing the Vancouver futures market?


Otto Emil Lang: Again I would remind the House that I cannot speak about the thoughts and intentions of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, but certainly their total effort has been an attempt to provide for the country and buyers abroad a futures market which is reasonable and stable and one which produces a proper relationship with a decent price to the producer in Canada. They have had discussions
about the closing of the Vancouver futures exchange as such in order to bring about a better result in the relationship of futures to current prices. There are further discussions now as a result of this action by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and some further action may be taken by them. I am kept informed and I am assured that the total objective is to attempt to provide a stable and well operating futures market.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact that this has not been a stable market and has not returned just prices, can the minister inform the House of the basis and the procedure by which purchasers can now buy rapeseed for future delivery at Vancouver? Can he also answer the question I asked the other day, namely, what was the result of the meeting in Vancouver to discuss this subject?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything at this time. The situation is fluid and the Grain Exchange is looking at alternatives. I think there may be further information for members before very long.


WHEAT-PROVISION OF EQUITABLE PRICE COMMENSURATE WITH COST OF PRODUCTION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government has rejected the realistic two-price system for wheat, can the minister indicate to the House whether any other proposal is under active consideration to provide the wheat producers of Canada with an equitable price commensurate to a degree with the cost of production within Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hope that within a few days I will be able to put before the House for first reading a bill regarding the stabilization plan which will include a transitional payment of $100 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we could spend the whole question period on this fascinating subject, but we should go on. The hon. member for Portneuf is anxious to ask a question on a different subject.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Is the hon. minister aware of serious complaints lodged by federal civil servants employed in the family allowance branch in Quebec City, to the effect that because of the department's practice of classifying employees doing the same kind of work, the officers on duty in the Toronto office receive $1,000 more annually than those in Quebec City?

April 21, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question could easily be put on the order paper. If the matter is at all urgent, then the hon. member should give me the required notice and I shall see to it that the matter is discussed on adjournment.


INDUSTRY
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, just before the Easter recess I directed a question to the Minister of Finance concerning a decision of the United States customs court imposing an import duty on Canadian-forged auto parts, which appears to be in violation of the United States-Canada car pact.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has the answer to this question and I am sure he will give it to my hon. friend the next time he is in the House.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. As there are only six more parliamentary days before April 30-I am sure the minister is well aware of that-can he advise the House if the internal difficulties that the government has experienced in connection with the type of measure to replace or deal with the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act have been resolved? Can the minister now tell the House in what form the government intends to introduce discussion of this matter in the House, and will he repeat the assurance that it will be in such a form as to permit the House to debate and discuss the matter and give the government the benefit of its advice?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to accept the preamble to that question. The Prime Minister dealt fully with the same question yesterday. Certain issues will be brought before the House in such a form that the views of the House may be ascertained.


REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice inform the House whether, prior to the introduction of any measure in the House, there will
Inquiries of the Ministry
have been consultation with the provinces on the nature of any provision that might be put before the House?


John Napier Turner: Whatever is put before the House in whatever form, Mr. Speaker, will imply, either before or after, very close consultation with the provinces.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
As the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act will expire on April 30, can the minister tell the House whether he met the Minister of Justice of Quebec lately to discuss the special powers or whether he has replied to the letter from Quebec requesting an extension of these powers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I met the premier of Quebec some two weeks ago, to discuss negotiations on the revision of the Constitution, we discussed the Act which is now in force and the possibility of passing a new one. The premier of Quebec had then invited the Minister of Justice of Quebec, Mr. Jerome Choquette, to take part in these discussions.


TRANSPORT
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Having in mind the action taken by his counterpart, the Secretary of Transport in the United States, requiring that all passenger motorcars by a certain date in 1972 be equipped with proper defence bumpers to replace today's costume-jewelry type bumpers, can the minister inform the House whether similar consideration is being given to such a requirement in Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the officials who have responsibility for auto safety are now devising new regulations with regard to automobile bumpers. As a member of the committee I believe the hon. member knows that the situation is that we work closely with the American safety authorities in this regard. I would expect that our standards will be similar and certainly not less than theirs.
^ ^ %


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the visit by the premier of Quebec to various European countries.
5120

April 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since Mr. Bourassa has made it known that the purpose of his trip is to obtain investments tor Quebec, an expanding province, did the premier of Quebec-or his government-make an official application to the federal government or to the Canadian International Development Agency to obtain interest-free loans for the development of the province?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint John-Lancas-ter.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member want to put a supplementary question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In the light of the very eloquent answer which was given to my first question, I should like to put the following supplementary question: Has the federal government in mind the setting up of an agency which would play the role of the Canadian Development Agency with the various provincial governments in need of money to speed up their economic development?


Mr. Rondeau:: Tax development.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have so many programs which do what the hon. member wants that I do not know why he would like to have an additional one. We have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we have equalization payments and we have also a series of programs under which the federal government pays to developing provinces huge amounts which will nearly reach one billion this year. These are not interest-free loans but grants taken from the other provinces' taxes. So I am at a loss as to what the hon. member wants to know.


André-Gilles Fortin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I would like the right hon. Prime Minister to tell us if he has officially received from the Quebec government a request similar to the one made by the latter to some European countries, asking them for investments in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the federal government does not invest in Quebec in the same way as private European undertakings. The premier of Quebec did not make such a request, which by the way I would find inconceivable.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has already asked two supplementary questions regarding that matter. I will recognize the hon. member later.
tEnglish]
For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In connection with the preparation of the forthcoming budget, is the minister receiving the active advice of the hon. member for Trinity either through that great, democratic body, the Liberal caucus, or on a personal basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would have to be a new question because the hon. member cannot ask a supplementary to a question that is clearly out of order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct an entirely new question to the Prime Minister in connection with this matter. In view of the Prime Minister's willingness to forget the past, would he take back the lonely hon. member for Trinity into the cabinet or at least make him a minister of state, because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is in the form of a suggestion. Again he must assume that it will be considered.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In asking this question I appeal to his well known sense of justice and fair play. Is the minister aware that an investigator has arrived at the Sydney unemployment insurance office from the regional office at Moncton? Also, after due investigation on his part would he advise whether this man's job is to ascertain who leaked the information that plans were under way to phase out or close down the commission's office in Sydney?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts whether the hon. member's question is in order. He will recognize that this is a matter of very specialized importance. I wonder whether the hon. member does not think that this is the type of question which could well be considered at the time of adjournment.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I rephrase my question. May I ask the minister-I realize that he is responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and am aware of his interest in matters of this nature, if he would check with the officials of the Unemployment Insurance office and ascertain if such is the case and that there are Gestapo tactics in the Unemployment Insurance Commission?

April 21, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary or rephrased question is not in order. He is asking the minister to investigate. He has the right to assume that his request will be considered.


CONCENTRATION OF FACILITIES IN MARITIME PROVINCES -ELIMINATION OF EMPLOYEES
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if there are plans at present to further concentrate the facilities of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the Maritime provinces in one or more centres, thus eliminating employees in such centres as Charlottetown and elsewhere?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think what both hon. gentlemen probably are referring to is that, in conjunction with the proposed legislation that I hope will be adopted by the House very shortly, there will be a reorganization within the Unemployment Insurance Commission, precisely as hon. members opposite have been asking for the last couple of days, in order to provide better service for the Canadian public. This is the prime responsibility of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I can assure the House, however, that in this reorganization we do not contemplate reducing the work force in the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easl Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour avoided answering the question asked by the hon. member for Malpeque about the matter of concentration. Is it not true, despite the minister's several assurances to the contrary, that the Unemployment Insurance Commission has shown a film across the country which indicates that their program is directed toward centralization?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary question is in the form of an argument. He has asked the minister whether it is not true that such and such a thing has happened. Perhaps the minister might like to reply to the question. It seems to me, however, that the question was asked in an argumentative form. I will not be argumentative and will therefore invite the minister to reply.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that some of the functions now carried on across the country will be centralized. This is quite consistent with the introduction of modern communication techniques and with the introduction of computers, for instance, which make it possible to centralize certain functions in particular areas. The point I wanted to make is that this will not necessarily mean any reduction in staff in the local areas. It will simply mean that employees will be trained to perform some other function.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Two hon. members seek to ask supplementary questions on this subject, but we have only a few moments left. I wonder whether we might not go to the next subject.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


INTRODUCTION OF BILL IN UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ABOLISH GREEN-CARD COMMUTER SYSTEM
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the government plan on taking any action or holding any discussions in respect of the bill introduced in Congress earlier this month that would abolish the so-called green card commuter system under which thousands of Canadians cross the United States border each morning to work and return home in the evening?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question is, of course, one of great importance to us and to many Canadians. Accordingly we are watching the situation very closely.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rod Thomson (Batlleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the very great amount of knowledge regarding native peoples and national parks which the minister and his group gained from their trip to New Zealand and Australia, is the minister now prepared to recommend that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development make a trip to northern Russia for a similar purpose?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The business of the committees of the House does not fall within the authority of the minister but within the authority of the members of these committees.


WHEAT-PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL BOXCARS TO EXPEDITE MOVEMENT FOLLOWING RAILWAY STRIKE
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. He may want to discuss this matter with his colleague, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In light of reports emanating from the western grain trade to the effect that a reduction in wheat sales of some 50 million bushels in the current crop year will result from the recent rail strike in the western regions, will the minister make a special effort and prevail on the railways to provide an extra allocation of rolling stock with a view to recouping the lost grain movement before the end of the current crop year?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes
Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to take the hon. member's advice about consulting with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and I have already made similar representations to the railways.
24081-43i

April 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT


REVIVAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. In view of the Canadian Transport Commission's new objective, released yesterday, to develop a basic transcontinental railway passenger service which will satisfy the needs of the travelling public, and in view of the commission's firm decision that transcontinental passenger service will be continued, is it the intention of the minister to submit requests or suggestions to the commission to revive now the Canadian National passenger service in Newfoundland in order to make the system truly transcontinental?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if I may borrow one of your phrases, the hon. member's question is in the form of a representation and he can only assume that it has been noted.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of widespread rumours that have very serious connotations, can he inform us whether he has consulted or will consult with the officials of the government of Nova Scotia with a view to taking steps to preclude land speculation in connection with the proposed Ship Harbour National Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as far as the possible location of a park and the control of the land where it will be are concerned, the government of Nova Scotia has the exclusive power to take the necessary steps liable to prevent any speculation on that land. We will have no jurisdiction until an agreement has been signed by the two parties.


J. Michael Forrestall: In view of alleged widespread speculation involving one of the worst types of crime that can be perpetrated against the public purse, would the minister undertake to satisfy himself and the House that the rumours are false, or otherwise?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to know whether or not there is speculation, but I will relay the hon. member's representations to the government of Nova Scotia.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that last week in St. Thomas the hon. gentleman declined to give any information about the proposed legislation relating to tobacco advertising but said he would do so in the House of Commons, does he propose to introduce this legislation for first reading and make a statement or has he now decided to listen to reason and not introduce the bill at all?


Mr. McCleave:: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now in a position to report to the House on the success of his efforts to persuade the Canadian Pacific Railway to grant pension increases to its retired employees similar to those granted to pensioners of the Canadian National Railways?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can
report success in conveying the message effectively, I think, but beyond that I have nothing to report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister press on?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will press on.
# * *


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What is the major issue in contention between the federal government and the government of Quebec regarding manpower difficulties in the construction of the airport at Ste Scholastique, and are similar disputes likely to arise in other provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much that the hon. member's question is in order. It seems to me it is a question which invites a very general statement and I would think that kind of information ought to be given to the House on motions.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.

April 21, 1971

Yesterday in reply to a question from the hon. member for Hamilton concerning the Ste Scholastique airport and in view of the conflict between the federal and provincial jurisdictions in labour matters, the Prime Minister stated that he would try to help Quebec to find a solution, adding that he was pursuing his efforts to come to an amicable agreement.
In view of this answer and the existing conflict in this matter, is the Prime Minister ready to make a statement to clarify the existing situation as soon as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add which may clarify the situation. The positions of all parties are publicly known; everyone knows the part played by the government of Quebec, the unions and the federal government in this area. There is no statement to add to this.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour regarding the Ste Scholastique confrontation. Is there to be a meeting between himself and the provincial Ministers of Labour this week and, if so, has the Minister of Manpower been invited to take part in the discussions, particularly with regard to Ste Scholastique airport?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is a federal-provincial conference of Ministers of Labour taking place tomorrow and Friday, but the Ste Scholastique question is not on the agenda for the simple reason there is no conflict or difference of opinion between the Department of Labour in the province of Quebec and the Department of Labour in Ottawa as far as that site is concerned.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Since there seems to be some conflict between the federal department and the provincial department in connection with pay scales, I would express the hope that the minister might elaborate on this question by way of a statement on motions. My supplementary is really directed to the Minister of Manpower. I would ask him whether he would agree to make a definite statement at the earliest opportunity with respect to the demands made and positions taken by the province of Quebec in this very touchy area in order that the House and the country can be informed completely as to the positions taken in connection with this matter?


Otto Emil Lang: If there is anything useful to bring before the House, beyond the positions which have been made public and are known, I will do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Inquiries of the Ministry
During the Quebec premier's visit to France, several French-Canadian students were placed under house arrest. Has this measure been taken because of instructions given by the Canadian Minister of Justice to the French police and, if so, what were the reasons for it?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette. [Later:]


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Charlevoix has a supplementary to the question he put a few minutes ago.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify my question for the Minister of Justice since I do not know whether he understood it well. I should like to know whether French-Canadian students were put under private surveillance as a result of instructions given by the RCMP to the French police.


John Napier Turner: That question should be put to my colleague the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am raising this question at the earliest opportunity and in a manner which will not interfere with the right of backbenchers to ask questions. I wanted to raise it as a supplementary. Touching the matter of correctness of information supplied, the Minister of Labour indicated that there would be no loss of employment as a result of his centralization program. In this connection I would like to give him the opportunity to put the record straight if there has been misinformation inadvertently given. Would this apply to an office such as Brandon which is suffering a reduction in staff-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question of privilege. The hon. member is really seeking to ask a supplementary question, possibly a legitimate supplementary question, but I would respectfully suggest to him that perhaps this might be done tomorrow. I appreciate it is a matter of some importance and that the hon. member is anxious to obtain supplementary information, but I do not think it can be sought and given except by unanimous consent of the House. The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris will recognize that other hon. members were deprived of the opportunity to ask questions or supple-mentaries because we ran out of time. Unless there is agreement on the part of all hon. members to pursue the question further, I do not think the hon. member can do so under the guise of a question of privilege.

April 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, my point is that the minister has misinformed the House, which I think gives rise to a legitimate question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege. The minister may have misinformed the House, but unless the hon. member is prepared to make a charge and suggest that the minister has wilfully misled the House, he has no question of privilege. Orders of the day.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere is also rising on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, if I had asked the question during the question period, you would surely have told me I was out of order. Here is my question: What were the fees paid to the firm of Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart of Halifax for auditing the books of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
I was told, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is out of order. 1 point out to him that it is against the rules to ask a question after the question period has expired, under the pretext of rising on a question of privilege. If the hon. member really wants to rise on a question of privilege, I shall hear it and indicate to the House whether it is in order and can be discussed. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was getting to the heart of the matter.
At that point you called me to order and rightly so. I therefore had the following question put on the order paper: "What is his annual salary?", to which I got the following answer:
Charges are based on services rendered in respect to each year's audit.
Mr. Speaker, that means that a member of parliament cannot find out how much of the public funds have been spent or allotted to certain expenses ordered by the government.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that my rights are encroached upon in this connection and that I am absolutely entitled to know why the government has appointed that firm, how much it was paid and why this task was not entrusted with the Auditor General of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that he must comply with the Standing Orders of the House. If he wishes to rise on a question of privilege, he must do so in accordance with the Standing Orders, giving the required notice. Now, since the hon. member has not given that notice, he cannot evidently rise on the question of privilege to which he referred.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackasey that Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I gather there is a disposition to have second reading of this bill settled today and referred to committee for study. At least, that is the case if I interpret correctly the prevailing winds, or lack of the strength of same. My remarks will therefore be brief; I simply want to make two points for the consideration of the committee.
The first point concerns the subject on which I, at least, receive most correspondence with regard to the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I refer to whether or not teachers should be exempt from its provisions. I do not know what the situation is in the rest of Canada, but I do know that in Nova Scotia, and more particularly in the metropolitan area of which my seat forms part, a great number of teachers have been thrown out of work as a result of changes in the economic climate and the policy of the new provincial government. While I used to think that the teachers had made a perfectly legitimate case for not coming within the unemployment insurance provisions because they were a class that had not the same unemployment problems other classes had, I now have to change my mind as a result of the conditions to which I have just referred.
I realize that there are still professional associations representing the teachers that stoutly maintain that teachers should not be part of the class that has to make contributions for unemployment insurance coverage. Although they may speak for the majority within that class, as far as I am concerned if I am called upon to protect the rights of even 10 per cent of a particular group, then I shall stand in Parliament and do my best to protect those rights, and this I do now.
I would also make the other point, which I think is an important one. I do not think that seniority in any profession counts for a damn today, if I may put it as bluntly as that. Times are changing. The fact that somebody is a perfectly good teacher in today's age or was five years ago, does not mean that he or she is equipped to be a good teacher in the Sesame Street type of education that we will have in time to come. In short, the fact that a teacher was good in the past or is good at the present time is no passport to security or to the assurance of a job in that profession, indeed in any profession though especially in the education field, which is responsible for seeing that our children, our children's

April 21, 1971

children, and anybody else's children for that matter, are taught to be the best type of citizens in today's rapidly changing world. I do not think there can be that much security, that much ossification, in any profession. I could talk about my own profession of the law, or even of medicine, but I shall confine myself to the teachers, and because I mention them by name I hope that no one will misunderstand. I am dealing really with the rapid changes in society and what I think our attitude to society should be.
One year ago I think I would have resisted the proposal of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to put teachers within the concept of universality, but I do not do so today. I do not do so because I know that hundreds of teachers in Nova Scotia will be thrown out of work, as doubtless they will in other parts of Canada as well. I have to think of these people. In doing so, I take the risk that the 90 per cent who will not suffer unemployment will frown on me for what I say; but somebody has to work and fight for minorities, and this is what I am proposing to do.
The ironic thing is that because the minister is introducing universality, and including the teachers within the terms of this act, some unemployment of teachers will result. In short, the municipalities of Canada will have to raise taxes in order to pay their share of unemployment insurance premiums for their teachers. Municipal taxation being what it is today, the more taxes the municipalities raise the more they will have to compress their budgets in other respects. This in turn means that somewhere along the line more teachers will be knocked off the payroll. As I say, this is one of the ironic but immed'ate results of the minister's policy. Nonetheless, on balance I think we have to support it, and unless there is some very compelling evidence to the contrary given to the committee that is to study this bill, on third reading I shall certainly support the principle of universality for teachers.
The second matter I wish to refer to is one with regard to which I would ask the Minister of Labour's cooperation in adding his thoughts to my own. It is a matter that I have not studied in depth as I should but which came to my mind a few days ago. I have informally scouted it with the minister, and perhaps because of the special role that I have within the ranks of my party in this Parliament it made a greater impression on me. I refer to whether unemployment insurance should be extended to some of the inmates of federal penitentiaries in Canada. I have uttered what to some is a fantastic proposition, one that most people would regard as absurd-not irrelevant, but at least absurd. However, I think the suggestion demands a public airing, and I should like to pursue it for a moment or two before terminating my contribution to this debate.
When the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs visits certain federal penitentiaries, its members are always taken to the workshops and made well aware that within these institutions there are hundreds of men and some women who are given specialized training each year as mechanics, tailors, barbers and the like. It seems
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
to me that surely we can devise some sort of formula to bring them within the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I do not know how this can be done. Perhaps this proposal has never been set down on paper. But I hope that both the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the people who are charged with the responsibility for correctional services in Canada will give some thought to the proposal so that when the bill is before the committee they can say whether the idea is or is not feasible.
I should like to give the House some idea of the numbers involved here. I quote these figures from page 58 of the Annual Report of the Solicitor General of Canada 1969/1970. In that fiscal year-it is called a fiscal year rather than a penitential year-those on the registers of federal institutions in Canada, of which institutions there would be a little more than two dozen, totalled 7,009 males and 109 females, for a total population as of April 1, 1969 of 7,118. Of those, 4,180 men and 71 women were admitted during that year. There were 5,860 transfers in and 5,860 transfers out. There were 1,896 males and 35 females who received direct discharges at the expiration of their sentence, and 1,947 males and 45 females who received direct discharges by parole. The total discharges for either expiration of sentence or parole amounted to 3,950 males and 81 females. As of March 31, 1970 the number of inmates registered was 7,239 males and 99 females, so there was an increase of about 200 in the prison population as of that time.
On the basis of these figures, I suggest we would be dealing in terms of unemployment insurance with at least several thousand people. Perhaps all 7,000 would not be getting unemployment insurance as a result of being inmates in a federal penitentiary at one time, but this scheme could cover a fair number of them, thereby providing some relief from the anxieties they face when they come out into the world. The lack of funds is probably a major reason for recidivism; that is the return of a former inmate to his criminal tendencies which gets him back in the penitentiary.
This is not a revolutionary idea. People have thought of this before. I think with a little coaxing the John Howard Society might be tempted to give some advice to the committee and the minister. I am sure the personnel of correctional services in penitentiaries are responsible people. The officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission must have some ideas in this regard. Members of these bodies, as well as officials of the manpower office, have a responsibility to come forward and present their ideas along this line. These people might be very unpopular if they expressed views in favour of this suggestion, in view of the fact that a few hardened thugs managed to persuade a great number of other people to ransack the Kingston penitentiary. I hope we will not be so emotionally upset by what happened there that we will turn our backs on an idea which makes sense.
Within the penitentiary set-up there is training so that the occupational skills of the inmates can be used. They

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
are engaged in productive enterprise. They fix up cars, make suits and the like. This may be done under a system where they return to the institution at night instead of going to the friendly local tavern to take advantage of that atmosphere. This system involves work and it gives a little dignity to these people who, for the most part, have none. For these reasons, I hope the minister will indicate during his reply on second reading that he intends to commence studying this proposal, and I am very hopeful that something will result from the suggestions I have made this afternoon.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. [DOT]Speaker, this bill is of very great interest to a great many people in my riding, indeed to a great many [DOT]people in the Vancouver area and in the province of [British Columbia. These people, being British Columbians, are inclined to concentrate on the features which fall short, even before they consider the good things because they know the evils and bitter results of unemployment. These people want me to make it perfectly clear that they do not consider this bill as being a cure for unemployment. They want it made abundantly clear to the people in this House, and in this part of Canada, that there is a wide sector in this country which will be affected by this bill only in a marginal way. A great number of people will not be covered or looked after by it. It is not the perfect umbrella for all of those in the working force caught out in the rain of unemployment. It has shortcomings which the committee will be dealing with as they did during the consideration of the white paper.
Recently I had an opportunity of meeting with a large number of representatives from various labour unions in the Vancouver area. They emphasized that the two-week waiting period was much too long, and that this waiting period worked out to three weeks under certain circumstances. And construction workers in many cases must establish two qualifying periods each year. As a result, the waiting period for them is often closer to five or six weeks during the course of the year.
These representatives asked me also to point out the lack of a definition of earnings as one of the shortcomings. They feel it is unfortunate that a definition of earnings is not in the bill but is to be left to regulation. They feel that earnings should not include what they may be able to pick up casually during this waiting period, or what they might obtain in some other way. They feel that the definition of earnings ought to be very lenient and broad.
These representatives do not like the 4 per cent unemployment threshold upon which the government assumes the burden of unemployment insurance. They feel that if the government accepts the figure of 4 per cent before assuming responsibility this will become the acceptable minimum rate of unemployment. The unions in my part of the country, and I believe all across Canada, do not feel that a 4 per cent level of unemployment is acceptable.
On the other hand, they and I believe that this bill is an improvement over the present one in many areas. A

great many people believe that if anyone can save this government from going down the drain it is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), and that by bringing forward this piece of legislation he may do a lot in that direction. That is because the minister has shown some conception of the conditions working people are up against when faced with interruption of income.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has gone over the major points of the bill very thoroughly. There are only two features of it I wish to deal with in detail. Our colleagues who are members of the committee will go into all the points I have mentioned as well as a great many others. I should like to refer to that part having to do with the inclusion of benefits for sickness and maternity.
As members of this House are aware, I have been trying for the past three sessions to introduce a bill which would handle the question of maternity benefits and the allied question of maternity leave. I believe when the minister gets around to his second piece of legislation concerning labour standards we will then have, with the provision in the unemployment insurance bill, what I was seeking to accomplish in my private member's bill which could not be received. As a matter of fact, because one member of our group last evening opposed the inclusion of maternity benefits in this legislation, I wish to make it abundantly clear that my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre and I have spoken out very clearly in favour of the inclusion of maternity benefits in the unemployment insurance legislation. As proof of this I should like to read what I said on November 3, 1970 when I spoke on my maternity leave bill which the House very kindly permitted me to introduce, having first of all eliminated the money provision which will now be looked after under this proposed legislation:
The great value of the unemployment insurance proposals is the fact that during her 15 weeks of absence due to pregnancy the woman will receive two-thirds of her previous earnings. I should very much like to have been able to bring in a similar proposal in this bill, but the rules did not permit me to do so. However, I shall content myself with congratulating the minister and supporting his proposal fully.
I wish to reiterate that today. I believe the minister is to be congratulated for having brought in the maternity benefit provisions in this legislation. I know it was not easy for him to do so because there were many people- employers' representatives-who appeared before the committee when the white paper was under discussion who tried their level best to have this provision removed from the legislation. It might be that there is a better way in which to bring in maternity benefit legislation. But in the absence of such proposals, I would not want to miss the opportunity we have to include it in this legislation.
I should like to say this is a good provision. It has been long anticipated and desired by women. The minister, when speaking on the 19th of April a few days ago, stated the case very clearly and eloquently. He stated it
April 21, 1971

much better than I could have done myself. For this reason I wish to quote his words:
I think that before we get too smug about women in the work force, we should realize it is a sad commentary that at least one million women in the Canadian work force are in it not because they want to buy a second automobile or a coloured television set but because their income means the difference between poverty and survival. When, in such instances, a woman is deprived of her income as a result of maternity, this creates a terrible hardship. I am hopeful that drawing unemployment insurance, after a two weeks waiting period, for at least 15 weeks will help the working mother.
I wish to echo the sentiments of the minister in this regard. Yesterday it was stated that it was a poor idea to provide maternity benefits in this legislation because maternity is not a predictable interruption of income. I would indicate that the reasoning behind the introduction of this benefit is precisely the reasoning behind the introduction of sickness benefits. Sickness is not a predictable interruption of earnings either. One cannot predict when sickness will hit a worker either male or female. If any member in this House believes that maternity is a predictable occurrence or a predictable hazard, I believe he should take another good look around him in this twentieth century. A realistic look at the birth statistics in this country today would lead anyone to conclude that maternity is not a predictable hazard any more than sickness is a predictable hazard. This is precisely the reason I and others wish to see birth control and contraceptive information publicized in this country.
Maternity is a hazard of the most unpredictable kind, probably even more so than sickness if such is possible. The number of women who can be affected is very great. Of all female employees covered under the Public Service Employment Act, 57.4 per cent, nearly 60 per cent, have children and 46.3 per cent, nearly 50 per cent, of these women are the sole support of their children. In spite of these facts, women are treated as though they are temporary accidents in the labour force and as though if they are made sufficiently uncomfortable they might go away. This provision in the unemployment insurance legislation is a recognition by the minister that women are in the labour force to stay, that women have every right to have time off in order to give birth to their children in safety and comfort and have them looked after so that they may become the future citizens on which the whole community will depend. I wish to congratulate the minister, not only for his good political wisdom and sense but for his humanitarianism and farsightedness in this regard.
Now, I should like to deal with a point which has been touched on in a slightly different way by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I refer to the inclusion of different types of workers under the unemployment insurance legislation, and more particularly teachers. We in this party have long held that all working people ought to be covered by unemployment insurance. I am very glad the minister is insisting that fishermen be covered under this legislation until some other coverage is provided for them. I should like to see seasonal workers treated in the same way. Until other provisions can be made available to them, I believe they
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
should be given some coverage under this legislation. I hope the minister will not rest content until seasonal workers are given some other kind of coverage to protect them against the hazards of unemployment. Certainly, when there is a policy which involves the buying up of boats and depriving the smaller fishermen of their employment we must have some kind of umbrella under which they can be looked after until such time as they can be reabsorbed into other employment.
I believe, however, that other groups should be included in this scheme as well. In addition to teachers, it should include doctors, lawyers, engineers and other people including the self-employed. These people should also come under unemployment insurance. I am glad we have changed our attitude in respect of teachers. I believe teachers, doctors, lawyers and other people have previously been left out because of a basic hangover from the old days when professional people were considered to be a class above and apart from people in working class groups. Today, these people are beginning to be regarded as forming sections of the people who work in the community. I should like to see a revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act which would include doctors, engineers, lawyers and other people who are in a more secure position perhaps than others. I remember the occasion years and years ago when Sir Winston Churchill introduced the social security scheme in Britain which was based on the Beveridge Report. At that time Winston Churchill used this phrase. He said: "This legislation aims to bring the magic of averages to the rescue of millions". It is bringing the magic of averages to the rescue of millions which makes any of these social insurance schemes work. If we bring in just the bad risks, it will cost these bad risks more and the coverage will be less good. We have to bring in the good risks in order to cover the poorer risks-the less secure people-to the fullest possible extent and to give them the best possible coverage.
A few years ago, before the conversion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), some of us felt that, precisely because teachers and other groups were in a more secure position, they should be included in this legislation. I have made this argument to the teachers before now. For years as a property owner in Vancouver, which I am not now, I paid school taxes on my property, even though I had no children. Why was that? The fact that I had no children did not mean I had no responsibility for children. The community's children were my children and it was in my interest, not only from the standpoint of being my brother's and sister's keeper but from the standpoint of self interest, to pay my share of school taxes. Educated children mean educated citizens. Educated citizens are good citizens, not only physically but emotionally and in every other way. In the same way, because teachers were in a more secure position I think they should have been included years ago in the legislation so as to lend their greater strength and greater security to the scheme.
5128

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
However, I now think like the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, that teachers are experiencing the same insecurity, although maybe to a lesser degree, as the people now covered by unemployment insurance. Teachers today are coming to realize that they also need unemployment insurance. I foresee the time when even doctors, lawyers and engineers will be glad to come under the umbrella of the community in the form of unemployment insurance. I think the day is coming, and I am glad to see it coming, when they also will be brought under this umbrella. So, I believe that we should provide the widest possible coverage under this legislation.
The argument has been advanced that if teachers are brought under this scheme they will have to gouge school boards for higher salaries so that they can afford to pay unemployment insurance contributions. The school boards, in turn, will have to gouge the public so as to obtain more funds in order to pay the gouging teachers to pay the gouging Unemployment Insurance Commission. I think this is the reddest of red herrings that could be drawn across the trail. If the process of gouging has the effect of making Ottawa realize that it has to divvy up its taxes with the municipalities on the basis of their need, so much to the good. If the municipalities, teachers and other people at the local level need more money, it will be but an additional piece of leverage to get Ottawa to redistribute the taxes that it collects in a much more equitable manner between Ottawa and the municipalities of the country which really need them. If the provincial moneybags find themselves caught in the middle of the process, we shall still have to find a way of bringing the municipalities in on the consultation.
We in this party are thoroughly in favour of this Unemployment Insurance Act as far as it goes. We think that it can be improved. I, for my part, would like to see these improvements given very close attention because they are the product of the experience and the thinking, not only of labour unions across this country but of a great many professional people who are now coming to realize that this is also their scheme. The sooner they are brought in under it, the more secure they will be and the broader and more safe the unemployment insurance scheme will be.
Above all, I want to put in a word for the women in the labour force of this country who now know that one of the great hazards to the security of their homes and their children will be removed. They will now be able to take time out to have their children in an honest and straightforward way, to make arrangements for them and to go back to the labour force, with their seniority and job rights protected-that is, when this legislation is complemented shortly by that under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. So, I feel that the minister deserves a great deal of credit for swimming against the mainstream of his party's policy, which I feel he is doing in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) I should tender apologies to him. The Chair has attempted to alternate
speakers during this debate from one side of the House to the other. After the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants had completed his remarks, I proposed to give the floor to the hon. member for Ottawa West, but I am afraid I was mesmerized by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). At present the Chair having presented apologies to the hon. member, will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good for you, Sir.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that all of us have been mesmerized by the fine speech by the hon. lady who has just spoken. I find myself in substantial agreement with what she said, which is not always the case, but this afternoon I found her remarks to be particularly interesting.
In introducing the debate on second reading, the minister, who is now in his seat, said that the legislation had been drafted on what he said, in a casual way, was the unanimous report of the committee examining the recommendations in the white paper. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) then rose and said it was not quite an unanimous report but rather one that was adopted on division. I think the debate has shown the extent to which there has been agreement coming from the committee. I was one of those who attended most of the committee's sittings. We heard a number of very forthright briefs attacking the principle of the legislation and the basic features proposed in it. But I suggest that anyone reviewing the Hansard record of this debate and reading the speeches of the hon. member for Hamilton West, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who are both in this House at present, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) the leading spokesman for the Creditiste party, and the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead) would, I think, be more impressed by the degree of unanimity than by the amount of criticism and difference. There are things that can be done to improve the bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I dislike interrupting the hon. member's fine speech up to this point but in order that the record be clear may I point out that the reason I mentioned that the standing committee's report was not unanimous but was passed on division was that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had indicated earlier, in regard to the Public Accounts Committee, that he did not understand why the opposition was questioning the report of that committee since it was unanimous. Surely, the hon. member would not want me to fall into that trap. This was the reason I pointed out the lack of unanimity, and the minister then expressed his regrets for having indicated that it was a unanimous report when, in fact, it was passed on division.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I certainly accept the hon. member's remarks. All I was trying to do was to indicate the

April 21, 1971

degree to which there was basic agreement on the bill. This was the only purpose I had in mind. I certainly recognize that there are differences; the hon. member's speech made this abundantly clear. We can anticipate that at the committee stage a number of amendments will be proposed. The hon. member who has just spoken is a very highly regarded member of this House, and I am sure he does not misunderstand anything that has been said from this side.
But, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was attacked before the committee was the provision of sickness benefits. I have not seen any statement, or heard any member of this House say, as was said before the committee, that the principle of establishing a new type of administration within the Department of National Health and Welfare, which would in effect duplicate the provision of an administration for collection of contributions, the determination of eligibility for payment of benefits, and so on, makes sense. But we had that kind of argument put before us, not once but frequently, in a series of briefs that came before the committee.
I note, for example, that the question of the need for co-ordination of this measure with other social measures has been mentioned by a number of speakers, and I am sure will again be examined in committee. Some of the benefits for those with lower incomes are not going to be adequate. Those in the categories of lower incomes are certainly going to find the initial waiting period difficult. There will have to be a measure of co-ordination with the Canada Assistance Plan to take care of situations where there will be genuine need, especially, in the case of families and dependents. This, we know, will have to be done, and I think all hon. members recognize it. But the problem is the most effective means of working out the arrangements that will be recognized as necessary.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is a surprising degree of acceptance of the principle of universality. I say surprising because of the attacks, again that were made in some quarters, in the representations before the committee. The principle of universality has perhaps been attacked most vehemently by the spokesmen for the teachers groups. I found the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), of the hon. lady for Vancouver-Queensway (Mrs. Maclnnis), and of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in particular-


Stanley Howard Knowles: She may be a
queen but the constituency is Kingsway.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I thought I said that, but I am getting a little flustered this afternoon. I found their remarks particularly interesting in this respect because all of us, after hearing the evidence, after listening to the teachers' delegation, after reading their brief and meeting with them, are substantially convinced that we should not breach the principle of universality under the bill for this group or any other group.
24081-44 i
Unemployment Insurance Act, 197i
Indeed, the criticism, such as it was, that came from the other side of the House concerned the inability of the government to bring within coverage of the act certain categories of self-employed persons. I believe it was the hon. member for Hamilton West himself who said that unemployed persons cannot be really unemployed as a result of their own decision. He gave a definition that unemployment is not unemployment when it is selfinduced, self-inflicted, or a matter of choice. This is exactly the problem in self-employment. The decision of someone to go into an individual type of practice, in a profession, in a business or service trade and the decision when to cease employment is a decision made by one person. This type of decision should not render the person eligible for benefit.
The problem of working out administrative devices and checks to prevent abuse in the self-employed area is very difficult indeed, and it is precisely for administrative reasons that the government has not moved in this area. It is not for reasons of principle. If we could devise the means I am sure the minister would be delighted to accept the idea of bringing self-employed persons within the act. He would have to be certain there would be some type of objective determination of unemployment, some type of protection against intentional abuse. Hon. members on the other side of the House who said we should be covering such persons did not offer any specific means of doing so. They merely said that something should be done in this respect.
At this stage of the debate, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to add very much that is new, but I want to touch on one area in particular where I think we should try to set an example. I hope the provinces will not opt out of coverage for provincial civil servants under the act. I hope they will recognize the virtues of the principle of universality as such, that they will elect to have their public servants covered under the act, just as the federal public servants will be covered.
I also hope that at committee stage there will be a close examination of the problem raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, how to cover Members of Parliament themselves under such a scheme, not that I am so worried about large scale unemployment in this area.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have not found it very hazardous employment. But the hon. gentleman pointed out that there are certain pension provisions that intervene, and anyway a number of hon. members have means of going to other employment very readily. However, there are some who may be getting a little on in years and for whom interruption of service in this place would create problems of adjustment. I am not thinking in terms of benefits to hon. members but in terms of the principle of universality.
A number of the teacher groups have thrown this in our face. They have said to us, "You are not covering Members of Parliament, so why should you cover us"? I think we should, at least for the sake of moral example,

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
consider covering Members oi Parliament. However, the problem here is in terms of defining an employer. An employer of a Member of Parliament does not exist in the same concrete sense as an employer does for other people who are on a payroll. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a precedent. When it came to the enactment of the Canada Pension Plan a special wording was adopted which had the effect of maintaining the tax exempt status of the contributions made by members to the Canada Pension Plan, and also in effect permitting the government of Canada to make its contribution as an employer for this particular group. I have had some discussions with public servants who are in charge of administering this area, and I do not think there is any insuperable difficulty in adopting the wording that was used for the Canada Pension Plan. This would call for an amendment at the committee stage, and I sincerely hope that hon. members who serve on the committee will give consideration to doing this.
I think the principle of universality is something that should be respected for all groups. I think that the moral example should be set by hon. members in this place. I think that the problem is of sufficient magnitude that it warrants a special amendment when we examine the legislation in committee.
In opening my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I said that the debate has revealed the extent of agreement much more than the committee proceedings would reveal. I think the agreement by members of all groups represented in the House on the general features of the legislation is something that stands out in the Hansard record, but there is no question that at the committee stage the usual careful examination clause by clause will be conducted by members of the standing committee to which the bill will be referred. I look forward to the opportunity of participating in at least some of the committee sessions at that time.


Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to make a few remarks on this bill I do not wish to repeat what some of my colleagues, both in my own group and in other groups, have said, nor do I intend to do so. However, I do wish to deal specifically with a few items. It has been said, and I generally agree, that there are some very good points in the minister's legislation. There are a few that are not so good, and there are quite a few that need a great deal of clarification, which I hope will come at the committee stage. I would like to bring a few of these to the attention of the minister and of his parliamentary secretary.
It was interesting to note during the debate, particularly this afternoon, the references to the principle of universality. I must say that in general terms I quite agree with it, but I must point out that the actuarial basis for unemployment insurance, as it was originally envisaged in the 1930's when it was first contemplated, has been widely departed from in the intervening years. I am not saying that it is not a good thing there has been a departure from this principle. From what I have been able to gather, most members of the House intend to support the bill on second reading, as do I. After certain explanations and clarifications, and perhaps even some

amendments to improve the bill, we hope to be able to support it on third reading. Even if the bill has some bad features, one is faced with the situation of not wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water. We will cross that bridge when we come to it and hope that it will not be necessary to give other considerations to the matter.
The first thing I should like to deal with specifically, Mr. Speaker, is the question of administration. Even if legislation is perfect, in theory if not in practice, unless it is well administered and the purposes and objectives carried out, it is of no practical use. During the last couple of years the administration of the present act has deteriorated. I think the previous minister of labour and the present minister have been sold a bill of goods by some well meaning but unrealistic members of the public service. It is all very well for the minister and members of the government to say that they have a wonderful new way of administering the act, namely, by a computer in Belleville. That city is far removed from the industrial heart of the province, not that I have anything against the city, but this could cause endless delays in the payment of claims. No matter how many explanations are offered or how good the plan is supposed to be, the fact is that it does not work very well.
I have been a Member of Parliament for 19 years and until this new system came into effect I had not received more than one or two complaints a year regarding the payment of unemployment insurance claims. We warned the minister what would happen with the new system and our worst fears have been realized. There has been nothing but trouble. Just this morning I received nine letters of complaint from people who were not receiving payments. Fortunately, unemployment in my part of the country is somewhat less than it is elsewhere. I could spend a lot of time going into detail but I do not think it is necessary. I have sent certain suggestions privately to the minister and to other committees of the House. The fact is that the present system of administration, brought in a couple of years ago, simply does not work.
Offices in small, medium and fairly large industrial centres were closed in order to try to standardize claims, but unemployment insurance claims do not lend themselves to standardization, Mr. Speaker. Members of Parliament and civil servants are accustomed to filling out forms but even they sometimes make mistakes. People with language problems and Canadians bom in this country but not as literate as they might be, experience difficulty in filling out forms and make mistakes. An incorrect form going through the computer can result in disqualification of the claim.
Then, there is the routine of having the claim reviewed. If the claimant does not live in one of the centres he may have to telephone or travel 50 or 60 miles to get information and clarification. These things annoy working people. The minister has promised to clear them up, and I think he has tried very hard, but it is like the legend of Hercules trying to clean out the Augean stables-an almost impossible task. The old system may have needed improvement but the new one, though it
April 21, 1971

may make things easier for the staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, does not make it any easier for working people to get their claims processed. I hope the minister will try to persuade his people to reconsider the new system using the computer. It would cost a lot of money to get rid of the computer now and restore personal service but I think it might be worth while.
I want to make one thing clear, Mr. Speaker. Any member of this House who represents an industrial area has many complaints. I do not mind dealing with them but there is no reason why working people should experience a delay in having their claims dealt with. They should not have to approach their Member of Parliament in order to have their claims paid. I have had nothing but co-operation from the office in London, Ontario but still, a constituent would not have to come to me if the system worked properly. The minister has given his word to try and improve it and I am sure he will. He would save the time of the members of this House who should be doing other things.
A number of provisions in the bill still need to be clarified. I have read through it carefully and I notice there is provision for a number of regulations. Perhaps the minister will clarify this at the committee stage, although he may have an earlier opportunity to do so. I should like to get clarification on the question of moonlighting. I know that a new clause of the bill provides that if a person does one day's work a week as a cleaner or a gardener, he is exempt. What about the person who works at the steel company of Canada for eight hours a day and then takes an extra job for two or three hours a day, four or five days a week? Is he to pay unemployment insurance? Where is the line to be drawn between working one or two hours a week or three or four? I hope the minister will clarify this situation.
I hope there will be provision for some ministerial discretion in this bill. In the present act there are all sorts of situations which were clearly never contemplated by Parliament and, as a consequence, people have been subject to severe penalties. There is the McKenzie case in my own area. The man had a cattle sales arena and when some of his farmer neighbours brought their cattle in to be sold they stayed to help out. If the sale was a success, they got $5 or $10. If it was not, they got nothing. However, McKenzie was penalized severely for not paying unemployment insurance. It was a ridiculous situation and certainly never one contemplated by the act. I could cite a few more examples but will not take up the time of the House. In that case, I might say, the minister was co-operative and tried to be helpful, but the senior members of the commission did not seem to pay much attention to the minister. When the matter was being discussed with the minister, the commission went ahead, apparently unknown to the minister, and seized the bank account of the gentleman in question. I hope that in future it will be possible for the minister to exercise a little more control over the activities of the senior members of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They are acting in far too arbitrary a manner, and I hope that the new legislation will enable the minister to exercise more control.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
There is something else which ought to be clarified in the new legislation, namely, the difference between an independent contractor and a contractor of service. I admit that even in law, even in regular jurisprudence, it is sometimes hard to tell just who is an independent contractor and what constitutes a contractor of service. The law seems to indicate that it depends on the facts of the case. Time after time this question has come up in connection with the administration of the present act. It would be helpful in the administration of the new act if it could be clearly set out, and possibly this could be done at the committee stage, who, for the purposes of this act, will be considered as an independent contractor and who will be considered as a contractor of service. I say that because much of the time of Members of Parliament has been needlessly taken up in bringing this matter before the commission. I hope that that problem will be clarified at this time.
I come now to something a great many people have spoken about, the question of teachers. The principle of universality in connection with this bill has been mentioned. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) referred to it. The good lady wanted to include doctors, lawyers and everybody else in the scheme. Perhaps that would be a good idea in certain kinds of social communities. I do not think it would be in this one, for the reasons pointed out by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). It seems to me that we are heading towards some form of guaranteed annual income. I would not disagree with that at all. I think that this probably could be a pretty good idea, depending on how it is worked out.
The late Senator Wallace McCutcheon, who by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a socialist, felt that we ought to have some scheme of this nature. He thought you could probably pay more money to people and raise the minimum poverty level if you got rid of most of the present schemes that provide assistance. He thought that the money you would save administratively would provide a much larger income to needy people. If you abolished half the administrative officials and amalgamated the administration under one department, you could save a great deal of money. I agree, perhaps, that the guaranteed annual income is the goal we should be heading for, and everybody should contribute towards it. I certainly would not disagree with that idea at all; but it would depend, of course, on how it is all worked out. The principle is good, I think, and I gather that the minister is edging in that direction.
I think there ought to be larger unemployment insurance benefits, because of inflation in the country. I agree that larger benefits ought to be paid. What I do not like in the present act and what I do not agree with is this: why should one or two groups be penalized and be discriminated against? You will hear people arguing that we are not really discriminating against teachers; but it certainly appears that way to me. I think, if we are to pay larger benefits, and I think that is a good idea in view of present economic conditions in Canada, we

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 should all pay towards the plan and not "stick" one or two groups with a large part of the burden. I do not think that is fair.
Then, it is not clear just who is a teacher under the act. I hope the minister will clarify this in his remarks. Apparently "teacher" does not include a university professor. A teacher apparently is one who teaches in a public school or in a high school. That, Mr. Speaker, does not make much sense to me. If a teacher teaches Grade 13 in a high school, he is caught in the new scheme. But if he teaches Grade 13 in a university, and some universities have the equivalent of Grade 13, he is not caught in the scheme. Then, what is the position of these other quasi-universities or colleges as they are known in Ontario, where specialized courses are taught for a couple of years? I am referring to places such as Fan-shaw College and Scarborough College in Toronto, as well as other colleges. Are they to be included? I hope that the minister will clarify for us who is to be caught. In other words, when is a teacher a professor and when is he a teacher? I think that some pretty arbitrary lines will have to be drawn, and I hope that the minister will clarify the matter.
Then, we must consider the practical question of how the payment of premiums is to be enforced against the teachers. As I understand it, in the province of Newfoundland teachers are employed directly by the provincial government. That will mean that the provincial government of Newfoundland will have to pay contributions to the scheme. If the government agrees to this there will be no difficulty. Then you come to the province of Ontario, where I come from, where the arrangement is somewhat different. There, we have regional school boards. These, of course, are emanations of the provincial governments or creatures of the province as they are sometimes called in rather unflattering terms. I do not see how, under the constitution, the school boards in Ontario can be made to pay contributions into the scheme unless the provincial government consents. That, of course, is different. Otherwise, there is no way that I know of by which school boards can be made to pay contributions into the scheme, anymore than municipalities can force the federal government to pay municipal taxes on federal buildings. We know that, for practical purposes, grants in aid are made available. However, unless the provinces consent, there is no way in which this provision can be enforced. I hope that the minister will cast a little light on that aspect when he answers some of our questions.
One of the problems that the provinces will have to consider, with the limited tax possibilities at their disposal after the big federal tax grabs over the years, is this: if they agree that school boards are to make these contributions, how are these to be financed? You know, Mr. Speaker, exactly who will pay these contributions. It will be the property taxpayers of the municipalities. The contributions will be passed on to them, and that will add to our current inflationary difficulties. Perhaps the minister will make some comment about that.
That is about all I wish to deal with at present. We hope that the minister, either at this stage of the bill or
in the committee stage, will answer some of the questions we have asked about some of these matters. We do not want to vote for a bill or give it our unqualified support unless we know what it is to do or what the answers will be to some of our questions. We look forward with interest to some of the minister's answers.


Mr. Craig Stewarl (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, after having studied in detail Bill C-229, and after having considered the various representations thereon which I have received from employers and employees who will be affected by its provisions, I am greatly concerned over its inevitable intrusion into the area of municipal taxation. This bill proposes to include municipal employees, teachers, nurses, hospital workers and others whose earnings are either directly or indirectly paid from taxes raised on real property. I am told by school boards in my riding that projections show a one mill increase in property taxes to cover their share of this plan. At a time when the government seems to be so vitally concerned with preventing a second round of inflationary pressures on our economy, I cannot understand why it proposes to include, against their clear wishes, employers and employees in a scheme which is neither needed nor sought by either, and which can only result in substantial additional costs being passed down the line inevitably to the individual property owner.
With the exception of professional athletes, Mr. Speaker, whose proposed inclusion in this act borders on the ridiculous, the other proposed entrants are engaged in occupations which have the highest stability rates of all occupations in the country. These people and I, feel that the government is imposing a selective and discriminatory new form of taxation on them to provide increased benefits both in time and in payments to those people who are engaged in occupations which make them the real beneficiaries of this act. If this is a genuine insurance scheme, then let it operate as such. Let those people who have most to benefit by it, pay premiums accordingly. Let it not be used to implement a policy which is basically dishonest, whereby the government attempts to rationalize bringing under the protection of the Unemployment Insurance Act employees in Canada who least need and who least desire compulsory protection.
One of the bodies from which I received a representation opposing this bill was the Manitoba Association of Schools Trustees. They said, and I quote:
Our most serious objection to the proposed contribution byschool boards is that it would be paid out of money raised entirely by taxation on local property, a source which is already severely overburdened and in dire need of assistance from senior governments. We recognize the constitutional problems which over the years have given federal governments some difficulty in doing what they would like to have done in support of education, but to invade our already inadequate source of revenue would be a most damaging blow to local governments and one which, we sincerely believe, could not really be intended by our national government.
Let there be no doubt in the minds of hon. members that it is not only employers who are opposed to this

April 21, 1971

legislation. Appended to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of October 13, 1970 is a representation received from the Manitoba Teachers Society that said, and again I quote:
Historically, the Society has opposed it on two related grounds. The first of these was that by the nature of their work operating under annual contracts, and because of the shortage of teachers, there would very seldom be times when teachers would actually benefit from an unemployed insurance scheme and that such inclusion would simply mean that there would be one such section of the population, not affected by unemployment insurance, elected to help pay for unemployment insurance and that this would therefore be a discriminatory tax on teachers. The second point was that at a time when the provinces were seeking to get more federal monies for provincial education, the federal government would actually be forcing a flow of provincial education money to aid the federal government for other purposes.
I trust it is now abundantly clear to the government that the economy cannot at this time sustain measures which would result in further tax increases. The effects of the bill before us, if it were passed into law, cannot but be otherwise. To me, as well as to other hon. members, I am sure, it is of great significance that in the white paper entitled "Unemployment Insurance in the Seventies" the government made no effort to document clearly its claims regarding the cost of its proposals to bring about changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. At current levels of unemployment, I am confident that the unemployment insurance fund will operate at such deficits that it may be necessary for the government to increase premiums far beyond their present levels, thus aggravating an already excessive taxation burden being carried by the vast majority of Canadians, particularly in my province.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: I do not think anyone in the House seriously quarrels with the principle of unemployment insurance, the principle that insurance should be provided to deal with the consequences of involuntary unemployment. Nor do I think anyone seriously quarrels with the idea that the benefits provided under today's legislation are unrealistic and that they ought to be increased so as to be more in line with living costs. But we on this side have serious reservations with respect to many of the clauses contained in the legislation before us, such as the provisions shortening the period of time required for eligibility, provisions for the supervision or lack of supervision, of the administration, and so on. If the government is prepared to accept some of our criticisms, criticisms we believe to be justified and worthwhile, then I am sure this bill will make reasonably good progress. But we are bound to set out our objections in the hope that they will be considered by the government and that amendments will be introduced in committee to correct some of the less acceptable features of this legislation.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether this scheme represents insurance or welfare. I do not intend to enter into this discussion myself, except to say that in my opinion many of the features of this legislation amount to welfare rather than insurance. Let me
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
correct some of the statements which have been made by members on the government side. One of their spokesmen said, for example, that when a man buys insurance the amount of the benefit does not depend on the number of contributions he has made. In other words, a man could buy life insurance today, and if he were to die tomorrow, his heirs would collect. This is true, but I should like to point out that if a person sets out to buy commercial insurance, he immediately finds that premiums are rated according to the degree of risk. If I have terminal cancer, or any terminal disease, no life insurance company will insure me. If I have a history of heart disease, I may be able to get insurance but my premium will be rated much higher than that of a healthy person. Similarly, fire insurance is rated according to the degree of risk, depending upon where the property is located and so on. This is something which members on the government side have chosen to overlook or ignore. Then again, the purchase of commercial insurance is voluntary. If I feel my risk of loss is not sufficient to justify the cost of the premiums required, I do not have to take out insurance. In any case, I am not obliged to carry fire insurance or life insurance, for example. But here we are being forced to contribute to a plan whether we want to do so or not. This is another fundamental difference, one which lays emphasis on the welfare aspect rather than the insurance concept.
As an example, may I direct your attention to what I believe to be a glaring weakness in the program? This program would offer insurance to persons who enter employment for a definite, stated period of time, perhaps two months or three months. When they leave that employment they will be in a position to collect benefits. I have in mind students who engage in summer employment. A university student probably takes employment from May 15 to September 15. Both he and his employer know that he will be employed only for a definite period. At the end of that period, he will leave. But, as I understand it, under this legislation, since he has been attached to the labour force, he would be able to draw benefits the following summer. The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. I am glad to note his action. I hope the minister will correct the impression which has been created. This will satisfy one of my objections to the legislation.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If the hon. member would permit, I just want to make one point. He is absolutely right. A student who draws eight weeks attachment or more to the work force this summer will be entitled to unemployment insurance within a 52-week period provided he cannot find work the following summer. So to that extent it is in his interest. Under the present act if a student works this summer he will pay unemployment insurance contributions but will never draw any insurance.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I thank the minister for his intervention which has confirmed my understanding of the act. This brings me to my next point. One of the chief criticisms I have heard made of the present act is that a student is assessed for unemployment insurance

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 premiums on his summer employment, even though both he and his employer know that the employment is only temporary and that the student will never need the protection of the insurance scheme. I have always believed this to be wrong. This same student will have income tax deducted from his pay. But when he flies his income tax return, if he does not fall into the taxable bracket his contributions for income tax will be remitted to him. It has always been my contention that it is unfair to tax a student for the one situation and not the other. If the student is entitled to an income tax rebate, his insurance contributions should also be rebated.
It seems to me that this legislation is a move on the part of the government to correct this situation. In other words, if a student cannot get work the following year he will at least draw a benefit. But I submit that the government is going about this in the wrong way. This will be a very expensive method of reimbursing the student for his insurance contributions. I know I will be told that there are administrative difficulties here, but if the Department of National Revenue can make these repayments, why cannot the Department of Labour? Instead of allowing a student to collect eight to 12 weeks benefits the following year, why can we not tell the student that his insurance contributions will be rebated to him the following year?
I do not want to leave the impression that I am unsympathetic to the plight of students in the summer time. Three of my own children have gone through university and I know the problems that they had to make a little money in the summer to tide them through the following year. But the situation of students in modern society is quite different from that of ordinary workers. Just what is a student's income? Today it is a hodgepodge of summer earnings, scholarships, bursaries, money received from parents and part-time earnings during the winter. So, it is illogical to try to maintain some fictional income for the months of May and June, for example. All I am saying is that if we do want to assist our students-and God knows they need it in view of the employment situation this summer-then let us assist them in some way other than this. Let us assist them through summer employment programs rather than using the vehicle of unemployment insurance as a means of granting welfare assistance to students. This is another reason I and a lot of other critics say that this bill departs from the insurance principle and becomes a welfare measure.
As the House knows, members of my party are not in accord with the principle of establishing an eight-week qualifying period. We think this too short an attachment to the labour force. We think it will lead to abuses by many of those workers who are in and out of the work force almost like a door opening and closing. We think the period is too short and that this is one of the provisions that should be changed; and no doubt amendments by members on our side will be introduced in committee.
The government is preaching universality of this bill. While they talk of universality out of the one side of their mouths, out of the other side of their mouths they tell us that the program cannot be universal, that certain people cannot be included in the program because of adminis-
[Mr. Thomas (Moncton) .1
trative difficulties. I cannot buy this argument. I have heard it said today by one member opposite that the self-employed person has freedom of choice in regard to when he is working and when he stops working. This is not quite true. What about the commission salesman who is employed not by one firm but represents half a dozen firms in a given area and works on a commission basis? Under the present act he is not insurable, and as I understand it he will not be insurable under the new act. If I am wrong about that I should like to be corrected.
Even though such a person is employed by several firms, he has no control over his terms of employment. If one of his employer firms suddenly decides to drop one of his lines, then he loses it and that is all there is to it. If he loses five or six different lines, then his employment has gone. This is why I do not buy the argument that a self-employed person has freedom of choice regarding whether the works or not. This argument does not apply either in the case of many franchise holders. Although it might be their own fault, if something happens to take away their franchise then they are out of work; there is no freedom of choice there.
If the minister is going to be sincere when he says this program is going to be universal, then why should not the workers in the two examples I have just given be included in this legislation? I do not buy the argument of universality. After all, the government cannot have it both ways; either the scheme is universal or it is not universal. If we are going to accept the principle of universality then let us make this legislation truly universal. I suggest that instead of 4 per cent of the labour force not being covered, this figure should be reduced to half of one per cent or something like that. Certainly, the scheme should be much broader than it is.
In all this debate to date on this proposed legislation very little mention has been made, certainly by members on government benches, of the over-all cost of this program. We have been told that by enlarging the scheme and spreading the risk we will make this program less costly to those who take part in it. That is only a half truth. As a contributor to the fund, I may find my premium reduced from $1.40 to 90 cents, or whatever the figure is-I am not concerned with exactitude here. However, a steady worker, one who, if this legislation goes through, could be referred to as one of those fortunate people who never happen to be laid off, will find himself paying just as much or maybe a little more than he is at the present time. I say this because in order to absorb the extra cost of national unemployment over 4 per cent, the government will have to draw funds out of general revenue. I have seen various estimates of the extra cost of this program ranging anywhere from $300 million to $500 million or $600 million.
Let us suppose that the extra cost will amount to $400 million. As far as I know, there is only one place where the government can get this $400 million and that is from the taxpayers' pockets. So that a person employed today will have his insurance premium reduced by 30 or 40 cents a week, but at the end of the year when the government has to cough up $500 million he will find
April 21, 1971

himself paying more income taxes, sales taxes and provincial taxes to cover the cost of extra welfare. I venture to say that in the result he will be paying more for insurance coverage than he is at the present time.
This is a factor that the government has failed to mention, and it is a very important one. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, today taxpayers are about at their wits end. It is all right to say that this program is only going to cost $400 million, but raising this $400 million will mean extra taxes for the taxpayers of this country. This will be an extra tax that is laid on the backs of those people that the government seems to use to fight its battles. The middle income group is the largest taxpaying group and history will probably show it is the group with the best record for steady employment. The more steadily this group is employed the more this scheme will cost it, because this is the group that pays the taxes. I should like to hear something from the minister about this aspect. What does he think this program will cost and can our economy stand it? Here we are facing a battle with inflation which was supposed to have been won in December. That battle obviously has been lost. Unemployment has reached an almost all-time high. How can our economy absorb another $400 million or $500 million per year in taxes?
Let me speak very briefly about another aspect which worries me, and I am thinking of the cost of administration. I am one of those individuals who is not too happy about the administration of the present scheme. I was not happy about the division of powers between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower in 1964. I have always felt that the body which handles the funds and decides the eligibility of claimants should also have the power to search out jobs which suit these people on the unemployment insurance rolls. I do not think I am alone when I say that since that division of powers, the administration of the program has become much less controlled than it was previously and that there are far more abuses. I am very critical of manpower policy because I do not feel these officials are making an honest attempt to get people back to work and off the insurance roll. These officials are not equipped to do this and do not have the proper rapport with employers. They do not seem to be able to match the employers' needs with the skills of the employees they have on hand.
When we look at this legislation, we see that it provides for greater benefits, a lesser time for qualification and that it relaxes the present inadequate supervision. Even under the present legislation there is not proper supervision. At one time an unemployed person had to stand in line in order to pick up his cheque. He was told to either go back to work or he could not draw benefits. Today, the unemployed person sits at home and gets his cheque by mail. Under this scheme, that individual will wait for two weeks and then draw three weeks' benefit. It will not matter whether he goes back to work.
The sponsor of this bill has told us it will act as an incentive to people to go back to work. I cannot buy that
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and I cannot see the logic of giving an individual $150 or $300, then expecting that he will go out and find himself a job. Human nature being what it is, I suspect the tendency will be for these people to wait until the three weeks' benefit is gone and then look for a job. This is what disturbs me regarding the lack of proper supervision and administration of this act. The minister should give serious consideration to bringing these two departments back together. It was a serious mistake in the first place to separate the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower. It is all right for manpower to carry out certain functions, but I am firmly convinced that we must have one agency issuing money and acting in respect of replacement. Only then will we have control over this program. I seriously suggest that the minister take action in this regard.
I am quite anxious to see this bill referred to the committee for study. I have outlined some of the things I think are wrong with the proposed bill, and I can assure the government that when it gets before the committee there will be amendments proposed by members on this side. I hope the government will take serious note of some of the objections we have raised. They are not frivolous but rather objections which concern us and every taxpayer who today is loaded with taxation. These people do not honestly know whether they should keep on working or go on unemployment insurance or welfare. If the government gives consideration to our criticisms, I am sure the bill will be received favourably in the committee.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to assure the minister and hon. members present that I have no intention of prolonging the debate at this time. There are two very good reasons that I should not do so. Most of the things I would like to say have already been said by other members and would only be repetition. As a result of something now before the committee, I feel the remarks I would be prepared to make might be better left unsaid until that committee makes a decision.
Let me ask the minister to give consideration to one problem which has been uppermost in my mind. This provision for placing teachers under the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act can only have a detrimental effect on the communities surrounding my home and other municipalities throughout Nova Scotia. The minister knows of the unemployment picture in my area. He knows that, because of the mining situation, the local school boards have been operating in the red for quite some time.
The inclusion of teachers under the Unemployment Insurance Act will increase the costs to these mining towns by $13,000 or $14,000 annually. The people of these areas are greatly concerned about costs faced by municipal school boards. I am sure these facts have been drawn to the minister's attention. Only two months ago, the committee recommended an exclusion when there was a valid constitutional or administrative reason. The exclusion of teachers in the circumstances to which I have referred could well come within either of those two

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 categories. The administration of this inclusion will prove costly to these municipal school boards. Under Section 91(1) of the BNA Act, the teaching profession falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. For that reason, there might be a violation of the constitution if teachers were brought under these provisions. The minister seems to be accepting this suggestion very quietly. Probably he has other ideas in this regard.
Let me draw the minister's attention to the principles of unemployment insurance. I do not think I can do this in a better way than by quoting Sir George Perley who, on March 8, 1935, at a time when the Unemployment Insurance Commission was being considered and some four or five years before it came into effect, said, as reported at pages 1530 and 1531 of Hansard for that date:
Stated in general terms, unemployment insurance can only be satisfactorily extended to persons in employments where there is a material degree of unemployment and where the employment is carried on at such places and under such conditions that it is reasonably practicable to adopt a scheme of unemployment insurance with real advantage to the persons insured.
Sir George Perley was quoting from a memorandum prepared by Mr. A. D. Watson, Chief Actuary of the Department of Insurance, and Mr. M. C. MacLean of the Bureau of Statistics. I think this statement applies as well today as it did when unemployment insurance was in its infancy. There is no real advantage to teachers in buying, as I say, this type of insurance. If there were, I am sure quite a few teachers would be quite willing to come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. As it stands now, however, the majority of teachers throughout this country have the impression they would be paying into an insurance fund from which they would collect no benefits whatever.
Then, there is the matter of the additional cost to the municipalities. In the mining towns in my community, the school boards would be faced with an additional annual cost of $13,000 or $14,000. This is a matter of great concern to them. Of course, it is of concern to the Nova Scotia government, which is doing its utmost to cut back on educational costs, that at this time there is a program being introduced in the federal House which would add greatly to their costs. I understand that the province of Newfoundland hires its own teachers and, therefore, in that case the provincial government would be responsible for every school teacher on the payroll.
I should like to say a few brief words in respect of the questions put to the minister this afternoon concerning the problem of centralization of the different government departments. I should like also to refer to the Sydney area, although it is not in my constituency and, therefore, I am not trying to promote something for my constituency. Sydney" is located in the industrial centre of Nova Scotia. When the federal government decides on any centralization program, I believe it should take into consideration the location in which the departments might be centralized. I think, if any centralizing is to be done in Nova Scotia in respect of his department, the minister should give serious consideration to the Cape Breton
area, which is the industrial heart of Nova Scotia, and is the area in which the unemployment picture is worse than in any other part of the province.
As I said in my opening remarks, I shall restrict myself to the matter which is before us at the present time. However, in speaking of DEVCO I wish to assure the minister that at no time have I complained of the administration of the UIC or what it is doing in this regard. I repeat this statement in order to assure the minister, and I have given similar assurance to the head of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Mr. Des-Roches, not only by phone but also by letter. I have given the assurance that the violations which have been carried on by DEVCO are not something for which I am blaming the UIC. But I do believe this is an area in which the minister could exercise his influence so that the men concerned are not deprived of the unemployment insurance payments, not by the UIC but by a Crown corporation. I would ask the minister to give every consideration to providing assistance in this particular area. I believe the minister and the UIC should use their influence in this regard. This matter is well covered in section 58 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and is also covered in the new legislation. There is a provision that no one can touch a man's UIC benefits. There is one exception of which the minister is well aware. The only body which can withhold UIC benefits or take advantage of the UIC fund is the commission itself, since it is authorized to hold back an amount of money which may have been overpaid on a previous occasion. The commission is permitted to withhold that amount of money from the next payment.
There is no provision for anticipation. It is in this area that the DEVCO corporation has gone astray. DEVCO certainly anticipated when it came up with its pre-retirement plan. The idea was advanced that the UIC fund could be used to supplement the first year's retirement of any individual so long as he was qualified to collect UIC benefits. Since we are dealing here with a Crown corporation, I would ask the minister to use his influence and authority by implementing section 58 of the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that these men can fully recover this money. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said that these men are entitled to money over and above the pre-retirement leave plan. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said that full benefits would be made available. Let members be fully aware of the fact that although I asked about the 10 per cent increase made available on January 3 this year, this is not the question the minister answered on that particularly day. I shall paraphrase what he said on that occasion.
In answering a question at that time, the minister said there had been a meeting of the board of directors of DEVCO in the last few days at which time it was decided to grant full benefits to the retired workers. I ask that this decision be implemented and that the minister use his influence and authority to see that section 58 of the Unemployment Insurance Act is carried out to the fullest extent. I repeat that the answer by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on that

April 21, 1971

particular occasion was not given in reply to another question. I was not asking about any board of directors meeting or the decision made at such a meeting. The impression has been prevalent throughout Cape Breton that full benefits will accrue to those men who have been pre-retired. This can be done under the provisions of Section 58 of the present act, and again I ask the minister to please give this matter his consideration.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the measure of the efficacy and value of an act depends much upon the public's estimation of that act. It does not matter whether there is bureaucratic treatment of the legislation because, in so far as good legislation is concerned, it is the public's estimation of it which is important. It is some 35 years since we have had unemployment insurance legislation in this country and, frankly, we know that over the years there has been growing dissatisfaction with unemployment insurance as we have known it. We have had the Gill Report which arose out of the clamor and dissatisfaction on all sides. The Gill Report contains certain suggestions. I am not able to say how much of the Gill Report is contained in the white paper and in this present legislation, except that undoubtedly the philosophy of some of its recommendations has found its way into this legislation. I think it would be a very grave misleading of the public if legislation which is to be placed on the statute books as unemployment insurance should be nothing but a thinly disguised welfare measure.
I will suggest to the minister that the public will determine whether, in practice, it is deemed to be a welfare measure, in other words a national milk cow for those who do not want to work. Let us not be too pretentious or too sanctimonious and say that all Canadians are willing to work. That is a lot of poppycock. It is human nature that the more these benefits become available, the more there will be havens for those people who will not have to work but yet gain some advantage. You will get more and more people who will be moving into those particular areas, and who will ultimately be quite content to give up what could be for them a higher standard of living, but one for which they do not want to make an effort or be subjected to the responsibility of work. The number of those people grows. Although the proportion of the population involved may be relatively small in percentage figures, yet that percentage is the one that is seen.
After all, the population of this country as a whole is no different from an individual. Normally, we are not aware of all the parts of our body so long as they are functioning and in good health. But if one only gets a pimple on a cheek or a bruise on an arm or a leg, it is that ailing part that the individual notices. I suggest to the minister that the public reaction with regard to a measure such as this will be its estimation and its judgment of the ailing parts. It is for that reason we must be very careful that this act be not subjected to abuses and
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
that it not create a haven for those people who are unwilling to make an effort.
I am afraid that with regard to the eight week's qualification period there are in far too many areas of this country people who have the conception that unemployment insurance payments are rocking chair money. They either organize themselves in rotating crews, so that one man can periodically go off, or make work schemes. The minister knows that this practise has existed over the years. If the formulation of this act makes this practise easier through the shorter qualifying periods, there will be more and more people who will avail themselves of unemployment insurance payments.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) knows that one of the essential elements in the productivity of this country is not only the skill of its working force but the discipline of that force. We know that, in many instances, if a man feels it does not matter how he carries on, that he cannot be fired or that if he is fired because he has done his work wrong or is not producing enough, he can fall back on unemployment insurance rather easily, he will have no fear of insecurity and the discipline of the work force goes by the board. This Unemployment Insurance Act was put there for the purpose of protecting the worker against involuntary loss of work. May I suggest that dismissal for improper performance should not be covered by a provision that is there for the involuntary loss of a working opportunity. It all depends on administration of the act whether the appropriate discipline in a working force can be maintained.
I should now like to put to the minister certain questions. I was not able to obtain answers from his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). This question seemed to take the minister by surprise yesterday in committee. I refer to the provisions under part VI of the act, first, that there shall no longer be an unemployment insurance fund as such but merely an account in the public accounts of Canada known as the unemployment insurance account. All payments will be funnelled into the consolidated revenue account. We want to ask why there has been a change of practice. It has been suggested to me that the unemployment insurance fund as presently constituted had to be invested in Dominion of Canada securities. The securities, of course, carry interest rates. Of course, the unemployment insurance fund bene-fitted from the interest payments, but it will no longer be necessary for that procedure to be followed under the unemployment insurance account; in other words, the fund need not receive any interest as it did in the past. It is an account receiving the contributions, the penalties, and any interest on penalties as well as any recoveries, but there is no question of any interest on a fund. There is no longer a fund. The money belongs to the government, which it did not before. It was money that had to go to the unemployment insurance fund under the Unemployment Insurance Act and could not be used or transferred to any public account.
However, there is nothing in this bill that would prevent a transfer from one account to another. There is a provision that the Minister of Finance may authorize

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
in accordance with such terms and conditions but not such rates as he may prescribe the payment of interest on the balance of the unemployment insurance account. That means that if there is a certain tight fiscal year, budgetary stringencies, the minister can quite readily say that he will postpone the payment of any interest, or he can even waive it. I recall certain practices of that type which were attempted in the past with regard to certain accounts, but they were soon smelled out.
Since a change is being made, I insist that the burden of demonstrating the reasons for that change being made lie upon those who are making the change. Nothing was said in the white paper in connection with this nor was anything said in the committee report. Neither was any reason given for it being done. Since I find myself charged, on behalf of my party, with the responsibility of the fiscal policy of this government, I want to know why there is this change from specified funds into the consolidated revenue account? We know that in the past we had problems with regard to the Public Service Superannuation account and the Armed Services Superannuation account. We know there was a problem with the CNR pension fund, and also with the CPR pension fund. Not one of them is funded.
In this connection, the government is actually taking a retrograde step. I would have hoped it would have funded the unemployment insurance account, but the minister shakes his head. That would have given the workers of Canada, those who contribute to the unemployment insurance fund, the advantages of the profits built up as a result of inflation, and what have you.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Just like they were about 1962.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So far as the Public Service Superannuation account is concerned, the same thing should have been done. Why did we have to go through the changes that we did? Why were people denied for so long the additional payments to which they should have been entitled? It was because, under the Public Service Superannuation account, we were told there was actuarily no way that this could be done. The reason was that there was no proper funding.
I am not going to point the finger at any particular administration. I say that this is a fundamental weakness in these matters, and there is no reason why the accumulations in the unemployment insurance account, if properly funded, should not be available for financing economic development of this country, not just to be used as transfer payments which frankly are non-productive.
The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) can shake his head all he wants, but I can use the moneys from a fund for economic development on the basis of loans that are repayable to the fund. In that case the loans are up against the yardstick of having to produce. Transfer payments from one class of taxpayer to another are up against no yardstick except popular demagogic appeal. There is no other measure as to the efficacy of transfer payments. They are merely transfers from those
who are producing to those who are going to use them, and there is no yardstick as to their efficacy. After all, these are moneys that are taken from wages, not as taxes. Are we again going to have the government members talking out of both sides of their mouths, as they were yesterday, and as I say the ruling from the Chair was. It was talking out of both sides of its mouth when it was talking about contributions to the Canada Pension Plan being in one case plain tax and in another case merely a contribution. That is talking out of both sides of one's mouth, and cannot be held logically to be correct. But in this particular case, it is not a tax. However, the government is making it the equivalent of a tax since it is going to go into the consolidated revenue account.
The Canada Pension Plan does not go into the consolidated revenue account. There is a fund and the moneys are loaned out. That fund earns money for the benefit of the people who make the contributions. Why not have the same benefits accrue to the unemployment insurance fund? You could have a mix in the investment accounts of government obligations. The government could get access to this fund, and provincial administrations could also have some access to financing-industry-mortgages-the proper mix under the Trustee Act. In that case, then, I would say you could put the unemployment insurance fund to a double purpose. This would also meet the obligations of protecting a real insurance fund, of protecting the workers and at the same time giving them the benefit of their money, not government money. There is not any government money in this at all, not now. There will be if the country has unemployment beyond a certain rate.
If the government had to contribute that would be a super bonus. This might be a social concept that the government, because it may have had to impose certain fiscal measures and certain monetary measures that brought about a rise in unemployment, is under a responsibility to alleviate the results of that action. But surely to goodness, there is a real case to be made that this fund belongs to the people who contributed to it and under the present instance the government is taking it. As a matter of fact, all the moneys that are presently in the unemployment insurance fund are going into that particular account.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Isn't it also true, if there is not sufficient money in the account to pay the benefits called for under the act, that the government is obligated to pay those benefits?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will grant you that.


Mr. Otto:: Then why have a fund?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: 1962.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The reason there are insufficient funds is that the government has, likely for fiscal and monetary reasons, as it did this year, created

April 21, 1971

unemployment whereby there has been an excessive drain. That is the part of the social measure that the government could contribute to this fund, the same as in 1962. If this thing had been properly funded in 1962, that might not have happened. The government used a free flow of funds through the unemployment insurance account as one measure to revitalize an economy that was already sick late in 1956.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: But-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member had his opportunity. I will ask him to please let me continue my case. The unemployment insurance fund, of course, had heavy calls on it, from late 1957, or principally from 1958 through to 1961, and the government used it as one means to stimulate the economy. Loans were made to the fund, not direct drafts, and I would think that an investment fund can have loans made to it. But I am making the case here for a proper funded account, an insurance account, and I want to know from the minister why the change to merely an account?
There are two other little matters I want to refer to, and then I shall sit down. First of all, I think the experience rating concept may have some difficulties in it. I think, essentially, this is right. In other words, where there has been a very high incidence of unemployment, then just like in insurance I think the people involved have to pay a higher premium. However I want to point up one item as a matter of caution, and this is a derogation from my real acceptance of experience rating. It is that in so many of the construction trades the hiring and the firing are not handled by the employer. There are many subtrades and the journeymen working for subcontractors are placed in, on, or off a job by the union hiring hall. If this turnover, which is artificial as far as the employer is concerned, is used as an experience rating in order to penalize the employer then I think that is wrong. I hope that the minister can tell us how he can go against that. If he can, then I say that by and large I am quite happy with the idea of experience rating.
The other thing is that all of us have received representations from teachers, nurses and other groups hitherto exempt and now to be included. I have always felt, personally, that the various exceptions which existed in the past and the confusion of seasonal workers with regular workers, created the greatest difficulties in the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know that a lot of teachers are going to say this is merely a tax but many other people will have to pay, too. An argument I heard this afternoon was to the effect that they were going to be pretty well set. With security of tenure, it was hoped that no one would lose employment and therefore why should they pay? But in those provinces where we have to pay annual premiums for medicare, we hope we are not going to have to avail ourselves of the service. I pay premiums for medicare in the province of Alberta, but I certainly hope that I never have to use it.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
I will admit that this is going to cause some real problems, and I am not too sure that there was adequate consultation in regard to this. We only know that the body economic and politic of this country is bearing an excessively high load for the cost of education. The minister knows that every penny that is paid either by the teacher or the employer is going to come from the taxpayer because in the next round of negotiations after this act comes into force the unemployment insurance contributions of the teachers will be part of the fringe benefits to be exacted from the employer. Therefore we, the ultimate taxpayers, the consumers of this country, will have to pay the shot. To that extent, we all share this additional burden. I hope the provincial civil servants will come in, as I would not want them to opt out of this scheme.
This afternoon I raised the question about the member of Parliament on salary. Does he qualify? He is not under a contract of employment, so I don't know. There is no formal contract, but I would like him to try to step out of it. He can resign, but until he does somebody is bound to pay him. It seems to me there are counter obligations and, in fact, a contract and therefore he should be entitled to contribute. If you lose an election, you could sit back and draw $100 a week for the next 52 weeks. The only thing is you would be trying to obtain the same kind of employment. I suppose the same type of test will be applied as in the past-the minister shakes his head. There is going to be a change. Perhaps there is that silly limitation that used to apply that unless the job is exactly comparable the claimant could engage in some sort of flim-flam with the commission and would not have to work but could draw benefits.
I could add a lot more, Mr. Speaker, but I have heard that I have overstepped the time allotted to me. I hope to see amendments in the committee. I would like to see the bill go to committee, but I will make up my mind on the bill when it comes back.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I just finished a lengthy discussion with the chairman of the Agricultural Committee regarding that famous marketing bill, so I may apologize to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) if I throw a few cattle and hogs into the unemployment insurance bill. This afternoon we find ourselves debating this piece of legislation before it goes to committee. The legislation is the result of a white paper which had some exhaustive study in the labour committee of this House. This was the best they could devise.
I read the minister's speech when he introduced the bill and I note that he said it is for the general benefit of the workers-and I underline that word "workers"-in Canada today. The main purpose is to help people temporarily out of work. That is what he said. The government adopts the idea of universality but the bill does not include the self-employed. That is a queer definition. The principle of universality is accepted but the bill immediately excludes some of the people who are paying into the unemployment insurance plan, as the self-employed

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 are in many cases. The minister shakes his head in the negative, but he did not let me finish my sentence. One can readily understand that anybody who is sell-employed and employing others is paying into the unemployment insurance fund. Now, the minister nods in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker, so we have finally reached an agreement on that particular statement. The sell-employed in many, many cases do pay into the unemployment insurance fund.
Now, this fund is basically a product of the depression. It first appeared in legislative form in 1934 or 1935. I see the minister is eager to correct me again, but I am not going to accept it at this time. It was ruled ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada and it is interesting to note that other acts can still be ruled ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada. I would not like to think that this is one of them, but one could envision other bills of this House that could be so ruled. This unemployment insurance scheme or the application of some form of unemployment insurance was ruled ultra vires in 1937 or 1938. It was brought in again in a more acceptable form to the Supreme Court in 1941 and has been amended from time to time since.


Mr. Barnett:: Don't forget the amendments to the B.N.A. Act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thank the hon. member for the correction. It required constitufional amendment and was brought in again in 1941. Since then, we have had a series of amendments and studies on the unemployment insurance scheme and the practical application of it. The most recent study was carried out in the early 1960's, by the Gill Commission. This was an exhaustive study on how the act should be amended and changed. I notice that in the minister's remarks he attempted to hang some aspect of this bill on the Gill Report. It is hanging very, very shakily and I am sure the coat hanger will soon be pulled from the wall because this bill cannot find any real or permanent basis for its origin in the Gill Report.
This bill does nothing more than impose a tax. It adds an additional tax to our society. Whether it will be of benefit to the general worker is debatable. In his remarks the minister seemed to envision huge amounts of unemployment in the years ahead among people whose occupations we today consider as secure, people such as the civil servants of Canada, firemen, policemen, members of the RCMP, teachers, etc. Of course, considering conditions in the public service at present, there may very well be huge lay-offs in the public service. However, the possibility of disruption in our public service will not continue for very much longer. Nevertheless, this bill will impose an additional tax on us.
Let us look at it that way and analyse one of the basic difficulties of our economy. What will we find? We see that workers go out on strike for higher wages. For the sake of argument, let us say that a union threatens to go on strike unless its members receive a 10 per cent wage increase. Let us say the workers are granted this increase; yet, because of the built-in costs of our society,

they will take home only about 4 per cent of that increase. The additional 6 per cent will go towards taxes of one sort or another, income tax, the unemployment insurance fund, a whole host of organizations, and so on.


Mr. Bigg:: For a check off.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, for a check off, for union dues and so on. Only about half of the increase is taken home by the worker to his family. In other words, we have built up a costly society in which a worker must work. It costs a great deal for a worker to work. The society he works in is affected by the total of the 10 per cent increase the worker has been granted, to cite the example I am using and that 10 per cent increase in his wages is reflected in costs throughout the rest of society. So, because the worker only takes home about 4 per cent or 5 per cent, or about half his increase, after two years or whenever his contract expires he must seek an additional 10 per cent increase. People wonder why there are these continuous rounds of wage negotiations. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has tried to persuade unions to spread out their demands over three years as opposed to the two years for which they sometimes settle. The extended period only postpones the next cyclical increase. We must go to the root of the problem and determine why there are these cyclical increases. We must analyse these cyclical increases. Very simply, we have built into our economic system too much overhead and expense. It costs too much to work. An analysis of this bill reveals that it constitutes an additional tax. By passing this bill we shall contribute to increasing the cost of a person's working.
In his speech, the minister referred to the guaranteed annual income and cited the experiment going on in the United States. He said that it is amazing that some people on a guaranteed annual income still want to work. Well, man is not content to be idle. He wants to do something; I agree with that. But he does not necessarily want to stand on an assembly line tightening bolts or packing and cutting meat. He wants to do something that will occupy his mind and keep his body in good physical tone. We cannot describe work that way. Common sense shows us that work must be described as the doing of something that must be done at a specific time and place. I do not deny what the minister tried to say in his speech, that even though people get a guaranteed annual income they will want to work. Nevertheless, he defined work very loosely.
In this bill we are providing for a tax on people who are now working because our society says we need built-in security. I have come to the chamber after studying exhaustively another piece of legislation that attempts to build in security and my thinking has now evolved to the point at which I think that man's security can perhaps best be placed in the hands of the Lord. Perhaps only there will he find security.


An hon. Member:: Who pays the bills?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps that security is cheapest. This bill seeks to create security, yet we are discussing some workers who will never claim benefits.
April 21, 1971


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is eternal security.


Mr. Caccia:: Send the bills to the Lord.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps if we had a little more faith in the Lord we would not need the bill.


Charles L. Caccia: Send Him the bills.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps if the hon. member had had more faith in the Lord we would not have needed the bill in the first place.


Charles L. Caccia: Send Him the bills.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This government has taken the place of the Lord.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This bill seeks to impose a new tax on some who will never claim benefits. The minister said that people on radio and television have said that a man can work for eight weeks and then collect benefits for 52 weeks. The minister said that was completely wrong. A man must work for eight weeks, and can then collect unemployment insurance for 18 weeks. However, if the national level of unemployment is about 4 per cent, he can collect it for another 12 weeks, thus increasing the period to 30 weeks. The minister also said that if the regional rate of unemployment is above 4 per cent, the man can collect for another period as well. I see the minister nodd ng affirmatively. Clearly, what people on radio and television have said about a man working for eight weeks and then collecting for 52 weeks is perhaps not far from the truth. I see the minister again nodding his head affirmatively, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that is closer to the truth than one might think.
In essence, this bill ignores the common interpretation of "insurance". In his speech the minister said that, certainly, some fellow would pay a little bit and collect a whole lot, and he drew an analogy between payments and benefits when a fellow's house burns down just after he has paid a premium on his insurance policy. I think the examples the minister used were poor. The premium you pay on an insurance policy is rated according to the risk of your collecting under the policy. Your car insurance premium is related to the possibility of your having an accident and the amount of damage your car can cause in an accident. In this scheme, there is no relationship between the premium a man pays and the risk of his being out of work.


Mr. Perrauli:: That is not true at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear a comment from the parliamentary secretary. He says that is not true.


Raymond J. Perrault: Have you read the experience rating section?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not read the parliamentary secretary's speech and, as a result, I do not know what his intentions or beliefs are. When he makes it, I will.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Raymond J. Perrault: You should read the white paper before you speak.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I read the white paper very carefully. But to get back to the point I had reached when I was interrupted. Many people will not have occasion to collect benefits at all. We are told that some civil servants are to be included but that civil servants employed by the Quebec government will not be included, because they do not wish to be included. Will the same conditions apply to all other governments? I see the minister nodding his head in the affirmative. Is the option being given because these people will likely not have much occasion to collect, or because of the constitutional aspect? Again, I see the minister nodding in the affirmative.
But what about the position of schoolteachers? What about the additional cost to the municipalities which would be imposed by what is, in effect, an additional tax, an extra burden on the educational system? Surely, there is a constitutional question here which is closely parallel to that raised by civil servants working for a provincial government. In essence, the teacher enters into a contract with a municipal government, so there is a close parallel here. Reading the minister's speech, I notice that he held a long consultation with the teachers and that after he had talked to them most of them were in favour of the legislation before us. Well, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman could not have talked to the teachers in the constituency of Crowfoot because I have certainly not found them to be in favour of this legislation. Indeed, very few of them want any part of it. So here is legislation which will tax people who in all likelihood will never be able to collect.
Then again, consider the amount a person can collect. An insured person is able to draw two-thirds of his income up to a maximum of $100 a week. This is a substantial amount in most regions of Canada. Perhaps it would not keep a person very well in Toronto, but in a lot of the smaller towns $100 would keep a person very well. The minister made no mention in his speech-I admit I did not read all of it-of the number of irregularities which are presently taking place in the use of the present Unemployment Insurance Act. I suspect that the number of irregularities will be tripled, at least, if the bill before us becomes law, and that they will be far more difficult to assess. I say they will be more difficult to assess because of the variations in entitlement to benefit for which provision is made, depending upon the national average of unemployment. This will make the administration extremely difficult.
Another point I should like to deal with before closing is that at the present time one-fifth of the amount contributed to the fund comes from the federal government. The present bill will remove the federal government's responsibility to contribute whenever unemployment falls below 4 per cent. Should the figure exceed 4 per cent, either nationally or in certain regions the federal government would make a contribution. What is the government proposing to do? It is proposing to use this act as a means of directing money to certain regions. The minister nods in the affirmative. The equalization payments

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 which the have-not provinces presently receive are apparently not large enough; the funds which those provinces receive under the regional economic expansion program are not sufficient, and additional methods are being used. I well remember the speech made by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) in connection with the textile industry. He said the government's proposals in that connection meant nothing more than welfare for textile industry workers in the province of Quebec. Here again, in the bill before us, we find payment being directed toward regions of Canada which experience high unemployment rates.
If we really wish to rid the country of unemployment, and I am thinking now of regions where unemployment is what one might call permanently high, it is time we assessed the position nationally in an effort to determine where the best opportunities of employment are available for people who at the present time are more or less perpetually out of work in regions which have a consistently high rate of unemployment. Perhaps it would be better to induce them to go to other regions or to take up other lines of work which would draw them out across the country where greater opportunities will exist for them to reach fulfilment as individuals. Too much of the legislation which has been placed before this House-and the present bill is like the others in this respect-is of a kind which limits scope for opportunity or the desire for advancement. Before passing any bill, hon. members should ask themselves whether it would widen the opportunities available to the average Canadian, whether it would stimulate the desire to seek opportunity. This bill fails to meet these criteria, particularly on the second count, and I therefore hope that when it is referred to the committee it will be subjected to an exhaustive study, that it will be examined to the fullest extent. I should like to think that major changes could be made to it, changes which would result in a more useful bill for those who will have to resort to it, perhaps through no fault of their own, in the years ahead.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Vicioria-Haliburlon):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I do not quarrel with every feature of this bill. But there are a great many features in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Commission with which I should like to quarrel. Let me say, in all fairness to the minister, that in my opinion he is one of the more conscientious ministers in the cabinet. I see his executive assistant has just arrived in the gallery. In face of the massive unemployment we are encountering this winter, the hon. gentleman's executive assistant, on behalf of the minister, has been most co-operative. There are some aspects of this bill which irritate a great many people, not only in my own constituency but elsewhere. I receive a lot of correspondence from people in other constituencies, too.
Getting back to the cost of education, most local school boards will eventually have to raise another 2| to 3 per cent on top of their present commitments to pay for teachers' contributions to the unemployment insurance
fund. Certainly, the minister has picked a very lucrative field in the school teachers. Any insurance company would say he was taking a very good risk because teachers do not expect to be unemployed, especially those in the profession today. Those who are trying to enter the field will probably be unsuccessful so will not be affected by these additional contributions.
In my riding of Victoria-Haliburton, it will cost school boards alone approximately $200,000 or more a year. The teachers do not oppose this legislation because of the extra tax involved, which I grant you is probably benefit-ting the less fortunate people; they are opposing it because the teachers, as a group, are being singled out to pay this tax. It rubs them the wrong way and I can well understand it. The minister is invading the field of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) here.
I have also received letters from municipalities which take objection to this increased cost. All of us know today that the municipalities are limited in the amount of tax dollars they can raise. Now, they are being asked to surrender a percentage of money that they could probably apply to other uses. This money is going to fatten the treasury of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Not long ago I heard one hon. member say that the government has been talking out of both sides of its mouth, on the one hand talking about subsidizing the municipalities, and on the other hand talking about taking money from the municipalities. The municipalities would like to know where they stand. In fact, this is one of the main objections to taxing the teachers.
So much for the teachers. Let me return to the subject of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. A few years ago, in the name of efficiency unemployment insurance offices were moved out of the smaller centres. The government wanted centralization so these small offices were closed and offices were opened in larger municipalities. Then, it was not long before these were closed and the UIC moved to an even larger area. Then, the UIC got involved in the computer field. We were told we had to have centralization so that we could use the computers. Let me say right now, Mr. Speaker, that as far as these computers are concerned I wish they would use them for ships' anchors or something like that. I know of nothing else that creates more problems for the rank and file Canadian who is applying for unemployment insurance.
What happens when you telephone the local office to try and get help for people who are in need? Many of these people do not have any money in reserve, certainly not the less fortunate of whom I spoke a few moments ago, to tide them over the six or eight weeks or even longer they have to wait for assistance. In the case of one of my constituents, after I had contacted the Unemployment Insurance Commission and tried to straighten out his claim I was able to collect $875 in back money owing to him. How many Canadian on the payroll and receiving a cheque every week put money aside for when they are unemployed? This sort of delay illustrates the inefficiency today of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Certainly, computers do not provide the answers.
[Mr. Horner.)
April 21, 1971

The staff of the UIC feed these computers with cards and have to wait three or four days for results. By the time the postal service has handled these complaints another three or four days are lost. On average, I receive five or six complaints a day about the Unemployment Insurance Commission, late payments and disqualifications. Surely, all these people cannot be wrong. After I delve into their problems I usually manage to achieve something like a 95 per cent success rate. If they were wrong in the first place, how could I win their case for them? I must say that I have received a lot of co-operation from the executive assistant to the minister. I do not want to belittle the staff of the commission either, because they have been most co-operative. But their hands are tied by this massive machine which, in its own time, passes out information that is fed into it from the other end.
This is why I was disappointed to hear the minister say today that he was introducing centralization. Efficiency is not closely related to centralization, especially in this field. When this bill is sent to committee, I hope to be present and to bring up some of these matters for the attention to the minister. After all, the people most affected by its provisions are those who can least afford to be.
Another matter I would draw to the attention of the minister concerns the application forms that have to be filled out by persons who become unemployed. Probably these people are not all blessed with an education, and they cannot understand some of these complicated forms. I am sure the minister will admit that we could devise a form more readily understandable by these people. Not all of them have this difficulty but many do. I often help people who come into my office on Saturday mornings to fill out these forms. They tell me: "I do not understand this letter that I got last week telling me I am disqualified, that I do not have enough stamps, when I have been contributing for 20 years". I can produce letters like this. Again, this letter is probably the work of the computer to a great extent.
These are just a few of the matters I wanted to raise. When this bill goes to the committee, I hope serious study will be given to these problems. If so, I am sure we can produce a bill much more readily acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. If the minister speaks now with the consent of the House he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am torn between two responsibilities here. One of them is to get the bill through by six o'clock, realizing that this is Wednesday: the other is answering in the 10 minutes at my disposal the questions that have been raised. Or perhaps these could be left over to the committee stage when I can deal with them in detail. I do not know whether hon. members opposite desire a recorded vote before six o'clock.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
However, I should like to answer the question that was raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who seemed very anxious to get some information about the amount of money in the present unemployment insurance fund that is going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the present time and which draws interest, and will continue to do so. No change has been made in this respect, with the exception that under the new concept there will not be $400 million or $500 million of taxpayers' money always in the fund because the rates will be adjusted annually. The idea is for the whole plan to finance itself as it goes along. Periodically, once a year in November, we will adjust the rates according to the experience of the past year. Once we reach 1975 and the plan has accordingly been adjusted as far as the transitional period for new entrants is concerned, contributions by management and labour will be fairly stable. I have already mentioned on previous occasions that the government will absorb the extraordinary cost features of the plan which come into effect at the 4 per cent level.
There have been a lot of valid arguments made, one of which concerned the administration and service of the UIC. I have already promised, without going into this in detail at this time, that we will be restructuring UIC services when this bill becomes law. This has been a nonpartisan debate in every way because everyone who has participated has been interested in this matter. I assure hon. members that the prime responsibility of civil servants and those people who work in the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be to offer a maximum service to claimants and to the employers. That is the way it should be. In order to do this we will have to reorganize personnel within the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
We cannot have things both ways; that is Members of Parliament constantly coming to us and saying do not change the set-up but at the same time wanting to make changes to benefit people.
I used the word "centralize" today, and I think that may have been ambiguous. I was, however, thinking in terms of certain functions that can be centralized. We will, in general, be decentralizing the offices in order to provide more claimant services to the people. In other words, we will be setting up more offices around the country that will specialize in providing information and assistance to claimants. We have already done this in Toronto where we have opened up five new offices. We have used the phrase "satellite offices", which might not have the best connotation, but the primary objective of the offices is to give service to the customer-the claimants.
Hon. Members of Parliament have a legitimate concern about some of the problems that have created these two and three-month waiting periods before an individual can draw unemployment insurance. In many cases there has been a reason for this, and that is the need to help a claimant build up his claim. Perhaps during the last two

April 21, 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
years an individual has worked for five different employers and unfortunately has lost his own records. The present regulations require him to keep his records. That individual goes from one job to another. At best when we are faced with this situation we have a 50-50 proposition. Many individuals who have been fully employed for years all too frequently just assume they will never be unemployed and forget about their records. Possibly they do not realize their own obligation. An individual of this type will come into an unemployment insurance office and ask for his benefits for 52 weeks which he feels he should draw because he has been employed for four years, but he has no proof of past employment.
Some members have talked about abuses to the fund. If we are to prevent abuses we must at the same time make sure which people are entitled to benefit. This involves a matter of judgment. I could speak at some length about some of the arguments that have been presented, but I am pleased to note that many of the remarks of a member of one party have nullified the remarks of another member of that same party. Some members in the official opposition talked about universality. I believe the hon. member from Halifax endorsed the introduction of teachers into the plan, while others have been opposed. Perhaps if the time were available I might suggest that they read each other's speeches. The same thing happened in respect of the NDP.
I think we have a moral obligation to fishermen. We have helped them out for 10 or 12 years. We must make sure they remain in the unemployment insurance plan until an equal or better plan is devised. There might be a slight difference of opinion in the NDP, but from the contributions to the debate I would have to say that the official stand of that party is to keep the fishermen in the plan as long as there is no better system.
In so far as maternity benefits are concerned, again I think the general position of speakers for the NDP, with one exception, is that we should pay benefits to those people who are temporarily without work as a result of a pregnancy. I might remind hon. members that our research indicates that over a million women in the work force today are there for no other reason than to add to the family income. This sometimes means the difference between poverty and existence. When such a person becomes pregnant, you can envisage the terrible hardship this can invoke on an individual family. Very often the husband is a semi-invalid. There are many reasons for women working. It is too easy to generalize by saying they are working for pin money, for a second television or automobile.
There are many points I could raise. I do not know what the feeling of hon. members is, whether they want me to go beyond six o'clock or provide answers in committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Answer in committee.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will try to answer a few more points in the next three or four minutes. I have had no less than 18 meetings with school teachers' groups. I cannot get overly excited about the concern of boards of trustees. If
I had the time I would indicate the exact additional burden placed on the school board by employer contributions as compared to the wage demands made by teachers over the next few years. I am hoping concern of the teachers is such that they will show some responsibility the next time they enter collective bargaining for increased wages to which, no doubt, they are entitled. When you look at the fact that across Canada the allocation to school boards in various provinces runs to $2 billion, and that out of that this new burden to the school board will be .38 of 1 per cent, that argument is very ridiculous. It is obvious that it has been introduced by certain school teachers in the hope that their trustees might take up the battle for them.
I think it was the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who said quite adequately and eloquently today that all this will fall back on the taxpayer. I admit that. This is the same taxpayer who today finances the Canada Assistance Plan. Under this insurance plan, we will take a burden to the extent of $80 million from the Canada Assistance Plan because the increased benefits will make it possible for people drawing unemployment insurance at lower levels not to have this supplemented by welfare in order to exist. Their unemployment insurance benefits will be high enough to put them past the threshold at which they are eligible for welfare.
I can promise hon. members that they will have an opportunity to participate and be heard in respect of this plan. Our efforts and desires are to help people. We have already arranged to make it possible to overcome some of the limitations of the computer. We will be able to find out within 24 hours why a person's card has been rejected. We are doing this through the use of microfilm and other methods of communication now available.
In so far as making this plan truly universal by covering the self-employed, every country that has an unemployment insurance plan has tried to do this without success. The only place this exists now is in England and it is done there by way of a means test. I do not think we want to introduce that in this country.
We have talked about teachers and professionals. We must remember that many doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers and many other professionals work in large numbers for an identifiable employer, whether that employer be government, private institutions or a collective professional enterprise, and they will pay unemployment insurance. It will only be the truly one-man operation that will not pay. We will even be able to bring in some of those through regulation if we can find ways and means of identifying them, as we have done with the fishermen who are classed as employees rather than selfemployed people.
I do not want to take up any more time and I wish to thank members for their courtesy in letting me get this bill through today. I can understand some members have had to curtail their opportunity to speak. They will be able to take advantage of this opportunity later on. We are meeting tomorrow with the ministers of labour from the provinces on a general basis rather than just in respect of unemployment insurance, so I am pleased to

April 21, 1971

have been given the opportunity to get this bill through today.
I hope I have not missed any point that is of great concern to an hon. member. The matter of the eight weeks has bothered some members. Others have asked why we should adopt the two-week period instead of a period of 10 weeks, 12 weeks or 14 weeks. I must say that this is a matter of judgment. We have not had a chance to talk about it thoroughly here, but we assume that the eight weeks will indicate some attachment to the work force. Everything will be done through claimant services to get people back to work sooner. We have set up test projects in Hamilton and other cities and find we are getting people back to work a week or ten days earlier than previously.
Having regard to the three-week lump sum, I think upon reflection we will probably divide this into two payments within a period of five weeks. I must remind hon. members, in conclusion that the two-week waiting period is a substantial deterrent against abuse. Two weeks waiting period plus three weeks at $100 would mean that one would draw $300 and today one would wait one week and would draw four weeks benefit, or $200 and some odd.
The second thing is, I must remind members that we have eliminated many of the sources of abuse in respect of seasonal benefits. The fact that we are making the unemployment insurance benefits taxable will certainly be a disincentive to those who have attempted to use the fund by living on unemployment insurance during the winter months when conceivably they could find work.
In respect of merit rating, I can only suggest to members of the House who want a good in depth explanation of merit rating and why I believe it is logical and valid that they might read the speech of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), at least that part of the speech where he was honest in his approach and not trying to be politically expedient and all things to all people. At least in respect of merit rating, he expressed his true philosophy as did the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) today who indicated that merit rating will penalize, if you want to use that word, certain industries which in the past have taken advantage of unemployment insurance to subsidize their work force, keeping it immobile and having it ready, willing and able to work whenever the need is felt.
I am thinking particularly of the construction industry. I have no apologies at all for the construction industry.
Business of the House
Upon reflection, it is one which lobbies at every opportunity in this House of Commons against hours, against wages and against various standards. I do my best to accommodate them. I am not unaware of the problems they have and I also am not unaware of the fact that merit rating conceivably could place an added burden on the employers in the construction industry, but since merit rating is not to come in until 1974, 1975 and 1976 there will be ample opportunity in the interval to sit down with recognized employer groups to work out a suitable method of merit rating. We may possibly consider merit rating a construction firm against a construction industry, measuring its performance against the experience of other people in that particular industry rather than industry in depth. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for its courtesy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before you see that the clock is slightly in the vicinity of six o'clock, I wonder if I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would confirm the arrangement I made with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that tomorrow we will deal with the Yukon Minerals Bill.


James Alexander Jerome: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. We propose to call, as the first order of government business tomorrow, the Yukon Minerals Bill and presumably there would be further discussion tomorrow concerning whether we would continue with that item on Friday or go on to the legislation in respect of the Labour Standards Code.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow. I take this opportunity to wish hon. members a very quiet, enjoyable evening and a good night's sleep. I remind them that such benefits are not guaranteed by any paid insurance scheme.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 22, 1971