1975-12-19

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the announcement yesterday with respect to the reduction in government expenditures this year and next, I am sure that all members of the House would want to be sure in some ongoing way that these reductions and expenditures would not inconvenience those who are least able to protect themselves, particularly those living in the disadvantaged regions of the country. Therefore, I hope this motion will find general acceptance. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be instructed by the House to monitor and report, on a monthly basis, any detrimental impact which the alteration of government expenditures might have on the present economic and social development in regions in which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has a responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Since, according to the answer of the Minister of Agriculture to a question directed to him on December 18, 1975, the consumption of fluid milk in Quebec has increased in 1975 and if the same phenomenon had occurred in the other provinces we would not be experiencing such problems today, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That the government draw the attention of the House to a policy aimed at encouraging the Canadian people to consume more fluid milk and that such incitement be accompanied by a consumer subsidy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


RECOGNITION OF RETURN TO CHAMBER OF MEMBER FOR BRANDON-SOURIS FOLLOWING ILLNESS
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with oral questions, I know that hon. members will want to join me in recognizing with appropriate warmth the return to the chamber of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed a few words on this occasion, I have had about four speeches burning in my bosom for the last few weeks. I will not try to unload them all at one time, but I should like to express appreciation, first of all, to you, Sir, for your messages on behalf of all hon. members of this House during my recent illness.
I should like especially to mention messages received from the three leading officials of this chamber. When a person has been through what I have been through in the last few weeks-and I am sure the hon. member for Glen-garry-Prescott-Russell will agree with me in this regard- he thinks about the chamber and the things which are taking place here, and it sort of assumes an ethereal glow. All one can see is the stained glass windows, and reflected in the glow is the halo effect which seems to reside over some figures in the chamber to a greater extent than to others. This was actually substantiated in my own experience because the warmest messages and the messages which showed the greatest concern and personal involvement came from the right hon. Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. member for Prince Albert. That is why the halo effect is stronger around these three people than any other, in my mind's eye.

December 19, 1975
House of Commons
I first became aware of the Prime Minister at the Resources for Tomorrow Conference back in 1961 when he was then a professor. He has demonstrated many hidden resources since that time since he has assumed the responsibility for the leadership of this House. The Leader of the Opposition wrote a most encouraging and helpful note at a most critical time. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, with his great sense of timing-one hour before I went for surgery-sent to my room an autographed copy of his book "One Canada". Believe me, that was a reality to hang on to for the next few days. I think it was Thomas Carlyle who said that if you want to see demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth of original sin, attend a session of the House of Commons. Of course, he was referring to the British house. You might even have it demonstrated here. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a warmth and friendship that you find only in this place and I do appreciate everything that has been done and written and said on my behalf.
I should like to extend a special message to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) who is not with us this morning. He too, made a concrete gesture. He sent me a tape in quadraphonic sound so that the music was coming at me from all sides-and not of an Irish jig but a beautiful tape recording of "The Sound of Music". I was just going to suggest that he make the same gesture to Joe Davidson at this Christmas time because as we all know, music hath charms to soothe the savage breast. A wise man also has said, "Let me write the songs of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."
I should like to mention, too, the staff of the National Defence Medical Centre, one of the finest hospitals in the nation, under the leadership of Dr. Fitzgibbon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Also the staff of the Civic hospital under Dr. Keon. It is one of the finest cardiac centres in the nation and it is going to be in the forefront when the new cardiac unit opens some time in the spring.
Perhaps I might be allowed one final message, Mr. Speaker. On the eve of Christmas I recall an old saying: plus ga change, plus c'est la meme chose. The first message I receive when I come back to the House is the decree of Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. It is not simple, it is not new-it is an old message. I am sure it is more than coincidence that it has been saved for the Christmas period; but we know from history that man proposes and God disposes.
I wind up my remarks by extending the greetings of the thousands of Tiny Tims and Bob Cratchets, the backbone of the nation: A Merry Christmas to all and God bless us all-and God help us all.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions.
|Mr. Dinsdale.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance relating to the tax levy on exports. In view of the tax of 100 per cent on the excess of export prices above domestic prices and the encouragement this would give multinational companies with subsidiaries in countries other than Canada to export from those countries rather than Canada, how does the government propose to offset the possibly disastrous effect upon our exports?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, reflecting on many of the major export industries in Canada, the forest products industry and minerals in particular, I would say that the hon. gentleman's expression of concern would not appear to be well founded.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, about another concern I have. In view of what seems to be the harmful effect of this tax and the probable discouragement to the processing of raw materials in Canada as opposed to multinationals using other countries with a more favourable tax arrangement to process the raw materials, how does the Minister of Finance propose to offset this?
[DOT] (U20)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I do not think that follows. Indeed, the provision for the proceeds of the tax specifically to be reinvested in additional capital facilities we fell will enhance the probability of further processing facilities being constructed in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to make certain I am right. Is it the minister's view that the proposed 100 per cent tax levy on the differential between the domestic and export price on particular exports will not affect significantly potential Canadian exports and not contribute to the already substantial foreign payments deficit which exists in Canada's trade? Is that the government's position?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the foreign trade deficit is related to the impact of recession on our major foreign markets, and the recession there has been very much more marked than the recession in Canada. We do not feel that the expected recovery of exports from Canada, as those foreign markets recover, will be adversely affected by the export levy.


EFFECT OF TAX ON EXPORTS ON EXPORT SALES NEXT YEAR
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Has the minister estimated the extent of the impact of this disincentive on export sales next year and has he any plans to counteract the negative effect of this disincentive on our sales
December 19, 1975
COMMOf^S DEBATES
in what is already a weak international position for Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in making projections I do not think I want to use words like "disincentive" or "negative impact." I have forgotten exactly what the hon. member said. Of course, it is not possible to forecast accurately our exports next year, but my canvassing of the business community leads me to believe they anticipate an upturn, particularly in the United States if, as now seems evident, that nation's economy turns upward, in accordance with the OECD forecast for the United States and Canada. Therefore, 1976 looks as if it will be a better year for exports. By the same token, as things now stand, present export prices are not likely to result in large levies of the particular tax to which the hon. member referred. I shall continue discussions with the export community and help them, through various missions around the world, to take advantage of new opportunities next year and beyond.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister's conversation with exporters obviously took place before the tax was announced last night, does he not feel, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that the tax will be a disincentive for multinational corporations which will tend to send exports from plants in other countries rather than from plants in Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, although the tax itself was announced yesterday, the white paper made clear reference to it. In the two months inbetween I have had extensive discussions with the export community. I would not want to say they are wholly satisfied with the measure. I have not had an opportunity since last night to discuss the specifics of it with them. Generally speaking, it is fair to say that, at the moment, the export community would welcome a substantial increase in the prices available in export markets. In other words, profit margins are not that high at present, and I suspect that is their number one concern, not the tax itself. As for multinationals, to the best of my recollection there was no reference made to this question by any of the major exporters to whom I spoke and with whom the Minister of Finance and I held discussions.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Considering that many people in the country are under the illusion that the government has decided to impose a special 10 per cent surtax on all incomes exceeding $30,000, would the minister confirm that the bill he introduced yesterday will simply impose a 10 per cent surtax on all payable tax in excess of $8,000, and that this will result, for example, in a man earning $35,000, with two children, paying only $10 more?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the exact figures were presented in the House yesterday and are appended to Hansard.
* # *


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the confirmation. May I ask the following supplementary question? Considering that the minister said yesterday that the rich should "shoulder some share of the burden," and considering that the removal of the escalation from family allowances will ensure that low income families will do more than their share of shouldering the burden, the extent of $27 per child, can the minister tell the House if the government will be introducing other measures to increase the burden on the rich?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that with regard to the family allowance, not only does it affect everyone, including the hon. member and myself, as does the surcharge-


John Edward Broadbent: We won't suffer much.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Indeed, we won't suffer much. No one will suffer unduly from either the surcharge or the expenditure proposals of my colleague.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister stated it well when he said that none of us in the upper income group will bear much of a burden.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Since in fact we will not be suffering much or bearing much of the burden, does the minister and the government not think it is time to impose a 100 per cent surtax on all increases in income in excess of the $2,400?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will have recognized from the reaction to his remarks that he did not state honestly what I just said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I said that none of us in Canada will suffer unduly from this program. I wish the hon. member would not try to put words in my mouth.

[TranslationJ


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board following the cuts announced last night.
10192

December 19, 1975
Oral Questions
Can the minister tell the House whether other cuts in other sectors of the economy will be announced soon?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we are continually considering every opportunity that might help reduce the government's expenditure program, but I do not expect any other announcement of this nature in the coming months.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since 40 per cent of the national budget is earmarked for the interest on the national debt, National Defence and civil service, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government intends to review its expenditures for $13 billion more and advocate measures that would help save money where it is wasted at the present time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not checked the figures advanced by the hon. member, but I would be very happy if he would give me more precise indications, namely where there are frivolous expenditures or where money is wasted as he indicates. Such a sweeping statement carries no weight.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have directed my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but unfortunately he is not here. He may have left the country in tears, I am not sure. I therefore put the question to the President of the Treasury Board. It is with regard to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Will the minister clarify if the level at which DREE is being frozen is the level set in the main estimates or whether it includes the supplementary estimates as well? More specifically, can he indicate how these measures will affect the Atlantic region, keeping in mind that virtually all the transportation cuts were with respect to that region.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the amount of money quoted yesterday in connection with the regional economic expansion program is the same as that which appeared in the estimates for 1975-76.
I wish to indicate to the hon. member that, as far as money is concerned, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be authorized to spend, I think, $30 million more that it would have spent otherwise during the fiscal year 1975-76.


REASON REDUCED EXPENDITURES HAVE GREATEST EFFECT IN ATLANTIC REGION-POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the proposed spending reductions announced last night include increasing tariffs for east coast, gulf and coastal services, a reduction in the level of subsidies for the Maritime Freight Rate Assistance Act and the Atlantic Freight Rate Assistance Act and the total elimination of the subsidy on the movement of flour and grain for export through east coast ports, will the minister explain why the cuts in this department were not distributed more equitably or why a particular attack was made on the increasing burden of transportation costs to the Atlantic region specifically?
f Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the review of subsidies for freight rates in eastern Canada is a continuing process. During the past few years we have improved other types of transportation in this area, including those by trucks. As to the second part of the question, the subsidies paid for storing grains in eastern sea ports were for export purposes, which has nothing to do with the local economy of the maritime provinces.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Having regard to the growing concern felt by the four Atlantic premiers and in the light of the result of special studies commissioned by them showing that the principal handicap to effective development in the region is transportation costs and lack of transport facilities, can the minister tell us whether any consultation has been entered into or will now take place with regard to the decision to increase this burden further, totally undercutting any programs or activities carried on by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the issues raised by the hon. member will be discussed at the ministerial level by the Minister of Transport and those responsible in the maritime provinces.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the impact the transportation sections of his colleague's statement will have on the cost of living in the Atlantic provinces, provinces which are already burdened by the highest rate of unemployment and, indeed, the highest cost of living in the country, has the minister undertaken any analysis of the impact these measures will have on the total cost of transportation in the Atlantic provinces? What
December 19, 1975

steps does the government propose to take to offset this impact on the prices of consumer goods in the region?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: It should be appreciated that the greater part of the dollars being retained in transportation cuts in relation to the Atlantic region are on movements of grain for export and therefore there is no impact whatever from that section on any costs in the maritime region. The whole question of the appropriate approach to freight rate assistance in the Atlantic region is one which will be discussed between myself and the four Atlantic ministers. The cut in question here represents a very small portion of the total support being given to freight in that region.


EFFECT OF RESTRAINT PROGRAM ON SALE OF CANDU REACTORS TO ARGENTINA AND SOUTH KOREA
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell us what effect the restraint program announced last night will have on the provision of the two CANDU reactors to South Korea and Argentina bearing in mind that the provision of these reactors will probably cost the Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In the case of Argentina an indication has already been given by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that renegotiation of that contract is now under way. I have not heard from him, obviously, since he has been away in Paris, how those talks are going. As to South Korea, there has been no change to the best of my knowledge in the circumstances which were announced in the House and elsewhere in recent weeks. In other words, as far as I am aware, arrangements for that sale have not been changed in any way.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA
Allan Frederick Lawrence: My
supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Part of the double shuffle we heard last night meant that Canadian National will in future have to raise funds from the private sector. Has the right hon. gentleman given any thought to requiring Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to raise its funds from the private sector as well?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REQUEST FOR RECONCILIATION OF REDUCED EXPENDITURES ON RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE AND POLICY OF REVITALIZATION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Will he reconcile the statement he made recently that in the near future he would announce what he called he called a revitalization policy with regard to passenger rail transportation movement with the reduction by some $10 million of expenditure on transcontinental and other rail passenger services announced last night?


Otto Emil Lang: I did indicate in earlier statements that I hoped to make a broad statement of policy pointing in the direction of the provision of rail services for passengers in Canada early in the New Year. Without any doubt, a certain part of that statement will imply a diminution in certain of the services which are very costly in proportion to the use being made of them. Other parts of the statement, however, will imply revitalization in terms of the purchase of additional equipment which in future years will lead to additional services being provided in a better way. Those two things involve more immediate cuts in some of the losses but at the same time an investment of money in the future for better service where service is retained.

| Translation]


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since the federal government yesterday requested Canadians, especially the poor, to make every sacrifice to fight against inflation, can the right hon. Prime Minister today assure the House that the government will act immediately with regard to several recommendations made by the Auditor General to curtail wastes and duplication still existing in several programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the President of the Treasury Board yesterday announced a great many cuts in the administrative areas themselves. We hope that will prevent the so-called wastes mentioned by the hon. member. However, I can assure the hon. member, knowing his competence and his sincerity, that if he has some particular examples of massive, significant and sustained wastes, I will be very glad to discuss them with him.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary and specific question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Will the government take immediate action about the recommendations of the Auditor General concerning the centralization of control over expenditures in order to prevent waste and duplication?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Treasury Board has already had the opportunity to tell the
21130-2 4'/2

December 19, 1975
Oral Questions
House in the last few days-perhaps the hon. member was not listening at the time-that we intend to implement the majority of the recommendations of the Auditor General. At the beginning of the New Year, the President of the Treasury Board will probably be in a position to present a more specific bill of the House.

\English]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the elimination and cutting back of many government programs announced last night and the indirect effect this will probably have on employment in this country by depressing the economy as well as the statement he made that the cutbacks will perhaps affect those of moderate means, I should like to ask the minister whether or not the government is anticipating more unemployment in 1976. If so, can he tell the House what his projections are?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we think the most important growth factor, as I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, will be the ability of the Canadian export industry to secure an increased volume of exports to foreign markets, a situation which has been restrained by the recession affecting those foreign markets. It is of course, difficult to make a prediction about our own economy while we cannot with ease make a prediction about the economies in those countries to which we provide goods. I might add, however, that according to the OECD analysis there is the prospect of substantial growth in Canada during 1976 and this, of course, would have a positive effect on the employment rate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that the same OECD report also predicted an increase in unemployment, and since the Conference Board has made the same prediction, according to the newspapers this morning, will the government be announcing in the near future any new programs designed to increase employment in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have no such announcement in prospect at the moment.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. With the government increasing expenditures next year by 15 per cent in what will probably be an 11 per cent inflation situation, and in spite of the restraints it claims it is imposing on itself, and with a net increase of 8,000 predicted in the size of the public service, how can the govern-
(Mr. Trudeau ]
ment expect the Canadian public to believe it is honest and serious in its so-called belt-tightening operation?
[DOT] (U40)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question seems somewhat argumentative. I would suggest to the hon. member that he and his colleagues should not at one and the same time argue that we should cut more and then complain about cuts we have already made. I put to the hon. member the suggestion that I put to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi; if he has specific examples of cuts that he would like to see take place that are of any significance, I wish he would state them.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he is the leader of the government and that it is up to him to propose the cuts.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be a very attractive debate but it should be reserved for some other time. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would he put it.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister stand in this House today and say honestly that he and the government are really committed to restraint and are not asking the disadvantaged to bear the greatest burden of the austerity program?


PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF PETRO-CAN RATHER THAN REDUCTION OF OTHER PROGRAMS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question also for the Prime Minister which relates to his request for suggestions. It appears that the total amount that the government projects it will save by the cuts which were proposed last night in useful social programs is somewhere in the vicinity of $1.5 billion. This is the same sum as spent on establishing Petro-Can. In view of the usefulness of some of these programs, why did the government not propose to cut Petro-Can instead, the existence of which is somewhat questionable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting suggestion which perhaps should be taken into consideration in view of the investment that Petro-Can has in Syncrude, which is in the hon. member's constituency.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns putting Canadians to work; it is a yuletide hope addressed to the Acting Minister of the Environment in his fisheries capacity. Would he again raise with Washington the ridiculous situation that excludes Canadian swordfishermen from United States
December 19, 1975

markets? I ask this question on behalf of the residents of the former swordfishing capital of the world, which is in Halifax-East Hants.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Acting Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to reassess our own situation-our own evaluation and standards-and if we can secure a progress report on the matter I am sure we will be able to make those arguments to the United States authorities.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Since the reduction in professional and special services is only 2 per cent of the 1975-76 estimates and the reduction in equipment and rentals is only 5 per cent of the 1975-76 estimates, are the Canadian people expected to believe that the reduction in these areas, two of the most abused areas for unnecessary expenditures, is anything more than tokenism?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the hon. member to be a little more precise because, when they speak of consultants, the opposition often include the whole adult extension course system which is very important and difficult to cut. If he could be precise, I could make him aware of the fact that we already made a cut in this program in July and that we propose additional cuts for next year. Of course, the cost of these programs is also affected by inflation, which means that the reduction is much greater than suggested by the hon. member.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of National Health and Welfare considered the system of family allowance payments in France, where only those persons below a certain income level are eligible to receive payments; and for what reason would such a system not be introduced in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. It was even considered by this House a few years ago but was turned down, thanks to one member of the opposition at that time.
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD   REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF DECISION ON SETTLEMENT WITH IRVING PULP AND PAPER-EFFECT ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to turn down the proposed 23 per cent wage settlement between the Irving Pulp and Paper Company and the Canadian Paper Workers Union, while at the same time approving elsewhere a similar increase for audio-visual technicians, can the minister explain where is the consistency in interpretation of the guidelines on historical relationships and expired contracts by the Anti-Inflation Board?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Board explained its reasoning and reconciliation in its statement, if the hon. member would care to study it.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the explanations are contradictory I would ask a supplementary question. In view of the decision by the Anti-Inflation Board in the Irving settlement to allow a 14 per cent wage increase and the statement made by the chairman of Abiti-bi that even this is too much, would the minister now recognize that, in effect, the companies have given up their obligation to bargain in good faith and that the unions are now forced, in effect, to bargain with the Anti-Inflation Board, something that the government did not want because it would destroy the collective bargaining process?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Since the December and July cuts in the budget of the Farm Credit Corporation are both listed at $20 million, is this December cut of $20 million in addition, or is it simply the July figure repeated?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give a precise answer to the hon. member; I shall try to do so before the end of the question period.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

December 19, 1975
Oral Questions
Industry, Trade and Commerce in regard to the Westing-house matter, White Consolidated and General Steel Wares. In light of the fact that this will be one of the last opportunities that we will have to get a report from the minister on the cabinet committee recommendations regarding involvement of the province and, more importantly, the expediting of the application of White Consolidated, would the minister give the House some report now so we can determine what is happening with the application?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will do my very best. I think the hon. member will understand that as to the substance of the application I am not free to discuss it. As to the timing, I had conversations with Minister Bennett of Ontario yesterday and asked him to speed up as rapidly as he can the representations that the government of Ontario is, of course, entitled to make on this matter. I have also asked the Foreign Investment Review Agency to do the same. Attempting to set a specific time frame is difficult, but I hope that by the middle of January at the latest I will get a recommendation from the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which I can assure the hon. member, as I have assured the Minister of Labour, will be dealt with expeditiously.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer but I think the question that still remains is this. Can the minister without any equivocation whatsoever indicate that these jobs will be saved one way or another?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that one cannot answer that kind of question in the way he suggests. All I can say is that the government-I have also had strong representations from members from the Hamilton area on this side of the House as well-will do everything we possibly can to ensure continuity and maintenance of employment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the communique issued after the meeting in Ottawa on December 15 between Canadian and United States officials on the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area said only that there was a full and frank exchange of views and that talks would resume in the near future, would the acting minister shed a little light on this particular matter and give the House some indication of Canada's position at this point in time?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government's position remains as it has been, namely, that the principle of equidistance should be applied to the delimitation of the conti-
[Mr. Alexander.)
nental shelf off the Gulf of Maine. This principle of equidistance was enunciated at the 1968 continental shelf convention to which both Canada and the United States are parties.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, could the acting minister indicate to the House whether or not the government believes at this point in time that this problem might be nearing resolution and, particularly, whether or not we are moving any closer to a settlement with regard to the claims in respect of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the Alaskan Panhandle and the Beaufort Sea.


Mitchell William Sharp: These are all different problems. Whether or not this principle of equidistance would apply on the Pacific coast as well as the Atlantic coast is a different matter. We believe, in the circumstances, with the limitation in respect of Maine on the Atlantic, that equidistance is the proper principle, but on the Pacific coast there may be circumstances which would decide otherwise.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Because the new policy of the Department of National Revenue is to force employers, who for many years have given their employees a Christmas turkey, to now report the dollar value of such turkeys as a taxable fringe benefit and show this amount on the employee's annual T-4 slip, and in light of the fact that for one company in my riding the tax that the department will collect from these factory workers will be $1.50 to $2 per turkey, may I ask the minister if he estimated the extra revenue that this Scrooge-like policy will produce and because I have been asked by one such company in my riding, namely Spinrite Yarns Ltd. to deliver today to the minister a box of humbugs, which I hasten to do, can the minister tell me if this company is obliged to report the value of this Christmas gift and is that value treated as taxable income in the hands of the minister.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was surprised to find our officials had moved in to gobble up a few of these tax revenues. I think the hon. member should understand that Christmas gifts under a value of $25 are not taxable, except where the individual employer writes them off as an expense of the business. In this case, it would be the Canadian taxpayer not the employer who is making a gift of the turkeys.
December 19, 1975

[Translation J


PUBLIC WORKS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works.
Like all hon. members, last night I listened to the announcement that the Department of Public Works budget would be curtailed by $30 million. Does this mean the 1976-77 budget? If so, can the minister tell the House if the President of the Treasury Board and himself had discussions to determine what the priorities will be within the budget reductions? Also, will the minister respect the commitments he has agreed to in an official letter concerning the renovation of federal property, such as wharves, for example, and can we expect those renovations to be done as planned?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that there were some rather friendly meetings between the President of the Treasury Board and myself. They resulted in the setting up of a new program aimed at the fulfilment of our engagements. The programs which are already being implemented will continue to be but works that we expected to begin may be postponed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank the minister for answering in one of the two beautiful official languages of Parliament. I appreciate that very much.
According to his answer, do I have to conclude that the projects which have been developed and which are known to the minister will be achieved during the fiscal year 1976-77? It is very important for us to know the minister's position in that regard in order that we may give just and reasonable answers to those who are interested in these works.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will have to wait for the estimates in February next year.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Has the RCMP investigated, or is it currently investigating, the case of an egg processor in Montreal who is alleged by the officials of the Department of Agriculture to have bought surplus eggs, which should have been destined for the breaking industry, from the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency at between 20 cents and 25 cents a dozen and to have sold them to restaurants at around 60 cents a dozen and, if so, can he tell the House how many dozens of eggs are involved and whether it is anticipated that charges will be laid against any person in this case?
Oral Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not discuss police investigations in the House of Commons.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General if, in fact, he is aware of any such case discovered by officials of the Department of Agriculture and if so whether any charges have been laid to date in the case.


William Warren Allmand: I can only repeat my previous answer, Mr. Speaker.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware of the steps being taken by C.F. Industries of Chicago to replace its Canadian sources of potash supply, amounting in total to 50 per cent of Canadian output, and if so what steps does the government propose to take to meet this serious situation.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it perhaps for the same reason, but possibly not as extensively, as the hon. member. I did read the news story and did hear about it on the air. At the present moment, I have not investigated the matter as it came to light only today, but I will be glad to look into it.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is he now in a position to reply to the questions I raised on November 25 and December 11 in respect of escapes from penal institutions.


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member involves a certain amount of detail. I recently wrote him a letter outlining the details. I do not know whether he has received the letter. I think the answer would take too long to give it at this time. There have been some escapes in the Fraser Valley, but considering the total number of escapes there has been a reduction in the last few years.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the non-answers I have received up to the present on this matter, can I expect answers to these questions or is the minister's willingness to communicate information as inadequate as is his readiness to effectively deal with the inadequacies in the administration of the Canadian penitentiary service resulting from government policies.

December 19, 1975
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my office has been in touch with the hon. member on several occasions. I have written to him giving the details. There are approximately five or six institutions in the Fraser Valley area. If the Speaker will allow me to give the details in respect of the escapes over the last few years from those institutions I would be pleased to do so.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or in his absence his parliamentary secretary. Can he assure the House that Eldorado Nuclear Limited is not still disposing of radioactive waste in the town of Port Hope or in the immediate area and does he have a report from Atomic Energy Canada Limited on the waste management program carried on by Eldorado Nuclear Limited at Port Hope and if so will he make it available to the House.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance and say that the radioactive material which was dumped in Port Hope was from an old building which was demolished many years ago in the mid-1950s. The Atomic Energy Control Board is reviewing the situation and investigating it. Two actions have been taken to date: first, the St. Mary's school has been closed temporarily while a new ventilation system is being installed; second, the Atomic Energy Control Board and the Ontario Ministry of Health will carry out an extensive radiation survey in the community. A report is being prepared for the minister on the matter and we expect it to be released at the beginning of next week.


INDUSTRY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the government has decided to exercise its option to purchase Canadair, may I ask the minister what disposition the government proposes to make of this company. Does it intend to operate it as a separate Crown corporation or amalgamate it with de Havilland, or, when it brings it into a viable economic situation, to dispose of it to someone else?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not in a position to answer all these questions, but I can tell the hon. member that the closing date on the exercise of the option is January 5, and that various legal steps are now being taken. It is my intention to put in, for a brief period of two, three or four weeks, an

interim board of directors to replace the present board, although there may be some members retained. In that period I will be making certain decisions with regard to the questions which the hon. member has raised, once I have had the opportunity to consult with the authorities in the aerospace industry and some of my colleagues as to whether there will be an amalgamation, whether we would continue to operate them separately, or various other permutations that are possible on those plans.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister whether this means that the government is acquiring Canadair without any clear cut policy as to how it is going to fit into the aviation industry in Canada, and will he undertake to make a statement in the House as soon as the government has reached a decision regarding this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In answer to the first point, we have a clear cut plan. Obviously, it is to have Canadian control over the aerospace industry. My answers were on the rather narrow point of what would be the corporate structure which would be most advisable, and there are differences of opinion as to whether they should be retained as separate entities or amalgamated. But when the appropriate moment arises, I will be glad, either in the House or wherever is most appropriate, to indicate what our intentions are in this regard.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this may be one of the last opportunities I have before the Christmas season, and in view of the fact that the charade which has been going on for the last two months in Canada is pretty well exposed as being the wrong course for Canada, would the Prime Minister give serious consideration over the next three or four weeks to re-examining the whole course that the government is taking because I believe it is heading us toward a recession, and would he turn the whole program of the government around into one of expansion so as to give the government time to get at the basic cause of inflation, which this program is not doing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that, although he seems to differ from some of the financial critics in his own party, his concern is one which is shared by this government. I would point out to him that when he suggests the need for expansion, the federal government has had expansionary budgets. It has one now, and the forecast which the Minister of Finance has been giving is one of a substantial budget deficit, which means an expansionary budget. Therefore, I thank the hon. member for his support. I take his warning seriously and will give consideration to the matters he suggests, but I suggest he might have some missionary work to do in his own party.
December 19, 1975


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Have any officials or colleagues of the Prime Minister referred him to the speech I made on Bill C-73 outlining four or five points in attacking inflation? Has anyone referred this speech to him for his examination as a serious proposal of how we can get at inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, but I thank the hon. member for drawing it to my attention. I will look at it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate concurs in the first and second amendments made by this House to Bill S-10, an act to amend the Feeds Act, but has amended the third amendment.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table the report of the Law Reform Commission on evidence.


TABLING OF REPORTS OF TEXTILE AND CLOTHING BOARD
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table two reports from the Textile and Clothing Board, in both official languages; the report on an inquiry respecting hosiery, including toe-socks, and the report on an inquiry respecting work gloves.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-421, to amend the Criminal Code (sporting events betting).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, in fact this bill complements Bill C-419 which I introduced recently and which was passed on first reading on Friday, December 5.
Form Reform Act
Its prime objective is the same, namely to give the province of Quebec new sources of income to finance the Olympic Games deficit. The explanations already given also apply to this bill.


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

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-422, an act for the control of forms in the public service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill is appropriate today, in light of the government's announcement of its program of restraint last night. The purpose of this bill is to afford some degree of control over an evengrowing variety of governmental forms. The bill applies to the multitude of governmental forms, questionnaires and the like, inflicted upon the citizens of our country, and also to internal documents. To the very substantial number of average Canadians affected by the bill, this is my small way of saying "Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year".


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

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-81, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act with respect to the escalation of certain payments thereunder.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up the business of the House with a procedural argument today, but I think that perhaps we might proceed with this bill on the basis of its being without any prejudice to raising the procedural argument when we return after the Christmas recess. The doubt I will entertain, if I might briefly forewarn the Chair, when it comes to dealing with the procedural matter after the Christmas recess has to do with this particular matter having already been dealt with in a bill passed at this session of the House. Since I will be alleging that the matter has already been decided in this same session, the manner in which the government is proceeding now is rather doubtful.
If the Chair and the government goes along with my presenting a procedural argument after the recess, I will be referring to May's Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edi-

December 19, 1975
Order Paper Questions
tion, pages 362, 363, 364, 376, 378, 379, 480 and 481, as well as to the Interpretation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there are two reasons for deferring the point in that it concerns the repetition of a decision of this House. In any case, it may be that the argument which might be raised has been somewhat anticipated by the Chair. It may very well be that that argument is more relevant to second reading than it is to first reading. In any case, it would seem advantageous for all sides that the argument should be referred to at some time later than today. Therefore, with the concurrence of all hon. members, this proceeding will be a matter of forewarning and we will give the bill first reading today.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[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.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,895 (supplementary), 3,277, 3,345, 3,606 and 3,705.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,895-Mr. Rodriguez: (Supplementary)
1.	In each year 1960 to date, how many applications for certificates of Canadian identity were (a) received by the Passport Office (b) refused on security grounds or for reasons not disclosed to the applicant "for reasons of public interest"?
2.	For the same years, how many such certificates were granted?
3.	For the same years, how many applications for Canadian citizenship were (a) granted (b) rejected on security grounds or for reasons that were not disclosed to the applicant "for reasons of public interest"?
4.	For the same years, how many individuals were (a) refused entry to Canada (b) deported on grounds for reasons of national security?
5.	For the same years, how many individuals were served certificates designating them as risks to national security?
6.	For the same years, how many applications for landed immigrant status were refused for reasons of national security?
7.	For the same years, how many individuals seeking to enter Canada as refugees were refused entry for reasons of national security?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, the following is the asnwer: 1, 2 and 3. See Hansard 199, Page 8883, November 5, 1975.
4. (a) In immigration legislation there is no way to refuse entry to a person seeking to come into Canada other than through the report-inquiry-order of deportation process. In cases where persons realize they will be subject

to an inquiry and possible deportation they may be allowed, should they so request, to withdraw their application thereby obviating the stigma that is attached to such an order. Although such instances may be loosely referred to as refused entry this has no basis in law and statistics in such cases are not maintained, (b) Deported on grounds for reasons of national security: 1960, none; 1961, none; 1962, none; 1963, none; 1964, none; 1965, none; 1966, 2; 1967, none; 1968, none; 1969, none; 1970, none; 1971, none; 1972, 1; 1973, none; 1974, none.
5.	In accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Immigration Appeal Board Act, the following are the number of Certificates prepared for the Immigration Appeal Board since its inception in 1966 concerning individuals considered to be risks to Canada's national security: 1966, none; 1967, none; 1968, 2; 1969, none; 1970, 4; 1971, 6; 1972, 5; 1973, 8; 1974, 4.
6.	Statistics not maintained prior to 1967. 1967, 996; 1968, 471; 1969, 198; 1970, 314; 1971, 333; 1972, 141; 1973, 89; 1974, 217.
7.	Statistics concerning refugees refused entry to Canada for reasons of national security are not maintained.


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	Has the Department of Public Works made any expenditures in the Constituency of Villeneuve and, if so, what are the amounts for (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (e) 1968 (d) 1970 (e) 1971 (f) 1972 (g) 1973 (h) 1974 (i) 1975?
2.	For each of the projects carried out in the Constituency what is the (a) name (b) amount granted (c) year the project was initiated (d) year it was completed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far
as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. Government of Canada policy requires that financial records be retained for a period of only six years. However, the scheduling for retirement and destruction of obsolete records frequently results in some of them being available for a little over the six-year period. In this instance, the available records will permit a reply in respect of a seven-year period, the details being as follows: (c) 1968-69, $72,393; (d) 1970-71, $135,529; (e) 1971-72, $143,615; (f) 197273, $324,967; (g) 1973-74, $123,007; (h) 1974-75, $82,926; (i)
1975-76 to September 30, 1975, $39,602. Total Expend-	Year	Year2. Location and Description Cadillac-Improvements to	iture	Initiated	Completedthe Post Office Cadillac and Chapais- Modifications to the	$ 7,301	1971-72	1971-72heating system Lac Castongier-Construc-	5,990	1971-72	1971-72tion of a ramp Lac Fiedmont-Construc-	6,915	1972-73	1972-73tion of wharf Lac Fiedmont-Construc-	13,993	1968-69	1968-69tion of ramp Lac Lamothe (Lamothe)-	6,929	1972-73	1972-73Repair to Breakwater Lac Malartic-Construction	10,424	1973-74	1973-74of a Ramp	5,961	1968-69	1968-69
December 19, 1975

Location and Description	Total Expend- iture	Year Initiated	Year CompletedLac Malartic (Heva Riv.)- wharf repairs	8,031	1973-74	1973-74Lac Parent (Senneterre)- ramp repairs	7,351	1971-72	1972-73Lac Preissac (Cadillac)- wharf repairs	5,810	1970-71	1970-71Lac Quevillion-Construction of a wharf	20,781	1971-72	1972-73Lac Tiblemont (Senneterre)-Renovations to wharf	15,564	1970-71	1970-71Malartic-Replace windows	23,559	1970-71	1970-71Malartic-Modifications to electrical system	15,318	1968-69	1968-69Malartic-Repairs and air-conditioning	9,500	1970-71	1970-71Riviere Bell (Senneterre)- wharf repairs	7,896	1972-73	1973-74Senneterre-Modifications to Heating System	7,951	1971-72	1971-72Val d'Or-Roofing	12,581	1971-72	1971-72Val d'Or-Modifications and airconditioning	266,783	1969-70	1973-74


Mr. Coates: 1.	For the years 1975-76, how many persons employed by the Public Service are on (a) a full-time (b) a full-time but non-permanent (c) a part-time or seasonal basis?
2.	In each case, what were the figures for (a) 1970-71 (b) 1971-72 (c) 1972-73 (d) 1974-75?
3.	In each case and, for the same years, what was the total payment in salaries and wages?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
The information we have does not contain any data on temporary employees employed for less than 6 months. On June 30, 1975, the following were subject to the Public Service Employment Act: (a) 24,000 full-time permanent employees; (b) 16,814 full-time temporary (more than 6 months) employees; (c) 7,327 part-time or seasonal temporary (more than 6 months) employees.
2.	According to the Public Service Commission Annual Report, the following were subject to the Public Service Employment Act: (a) On December 31, 1971: 197,260 fulltime permanent employees; 10,533 full-time temporary (more than 6 months) employees; 8,695 part-time temporary (more than 6 months) or seasonal employees, (b) On December 31, 1972: 207,769 full-time permanent employees; 15,495 full-time temporary (more than 6 months) employees; 7,492 part-time temporary (more than 6 months) or seasonal employees, (c) On December 31, 1973: 222,550 full-time permanent employees; 15,944 full-time temporary (more than 6 months) employees; 6,808 parttime temporary (more than 6 months) or seasonal employees, (d) On December 31, 1974: 235,521 full-time permanent employees; 16,051 full-time temporary (more than 6 months) employees; 7,018 part-time temporary (more than 6 months) or seasonal employees.
3.	It is not possible to give the total amounts paid in salaries and wages for these categories from 1971-1974.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since the inception of the Opportunities for Youth Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each approved project in the Constituency, what is the (a) title (b) allocated sum (c) year of acceptance (d) name of the municipality concerned (e) number of jobs which have been created?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Statistics for the Opportunities for Youth Program prior to 1975 were not maintained on a constituency basis and thus the total amount of funding to the constituency since the inception of the Progam cannot be determined. Under the 1975 Program, however, a total of $116,912 was contracted to projects in Champlain.
2. (a), (b), (c), (d) et (e) See statement following. (This information is available for the 1975 OFY Program only.)
Insert Question 3606
Number
1975 Project title	Amount of funding	Location	of Jobs CreatedInouk	$6,435	Pointe-Bleue	7Projet Embellissement	5,940	Odanak	6Indian Truths	6,875	Maniwaki	7Native Cultural Activities	4,895	Winneway River	6Animation Com-munautaire	4,190	Notre-Dame-du-Nord	6Recherches autoch-tones	7,320	Montreal	5Organisation de nouveaux endroits recreatifs	5,580	Obedjiwan	8Bewkobewk	5,000	Weymontachie	8Summer Fun	4,610	Caughnawaga	6Inuit Project	7,447	Payne Bay	10"WOW" (l'oeuf)	13,794	Sag-Lac-Cote-Nord	9Local Junior Power	12,705	Port-Nouveau-Quebec	10Meeting Place for the Young people	12,929	Wakeham Bay	9Kiweatise	7,455	Village Pikogan	10Build an office building	5,808	Inoucdjouac	6Putjuna'75	5,929	Ivujivik	15


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to re-establish a separate Department of Fisheries and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The office of Minister of Fisheries for Canada is provided for in the Department of the Environment Act, 1970 and it is not the intention of the Government to propose changes in this arrangement at the present time.

December 19, 1975
Business of the House


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,605 and 3,645 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since the inception of the Local Initiatives Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each approved project in the Constituency, what is the (a) title (b) allocated sum (c) year of acceptance (d) name of the municipality concerned (e) number of jobs which have been created?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cyr: 1.	Since the inception of the Local Initiatives Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Gaspe and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each approved project in the Constituency, what is the (a) title (b) allocated sum (c) year of acceptance (d) name of the municipality concerned (e) number of jobs which have been created?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at this juncture it might be advantageous if I asked the government House leader his intentions with respect to the business of the House today and perhaps somewhat into the future.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the House leaders about the conclusion of the business before the House pending an adjournment motion being accepted. Perhaps I could begin by saying that the government will require, before the adjournment, the disposition of three bills which are now before the House: Bill C-69, Bill C-77 and Bill C-52. All these measures must come into effect before the end of the year. Therefore, this is the basis upon which we are planning.
Bill C-69 is now at report stage. I believe there is some hope that we might complete the report stage today. At any rate, I think we should be working in that direction. However, before calling Bill C-69, for one consideration

alone apart from any other, that is, the desirability of getting as many bills as possible to the other place so that they can be disposed of before we adjourn, I am calling the report stage of Bill C-77 as the first order of business today. It may be there will be a disposition, also, to give third reading if the debate is not prolonged. I would then call Bill C-69. If we do complete report stage today on Bill C-69, there is, I hope, a unanimous disposition to sit tomorrow to complete all business. These are all very tentative plans at the moment, but I thought it would be useful to have these various possibilities before the House at this time.


Walter David Baker: In the event that the disposition to sit tomorrow is generally accepted, would it be the intention of the government to adopt Friday hours for tomorrow?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If, indeed, it does seem useful to meet tomorrow to avoid coming back next week, the motion I would put forward would be for Friday hours with the exception of private members' business.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has reported faithfully on the discussions which have taken place. I suggest that if we were to have further discussions later, we could well work things out. That, of course, remains to be seen. My main reason for rising at this point, however, is to indicate to the House, as I think I should, that when Bill C-52 is called there is one major point of order I shall be raising with respect to some of the proposed report stage amendments.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, once again we are aware of the urgency, for the House to adopt as soon as possible a procedure establishing a schedule of its business for a whole year.
There are certain things I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker; I felt that all members agree with this suggestion, but nothing is done. There are certain things with which we totally disagree, and still the House takes actions. At least we should be informed in advance of the procedures used for the matters on which we have total agreement, and I think it is normal to wonder about the length of sessions and the adjournment dates to enable families to get together, particularly at Christmas. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have quite a large family and I would like to see them. It is the only opportunity I have during the year and I think it is the same with the others too.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore fully agree that we should sit tomorrow to avoid travelling uselessly. And if we can adjourn tomorrow night, I shall have the impression that I have contributed to give all my colleagues the opportunity to go back home and do things that are very personal during the days which precede Christmas. I dare say everybody understands.
December 19, 1975



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-77, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview) moved:: That Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be amended in clause 1 by striking out lines 4 to 6 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the rentals to be charged by the owner of the rental housing project shall be established by the corporation and that in so establishing and reviewing such rentals the corporation shall have regard for the probable family income of the lessees of each family housing unit;"
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment I have moved on behalf of our party is very important and crucial in order to help solve the serious housing crisis we have in Canada today. I am sure all of us would agree that the serious housing problem is really in three areas: supply, interest rates, and price. The solution the minister has adopted with regard to these problems is through the Assisted Home Ownership Program by the use of subsidies. He hopes to solve the problems of high interest rates and price by giving subsidies to a certain group in the country so that they may be better able to buy homes. May I point out to the minister and to members of the House that the subsidy approach to AHOP will not solve the serious housing problems we have today; it will not solve the problem of supply, interest rates or price, and in fact will be of very little significance with regard to these three main problems.
The reason it will not help the problem of supply is that the land is in the control of the builders and developers who may release it at at a time appropriate to them when they can make the highest possible profit. With respect to interest rates, the minister and the president of CMHC have told us that there will be no decline in interest rates in 1976. Probably the prevailing rate of 12 per cent will apply through 1976 and will afford no protection or help to people who buy homes. With regard to price, we have seen a significant increase in the price of homes right across the country. In the city of Toronto the average retail price of a home is now $69,600, and the average price across the countrv has increased from approximately $41,000 to $45,000.
We do not believe that the subsidy approach to AHOP will solve the difficult problems we have. In fact, if you look at the housing situation in Ontario and consider the $500 first home owner grant that the minister provided up to the end of October to assist purchasers, and the $1,500 grant given by the government of Ontario to stimulate
National Housing Act
house purchases, you will find in any serious study that the total grant of $2,000 just increases the price of homes in Ontario by that amount. The best evidence we have is the limits the minister released as proposed under the AHOP program. This year, in Toronto, the rate was $43,000. The new rate that the minister proposes is $47,000, an increase of 9 per cent. I could go across the country using the minister's table to show that the price with regard to AHOP purchases must be increased so that the program can be of advantage. In Montreal, the price has to be increased from $29,000 to $31,500. In Ottawa-Hull, the price has to be increased from $35,000 to $38,000. In Winnipeg, from $33,000 to $35,600; in Lethbridge from $28,000 to $31,000; in Prince George, from $37,000 to $39,000; and in Yellowknife, from $39,500 to $43,500.
In other words, for the minister to make the AHOP program work under his subsidies, the price limits have to be raised in various regions across the country. I do not think that proposal attacks the high prices that we have. We in the New Democratic Party say that the problem of housing has to be attacked in three main areas. First, with regard to the cost of land; second, with regard to high interest rates; and third, an increase in public housing. We see no evidence that the minister is acting to bring down the high cost of land. In fact, if anything, the price of land will increase in the coming year. I have already said that the prevailing interest rate of 12 per cent will obtain during 1976. If you were to follow HUDAC, the interest rate would go to 123/i per cent or 13 per cent, which would afford no help to the average person.
I have said that the third objective is to increase public housing. The minister has travelled through Europe and has seen the great strides they have made in public housing. I have done the same. In the early part of this year I was in Sweden. I spoke to the chief government architect, who told me of the serious problem they had and the approach they took. That was to tremendously increase public housing, and they now have sufficient. I saw some buildings with three and four vacant apartments, which contrasts to the low vacancy rate we have across this country. I am sure the parliamentary secretary and the minister will agree that the vacancy rate is 1.2 per cent, so this is a very serious problem.
This indicates the necessity of increasing the amount of public housing. I have pointed out to the minister that in the CMHC budget of 1972 the allocation to public housing was 37.3 per cent, and in 1974 it dropped to 19.2 per cent. This indicates that the minister had downgraded public housing in the total housing picture. He has promised me that there will be a significant increase in the 1976-77 budget for CMHC. Mr. Speaker, I have no faith in this government increasing the allocation with regard to public housing. After hearing the speech on restraint last night that put the burden on the ordinary and poor people in this country, I am sure that when the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) presents his budget to the government they will apply the same type of restraint which they indicated last night and there will be very little change in the moneys allocated to public housing.
This is why we in the New Democratic Party want action with regard to public housing. This is why we have brought forward this amendment to help people in respect

December 19, 1975
National Housing Act
of public housing. I should like to read the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and indicate the essential part of it. It reads:
(a) the rentals to be charged by the owner of the rental housing project shall be established by the corporation and that in so establishing and reviewing such rentals the corporation shall have regard for the probable family income of the lessees of each family housing unit.
With regard to the minister's approach on private limited dividend housing, he has made a major shift in philosophy. Prior to Bill C-77, the formula for rents of private limited dividend housing took into account the family income of the tenants. The minister has now completely abandoned that principle and has left it to the developer and builder to determine; he has completely ignored the family income of the tenants. The minister and CMHC have had a particular experience with regard to determining rents in public housing projects and public limited dividend projects. It is the government that determines the rents. Two factors determine rents in such projects: cost and, more importantly, the tenant's family income. It is possible, by using this method, to work out a tenant's rent quickly and efficiently.
What has the minister done, Mr. Speaker? He has abandoned this approach to private limited dividend housing and will depend on the builder to determine rents. He is telling the builder, in so many words, to ignore totally the family income of tenants in a project, saying that the cost to the builder shall determine rent and family income is to be ignored. I cannot understand why the minister took this approach. I suppose he feels he must do it to stimulate private limited dividend housing. But should this be done by giving builders and developers subsidies and letting them determine rents on the basis of cost?
This is a tremendous price to pay for increasing the number of housing units in this country. We ought to build public limited dividend housing with controls vested in CMHC. The corporation should determine rents on the basis of cost and family income. Our amendment, if passed, would do just that. I hope that the minister, in the spirit of Christmas generosity-


John Edward Broadbent: No hope.


John Gilbert: -will admit that his approach is mistaken. I hope he will say to builders and developers, "Our approach in this field is to be the same as the approach we took in the field of public housing, and in computing rents you must consider costs and the tenant's family income." As it is, the minister is being generous to builders. Unit subsidies have been increased from $900 to $1,200. The time-span on agreements has been limited. I believe Bill C-77 mentions 15-year agreements, but the minister said in committee that on average they will run for ten years. Some limited dividend builders have been helped with 8 per cent mortgages and other means.
The minister has been generous to builders but apparently has ignored the needs of tenants. He met tenant association representatives in Toronto, assured them he will consider their difficulties and examine the kinds of rent increases owners are imposing on private limited dividend units, but so far he has not acted. You can say one thing about the minister: he is kind-hearted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: But kindness alone is not enough. The minister must acquire, and use, a certain toughness when dealing with builders and developers. That is the advice the NDP gives the minister.


Mr. Orlikow:: He will not listen.


John Gilbert: If he yields to the builders and developers, costs will remain high, homes expensive, interest rates high and Canadians, especially the young, will be saddled with $40,000 or $50,000 mortgages repayable in 25 or 35 years at $400 or $500 a month. I do not think for a moment the minister wants this situation to continue.
I ask the minister to treat private limited dividend housing as he treats public housing. His approach to both types of housing should be the same. If it is, he can expect the support of the people of this country and the co-operation of tenants in his efforts to solve our serious rental difficulties. The minister asked provincial ministers of housing to impose rent controls and, by and large, most provinces complied. If the minister opposes our amendment and allows the bill to pass as printed, the owners of private limited dividend housing will determine rent on the basis of cost. You can be sure that rents will go sky high.
In addition, the rents of such new units to be built will not come under provincial rent controls. That is why we brought forward this amendment. We suggest that the minister should, for the sake of fairness, uniformity and consistency in the field of limited dividend rental housing, allow Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to exercise control and use cost and family income as factors in determining rents. I hope members of this House, especially members from Toronto, will support this amendment.


John Edward Broadbent: Especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).


John Gilbert: Yes. The minister represents a constituency suffering a serious housing shortage. Probably there are more public rental units in his constituency than in any other constituency in Toronto. I hope the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will persuade the Minister of Finance to lend support to our efforts to end the rip-off by builders and developers of low income people. I ask all hon. members to support the amendment.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). I think he knows that our budget will provide for much increased public housing, non-profit housing and co-operative housing this year as a result of the private assisted rental program. I was rather hoping that builders were listening to his speech because he made the program sound so good that it would encourage more builders to rush into the scheme instead of building apartments. I know the hon. member raised this matter in committee; we discussed it in committee because it concerns us all.
The object of the bill is to get more low rental accommodation on the market. The test involves the rental agreement with CMHC and the developers which is entered into to make certain rents are kept down. In this way, people
December 19, 1975

with limited income can be assisted. I point out that the income test remains separate from the agreement. Indeed, the program is to be implemented on a regional and municipal basis, and we hope that municipalities will especially designate a number of these units for public housing tenants who may live in the projects and take advantage of subsidies which we share with our provincial partners. I am referring to rental supplements which will assist these people. We did not want to continue a type of ghettoization which is not attractive. At the same time, we want to encourage construction which will bring low rental accommodation onto the market. The test, of course, is the agreement whereby rents will be kept low.
If there is a further social need we will, of course, look after it with various programs which have been, and will be, increased in all provinces. We do not intend to slow construction; indeed, we want to accelerate construction of low rental accommodation. That is the object of the bill and that is why, I am afraid, we must oppose the hon. member's amendment although we realize his deep concern.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add only a few remarks on the amendment before us. I consider it very commendable in itself because it is aimed at protecting the rights of heads of families to housing at a price in line with the family income.
However, I would like to add that there are two considerations to keep in mind when it comes to housing. Of course, it would be desirable that each head of family in this country own his house. In the present economic context I consider it is less and less possible for a number of heads of families to reach that objective.
In the circumstances it is perfectly normal that some owners build housing units and rent them to make a certain profit. I witnessed unfortunate situations sometimes where tenants have no respect for the property in which they live-but I suppose those are exceptions. When those people neglect to take normal care of the property it deteriorates and that necessitates costly repairs by the owner which brings him to ask for higher rents.
I think there is a whole education to be done in that respect in this country and I am convinced that there are still possibilities of an agreement between owners and tenants, that they do not look upon one another as opponents but, on the contrary, as people living in a common environment and both doing their best to earn an honest living.
I think that the proposed amendment is intended more particularly to protect the tenant against certain abuses that may have occured in the past, that may reoccur in the future. The amendment suggests precisely that the lending institution be there as a judge to safeguard the rights of the tenant with respect to the rent being related to the family income.
Mr. Speaker, with the restrictions that were announced yesterday by the head of the government I think we are going to witness situations and difficulties with respect to housing, relationships between owners and tenants. I fear
National Housing Act
a lot a deterioration of the situation in that regard. However, I think that the minister understood the merits of the amendment. My suggestion is to follow very closely the recommendations and the actions of the corporation's officials concerning the rights of occupants, without neglecting the rights of the owners.
I submit the minister has very heavy responsibilities because he must, so to speak, compromise between those who have to live in rental accommodation and those who own the building and must make it a healthy and acceptable environment in our present society, while deriving certain profits from it.
I believe one of the major factors for the serious owner tenant problems is the tremendous cost builders are facing, the excessive interest rates. That pervasive factor also has an impact on inflation. Mr. Speaker, we have been making this point a number of times in this House because we believe this is a most serious matter. I hope some day the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) and his cabinet colleagues will introduce some legislation that will put a stop to ever rising interest rates, so that the government and private projects may cost less. This would tend to improve the current social environment.
Although I would have a lot to say on this, I have no wish to make extended remarks because this legislation must pass as soon as possible. However, we must act within reason.
As far as I am concerned, I am therefore inclined to support the amendment although it should include a provision to protect the rights of owners.
But anyway, it must be accepted as it is, and I am ready to support it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it being ten minutes to one o'clock, and it being known that there are a number of members involved in luncheon

December 19, 1975
National Housing Act
engagements, and so on, I wonder if the House would agree to defer the taking of this vote and have it taken at the same time that we take the deferred votes with regard to Bill C-69.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should be more explicit. The point or order is that the vote should be taken at the same time as some other vote. At what time? This was not absolutely clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I deliberately refrained from specifying a time because that might produce an argument. I thought there could be consultation through the usual channels to decide when to call in the members. There are already two deferred votes with regard to Bill C-69. There might be another. If we refrained from taking this recorded vote now, I think we could come to an agreement to take all of them at the same time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I understand correctly, the taking of this vote will be deferred until the deferred votes on the motions related to Bill C-69 are taken later this day or tomorrow. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit concerned about the indefiniteness. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is able to say whether we should do it at the time suggested by Your Honour in your last remarks or, in any event, no later than three o'clock this afternoon? Is that agreeable?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees to that, we will agree.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, we agree to doing this exactly as suggested by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it finally agreed that the vote on the motion of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) on Bill C-77 stands deferred until the vote is taken on the report stage, the deferred votes on motions to Bill C-69, but no later than three o'clock this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this meets the wishes of all of us. I merely suggest that if we are still debating Bill C-69 at the point when the members are called in, we take all the recorded votes that have been deferred up to that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 12.52 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 18, consideration of Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, before we were interrupted last night for the evening performance which has since been variously described as a "con game" or a "shell game", I was dealing with the clause in the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments having to do with alteration of the bench mark. I would be happier to accept the arguments put forward by government spokesmen in this connection if the government had made certain changes in the act designed to make it more truly an insurance plan.
I should like to put on record the results of an analysis showing how payments were disbursed in 1974. It really turns out to be a gigantic transfer system from one part of the country to another. Benefit payouts in 1974 amounted to approximately $2,100 million-if costs of administration are added, the total figure comes to approximately $2,300 million. Approximately $1,600 million was raised by employee-employer deductions, leaving some $700 million to be drawn from the federal treasury. This works out, on the basis of an even tax adjustment, to approximately $30 million for every million people.
Some comparisons showing the extent to which each province benefited are interesting. Newfoundland contributed something like $50 million in employee-employer premiums, and received $114 million in benefit payments to its unemployed. New Brunswick paid approximately $55 million, and received $105 million by way of benefits. Quebec's share amounted to approximately $580 million in payments, while its citizens received $740 million in benefits. Ontario costs to employers and employees are estimated at $900 million; its citizens received $600 million in benefit pay-outs. Relative to their population, the three prairie provinces fared the worst. Manitoba contributed approximately $100 million, and received $50 million in return; Saskatchewan contributed something like $70 million, and received $46 million or so in return; Alberta fared the worst per population, contributing somewhere in the neighbourhood of $170 million and receiving $66 million. I estimate that in British Columbia the amounts paid and the amounts received were approximately the same.
December 19, 1975

An interesting article appeared in the Globe and Mail of December 11 under the heading "Regional unemployment disparities remain at surprisingly constant levels". This study, by Arthur Donner and Fred Lazar, showed that unemployment figures in the various parts of Canada have varied remarkably little over the years, unemployment being persistently low on the prairies and high in the Atlantic provinces. The authors ascribe this state of affairs to two main reasons. The first is that in Quebec and the maritime region there is a high rate of job transfer. They suggest that if regional job turnover differences were eliminated, the unemployment rates in the three high unemployment regions would be relatively lower, ranging anywhere from zero to 20 per cent above Ontario's rate. Further according to the authors of this article it is probable that the highly seasonal nature of employment and job opportunities in the three areas of high unemployment are the cause of this situation.
In my view, this calls attention to a weakness in the plan. A seasonal worker employed for 20 weeks of the year is often as well off financially as one who works for 50 weeks of the year. The present unemployment insurance system is deficient inasmuch as it fails to take into account a worker's total earnings for the year. It also fails to take account of the situation in the prairie provinces, for example, where large numbers of the population are selfemployed and contribute heavily to the fund through the general tax structure without the possibility of benefiting directly since self-employed people cannot claim unemployment insurance.
The survey may also indicate that administrators in rural communities are able to keep off the rolls many would-be recipients by strict use of the regulations. Indeed, it might fairly be said that many workers in rural areas have little chance of drawing benefits under the regulations the commission is presently following. The people affected are very often casual workers. These people are usually in the lower income brackets, working at jobs which, by and large, others do not want-for example, the farm housewife who goes to cook at logging or construction camps. She would be ruled out under the residence rule. She must pay unemployment insurance but has little or no chance of ever obtaining benefits; and, of course, she must contribute to the general tax structure.
I also ask whether the enormous transfer of funds from one area of the country to another to maintain the unemployed is the best method of using our money power. Certainly, if a worker lives in a high unemployment area he is likely to be able to obtain, if he wishes, enough money from short-time work to tide him over the year. It is not hard to obtain work at the average weekly wage in various parts of the country at some time of the year, even if a person has to move out of his home area. For workers who wish to take advantage of this, it seems that there are many built-in disadvantages to moving from an area of relatively high unemployment to an area where the work would be less seasonal and steadier.
The introduction of increased employee-employer deductions, with the raising of the benchmark, might be an improvement if true insurance principles were followed. But these few amendments to the Unemployment Insur-
Unemployment Insurance Act
ance Act are not likely to be very effective. I suggest that we have to take a look at the eight to 16 weeks' employment provision and at whether it is not too generous. If a person is only able to work eight weeks a year, surely he needs assistance other than unemployment insurance. There must be some serious impediment to his finding a job.
In addition, there should be more supervision of seasonal workers in the sense that some effort is made to assess their total working hours and income. It is well known that many companies carry the so-called black book, whereby workers can bank hours and these are taken up when they are laid off in the wintertime. More recognition must also be given the lower paid workers who contribute to unemployment insurance week in and week out and who are never unemployed, so therefore never make use of the system. They still pay their premiums and taxes. Many of these people harbour a great feeling of disillusionment because they feel they are victims of the system. I think the system would be more acceptable and workable if those who are unemployed were given either a bonus or paid lower premiums.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I debated with myself whether I should say anything on this particular amendment before the House, but after listening to the announcements made yesterday and last night I decided it was only appropriate that I make a few remarks. There are two matters that occurred to me arising from the events of yesterday, and they have direct relevance to the bill before the House. I am glad this bill has been examined as thoroughly as it has for the last five days, which permitted the announcements of last night and yesterday afternoon to be made. It tends to put things into proper perspective as far as the members of this party and many people in the country are concerned. This is why I am glad the bill is under scrutiny at this moment.
The two events that occurred yesterday rather intrigued me. The first was the announcement in the afternoon of the surtax by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). One of the fascinating things about the announcement was that for a person earning $35,000 a year with two children, the surtax would amount to $10. That is the kind of restraint I like to see. I really enjoy it because it is an illustration of the problem we are facing. Then we had the announcement last night.
I should like to say something about the comments that floated across the House in regard to this clause. We were told by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that we have to remove the disincentives from the Unemployment Insurance Act, and perhaps, in effect, this is what the minister has done. But I am always amazed at this business of disincentives and incentives. Why is it that we can take $10 surtax from someone earning $35,000 a year, but cannot take more because we do not want to kill his incentive to work, whereas when you give a hand-out to the poor people it is called a disincentive to work. I do not understand that sort of concept.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) is rising on a point of order.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that we have to listen to nonsense when he is speaking on a bill, but when the hon. member has strayed 100 per cent from it, I think the House is entitled to get back to the bill.


John R. Rodriguez: If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) would give as much time to making a speech on the bill, we in the House would appreciate it. Clause 22, which we are trying to amend, changes the benchmark beyond which the government will pick up any deficits in the unemployment insurance fund. We refuse to accept this clause as being relevant at this time. When the act was brought into being in 1971, the benchmark was set at 4 per cent. At that time the minister's predecessor argued that the benchmark ought to be 4 per cent because that was a high enough rate of unemployment and would always act as an incentive to the government to keep the unemployment rate down. That sounded like a very plausible argument at the time, that it was an incentive for the government to keep unemployment below 4 per cent. Now we are to have a disincentive.
Obviously, that figure has not incited the government to do anything to bring down unemployment. How callous is a government that sets out to fight inflation by creating unemployment, by telling the people of Canada that the government would like to keep the unemployment rate below 4 per cent in order to keep the rate down? It did not work then, so the government is proposing to change the benchmark to the average of the previous eight years' unemployment rate. In January, 1976 this will mean an effective rate of 5.6 per cent. If the present rate of unemployment goes up, by 1977 it will be 6 per cent.
What, exactly, is the government doing? It is escaping responsibility that it ought to face. It is redefining unemployment. Each time the government had to go to general revenue for money, it held up its policies to examination by the taxpayers of Canada. It will now escape this responsibility. Nothing the government has done since 1971 indicates to us that it is prepared to come to grips with unemployment. In the committee we were told that 894,000 people collect unemployment insurance. That is a scandalous record for a government which from 1968 to the present time has enjoyed a majority. It just answers for the mistakes it has made and its faulty decisions in running this country. Now it wants to redefine the whole issue of unemployment and therefore escape its responsibility. That is the primary reason we are opposing this.
By redefining the rate of unemployment, the government, in effect, is saying that the employers and employees will have to pick up what normally the government would have paid out of the general revenue of this country which was collected on a progressive income tax basis. The present system, of course, is nothing but a regressive form of taxation. It means that those who are working and the small employers will have to pick up the deficit in the fund. In effect, the government is making these people pay for its mistakes and its bad policies of the past. Who are the people who will have to pay? As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Commission only insures up to a maximum of $8,500. So in effect because most of the working people in this country earn below that

figure they are the ones who will pick up the bulk of the deficit which the government is shifting to their shoulders.
I mentioned earlier the restraint being shown by this government and how it has chosen to fight inflation. We have been told by the government that it has chosen to fight inflation, and we have been given examples. The first example is how tough it intends to be with the high income earners, the $35,000-a year boys. Then we were told about the elimination of the dependency rate in this act. Then there is the matter of family allowances. Last night we heard what they are doing about that. The government is removing the indexing of family allowances. So, while they are patting themselves on the back for having improved the social programs, on the other hand another minister says that they have been too generous and therefore this will have to be cut off because of the fact the programs have been improved. This is the kind of double-talk that creates cynicism among the workers of the country. The policy of the government seems to be that it must make an example of the working people and carry on the fight on their backs. The move to change the benchmark is another example.
Let us look at another example of how we are to fight inflation in this House. We are told that members of parliament will not have an increase in wages, but that does not include the tax-free allowance. It might have been better had this applied to the tax-free allowance because the government would have received 40 per cent from that. This "now you see it, now you don't" policy amounts to nothing more than an attempt to fight inflation on the backs of the poor people by telling them that they must economize in the cause of the fight against inflation while at the same time the government makes no attempt to improve its policies. There is no attempt to establish a full employment policy. While the government to the south is considering a full employment policy, this government does not try to come to grips with it.
We are told we must produce more, as if we do not have the capability to produce more. We are operating on only 80 per cent or 82 per cent of our productive capacity. We have 18 per cent of our productive capacity lying idle in terms of 700,000 people unemployed. Surely, with the expertise and experience the government has, it should not be too difficult for it to improve productivity in this country and bring down inflation. The government, however, will not do that. That is not its purpose.
We in this party are not the only ones who oppose the change in the benchmark. The Canadian Labour Congress has opposed the increase in the benchmark for a very good reason. Again, it is the low income earners who will bear the burden. The result of the increase in the premiums will be something in the. order of 35 per cent to 40 per cent. These increases will bfl'h.orne by the bulk of the working class people in this country who earn $8,500. Those who have incomes above that, those earning $20,000, $30,000, and so on, will get away with the maximum which will be the same as anyone with an income of $8,500 will have to pay in respect of unemployment insurance premiums. This is very unfair. There is nothing progressive about it.
At least under the old system we could hold the government accountable for the hundreds of millions of dollars transferred from general revenue to the unemployment

insurance fund to make up the deficit. Even the progressive items in this bill are not to become effective immediately. They will become effective somewhere in the future. Even those things which are advantageous to the working class people will become a reality on January 1, 1976, but this regressive clause is to become effective on January 1, 1976. If I had my way, we would remain here until January 1, 1976, in order to prevent this clause going through, because it is not fair when we consider the actions of the government over the past and in the last few days in respect of justice concerning any programs.
We on this side of the House in this party, as I have said, are not the only ones who oppose the change in the benchmark. I pointed out that the Canadian Labour Congress opposes it because it is a hidden tax which increases the premiums of the working people between 35 per cent and 40 per cent, while the wealthy get away with a 10 per cent surtax. This is a travesty of justice. The Canadian Council on Social Development also opposes this. That council is much closer to the problems of the working poor than is anyone in this House.
This government has not attempted to do anything about the elimination of regional disparity in this country, the same disparity the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to in 1968 when he said there were two things the government would do. The Prime Minister said that the government would create national unity and would eliminate regional disparities. We are no closer to national unity, and nothing has been done about regional disparity. In my area the unemployment rate is 10 per cent. In the riding to the west, Algoma, it is 20 per cent. We have not seen any policy that is directed toward creating more employment in areas such as northern Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the northern parts of some of the other provinces.
It is interesting to note that all the government can do is throw out terminal programs such as LIP and OFY at the first signs of trouble. The first programs they cut are LIP and OFY, so everyone pats them on the back and they say they always knew the programs were a rip-off.
Here we see a direct attempt to distract the attention of the Canadian people from the real problem, which is, of course, that this government has not attempted to establish any program to create employment. That is why we have such a drain on unemployment insurance. We have said the contrary, that the Unemployment Insurance Act has been an incentive for persons to improve their status in the work force. It has given them flexibility and mobility and it has been a way of making employers improve the working conditions in their plants. It has forced them to improve wage rates and it has been an incentive, in many instances, to improve working conditions and the rate of pay in this country.
What do we find the minister is doing in this bill? We say it is a regressive move because, as I have said before, it avoids facing the issue fairly and squarely. Every year the unemployment rate will be redefined and they will shift more and more of the cost on to the working poor. That is dishonest. At least the other way around they have to come to the committee studying the estimates and justify why they are transferring so many hundreds of millions of
Unemployment Insurance Act
dollars. That way they are put under the scrutiny of the public, of the press and of members of parliament. They could not stand the heat of that kind of scrutiny, so they cooked up this little scheme, probably hatched by their nabobs to get them off the hook, off the griddle. All they have to do is, poof, one amendment, thus redefining the whole issue of what full employment is in this country. But they cannot do that. The problem will not go away. You have to have a pretty big rug to hide things under.
The fact of the matter is that certainly the economy will suffer when there are over 894,000 people unemployed and 700,000 of them collecting unemployment insurance. To me one of the greatest travesties that this House has seen in a long time is to have so many people living off the unemployment insurance fund. To accuse people of ripping off unemployment insurance is to avoid facing the facts. The fact of the matter is that they have embarked on a program which will only exacerbate unemployment in this country rather than create employment.
It seems to me that we have said the poor will be picking up the cost. Certainly the working poor will be picking up the cost, but the poor have no way of passing on that cost because now, with the Anti-Inflation Board in place, a worker is limited with respect to the percentage increase he can have. The employer, on the other hand, if his premiums are increased as a result of a clause in this bill, has a way of getting it back. He can increase the cost of his product. Of course, the Anti-Inflation Board gives him the possibility to do that because it permits the pass-through cost, so he can increase the cost of his product and of course he will. Any entrepreneur will do that. That is why we say that the workers are locked in. They have a government which is prepared to block them from passing on their expenses, but on the other hand employers are quite free to pass on any increased cost to the customers, to the consumers and to the workers. We oppose this clause. We consider it to be retrograde.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


William Arnold Peters: That is the question. This clause of the bill is very important. It takes me back a number of years to the time when we previously discussed the Unemployment Insurance Act and the attitude of the Liberal party regarding their contribution as a government to unemployment. I can remember sitting on a committee together with the Hon. Paul Martin who kept insisting that the Liberal government of the day had always provided money when unemployment became the responsibility of the government.
At that time, the Conservatives were in government and they were resisting the idea of the government putting any money into unemployment insurance. It is interesting to note that the Conservative party continues to feel that way, and so do the Liberal party members, who have always said they were willing to make a contribution when unemployment rose above the normal insurable level.

December 19, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
When the Hon. Paul Martin made clear the stand of his party with regard to unemployment, he said he would go to his office and come back with the exact information. On his return, he informed us about the contribution that had been made by his party on two occasions. We learned it amounted to less than $400,000. If you remember, the talk at that time was that we were heading into a major recession in 1959-1961, but yet that was the contribution which he indicated had been in keeping with the Liberal party's philosophy.
I am of the opinion that the workers of this country can only be guaranteed an insurance program up to a point. I want to note that the exercise we were put through yesterday on the matter of constraints was not at the request of the workers of this country, but because the government wants to handle a totally different problem. In doing that, they will find there will be a fall-out, no matter how big or small it is, which will result in unemployment in this country. When the government takes action which results in unemployment, the worker cannot be guaranteed an insurance against that type of unemployment.
Initially, when we spoke about the level at which the government should put in some money to cover the action they are taking, we spoke about 2 per cent as being the normally expected unemployment rate. The next time the Unemployment Insurance Act was before us, 4 per cent was considered as the normal unemployment rate. Now they have got it up to 5.6 per cent. I suggest that if we look ahead another ten years we might find a 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent unemployment rate considered as normal. If that is to be the normal rate, then it seems to me that the workers might as well stop making any attempt to obtain an insurance program against unemployment.
There will come a time, if it has not already arrived, when the workers will not be able to pay the premium and we will find ourselves in exactly the same position as the farmers who are asked to pay insurance to protect themselves against loss of income, crops or against other disasters. They have arrived at a point at which it is not to their advantage to pay the premium because it is too high and because the return will be too small on it. For the working people to insure themselves against unemployment, which we consider to be normally 5 per cent, is a heavy load to be carrying because it applies in the main to people who are making less than $8,500 a year. They will take advantage of it, and they are paying too high a price in the middle.
Surely everyone agrees that if the government takes action which results in producing unemployment, the government should be responsible. We should be responsible collectively. We cannot expect the worker to make the premium payments when we are proposing, in effect, a solution to another problem altogether. That does not seem to be the kind of insurance workers should be asked to carry.
I am sure some hon. members will say that the worker is not being asked to carry it all; part of the cost is being paid by the employer. Anyone who says that knows nothing about the negotiations which take place between an employer and his employee. When an employee talks to his boss about wages, the whole cost factor of his labour is

taken into consideration. If he does not benefit in one way, he may benefit in another. However, if an employee does not enjoy fringe benefits, some of which are considered to be unemployment insurance compensation, vacation pay and other benefits, he may receive benefits by way of wages. In any case, it is a worker's wage package we are talking about, not a cost to an employer or to the government. The government has said it will give up its responsibility for situations it creates and we are going to have a sliding scale, so that it will continue to go up and the government will not have to worry about it.
Along with the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I was happy to see the government share in the responsibility for unemployment. Perhaps other hon. members were not. Not only does the worker carry the unemployed by way of his contributions, but over a certain level the government has to carry its responsibility. I believe the rate should have stayed at 2 per cent, but it became 4 per cent. The government cannot stand the heat of unemployment at 4 per cent. It now wants to raise the rate to something over 5 per cent and this winter it may well reach a rate of 6 per cent for which the Unemployment Insurance Act is supposed to be responsible.
Premiums will be so high that there will be a violent revolution on the part of the employed against carrying that insurance rate for the unemployed. It is very hard for an individual who is paying high unemployment insurance premiums to realize that, but for the<grace of God, it may be him drawing the benefits, and I am sure he often fails to see the relationship. It seems to me that all hon. members should be concerned that we are taking away the responsibility of the government for providing full employment or employment at as high a rate as it is possible to maintain.
What the government did yesterday was create a situation whereby it will carry on most of the fight against inflation on the backs of the poor, and where changes have been made in this legislation those changes will be detrimental to the poor element in our employment structure. It will apply to the lower income group, and it has been said it will apply to only 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the labour force. It will, and no matter what the level will be, the people at the lower end of the scale will be least able to take any loss.
This government has had a chequered record with regard to unemployment insurance. Much contradictory philosophy has gone into the thinking of the Liberal party since unemployment insurance was initially a request by J. S. Woodsworth in exchange for his support in keeping the King government in power 40 years ago. The thinking of the government has been as tortured since that period of time as it has been in any other philosophical field of which I can think.
If the government wants to get rid of unemployment insurance, it should at least allow workers some time to study another kind of program which will supply them with income support which will be sufficient. There are many workers in this country who would totally change the program, but this government wants to operate the plan and wants to make the changes it is making. The minister can talk about the role of the government in relation to the Canada Pension Plan, to old age pensions and to provincial assistance in such things as medicare,
December 19, 1975

supplementary benefits and other social aspects, but as long as the government wants to relate these things together in its social structure it must assume some responsibility for making contributions when actions it takes in other fields are detrimental to the employment picture in the nation.
Those hon. members who really want to see an unemployment insurance program continue should consider very carefully allowing the government to make the change it is contemplating in the benchmark, and taking away from the government the responsibility of coming as close as it believes possible to providing full employment and assuming responsibility above that amount. Ten years ago 2 per cent was bad, and 4 per cent in 1971 was considered a national responsibility. Anything up to 5.2 per cent presently appears to be satisfactory to this minister. By spring, that rate will probably be 6 per cent. I believe the government has a responsibility. I think, by this amendment, the government would be exercising that responsibility by reinstating the 4 per cent ceiling, which I would consider to be at least double an acceptable figure in a country with our resources if it were operated by a government which provided good economic leadership.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on this motion and on motions Nos. 18, 19 and 20 stands deferred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was an order earlier that we take certain recorded votes not later than three o'clock. Since it is now eight minutes to three, perhaps we could call in the members for the three recorded votes on this bill and also for the recorded vote on the report stage amendment to Bill C-77.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the agreement which was reached. However, I point out that I have another motion on the order paper, and in light of what has occurred with respect to other motions dealing with senior citizens and those who were on the extended benefit period
National Housing Act
with respect to the 75 per cent payment, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to delete motion No. 21 standing in my name.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) be allowed to withdraw motion No. 21 standing in his name?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 21 (Mr. Alexander) withdrawn.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT AND CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION ACT AUTHORIZATION FOR CMHC TO MAKE INTEREST REDUCTION GRANTS, CASH GRANTS, ETC., TO ENCOURAGE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-77, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Gilbert) negatived.


Barnett Jerome Danson: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Later this day.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO ADD NEW CLASS OF INSURABLE EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). That motion has been grouped for the purpose of discussion and voting with motion No. 12, which is in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 16 lost.
Motion No. 16 (Mr. Peters) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 17, which has been grouped for purposes of discussion and voting with motions Nos. 18, 19 and 20.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 lost.
Motion No. 17 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Orlikow) negatived.
Motion No. 19 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.
Motion No. 20 (Mr. Orlikow) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 22 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this motion has neither been put nor debated.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended in clause 38 by deleting subclause (2) at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Subsections 1(2), 9(1) and 9(2) and Sections 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 19,
22, 31 and 36 shall come into force on the first day of January, 1976."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will give the members on the other side a Christmas present. I shall not speak for long on this particular amendment. I believe it is necessary to point out the phoniness of this bill. If there is anything that is cynical in respect of this bill it has to be this particular clause 38.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council rises on a point of order.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but there has been a discussion among party leaders and I believe there is agreement that we should dispense with private members' business if we should reach it, so as to dispose of this motion in respect of Bill C-69.


Walter David Baker: This is agreeable, Mr. Speaker. The private members' motion for debate today stands in the name of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), who has very kindly consented to allow it to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We were prepared to reach this agreement at four o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so we will agree to it now.


Mr. Speaker:: It is of course in the interest of this House, in knowing how to react to this debate, to have this information at this time rather than at four o'clock. Is it therefore agreed and so ordered that private members' business will be dispensed with on this date?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that nothing is more cynical than clause 38. Clause 38(2) clearly defines those clauses of the legislation which will come into effect on January 1, 1976. What are those clauses? They are clauses 1(2), 10, 22 and 31. These are the clauses which eliminate the 65-year olds from coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and which change the bench mark that in effect re-defines what the government considers to be full employment.
What we are attempting in this amendment is to include also in that effective date of January 1, 1976, those clauses which add some manner of progressiveness to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The first of those is the extension of the qualifying period. We are in agreement with that. We feel that in respect of those who have been sick, or in some way disabled, this is a progressive clause which would extend the qualifying period so that they could go back two years to the time before they were so disabled or so taken sick. There was even a private member's bill from this side of the House in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt which would extend the qualifying period. So we admit this is a progressive move and feel that surely it should come into effect on January 1, 1976.
The other clause which we feel should come into effect on January 1, 1976, is the clause in respect of voluntary termination of a claim, which we believe is a progressive step. As we know there is no provision in the act for voluntary termination of a claim. It seems to me that clause 14 would provide this kind of a progressive move. It is a move that is long overdue. It should have been included in the act when it was brought in in 1971.
We also feel that clause 31 is a progressive move and that this clause should be included in the provisions of clause 38(2). This clause, which would provide for the payment of expenses of anyone appearing before the umpire, we believe is long overdue. Indeed we found out during the committee hearings that there were 40,000 appeals to the board of referees. In that same period only 400 appeals were made to the umpire. In other words one per cent of the appeals to the referees ended up as appeals to the umpire.
Certainly there must be a reason for such a low number of appeals going to the umpire. We suspect what the reason is. The minister has promised that a study is under way of the appeal procedures. One reason we do not think this section has been working to the advantage of the claimants is the fact that many of the claimants must travel long distances in order to appear before the umpire. We think that has been a disincentive to claimants. Therefore we
December 19, 1975

believe clause 31 is a progressive step since it will provide for payment of expenses of those claimants who must travel some distance in order to appear before the umpire.
What do we find in clause 38? The cynicism is paramount. We find that the regressive steps which eliminate the 65-year olds from unemployment insurance, and which change the bench mark the government is prepared to make effective January 1, 1976.
When we asked the minister the reason why these other progressive steps could not be made effective the same date, January 1, 1976, he gave a phony answer. The minister said that these adjustments cannot be put into effect because it is administratively difficult. What is administratively difficult about paying the expenses of the claimants who appear before the umpire? It should not be difficult administratively to do this, with all the computers that are available to the government. The Unemployment Insurance Commission uses a computer very extensively. As a matter of fact the officials use it so extensively that when there is a problem concerning claimants the answer is that it was the computer which made the mistake. The government also has available to it the highly paid nabobs in the administration.


An hon. Member:: What is a nabob?


John R. Rodriguez: A nabob is someone hired by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to give the government advice. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) says they are one step above a mandarin. Perhaps they are baby mandarins.
With all these high paid mandarins, nabobs, and flunkeys in the Unemployment Insurance Commission they cannot tell us that they cannot come up with a plan to get around the administrative hang-ups to make the progressive aspects of the minister's proposals effective on the same day on which the negative aspects will become effective. I suppose this would tax their brains, but I suspect that it will not tax their abilities.
I suspect that it is a deliberate attempt by the minister to say, "Look how tough I am". Look how tough he is with those who are collecting unemployment insurance and how tough he is with the poor, when we know that 70 per cent of those collecting unemployment insurance earn under $6,000! He is a pretty big and a pretty tough man when it comes to dealing with the little people, but when it comes to taking on the big guys making $35,000 a year, all he wants from them is a surtax of $10. When it comes to taking on those who receive family allowances, he takes off indexing of family allowances. I suppose that very shortly the government will want a means test for those who collect family allowances. See how tough they are with the little people. When it comes to the big ones, they curl up and start purring like a big tabby cat. That is the way it works.
The minister says it is administratively difficult to put clause 31 into effect, the clause under which travel and other expenses are paid for those who wish to appear before the umpire. He says it would be administratively difficult to terminate a claim voluntarily. It would not be difficult because we know full well that, if it is administra-
Unemployment Insurance Act
tively easy to let the claim run on, they must have a process of knowing when a person establishes a claim which is continued. They have the computer set up; they know exactly when the claim is terminated so that a person who applies beyond that date is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. If they can set up a computer which tells them that a person who has collected maternity or sickness benefits after 29 weeks has terminated his or her claim, surely it should not be difficult for the government and this department to set up a computerized system which, on notification from the UIC in writing or by telephone, would immediately halt that claim.
I believe that a claimant should always have had the right to terminate the claim once he returned to work. But the government took that step in 1971. It was a discriminatory move, and now the minister leaves the change for some time in the future.
For us to accept this bill in the House at this point is very difficult because this is a regressive measure. We will not be serving the taxpayers and the people of Canada properly if we accept it under the present conditions.
The other clause which we think should become effective on January 1, 1976, is the extension of the qualifying period. Surely it should not be difficult to set up a system qualifying a person who has been jail, or on compensation, or who has been collecting a disability pension beyond one year. It should be possible to pick out his file and pick out the 104 weeks and see what earnings he has had within the 104 weeks. They are doing it now. They must have the latest separation certificate and they must look over the previous 52 weeks. It must be just as difficult administratively to look back at 52 weeks as it is to look back at 104 weeks. For them to say it is not, is just bullroar. I think the nabobs told them that that is one thing they do not want to put into effect now because of an ulterior motive, which is to build up the minister to look as if he were the greatest inflation fighter since Buckley. That is what they have attempted to do. They have tried to build him up as the greatest inflation fighter. It is easy to be a great inflation fighter when you are dealing with the little people, but when he is dealing with the big guys he pulls in his claws.


Mr. Korchinski:: Let us have your Christmas present now.


John R. Rodriguez: Never fear, you will get it. We look to the minister as if he were Santa Claus, but in fact he is nothing but a big Scrooge. He gave them a Christmas present. What is the Christmas present he has given them? He has informed the 65 year olds that they will not be covered after January 1. What has he told people on family allowances who are poor and may be unemployed? He has told them that they will not get the indexing. He is giving them a New Year's present. Boy, he sure can hand out presents! In effect, he tells them that they will get these things, effective on January 1, 1976, but not the beneficial clauses. That is the quarrel we have with him.
Even at this stage of the game we are prepared to move an amendment which would include these beneficial clauses. All the minister has to do is to rise and say he is prepared to move for their inclusion in the bill and to let them come into effect on January 1, 1976. I would be the first one to sit down if he were prepared to stand up and
10216

December 19, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
say that he is prepared to include the beneficial items in this bill.
There is no one in the House who would like to go home for Christmas more than I do. I would certainly like to go home tomorrow because I have five small children at home. But in no way can I in good conscience let the minister get away with this subterfuge. All he has to do now is to rise in his place-but he is not interested in doing that because he wants to chat with that chatterbox from the Maritimes. He is not prepared to bring in those beneficial clauses. I know that members on the other side are concerned about that. I am sure that they come from parts of the country much like mine where people have problems with unemployment insurance when they cannot voluntarily suspend their claims or extend the qualifying period. I am also sure they have problems with claimants who want to appeal to the umpire but cannot afford the travel expenses to reach the place where the umpire is holding court. We are remiss if we are not prepared to insist that the minister include the beneficial clauses in the bill.
We have tried to examine this bill as closely as possible, and we have made our concrete and positive proposals in committee and at report stage. Now we have come to the last clause in the bill, which is the crunch. We appeal to the minister to include these particular beneficial clauses in the bill so that at least the edge will be taken off the negative clauses in the bill. I can say no more than to call on the minister to do that, and to give the House some assurance that these measures will be brought in on January 1, 1976. He owes it to the people of Canada because the government, in effect, has been the cause of high unemployment in the country. Surely he should be the one to rise in the House to say that at least the beneficial and progressive items in the bill will come into effect on January 1, 1976.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long debate with a great deal of repetition, and I have gained great respect for the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), his vehemence, and his articulate ability to convey his point of view. In the words of, I think, Carlyle, the hon. member is someone who is often in error but never in doubt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: With regard to timing, the Bill C-69 provision which will become effective with Royal Assent is the insurability of LIP and LEAP individual sponsors, which is Clause 38(3).


John R. Rodriguez: You are cutting that out.


Robert Knight Andras: No, we are not cutting out LIP. The hon. member for Nickel Belt is partly correct with regard to some of the clauses which will become effective-I want to be precise about this-on January 1 or January 4. There is still some problem about those two or three days because some of these affect the benefit cycle. The hon. member is correct about the increase in the period of disqualification, the dependency rate, the repeal of coverage of persons 65 years of age, and the repeal of the advance pay.

The voluntary termination of claims, however, will be effective on the same date, either January 1 or January 4. The new financing threshold will be in effect then. There are quite a few of what I call housekeeping amendments. One could choose which are beneficial and which will take effect then.
I wish to make reference to an amendment to the act which was contained in Bill C-16, that is, the flexibility in the payment of maternity benefits. It will be effective on February 1. I say to the hon. member that there is no plot in this; it simply is a problem of computer programming. That bill was given Royal Assent on July 30, and the computer programming, procedures, guidelines, and staff training were not completed in time to make that effective before February 1.1 regret that, but that is the problem.
The flexibility in the payment of sickness benefits, which is by proclamation, and the extension of the qualifying period, the 104 weeks, are going to take computer re-programming. We cannot authorize the commission to expend what is some money involved in that until Royal Assent, and I am not trying to bamboozle the hon. member. It is a practical problem. The officials think it may take a few months to do that. I can only say that I will be watching very closely and pressing them to bring this into effect as quickly as possible. Those are the facts as we see them now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost. Motion No. 22 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be concurred in. 21130-25(4
State Pensions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: It can only be done by leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT AND CENTRAL


Barnett Jerome Danson: that Bill C-77, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



STATUTE LAW (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND VARIOUS STATUTES TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGES IN PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS, BENEFITS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service.
Mr. Speaker:: Earlier in the day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave notice of a
December 19, 1975

State Pensions
point of order to raise a question of procedure on this matter. I should, however, first put the motion. The motion under consideration will be motion No. 1 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien).
Mr. Chretien moves:
Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, be amended by adding after line 11 at page 2 the following new Clause:
"2.1 The definition "salary" in subsection 2(1) of the said Act is
repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"salary" means
(a)	as applied to the Public Service, the basic pay received by the person in respect of whom the expression is being applied for the performance of the regular duties of a position for the office exclusive of any amount received as allowances, special remuneration, payment for overtime or other compensation or as a gratuity unless that amount is deemed to be or to have been included in that person's basic pay pursuant to any regulation made under paragraph 32(1) (b.2); and
(b)	as applied to the regular force or the Force, the pay or pay and allowances, as the case may be, applicable in the case of that person as determined under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act;"


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my point of order, as I indicated earlier today, has to do
with the procedural acceptability of several if not all of the report stage amendments. I hesitated for a moment because I thought the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) was raising a point of order as to whether we proceed with this now or tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have made the kind of progress I had hoped we would have made by today. I also feel reasonably confident that we can complete our work tomorrow. I therefore suggest that we defer any further consideration of Bill C-52 and third reading of Bill C-69 until tomorrow. I therefore move, seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury):
That the House shall sit on Saturday, December 20, 1975;
And that, for the purposes of Standing Orders 2, 6 and 15, that sitting shall be deemed to be a Friday, except no private members business shall be taken up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has had some indication that a point of procedure will be raised. Perhaps it is the desire of hon. members that we call it five o'clock and begin consideration of that tomorrow, or is there a disposition to discuss that point of order so that the Chair might consider a decision in the interval?
Is it agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment we have no order under consideration. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 4:35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Saturday, December 20, 1975