1975-11-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the motion I would like to move will, I hope, receive the support of the House. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the inexcusable decision and determination of the Government of the Republic of France denying to have Canada represented at the Paris Summit Meeting November 15 to 17, which will be convened to discuss the world's financial problems. I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House strongly protests such decision, which creates a precedent, in that it denies the right of Canada, for the first time since the Second World War, to be invited to an international conference, and no less inexcusable, having regard to the historic relationship of France to our country in peace and war.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of this motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the recent seizure of the records of the United Fisheries and Allied Workers Union pursuant to the Combines Investigation Act, and in view of the fact that the Weston conglomerate continues to dominate the purchase and marketing of food and fish products in Canada without apparent investigation, as well as being the principal purchaser of west coast salmon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigate the activities of the Weston conglomerate in the food industry, and further, that the minister advise the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Forestry as to the extent of inquiries by his department within the past ten years into the Weston conglomerate.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the increasing problems faced by the labour market, which is ever more perturbed by unemployment and strikes, since this situation causes considerable prejudice to all those involved in this vicious circle, and since we must at all cost find means of restoring real balance and prosperity in the industry to support effectively our economy which is now faced with severe problems, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House of Commons consider forthwith adopting legislation which would enable workers to share in the profits of the industry by holding shares, the revenue of which would be partly deductible for income tax purposes on the same basis as revenue from the stock market, a measure which would immediately and directly stimulate production and reduce the need to strike and would create a healthy climate in the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

November 3, 1975
Sky Shops Lease


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing concern, namely the disturbing allegations in the latest issue of The Canadian Magazine concerning the role of the executive of another country in Canada's decision regarding the Fifth U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. The seriousness of the charge being underlined by the fact that the author, Mr. Noel Moore, was the official U.N. spokesman for the congress, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House, viewing with concern any reflection upon Canadian sovereignty in the realm of foreign policy, invites the Secretary of State for External Affairs to find an early opportunity to make a full statement in the House concerning the allegations made by an experienced United Nations official which reflect upon Canada's independence of action and decision regarding the hosting of the Fifth U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR DELAY IN GRANTING LEASE TO SKY SHOPS AT DORVAL PENDING INVESTIGATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter concerns a lease between Her Majesty and Sky Shops Export Limited, or its assignees, granting an exclusive concession for a duty-free shop at Montreal International Airport at Dorval. The matter is urgent and pressing because the renewal of the lease takes effect on December 1, 1975. It touches this House, this parliament and the government because shortly before the government authorized the lease Senator Louis de G. Giguere, then and now a Member of Parliament, became a shareholder of the company and, shortly after authority for the lease was granted, sold his shares for a very substantial profit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury:
That the government amend, revoke or stay the concession to operate a duty-free shop at Montreal International Airport at Dorval, granted to Sky Shops Export Limited, to commence December 1, 1975, until and subject to an independent investigation into, and report upon, the negotiations leading to the grant by the government of the said concession and the role, if any, of Senator Giguere therein.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be put in the absence of the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!


PUBLISHING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Time Canada in 1973 and 1974 paid twice as much in dividends to its parent company Time Inc. of the United States as it actually earned in profits-a practice obviously designed to milk the Canadian company of as much money as possible-and in view of the relevance of Time's corporate behaviour in connection with Bill C-58 which some day, presumably, will be coming back to the House for further debate, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant:
That this House instruct the government to initiate a thorough investigation of all circumstances surrounding the payment of dividends by Time Canada to its U.S. parent and to make the results of such investigation available to members of this House at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be present without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport pursuant to a matter of which I have given him notice and which I intend to present in the form of a petition later this afternoon. Is the minister aware of all the circumstances surrounding the renewal of the lease of Sky Shops Export Limited at Dorval, and will he undertake at this time to stay the renewal of the lease until he is fully satisfied that the renewal has been properly obtained?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: I am not
sure I can state categorically that I am aware of all the circumstances surrounding anything but I am glad to tell
November 3, 1975

the hon. member that I looked at the question of the original lease and was satisfied that a judgment was made about its merits on the basis of its value and the terms of alternative proposals. I shall, of course, follow up the representations of the hon. member as usual.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will give the House an undertaking that he, in concert with his colleague the Minister of Transport, will thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the granting of leases and concessions to Sky Shops Export Limited both at Dorval and Mirabel?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I have just received a copy of the petition the hon. member intends to present to the House later, and I should like to read the petition before I answer his question.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. At a time when the working people of this country have very great restraints placed upon their incomes by a law now before this parliament, is it the intention of the Solicitor General to expedite the investigation into alleged wrongdoings concerning the Mirabel airport contract in addition to the investigation currently underway into alleged wrongdoings concerning government dredging contracts, so that these rip-off artists can at least have restraints placed upon them too?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House the other day, the allegations with respect to Mirabel airport have been passed on to the RCMP, and they are evaluating them to see whether an investigation is necessary. The reported story that the investigation is not going ahead because of a shortage of personnel is completely false. I checked that once again this morning and they say that if, in their estimation, an investigation is necessary they will proceed as quickly as possible. With respect to the dredging investigation, that is proceeding as quickly as possible.


AIR TRANSPORT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the unequivocal call by the coroner's jury following the inquest into the Panarctic Oil company plane crash for a full public inquiry, as well as the request by two fathers of victims and the sister of the pilot for a full public inquiry, can the minister now announce to the
Oral Questions
House that he intends to allow a full public inquiry without further delay?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House earlier that I thought the question of transport issues involved and those of safety were satisfactorily canvassed in the investigation and the report made to me within this department. Other issues that may arise are really more properly the concern of the Minister of Justice.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of specific recommendations that have now been made by that particular jury-in particular, the request that radio operators should be licensed, a fairly fundamental request, I would expect, and the whole question of seat belts and emergency procedures in a crash-would the minister now advise whether these specific recommendations that the jury made have been taken in hand by his department, and that we can expect immediate action on those specific recommendations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have previously told the House that the issue of safety in relation to flying in the private sector had been under examination, and that some number of months ago proposals regarding changed regulations were in fact put forward for discussion to the industry. These involved a whole range of questions concerning facilities and qualifications in the private flying sector. Comments on these are all expected to have been received by the middle of this month, at which time formulation of specific regulations will go ahead.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the problems the coroner's jury had regarding subpoenaing witnesses outside the Northwest Territories and the general problem of subpoenaing witnesses between one province and another, which, as the minister knows, has been a continuing difficulty in Canada, would the minister consult his counterparts or take action to consult his counterparts so that we can have legislation covering the broad range of subpoena powers in order not to run into this problem constantly with inquests and juries who do not have the capacity to subpoena witnesses, which means that the whole story does not come out?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked my advisers to consider the coroners' ordinance in the Northwest Territories and examine the effectiveness of that ordinance both as to the powers of coroners in the north generally and with specific reference to the powers of subpoenaing witnesses outside the territories. That review is underway. The same problem exists, as the hon. member has pointed out, between the north and the provinces and between provinces. The solution to that problem is the enactment by the provinces of a uniform
2995 6-4)4

November 3, 1975
Oral Questions
reciprocal recognition of subpoenas, which was recommended a year ago by the uniformity commissioners. I urge provincial attorneys general to consider that report carefully and to act upon it. I would be happy at my next meeting with the provincial attorneys general to raise this issue with them.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since the majority of union leaders in Canada are considering combating the government's anti-inflation measures by investing large sums of money in advertising, can the minister inform the House whether he has been in touch with the union leaders to dissuade them from their pursuit?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I have certainly been in touch with union leaders, but not to advise them not to invest funds. It is their right to invest their membership funds in the ways they consider proper, and they are accountable to their membership for that. If this is one of them, I do not believe any advice from me on that question would be at all helpful. I would just advise the hon. member that as far as I am concerned, I think most labour leaders are adopting the view that they should oppose this legislation in every legitimate way prior to it becoming law, and then they are going to work within the law.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would address my question to the Solicitor General. Will he inform the House on the status of the RCMP investigation into drug trafficking at Dorval International Airport?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure in respect of what investigation the hon. member is referring.


An hon. Member:: There are so many you can't keep up to them, Warren.


William Warren Allmand: That is right; drug trafficking is a serious problem in this country and there are many investigations going on. Perhaps the hon. member could please inform me to which investigation he is referring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Get with it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware that the Solicitor General had more than one investigation going at the same time into drug trafficking at Dorval airport. Could the minister inform the House of the fate of Sergeant LeDuc, the RCMP officer who informed the press of the alleged activities?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the hon. member is following up on an investigation that was referred to before the House adjourned for the summer. I will have to get the report on that and give it to the hon. member as I do not have that information with me right now.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON MEASURES TO STIMULATE EXPORTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce; that is trade and commerce. As Statistics Canada in its report of last Thursday stated: "The volume of imports into Canada increased by 4 per cent in August, to a level of 41 per cent above 1971." and, "The volume of exports continued to decline, dipping below the 1971 level", would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to give an outline to the House of what he intends to do to bring our exports back to the plus side?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but whether it will be on motions or by some other means, I will be very happy to do that just as soon as I have had a chance to examine the statistics thoroughly and understand what their real implications may be.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister who I am sure will have been informed of the statements made by Mr. Pepin during the weekend with regard to the degree of independence his anti-inflation review board should enjoy. Will the Acting Prime Minister clarify what independence the government feels that board should enjoy, particularly with regard to analyzing and speaking out about the root causes of inflation from time to time?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention that the AntiInflation Board should be an independent board, indeed, free to comment on the actions of the government itself. For example, in respect of any wage settlements proposed by the government the Anti-Inflation Board would have the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on those. It is also our hope that the Anti-Inflation Board will give
November 3, 1975

some general leadership in the fight against inflation by talking about its causes and what seems to be required.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of Mr. Pepin's expressed desire to have the right to express strong views on why we have inflation, and also as to the reform which is needed in some major Canadian institutions, will the board be free to do that in respect of the general level of government expenditures, for example? Would the government welcome or accept statements from the Anti-Inflation Board in respect of the general level of these expenditures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we would have no objection if the board wants to comment on that. The government intends to make this work. I imagine it will be very strongly criticized by the opposition in doing so and we would like to have some support.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He has notice of the question. It concerns the announcement by him of the intention to involve his department directly with the question of native land claims by appointing Mr. Digby Hunt as a claims commissioner. I should like to ask the minister if it is now the position of the government that it intends to deal with these most important issues on a political level rather than provide the natives with the means to have their claims adjudicated in court.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government, ever since the statement of my predecessor on August 8, 1973, has been that we are prepared to sit down and negotiate with the native people in the areas where treaty was not entered into by the native people. I have indicated on many occasions that we feel that is a preferable route to going through the courts.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to discuss briefly the terms of reference under which Mr. Hunt has been asked to carry out his duty and make these terms of reference a subject for discussion by the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


J. Judd Buchanan: I will have to consider that, Mr. Speaker, and I will be happy to make a copy of the terms of reference available to the hon. member.


INDIAN CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ATHABASCA TAR SANDS- POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR MINISTER
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary concerns the claim which the Indian Association of Alberta has brought in respect of the Athabasca tar sands. Could the minister indicate what action his depart-
Oral Questions
ment is taking in that regard and whether it will offer the Indian people any kind of assistance to plead their case and whether indeed he may be somewhat in a position of conflict of interest insofar as the tar sands are concerned since he has responsibility for the Indian people while at the same time the government has a direct investment in the area? Could he clarify these matters?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this question involves a conflict of interest. This is an action before the courts and the courts will deal with it.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of a statement by the Minister of Labour last week at the convention of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour that much of the public hysteria over wage levels has been generated by some who intentionally or unintentionally have distorted statistical data, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether that statement indicates that the government has revised its view with respect to the alleged excessiveness of recent wage increases, and particularly, whether the government still holds to the view that such wage increases are threatening to price our product out of international markets.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the hon. member that I believe he has quoted the paragraph in my speech quite correctly. I have maintained, and so have others, that wage settlements over the course of the last year have not been the primary cause but more the opposite, that wages have been chasing prices. It is quite consistent justification for the policy we are announcing now and carrying through on and he will see my rationale for that position in the speech. He will also see it is obvious to all of us, having stated the general proposition, that some wage settlements have been excessive.


DATE WHEN EFFECT OF WAGE SETTLEMENTS ON PRICE OF EXPORTS IS REFLECTED IN STATISTICS
Andrew Hogan: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister could indicate when he expects such effects on our competitive position to be reflected in the statistics. Perhaps in that context he would like to give the House his explanation of the fact that, according to latest figures from Statistics Canada, the prices of the goods we import, including those for finished products which are labour intensive are continuing to increase at a rate that is almost double the rate of increase in prices of Canada's exports, indicating that our competitive position is actually improving.

November 3, 1975
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope that what the hon. gentleman has said is true. The whole purpose of our program is to protect our competitive position.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is the minister aware of the fact that the cost of introducing a CBC logo, that is an identification symbol, last year was more than $390,000 and the cost of the one cocktail party to introduce that logo was more than $3,400 and that the CBC has attempted to keep this expenditure a secret until this moment? If so, can the minister say whether future expenditures of this sort will not be kept secret-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marke Raines: [DOT]-and future expenditures of this nature will be deleted from the CBC budget and, if not deleted, that such moneys will be spent on programming rather than fripperies, and whether this matter is under his control and jurisdiction?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think the most germane part of the question was at the end concerning how much came under my direct control. It is very limited, for good reasons, but I will refer the rest of the question to the corporation.


Mr. Baldwin:: Tell them to keep within the guidelines now.


HARBOURS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport?
Considering the discussions and transactions that have been going on for many years now regarding the construction of a deep water sea port at Gros-Cacouna, as well as the talks your department has been having for some time with the Quebec trade department, could the minister tell the House what stage the negotiations have reached in that regard? Could he say also whether he expects satisfactory results?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is action on two fronts with regard to this important potential harbour. In the first place, discussions with the province of Quebec have led to the conclusion that some further steps in analysis would be useful, and that is

likely to go forward with dispatch. In addition to that, I have taken a special interest in the potential of that particular area and will be endeavouring to ensure that this department is in a position to make recommendations at an early date.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it has to do with the fact that Canada, despite its expressed desire and willingness to be present at the economic conference beginning on November 15, has been turned down. It was reported in the press that a senior official in the Prime Minister's office said two days ago that there was no indication that an invitation will be extended and that the position of the French government is not that they do not like us but that they feel the conference will only succeed if it is an intimate gathering.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I know the minister has done everything possible to obtain an invitation and was in touch with the United States, West Germany and the United Kingdom. Would he say what is the present position and what is the reason for this extraordinary decision. Apparently France has forgotten about the tremendous service rendered by Canada in two world wars in that country.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the present decision is that as yet Canada has not been invited to participate in the economic summit, but the support for the attendance of Canada has come, as the right hon. gentleman mentioned, quite strongly from the United States and from the Federal Republic of Germany. Also, the possibility of our attendance has been sympathetically received by Japan and the United Kingdom. The host country has not yet agreed to the attendance of Canada. We believe we have the economic position in the world to justify our attendance and we believe that our presence would help to counter-balance the very heavy European attendance at the conference. We are still putting forward our claim and we have not yet given up hope that we will be invited to attend this summit.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is it correct, as stated in the press a couple of days ago, that the reasons given unofficially by France for not inviting Canada are the declining economic importance of Canada in the world and our diplomatic tendency to take a narrowly selfish approach to world problems?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am quite sure that is not the reason, Mr. Speaker.
November 3, 1975


EFFECT OF ALLEGED RELIANCE ON UNITED STATES TO OBTAIN INVITATION TO ATTEND ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETING
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Since one of the major objectives of our foreign policy, we have been given to understand, has been to assert our independence from the United States especially in the eyes of our European partners, can the minister explain why this heavy reliance on Mr. Kissinger's efforts should not be seen as running counter to our aims and thereby hurting our chances of gaining access to the conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have the support of the President of the United States. We have received the support of the head of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the United Kingdom. So, we are not feeling we have to rely entirely on the U.S., whose support we welcome very much in this instance.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General regarding the investigation of the SIU which, I believe, started some time in May. Can the minister bring us up to date regarding the status of this investigation and whether any charges are contemplated? When does he believe the investigation will be completed, if it is not already?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I check on these investigations from time to time with the RCMP. I was told recently that the investigation with respect to the SIU is still continuing but in different parts of the country, the west coast, the east coast, Montreal and Ontario, and that it is very difficult to give dates when such investigations can be concluded because during the investigation new evidence appears which has to be followed up. So I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. member more at this time.


INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED DRUG TRAFFICKING AT DORVAL AIRPORT-REQUEST FOR REPORT
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I now have an answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Victoria with respect to the narcotics investigation at the Dorval airport which was started in the spring. It appears that a former Canadian customs officer has been arrested and charged, as well as a former policeman and an Air Canada employee who worked at the airport. These people have all been charged, and since the case is now before the courts I cannot say more at this time.
Oral Questions EXCISE TAX


REFUNDABLE TAX ON GASOLINE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ESTABLISH EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE PROCEDURE FOR BULK PURCHASERS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue in the absence of the Minister of Finance, and it is directed to him because of his experience as parliamentary secretary when Bill C-66 was put through the House. In view of the continuing concern of the school bus system in Canada, of the Canadian Trucking Association as well as of municipalities, construction firms and agricultural producers, about the imposition and collection of the refundable 10 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline, has the government taken action to establish the exemption certificate procedure for bulk fuel purchasers, for which provision was made in a last minute amendment to Bill C-66?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know just how far along the path this particular item has gone, but I will most assuredly find out and let the hon. member know.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Could the minister tell the House whether the committee was appointed and whether it is working at the present time?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: To date my information is that in fact there is a committee of two departments working on this particular problem.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board and ask him if he would confirm the general assumption widely held that departments of government themselves will be required to live not only within the letter but also within the spirit of the government's regulations with regard to increases, and that the government will not allow increases in costs for service to rise at a great rate is correct? I am thinking of such fees as licence fees, entrance fees for parks and matters of that sort.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the government certainly intends to follow the guidelines announced in the bill introduced by the Minister of Finance. With regard to the organizations that enable the government to collect money, we intend to follow the same guidelines but in the specific case of Parks Canada, and others, we have yet to make a final decision.

Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. This matter pertains to the administration of justice. In asking this question I am certainly not supporting any strike in the essential services, particularly of the police forces.
Did any member of the branch of the Canadian armed security division, known also as the security services of the Canadian armed forces, conduct an investigation of police organizations or members of their personnel-in particular the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Association and the Calgary Police Association-as to a possible police strike for any reason, or in particular, as to the reason for the attitude of the police associations in reference to the law governing persons convicted of capital murder of police officers? I put that question to the Minister of National Defence because it deals with his own security division.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries to see if those investigations were held.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I received this information from the police associations. When the minister is checking this out, will he check whether Major Figley of the Winnipeg western security division and Warrant Officer Kacinia were involved in the investigation, and under what authority this investigation of city and urban police forces was conducted? Who directed the orders and what was the purpose of the investigation?


BROADCASTING
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that United States border television stations are dumping advertising inventories to Canadian advertisers-for example, $60 time slots being sold for $22-in order to dry up business for Canadian stations and to force them into a loss position, and in view of the fact that this dumping is circumventing the proposed income tax measures in Bill C-58 dealing with television advertising, what measures is the minister taking or planning to take to protect Canadian television stations?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the dumping aspect although I will certainly look into it. I think that the remedy clearly lies in a speedy passage of Bill C-58.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I hope the minister, along with the Minister of Finance, will investigate with regard to the anti-dump-

ing aspect, and I remind the minister that the income tax provisions in the bill do not cover the selling of advertising at half cost, which in effect circumvents the proposed legislation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It is supplementary to questions directed to him and to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the discussion with respect to the jurisdiction of the anti-inflation review board, is it the view of the government that a strike against the verdict of the Anti-Inflation Board to obtain remuneration above the guidelines after the appeal period has been exhausted constitutes a contravention of the guidelines and therefore makes the union subject to the penalties envisaged in Bill C-73?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that he is putting a hypothetical question or seeking a legal opinion, neither of which is permitted.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-SUGGESTED STUDY OF CROWN CORPORATIONS TO ELIMINATE DUPLICATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In the interests of restraint has the government undertaken any study with respect to Crown corporations to see which might be merged, disbanded, or dealt with to ensure that we do not have what appears to be an excess of Crown corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the government has not specifically undertaken any such study. We have been looking for ways of reducing expenditure, and if the hon. gentleman would like to suggest some corporations which he personally would like to see disbanded, we would be willing to consider his suggestions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Acting Prime Minister at least indicate that he will take this subject up with his colleagues in the cabinet and ask each of them to justify the Crown corporations under their direction?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Like PetroCan.


Mitchell William Sharp: We do this constantly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: We are always asking one another questions as to whether the other fellow's activities are justifiable. That is why I ask my hon. friend to suggest which corporations he would like to disband.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that when I produce the list of Crown corpora-
November 3, 1975

tions to which he has referred, he will in fact take the action I suggest?


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Communications. Can the Minister inform the House whether the growing dispute over the CRTC's commercial substitution policy on cable television was discussed with Dr. Kissinger during his recent visit to Ottawa? If so, could he indicate the position taken by the government on this matter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not present at those discussions.


James Balfour: Can the Acting Minister of Communications assure the House that the government will not approve any policy which will have the effect of reducing the choice of television programs available to Canadian viewers?


Otto Emil Lang: The assurance being sought is pretty broad, Mr. Speaker. I do not know of any action by the CRTC which is against the interests of Canadian viewers.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that unemployment is running at the rate of 25 per cent to 30 per cent on Cape Breton Island at the moment, would the minister assure the House that under the policy of restraints no moneys will be cut back with regard to a Crown corporation called the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and indeed, if moneys are being saved in any other areas, that they would be forthcoming to that corporation to expand the economy of Cape Breton, which is badly needed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take notice of the representation of the hon. member, and I hope that he will compare his question with the speech of his leader last Thursday.


Robert Muir: Different situation altogether.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Has his department ascertained whether the alleged art treasures which came
Oral Questions
from South Viet Nam are actually art treasures, belong to the people of South Viet Nam and should be returned, or whether they are in fact personal items and have as yet been delivered or given over to a person or persons in the city of Montreal?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that particular investigation has not been completed, and a report has not been made to me, so that decision has not as yet been made.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could the minister confirm whether the employer-employee contributions to the fund are meeting the cost of unemployment insurance benefits being paid out, or whether perhaps they are exceeding the benefits and are accruing to the general revenues of the government?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the premiums are not accruing to any surplus to the benefit of the government. As they now exist they are designed to cover the operation chargeable to the employer-employee premium account and in addition, to reduce, and I think, very soon to eliminate the deficit which was accumulated two or three years ago. Any change in the rate as a result of the passage of Bill C-69 would be based on the same principle, although, as the hon. member knows, the threshold and therefore the basis for the charge to the government, as opposed to premium account, will then be changed.


U450) PUBLISHING EFFECT OF EIGHTY PER CENT CANADIAN CONTENT REGULATION ON CERTAIN CANADIAN MAGAZINES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister's ruling that Canadian magazines must have 80 per cent Canadian content to qualify for tax exemptions for advertisers discriminate against Canadian magazines reporting on news beyond Canadian borders, but not discriminate against those reporting events in Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. It is not a question of 80 per cent content; it is a question of being 80 per cent different, and there will be no problem with that particular guideline.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is it not wonderful to have people judging what we can read?
Oral Questions GRAIN

November 3, 1975


SUGGESTED DEFERRAL OF TAXES ON ADJUSTMENT PAYMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Has he completed his discussions with the Department of National Revenue on whether to allow an election to be made regarding taxes on adjustment payments for grain sold prior to October 9?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are not complete. In the meantime, further difficulties in processing the payments have been encountered and will be encountered in any attempt to give an election, because of the lack at present of adequate mail delivery service.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether immediate steps will be taken to put a stop to rising prices which have not stopped going up since the freeze was announced?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for addressing a question to me for the first time. It is a great pleasure to have him in the House. No doubt he will have noticed while he has been here that we have an anti-inflation program under discussion. I hope we can count on his co-operation.


Walter David Baker: There is not a
housewife in the country who believes you.


NUCLEAR LIABILITY ACT
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Nuclear Liability Act was passed by parliament, received royal assent in June, 1970, but has yet to be proclaimed. Can the minister indicate the reason for the delay in proclamation, and is it related to the unwillingness of private insurers to assume the responsibilities required by the act? Also, can he indicate when the act may be proclaimed?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I know that there have recently been discussions with private insurance agencies and I believe they are much closer now to being able to provide the kind of insurance anticipated in that legislation. How-

ever, I will check the matter and let the hon. member know.


BROADCASTING
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the CBC. Does the minister intend to introduce legislation regulating the advertising on television of violent movies rated as restricted?


James Hugh Faulkner: No,
Mr. Speaker. The hon. member may remember that this question was raised when the CBC last appeared before the parliamentary committee. The CBC has guidelines on violence. Whether they coincide with guidelines hon. members of the House would like to see is something they can raise with the corporation.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Will they apply to the Liberal convention this weekend?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Robert Howie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What can the minister say about guidelines for the other networks and private stations?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines would be a matter for the CRTC.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Considering that there are advertisements for job vacancies by the CIA in American newspapers like the following: director for the CIA; murderers GF-18, massive murder; murderers GS-13, murder of head of state; burglars; union leaders; false witnesses, politicians; agents provocateurs; administrators for racketeer companies; drug traffickers, I ask the following question: does the minister intend to protest against this kind of CIA activities that could take place in Canada under the cover of the CIA?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this advertisement, but I can inquire among my officials.

November 3, 1975


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one I asked earlier and is directed to the Minister of Justice. As the federal government has invested directly in the Athabasca tar sands by participating in Syncrude and as the Alberta Indian Association has filed a caveat against the tar sands, has the department involved itself directly or indirectly in the action in order to protect the federal government's investment in the tar sands?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, we have, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Justice acts as the legal adviser for the department headed by my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


DATE OF BY-ELECTION IN ST. JOHN'S WEST
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Hochelaga. Has the government summoned its courage and is it prepared to call a by-election in St. John's West?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made in this respect, but not for lack of courage.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio, the former minister of transport. Now that he is without a designated portfolio, we miss putting questions to him in the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: In order that we can direct questions to him in the future, will the hon. member tell us his duties in cabinet?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I know I will tell the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Montreal National Airports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-414, to amend the Criminal Code (appeals from jury acquittals).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to supplement Bill C-71, presently before the House, and delete the provision in the Criminal Code which allows the court of appeal to supersede the verdict of a jury. It would apply to victims now serving terms of imprisonment because they were convicted by a court of appeal after being acquitted by a jury. On passage of this bill, any such victim or victims would be released.
The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) has introduced a bill similar in intent and there is also government legislation before the House to amend the Criminal Code in the way I suggest. However, neither bill provides for the release of any victim or victims presently serving sentences of imprisonment. At present, only one person in Canada is in prison because of conviction by the court of appeal. He is Dr. Henry Morgentaler. This public bill would apply to that individual, he being the only person in Canada caught in such circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was doing very well until he reached the last paragraph. The Chair perhaps ought to reserve the right to scrutinize carefully the provisions of the bill before debate on it takes place, to make sure that it complies with the hon. member's description of it, which except for his last couple of sentences seemed to qualify it as a public bill. For the moment, therefore, the Chair will reserve the right to intervene later if it has any misgivings about the procedural regularity of the bill.


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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67, I hereby present a petition relating to the renewal of the lease and concession at Montreal International Airport at Dorval between the Crown and Sky Shops Export Limited. The petitioners recite certain matters relating to the negotiations which took place for the renewal of this lease and concession which is to commence on December 1 next. The petitioners pray that this House inquire into such matters and that this House provide such remedy as this House may determine.

November 3, 1975
Housing


HOUSING
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to outline to hon. members the federal housing action program, a series of measures designed to produce one million new housing units over the next four years, with a 1976 target of 235,000. The commitment of the federal government is to ensure production of the kind of good quality housing that lower and middle income Canadians need and can afford and, through these measures, to dampen inflation in the housing sector and stimulate economic growth and the creation of employment opportunities.
In order to achieve these objectives, the government will require private lending institutions to direct mortgage financing to lower and moderately priced new housing. In 1976, this will require an additional $750 million, for a total new housing market of $8 billion. The government will establish a monitoring committee to ensure this target is met. The government will require private lending institutions to restrict their low down payment-high ratio- lending to NHA regional loan limits, and these loan limits will be held down consistent with our price guidelines. We will make the Assisted Home Ownership Program- AHOP-available to any Canadian household of two or more people wanting to buy moderately-priced housing and to keep their monthly payments equivalent to those of an 8 per cent mortgage. The requirement of having at least one child is removed, enabling young couples to purchase a home before starting their family.
For people with children who need help to keep their monthly payments under 25 per cent of their income, grants, which are now a maximum of $600 a year, are increased to $750. For others, assistance will be in the form of a loan which will be interest-free for at least the first five years, and repayable with interest after that time or when the house is sold or refinanced upwards. The loan will be sufficient to cover the difference between market interest rates and interest at 8 per cent.
We will stimulate increased production of moderately-priced rental accommodation. The assisted rental program will make interest-free loans available to builders who will create rental housing at rents controlled by CMHC during the period of support of up to 15 years. Maximum annual loans to builders will be increased from $900 to $1,200 per unit to compensate for recent interest rate increases and to encourage supply. These loans will be recoverable. In addition, we will ask the House to approve continuation of the special capital cost allowance provisions for non-principal business rental entrepreneurs until December 31, 1977.
To improve the liquidity of mortgages as an investment, the government will make the federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation operational by April 1, 1976. To make moderate-cost housing development more attractive to municipalities, the government will make $1,000 per unit grants available to municipalities which approve medium density housing within regional AHOP and assisted rental price limits. The government will now make loans and grants available to municipalities for water treatment facilities and mains where they are needed to open up land for housing, on the same basis as assistance presently given to

municipalities under the sewage treatment program for sanitary and storm sewers.
The eight-point program I have just enunciated, Mr. Speaker, is designed to fill the real needs of Canadians who are not suitably housed at the moment by providing them with access to housing they can afford. This will stimulate employment in the construction industry by creating 32,000 additional jobs in 1976. The entire four-year program involves more than a million man-years of employment.
One of the very real advantages of this program is that it directs more private capital into the moderately-priced residential mortgage market utilizing a minimum amount of taxpayers' dollars. This allows the federal government to direct its resources to Canadians in greatest need, such as senior citizens, native people, the handicapped, and others who are socially and economically deprived.
I would also like to inform hon. members that at the federal-provincial housing ministers' conference earlier today, I urged the provinces to institute rent controls consistent with the federal government's commitment to contain inflation and support new housing construction and, indeed, received that assurance. I have also asked my provincial colleagues to requires those lending institutions under provincial jurisdiction to increase their mortgage lending in line with the federal guidelines. I received that assurance.
I believe hon. members will agree that these long-range measures will enable the construction industry to marshall its resources for economic and competitive production in order to meet the most pressing needs of those Canadians who are finding difficulty acquiring adequate housing at reasonable cost under today's difficult conditions. I will be introducing legislation in the House in the very near future for the consideration of hon. members. Subject to legislative approval, the measures will be effective as of today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that we on this side of the House welcome any government initiative to stimulate the residential construction industry, particularly in view of the fact that moves taken by this government in the past 18 months have largely been responsible for the depression experienced by this very important sector of the economy. I was intrigued to hear the minister say that this program is designed to produce one million new units in the next four years. This House is very well aware of the minister's addiction to exaggeration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We all recall his prediction of a minimum of 210,000 starts this year. The record to date is 12 per cent off target. We all recall the $1 billion of private funds that AHOP was to attract for mortgages. The record to date is $66 million. We are all familiar with predictions that have never materialized; therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive us if we are somewhat skeptical today regarding this latest prediction.
November 3, 1975

In his statement, the minister mentioned $750 million for new housing starts. If we were to be generous regarding that prediction and work it out, it would come to perhaps
25.000	units per year, or 100,000 units in four years-some
900.000	short of the target the minister mentioned. I am sure the minister will want to elaborate on this shortfall. Perhaps once again he will fall back on AHOP as the catch-all for everything he cannot determine otherwise.
Some of the measures which the minister put forward today are those which we on this side of the House have advocated for some time. We strongly pressed for legislation which would provide assistance for municipalities to increase the amount of serviced land available. I am glad to see that certain aspects of this have been dealt with. We have repeatedly urged the government to set up the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation. I remind the minister that the legislation enabling him to do so has been on the books for three years.
I find several basic shortcomings in the minister's program. First, these measures will not stimulate provision of the amount of mortgage funding required to finance the supply of new housing which is so vitally needed if the inflationary aspect of housing is to be reduced. New money to the extent of $750 million is not the answer to that deficiency. Second, there is nothing in the statement to deal with the major problem presented by the high interest rates which hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been obliged to assume in the last year-a burden which will almost certainly continue to weigh heavily for many years to come. Nowhere is there any indication that the government is prepared to take measures which come to grips with the fact that well over 30 per cent of the income of these individuals goes into financing home buying. Nowhere is there any sign of relief for those who are caught by high interest rates.
Then, again, apart from a brief reference to the minister's action in urging his provincial counterparts to institute rent controls, there is no indication in the statement as to the form and level of rent control the federal government considers appropriate to its over-all restraint program.
Finally, the program fails to deal with the necessity for continuity in housing policy. Instead, emphasis has been placed on unilateral housing programs by the federal government. Scarcely any reference is made to co-operation with the provinces, something which must play a major part in the direction of housing. Thus, I would say there is nothing original about these measures. We have had stepped-up programs, expanded programs and resurrected programs, but still no recognition by the government that adequate shelter is a basic, ongoing right of all Canadians.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party feels that the measures announced by the minister today are unimpressive and will do very little to solve the housing crisis in Canada. In fact, they constitute a typical attempt to appear to be doing something very dramatic while actually doing very little. One cannot deny that the measures will have some effect on the housing problems, but they will not strike at the main problems of
Housing
housing today, namely, the high cost of land and high interest rates.
I was rather impressed with the statement by the minister when he said the target for the next four years would be one million homes, because as I recall, Mr. Speaker, back in 1970 the same government announced its target as being one million homes over five years. It may be said that they achieved one million homes over five years, but in achieving that target we have experienced the worst crisis in housing Canadians have ever known. That is because the government has used the same old approaches, and it is these approaches the minister announced today. We really need five main features: first, a steady flow of funds; second, a target for homes of a certain type; third, low interest rates; fourth, low land costs and assistance with the servicing of land; and fifth, rental guidelines.
With regard to a steady flow of funds, the minister stated we would require the financial institutions to direct a certain amount of their moneys to mortgage financing. We in the New Democratic Party have recommended this for a long time, and it is high time the minister took such an initiative. But the success of this initiative will depend upon the legislation the minister brings forth in parliament, because the financial institutions have been playing a game of yo-yo with housing in respect of their financial commitment in the past. Unless the minister is direct and forceful in the legislation, very little will be accomplished.
The target of one million homes over four years was mentioned. This will require the close co-operation of the federal government with the provincial governments and the municipalities. It really calls for a strong emphasis upon public housing, more especially rental public housing. It also requires an emphasis on co-operative and nonprofit housing. Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that all the public housing we have today amounts to less than 2 per cent of our total housing starts. This indicates the necessity of action by the government.
To achieve the minister's target of one million homes, the minister has adopted a pandering or bended-knee approach to the builders, developers and financial institutions. For example, there are to be interest-free loans to builders who will create rental housing controlled by CMHC up to 15 years, and increased loans on rental units from $900 to $1,200 which the minister says is to compensate for recent increases and to encourage supply. Mr. Speaker, this is a rerun of the minister's legislation of 1974 on private, limited dividend housing where he gave builders generous interest rates and agreements for five years. All he is doing is rehashing and renewing in attempting to encourage builders to build more housing. What is needed is public, limited dividend housing, that is, public housing-more especially on the rental side-and increases in co-operative and non-co-operative housing where there is control over rents, repairs and services.
The minister also mentioned that he would prescribe lower interest rates in connection with Assisted Home Ownership Programs. The main item which is missing from the anti-inflation legislation is control of interest rates. This is what is really needed, because we see ever-escalating interest rates across the board in Canada. This is the type of action which has to be taken, because interest rates are the main component in the rising cost of

November 3, 1975
Housing
housing. I am not impressed with the suggestion of putting into line the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation by April, 1976. It will do nothing to bring down interest rates; it will just be doing what CMHC has done in the past. I am impressed with the minister's suggestion that there be grants to municipalities for water treatment and water mains, but the success of this initiative will depend upon the amount of funds allocated.
Finally, the minister told us in his statement that he had urged the provincial ministers of housing to implement rent controls along the guidelines set forth in the antiinflation legislation. May I say that I do not think this is sufficient. What has to be achieved is a roll-back of rents. Rent review boards should be set up. It is not sufficient to tell landlords that they may increase their rents by only a certain percentage, because one has no idea of the increased costs they have experienced. I thought the minister would adopt the suggestion of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, roll back interest rates to January of this year and, at the most, allow a 6 per cent increase. Further increases by landlords should have to be justified before a rent review board.
There appears to be an absence of leadership in this legislation and there is an absence of meaningful programs. This will result in a continuance of the serious housing problems we have today.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and to thank the minister who distributed copies of his statement in French. We received ours a few minutes before he made his statement and I thank him.
We of the Social Credit party find the minister is showing a lot of good will. There are seven reasons that prompt us to say so. First of all, the minister states that he will pour more money into low cost housing. I feel this gesture on the government's part is praiseworthy. I notice also in the minister's statement that from now on it will no longer be required to have a child to obtain the reimbursement of the interest rate. The minister is also giving a chance to municipalities in respect of services related to low cost houses, especially single dwellings. I believe this is a step forward and again I congratulate the minister.
As regards interest rates and the establishment of the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation, the minister said that it will be set up by April 1 at the latest. For this, we must wait for the legislation. I should like to see it determine an interest rate which is reasonable and limited, especially for medium-priced housing.
In a speech I made last year, I asked for larger grants to compensate for recent mortgage rate hikes. However, if the mortgage rate under the new legislation is prohibitive or unduly high, these $1,200 will certainly fail to bring about the expected results.
Moreover, I should like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that at a federal-provincial conference this morning, he suggested to his provincial counterparts that provinces should set up rent controls.
In the province of Quebec, we have had a great many difficulties with the Quebec Housing Act, the Quebec Housing Corporation and the CMHC. But above all, I should encourage the minister to meet more often with his

provincial counterparts, especially as regards Quebec, to obtain positive results.
By way of a conclusion, I should like to express the hope, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, that the minister will introduce this bill and make every effort to bring down mortgage rates in line with standards of quality and price.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he would give the House an estimate of the total cost of the program in a full fiscal year. Particularly so far as the 1976-77 fiscal year is concerned, how much of this cost is new housing money as opposed simply to a specific allocation of the funds committed in the June 23 budget?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has really missed the thrust of the whole program. There is substantial additional funding here. The 1976 capital budget has not yet been set. What hon. members have failed to grasp is that there is a direction to the lending institutions to increase their lending for low-cost housing at rates which people can afford. This will be done on a massive scale and will introduce some $750 million of new funding into the program, but for low-cost, good quality housing.
There are, of course, additional federal expenditures of a major type. I cannot give exact figures because the capital budget is not approved, but this will free-up-there is a significant increase over last year-hundreds of millions of dollars to enrich and enhance programs of public housing, non-profit housing, co-operative housing, senior citizens' housing, native housing, and programs for many other sectors that need to be well served.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister would elaborate on how he proposes to require this mortgage financing to be directed to new, lower and moderately-priced housing. Secondly, can he tell the House what assurances he has in fact that $8 billion will be available next year to finance new housing construction? Can the minister assure the House right now that he has those commitments from the financial institutions?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all correct the statement the hon. member made a little earlier regarding the amount of money lent on a voluntary basis simply because we established the program. There has been some $300 million within the last several weeks. However, this program gives the Minister of Finance power to require the lending institutions to lend this money. It is not being done legislatively. By practice it has been done by indicating the wishes of government. If necessary, however, legislation will be forthcoming. We do not expect this will be necessary because various lending institutions lend in different ways.
We are not trying to disturb the investment patterns of capital markets; we are saying that we need additional funds and we need them at the rate of 14 per cent above previous commitments. If more than 14 per cent is

required, then we will make this a requirement too. The situation will be monitored by a monitoring committee, in co-operation with the provinces and the provincial, chartered lending institutions. I think the provincial ministers have seen the excellence of this program, if hon. members opposite do not.


Mr. Marshall:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister indicated that he is removing the restriction that a couple has to have a child or more to qualify under AHOP, is the minister going to remove the same restriction on the purchase of existing homes? Since he is also freeing so much funding, is it his intention to increase funding from the government for rehabilitation purposes, which is so important to many hundreds of thousands of people of low income in this country?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In so far as existing housing is concerned, we do not intend to seek legislative authority at this time in making that offer. We feel that all the funding that can be channelled into new residential construction is the best use of our resources. If we have an excess, then we can apply it to existing housing; but for the moment our policy remains that of increasing housing supply in a major way. All our programs, of course, will be greatly enriched by the fact that the lending institutions are now being directed.


Jack Marshall: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, will the legislation provide that certain amounts of money will be allocated to boost the rehabilitation aspects of NIP and the rural native housing program?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not in the legislation; it is in the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up the question raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I am very interested in the proposal to require financial institutions to lend money for this program. Did I rightly understand the minister to say that in the proposed legislation that requires financial institutions to advance money for this purpose, there will not in fact be, at least initially, any mandatory provision; that it will be left simply to telling these institutions what the government wants?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we feel that this is a much better way to do it. When they are advised that that is the wish of the government, then I know of no occasion when they have not followed this kind of requirement. If legislation is necessary, of course, it will follow; that is quite clearly understood. The advantage of doing it this way is that in legislation one must specify a certain percentage of investment portfolios. We think that rather than be legislated in this way, the lending institutions would prefer to be co-operative in making certain that we get our total dollar requirement.
We must remember that banks have many different practices. Trust companies and life insurance companies are different types of savers and lenders. So rather than get into this sort of distortion of the capital market, I am confident that this program will have its intended effect. If that turns out not to be the case, legislation will have to
Housing
follow; but there is no question in my mind that that will not be necessary.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a passing observation. I thought the minister had already asked the mortgage companies to do this sort of thing, without much success. My last question is this: At what interest rate will these financial institutions be required to advance money for this purpose? Will it be the current interest rate, or some reduced interest rate?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, it will be at the conventional interest rates at the lower end of that market, as is the case with our CMHC program, It is from there that we subsidize the rates down equivalent to 8 per cent, and even with grants below that which bring the effective rates much lower.


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might direct a question to the minister. Will he say whether the program involving grants and loans to municipalities is to be administered through the provinces; and, further, is there to be any incentive offered municipalities to process applications for housing developments within a given period of time, in order to remove one of the most serious bottlenecks within the whole housing construction process?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is one of the most serious bottlenecks, outside of perhaps the rate of interest itself. The grant will not be processed through the provinces; it will be made in consultation with the provinces. It is directly because CMHC will retain monitoring over that to make certain that the type of product it is supposed to subsidize is delivered-in other words, low-cost, compact housing or housing in forms that people can afford, and of good quality. We will reach agreement with the provinces on the form that is to take and it will be placed directly by the federal government, as indeed it is with several of our programs.
In so far as the second part of the hon. member's question is concerned, we discussed this matter with provincial housing ministers this morning. They recognize the urgency of this question and are making every effort to shorten the period. The matter has been left directly with the provinces because, as the hon. member knows, the provincial ministers have been very supportive in this regard.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, did the minister put before the provincial housing ministers the form and level of rent control which the federal government considers to be most appropriate to its over-all restraint program, and will he tell us what that level or guideline is?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the provincial ministers of housing and officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs discussed this matter at quite considerable length this morning, that is, if these will be provin-cially-implemented programs. Our senior officials are meeting at this moment, following the meeting we had earlier today, to work out the parameters. We will be

November 3, 1975
Housing
meeting again, I expect, within the next ten days or two weeks, when we will be able to set out the broad parameters which will apply right across the country, but implemented in a way that is useful to the individual provinces.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether this Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation referred to in the legislation will be under the responsibility of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? If so, will any individual be able to invest in this Mortgage Exchange Corporation at a previously set rate for the whole term of the mortgage investment?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the legislation for the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation was passed some time ago. This is not for direct investment to individuals, but it makes the mortgage instrument far more liquid and far more attractive to investors, particularly non-traditional investors. Massive pools of capital are available through pension funds, for instance, and I am sure my hon. friends in the NDP would not want to see them take interest rates lower than they can get. So it makes it a more attractive instrument in that respect. It also makes far more attractive the mortgage investment corporations which had legislation passed at the same time. It really creates a secondary market for mortgages. It will create a lot more activity. It will make investment more attractive and will have an influence in bringing down interest rates on household mortgages.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question which was as follows: will the ordinary individual, the one who makes investments, have the chance to invest in this Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation set up to build housing? If so, will this investment be guaranteed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and will the interest rate be previously set for the term of the mortgage?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, it is actually a secondary market, a sort of wholesaling operation for mortgages so that people can buy mortgages knowing they are liquid, and they can resell to the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation; or, indeed, they can buy from that corporation. In CMHC alone we have a substantial portfolio of mortgages which can be used and wholesaled there. So it is not a direct investment for the individual, although it makes investment for the individual much more attractive whether he or she does it through conventional channels or not.
I want to reiterate the connection with regard to the mortgage investment corporation which is a tax conduit for small investors who want to invest in mortgages. It is specifically for mortgages and the corporation taxes; full benefits flow through to the individual and it becomes a much more attractive investment for household mortgages. It should attract capital from many sources. I mentioned pension funds specifically because they have not been active in this field. This proposal makes it a much more attractive field for them to get into.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Keeping in mind those hon. members who were seeking the floor at the conclusion of the minister's statement, and not wanting unduly to restrict the questioning, I wonder if I might have the co-operation of hon. members in putting one rather comprehensive question rather than restricting hon. members who were seeking to be recognized? Perhaps the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour), the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) would each put one comprehensive question so that we may conclude the matter on that basis.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is a rather direct one. In view of the fact that the program enunciated by the minister today is inflationary and in complete contradiction to what the government is supposed to be doing to fight inflation, has the minister's department put any proposal to him that, instead of getting at this problem in the inflationary manner he is adopting-and I mean getting at the basic problem that 75 per cent of the cost of housing today is in the form of interest payments-he should try to figure out some way of reducing interest rates, not by negative and inflationary policies of subsidy but by making the capital circulate faster? Were any proposals of that sort put before the minister?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there were several proposals. We examined virtually every option that exists and found this to be the most cost-effective, anti-inflationary measure that could be introduced. I hardly consider it inflationary when we talk only about low-cost loans for moderate income families, reducing the carrying charges for them and increasing employment by creating 32,000 new jobs this year. If that is inflation, it is the sort of inflation we need more of-that is, a million man-years over the period of four years-making certain that the capital resources of this country are used for the benefit of the people who can least afford to take advantage of them, and having a disincentive for those inflationary factors involved in building expensive houses on large lots.


James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the capital cost allowance provisions applicable to rental entrepreneurs, is the minister prepared to give any undertaking regarding the duration of this provision, and does the measure apply to corporate as well as non-corporate entrepreneurs?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, as long as they are already in that business they are getting capital allowance at the present time. This special provision is for those who do not. I believe I am correct in saying this applies to corporate investors as well. You must excuse me; I just have to check that point. It is really trying to attract pools of capital from small investors who are not in that market at the present time. The period has been extended to December 31, 1977.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister refers to the letters he sent to the banks and financial institutions earlier this year. Can he inform the House what type of response he received at that time, and how much in funds was allotted? I should like to point out to him that the president of Monarch Life stated that the
November 3, 1975

housing slowdown is mainly due to lack of housing projects being brought forward by builders and developers. He also stated that they could only lend mortgage money on what is presented to them as opportunities. Would the minister inform us how much money was provided at that time?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was advice to the lending institutions concerning a program; it was not a requirement, as is the case now. In the last several years- my information was received about August-the latest information I have is that the funds invested by private investors under the limited dividend, AHOP, and rental programs have been in excess of $300 million, mostly going into rental accommodation. But even with that we are not satisfied. We must have more certainty in what we are trying to establish this year, in respect of continuity in the market, so that builders can plan for four years and municipalities and provinces can plan. Through that we can achieve the economies of scale necessary to gear up for production in a competitive situation, and get prices and costs down. This is a major part of our program, so that people in the building trades will know where they are going for the next several years: I think this is the most important element.
This matter also preoccupied this morning the provincial ministers with whom I have been working over the past year. I think this proposal reflects their view as much as it does that of the federal government. It is a very important issue and has their strong support.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, James Lorimer, a Toronto urban affairs analyst, said in a brief to the royal commission on corporate concentration that land speculation profits are responsible for 24 per cent of the cost of a new house in metro Toronto. He asked what the government intended to do about speculation profits. Mr. Lorimer's study criticizes 24 large developments, first for holding more than
41,000	acres of land in and around metro Toronto in 1973, and second for selling their holdings very slowly to a relatively small number of high income buyers who can afford the prices they set.
Did the minister, in his meetings with the provincial ministers this morning, recommend that they enact tough legislation to control this form of land control speculation, and did he-as he did not do this afternoon-recommend that more effective funds be set aside for land assembly in the provinces?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there will be more funds for land assembly, but particularly important here are services within that land. We have added a new dimension to that by adding water mains and water treatment facilities which will be very much welcomed. The principal problem is one of getting this land on the market.
Although the Lorimer study is interesting, the whole question of land speculation is not addressed specifically in this set of proposals. However, it is one that the Minister of Finance and myself are looking at very seriously. It would appear at this time that the heat has been taken out of the speculation itself. The real problem is getting the serviced land and approvals for the lower-cost type of
Order Paper Questions
housing to which this program is directed. They cannot get the funding and approvals unless they go into the type of lower-cost housing we believe Canadians want and need today and which we are determined to supply.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 3,122, 3,126, 3,127.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development through Parks Canada print a brochure showing rates etc. applying to those using the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and, if so (a) who printed it (b) how many copies were printed (c) what was the cost?
2.	Were all such brochures destroyed by fire at Mallorytown Landing Headquarters of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and, if so (a) on what date (b) on whose instructions (c) for what reason?
3.	Was a further brochure printed and, if so (a) on what date (b) by whom (c) on whose instructions (d) at what cost (e) was one of the reasons for such reprinting that public pressure had convinced the government to change the original rates introduced?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Yes. (a) Canadian Government Printing Bureau; Astro Graphics of Cornwall; (b)
125,000	for all National Parks and National Historic Parks in Ontario. 2,000 (preliminary version for early distribution); (c) $2,399; $33.60.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. (a) July 28, 1975; (b) Canadian Government Printing Bureau; (c) Acting Director, Ontario Region; (d) $2,343.52; (e) No.


Mr. Cossitt: Have English language signs recently disappeared from the Lester B. Pearson Building occupied by the Department of External Affairs and, if so (a) were they removed by persons unknown (b) were they removed under direct instructions (c) by whom were such instructions given (d) did Mr. Marcel Roussin have any connection with this matter (e) what was such connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the answer is yes, a few signs have recently disappeared from the Lester B. Pearson Building. The replies to the other questions are as follows: (a) Yes; (b) No; (c) No such instructions were given; (d) No; (e) See (d).

Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
November 3, 1975
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announce that it will spend $30 million on the expansion of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and, if so, will such expansion involve the purchase of large amounts of additional land?
2.	Will the government consider making grants in lieu of taxes to the various rural townships in the area in which such properties will be located because of the tremendous property tax losses these townships will suffer as a result of such government purchases?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Yes. The expansion is expected to increase the Park area considerably, but the Park will remain small in comparison to most other National Parks.
2.	Under the Municipal Tax Act, grants in lieu of taxes may be made on application to the Municipal Grants Division, Department of Finance.
*
* *


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1847 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I also ask the unanimous consent of the House to table immediately the information already communicated to us. The other information will be tabled as soon as it is provided to me.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many departments contributed in any way to the International Festival of Francophone Youth held in Quebec, August 1974?
2.	By department, what assistance was given (a) of a financial nature and what was the breakdown by item (b) in services and, in each case, what was (i) the nature of such services (ii) the breakdown of costs of such services?
3.	By department, how many personnel provided assistance in any way and, in each case, what was (a) their position in the department (b) their salary range (c) the nature of their involvement (d) the period during which they were involved?
4.	By department and by individual, was any remuneration paid, in addition to regular salary for (a) travelling (b) accommodation (c) meals (d) local transportation (e) per diem expenses and, in each case, what was the amount?
Return tabled.
*
* *


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,135?
Because of the length and nature of the answer to the question, I wonder if I could get the permission of the House to have it printed in Hansard as if it had been read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above answer reads as follows:]


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What individuals were employed in or by, or assigned to, the personal office of Mr. Pierre Juneau during the period August 29, 1975 to October 14, 1975 inclusive and what was the totai amount of money paid to each?
2.	In each case (a) on what occasions and for what specific purposes did they travel to Montreal (b) what was the total cost of (i) travel (ii) accommodation (iii) other expenses?
1. Name	Salary Scale	PositionMcDonald, P.	to	$25,000	Principal SecretaryBurelle, A.	to	$21,000	Special AssistantStrasbourg, S.	to	$21,000	Special AssistantBaril, A.	to	$21,000	Special AssistantBujold, R.	to	$21,000	Special AssistantMatteau, L.	to	$21,000	Special AssistantTremblay, C.	$11,340	- $12,409	Cr-6Calcutt, L.	to	$14,500	Sec.-correspondenceParent, J.	to	$14,500	Sec. to assistantPilon, M.	to	$14,500	Assistant-Sec.Garvin, M.	$10,532	- $11,519	St-Sec 4Brisson, G.	$ 8,324	- $ 9,097	St-Sec 2Spencer, M.	$ 8,360	- $ 9,136	CR-3Lavictoire, C.	$4.83/hr	GL MDO-6
2. Name
(a) Purpose
McDonald, P. Baril, A. Calcutt, L.
To ensure liaison between Ottawa
and Montreal offices
To ensure liaison between Ottawa
and Montreal offices
To ensure liaison between Ottawa
and Montreal offices
(i)	Travel (ii) Accommodation (iii) Other Expenses
$348.31	$ 61.00	$250.9674.80	116.23	125.4415.35	-	-


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 3, 1975


ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIONS PLACED ON ORDER PAPER
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at the first opportunity in respect of order paper question No. 3119, and the answer thereto. The question itself was as follows:
Did the Prime Minister say at the opening of the new Mirabel airport: "The Torontonians will be down on their knees" and, if so
(a)	for what reason did he make the statement
(b)	what is the full meaning of the statement
(c)	was it meant as a public affront to the people of Ontario, and
Toronto in particular?
The answer given by the government was as follows:
See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Citation 171 (e).
This citation, at page 147, states that a question, oral or written, must not seek, for purposes of argument, information on a matter of past history. It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) have recently been using references from Beauchesne's that do not accurately apply to the questions involved and this, I submit, is a case in point. I bring this matter up, Mr. Speaker, because I firmly believe that if the procedure is allowed to continue, a mockery will be made of the right of members of this House to put questions to the government.
At the opening of Mirabel airport, the Prime Minister made a very serious statement: "Torontonians will be down here on their knees". As a result, it would seem to me that there is no legitimate reason, nor any ruling in Beauchesne's, which prohibits a member of this House from questioning the Prime Minister on such a statement. Accordingly, I asked the Prime Minister for what reason he made this statement and I also asked him the full meaning of the statement. In reply, a section of Beauchesne's is quoted which prohibits seeking an answer for "purposes of argument".
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question had nothing to do with "purposes of argument". It certainly did have something to do with the right of a member to receive clarification of a statement by the Prime Minister at least in so far as whether it is the policy of his government to create a situation where Torontonians will be running to Mirabel to get down on their knees in front of him, and to know the reasons for such a statement, the meaning of such a statement and, in effect, whether or not it represents government policy. Now, this question also was rejected by the government by the use of a further quotation from Beauchesne's.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to restrict the hon. member in raising what may appear to him to be a point of order. The fact of the matter is that it is well known, without the citations from Beauschesne's to which he has referred, that the rules provide no obligation to make an answer to questions put by hon. members. That citation and that precedent certainly are well known to all members of the House. Whether or not an hon. member is satisfied with the answer he receives or the reason for not receiving an answer, that may be a subject of debate or
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
comment which the hon. member may wish to make at the appropriate time.
I am simply saying to the hon. member that unless he can depart in some way from his present line of argument, he will be unable to satisfy the Chair that there is a point of order involved in the points he has.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree, as I was about to point out in this statement, that a minister is not obliged to answer a question, nor is he obliged to answer a question in such a way that I, as a member of the opposition-or any other member of this House-have a right to question it in so far as the substance of the answer is concerned.
But I think we are dealing here with a different point. I am trying to illustrate that it is not a case of my disagreeing with the answer, as an individual member. Rather, it is a case of the rules being used in such a way as to be a misuse of the rules. If I could continue for a moment, I think I can illustrate the point I am trying to make. For instance, it was also rejected on the ground, quoting again from Beauchesne's, that it is "information on matter of past history".
I find it impossible to see how the conclusion can be arrived at that such a statement by the Prime Minister, made only a day or so before I put the question, has already become something of an historical nature. Indeed, if the government is going to invoke this particular section of Beauchesne's, then it becomes impossible for a member of this House to question anything the Prime Minister says anywhere in so far as it concerns government policy, because apparently this government has now elevated all utterances of the Prime Minister to the historical level.
I would like to make one further reference to the answer given to another question, namely, question No. 2,328 which asks for details concerning the cost to taxpayers of the trip made to London, Paris, and Brussels for a period of 36 days by Mr. Michael Pitfield who is now secretary to the cabinet and clerk of the Privy Council. The government answered, properly and correctly, that the cost of the trip to the taxpayers was a certain number of dollars. It answered, properly and correctly, as to who was the person authorizing the trip. But the third part of the question, asking in what ways the taxpayers benefited from the expenditure of public funds, was ruled out again by quoting Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171 (b), which reads "trivial, vague, or meaningless".
I submit this is, again, an example of the misuse of the rules of the House. If Mr. Pitfield travels to Europe for 36 days at public expense, then it seems to me a member of the House has the privilege of asking in what ways such a trip was of benefit to Canadian taxpayers, who paid for it. It is a misapplication of citation 171(b) of Beauchesne's because there is certainly nothing trivial about expenditures of public funds by a public servant, there is nothing vague about directly requesting to know in what way the taxpayers benefited from such expenditures, and for the government to further imply that the question is meaningless is, I believe, an insult to the taxpayers who paid for the trip.

Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
In conclusion, if the Prime Minister is going to make unclear statements about the people of a city such as Toronto, if the Prime Minister's high ranking officials in the civil service are going to spend public money to travel hither and yon, then I submit there is nothing to prohibit a member of this House questioning such matters and stating that the government has started a dangerous program of misusing precedents of the House to block an answer to these questions.
Finally, I fully realize-as you so rightly pointed out a moment ago, sir-that under the rules of the House, ministers are not obliged to answer questions. I also realize that a member of the House has no recourse against the substance of an answer to a question with which he disagrees. But I believe it is a legitimate point of order when the government misuses the rules of the House to protect itself from having to explain the truth to the elected representatives of the people, and if this process continues I hope that the Chair will then take the matter under examination.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised a point of order concerning answers made by the government to questions, and has already pointed out-as I said a moment ago-that there is no obligation upon the government to answer questions put on the order paper. The Chair will examine the argument put forward by the hon. member to see whether in fact there has been a misuse of the precedents in the answer that has been given. But it seems to the Chair, at the outset, that two things are clear. The first is that if there is anything wrong with making an improper allusion to precedents in failing to make an answer, it is difficult to know if it would establish a point of order, because this gets us back to the point of whether there is an obligation to answer the question in the first place.
In the second place, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), in addition to seeking information also sought the opinion of the government on whether taxpayers were going to benefit from a certain trip, and what was the meaning of the statement made by the Prime Minister. In both these cases there is certainly ground, not so much for information but for an expression of opinion, for a description or for an impression of the person who happens to be answering the question. The difficulty into which I do not want to enter is that since there is no obligation on the government to answer questions, there is a tendency on the part of the Chair to allow wide latitude in questions that hon. members put on the order paper.
If we are to be extremely technical about one side of the matter, it is obvious the Chair will have the obligation to be extremely technical about the other side and will have to take a firm hand in ruling out those questions which are in some ways out of order. The Chair does intervene and examines the questions in a cursory way to try to weed out those that are obviously out of order. I do not think hon. members would want the Chair to intervene frequently and take a hard line in respect of questions put on the order paper, but that might be the logical result of becoming too technical on both sides.
In any case, I will endeavour to examine the arguments put forward by the hon. member to see whether or not a valid point of order exists.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, has continued to give rise, since we adjourned the debate, to many comments, in both written and electronic media, and no doubt many Canadians have continued to take interest in this vital question.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to resume the discussion this afternoon on the provisions of the bill which exclude persons who are 65 from unemployment insurance benefits. The act through which unemployment insurance was adopted was intended, essentially, to achieve two objectives: the first, to protect the worker's income; the second, to encourage the unemployed to reintegrate the work force.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission learned from experience in the last few years that a large number of workers, 65 or over, do not make the effort, do not give themselves the trouble of finding and keeping a job, that workers in other categories are required to do. I have mentioned before in this House that the inquiries of Statistics Canada in past years have proved that at least half of the unemployed of 65 or more who collect unemployment insurance make no effort, or no visible effort to go back to work and that, as a corollary to this fact, civil servants and unemployment insurance inspectors have quite a hard time applying, as strictly as they should, the rules governing the efforts and steps which a temporarily unemployed worker should make to go back to work.
So we have a difficult situation where, on the one side, it is extremely difficult for controllers to force a worker of 65 to take the necessary steps to find employment and on the other side, where a number of workers who are 65 or more are not really willing to reintegrate the labour market, and this is lamentable.
The solution put forward in the legislation is fairly simple. It is aimed at excluding simply all workers who are 65 or more. The reasons for this exclusion stem mainly from measures passed by the government in recent years, and more particularly since 1952, since the adoption of the old age security plan. Now, we note this astonishing and satisfying fact, Mr. Speaker, that the retired persons, people who are 65 or more, have up to now been able to face the rise in the cost of living thanks to the pensions they could get from the old age security plan, the guaranteed income supplement, the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan. These different programs seem to have been clearly sufficient to maintain the purchasing power of retired people, of those who are 65 or more.
I do not invent this statement, Mr. Speaker, nor do I take it from government documents whose credibility could certainly be challenged. One could surely question the
November 3, 1975

arguments of the government if I asserted, on the strenght of governmental studies, that Canadian pensioners, citizens of 65 or over, have been able up to now to meet the cost of living increase. That statement, Mr. Speaker, is extracted from a study by the firm Towers, Perrin, Foster and Crosby, which has a branch in New York and has done a similar study on the American market.
It is clearly indicated in this study that higher old age security pensions and allowances, the indexing of allowances, and increases in the guaranteed income supplement allow the Canadian pensioner to benefit from income support which puts him in a position nearly 100 per cent better than in 1952. Indeed the financial position of senior citizens has greatly improved in Canada thanks to the adjustments the federal government made through the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan. When the Canada Pension Plan was introduced by the federal government in 1952, a pensioner aged 70 was entitled to a monthly allowance of $40.
Those who were the first to benefit under this plan are now entitled, provided of course they are still alive, to $125.76 a month, that is 214 per cent above what they received in 1952. From 1952 to 1975, the increase in consumer prices has been 101.3 per cent. Which means, Mr. Speaker, that between 1952 and 1975, on the whole, the position of senior citizens, the position of those Canadians who have received old age pensions has significantly improved. Therefore the real purchasing power of the Canadian pensioner has jumped 50 per cent, since what he could buy in 1952 for $40 costs about $80 in 1975.
The survey by Towers, Perrin, Foster and Crosby on the comparative increases in the prices of rent, food, clothing and related needs, infers that not only did the first years of the Canada Pension Plan allow people to catch up with the rise in the cost of living, but also paved the way for improved living standards. So the basic pension which amounted to $40 a month in 1952 rose to $55 six years later and to $75 after the 1963 amendments. In other words, since the indexation of old age security, the claimant, the Canadian pensioner, gets a revenue supplement which allows him to live twice better than the 1952 pensioner. But since the establishment of the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan, other benefits are paid, besides old age security.
The findings of this study on the American market are nearly identical. Indeed, the pensions paid to the American pensioner have been increasing steadily and show that the current revenue of the American pensioner is in line with what the Canadian pensioner gets. However, Mr. Speaker, anomalies still continue to exist which allow us to think that the proposed amendments in Bill C-69 are not enough. Indeed, the calculation of the income supplement as done by the Quebec Department of Social Affairs indicates a basic inequality.
Indeed, instead of taking the special needs supplement, the amounts of $219 a month paid out as old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement as a base, the Quebec Department of Social Affairs takes $195 as a basic figure and adds the additional amounts which may be calculated for special needs. That means that every Canadian pensioner who gets the guaranteed income supplement in addition to the old age pension is relieved of an
Unemployment Insurance Act
amount of $28 for all special needs, or for any test of special needs he can prove to appropriate institutions. Thus, a retired Canadian who lives in Quebec and must claim additional needs in terms of medical care, in terms of related care, must have his guaranteed income supplement cut by $28 before he can get an additional amount.
The situations to which this calculation can lead give staggering results. For example, a couple aged 80 who get $349 a month as their pension and guaranteed income, the husband being blind and an amputee, is not entitled to a supplement from the Quebec Department of Social Affairs before they spend virtually all allowances they get to support their primary needs. I think, Mr. Speaker, that if the income supplement is to be reviewed, if the legislation affecting the retired is to be reviewed, those anomalies that exist now in respect of related needs should be corrected.
Mr. Speaker, another anomaly still continues to exist and it was corrected in part by federal legislation. It has to do with that application of the means test to people who come under the Quebec Pension Plan. In a previous amendment the Parliament of Canada did away with what the legal jargon called the means test. At the present time, anyone who applies for a pension under the Canada Pension Plan does not have to submit to a means test to get a pension, to get the maximum pension. This government, this Parliament, are the ones which in the last few months did away with the application of a criterion that no longer corresponded with the true situation of Canadian pensioners.
Now, the Quebec Pension Plan still provides for a means test which contributes to perpetuate this inequality added to the other needs I mentioned earlier.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian pensioners throughout the country are to be on an equal footing, we must make sure that all the income support provisions of the various programs give similar results.
Some colleagues have pointed out that the number of claimants now eligible for benefits as of January 1, 1976 would total from 20,000 to 25,000 and that to this cumulative number would be added from 10,000 to 15,000 claimants during 1976. This means, Mr. Speaker, that if the provisions of the bill were passed word for word by the House, some 40,000 Canadian claimants would not be covered by unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that the object of unemployment insurance was to protect the income of workers. Now, the amendments before the House are designed to deprive a 65 year-old worker of the protection of his right to work. It is not true, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), that the bill is aimed at depriving people of 65 of the right to work. I think that no Canadian law could, in a free economy such as ours, abolish the individual right to work.
This bill removes rather the protection of the right to work. Now, we must ask ourselves at this stage, following the inquiries made by Statistics Canada, whether those figures are sufficient to prompt us to stop protecting the right to work of workers between 65 and 70, a right which was recognized in the 1971 bill.

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
Some editorial writers and some previous speakers have shown that the philosophy of most government programs now designed for older persons aims at integrating them into community activities. The budget of programs such as New Horizons has tripled in the last two years, precisely with a view to integrating Canadian pensioners into community activities. These programs have been very successful, and nobody would think of excluding from them citizens of 55 or 50.
The eligibility criteria has been greatly extended and a large number of Canadians nearing 50 take advantage of these programs.
It would be illogical at this time when there is an attempt to integrate pensioners into community activities, to exclude without exception the pensioners who wish to remain in the labour force.
Undeniably a person who has reached age 65 and quit his job, either because the clauses of a collective agreement force him to retire or because, being 67 years old he has decided to retire, cannot logically be still subsidized by Canadian taxpayers through a plan aimed first of all at protecting the right to work of people who do not want to be on the labour market.
On the other hand it would be illogical to exclude out of hand all citizens aged 65 who still have the energy, the capability and most of all are available for work. There are Canadian businesses whose manpower reserves are mostly people over 60. How would they be affected if the pensionable age was lowered to 60? My hon. colleagues in the opposition have often pointed out that lowering the age of eligibility for old age security would result in freeing a certain number of jobs and therefore absorbing some unemployed whose number is much too great in the present economic conditions.
I believe there is a middle course that would allow us to maintain within our laws the protection of the right to work for all pensioners or 65 year old people. I think that a Canadian of 65 should have the choice either to remain in the labour force and keep paying unemployment insurance contributions or simply to opt out of the unemployment insurance plan. Our legislation has never given the Canadian worker the option of withdrawing from the unemployment insurance system. It was a compulsory universal plan which was supposed to apply to all Canadian workers without exception.
The government proposal aims at excluding from the scheme all citizens aged 65. It does not give them the choice, the option to continue receiving benefits and paying premiums. If it is to remain an insurance scheme, I feel the unemployment insurance plan must allow citizens aged 65 to opt out if they want to withdraw permanently from the labour force. So, a person of 65 could notify the Unemployment Insurance Commission of his intention to opt out of the unemployment insurance scheme and to collect, as provided under the bill, a three-week severance benefit as compensation until his readjustment under the various income support programs I mentioned earlier.
Thus, we would end up, Mr. Speaker, with a plan which I feel would maintain for workers of 65 the incentives to return to the labour marked needed by the Canadian

economy. It would also allow the Unemployment Insurance Commission and plan to unload a number of workers who, at 65, decide and really wish not to go back to work, and who anyway do not want to make the effort and take the steps required to find a job under difficult economic circumstances.
I would therefore suggest to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who proved he is really open-minded by introducing at least five amendments which substantially improve the unemployment insurance program, that he consider giving workers of 65 the opportunity to advise the Commission that they want to opt out of the plan and to receive three weeks of benefit provided for in the government proposal, and allowing those who want to remain in the labour force to continue to contribute, with all the responsibilities and obligations this implies. And if, unfortunately, as a result of the severe controls which must be made by UIC inspectors and officials, the conclusion was reached that those workers are not taking the steps nor submitting to the controls provided for in the act, we would have no other alternative than to disentitle them to receive benefits payable to workers under 65.
I feel that to provide this option under the legislation would show that we acknowledge that the worker of 65 is still making a useful and effective contribution to the Canadian economy and would remove the disincentive to work that other pieces of legislation and government programs seek specifically to compensate.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating is one of the many dubious pieces of legislation following from the document tabled last June which the previous minister of finance was pleased to call the budget. That budget proved to be a launching pad. Indeed, it should have been called that in the first place. The previous minister of finance who introduced that budget has since been launched to the middle benches on the other side and is the latest of the long list of cabinet ministers who have played the role of sacrificial lamb as the government blunders from crisis to crisis. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should have made the exfinance minister a gift of the budget when he made his grand exit, in the way some companies give retiring employees a gold watch. We could then have made a fresh start from square one. We might even have offered the services of our able finance critic-on a consulting basis, of course. This government is all too familiar with the role of the consultant. There are more consultants on the present government's payroll than there have been at any time in Canada's history.
The Liberal government of Quebec seems to have learned a lesson about hiring consultants from the federal Liberal government, or possibly it was the other way around. According to the reports now being circulated about consulting services for the Olympic site in Montreal, the consulting bill alone on the first phase of the project will amount to about $23 million. Of course, there is the matter of the criminal nonsense concerning the payment of more than $30 million to the architect of the domed stadium at the Olympic site.
November 3, 1975

I point out, Mr. Speaker, that members of this House, whatever party they represent, have a very personal stake in this proposed legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. From my own experience, I say that the average member devotes more time and effort to solving UIC cases in the constituency than to all other types of problems put together. This should give some idea of the magnitude of the problem both with respect to the unreasonably high rate of unemployment in Canada and the difficulty experienced by many legitimate claimants in getting their UIC benefits.
Part of the problem in getting UIC claims settled stems from the fact that there are just too many professional UIC cheats. These people tie up the employees of the local UIC offices, drain the UIC fund and force sympathetic UIC employees to adopt a cynical attitude to all claimants, legitimate and otherwise. A couple of years ago the government announced the hiring of an army of ex-policemen, private eyes and other investigative personnel to track down UIC cheats and restore some credibility to the UIC program. Since then I have not heard anything about the project and I have to assume that it has been a dismal failure; also, that most, if not all, those people are now drawing their own unemployment insurance benefits.
Let me stress that the problems we encounter with the Unemployment Insurance Commission are not with the employees of the local UIC offices. My staff and I have always found these people to be courteous, co-operative an helpful. Employees in local offices appear to be just as anxious as the rest of us to see that the program works the way it should, and they are sympathetic to the plight of legitimate claimants. I find that they are also diligent in their efforts to identify and to apprehend the chisellers.
It is interesting to note that UIC employees, especially in local offices, are not awed or overwhelmed by inquiries directed to them by members of parliament. They are responsive and courteous, do not hesitate to point out that some cases of overpayment raise on the basis of false information supplied by claimants, and that the money must be repaid. By the same token, they will not hesitate to admit an error on the part of the UIC office and will often make payments to claimants to cover periods where disentitlements were imposed in error. Mr. Speaker, we cannot fault employees in UIC offices for the failure of the program to work the way it was intended and the way we must ensure it will work.
In order to find the culprits responsible for one of the most expensive boondoggles in the long list of blunders committed by this government, we must go to the top of the bureaucracy and the top of the political ladder. That is where we must go if we are to find those responsible and at the heart of the appalling mess in which the UIC today finds itself. We knew three or four years ago that the Unemployment Insurance Commission was mismanaging the UIC program, and we were alerted to the fact some incompetent people were parachuted into senior positions in the commission, people who had failed miserably in their former positions.
We knew as long ago as 1971 that the government did not intend to take steps to replace the incompetents in the commission. The Prime Minister tried to restore some semblance of order in the UIC house by using his majority
Unemployment Insurance Act
to railroad through parliament a bill which would remove the ceiling on UIC pay-outs. In that way UIC could continue in the same old way and would have an abundance of money under which it could hide its inefficiency and blunders. The Prime Minister also undertook to make up any deficits in the unemployment insurance fund while unemployment remained in excess of 4 per cent of the labour force. Under this new legislation, the Prime Minister has raised his sights to a figure of 5 per cent. In other words, he is prepared to accept 5 per cent to 6 per cent unemployment as equivalent to full employment. This only compounds the travesty of looking upon unemployed Canadians as numbers in a set of filing cards.
The mere idea of 800,000 unemployed Canadians being an acceptable rate of misery and deprivation in our country is deplorable. When it becomes a policy of government, that government does not have the moral right to remain in power. I wonder whether the government would have the courage to go to the electorate on a platform that contained such a policy, combined with a history of flipflopping on the question of inflation.
Just over a year ago, the Prime Minister spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on television and radio time telling the Canadian people that the Conservative proposal for price and income controls would not work. Today we have the most restrictive and wide ranging controls in peacetime history. I invite the Prime Minister to call an election and campaign on those two issues.
It is typical of this government to try to save money by cutting back on the level of benefits paid to the legitimately unemployed. Surely the Prime Minister knows that cutting the level of benefits will only add to the misery of those families without their accustomed level of income. To say that the difference will be made up with family benefits is complete and utter nonsense. There are thousands of families with one or two children. There are others with no children, especially young and middle-aged couples. In some cases, a couple that has already raised their children will need to have an adequate income if the breadwinner loses his job through no fault of his own.
For years the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been doing everything in their power to discourage business and industrial expansion, the very lifeblood of employment, especially with regard to the creation of new jobs required every year based on additions to the labour force. It is as though the government is swinging a double-edged sword at the working people of this country, discouraging expansion in job-creating areas, raising the premium for unemployment insurance and then cutting back on UIC benefits. There is a classic case of confusion and indecision if ever I saw one.
To get back to the question of abuses of the unemployment insurance program, I would like to deal for a few minutes with the remarks of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) concerning people who quit their jobs and those who refuse employment when it is offered to them. I accept the fact that when as many as 250,000 people quit their jobs in a given year, it is a serious matter, one that all of us are anxious to see explained and one we would like to see cleared up. The minister did not

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
have a breakdown on that enormous figure, but I have to assume that he would not have given the figure if it did not represent people who had made application for UIC benefits. The minister did not say how many of those people quit their jobs because they could not continue because of health or other legitimate reasons. He did not say how many quit because their working conditions were intolerable and they could not take it any longer.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister simply threw that figure at us as though he was using it to justify the drastic provisions of this bill, the main purpose of which is to make it look as though the government is deeply concerned about its expenditures. The same might be said about the figure of 26,000 jobs refused by people who were drawing UIC benefits in the period noted by the minister. How many of these people actually turned down jobs for which they were qualified? How many of those jobs required the people to uproot their families and move to job sites hundreds of miles from their place of residence? What I and, I am sure, my colleagues would like to know is whether the minister was actually giving us exact figures of those who sought to abuse the UIC program, or whether in fact there were extenuating circumstances in any or most of the figures he gave us.
I am aware of certain cases that fit into this category. It makes me wonder whether some of them, mostly wives, should be entitled. In some cases, a husband and wife work in the city, the husband with a much better job, or he decides to go into business for himself in a rural area. The family moves with him and the wife then immediately applies for unemployment insurance benefits.
All of us are interested in shutting out the cheaters and the rip-offs in the UIC program. We also want to see better and faster service for those who are legitimate claimants for UIC benefits. However, Mr. Speaker, if the government is simply throwing large numbers at us in the hope that we will get alarmed and demand an immediate crackdown on UIC claimants, across the board, they do not have a hope. We want honest figures and we want an honest appraisal of the problem of UIC cheating. It would also be helpful for us to know to what extent legitimate claimants are being penalized in the government's attempts to uncover and apprehend UIC cheaters.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said that the government hopes to collect an additional $490 million for the UIC fund through the provisions of this bill. If that money is to be raised by penalizing those who are already burdened with the premiums for the UIC program, and by reducing the benefits to those legitimate unemployed people who qualify for benefits, then the $490 million will have to be considered under the heading of ill-gotten gains.
Considering the way in which the present government throws money around, and considering the amount of money wasted in inefficiency and bungling by this government, I cannot accept such measures as are contained in Bill C-69 to enable the government to raise more money. Let them clean house, bring some order and efficiency into the UIC upper echelons, and cut out some of the appalling waste in other government programs that serve no other purpose than to reward Liberal losers and hacks and the mere party faithful. Let us save money in that way; then we will not have to keep squeezing it out of the overbur-

dened workers of Canada and we will not have to raise it by penalizing those who are the legitimate beneficiaries of government programs.
Recently the Ottawa Journal ran a story on the bill under the headline "Workers to bear heavier UIC load". Under the new legislation, maximum premiums for employees would rise immediately from $1.40 per week to $1.70 and could go as high as $3.40 by 1977. Employers premiums will rise from the present $2.40 to $2.80 and, again, in 1977 could be $4.80. The minister says that the new regulations will require employees and employers to pay $490 million into the UIC fund and will allow the federal government to save $600 million in 1976. That is certainly a switch. It is a shabby way for the government to create the impression that it is interested in saving money. What it is really doing is doubling the load borne by those who have been carrying the load all along, the employees and their employers, while not doing anything to ensure that the UIC cheats are shut off from the program.
The new legislation will double the waiting period applicable to those who quit their jobs, making it six weeks instead of three. This might discourage some of the abuses, but there must be more careful scrutiny of those who quit their jobs and more strenuous efforts to screen out those who do so simply to draw UIC benefits.
I repeat, the program must be made to serve the interests and welfare of those who support it with their premiums and who become employed through no fault of their own. Also, it must be administered in such a way as to screen out those who are professional UIC cheats. One way of doing this would be to lengthen the period of insured employment required as qualification for benefit. Right now, a person can work for eight weeks, get fired deliberately and then draw benefits for about half a year.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Longer.


Stan Darling: This is obviously an abuse of the UIC principle and it must be ended. Let me remind the House what our spokesman on this bill, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said when he compared the cost in the United States with the cost in Canada, with a population one-tenth the size of that in the U.S. The United States spent $4 billion on unemployment insurance in 1973 and, as most of us in this House are aware, Canada will spend about the same amount in 1975 in that area.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No question about it.


Stan Darling: Unemployment insurance came into effect in Canada in 1940. In the first 30 years we spent a total of $6 million on the program.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Billions.


Stan Darling: That was the total sum expended during 30 years, Mr. Speaker. Now, figures show that between January of 1971 and December of 1975, our unemployment insurance costs, as predicted, will amount to some $10 billion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Stan Darling: The breakdown, the year to year payments and the contributions by employer and employees, were outlined in that speech given by my hon. friend on Monday, October 27, a week ago today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I put it all on the record.


Stan Darling: Unemployment insurance was set up on a cost basis of $10 per capita, later doubled to $20. It has now reached the staggering figure of nearly $200 per capita. An independent commission should be set up to look into this situation. A few days ago the Globe and Mail questioned the staggering annual cost of unemployment benefits, commenting:
All Canadians are aware that this program has become a national scandal to which Ottawa closes its eyes. Surely the time has come to bring a halt to the massive cheating and moonlighting which goes on, costing the taxpayers millions a month. Some strict screening, individual investigation, regular monthly reviews, effective penalties and allowance cuts when reasonable work is refused are long overdue.
It is high time we gave serious consideration to the position of those who earn substantial incomes on a seasonal basis and then relax in luxury during the off season. I am not talking about the many seasonal workers whose incomes are much below the average, or even average; I am considering, for example, captains on the Great Lakes whose income, I am sure, would be in the $25,000 bracket-


An hon. Member:: All 30 of them.


Stan Darling: -or highly paid construction workers, machine operators who, I will admit, work long hours during the season and who earn an annual income of the same bracket. Surely the time has come to give this aspect serious thought. These people are very fortunate to be able to earn an annual income in an eight or nine-month period, whereas a great many working people make considerably less and have to work the full 12-month period for it.
It might also be an idea to give serious consideration to the treatment of combined family income, that is, to the income of both the husband and the wife. It often happens that wives work for a period of the year, not because they need to but because they are bored or have an interest in working. At the same time, their husbands are earning substantial salaries. I know this will raise a hue and cry among the particular group concerned, but it does seem most unfair that present provisions should apply in cases where the husband is earning $25,000 a year or more and has a wife who works. Surely, in such cases when the wife decides to take a month or two off, or happens to be laid off, the total income concept should be applied; if the total income is over a specified figure, the wife should not draw unemployment insurance benefits.
One of the most controversial changes in the legislation put before us involves the termination of benefits at the age of 65. I am informed that only 10 per cent of the labour force is 65 or over and, therefore, facing disqualification. I am aware that there certainly are people in this age bracket who are working every angle and taking every advantage in order to qualify. My hon. friend from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) pointed out that even if the entire group received benefits at the average Canadian rate of
Unemployment Insurance Act
$74.61 a week for 15.9 weeks-and it would be almost impossible for this to happen-the total saving to the government, to the taxpayer, would be $2.77 million, or .7 per cent of the deficit for the present year, which is just a drop in the bucket.


Robert Knight Andras: That is wildly inaccurate.


Stan Darling: The great majority of those affected will be people in the lower income brackets who choose to work after 65 rather than retire and live on a greatly reduced income. What the minister is saying is, "We do not want you in the labour force any longer. Go home put your feet up and live on your old age pension and any savings you may have." A great many workers who are in good health do not wish to retire. In many cases, they are much better workers than men and women many years their junior. They take a pride in their work, they have an excellent record as far as time loss is concerned, and in view of these circumstances I am hoping the minister will reconsider this particular change. Last night I was discussing this particular clause with a person who said, "Oh, that is easy to remedy. All these workers will now retire at age 64".
I am aware that a great many people who pay into the fund feel that some time or another, by hook or by crook, they should be able to collect in order to get their money back. For many years I was a general insurance agent. Time and time again, especially when trying to collect old accounts, I would be told that clients did not have an accident, or didn't suffer from a fire and were therefore justified in not paying an insurance premium. Old age pensioners feel they should be eligible for unemployment benefits because they have paid for them. They have contributed to the economy down through the years and they feel they are now being cast aside like an old shoe, no longer wanted. Many of them, having been forced to retire at age 65, want to continue to work and, of course, register with Manpower. They are being eliminated from the insurance rolls against their will.
We have learned during the past few days that the cost of the unemployment insurance program increased by 40 per cent during the first eight months of 1975, and that the pay-out in that period was about $2.4 billion. This means we can expect a total bill for UIC payments this year or well over $3 billion. At this rate, UIC could mushroom in the next few years to become the most costly single item in the Canadian budget.


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-69. I am going to have some criticism, not of the minister or these amendments but of the act itself. I hope to make some useful recommendations for the consideration of the minister which perhaps will be implemented in the future. I agree with the principle of the bill in general. I think very few of us here would not agree that the act does need tightening up. We have been besieged by all kinds of complaints over the past three to four years regarding facets of the act that required amendment, and I am glad the minister has finally taken the bull by the horns and come forward not only with necessary but with useful amendments.
8798


Mr. Benjamin:: Where is the minister? He is not here.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: I am assuming that the minister can read just as well as the hon. member across the way. With regard to benefits, the previous speaker said these had increased to well over $3 billion. I was recently in Australia and was interested to learn that a single, unemployed person in that country receives $36.50 a week. That is equivalent to about $47 Canadian. I am not arguing the point whether our benefits are too high, but compared with the benefits received in Australia ours are away above theirs.
One way in which we could reduce this very costly bill is to eliminate the indexation of unemployment insurance. I can understand the indexation of old age security payments or benefits under programs that aid people on low,

fixed incomes, but I cannot understand indexation of the unemployment insurance program. If there is one thing that is detrimental about indexation, it is that every time you index something it becomes easier to index something else. By the time you are through with indexation, Mr. Speaker, you have built so much inflation into the economic system of the country that it is difficult to support. Thus, I urge the minister to consider eliminating the indexing provision from the Unemployment Insurance Act, perhaps replacing it with a section providing for a yearly review. I think removal of the indexation feature would be welcomed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why don't you try living on UIC for a couple of weeks?


Jean Robert Roy: I see our former engineer across the way is still running down the track with his locomotive, not knowing where he is going. No act or program should rely on a huge bureaucracy for its reasonable application and proper implementation. Nor should it depend upon a Big Brother system of reporting indiscretions. No unemployment insurance program that I would like to see would depend upon an employer, a friend, even a relative, bringing indiscretions of people defrauding the act to the attention of the authorities. I think the incentive to remove oneself from the unemployment insurance rolls should be implicit in the program itself.
With this in mind, I have on several occasions made a proposal to the minister and I make it once more for his consideration and the consideration of his officials. I refer to the proposition of diminishing returns. Let a person receive full benefits for a period, say, of three to four weeks. Following that period, if benefits were reduced by 20 or 25 per cent, and then after another two weeks by 10 or 15 per cent, I think we would find that no one would stay on unemployment insurance for 40 or 50 weeks. Reduced benefits would soon put them into the labour market, which is where they should be.
Mr. Speaker, if we continue to consider this program generally as a welfare program or partly as a welfare program, then it is necessary, wise and advisable to limit the yearly earnings of claimants. Since we limit the premiums under the act and the level of salaries on the basis of which the payment of premiums is made, I think it would be just as acceptable to limit yearly earnings. I think we must place a maximum on the earnings one can have and continue to receive unemployment insurance. It would be better, as a general principle, to distribute a universal guaranteed income than to have thousands of people taking advantage of their tax paying neighbours and Canadian citizens.


An hon. Member:: Hogwash.


Jean Robert Roy: We are creating a social attitude with some of our programs which will make it difficult for us in the future. It will be difficult if it becomes fairly acceptable for someone to cheat the government. Perhaps it is not acceptable to cheat your neighbour, but it may become generally acceptable to cheat the government in this way. If it becomes acceptable that individuals should
November 3, 1975

receive unemployment insurance rather than looking for a job, then I think we will have created a social attitude that will be very detrimental to Canadian society.
We all know of the terrible abuses that take place under this act. I am sure most of us have been personally involved with individuals who complain about their neighbours and friends in this regard. Employers are often accomplices in this fraud. How many employers use the unemployment insurance system as a means of staff planning? How many employers let their people go in the wintertime with an agreement that they will collect unemployment insurance for a certain period of time and be compensated for the balance when they return to work? These are the same employers who criticize and complain to me about the overgenerous benefits of our system. They suggest we should cut half these people off benefits. Let me remind these employers that they can start at home by cutting the people they do not want receiving unemployment insurance benefits, and by making sure they do not have this type of agreement which is favourable to some employees and unfavourable to others.
How many employees who are receiving unemployment insurance have full-time jobs? I suggest there are many of them. Not only are they illegally receiving unemployment insurance benefits, but they do not pay tax on the added income they get from the full-time or part-time job. With that sort of activity becoming acceptable, I say we are creating a very bad social system and a very bad attitude among the population.
While it is true that there are many abuses by claimants, it is also true that there are many abuses to those claimants carried out by officers of the unemployment insurance service. This works both ways. I am under the impression, and I think there is some validity to this, that promotions in many instances are given in the unemployment insurance department on the basis of the number of convictions or disentitlements an officer has under his belt or can effect, rather than on the basis of the service he can provide the claimant or unemployed individual who seeks his service. This is something that should be looked into by the minister and changed.
I have made representations to the minister regarding abuses by officers. The one that has bothered me most relates to statements by claimants. I am pleased to see that the minister in his wisdom has decided to change that regulation, making sure that such a statement does not become a statement of evidence on the part of the claimant. These statements can be misinterpreted by an officer. I remember the case of one chap who was asked how much money he would like to earn in a new job if one was found for him. He said: "Well, I have a family of six kids and I can hardly support them under $100 a week". The officer put down on the statement, "Will not accept under $100 a week", disentitling the claimant immediately.
That is the type of thing I want to see stopped. I think it is the type of thing that will be stopped under the new procedure of obtaining a report from the officer, rather than a signed statement by the claimant. It seems to me the board of referees will be much better served by having both sides of the story before making a decision on the appeal, rather than just the side given by the officer as
Adjournment Motion
well as, perhaps, a misinterpreted but signed statement by the claimant.
I completely agree with the amendment in the bill that doubles the period for people who leave work without just cause or, indeed, refuse suitable employment. With regard to the 65 years of age clause, I know it is difficult to take away from people something you have given them and to which they have grown accustomed. However, I am sure our 65-year old people will understand the reasoning and thinking of the minister, his officials and the government as expressed in this clause. I simply cannot believe that a good insurance scheme can function when someone who pays $1,500 into the program can at a later date, when he reaches age 65, take $6,000 from the fund. This is economically impossible. I know our 65 year olds will understand this. You just cannot pay $1,500 in and some years later take out $6,000. If everybody did that, you would require four times the money to make the fund self-sustaining. So this part of the program is impossible to continue.
Let us remember the alternate benefits which accrue to those 65 years of age, including three weeks' unemployment insurance with no questions asked, old age security with no questions asked, the guaranteed income supplement-with an income test-and Canada Pension Plan benefits with no questions asked. We must also remember the additional income tax exemption of $1,307 for people over 65. While these alternate benefits may not completely supplant or replace unemployment insurance benefits, I think if people aged 65 will look at them closely they will see they are reasonable when compared to unemployment insurance.
I am in full agreement with the minister regarding the sickness provision. How many people have great difficulty in continuing to receive benefits as claimants when sick for a second time, even being sick for two or three days on the first occasion and seriously ill for an extended period the second time? I am in total agreement with, and commend the minister for, that particular change.
In conclusion, I hope the minister will continue to review the act. Personally, I am not satisfied that these changes will make it a perfect act, far from it, but I commend the minister for having had the courage at this time to bring forward the changes. I am convinced that he will find more beneficial amendments in the not too distant future.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Public Service-Proposed reduction of staff-Effect on implementation of bilingualism program; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKen-
2995 6-51/2

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
zie)-Post Office-Proposal to allow private carriers to deliver mail-Government position; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Broadcasting-Actions of United States television stations in obtaining Canadian advertising-Government action.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would have a few remarks on this piece of legislation which is very important I think, and if I refer to the speeches I have just heard, it seems clearer and clearer that the minister will have to recognize some shortcomings in this bill and in the legislation on unemployment insurance as a whole. I understand hon. members on the government side who are very careful but, if you listened well to them, they try did to invite the minister to bring some corrections. I will refer later to the comments I heard.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a piece of legislation which is important, I say it again, and which stems I think from an act which has been ill-administered for too long. I must say right away that I read carefully the speech made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who traced back the history of the legislation, and considering of course the credits being applied, it seems quite clear-and I did not hear anyone criticizing the allegations made by the hon. member for Hamilton West-that those previsions have always been wrong, which explains the loss of credibility towards the government only regarding this legislation. One could talk about so many other measures that have been put forward by the government for some time and which do not meet the needs and do not correct the situation.
Anyway, we are before a government which has been governing for ten years and we are once again before a legislation that is far from being popular and just. Yet, ten years ago, they were talking about a "just society". And most Canadians did believe it. Considering the inadequacy of that legislation, we feel increasingly that the public is losing confidence in a government that cannot manage to introduce acceptable measures which of course, we must criticize, exactly what we are doing. There is talk of savings of $500 to $600 million through this legislation, of which the workers will have to assume half. The worker will have to pay 50 per cent, which will mean an increase of 30 per cent. Still, one bill tells us the increase must not exceed 10 per cent in the case of salaries. Some revel in fine words, while accepting that the worker's premium go up by 30 per cent: we feel that is unfair. Mr. Speaker, if the

government made the wrong forecasts, if it erred completely, that is no reason why the workers should pay the consequences.
This bill provides some worthy steps we will not question; for instance, we accept that the penalty be doubled for those who leave their jobs too easily; basically, we are not against that but, as one of my hon. colleagues pointed out, we feel that whoever left his job for what he considered just reasons, I suppose, and who appeals to the court, should not be the only one to appear before it: the employer should also be called upon to appear and prove that the report he made on the employee is acceptable to the court of appeal.
It is unfair and intolerable to pay benefits to workers who have once more quit their jobs for reasons the court will surely be interested to know. The employer ought to be compelled to give evidence to permit double checking, which is not at present provided for in the act.
The administration of riding offices was also questioned. I hasten to say-and to say it in the minister's presence- that the office in my riding can boast of a very competent director and highly-qualified staff. However, in spite of the greatest efforts and the best of intentions, it does happen that some applicants encounter difficulties. For example, becausee the claim procedure is initiated in my riding office, the cheque must be made outside. Right now, as is so often the case, postal workers are on strike, which results in applicants experiencing a great deal of problems. Therefore I would like to urge the minister to provide ways and means whereby applicants can receive their cheques without delay. It is precisely the one who cannot afford to wait for his pay cheque that most needs the unemployment insurance benefits. Is it possible to improve this system to prevent claimants, once their form is duly completed and their acceptance acknowledged, having to wait 24 hours to get their cheque? All members hope to see this mechanism sufficiently well organized in order that justice be done to claimants in such circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, some provisions of this legislation are valuable. We regret and criticize the general administration and the estimates made some ten years ago, particularly because they were wrong or badly prepared.
A while ago I noted the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) clearly requesting the minister not to deprive persons of 65 and willing to go on working from the possibility of drawing unemployment insurance benefits.
And at this point, Mr. Speaker, we of the opposition, and the New Democratic Party as well as the Social Credit Party of Canada, made suggestions, representations to the minister about that particular clause. We believe that those people want to remain in the labour force. And God knows, Mr. Speaker, since the government made its intentions known a few months back already-and I am convinced that other members think as I do-that representations have been made by the people concerned who want to remain in the labour force and qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. And the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is one of the few members of the party in power to express his views clearly. That is a good thing and I congratulate him for it. The opposition did not wait until today to do that.
November 3, 1975

Since that legislation was introduced in the House, we have asked the minister to review that proposal, and I dare hope other members will do the same. The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) made a few very appropriate remarks on the administration in general, and I think it is important that members, whatever party they represent, tell the minister that there is a shortcoming and a proposal that is unacceptable.
So, in the circumstances, I hasten, Mr. Speaker, to urge the minister to lend an attentive ear about that particular clause. I feel it is my duty to ask the minister on behalf of those people to reconsider his decision and allow those who still want to remain in the labour force to qualify once again for unemployment insurance benefits. Of course, we must try today to amend a piece of legislation that was passed more than 30 years ago and also underwent certain amendments. I might ask why once again we have to deal with estimates amounting to millions, billions rather, why we have to find that kind of money and collect more from the worker in the present increasingly difficult situation.
As I said, in the unemployment area, there has been an attempt in the last ten years to mislead members of the House as well as the Canadian people in general with measures designed to reduce unemployment. I must remind this House, for the tenth time I believe, that unemployment rose from the 175,000 figure in 1968 to the current 600,000 or 700,000 level. I believe there is an attempt to have us live with a high unemployment rate, but we do not accept that.
As opposition members, we have a duty to ask for much more significant measures than those proposed until now. Not so long ago, not more than a year and a half ago, we were told that action was being taken to slow down inflation and reduce unemployment at the same time. Those were formal commitments. A vote of confidence was obtained from a majority of Canadians, but, as has not been realized for a few months in the face of this government's about-face in any areas, its credibility is jeopardized.
There are still shortcomings in this legislation. It is totally unfair to the worker and it is not only our right but our duty to urge this government to listen to reason and come forward with measures that are much more practicable and fair, and more in keeping with the just society that was sold to us ten years ago but did not materialize.
I urge the minister to show real understanding and much more compassion for the workers, the people that want to remain in the labour force and to qualify for the program by paying premiums. In this way, the government will not only win the public's confidence, which is beside the point, but fill the pressing needs of those Canadians.
I refer again to the statement of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont who said earlier that he feels that the people are concerned and worried, that they are fed up with pieces of legislation inconsistent with their needs. In view of the lack of credibility of the government and the criticisms of the public and the opposition which are quite justified, he decided to ask the minister to reconsider his decision concerning the proposal, but why is he the only government member with enough courage to do so? It would be ridiculous to think, Mr. Speaker, that he is the only government member who had representations to
Unemployment Insurance Act
make in this regard. In my opinion, it is time to prove to the Canadian people that even if you are part of a team, you still have the sacred duty to bring the minister to reason when he is wrong. I feel it is important to stress this.
I therefore avail myself of this opportunity and of the invitation that he made to the minister to express my views. Of course, I could use the statements made earlier by my colleagues and the opinions expressed in the last few days, but I know that the government could reply: Of course, you are in the opposition and you have criticized, and that is all you can do.
We do not criticize because we like it, we ask for an amendment to a legislation which, I repeat, is obviously unfair to a certain group of Canadians. That is why we keep up this fight. We want to show the minister that we are right in hoping that others will take a stand as did the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont this afternoon. To my great surprise, this is the second time in a few days that the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont has made justified criticisms or serious recommendations to the government.
Last week, during the debate on price controls, he stated in the House that the ministers themselves fail to control the expenditures within their department. So, how can one imagine that it is possible to control prices and wages the ministers do not control expenditures within their own department? I am not the one who said so, it is a Liberal member. Today, he urged once again the minister to amend this clause in particular.
I insist on this clause, Mr. Speaker, as it is definitively the most harmful for those people and certainly the most unfair provision in this legislation. Of course, there are some amendment. We certainly wish that the administration will be better than ever and that claimant will get better services. There are more rigid measures, of course, and they are also justified, but we ask that this measure, this legislation be fairer than it is now. We should particularly eliminate this injustice where people aged 65 who wish to stay on the labour market are not entitled anymore to unemployment insurance benefits.
So Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is unfair to try to recover those $250 million from the worker's pockets as it is unfair to deny those people the right to benefits. My comments will not be any longer but once more I encourage the members from government benches to show some guts and not only the members of the opposition but also a particular member. I saw some members that agreed before with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) and I hope that we will show to the minister that we do not agree with this measure in its totality and that if this legislation is not amended at the committee stage to bill the loopholes we can foresee, these hon. members will also have the courage to vote against a piece of legislation that is unfair for a particular class of people.
I hope that the minister will take note of all the remarks made from this side of the House and that there will be similar comments to bring the minister to his senses so that Parliament will give Canadians a legislation that really meets the needs of workers and Canadian people.

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this afternoon we are being treated, as we are on many days, to a parading of all the injustices and abuses that are going on in the UIC. My colleague, the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy), mentioned earlier that often people collect unemployment insurance for a period of 51 weeks. I would remind him, and members of the opposition, that the average person draws unemployment insurance for only 16 weeks and very few indeed collect from the full period. I would refer specifically to the provision in the bill lowering to 65 the age at which unemployment insurance coverage ceases.

The decision to lower the maximum age to get unemployment insurance coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act stems from a number of fundamentals. One of them is the very nature of the plan. The Unemployment Insurance Act provides a protection against income losses in various circumstances and for a certain amount of time. It is not a retirement fund, but a temporary insurance against possible salary losses. When protection ends, premiums are in no way refundable. Fron that point of view, unemployment insurance is similar to a fire protection policy. If a fire breaks out, compensation is paid, but if there is no fire and the house is sold or torn down, fire insurance premiums are not refunded to the policyholder.
Anyway, there is no direct financial relationship between the cost of premiums and the amount of income protection under the plan. For instance, a person who would have been working since the plan was introduced in 1941 and always had the maximum insurable earnings would have contributed a total of $1,500 to the plan in September 1975. If this person came to lose his or her employment because of compulsory retirement at 65 and submitted a claim, he or she would be entitled to $6,373 over the maximum period of 51 weeks during which benefits a payable, provided the national and regional employment rates are high and he or she cannot secure employment.
A three-week retirement benefit is payable to major attachment claimants when they reach age 65, and this will remain under Bill C-69. The benefit is an acknowledgment of the reduced protection available to workers in the final year before their sixty-fifth birthday. Third, the principle of coverage being extended only for the normal working life of the claimant was recognized in the 1971 act when coverage was terminated at age 70. Labour groups, members of parliament and the general public have long advocated that most forms of social security for senior citizens begin at age 65, or even earlier in some cases, in recognition of the fact that the average working person has the right and the need to retire at that age and that other forms of income support should be available to him.
The Canada Pension Plan particularly has been upgraded. The earnings test has been eliminated and the plan itself reaches full maturity in 1976. These were concerns expressed by members of parliament in 1970 and 1971 when the Unemployment Insurance Act was being debated. They 
felt that the Canada Pension Plan did not provide adequate income replacement because at that time it had not reached full maturity and was earnings-tested. Other programs have also been improved. For example, in 1971 the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan afforded recipients $65. In 1975 we see that this has risen to $130. The old age security was $80 in 1971 and today it is $126.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not enough.


Gilbert Parent: It is $126, my friend, and the guaranteed income supplement for a single person is up from $34 to $88.


An hon. Member:: Don't brag about it.


Gilbert Parent: The hon. member says we should not brag about it. I ask him, what should we do; hide our heads because we are helping those who need it? Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the government is meeting its moral obligations with regard to people 65 years of age and over. Hon. members will note that all these programs have been indexed. In addition, a $500 increase in the personal income tax exemption for persons aged 65 to 70 was made in 1972, bringing the total personal exemption for this age group to $1,000 more than for other taxpayers. This exemption has also been indexed.
The government operates its programs on limited financial resources, and time and time again we hear members of the opposition saying, "Cut back here" and "Cut back there."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not us.


Gilbert Parent: Cutting back is all very well, but in the final analysis, will the cuts hurt the people of Canada to such an extent that they will not be able to operate? This is one of the questions which must be answered in this House. The need to restrain spending is even more urgent now in the fight against inflation. Thus, the government must allocate its money where it will have maximum impact.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For whom?


Gilbert Parent: For those who are unemployed, that is for whom. In terms of unemployment insurance, that need is clearly in the provision of employment income protection for people who are still in the normal working period of their lives. After retirement age has been reached, other programs take over to offer income support.

Apparently a number of people from this age group are using the unemployment insurance plan for purposes other than those for which it was intended. For instance, recent inquiries by Statistics Canada on labour market have consistently established that fewer persons declare being unemployed for the inquiry purposes than the actual number of claimants. That seems to indicate that those persons say to the inquirers that they are not looking for a job or not interested in finding one while they get unemployment benefits and report to the UIC that they actively look for a job. So it is increasingly difficult, from an administrative point of view, to ascertain whether the unemployed 65 or more are actually willing to work.
November 3, 1975

We must also recognize that people in that age group have difficulties finding a job. It is not always easy to look for a job when there are much younger prospects who report daily-these days anyway. The usual requirements for actively seeking employment with which all claimants must comply are excessively difficult for elderly workers who have serious employment problems. As the commission must apply the same requirements to all claimants, people of 65 or more do experience significant problems. [English]
I submit that this amendment will be understood. I suggest that it will be accepted by people 65 years of age and over.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confine most of my remarks to clause 34 of Bill C-69, the clause dealing with social insurance numbers and the issuing of cards. However, I wish to say a few words about abuses generally with regard to unemployment insurance. Whenever someone on this side talks about tightening up unemployment insurance regulations to catch violators, someone opposite always mentions the high level of unemployment in some part of Canada and suggests that we are trying to disallow some unfortunate persons. This is not really the case and that is certainly not our purpose. But there are people who work the system, so to speak, and who have found the key to enable them to milk the fund for all they can get. Those are the ones we are talking about.
For instance, we are aware of certain large retailers who use the Unemployment Insurance Act to their advantage. What they do is quite legal, but in my view it is not very moral. They have a stable of workers whom they hire for short periods of time, lay them off and take on other workers for a short period of time. Then when the clerks are laid off, they apply for unemployment insurance. After a few weeks on unemployment insurance, they will be rehired, continue working for a period of time and then they are laid off again. The benefit to the employer is that these people are temporary or probationary workers, and as such they are not eligible for any of the normal fringe benefits given to regular employees. There is a turnover of thousands of people during the course of a year. The Unemployment Insurance Commission finances this stable of people with benefits. I cannot suggest any way to stop this, but it is happening now and did not happen before. It happens now with more and more companies and it is one of the abuses which somewhere along the line must be dealt with.
The other problem I see in my part of the country has to do with farm labour. A few years ago the available farm labour gathered on the outskirts of the city of Hamilton at Dundurn Castle. The local market gardeners would arrive at 6 a.m. and pick up their fieldhands for the day, delivering them back after the day's work to the same place. Some bright clerk in the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in Hamilton read the fine print in the regulations which said that if a person is employed more than 25 days per year, unemployment insurance premiums must be deducted. This bright lad created havoc in the market garden industry. People used to work for the summer at the market gardens and never worried about unemployment insurance or income tax because they did not earn
Unemployment Insurance Act
enough to bother the income tax department: most earned less than $1,000.
What happened to these people? They now pay unemployment insurance premiums, their employers have to pay their portion as well and they must keep records of earnings and deductions. These people would rarely seek unemployment insurance benefits when the market gardening season was over. Many people took it as a part-time job during the summer. They went back to school, or many who were housewives went back to their normal home duties in the fall when the children went back to school. Some of them worked during the summer on farms to earn enough money to take a winter holiday. I suggest that this was the situation in most parts of the country where there was market gardening.
Now we have to import field hands from Mexico and the Caribbean to fill the void, at considerable cost to this country's taxpayers. I might add that the calibre of work done by these imported field hands is high. The farmers like them and want them back. I mention this as an example of government interference with the private sector. It is working to the detriment of market gardens and adding to the cost of the unemployment insurance program.


An hon. Member:: Do not forget the tobacco farmers.


William James Kempling: I ought not to forget the tobacco farmers. They are important.
I turn now to clause 34 dealing with social insurance numbers and cards issued by central records. I feel somewhat responsible for this particular mendment to the act and commend the minister for bringing it in. We often talked about it when we met in the halls before the bill was introduced. He assured me that the amendment would be included and I commend him for it. He is a man of his word and I admire him greatly.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is just that it takes him a long time to act.


William James Kempling: Leverage is something members of parliament learn to use, to move the bureaucracy of government from its rigid and inflexible position. One must learn where to put the lever and how much pressure to apply in order to obtain the desired movement. It is an art you must learn by experience. You begin from the position that the government thinks it never does anything wrong and that those at the top, the senior bureaucrats, in their wisdom believe they know what is best for the people. Given that fact, you find difficulty in placing the levers in the proper position. But if you persevere, you can win.
Early in March, 1974, a young man named Gary Hapke, from Dundas, near my home town, came to my home one Sunday with a problem. He told me an amazing story, of having had his pocket picked at a circus in 1970 and of someone, unknown to him, using his identity. He explained that he had to justify his income tax claim each year to the officials of the Department of National Revenue because his impersonator was ' accepting employment in Mr. Hapke's name and under his social insurance number.

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
Further, the impersonator used Mr. Hapke's driver's licence and, during a series of months, had collected several traffic violations, fraud charges, and a conviction for stealing a car, all in Gary Hapke's name. Here was this young man trapped between three layers of government.
Through the efforts of Hon. George Kerr, then solicitor general of Ontario, we arranged to erase the traffic violations, the stolen car charge and fraud charges standing in his name on provincial records. Frankly, I did not know where to begin. Mr. Hapke and I talked to the local police, and met with Staff Sergeant Smith of the Regional Police of the Hamilton area. He was extremely helpful in the initial stages of the matter, and provided background detail which showed the immensity of the fraudulent impersonation which had been taking place. The problem was that it was difficult to move the bureaucracy in Ottawa and get them to clear Mr. Hapke's name in their records. I had already taken the position that a new social insurance number should be issued to Mr. Hapke so that he could go on his way; then, if more charges arose, the income tax people could know that they were attributable to the impersonator and not to Mr. Hapke. In the meantime Mr. Hapke's name and social insurance number kept turning up all over the country, even as far west as British Columbia.
I wrote detailed letters to four cabinet ministers, the then minister of national revenue, the then minister of justice, the Minister for Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), in an attempt to straighten out this matter. It was necessary to get those four cabinet ministers to act.
It was necessary for the Department of National Revenue to clear the income tax files so that Mr. Hapke could get a tax refund to which be was entitled by virtue of tax overcharge.
The Solicitor General and the RCMP had to act, to apprehend the impersonator. We knew his name and the RCMP, as it turned out, had his fingerprints on file.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration had to act, to clear the UIC files covering Mr. Hapke's name, and to issue a new social insurance number from central records.
The then minister of justice had to act to charge the impersonator, once apprehended, with impersonation and fraudulent use of government documents.
By a stroke of luck we learned, through Inspector Sam Eyre of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police, that the person using Gary Hapke's name was one Roger Sasser-ville, then serving a sentence in Oxford county jail for fraud. I immediately rose in the House and asked the Solicitor General if he would now proceed with charges against Mr. Sasserville for impersonating Mr. Hapke, using his social insurance number, and so on. To my surprise the Solicitor General replied that he did not know whether the matter fell within his jurisdiction. I received the same replies from the then minister^ of justice and the then minister of national revenue. I only received satisfaction from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who said he would look into it.
At about this time I got in touch with the head of the central records branch of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to see what could be done about issuing

Mr. Hapke a new social insurance number. To my surprise he told me that this could only be done if Mr. Hapke would change his legal name. I questioned this gentleman several times. He told me he had cleared the matter with the legal officers of the department and that this was the only way a new social insurance number could be issued. I was also told that the computer was not programmed to handle two numbers in connection with the same name. This was nonsense, as I was soon to learn.
As a result of the publicity given this matter several people wrote to me. I heard from an employer in Toronto who had several employees who possessed two, three and, in one case, four social insurance cards. He told me that he had recorded their social insurance numbers on their T-4 slips. I do not know whether the Department of National Revenue has looked into this matter. The danger of that situation is that a man might be employed under one number and collect unemployment insurance under another. In one case this could be duplicated three or four times. I merely point out a possible abuse. I hope that the good people in National Revenue have looked into this and will straighten the muddle out, because it could be very costly for the government and the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


An hon. Member:: One man in Winnipeg had 15 cards.


William James Kempling: The situation, of course, was ridiculous. Here was a young man whose name had been used fraudulently, who had a record on RCMP files not of his own making, who had been harassed for four years by National Revenue for non-payment of taxes on income he had not earned, and whose personal credit record was filled with charges that were not of his making. He was now being asked to change his name legally in order to secure a new social insurance number. It was said that this was necessary in order to straighten out the record.
He was probably the most depressed young man I have run into for years. When he came to me he had applied for a job with a computer company, he having studied computer science at the university. When the firm checked his record with a credit reporting agency it found three or four charges standing against his name. There was a charge for car theft, numerous traffic violations, and other charges that did not relate to him at all. After we brought this matter into the open events began to move more rapidly.
I happened to find out that the man who was impersonating my constituent was in jail in Woodstock in Oxford County. One Sunday I visited him for two hours. He told me a most amazing story of how he travelled across Canada and the United States using the identity of another man. While there, I examined the visitors' book back to the time that this man Sasserville was admitted to jail. I found that no one from any government agency had visited or interviewed him with regard to the fraudulent use of government records and Mr. Hapke's name.
I did this because, after there had been several critical newspaper articles about this matter, someone wrote to the editor of the Globe and Mail over the signature of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). The letter stated that the commission had traced this person
November 3, 1975

and was taking action. I know the minister did not write the letter. The person who did write it knew that this was an outright lie because the commission had not or was not taking any action. That is why I searched through the visitors' book to see who had been there since the man had been admitted. I talked with prison officials as well.
I know the minister did not write the letter. One of his executive assistants wrote it. Every day we see ministers in here with three or four books filled with letters requiring signatures. The minister is a busy man. He probably signed the letter without reading it. Had he read it, I am sure he would not have signed it.
I read the letter in the Globe and Mail. I replied to the editor and straightened out the record. It seemed odd that a minister of the Crown would correspond with a member of parliament through letters to the editor in a newspaper.
We then had some action on this matter. The then Minister of National Revenue responded by refunding the taxes paid. I sincerely thank him for that. He was the first to take any real action. They then refunded the taxes paid by Mr. Hapke on funds earned by Mr. Sasserville. All the traffic violations were cancelled and a new driver's licence was issued to Mr. Hapke.
The money paid for traffic fines was refunded and the fraud charges in Ontario standing in Mr. Hapke's name were cancelled. In fact only two things remained to be cleared. We had to have his record on file with the RCMP expunged, and a new social insurance number issued.
After considerable difficulty we had Mr. Hapke's records expunged by the RCMP. I say difficulty. That is really an understatement. I watched the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) over television one evening. He was telling a reporter that he was endeavouring to have criminal records cleared when a criminal has had no charge for five years. Here we were with a man who had not committed a crime and we could not get his record cleared.
A strange thing happened. The Solicitor General actually sent me a fingerprint card and asked me to fingerprint my constituent, Mr. Hapke. Can you imagine a minister of the Crown asking a member of parliament to fingerprint a constituent who had committed no crime? It was a ludicrous situation. I said the man had not committed a crime, so why should I have him fingerprinted. I said to the minister that he had charges standing in this name and an RCMP detachment in Hamilton. If he was that concerned about it, why did he not have this man arrested. The minister would not do that. I could not understand why the RCMP did not investigate the matter.
After persistent prodding of the various ministers, they finally moved to charge Mr. Sasserville with fraudulent use of government records and Mr. Hapke's name. And after this was completed, we finally had Mr. Hapke's record cleared by the RCMP. Through the RCMP, and I give them credit for this, we got Mr. Hapke's original wallet and records returned.
This chap Sasserville had gone to the United States. He became involved with the Texas state police and the FBI. They deported him to Canada. They removed his wallet and, by God, there was Mr. Hapke's social insurance card, driver's licence, and birth certificate.
Unemployment Insurance Act
After being deported from the United States, this fellow just went to the post office, applied for another social insurance card and got it. He remembered the number. He also applied for another driver's licence and birth certificate, both of which he got. He bought a new wallet and was back in business. He carried on in this way for a couple of years before being caught. True to form, however, the RCMP got their man. At least they got the wallet from the man.
The final chapter is the inclusion of clause 34 in Bill C-69 that will allow Mr. Hapke to have a new social insurance number. Even the final chapter was difficult. The then parliamentary secretary to the minister asked me to come to the minister's office for a meeting. I declined. I felt I would be the poor little backbench member of parliament coming before the minister and all his staff and they would try to get me to back off this position. It was next suggested that I see the deputy minister. I again declined. I suggested that they come to my office, but the minister would not do that. I said that we did not need the minister, we could do it without him.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: I did not mean it in that light. I have great respect for the minister. The date was set and the senior deputy minister, the parliamentary secretary, the chief of central records, the legal officer of the department, and a secretaty all arrived in my office for a meeting. They wanted me to move off my position of insisting on a new social insurance number. They offered several options. The chief of central records denied ever telling me that Mr. Hapke would need to have his name changed legally. I had my notes of the telephone conversation which I read to him. I was not about to cause him too much embarrassment, so I said "That is past history, let's get the matter settled."
I refused to accept any of the options and continued to insist that a new social insurance number be issued. The senior deputy minister then advised me that he had recommended to the minister that the act be changed to accommodate Mr. Hapke and others caught in this unfortunate position. As I said at the outset, I commend the minister for this. He is a man of his word. He told me he would bring in the amendment, and he has done that. He told me privately that he would allow me to present the new social insurance card to my constituent-he is a pretty good guy. At any rate, it was a long road.
I have taken the opportunity to tell the story here because the situation described is one in which anybody might find himself. It could happen again to someone. An individual gets caught between two or three levels of bureaucracy, feels alone, and does not know where to turn. Fortunately this young man came to me, and eventually we got the matter straightened out. It took considerable effort to get some of the people concerned to move, but finally we were able to work through. When this bill passes and we issue the man with a new social insurance card we can write finis to this episode, and I can close the file and put it in the archives.
8806

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
I might mention that this young man has lost about three years of employment as a result of this experience- he has worked only at casual labour. He is a graduate student in computer science-imagine someone skilled in computer science getting fouled up by a computer. Every time he applied for a job involving a security requirement, this record, which was not really his, came to the front and he was turned down. Hon. members will realize that putting up with this for three years involves a great deal of strain. I wrote letters on his behalf to each company to which he had applied, straightening the matter out so that should he decide to re-apply th.ey would not think badly of him.
Once the new card has been issued we shall go through the credit reporting agencies in Toronto and Ontario generally-we now have this facility since the passing of the new act by the government of Ontario. They will open their records to us and we can straighten out any untruths we find there and record the new insurance number so that no further embarrassment is caused at some future date.
I hope hon. members appreciate the story. It is a true story.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: It could happen to anyone. People who find themselves in a similar position should refuse to take "no" for an answer, because with the proper amount of leverage every obstacle can be removed.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of Bill C-69 one might discuss. I should like to concentrate on one of them-social disincentives and abuses.
Unemployment insurance is perhaps one of the most controversial government programs of our time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right!


Frank A. Philbrook: Facts are facts. There is no monopoly of brains or insight on that side of the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And figures are figures.


Frank A. Philbrook: Surely all reasonable people must agree that well-motivated citizens, especially those with dependents, who find themselves temporarily out of work and lacking income through no fault of their own, deserve decent support from their own society.
Many of us recall first hand the depression period of the dirty thirties. At that time there was much less government, much less organization of labour, and many fewer private plans to cover social emergencies. In a very real sense business had the upper hand, even though it had its own problems. And although business is now concerned about the balance of power shifting away from itself-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Frank A. Philbrook: I said it was concerned. I did not say it was a fact. Business is remembered as seeming socially impotent during the dark days of the depression. This was one of the main stimuli to growth in the size and power of governments and unions. The out-of-work experience is

not only impoverishing but degrading for the honest worker.
Our unemployment insurance plan is not only a permanent feature of our way of life but is recognized by other countries, including the U.S.A., as being one of the best. Nevertheless it warrants continuous review and occasional amendment as times change.
That is exactly what Bill C-69 is all about. These amendments attempt to improve the plan, mainly by doing three things. First, a larger proportion of the premium payments will be paid by the employer and employee, and less by the government, which is being urged on all sides to reduce its spending. Second, it tightens up some areas of the plan in order to discourage abuse. Third, it further rationalizes the plan by eliminating benefits in a social area already covered-I refer in this case to retired people who already receive pensions or who may prefer to continue working.
Such cost saving measures, which also help tidy up and tighten the plan, deserve the support of all Canadians, including those who criticize the government. Unfortunately this is expecting too much from the other side. Responsible action by the government has been greeted only by partisan political bickering. Undoubtedly further changes and improvements will be made from time to time. This bill was not designed to be all-inclusive and final.
On the other hand, in all honesty it must be acknowledged that there is broadly based concern shared by the public over several aspects of the program as it now stands. Some of these concerns involve the terms of the law, some the way in which it is administered, and most reflect a general social malaise related to the economy.
Real abuses probably do occur, in spite of the best efforts of the UIC office workers. Some can and should be corrected, some are very difficult to cope with in practice. In my own unemployment insurance district there are about 12,000 claims on the books at any one time. Of these about 10 per cent are subject to special investigation, and of that number about 70 per cent are rejected as not being valid. This represents a great deal of work and a high level of responsibility.
One might suggest to the public that they report cases of abuse which come to their attention, but people do not appear to relish such a responsibility. I told my constituents that if they reported cases of abuse to me I would see that appropriate action was taken. So far only one case has been reported to me in 16 months. However, I have received many reports of unemployed people who feel they are in dire straits and that the UIC office has been too tough, even to the extent of asking jobless persons to return money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
November 3, 1975
Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, when I called it six o'clock I was talking about how tough unemployment insurance offices can be in that they sometimes even demand money back from UIC claimants. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) commented that that should not be allowed. Where return of overpayment is due to the government I agree it should not be allowed; where it is due to the claimant I think it only logical that it should be. So at least I agree partly with him on that point.
In our work with UIC officers, my staff and I have found them reasonable and co-operative. Theirs is a tough job, especially in trying to determine whether an unemployed person is sincerely trying to find a job. Still, some critics complain that the earning period for unemployment insurance benefits should be longer and that the period of benefits should be shorter. I wonder whether the worker has much choice about when or how long he is going to be laid off.
Some critics insist that applicants should have to take any kind of job, in any part of the country. Perhaps there is room for some tightening here, but such judgments if extreme could simply be disrupting for the careers of some wage earners, uprooting for their families, and wasteful of human resources for the nation. It could also become very anti-democratic for our society.
Last year the standard stereotype for the abuser of the plan was the young, long haired, anti-social hippie dropout. This year the spotlight has shifted to the middle aged, more respectable types who have on and off concepts of work, housewives and other women, seasonal workers, students of all ages, and so on. These are often people who would keep working given the chance, but who do need and deserve temporary help. However, there is undoubtedly some potential for abuse here also, which should be discouraged.
The provisions for sickness and pregnancy leaves have not escaped criticism either. In these days of humane programs, a lack of alternative illness insurance, and the right of women, married or not, to combine family life and personal careers, these provisions are also worthy. By the way, as my colleague, the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne), pointed out recently, the pregnancy provisions need to be as flexible as possible. Women are not entirely predictable, even for medical experts.
Every attempt to help people opens a new avenue for possible abuse. None of us defends cheaters and freeloaders. All of us recognize the importance of the actuality principle in this plan, as much as is possible with a moving target, as much as this is attainable with a fluctuating unemployment rate. We all urge the minister to tighten up the plan as much as necessary, to guard the work ethic and save the taxpayers' money. Just as important, or perhaps even more important, for this whole work situation is to have Canada Manpower and private employers work together more effectively to bring the unemployment and unfilled jobs together.
We all hope that Canadians will try to be knowledgeable, tolerant, and responsible in making this valuable plan work. We cannot afford to bend over backwards trying to straighten up. But we must try to straighten up with government matters like UIC. I believe that Bill C-69 is a
Unemployment Insurance Act
step in the right direction, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I would like to register my support for it.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, there is no debate more vital to the part of the country I come from than one associated with unemployment and the benefits provided those who are unemployed, since no area of the country faces the tragedy of unemployment and under-employment to the same degree as Atlantic Canada. Therefore the representatives from that area must, as a responsibility to our constituents, examine as carefully as possible any proposals in relation to this legislation that are put forward by the government and compare them with what has gone before and with what has been suggested by the party of which I am a member, to see whether solutions can be found to the problems of this nation.
Certainly it would be hard for our party to be as devoid of knowledge and thought concerning the poor, the underprivileged and unemployed of this nation as the proposals exemplified in the legislation before us today. There is no way I can support the proposed amendments presented to the House in this legislation, and I will vote against them and oppose them in every way I can.
Who are we going after under this legislation? The one thing that is certain is that we are going after the people who are 65 years of age and over. It is a great tribute to the government that it is earmarking the people who are 65 years of age and older as those who are redundant in respect of the development of this nation and who therefore should be struck off the rolls. One has to be the biggest cheapskate in the world to go along with this plan. Surely this is a great way to look after or reduce the $2 billion deficit. You go after the 5,000 people who are 65 years of age or older and who are still in the work force today and want to stay. They have every right, as far as I am concerned, to these benefits, certainly as much right as anyone else in this nation.
What is the government saying to the workingman who is facing a degree of unemployment that has never plagued this country before? What is the government saying to them? It is saying it is going to put these people in a box. It is going to put the people in the low employment areas such as the Atlantic provinces in a position where the employer can dictate to the employee in a fashion that has never been available to the employer before. The government is going to put an employer in a position that he can say to his employees, "You either toe the line and do what I tell you, or I am going to fire you and you are going to end up not getting any benefits for six weeks."
Almost all employees in my part of the country, mainly because of the policies of the government, are unable to stay unemployed without help for two weeks, let alone longer, because whatever savings they have managed to put together have been used. They are in this position because of the economic policies of this government which has put them out of work for at least part of each year, and unfortunately all too many are now out of work the year around, getting their stamps anywhere they can find them, working part-time on LIP grant projects or something of the sort. I suggest that this is a wasteful type of manufac-
29956-6%

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
turing. The government could better serve the people in my area if these funds were invested in useful projects that would do something for the local economy from a long-term point of view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: You sure have the Liberal stooges hanging up top there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colches-ter North (Mr. Coates) has the floor.


Robert Carman Coates: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to see that you are protecting me from my own.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I was particularly impressed by the comments of the last speaker. He started out talking about the dirty thirties. That is a long story that most people in this country have learned to live with, and I refer to the so-called Bennett days; "the Tory times are bad times." I suggest that if it were not for the $2 billion deficit that will exist this year in the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund there would be more people on welfare across this country than ever could have been the case in the dirty thirties. We now have the Trudeau seventies and they are dirtier than the thirties ever were in any province in Canada.	.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I was interested in the contribution of the last hon. member in view of a speech he made earlier on June 26. Perhaps other hon. members would be interested to hear him make a speech on the control legislation his government has put forward. On June 26 he was recorded at page 7113 of Hansard as stating:
We must continue to try to make voluntary restraints work with the co-operation of all sectors, with government setting a solid example, but certainly not mandatory controls. Those we leave to the Tories.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Robert Carman Coates: With words of wisdom like that from the hon. member we are certainly going to listen long and hard to what he has to say about unemployment insurance and the problems to be faced by the unemployed in the days ahead.
I am interested in seeing how he votes in respect of those mandatory controls that he was going to leave to the Tories. We will see whether he is going to be a sheep, a lamb, or whether he is going to come into the House and vote as he talks, or did talk back on June 26 before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told him he had to talk out of both sides of his mouth if he wanted to live with this government, in view of what it says today and will say tomorrow, squandering taxpayers' money day in and day out.


An hon. Member:: A true Grit.


Robert Carman Coates: But unlike John Wayne who is a different kind of true grit.


An hon. Member:: He has got grit, though.


Robert Carman Coates: I could quote the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) ad infinitum regarding this great insurance scheme and what it was going to do for the workers, how it was going to be in balance, actuarially sound, and do all the other things that he said it would when presenting the legislation. He told us about the dollars he was going to get from the pockets of the employers and the employees. All we have to do today is look at what has happened this year and compare it with that benchmark of 4 per cent unemployment. We know this is the biggest fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Oh God, I can't take any more.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What do you mean you can't take any more? You sit right there and listen.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the deficit we have right now in the unemployment insurance fund would be sufficient to harness the tides in the Bay of Fundy and produce employment for 30,000 people in the Atlantic provinces. That is how big is the deficit we are now facing, and this gives you some idea of the magnitude of money being spent because the government miscalculated in respect of this scheme that was supposed to be actuarially sound and of benefit from a stop-gap point of view to thousands of employees who found themselves out of work.
The government brought in this new grandiose scheme in true Trudeau style. Everything was for the people. The only trouble is that in this just society the employers and the employees end up paying, rather than the government. The government now is transferring a part of this $2 billion deficit to the employees and the employers. This legislation will pick up about $800 million. The government says it is not going to take it out of the pockets of the people; but somebody has to pay the bill, and in fact it will be the same people except a smaller segment; namely, those who work and do business in the country. Those are the people who will pay at least part of the bill from now on as covered by this legislation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That's true.


Robert Carman Coates: This is the just society.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I remember that.


Robert Carman Coates: This is the great society that was to eliminate all the problems facing Canadians, except those of the workers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told a great many people that they did not have to work if they did not want to.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I remember that.


Robert Carman Coates: There have been fewer working ever since. The Prime Minister has done more to put people on the street and out of jobs than any other Prime Minister in our
November 3, 1975

history. Let us go back a little because some hon. members opposite were not here in the days between 1957 and 1963, and do not realize what a tremendous government the Diefenbaker administration was for the people of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: That government left behind a legacy for this government which this government has messed up in every way possible since taking office. Let us look at the five years between 1957 and 1962. Total production in Canada was up 26.6 per cent. Exports were up 30.8 per cent. Employment was up a half million. Farm income was up 19.3 per cent. Labour income was up 24.8 per cent. Profits before taxes and before inflation-this should be of interest to the government-were up 17.4 per cent. Social justice was up 79 per cent. I do not refer to the kind of social justice we see here which picks the pockets of a person. I refer to the type of social justice which provides a person with respect and as much dignity as possible in this nation. That is the kind of justice we had in the period of the Diefenbaker administration. Payments to provinces were up 124 per cent in a five-year period.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Are you against that?


Robert Carman Coates: Against it? I am telling the hon. member, now that he is coming alive, that these are the things that were done for the Canadian people by John Diefenbaker, and I am asking him to compare these things with the performance of the government of which he is a member at this time. When he does that I am sure he will join us; he could not do otherwise if he is sensible. When we look at the facts we cannot help but see how much better that government was than this government.
Today we hear much talk about inflation. This bill will produce a great deal more inflation. The employees in this nation will be thinner because the chunk being taken by the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be bigger. The prices their employers will have to charge for the products those employees produce will have to be higher because they will have a chunk, estimated at $400 million, taken out of their pockets to pay the extra benefits that will be demanded under this legislation. We will find employees with less money in their pockets and prices will be higher than they are today because of this legislation.
The government talks about restraint and what we are supposed to do to try to hold down wages and prices and then wonders why the CLC and the working men across this country oppose restraints. They do so because of announcements such as that made this afternoon by the housing minister and because the government produces inflation every day. It does not know how to stop it. At the same time, the government tells the people they must accept this legislation, that they will be told how much they may earn, and that an attempt will be made to keep prices down.
The government says it does not know whether or not it can keep prices down because there are many ingredients involved. It says it is not sure about this but that it will make the attempt. The government makes attempts to bail itself out, such as it is doing by means of this legislation. The working man will be in trouble. I do not know who is
Unemployment Insurance Act
not in trouble today because of the government and the way in which it attempts to run the country.


An hon. Member:: It could not run a peanut stand.


Robert Carman Coates: That is right. As well, the peanuts probably would be old, soft, and not very good. There would probably not be a customer for the peanuts because the reputation of those people over there is not very good in respect of selling anything from peanuts upward. When we talk about inflation and competent managers of the economy in this nation we should look at what has been said about the Diefenbaker administration when it held office. This is what Canadian Business Magazine had to say in September, 1962:
A 12-nation comparison of retail price increases over the 12 months shows that Canada has been the most successful in keeping down the cost of living. The Canadian increase was just under 1 per cent. The US was only a shade more. Biggest increases were in France, Holland and the UK where the cost of living rose by over 5 per cent. In Germany and Sweden it rose by 4 per cent.
The administration with which the parliamentary secretary over there is acquainted produces double digit inflation. Everything is double digit, whether it concerns the car in which the Prime Minister drives around, or his swimming pool. The Prime Minister won his just society and his Watergate, but the rest of us are paying for it. This is a bitter pill for us to swallow today, day in and day out.
This is bad legislation from every point of view. Many Canadians day in and day out, year in and year out, pay their dollars into the unemployment insurance fund and cannot get anything out of it. Paying into the unemployment insurance fund is just an added task they must accept every day and every month they work. Now the government says it wants more of their money. The government tells the people they must pay more for working every day. There must be a method whereby these people when they reach age 65 are not cut off and cut out.
We should have a scheme whereby those who work and never draw benefits but pay into the fund day in and day out would be able to receive some benefit in a realistic way at the end of their working careers. If they work continually and contribute to the fund they should derive some benefit for the contributions they have made over a lifetime. I do not like a government which tells the people in my constituency that they must pay into the unemployment insurance fund year after year and never draw anything out, and that if they want to work until they are 70 years of age they can work until they are 70, but they will receive no benefits after they reach 65. These people will receive nothing for the amount of money they paid into this fund over the years even though they have not drawn anything out of it.
A government with a heart and a soul would try to produce a scheme which would tell the people that it would provide an incentive to work, not for nine months followed by a three-month period in which they would receive unemployment benefits, but for 12 months of the year during which time they would pay benefits, and that an attempt would be made to work out a method whereby some of these benefits would be treated as insurance and some would be treated as an investment toward retirement. That is the kind of government the people of Canada

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
want, rather than a heartless government which tells people that when they are age 65 they will be cut off no matter over how long a period they have contributed to the fund.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) pleaded with the government to extend the qualification period. He warned what would happen in respect of this bill if that were not done. But the Liberals had all the answers. They always have all the answers until the bill comes in and then the answers become the taxpayers' answers; they pay the bills for the proposition the Liberals put forward.
I have never known a government that was able to run out of answers and run away from problems as quickly as this government does once things go bad, and they are mighty sour right now in so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, sour with the working man, sour with the businessman, and sour with the man on the street. Now they are adding a whole new spectrum and they will be sour with the older citizens of this country, the people whom we should be looking after more than any others in this country because of the tremendous contribution they made when times were tough, when they did not have the opportunity to save the way people do today, that is if there is any value in saving today when inflation is eating money faster than people put it in the bank. For a measly $3 million the Liberals cut 5,000 off and threw them adrift. They did not worry about them at all.
When the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) proposes to them that they leave the provision regarding people 65 years of age and over out of this legislation, do you know what they will say to him? They will say, "In no way! We have all the answers". Once again they will have all the answers, but when this thing crashes, as does everything around this government, they will be deaf and they will laugh. These are the cynical ones, the uninterested, the unfeeling.


An hon. Member:: Deceitful.


Robert Carman Coates: Yes, these are all good adjectives with which to describe this government to perfection. As the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said today to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), call the by-election in St. John's West. We will make Hochelaga become a great cry of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: One after the other the Grits will fall.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: No one else but the Prime Minister himself told the Grits not to be frightened, to forget about Hochelaga.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member revert to the subject of Bill C-69.


Robert Carman Coates: I thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I am on Bill C-69 and I am referring to the kind of effect

that it is having on the public, and what the public is trying to say to the government through the ballot box. What it said in Hochelaga it will say in St. John's West.


An hon. Member:: What about Restigouche?


Robert Carman Coates: It said it in Restigouche also. I suggest to the hon. member that if he is so sure of things why does he not resign his seat and stand in the by-election there, and we will see how well he does?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Come on!


Robert Carman Coates: I say to the government that the public is saying through the ballot box, "We don't like what you are doing". If you heard the Prime Minister on Saturday or Sunday when that CBC program was aired, you would know he was telling you you are in trouble. Let me tell you that you are in trouble because of legislation like this. He is telling you that you could very well lose the next election. I will be even more pessimistic than he was and say that you will lose the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to your Liberal colleagues: calm down, do not be frightened before your annual meeting; do not give the public the impression you are upset about the resignation of the former minister of finance who has wiped his hands of you people all together. We do not see him any longer; he does not say anything. I would say he has not only repented, he is meditating. I think meditation must be good for the soul because he has done a lot of it since he resigned. He must have been a great sinner because he has been in meditation ever since. He may be in purgatory now, but he may come back. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that he left the country in purgatory, and we sure know it today because of the financial policies that were put forward by the government during the period when he was minister of finance.
I do not know about the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) but he is certainly starting out the wrong way. I can only hope that salvation will come to him before he too gets to purgatory, where he may well be descending at the present time.
The government had better smarten up to the fact that the legislation it is producing is not what the people of this country want. When a government talks about restraint and brings in legislation which is inflationary and destructive to the pay cheques of the working men of this nation, and at the same time tries to get them to reduce their demands for the incomes that they feel are required to match the inflation that exists, we know that its schemes will not work, especially when it is a government that practises no restraint itself.
Certainly the government does not practice restraint. If a cabinet minister wants an airplane to fly somewhere, there are lots around. We hear about problems with gasoline, but there are no problems with gasoline when a cabinet minister wants an airplane to fly him across this country. If he wants his office redecorated there is no
November 3, 1975

problem with that; it is done. There is no end to the way they spend money on themselves, while at the same time asking the rest of the people to practise restraint and be careful in the way they spend their money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate after listening for several days to the kettles calling the pots black and vice-versa.
I was particularly interested to hear the hon. member who spoke ahead of me refer to the great Diefenbaker years. He is quite right. When it comes to unemployment and unemployment insurance, the Conservatives now take second prize. The Liberals have made unemployment slightly worse than we had in 1959, 1960 and 1961, if anybody would care to check the figures. In fact the hon. member made the same mistake as the Liberal spokesmen have been doing since 1968, referring to an increase in employment but neglecting to mention the increase in unemployment when the Conservatives were in power from 1958 to 1962. I wish he had quoted those figures because he would have realized that the Conservatives now are in second place, as usual, but they are also in second place in creating unemployment.


Mr. Gillies:: It's a lot better than third.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since we have no place to go but up, I can feel free to cite this kind of example-


James McPhail Gillies: You went down the last time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -of the kettle calling the pot black. I should like to remind the House that in 1926 an hon. member of this place secured a letter from the then Prime Minister of Canada containing a commitment for old age pensions immediately, and sympathetic consideration for a system of unemployment insurance. This did not in fact happen until the period of 1940-41. It only took another 13 or 14 years to get that from the Liberal government. However, I can also recall as a kid in the dirty thirties hearing the Tories say that if there were an unemployment insurance plan it would destroy the incentive to work, and there would be abuses with people stealing public funds and defrauding the public. In fact we heard Tories in those days talk about stopping old age pensions because they would destroy the incentive to work. I find it amusing now that in dealing with this legislation these great friends of the working people are associating working men with businessmen.
I should like to remind my hon. friends on both the government and official opposition sides that in spite of all their propaganda, talk, innuendo, inference, and blame about so-called abuses and misuse of unemployment insurance, the reason for the fantastic deficits in the unemployment insurance fund and for the expenditures required at the expense of taxpayers is not because the claimants and beneficiaries under UIC are lazy, no good, do not want to work, or want a free ride on the UIC fund; it is due to high unemployment and no other reason. This may not be so in Saskatchewan where the figure is down to 1.9, which must be some kind of record. It is the best in all of Canada. Innuendo, inferences, and bald statements by various and
Unemployment Insurance Act
sundry free enterprise spokesmen, columnists, and editorial writers that it is due to no-goods and free-riders who are abusing the unemployment insurance fund are untrue.
I was hoping for items in this legislation which would correct many of the problems every member of this House has had brought to his attention since the last time we dealt with a UIC bill, and I cannot find any. If each hon. member will check his correspondence for the last several years, there were literally hundreds and sometimes thousands of cases of UIC claimants who had been drawing benefits and then became disentitled, or were prevented from receiving benefits in the first place. I hope that some hon. members on the government side, including the minister, will consider the difficulties we have had, let alone claimants for UIC.
Let us talk about the matter of disentitlement. I see no improvements in this legislation which would correct the present act for the claimant who has been drawing benefits and is then called in for a job search interview and asked all those leading questions. He is not told what the ground rules and regulations are to begin with. Even if he is 100 per cent honest, he returns home and a week later receives a form letter, which may or may not have been signed, saying that he is disentitled.
The whole issue of what is suitable employment is reasonably well described in the legislation now, but it is badly applied. The matters of rates of pay which will be acceptable to the claimant and the commission, the kind of job the claimant can and will accept and is able to do, the limited area in which a claimant can or will work, are not covered in these amendments.
The minister is sitting here checking his mail, and I hope he has answered a few letters I have written to him in the last weeks, and will tell me what a member of parliament can say to a constituent who lives 87 miles from Regina who, when called in for a job search statement was asked many leading questions and then told that because she limited herself to employment in the village of Semans or within a radius of 25 miles, which included four or five other villages, she was disentitled because there were no employment opportunities in the villages of Semans, Govan, Strasbourg, Raymore and Nokomis. She was told that if she would seek employment in Regina and could prove that she was actively seeking employment 87 miles away, several times a week, they would reinstate her benefits.
I do not see anything in these amendments which will do anything about that kind of ridiculous situation. The policies of this government and its predecessors and large corporations denuded rural Canada of employment opportunities, did away with thousands of implement dealers, post offices, railway stations, oil company bulk stations, and other enterprises in rural Canada, which lost us tens of thousands of employment opportunities. However, if a person happens to live in a rural area and cannot find a job in the town or village in which he lives, and if he is not prepared to drive 75 or 100 miles two or three times a week-that is, each way-he is disentitled because he has limited himself to an area in which the commission says there are no opportunities for employment. What kind of nonsense is that?

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
I suggest that the minister resign, go out into rural Canada, limit himself to a 50 mile radius, and become disentitled to his UIC benefits. The problem is that members of parliament are not entitled to them, even though we tried to persuade the minister's predecessor to include members.


Robert Knight Andras: Saved by the bell.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It would be a good lesson for a defeated member of parliament to become disentitled if he is not prepared to drive 50 or 100 miles two or three times a week to prove that he is willing, able, and actively seeking employment.
I informed the minister of a problem in my constituency; someone in his department has replied, but I am waiting for the minister's personal response. A gentleman in my constituency by the name of Peter D. Bartram happens to be a claimant. He is a client of a lawyer who sent me a fair amount of correspondence. This claimant has a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Bachelor of Education degree, and a teacher's certificate. He was advised by a board of referees that the commission has a right to withhold notice that the terms of coverage have changed. I should think that the claimant would have the right to be aware of those changes of coverage, but he was not entitled to know that the new terms meant automatic cancellation of coverage. I hope the minister will look into this. The same member of the board, the chairman, indicated that the claimant, and I quote: "can go out and dig ditches or sell shoes."
The lawyer who sent this letter says that he feels this is a faulty interpretation of section 40 of the act. I checked the bill, and I cannot find any amendments to that section of the act. However, there is an amendment to section 40(1). Yet there is no amendment to correct the sorts of problems created for UIC claimants by sections 40(2) and 40(3). I suggest that we are considering much more than a mere exception. You do not expect a man holding a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Bachelor of Education degree, and a teacher's certificate, to cheat, and to be turned down by the chairman of the board of referees. Of course the crowning insult came from the chairman of the board. The chairman of the board in Regina is one J. Walter Erb, about whom I will say no more, except that I question his competence.
You know, no matter before which board of referees you go in Canada, if you want to appeal a decision of the board you can only get leave to appeal from the chairman of the board, who must rule on his own previous decision. I am not a lawyer, and when I read something like this I am glad I am not. Since when does a judge sit in a right of appeal on his own decisions? Since when have judges decided if their previous decisions are correct? Really, I find this provision strange. I should think the minister would want to appoint some impartial person to adjudicate, or even adjudicate himself, when it is necessary to consider the decision of the chairman of the board of referees. Since when must you go before the individual who decided your case in the first place and who says, when you seek leave to appeal, that you cannot appeal to the umpire? I remind the minister that we are talking about a fellow with Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of

Education degrees and who is the holder of a teacher's certificate, hardly the sort of person who does not want to work.


James McPhail Gillies: I don't know about that. I know lots of fellows like that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Perhaps if you were a lawyer or economist, the allegation might be true. But this injustice is not corrected in this legislation. I suggest that the minister should review the correspondence, particularly letters sent by the chairman of the board of referees in Regina, and consider why the chairman of that board refused the claimant leave to appeal the decision of the board of referees. Mr. Speaker, without such intervention the claimant does not have a chance. He is appearing before a hanging judge. He might as well forget about appealing the decision of the board of referees if the chairman of the board can say to the claimant, "You have not presented new evidence; therefore what I said previously stands and you cannot appeal." As I say, nothing in this legislation corrects this.
At the beginning of my speech I spoke about events in 1926. A former member for Winnipeg North Centre, when he was here, secured from the then Priipne Minister of Canada the promise of sympathetic consideration for legislation bringing about unemployment insurance. The then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, J. S. Woods-worth, was dedicated to helping the unfortunate people of this country, and to protecting those who fell victim of our free enterprise society. Of course if we were a civilized, democratically planned, Christian, socialist society, there would be no need for unemployment insurance.


An hon. Member:: We should be in heaven.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: At least there might be a minimal need. But, lacking such a society, we need to protect the victims of a free enterprise system which, year in and year out, numbers its victims in the hundreds of thousands, no matter whether the government is Tory or Liberal. They are the same breed of cat and there is nothing new about them. The present hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) can show you his card from the Unemployment Insurance Commission dating back to the first year of operation. He has carried on the fight for a decent insurance scheme which will protect against unemployment the victims of our free enterprise, capitalist system.
The government's legislation is not designed to treat sensibly, decently, and in a civilized way people who lose jobs through no fault of their own, whether because of geography, climate, the kind of occupation they follow, or any other reason. It is not designed to help them.
The Tories have said little about this subject. With one breath, out of one side of their mouths, they talk about the poor working man; with the next breath, out of the other side of their mouths, they talk about abuses. Let us consider some of the figures relating to abuses. According to free enterprise spokesmen, the saviours of our free enterprise system, editorial writers, and others who speak in this House, most of the people drawing UIC are no-good bums. Well, look at the figures.
November 3, 1975

I agree that a few people cheat on unemployment insurance. If they numbered as many as those who cheat in business, cheat on income tax or in corporate operations, our society would be in deep trouble. But the numbers are not large. Of course there are some abuses. Abuses are likely to arise in connection with any fund. The 1971 bill was designed to cut down abuses. There were penalties for those who quit jobs without cause, or who were fired for misconduct. There were penalties for refusing to work. We think that these provisions are sound and will cover most cases. Of course any system designed by human beings can be abused.
Man's ingenuity in evading regulations is endless, especially in a society in which we teach our children, from the time they can stand, how to get around the law and regulations, and how to make a fast buck.


An hon. Member:: Who does this?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All you need do is watch television advertising, and listen to businessmen and heads of chambers of commerce. Our kids are brainwashed from the time they are yea high.
I emphasize that the incidence of abuse is not high. Actually it is low when you consider the numbers each year going through the unemployment insurance system. Any member who thinks that we are in trouble because the UIC fund is being abused and because people will not work should look at the statistics provided by the UIC Commission itself. In 1974, when a lot of people were unemployed-it was a slightly worse year than the worst year of the Tories, 1960-6,-860 claimants were found guilty and fined; ten more were sent to jail or given suspended sentence. Therefore 870 people out of 2,400,000 odd claimants, or less than half of one per cent, were found guilty of cheating.


An hon. Member:: They were only the ones caught.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hear an hon. member claiming that they were only the ones caught. The other day in the debate the minister in charge of the UIC interjected to the effect that two million people were disentitled.


Robert Knight Andras: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on October 28, as recorded on page 8633 of Hansard, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said in part:
The minister has mentioned that there have been 250,000 disqualifications out of ten million claims. Is that very many?
The minister interjected, "It is two million."


Robert Knight Andras: Two million claims.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There were only two million claims?


Robert Knight Andras: That is right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And there were 250,000 disqualifications, in two million claims?


Robert Knight Andras: In one year. That figure is for voluntary quits alone.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: According to the minister's own figures, of a quarter of a million people disqualified, a mere 870 were found guilty of cheating. Is that right?


Robert Knight Andras: That is right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And ten of the 870 were sent to jail. That hardly qualifies as a massive abuse of the UIC fund. Why, this talk of abuse is nothing but lip, nothing but a crime perpetrated against an excellent social program. It is designed to do nothing less than give employers the chance to hire people, who would otherwise be unemployed, for cheap wages.
That brings me back to the whole business of the reasons for disentitlement, what one must do to be reinstated, and the rates of pay they will accept. Of course you can tell the fellow with the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Education and teacher's certificate to sell shoes and dig ditches. But during his prior employment he may have purchased a home and have monthly payments of $200. In addition, he may have three or four children, and cannot support them by digging ditches or selling shoes.
What kind of a job will such a person accept? During the job search interview, he is asked leading questions. When it is put to him that he would not want to work for so much less than he earned before, quite naturally he says no, he would like to get $5 or $6 an hour as he was earning $8 an hour previously. If he is foolish enough to sign a statement saying he will not work for less than that amount, a week later he will receive a form letter, probably unsigned, saying that he is disentitled because he limited himself to the amount of pay for which he will work.
There is a stacked deck against those who are normally hard-working, who have contributed to the fund, and who are unemployed when there are high rates of unemployment. The deficit which the government faced in the last several years in the UIC fund is not because of abuses but because of high unemployment. Surely the government could have learned a lesson from its fight against inflation in 1969 and 1970 when unemployment rates jumped almost in direct proportion to its fight against inflation, something ministers claimed they had wrestled to the ground.
The government now proposes a new battle against inflation without at the same time fighting unemployment. It brings in legislation that nit-picks around the edges and that does not provide a fair shake or fair hearing for those claiming unemployment insurance benefits, legitimately or not.
It is even difficult to defraud the UIC fund, something for which we should be grateful. In fact four years ago, the government and parliament devised legislation that was pretty good. It is the application of that legislation with which members on all sides quarrel. We quarrel with how it is interpreted and applied.
When the minister returns to his office I invite him to read the correspondence I have been quoting. I refer him to an application for leave to appeal dated September 17 which was rejected by the chairman. If he will check further he will see correspondence to which, to my knowledge, he has not replied. I quote the correspondence:

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
-the procedure outlined under the Unemployment Insurance Act is highly improper. When it is felt that the Board of Referees have widely mis-construed the purpose of the act, the materials before the board, previous decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the wording of the statute, the proper remedy is to appeal. If this amounts to a recapitulation-I do not feel that this is a proper grounds for denying an appeal. Furthermore, the chairman of the board of referees in the case in question was in fact the party who put forth their interpretation of Section 40(2) of the act. To ask him to allow an appeal on the basis of his interpretation is asking a lot of a human being.
It is asking a lot, even if he were impartial.
It is suggested that his interpretation is in fact faulty and that with this in mind it would only be proper to submit the case to a higher authority for clarification as to the correct interpretation of the section.
Section 40(2) deals with suitable employment. I wish the minister would read it and make his officials apply it. Section 40(2) reads:
40(2) For the purposes of this section but subject to subsection (3) employment is not suitable employment for a claimant if it is:
(b)	Employment in his usual occupation either at a lower rate of earnings or on conditions less favourable than those observed by agreement between employers or employees, or in the absence of any such agreement, than those recognized by good employers;
I suppose we in this House should say that most employers are good employers.
(c)	Employment of the kind other than employment in his usual occupation either at a lower rate of earnings or on conditions less favourable than those conditions that he might reasonably expect to obtain,-
Mark the next words:
-having regard to those conditions that he habitually obtained in his usual occupation, or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed.
That is the way the act reads at the moment. This person with the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Education and teacher's certificate was told by the board of referees that he could sell shoes or dig ditches. I cite this only as an example of thousands of cases of people denied appeals by the chairmen of the boards of referees who ruled them out of court in the first place. This is not justice of any kind, including poetic. There is nothing in this legislation to correct that kind of situation.
I am not worried about abuses of the unemployment insurance fund. Whatever percentage of abuses there may have been in the worst period of time over the last number of years is minuscule compared to the thousands and thousands of people in this country who began to draw benefits and were later disentitled for a variety of reasons. They may have refused to drive 200 miles to work. They may have a university degree and not be fussy about digging ditches. By limiting themselves to the kind of occupation they will accept, they are disentitled.
It is very natural to limit one's self to an occupation. If a person knows only one or two kinds of jobs, he may be careful about signing a paper to the effect that he will accept several kinds of employment. I would hesitate to volunteer to a UIC search officer that I am willing to do a job that I know nothing about and in which I have no experience. I could lie, accept the job, last two days and then be fired. The commission would then say that, according to the act, I have been fired for just cause and, therefore, am not entitled to benefits. The deck is stacked against anyone who is work conscientious. It is stacked

against him under the present legislation, and even more so with these amendments.
If the government had brought in with its so-called improvements to the legislation some kind of program for full employment, in co-ordination and conjunction with its program to fight inflation, it would have some sympathy in this House. However, as it is now proposing to amend the act, there is no way that I or many other members can support it. The government must be prepared to come up with a lot more. It must recognize instances such as those I have cited. Cases have also been cited by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), and others.
Until the government is prepared to do more, it should not be surprised that we oppose its amendments. It should not be surprised that some of us at least are not prepared to co-operate with its so-called phoney fight against inflation. We also object to its measures when it fails to bring in a program of full employment.
The mess in the government's housing program was compounded today by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). We are now confronted with these bad amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, an act which could otherwise be made to work in a fair, equitable, and just manner. It is adequate to eliminate, rule out, or catch up with those who abuse or misuse the UIC fund. The minuscule number who do that should be thoughtless of and more thought should be given to the hundreds of thousands who are denied benefits or have them cut off, people who are not lazy no-goods, but people who want to work.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired.


Léonel Beaudoin: Madam Speaker, Bill C-69, concerning unemployment insurance and still under discussion in the House today, has more specifically the following objective indicated in the bill itself and I quote:
An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 to add, in the manner provided, a new class to the existing classes of insurable employment; to provide, in the manner prescribed, for changes in qualifying periods, benefit periods, entitlement to benefits and, rates of benefits; to provide, in the manner prescribed, for a new basis for the calculation that determines the proportion of the basic cost of benefit for a year that will be borne by the Government; to make the employer's premiums of Her Majesty in right of Canada payable by statute; and to provide for the payment of allowances to persons or their representatives who attend before an umpire on an appeal from a decision of the Minister.
All these fine words, Madam Speaker, merely to say that the government has decided to go into action and apply the axe to the existing Unemployment Insurance Act in an attempt to save Canada from the claws of inflation. If we wanted to introduce this bill in more simple and more concrete terms, one could simply say, at the beginning of the text, the following:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, in such manner as to allow the federal government to ride roughshod over the unemployed who are mostly responsible for the economic problems facing our country. This image may appear a
November 3, 1975

little exaggerated, but nobody can sincerely say that it is not to a great extent realistic. What strikes me most and prompts me to make such a comparison is the fact that Bill C-69 is the very first important bill to be discussed in this House immediately after the Anti-inflation Act.
Yet the first people the government is tackling, supposedly to curb its expenses, are those very people who are already in trouble on the social and economic levels-the unemployed-as if those people were the first responsible for the inflationary crisis facing this country. If we want to be in the least honest, 1 ef us admit that unfortunately those people are rather among the victims who have to get along as well as they can in a situation where jobs are growing scarce. Besides I honestly feel, and all hon. members in the House will agree with me, that the unemployed who actually do not want to work account only for a very small minority and that the vast majority of the unemployed would be very glad to get overnight a decent job to provide for their families and lead a normal life.
Madam Speaker, being close to those people, listening to their problems, as the true role of a member of parliament requires, is enough to realize that most unemployed did not choose their situation. Quite the contrary, most of the time those people go through very trying, not to say in some cases tragic, experiences. I try as much as I can to keep in continuous and close contact with my constituents of Richmond riding and I know what is going on. I am sure that most members have heard of very sorry cases in their riding and that those people-I mean the unemployed-did not have much chance to express or defend themselves at the unemployment insurance office.
Officials, Madam Speaker, often keep back from the unemployed explanations on what the law contains and what they can do to get the chance of collecting a small amount of money every week to survive or pay their bills.
I want to blame directly the civil servants working in the unemployment insurance offices who never say anything to help the case of an unemployed worker progress, either by explaining to him or her what the situation of the file is, suggesting to him or her what avenues are available under the Unemployment Insurance Act, or simply telling him or her: "Sir, Madam or Miss, you must seek employment, and our conditions are such and such." No, they prefer to keep quiet and listen to the unemployed who is speaking and the next day, the situation is unchanged. The poor unemployed has only one privilege; to go and see his or her elected representative and say: Please help me; I have come to a dead-end and I cannot get my unemployment insurance benefits to which I think I am entitled.
In many cases, Madam Speaker, if only the officer at the unemployment insurance office, in Sherbrooke or somewhere else, had opened his mouth to explain to him-if he knew, of course-he probably does not know, he may not have read it. But if he knows, he should speak up and explain the problem to him, what bothers him, what stops him, what prevents him from receiving benefits, all that, the coming back and forth and sometimes the 70, 80 or 90 miles he must drive to go see his M. P. and say: Listen, you must help me, because I have problems with my unemployment insurance. All those things would not happen and we
Unemployment Insurance Act
would avoid those expenses, hardships and sacrifices of the unemployed in respect of their personal rights, if we had adopted a more humane legislation.
For all those reasons I find it inappropriate and even indecent to see the government, as its first anti-inflationary measure to cut those expenses, go after that class of citizens who are above all victims of the present economic situation, a measure which will only add to their problems, serious enough as they are.
Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity of reading the Senate Hansard for last Thursday, October 23. One speech held my attention in particular, that of Senator Perrault dealing with the economic situation and the current government offensive against inflation. It is worthy of note and it could, in particular, help us place Bill C-69 in its true context, and realize how nefarious its consequences could be.
The hon. senator indicated first of all that if inflation persists or increases, it can compromise an economic revival and merely increase unemployment; later on, he described the present situation with considerable eloquence and perception and I quote:
Of all evils that afflict our society, inflation is now without doubt the most intolerable and the most insidious. It is the most intolerable because, more than any other, it exacerbates social injustices by attacking first of all the weakest and the poorest of our citizens: those who live on fixed incomes. Those who see their life savings melt like butter in a saucepan. Finally, those who are not in a position to protect their purchasing power because they are in no way able to unite to defend their rights to an adequate income.
It is also the most insidious evil because we tend to consider inflation as a fatality against which we are helpless, except to save our own skin by sacrificing our neighbour's.
That last sentence, Madam Speaker, strikes me as unfortunately too true, and it could apply to Bill C-69 now before the House.
The government let problems pile up before reacting and now they are like a drowning man struggling desperately; they are trying to save their bacon by sacrificing their neighbour's. The worst off is the poor unemployed. The unemployed's bacon is sacrificed. They try to recover $1 billion at the poor's expense. How strange with a government which is supposedly democratic, which is reelected year after year. It looks like the electorate do not get fed up with being taken in. I say "taken in", Madam Speaker. In particular the poor are being "bought" for $2 often to vote or for something else. They are getting taken in again and again and they always vote the same way. Why? To be exploited. They cannot even afford any more to pay for their groceries.
Those of my colleagues on both sides of the House who refrain from speaking about this do so perhaps because they never went in a home where there are still children with bare feet in January, February and March. I do not exaggerate, Madam Speaker, I simply say the facts. When we go in the house, we hear: "I have been waiting for my unemployment insurance cheque for one month". In Montreal, the computers are out of order. I think that in several cases it is not the computers which are out of order but the brains of some administrators or some of our officers. That

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
is dangerous. A computer can be repaired, but brains very hardly.
Madam Speaker, what surprises me most in this bill is that the first scapegoat who falls under the hand of the governement is still the unemployed. Yet, in the same sense as indicated by the hon. senator, whom I cited earlier, they also are concerned and facing serious social injustices, because they are at a disadvantage in a sense, unable above all to protect their purchasing power which weakens day after day because of the rising cost of living. Before such clear and precise facts, this bill becomes still more illogical and even appears to come from another era, flying in the face of common sense as it does.
In fact, the bill was announced in the budget speech by the former minister of finance quite a while ago as he expressed his intention to cut down on government's expenses to break inflation. Even at that time, the bill would do not have been timely because it might have increased the uneasiness caused by inflation. It is just as simple as that. The poor are always blamed. It is very bold of a poor man to try to get $10 more than he is entitled to. But when a rich man manages through artful trickery to cheat the Department of National Revenue of $100,000 or even only $10,000, everyone in his accountant's office applauds, ulesss it is at the cocktail parties which are thrown here and there.
But not the poor. It is too bad, he just got $10, it is dangerous. He has nothing with which to defend himself and that is why he is abused. I think one could have at least expected this legislation to undergo in-depth changes to really help the unemployed, instead of crushing them, while putting in place at the same time the mechanisms necessary to avoid abuse and detect those who may take undue advantage of the unemployment insurance plan, something on which I agree entirely with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). By the way, I do not agree with creating generalized misery because of one-tenth of 1 per cent who take undue advantage of unemployement insurance.
Madam Speaker, I want to say that we of the Social Credit are going to vote against this bill because I think it does not lead anywhere and causes even more suffering in this country. If the bill is accepted, on the one hand, the government will save $560 million in benefits that it will no longer be paying out and, on the other hand, it will go out and get $490 million more in the form of employer-employee premiums which represents a considerable loss to people. The three-week period during which the unemployed are not entitled to benefits if they quit their jobs themselves will be increased to six weeks without serious consideration for reasonable human motives. Madam Speaker, this is very serious for the following reason: In certain parts of Canada, in the province of Quebec and in the Maritimes people work for $2.60 an hour to support a family of three, four or five children.
They are being forced under this new unemployment insurance legislation to wait six weeks before receiving their first cheque when they are already in the red because the basic salary does not provide a decent living for their families. They are being forced to wait six weeks on top of that, and they are being punished if they leave their jobs because they can no longer lfve on their salaries, let alone

provide a living for their families. Once again, I think it is scandalous in a rich country like ours.
Claimants with dependents will see their special benefits reduced from 75 per cent to 66% per cent while the cost of living increases steadily.
On the other hand, people aged 65 or more will not be entitled to benefits and will not contribute to the program any longer although they paid all their life without drawing benefits and this, under the pretext of reducing the overlapping of social security programs lest, I suppose, older people get too much security. Those are, Madam Speaker, some of the main provisions of this legislation that the government presents in a such positive way and that is supposed to help the unemployed and the government.
Who stands to gain help from that bill? Certainly not the unemployed, Madam Speaker. Some members of this House will say: This project will help the unemployed. And they add: We are going to recover $1 billion from the unemployed, the employers and the employees. Where is the logic, Madam Speaker? Where is the logic of those senior officials who are giving to this government such ideas that I consider unhuman and-well, I would rather not say the word.
I think now that you will better understand why I presented this legislation at the beginning of my speech. Anyway, even if the Liberal members might not admit it today, Canadians are ever more prepared to realize it at the next election. They are not the ones to blame, it is those who counsel them in the long term. And you step on to the beaten tracks to exploit the poor.
Besides, Madam Speaker, there is another point I insist on mentioning. The other day, when I listened to the speech of the minister, I was amazed to see how it is possible to sugar the pill, to disguise a situation, to even hide the truth, and seriously hope the people will still believe for some time that the Liberal moon is made of green cheese.
Indeed, when the government is cutting down benefits, increasing premiums, terminating unemployment coverage for persons aged 65 or over, and extending the waiting period in some instances, the minister introduces that very bill in the House, arguing that it is meant to contribute to the realization of one of the basic objectives of the social security study, and to do away with some of the unfairness and complications it gives rise to. Where are the complications the UIC gives rise to, when it increases from three to six weeks the waiting period for a person who leaves his employment because he is underpaid and life becomes impossible, for him, because his employer takes advantage of him, and so on. I could mention one thousand and one instances in my constituency, especially in footwear manufacturing and fashion businesses, where employees are trained from scratch.
They start training employees to make them profitable when they do piece work, because they are not profitable if they are paid a salary. They try to ruin them by having them do piece work and therefore be profitable. If the girl is not healthy enough to carry the burden, Madam Speaker, she has to leave. Well, they say, you can no longer do your
November 3, 1975

work because your health is not good, so you will be punished: No unemployment insurance benefits for six weeks, and after that you will go from door to door to try and get a job, and earn a living for your family. They think that is intelligent.
To me, it is about the same kind of logic as you can see in the papers respecting the recent visit of President Sadat in the United States. The Egyptian president wants to purchase American arms to maintain peace in the Middle East. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sadat and our Minister of Manpower and Immigration would get along very well since they seem to be on the same wavelength and seem to make the same kind of reasoning. One of them purchases arms to make peace-I am talking of Sadat, the intelligent Mr. Sadat-and the other strips the unemployed to give them social security and eliminate inequities. That is very intelligent!
With such a negative bill, the minister should immediately introduce compensation measures to balance forces though I very much doubt that he will do so. My Social Credit colleagues who spoke before me made several very valid proposals and even provided accurate figures and data in support of the these proposals. For my part, I would like to conclude by emphasizing two points which should be applied as soon as possible to support the economy and the labour market.
First of all, the government should immediately establish a special program to systematically create productive employment. For instance, instead of providing $150 million for LIP projects which last only six months, it should allocate half of this to social welfare and to support all types of poor people with productive employment projects.
Such action would reasonably stimulate the economy while lowering the unemployment rate, which would reduce proportionately the difficulties of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and allow the maintenance of normal benefits and certain facilities.
On the other hand, it is more than time to establish a true guaranteed minimum income system which would support the poorest or those who have temporary employment problems and, at the same time, progressively reduce to a certain extent the responsibilities of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In my opinion, they have their hands full. They cannot even advise the unemployed about the law.
I think that this method is much more practical that that proposed in the bill we are now discussing. In practice, Bill C-69 increases the number of bureaucrats, worsens the complexities already existing in the present legislation, cuts or lowers benefits to claimants and raises premiums.
In conclusion, one can say that this legislation does not benefit anybody, except the government which considers Bill C-69 a governmental self-financing mechanism operated by the unemployed.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words on the important subject of unemployment insurance and the amendments proposed in Bill C-69.
Unemployment Insurance Act
For three years the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has resisted attempts, both within parliament and outside parliament, to weaken the rights of the unemployed in Canada. In my opinion he has been right in his resistance and his critics have been shamefully wrong. Over the past three years we have been deluged with half truths, misinformation, and contradiction.
Only this afternoon we listened to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) suggest that older people who have never collected unemployment insurance should get some kind of claim when they retire. This seems to me to be a view difficult to sustain bearing in mind the fact that many members of his party believe the scheme should be operated on an actuarial basis.
I am afraid the contradictions which emerge from the opposition on this subject of unemployment insurance defy imagination. If one had the time and inclination to go back over the past three years and examine the speeches and comments made by members of the official opposition on this question, one would be here for a long time listing in a column on the left the names of those who are advocating something, and in a column on the right, those who say exactly the opposite. For three years we have been listening to Conservative arguments which would have been appropriate and which, I am sure, were used to defend things like child labour in England in the 19th century.
To hear the kind of argument used the other day by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) to the effect that industries in his area have to compete not only with the labour market but with the unemployment insurance fund, and that this is a bad thing, shocks me. It shocks me he should suggest such a thing-that people in his area should work for wages which are as low as the kind of payments made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. As far as I am concerned, industry in his area should have to pay decent wages-wages on which people can live.
I am tired of hearing unemployment insurance whipped as an excuse for paying low wages, and that really is the sense of the arguments we have heard in the last three years-that it is a disincentive to work if you are not going to be paid decent wages. I accept that kind of disincentive. For the information of members who are of that persuasion I might point out that unemployment insurance is one of the important mechanisms at the disposal of government to raise the minimum wage. After all, as we all know, minimum wages are generally under provincial jurisdiction. One of the things the federal government can do is raise the level of unemployment insurance payments and this, of course, obliges people to pay higher wages in a particular area, and that is a proper thing to do.
There is nothing wrong in telling an employer that if he cannot afford to pay decent wages he should not be in business. That is a fact. One should not excuse one's self by blaming his troubles on unemployment insurance while he soaks up his two or three weeks' winter sunshine in Flori-day, Jamaica, Hawaii or wherever he goes, where he talks about his workers back home whom he is paying insufficient wages. I have heard that many times. I do not accept that argument.

November 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
The average weekly unemployment payment in Canada in July-and I am sure all members are aware of this-was $82.77 a week. Someone might claim that is a disincentive to work. I just have to laugh.
Among the attempts to dilute the unemployment insurance plan, as I read through last week's Hansard, are repeated references to the work ethic. My good friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), referred to it in his speech. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and several others had something to say about the work ethic.
It is positively peculiar to me the way people throw around the expression "the work ethic". Evidently if one works long hours for low wages he has a good work ethic. However, if a person resists and says, "Just a minute; I would like to be paid reasonably well so I can live, or I will go home", then he has a bad work ethic. I am afraid I do not buy that. That is one of the old chestnuts that has been used since 1850.
Personally I have faith in Canadians. Most Canadians do want to work but they want to receive some of the great incentive, money. I know what I am talking about. During the 1950's I worked in the mines. I also spent some years working in the various camps across Canada. I remember Moak Lake, Manitoba in 1956. I was among the first people to sink a shaft at a settlement which I believe now elects a member of parliament. There were 32 of us in the bush. We worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a period of six months without a day off. Why did we do this? Because we were paid money. The best incentive is money.
I was brought up in the retail business which is notorious for low wages. It is the worst paying industry in the country. When I was going to school I would go out to the camps in the summer and then, when I left school at age 16, I started going around to the various camps to make some money. I worked long hours in the bush in order to pay for my various activities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Peter A. Stollery: Before I came to parliament I worked 12 to 14 hours a day in Toronto in the cab business. I did this for five years before I came to Ottawa. I scraped the streets, like everybody who works at night in Toronto, for every dime. When people such as members opposite speak to me about the work ethic this makes me laugh. I have seen too many people in my day abused by such a cheap cliche as "he does not understand the work ethic". Well, I have been around enough and I am old enough to know a lot of baloney when I hear it.
Decent unemployment insurance is expensive in a time of high unemployment. Of course it is expensive in a time of high unemployment. If it is doing its job of cushioning those who are out of work it must be expensive. In his remarks last Monday the hon. member for Hamilton West noted that the United States, with a population ten times that of Canada, spent $4 billion on unemployment insurance in 1973. He went on to say that we in Canada will spend approximately the same amount in that area in 1975.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is something wrong somewhere.


Peter A. Stollery: What is wrong is that in the United States there is a lousy unemployment insurance program. Everybody knows that. In Detroit where there is high unemployment in the automotive industry anyone who can read the newspaper knows the unions are very concerned about the fact that they do not have the kind of unemployment insurance program we enjoy in Canada. Our program is better than theirs.
Canada is an advanced country in the field of unemployment insurance, and the United States is not. With the current recession that is taking place in that country they are very concerned about this.
I would like to point out to hon. members that money spent on unemployment insurance-and people seem to be very concerned about the money spent-does not disappear like smoke. It goes into the local economies. Not only does it put bread on the table but in fact in some of the local communities in parts of Canada which have a consistently high rate of unemployment of 20 per cent or 25 per cent having this kind of money going into their economies is a good thing. I find it difficult to understand a party, some of whose members I regret to say come from those areas of high unemployment, that would say we are spending too much money in those economies. I would like to see those people go back home and tell their people that we are spending too much money in their local economies.
I am against anyone cheating in respect of the unemployment insurance fund, committing fraud, and so on. No sensible person would be in favour of this, and of course it must be stopped wherever possible. Of course the unemployment insurance program should not be abused. It must be reformed and brought up to date, but I want to say I really, genuinely support the minister in his resistance to those who would dilute the unemployment insurance program.
I think it should be made clear to the Canadian working people that there are people in parliament who really would dilute the unemployment insurance program so that it would bear a pale resemblance to what we have today, and would in fact put the clock back. I think the people of Canada should be told that because it is true.
There is a problem in respect of people who cheat the unemployment insurance program, but I am not convinced there is a great number involved. Since the changes made about 18 months ago the regulations in respect of unemployment insurance have been as tight as I would like to see them. I wonder whether in some areas perhaps they are not too tight.
I wish to take this opportunity to explain that there are people who really do not believe there should be proper support for working Canadian men and women who, for reasons beyond their control, find themselves without a decent job. I think that is very important. If people are ripping off the unemployment insurance fund not only is this bad because of the manner in which they are taking the money, but it is particularly bad because it gives the unemployment insurance program a bad name. I do not like that because, as I said, I think unemployment insurance is a very good program.

I have a particular proposal to make regarding sickness benefits under the unemployment insurance program. I do not think the difference between a major attachment period and a minor attachment period is made clear enough to the working person, and I think there is entirely too much jargon in this business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter A. Stollery: I myself find it difficult to understand sometimes; I have to refresh my mind continually, and I am sure other hon. members have the same problem. I hope that something can be done to explain this program to the people. I notice there are two kinds of attachment period. My disagreement with this program is that very few people know that during the major contribution period if you become sick, even if you have been collecting sickness benefits for 10 or 15 weeks you are not eligible for unemployment insurance after the fifteenth week. I find it reprehensible that most people do not know that at the end of 15 weeks their sickness benefits cease and, if a person happens to be sick in the sixteenth week, he is not eligible for unemployment insurance. I certainly did not know that and I am sure most Canadians do not realize it.
We all have our favourite unemployment insurance case, and although the Unemployment Insurance Commission in my area does a fair job I also have my horror case, that of a man about 65 years of age, a leather worker who was laid off. He was collecting his unemployment insurance and in the twentieth week he was taken seriously ill, went to hospital and had one lung removed. Naturally he was not reporting to the unemployment insurance office as being available for work.
When he came out of the hospital some time after he had collected his payments and cashed them-I do not think he quite realized what he was doing-he was presented with a bill for $450 to be paid back to unemployment insurance. I think that is dreadful and it is something which should be changed. We have made amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and it is time we took a look at this byzantine business of sickness benefits because it is not satisfactory. I am sure I am not the only member with cases of people who have been sick and genuinely did not realize they were doing something wrong because they thought they were entitled to unemployment insurance.
When the plan was first announced, sickness benefits were announced with the plan. Why would anybody think he was not entitled to collect unemployment insurance? I personally cannot imagine why. Whenever I see one of these cases it infuriates me, particularly when almost every one of them must return the payment, whether it is $300, $400, or $500. Usually they do not have money and they have to make payments of $4 or $5 a week for the next five years. I think it is an inequity which should be repaired. Something should be done about it.
I see the minister in the House tonight. I merely wanted to use this opportunity to point out to him, first, that people do not understand the difference between a major and minor contribution period-nobody except an actuary understands it, and most of us are not in the insurance business-and second, that there is no consistency in the
Adjournment Debate
program when people who are unemployed become sick and suddenly are cut off unemployment insurance, and wind up owing the government money at a time when they can least afford it.
I would like to make one more point to those who talk about the cost of unemployment insurance. As the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) repeatedly said during the negotiations which have been going on ad nauseam over the last three years, if we want to cut the cost of unemployment insurance the best way is to reduce the number of people who are unemployed.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the floor for just one minute before ten o'clock because I want to say to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), who spoke a moment ago, that for a moment he sounded like the only man who had ever worked for a living. I would never denigrate any other member with regard to his work experience or any other personal effort he might have made, but it has been my experience that those who work hardest talk about it the least. May I call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, on October 14, 1975, as recorded at page 8103 of Hansard of that day, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) whether, as a result of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) trip to Damascus on Thanksgiving evening when he ate crow, feathers and all, instead of turkey, the government intended its restraint program to mean and include that it was not proceeding with phase II of the implementation of bilingualism in the public service of Canada.
The minister indicated it meant no such thing, that restraint would not stand in the way of phase II dealing with units working in French and it would be proceeding full speed ahead. If that was not enough, he said that I supported phase II as envisaged by the government. This is just patent nonsense. Phase II deals with units working in French. The government proposes a quota system, 10 per cent of supervisory positions for some departments, 20 per cent for others.
There is no provision in the resolution of June, 1973, dealing with quotas. The words used in that declaration are "where practical", not a quota system. The resolution says that the staff associations would be consulted. No only were they not consulted, their walkout of the National Joint Council in protest of the arrangement proposed

November 3, 1975
Adjournment Debate
indicated they were hoodwinked, and the government had better come clean with them.
There is a very suspicious press release which alludes to some kind of detente within the National Joint Council. It came out on the weekend, with no telephone number for verification or questions. The question I have is who authorized it, who was there, and what does it mean? This question has affected others.
Geoffrey Johnson writing in the Citizen last week said that:
-as a result of receiving certain documents concerning the language program and the facts are simply that beneath the surface of that "agreement", announced last Monday by the public service's National Joint Council on Bilingualism, things are far from well.
The staff side of the council, in fact, is said to be having second thoughts about the whole thing now that the fine print has yielded information on what lies in store for the Anglophone who wants to remain in his job even when it becomes part of a unit working in French.
Treasury Board had backed down to a certain extent by agreeing to provide French-language training for those Anglophones affected.
Now the staff side has discovered to its dismay that these employees will have no chance whatsoever of promotion because they will never qualify linguistically for French-essential positions. Their choice will be to stay put-or get out.
Apparently things have ground to a halt on that point. It's an embarrassing situation for Claude Edwards, president of the Public Service Alliance, and Des Davidge, vice-chairman of the staff side of the council. They were the ones who gave their blessing to the revised agreement on the weekend-without reaching the agreement.
In other words, it seems that despite the statements to the press by the President of the Treasury Board, and despite the soothing syrup of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Francis) there are grave suspicions, and indeed reports that the situation remains exactly the same today as it did on September 3, 1975, when I revealed the secret documents. I think it is just about time the government came clean.
I have asked the minister for a statement inside the House; he has not given it. He has made some references outside the House, but I suggest that his references are double talk, and it is about time we had the straight goods on this program.
The other matter is the question of merit. I want to say that this policy is about as far removed from merit as the President of the Treasury Board is removed from Thomas D'Arcy McGee.
Phase II is not the program I voted for in June of 1973, and the fact that it is going ahead is the best indication I know of that the restraint program of the government in terms of government spending is about as genuine as a three dollar bill. No one has to prove his allegiance to the principles of the Official Languages Act by refraining from pointing out the inequities and the stupidities in their implementation. Phase II is wrong in principle, it is demoralizing, divisive, discriminatory, and it is contrary to the provisions of the statute which was meant to promote unity in the public service, and unity in this country.
I think it is about time we heard the truth about this program. This program was brought forth by the President of the Treasury Board, in the month of August, not by accident, but because the House was not sitting. There has

been no statement made about it in the House, merely statements outside, and we have heard nothing but the empty statements of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) a few days ago. There has been a disturbing lack of candor about it which leads me to say that the public service of this country deserves better treatment.
I released those documents after some heart searching, and it is interesting to note that when I released them the President of the Treasury Board said they were nothing. In fact he described them as garbage, but all the while since that time the same President of the Treasury Board and others in the public service have been discussing that which was supposed to be nothing and which was described as garbage.
I think the parliamentary secretary had better come clean tonight. What is his position? What is the position of the Government of Canada with respect to this matter? Has phase II stopped? Is phase II being changed? If so, to what extent? How is the discrimination being taken out of it? Those are the questions being asked by the public service of this country and, as I said earlier, I believe that the public service of this country deserves some candor in terms of this very important program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, at present implementation of all elements of Part II of the official languages program is under renewed discussion with heads of bargaining agents. I say renewed because there was a breakdown in the consultation process, to which the hon. member referred. I believe that the frank and open discussions which have already taken place, and those continuing now, will result in the resolution of many, hopefully all, of the concerns of the bargaining agents. These discussions, as I said, are taking place on a continuing basis.
As the implementation of phase II is presently the subject of discussion with the National-Joint Council, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of these discussions. Without question, the hon. member raised a number of important points. I merely wish to emphasize that the position of the government is that of complete equality for the two official languages. This policy will be implemented in connection with the proposals. Any aspects which involve discrimination between language groups, and access to units working in French, will be eliminated. The opportunities for promotion within those units will be there to those who meet proficiency requirements, no matter what is their mother tongue.


POST OFFICE-PROPOSAL TO ALLOW PRIVATE CARRIERS TO DELIVER MAIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I certainly hope I shall receive a better answer than that given to the previous hon. member.
On October 23 I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) to indicate, as recorded on page 8477 of Hansard:
... if he has any plans to allow private carriers to deliver first class mail, any other sort of mail or parcels during the Post Office strike, and would he consider initiating discussions with the Air Industries Asso-

ciation and the Canadian Truckers Association, to assure that the fullest possible use is made of alternative delivery services in the absence of regular postal service.
I pointed out to the minister that I had spoken with these groups earlier that day and that they would be willing to sit down with the hon. gentleman to discuss alternate ways of delivering mail. To this the Postmaster General replied, in part:
I am aware of the representations but I think it is a little premature to be encouraging our competition.
This thinking on the part of the Postmaster General, that private couriers are competition, must be stopped. To make my position perfectly clear, let me say that I am waiting for the Postmaster General to begin consultations with the private sector on rates and sorting problems, with a view to transferring as much mail delivery as possible to trucking and airline firms and private couriers.
I have raised this subject previously in the House, but the answers were entirely unsatisfactory. One of the reasons given for refusal was that private carriers would not deliver mail or parcels to remote areas. I point out that regional air carriers and trucking companies deliver merchandise to remote areas of Canada. So why could they not deliver mail as well? One of the answers I received earlier was that a private mail carrier would not deliver a letter to the north pole. That is an absolutely ridiculous answer. Our remote cities, towns, and villages all need mail service; the odd remote area might suffer a little. But we cannot use that as an excuse for not doing something to ensure proper mail delivery in Canada.
As announced today, Montreal postal workers are forming a courier delivery service. I suggest that they should also negotiate with the trucking and airline associations to work out long-range plans for postal delivery. I am sure they would be much happier working for a private concern instead of being out on strike all the time, which is what happens to those working for our postal service in Canada.
The direct mail industry is considering its own mail delivery service, as it has been crippled 38 times in past few years owing to post office strikes. Canada's direct mail and mail order industry is considering setting up its own delivery service for second and third class mail. A similar service in the United States pays better wages than the post office, is cheaper, and is more efficient, they say. The U.S. service, United Parcel Service, tried to enter Canada in recent months but its application to the Foreign Investment Review Agency to buy two Canadian delivery services was rejected. That is most unfortunate. I suggest to the unions that they should also consider consulting with private carriers. If they could make higher wages and not be out on strike all the time, everybody would benefit.
Recently the Postmaster General stated that Canada's Post Office must regain the confidence of the public, provide better facilities for its employees, and go after the
3,000	jobs that were lost because of work stoppages and strikes by postal workers. That statement was made in August. If there were 3,000 jobs lost last August, heaven only knows how many jobs have been lost with this latest strike.
Adjournment Debate
Businesses large and small cannot go on year after year waiting for the Postmaster General to provide better service. The business that has been lost to the private couriers will never be regained by the post office, so let us negotiate to transfer the remaining delivery to the private sector. The government has a responsibility to provide guaranteed postal delivery for Canadians.
Here is an example of what is happening to some Canadians firms. Strikes are crippling mail order firms. A Cornwall mail order company may be forced to lay off 300 employees as a result of strikes by inside postal workers. Jack MacDonald, president of Sovereign Seat Covers Manufacturing Limited, said that the company, which relies totally on mail orders, has been hit hard by the postal strike. He said, and I quote:
Our situation would be that as soon as our... 48-hour work backlog is cleaned up we will have about 300 employees with nothing to do.
That is only one firm. There are dozens of others across the country that are faced with the same situation. This is what the latest strike is doing to postal business in the United States. I quote:
Montrealers frustrated at the Canadian postal strike are driving to U.S. border points to drop off correspondence for the United States and other foreign destinations. This northern New York city, 70 miles south of Montreal, has developed a booming postal business since the strike began, giving extra revenue to the U.S. Treasury and overtime work to postal employees. Last Thursday, 184,000 pieces of mail were processed in the Plattsburgh post office, an increase of about 16,000 compared with the previous Thursday, said city postmaster Rolland Hewitt.
That mail should be hosted in this country. That is why I suggest that the Postmaster General start immediate negotiations with the private sector to keep these 184,000 pieces of mail in Canada rather than give the revenue to American firms.
What we are faced with today is a number of ad hoc schemes to deliver mail. A concerned gentleman in Victoria has formed a postal delivery service. He has some striking post office workers helping him deliver the mail. It is absolutely ridiculous for a country the size of Canada to be faced with this sort of situation. Many hon. members will have seen the headline: "Halifax Posties Set Up Delivery System". They are trying to do something there.
The Postmaster General stated recently that illegal work stoppages by postal employees posed a threat to their job security by encouraging private carriers to compete with the government. Private carriers, he said, would get a toe hold only because of labour unrest and the uncertainty of moving the mail.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) for his suggestion. There is no doubt that a long postal strike would be most disruptive to the Canadian people generally, to the Canadian economy, and to businesses both large and small. As the hon. member has indicated, a strike even of the present duration has taken its toll. Should it last much longer, alternate means will certainly be forthcoming to deal with essential mail.

November 3, 1975
Adjournment Debate
However, it should be remembered that members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are exercising their democratic right in walking off their jobs, and in a democratic society such as ours we must be ready to accept the hardships and inconveniences brought about by this exercise of the democratic process. At this moment the government is hopeful of an early settlement to the strike. The difficulties we are facing with the Canadian postal workers are difficulties which have been experienced over a long period and they have been the cause of many walkouts. It is hoped that the successful completion of these negotiations, carefully put, together will create a better relationship and that walk-outs of the kind we have known will cease.
As of 6.30 this evening agreement had been reached on all but two of the outstanding issues-pay, and the employment of casuals. It is hoped that within a short period agreement will be reached and that the development of alternative means of delivering mail will, consequently, not be required.


BROADCASTING-ACTIONS OF UNITED STATES TELEVISION STATIONS IN OBTAINING CANADIAN ADVERTISING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I raised a question with the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) concerning a practice which has been going on since last spring, namely, the dumping of advertising space by United States border television stations on the Canadian market.
Before the House is Bill C-58, a belated recognition by the Liberal government of the crisis in the Canadian communications industry-magazines and television. The purpose of that bill is to help the Canadian magazine and television industries by making amendments to the Income Tax Act so that we may enhance our own national identity and have Canadians interpret the events of the world to other Canadians rather than relying on foreign magazines and news sources. What we have experienced, unfortunately, is delay in the passage of this bill mainly due to a filibuster mounted by the Conservative party.
In the intervening period, many United States border television stations are adopting punitive and retaliatory measures consequent upon the introduction of this bill although it has yet to be passed and made law. Specifically what they are doing is dumping advertising slots on Canadian advertisers only. They are dumping advertising space at cut rates to under sell Canadian stations and force them into a loss position. This practice can only be viewed as punitive and retaliatory. It particularly hurts the smaller independent stations along our border.
For example, in the fall of 1974 a Buffalo television station was charging between $60 and $80 for a rating point-that is the terminology used in selling advertising. By the spring of 1975 the same station was charging only $22 per rating point on the Canadian side only. This fall the rate has risen to $30, still approximately half the normal advertising rate charged by the station to its American customers, and about half the rate in Canada. Many Canadian stations barely get by when they sell these rating points at between $40 and $45. For example, City TV

in Toronto has estimated that in one eight week period alone it lost over $200,000 in advertising contracts because of this practice on the part of U.S. border stations.
We also find dumping taking place on the west side of Canada. There is a certain station, KVOS, in Bellingham, Washington, which has been set up purely to take advantage of Canadian business-there is not enough American business in this area to make its operation viable otherwise. Last June this station sold 104-week contracts at a rating point of $30, with a $600 a month minimum contract. In addition, KVOS has given Canadian advertisers a guarantee that when the income tax provisions of Bill C-58 come into effect those advertisers will be offered a rate cut by a further 50 per cent.
It has been estimated that, in 12 deals sold by that one station alone in Washington in a period of one week, they were able to capture contracts from Canadian advertisers amounting to some $4 million. That is $4 million worth of Canadian advertising revenue for one station alone, money that went to the United States rather than remain in Canada to help support Canadian television stations.
The question may be raised: how can these American stations afford such cut rate prices for advertising? The reason is that the United States stations along the border make more than an adequate profit on the United States market alone. For example, the Buffalo station has a 150 per cent return on equity investment, not counting its Canadian business. Therefore any advertising sold in the Canadian market is pure gravy. It is surplus to the actual needs of any American television station.
This problem was brought to the attention of the then minister of finance last spring, the minister of communications, and the chairman of the CRTC during the summer. They were aware of the problem, but nothing to date has been done. Since the effect of the tax provisions in Bill C-58 is to double the cost of advertising spots placed by Canadian advertisers on United States television, all a U.S. television station has to do to circumvent the legislation is to cut its rates to advertisers on the Canadian side by 51 per cent or more. Therefore the whole intent of the legislation will be negated.
My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Miss Campbell) is: will the government be taking measures to overcome this obvious weakness in Bill C-58? Will the minister bring forward amendments to plug the loopholes in this legislation? Specifically I suggest a double disallowance feature, that is to say, to disallow as a normal business expense for tax purposes twice the value of advertising spots on United States television stations. That would get around the effect of their cutting their rates.
I also want to know whether the minister will take immediate steps under the anti-dumping legislation via order in council to stop this undercutting of revenue for Canadian stations. In conclusion I want to make th* point that, unless action is taken now, this punitive dumping tactic of American television stations will undermine the financial viability of many Canadian television stations and their ability to produce Canadian programs.
November 3, 1975


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fleming) I would like to reaffirm that the government introduced in Bill C-58 an amendment to the Income Tax Act which would no longer allow deductions against income for advertising time on a non-Canadian station for advertisements directed primarily to a Canadian market. The purpose of the amendment is to constrain the significant outflow, estimated at some $20 million a year, by Canadian firms purchasing advertisement time on United States border stations.
Adjournment Debate
The government is aware of possible alternatives which United States border stations might offer to Canadian advertisers as an incentive to maintain their business. As the legislation has yet to be passed, it is much too early to judge the effects of Bill C-58.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) stated in the House this afternoon that it is considered that the remedy to the situation alluded to by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) lies in a speedy passage of Bill C-58. It should also be remembered that U.S. border stations are not exporting goods but providing services, and that therefore it would seem that the anti-dumping act would not apply as it is now written.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Tuesday, November 4, 197S