1975-11-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the 17th report of the Clerk of Petitions stating he has examined the petition laid upon the table by the hon. member for Central Nova and finds that it meets the requirements of Standing Orders as to form.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.
Considering that food prices have increased steadily since the announcement made on October 13 by the right hon. Prime Minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That the government recommend to the appropriate board an immediate freeze of food prices, retroactive to midnight, October 13.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member. 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 motion of the hon. member cannot be put.



REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF GROUPS WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE HEARINGS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to introduce a motion on a question of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the government's frequently stated commitment to encourage vigorous public participation on the decisionmaking processes of government and its more specific commitment to ensure that the current Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearings of the National Energy Board be open to the representations of all concerned public groups, and in view of the absolute necessity of securing as much information and as many opinions as possible relative to the social, economic and environmental impact of this critical pipeline project, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to provide all necessary financial and logistical support for all public groups wishing to participate in the current NEB hearings so that a well-informed and just decision on the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline may be possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that this motion be put?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent and important matter.
Considering that the Alberta tar sands will require disbursements of several billion dollars to ensure future energy supplies for the needs of the Canadian people as a whole and that these disbursements are now made on foreign financial markets, giving our natural wealth, the tar sands of Alberta, to foreigners, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the government make all necessary arrangements to ensure that a loan trust company is established to enable all Canadians to borrow money from it to buy shares in the Alberta tar sands and also to enable Canadians to hold 51 per cent of the shares.

November 4, 1975
Airports


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



AIR CANADA


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that approximately two dozen senior marketing people in Air Canada who have been described as executives have had their jobs eliminated, many of whom have made a great contribution to the company and are near pensionable age, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Transport immediately review the company's action to ascertain that equitable considerations are being applied and that these individuals are not being sacrificed as a token to protect the positions of more senior executives.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
REASON FOR CLOSING AIRSTRIPS AT ARCTIC BAY AND GRISE FIORD-ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF OBTAINING SUPPLIES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43	*
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since I make use of this provision of the Standing Orders so rarely, I know all members of the House will like my motion. I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that is urgent, pressing and necessary, a matter that in fact is of extreme emergency for 500 residents of two communities in the Northwest Territories. In view of the unilateral decision by the Ministry of Transport to close the airstrips at Arctic Bay and Grise Fiord, and in view of the urgent need to get winter food supplies and other essentials into those two northern communities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to make a statement on motions later this day explaining in full the reasons for the ministry's decision and outlining the means, if any, by which the government intends to get essential winter supplies to those two northern communities.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a very important and urgent matter.
Considering that a great many family heads are prevented from becoming homeowners by high mortgage rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House strongly urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to intervene personally and order an immediate reduction of mortgage rates generally, in order to make it possible for a greater number of family heads to become homeowners.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this 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; the motion therefore cannot be put.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Noting that more than a year has passed since the Panarctic airplane crash, and in view of the jury decision that nothing can be finally solved until a public inquiry has been established, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government immediately call a public inquiry into this disaster.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 4, 1975



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BELGIAN DELEGATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCH LANGUAGE PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Speaker:: Before we proceed with oral questions, I have the honour to draw hon. members' attention to the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a delegation of the Belgian Parliament, headed by Mr. Andre Baudson, president of the Belgian section of the International French Speaking Parliamentary Association.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs relating to the agreement to sell a nuclear reactor to the Republic of South Korea. Will the minister, having refused to table the treaty or agreement in advance of committing Canada to the sale and to the agreement, now indicate whether Canada is insisting upon repatriation of all spent fuel in connection with this reactor, or is insisting on inspection in connection with these facilities in South Korea by Canadians in that country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet signed a nuclear co-operation agreement with the Republic of Korea. We are well on the way to entering into an agreement on nuclear co-operation but we are not insisting on the repatriation of the spent fuel because of the cost and its environmental implications to Canada, and mainly because such repatriation would not contribute significantly to safeguards in the situation we are seeking.
On the final point, I believe I am right in saying that the international agency will conduct inspections in the normal course, and that we will be considering our own inspections in respect of those aspects that are uncovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency service.


AGREEMENT AMONG SUPPLIERS OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY ON SAFEGUARDS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had the impression a number of months ago that some spokesman on behalf of the government told us that spent fuel would be repatriated. This seems like a reversal and a weakening of Canada's position. However, in connection with the discussions going on among the supplier nations, and those are the nations that supply nuclear technology and facilities, I understand there is
Oral Questions
some kind of an agreement on common safeguards that is almost within reach. Is Canada proposing that there be IAEA inspection insisted upon by all supplier nations of not only nuclear reactors but, particularly, reprocessing facilities as well as the handling and the disposal of spent fuel?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at tfle meeting of the suppliers Canada is taking, and I am wondering how to put this without seeming that we are putting ourselves in a special position, an extreme position in favour of a full scope of safeguards. Suppliers ought to agree, if possible, to the insistence upon the total safeguarding of all facilities within a country to which they will direct assistance, material or technology, but the suppliers to my knowledge have not yet reached any conclusions. The matter is still under consideration among the suppliers, but Canada's position certainly is the one I have indicated.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON SALE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT EVERY SAFEGUARD POSSIBLE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, does the minister think it is appropriate for Canada to supply a nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel to a country without these general safeguards of an IAEA inspection of reactors, spent fuel and, particularly, processing facilities, in view of the fact that spent fuel developed from a Canadian reactor might very well be used in some uninspected reprocessing facility for the development of a very dangerous substance? I ask the minister whether Canada should proceed in those circumstances, and also what Canada is proposing to other nations to assist them by way of sanctions to countries which receive these nuclear facilities and do not comply with the common safeguards.
[DOT] (M20)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it would not be appropriate for Canada to make supplies available in the circumstances he has mentioned. That is why we are, in reaching bilateral agreements with for example Argentina and the Republic of South Korea, insisting upon full safeguards with regard to inspection and reprocessing, for example, of spent fuel. We are insisting upon a Canadian hold on the uses to which spent fuel can be put and we are certainly insisting upon full inspection mainly through the International Energy Agency and in some cases it may be necessary for Canada to provide a supplementary inspection service.
So we are fully in support and are developing these inspection coverages. With regard to the final point on the sanctions, I am not aware that Canada at the present time is making any special proposals for sanctions except in the abrogation of any such bilateral or multilateral agreement. Of course, it would be open to supplier countries to cease making supplies available or to cut off all forms of nuclear co-operation which is what we have done with India but which is not fully effective.

November 4, 1975
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


LIKELIHOOD OF UNITED STATES CONTINUING TO ADVOCATE STRONG CONVENTIONAL FORCES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. First, may I express my regrets at the disappearance of Dr. Schle-singer and his fine mind from the international scene at this critical time. Has the minister contacted his new opposite number in Washington, Mr. Rumsfeld, to determine if Mr. Rumsfeld intends to continue Dr. Schlesinger's policy of strong conventional forces to lessen the likelihood of an act of aggression turning into a nuclear holocaust.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my earphone was not working to receive the question and I will have to ask the hon. gentleman to repeat it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question. Has the minister contacted his new opposite number in Washington, Mr. Rumsfeld, to determine if Mr. Rumsfeld intends to continue Dr. Schlesinger's policy of strong conventional forces to lessen the likelihood of an act of aggression turning into a nuclear holocaust?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not contacted Mr. Rumsfeld but I have met him and talked with him at NATO meetings. I am certain he will carry forward the policy of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary by the hon. member for Victoria.


EFFECT OF DEPARTURE OF DR. SCHLESINGER ON CANADIAN COMMITMENT TO NATO
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, as Dr. Schlesinger was a proponent of strong conventional forces as an alternative to nuclear retaliation, can the minister assure the House and the country that Dr. Schlesinger's departure will not change the Canadian Government's commitment to maintain our NATO forces in Europe at least at their present levels and that Canada will not revert to the policy of nuclear weapons as the only defence.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the policy of the United States secretary of defence, in which we believe, is that the central objective is to achieve international stability and that we achieve that stability by means of a balance of military forces and that we achieve that balance in the three areas of strategic nuclear, theatre nuclear and conventional weapons. We believe that there is a growing requirement for a balance of military forces at the conventional level. That is the policy that has been expressed by the U.S. defence department which is endorsed in statements that I have made. I would like to confirm our belief in a balance of military force at the conventional level as a means of achieving international stability.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs arising out of his housing program announced yesterday. The minister said at the time that the government expects the private financial institutions to put up an additional $750 million for housing. I should like to ask the minister, since he ruled out mandatory legislation in the field at this point, what form of commitments he has obtained from the financial institutions, are they verbal or written commitments and do they vary in terms of percentages from one bank as opposed to another? In short, would he tell the House what kind of agreement he has with the financial institutions?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have an agreement with or commitment from financial institutions. I spoke with them and indicated an increase. I spoke to some of them this morning and they are receptive. They must be receptive to our objectives or else we will legislate, and they recognize that. They are prepared to co-operate in every way. In this way we will achieve the objectives we set for ourselves. Indeed, for the past month of October our housing starts have reached 275,900 at a seasonally adjusted rate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: -which is an increase of over 100,000 from the same month last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: Tell us about AHOP now.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO GET SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS FROM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SUPPLYING MORTGAGE MONEY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously happy that one month out of ten he has been on target. That provides a lot of joy for him. In view of the fact that the success of his housing program in increasing the supply is absolutely dependent upon the co-operation of the financial institutions, and considering that past commitments to the minister when he said he was going to get $1 billion or so last spring from them, have not been complied with, I should like to ask the minister why he did not follow the example set at the time the auto pact came in in 1965. At that time the government approached the auto industry requesting specific commitments for the next two or three years and they received signed letters of agreement from each of the firms concerned. Why did the minister not think that it was essential to follow that example with the banks, for example, in the area of housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Because it is traditional, when the government indicates its wishes to the lending institutions, for them to follow suit. I have no doubt this will be the case now. I have communicated with them before. We have had to give them an indication of the specific amount we wanted. I
November 4, 1975

have no fears it will be forthcoming without disturbing the normal capital markets, which is an important part of the approach we are taking.


SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT INCREASE AMOUNT OF MORTGAGE MONEY AVAILABLE
John Edward Broadbent: I do not
know how the minister will get them to change and invest in a way in which they were not going to invest without changing the normal pattern of investment. However, I leave that with him. I should like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that even if they provide the money, which they never did before, along the lines he is requesting, which will only provide an additional 20,000 or 25,000 units, if he would assure the House that when the CMHC budget is brought in for the next year it will have built into it a substantial increase from the government side in terms of expenditures to increase the supply of housing.


Barnett Jerome Danson: First I will deal with another point the hon. member raised: that we were only on target one month. That is not the case, and I would be pleased to bet him, as 1 did the Alberta minister of housing yesterday, $10 against a barrel of Alberta oil that we will meet our target of this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: And if the price of oil goes up, I will raise my $10.
The hon. member suggested changing the pattern of investment, but it is the amount within that pattern we are concerned about. We do not care terribly much how it comes, just as long as we get that amount of money. I think the hon. member may have missed the statement in the announcement yesterday that the banks are also required to restrict their high ratio loans, their low down payment loans, and increase those to lower cost housing. We will have a great deal more housing for the same amount of money. In addition, the resources of the government will be strengthened in the areas of non-profit and co-operative or public housing, and for those people in need whom governments should and do look after in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Is he willing to use the authority entrusted to him by Parliament to authorize a cut in interest rates and so enable the Canadian economy to stand up to the competition on the domestic and international markets?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the hon. member is asking me to use the authority I hold from Parliament to reduce interest rates. I must point out that I have no such authority, either on the acts governing our banks or on that governing the Bank of Canada.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse on a supplementary.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, given the admission of the Minister of Finance that he has no authority to dictate interest rates to financial institutions, thus implying that chartered banks do have that authority, may I ask the minister if at least he would be prepared to suggest to his cabinet colleagues greater use of the Bank of Canada-which is the bank of the Canadian people for public financing-to reduce the inflationary charge of interest rates burdening Canadian taxpayers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I find that many of my colleagues do not accept the concept of the hon. member and his colleagues on the role of the Bank of Canada. I do not think that I could advocate such a policy among my colleagues.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary question from the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, considering that this is a major issue in this country, that all other aspects of our economic problems lead to this major issue of interest rates, may I ask the minister if he would be willing to introduce legislation in this Parliament, aiming at giving this House, through the Minister of Finance, jurisdiction over all financial matters in our country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I agree this is a major issue. We are in the process of studying the bill on banking with a view to reviewing this Act and we may consider changes in our financial system. It is within this framework that we are prepared to examine the question but not in the way the hon. member has suggested.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he yet had an opportunity to study the matter I raised yesterday? Further, with respect to the public property at Montreal international airport No. 2 at Mirabel, which was leased by the government on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport to Sky Shops Export Limited for the operation
8830

November 4, 1975
Oral Questions
of a duty free shop, will the minister tell the House why this lease concession was not granted to the tenderer whose offered rental would provide the greatest financial return to Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly double check the latter lease, although I believe I was informed that an analysis of the leases took place and that the proposition which was accepted was indeed likely to earn the greater amount of revenue over the period of time involved.


George Harris Hees: For whom?


Otto Emil Lang: I have also begun to look into the questions the hon. member raised in the petition he filed, and I am attempting to verify various allegations in the petition, since I was not supplied with any authenticated material.
I have determined that in the early 1970's there were discussions with regard to the renewal of the lease at Dorval because of a desire to provide additional superior facilities for the duty free shop and also to make certain of the time period which would be available for that shop, in view of the expected phasing out of international flights and that as a result of that, discussions about appropriate rental and going to a specific agreed rate rather than tender in view of the short period of time were held.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate the minister's full answer at this time, but by way of a supplementary question I should like to ask him the following: in view of the fact that the tender of Sky Shops Export Limited will be financially less rewarding and substantially so, to Canada than the bids of at least two other tenderers, will the minister consider advising the House in due course what other criteria had greater influence with the government in the award of the lease concession to Sky Shops Export Limited? These would not be financial considerations because Sky Shops Export Limited was outbid by at least two competitors, in one case on guaranteed minimums to the extent of over $1 million and in the other case the percentages offered by Sky Shops were considerably less attractive than was the case with the other tender.


Otto Emil Lang: As far as the most recent granting of duty free shop licenses is concerned, I have just said that I will look further into that situation, and there will be ample opportunity for discussion with members of parliament concerning the choice of a particular lease compared with alternatives.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Minister of Communications. In view of this week's decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to order a $6.7 million reduction in the rate application of British Columbia Telephone Company so as conform to the government's anti-inflation

guidelines, could the minister assure the House that the CTC will follow a similar procedure when dealing with the upcoming application by Bell Canada, which serves millions of consumers in Ontario and Quebec?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the government is obviously pleased with what may be the first major example of how these federal guidelines can help Canadian consumers, and I am sure the government will watch with interest when the hearings between the CTC and Bell Canada draw to a conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Returning to the subject introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to ask whether in considering a bilateral nuclear agreement with South Korea Canada examined the reports of Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and the International League for the Rights of Man? They found South Korea to be a repressive, corrupt regime, relying on torture and false confessions for law enforcement, which suggests it would be most unwise for Canada to trust such an administration, especially when it has already purchased a $50 million reprocessing plant from France.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in the over-all context of our sale we have considered all the factors mentioned by my hon. friend. As he knows, the Republic of Korea has been a signatory to the NPT, as a result, I hope, of our influence following representations which were made some time ago. We are now hoping to conclude a nuclear co-operation agreement which will cover all the concerns which have been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition.


REASON FOR SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA
Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the reason for selling a nuclear reactor to South Korea? Is it to make money or is it to make a contribution to nuclear energy? If the latter, did CIDA ever recommend a nuclear reactor for export to South Korea as part of our international aid program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have been in the business of providing power plants to other countries. In the case of South Korea it is a developing country with a severe shortage of power sources and a very heavy dependence on imported oil which, as in other places, has quadru-
November 4, 1975

pled in price. The developmental aspects of this nuclear power program to South Korea are very great indeed. That is one of the reasons why we have proceeded with the sale, in balancing its developmental aspects against other factors which have been used by the questioner.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport about the serious shortage of stock cars in western Canada. In view of an authentic report this morning that CPR can only supply six stock cars west of Moose Jaw to special cattle sales today and tomorrow that involve several thousand heads, and in view of the suggestion that this delay is deliberate in anticipation of the next rate increase on November 14, will the Minister of Transport give immediate attention to some emergency action that would speed up the return of empty stock cars to western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is no foundation at all for any suggestion of a deliberate delay in the supply of cars. Each year at this time there is a tremendous demand for double and single deck cars for the shipment of livestock. Obviously, the available fleet cannot be great enough to ship all animals in a specific week. I think that should stand to reason. I am sure if there is a small number of cars to the west of Moose Jaw it is because they are to the east of Moose Jaw, having been in the process and still being in the process of moving animals.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary; would the minister please investigate and see if that is the case because I am sure it is. Could he do something about it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I could say once and for all that almost any time a member asks me to investigate something I will do so. It can be taken for granted. Unless I say I won't, I will follow that course of action. In view of my experience with this sort of allegation, I started my answer by saying I was quite satisfied this would not be the case.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that financial institutions have assured the minister of an increased allocation of mortgage moneys for low and moderately priced homes, how many homes has the minister estimated will be built under the AHOP program and what will be the cost to Canadian taxpayers by reason of the purchasers under the program passing on to the financial institutions the subsidies paid to them?
Oral Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the last part of the question. Maybe the hon. member understood it himself.


An hon. Member:: I doubt it.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better repeat the question. I am asking how many homes will be built under the AHOP program? How much money will it cost Canadian taxpayers with regard to the subsidies paid when the purchasers pass that subsidy on to the financial institutions?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, no subsidies are passed on to financial institutions under the AHOP program.


EFFECT OF NEW MEASURES ON LAND COSTS
John Gilbert: A supplementary question. Maybe the minister should be made aware that the subsidies that are paid by him to the purchasers are eventually paid to the financial institutions. I would hope that he would get that very simple point. My supplementary question is, in view of the fact that high interest rates and high land costs are the main components of the high cost of housing, what is the minister's forecast on interest rates for the first six months of 1976 and what effect will the measures the minister announced yesterday have on bringing down land costs?


Barnett Jerome Danson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member does not seem to understand that financial institutions get their money from people such as small savers, pension funds and little people who have invested for their pensions. They deserve a return to compensate for inflation just the way anybody else in the New Democratic Party does.
What was the second part of his question?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for not answering the hon. member for Broadview on the portion of his question referring to land costs. I think it is obvious to anyone who listened to the announcement yesterday that land costs are being dealt with by increasing the subsidies to include water and giving municipalities $1,000 per unit within the guidelines to bring land on stream next year to allow building permits. That, more than anything else, should speed up the process. There is more to be done.


METHOD BY WHICH GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE MORTGAGE MONEY AVAILABLE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In his statement delivered in the House yesterday, the minister said that his objective was to build more than
200,000	housing units. He added that to improve the liquidity of mortgages as an investment, the government will
29956-7V2

November 4, 1975
Oral Questions
make the federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation operational by April 1, 1976. Can the minister say by what procedure he expects to find the necessary funds for this purpose, since it is getting very late for the creation of new liquidities and how he intends to proceed so that the construction of houses will begin early in 1976?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation which is commencing operation on April 1, 1976 is a wholesaling instrument. It will not be lending money itself. The mortgage market will continue through the conventional channels. It acts as a residual source for the transfer and exchange of mortgages. There will be substantial government funding directly into the institutions and the rather massive CMHC mortgage portfolio can also be used as a mortgage exchange. It creates greater liquidity and helps make mortgages as an investment far more attractive. By doing so it will help keep the rates down. I hope it will lower rates significantly.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Communications. Since the persistence of the postal strike focuses attention on the ability of CNT and Bell Canada to cope with the extra load of telephone communications, it appears that telephone communication to most parts of Canada is deteriorating. Would the minister call for an investigation and make sure these two agencies can cope with normal telephone services and deny them an increase in rates until they can do so?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pointed out something that could obviously be a serious problem. I will certainly bring it to the attention of the ministry.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Has the minister allotted the requirement for this additional $750 million among the various institutions involved, that is the banks, the trust companies, insurance companies, etc.? If so, could he give us a rough idea of the breakdown of where he expects this $750 million to come from?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that breakdown specifically now. My officials are meeting with the principal lenders. I am meeting with some of them on Thursday of this week and my officials again on Friday. There does not seem to be any difficulty in arriving at that figure according to the lenders. I think we will get the total amount we need. I am hoping the strength will be such that we can even increase that more than is required and perhaps help people with existing housing as well.


Stan Darling: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given that housing costs have been rising and are expected to continue to rise at a rate of at least 10 per cent a year, will the minister agree that, in real terms, what he is aiming for is an increase in real housing investment of closer to 4 per cent than 14 per cent?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker. The houses which will be included in this scheme will be lower cost to begin with. I think the hon. member will recognize, as a businessman, that now the industry and labour, everyone involved in the building industry, will be able to set their objectives for a period of four years to become as competitive as possible and thus reduce prices. As any businessman will realize, when you know what your market might be, and it is substantial and sustained, you can build in your economies and costs. Your competitors bring in the economies of prices.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. I wish to direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the resignation of the Minister of Communications, Pierre Juneau, has the Prime Minister decided on a replacement for this minister, who it will be and when the announcement of the new appointment will be made in the House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not decided on the replacement at this time. I am so satisfied with the work of the parliamentary secretary and the acting minister that I feel in no hurry to decide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to a problem I referred to last week regarding mercury. In view of a recent statement that
November 4, 1975

federal government officials flew three Cree back to Matagami ahead of schedule to prevent a Japanese doctor from examining them for symptoms of Minamata disease and given the fact these patients had mercury blood levels higher than those of 100 Japanese who died and another 800 who were crippled by mercury poisoning at Minamata, Japan, can the minister possibly explain the action taken by these federal officials?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into the matter. It is my understanding that it was not officials from my department.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises out of the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, which is a mother country to many Canadian citizens. Has the government taken account of this deteriorating situation as it involves those who wish to become Canadians? If so, what special measures are being taken?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have stayed very close to the unfortunate developments in Beirut and Lebanon. In fact, there probably will be a reduction in our number of officers there until the situation clarifies. It is very difficult for some of the people to get into our offices to make application. We are taking certain measures to try to alleviate this by looking at applications in other places, if they can get to offices outside Beirut.


ALLEGATION MEMBER FOR ST. HYACINTHE RECEIVING ADDITION TO SALARY FROM CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Could the minister tell the House whether his department is investigating the situation of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe regarding what might be a breach of bill C-44? The Globe and Mail is crediting this Progressive Conservative member with the admission that he has been receiving special funds from the Progressive Conservative Party over and above his salary as a member of parliament, and this, since 1972.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article. I will look it up.
Oral Questions HOUSING


REASON RENT INCREASES NOT LIMITED TO INCREASES IN COSTS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In his statement in the House yesterday, the minister said that he had encouraged the provinces to institute rent control based on the government's anti-inflation guidelines; in other words, based on the use of a maximum allowable percentage increase in rents. My question is this. In view of the fact that the same guidelines establish that all other producers may only pass on cost increases as they actually occur, why are landlords being treated differently and being allowed to increase rents up to a certain percentage whether or not their costs have increased?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there is actually no firm agreement on this yet. This was discussed at great length with the housing ministers yesterday. Our officials continued the talks well into the evening. We are having further talks. Indeed, the hon. member will understand that the provinces are instituting these guidelines. We are working together to establish parameters which will be relatively consistent across the country, but allow for variations within the provinces. Until I meet with the ministers, which I hope to do in another ten days to two weeks, I do not want to commit ourselves to a position that might be inconsistent with that of some provinces. As the hon. member knows, that is the practice in British Columbia where they had rent controls and allowed a 10.6 per cent increase without appeal. Of course, this is one of the options we will look at.


FINANCE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the necessity to increase our exports as an antiinflationary measure, and in view of the impending increase of international prices for metals, has the government decided on the guidelines to the exporting companies to encourage their activities over the next few years in this field?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we now have under consideration the proposal with respect to treating export profits that was referred to in the white paper. I anticipate that a piece of legislation dealing with this matter will come before the House prior to Christmas.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements in the white paper, are the government's thoughts leading toward an export tax or allowing these companies to put these excess revenues into a capital surplus account?

November 4, 1975
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government's thinking has been running along the latter lines. That is to say the tax will be refundable against certain contingencies, the most important of which will be reinvestment in capital investment in Canada.


POST OFFICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Postmaster General to bring the House and the country up to date on the negotiations with the postal workers' union. In view of the great dislocation and inconvenience this strike is causing to the Canadian people, is there any possibility of a settlement being arrived at this week?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the very objective question and the manner in which he placed it. All outstanding issues without exception have now been resolved, other than the monetary issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: A little thing like that, nothing to it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It would be little if I were prepared to give away the treasury. We would have a settlement within five minutes. However, I do not think that would be very responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: All outstanding issues which in the opinion of the union are more important than money have been resolved. The question of automation has been resolved. The question of part-time and casuals has been resolved. The issue of the post office continuing to have the right to use casuals because it is a service industry has been resolved to our satisfaction. What now remains is the monetary settlement on which talks, I am sure, have begun. There are maybe 19 or 20 of these outstanding. They should not require an awful lot of time. Whether the strike will be over shortly or whether it will be lengthy in the final analysis depends on the union that called the strike in the first place.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT INTENTION WITH REGARD TO BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since both the Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister last week denied the government had any plans to restore postal services while negotiations are going on, and since the Prime Minister is reported to have said in Regina recently that parliament will pass a return-to-work order at an appropriate time, I should like the right hon. gentleman to tell us what is the government's policy on this issue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is probably referring to an answer I gave to the question whether, at some time, parliament would be called upon to act. I gave my standard reply-hon. members will be familiar with it-which is that at some time the right of free collective bargaining has to give way to intervention by parliament when we judge that the public disservice caused by a strike outweighs the freedom of the right to strike itself. That is a judgment which the government has made in the past-we have done that a few times in past years. Hopefully, it will not have to make it on this occasion, because of the apparent success of the Postmaster General.


MAINTENANCE OF RIGHT OF CASUAL EMPLOYES NOT TO JOIN UNION
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: My supplementary is to the Postmaster General. Did the minister, in his deliberations with the union, maintain the freedom of Canadian citizens to accept casual employment without joining a union?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I should like to be very frank with the hon. member on this issue but I think I shall have to ask him to show some patience because, traditionally, terms or conditions affecting a collective agreement arrived at through negotiation are the prerogative of the union to announce to its membership at the time of ratification and I would not wish in any way unintentionally to jeopardize or prejudice this undoubted right of unions.


Mr. Woolliams:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, October 31,1 directed a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) as reported at page 8740 of Hansard. I asked whether he, as the Attorney General of Canada, would intervene in the hearing which is to be held before the Federal Court concerning the chairman of the National Energy Board. The hon. gentleman promised at that time that he would supply the information. I was waiting today for that information. I believe a hearing has been held. I would have thought the minister would have voluntarily supplied information on such an important subject, especially when three applications are now before the National Energy Board in connection with a big Canadian project having to do with energy, one of the factors of which so closely affects the rate of inflation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice appeared at the hearings on Friday last in the Federal Court when the court issued directions and set the matter down for hearing on December 8. I have not answered the hon. member's question yet because he asked in what capacity the Attorney General of Canada would be intervening and I have not yet determined that point. I expect to determine the question this week. I appreciate the importance attached to this question; that is why we are considering very carefully the position the Attorney General will take. I will supply the hon. member with the information for which he is asking once a decision has been taken.
November 4, 1975

Order Paper Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), the agreement signed with the province of Quebec on October 17, 1975, concerning information, recruitment and selection of foreign nationals residing outside Canada for permanent residence or temporary employment in the province of Quebec.


EASTERN CANADA SAVINGS AND LOAN COMPANY; CENTRAL AND NOVA SCOTIA TRUST COMPANY


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle), I move:
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 99, the petition of The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company and Central & Nova Scotia Trust Company seeking the passing of an Act enabling them to amalgamate for the purpose of continuing thereafter as one corporate entity, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, together with the Fifteenth Report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, presented on Friday, October 31, 1975, for any recommendations the Committee deems advisable.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle), I move:
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 99, the petition of IAC Limited seeking the passing of an Act incorporating the "Continental Bank of Canada" and, in French, Banque continentale du Canada, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, together with the Sixteenth Report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, tabled on Monday, November 3, 1975, for any recommendations the Committee deems advisable.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[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: 3,146, 3,150, 3,151, 3,192 and 3,250. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



TRANSFER OF VETERANS' HOSPITALS

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Has an agreement of veterans hospitals and veterans care been signed with the (a) Ontario Government (b) Quebec Government and, if so, will the texts be tabled?
2.	How many beds for veterans are guaranteed under the agreement with the Ontario Government relating to Sunnybrook Hospital?
3.	How many veterans eligible for hospital or out-patient care were in the area served by Sunnybrook at the time the handover agreement was signed?
4.	How many beds for veterans are provided by the Veterans Hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue?
5.	How many veterans eligible for hospital or out-patient care are in the area served by the hospital?
6.	How many veterans eligible for hospital or out-patient care were in the area served by the Veterans Hospital in Victoria at the time the handover agreement was signed with the British Columbia Government?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. (a) No agreement has yet been signed for the transfer of Westminster Hospital, London, Ontario, although, of course, an agreement was signed many years ago for the transfer of Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, to the University of Toronto, (b) No agreement has yet been reached with the Quebec Government with respect to the transfer of Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, Montreal, or Ste. Anne's Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec. Should agreements be entered into, the texts would not be confidential and could be made available to anyone wishing to see them.
2.	630 for active treatment. 570 for chronic treatment and domiciliary care.
3.	204,126.
4.	1,060.
5.	120,745.
6.	31,490.



LIP-AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since the inception of the Local Initiatives Programme, how much money has been allocated to the Constituency of Richmond?
2.	For each project approved, what was the (a) title (b) amount allocated (c) year of approval (d) town concerned (e) number of jobs created?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. As statistics for the 1971-72 Local Initiatives Program were not maintained on a constituency



OFY-AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since the inception of the Opportunities for Youth Programme, how much money has been allocated to the Constituency of Richmond?
2.	For each project approved, what was the (a) title (b) amount allocated (c) year of approval (d) town concerned (e) number of jobs created?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Statistics for the Opportunities for Youth Program prior to 1975 were not maintained on a constituency basis, and thus the information requested is not available. Under the 1975 Program, a total of $200,553 was contracted to projects based in the constituency of Richmond.
2. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) See following table. (This information is available for the 1975 OFY Program only).
Opportunities for Youth Projects funded in the constituency of Richmond in the year 1975.
24,695 Disraeli 34,320 Ham-Nord
34,828 Garthby
24,420 St-Denis de Brompton 46,280 Asbestos 15,128 St-Frangois-
Xavier de Brompton
11
15 Project Title
22
Option Natation
Tourbillon '75
Les Marionnettes Volantes
Le Pana 75 La Pente Douce
Number
Amount of Location	of Jobs
funding	Created
$7,949 Richmond	6
11,684 Montreal	7
7,100 Disraeli (and	6
area)
4,750 Waterloo	4
10,400 Windsor	9

Noveihber 4, 1975

Project Title	Amount of Location	Number of Jobs
	funding	Created
La Fourmilliere	8,400 Weedon (and	7Camp Regional pour	area) 18,800 St-Camille	13deficients mentaux Groupaction	5,882 St-Elie d'Orford	5Club-Soleil	9,188 Asbestos	6Gens de chez-nous	16,000 Richmond	11Stratford Attrayant	13,000 Stratford	11Pre-Vent-Sport	8,500 St-Denis-de-Brompton 21,000 Stoke Centre	8Amenagement Riviere Stoke	13Phase III Les Folkloristes	10,750 Windsor	8Camp Musical '75	13,660 Asbestos	14Recreations Municipales	8,000 Ham-Nord	7Bonne Action	6,080 Bishopton	5Organization of Open Air	11,410 Stoke	8Campsite Projet St-Camille	8,000 St-Camille	6



LAWYERS ENGAGED BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN NEW BRUNSWICK SINCE JANUARY 1, 1974

Mr. Howie: What are (a) the names (b) the amount paid to each (c) the services performed by all lawyers engaged in New Brunswick by the Department of Justice since January 1, 1974?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as
agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned:
(A)	(B)	(C)Anderson, William	295.00	CriminalAppleby, Olmstead & Quinn	3,525.45	CriminalBarry, John P.	450.00	CriminalBingham, Wm. R.	105.00	CriminalBoisvert, Guy	1,723.00	PropertyBrien, Alfred	1,639.95	Criminal PropertyBrisson, Charles E.	5,724.12	Criminal PropertyBryden, John G.	7,199.80	Criminal PropertyBurchill, Wm. J. Chiasson, Paul E.	10,373.02	Criminal Property9,428.75	Criminal PropertyCochrane, Richard B.	731.20	CriminalCullinan, Donald L.	9.29	PropertyCyr, Leonide	8,718.40	CriminalDube, J. A. R.	5,268.40	Criminal PropertyDuffie, Theodore E.	11,875.02	CriminalDumont, Guy E.	3,776.74	Property CriminalPropertyGodin, Gerard	2,236.08	Criminal PropertyGorman, Patrick G.	3,738.00	PropertyHayes, Paul	15,757.44	PropertyHogan, J. J.	1,067.50	CriminalHoyt, W. L.	32,561.96	CriminalHughes & Malone	5,463.45	CriminalHughes, David C.	13,191.52	Criminal PropertyKeating, Lloyd E.	13,055.99	PropertyLampert, Irwin	6,030.75	CriminalLawson, William L.	3,838.70	Property
Order Paper Questions
(A)	(B)	(C)Leblanc, Bernard	3,043.15	PropertyLebouthillier, Alie A.	3,230.60	Criminal PropertyLeger, Franklyn O.	697.26	PropertyLordon, Paul	6,278.37	Criminal PropertyLosier, A. J.	787.43	PropertyMcCaffrey, Pat	5.444.70	Criminal PropertyMcCallum, John D.	6,143.95	PropertyMcGloan, Thomas L.	642.73	PropertyMcKenna, Hubert P.	1,773.95	CriminalMaddox, Paul B.	8,400.55	Criminal PropertyMalone, Brian	42,861.80	CriminalMartin, J. Robert	378.50	PropertyMaxwell, Wendell J.	452.50	CriminalMeldrum, W. W.	400.00	CriminalMichaud, Jean Marc	410.55	Property CriminalMichaud, Lebland & Robichaud	7,137.65	Criminal PropertyMitton, Irving G.	3,372.00	CriminalMitton, Myron	17,179.85	CriminalPappas, Deno P.	4,914.15	CriminalPurnell & Brien	23,865.89	Criminal PropertyRichard, Clovis	794.80	CriminalRichard, John J.	255.00	CriminalRoy & Losier	364.75	CriminalSargeant, Charles A.	8,853.29	PropertyScullin, J. E.	4,508.55	Criminal PropertyShaw, Richard G.	1,869.93	Criminal PropertySomers, E. J.	2,330.53	CriminalTingley, Richard J.	13,383.54	CriminalTweedie, E. T.	130.00	CriminalWhelly, Charles	3,425.75	Property



PROFITS ACHIEVED BY NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre): 1.	What was the total (a) revenue generated (b) tonnage carried (c) number of dollars achieved in profits by the Northern Transportation Company Limited over each of the past five years?
2.	What was the total number of employees on the payroll of the Company in each of the past five years?


Otto Emil Lang: The Northern Transportation Company Limited advises as follows: 1.
Year	Total Revenue	Marine Tons	Profit (Loss)(000)	(000)	(000)1974	20,036	337	(4,406)1973	16,399	328	(1,987)1972	15,829	399	1,9551971	7,754	283	(1,222)1970	8,356	281	(544)2.	Peak Season Employment1974	9521973	1,1271972	7071971	5611970	619
8838
Unemployment Insurance Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
November 4, 1975

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 3, 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. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I had time for only a very brief comment before ten o'clock. It appears that views on this particular bill vary considerably and the reasons for opposing it vary considerably. I, personally, take very little pleasure in opposing this piece of legislation. Goodness knows, the act needs amending. Indeed, my main reason for opposing it is that the act needs rewriting from top to bottom. The government is once again tinkering with a piece of legislation which requires major reform.
To look at specifics, the bill claims to eliminate inequities in the existing act. I suggest that the measure before us does nothing of the kind. It does not even remove some of the minor inequities, and for every one that is perhaps eliminated two more are introduced. The bill's complexities are of the same order. According to the material provided by the minister, the bill will extend the period during which eligibility for benefit may be established in respect of persons who have left the labour force for a time for reasons beyond their control, such as disability under workmen's compensation. I am not at all sure that the provisions in the legislation will do anything to deal with some of the problems I have encountered. I am thinking in particular of a gentleman who went on workmen's compensation in September, His sixty-fifth birthday was in May of the following year. He was not interested in drawing unemployment insurance because he was receiving workmen's compensation benefits. However, there is a benefit called a three-week retirement entitlement, and he was not allowed to take advantage of this entitlement although he had contributed to the plan for 34 years.
Worse than that was the fact that when I raised the matter with the officials in the department, they twice agreed that the man was entitled to benefit yet on the third occasion turned him down again. That time, of course, they made a slip, but as a consequence this man still has no entitlement to his three-week retirement benefit.
Another gentleman because he had a younger family, continued working until he was 73 years of age. By the time he got around to retiring he knew about the three-week retirement entitlement, but was told he could not have it because he was three years past the age at which the benefits were paid. Had he quit working at 70, he could have collected his three-week benefit and then gone back to work for the next three years, with no problem. As it was, the man was disentitled from obtaining benefit, having worked even longer to pay into the plan.

One of the main features of the plan seems to be to take it out of the over 65-year olds, the contention being that the over 65s are well looked after in other ways. I think the minister is saying in this legislation that some of the over 65s have been abusing the plan. There may be some who have, as there are in any age group, but the number is minute compared to the abuses that take place in the 20 to 25 age bracket. I ask the minister why he intends to take it out of the aged. Some people in the over 65 age group are breadwinners. For various reasons they have young families; perhaps because they married a second time or adopted children. These people need to work and they want to work beyond the age of 65.
The saving that will be accomplished by taking the over 65s off the rolls will be minuscule. There are already provisions in the act to pay benefits if errors are made. We have the weird and wonderful sensation of the department from time to time trying to garnishee old age security. If errors are made, surely the department should admit they have been made, and if benefits should have been paid in the first place perhaps it is time the commission were smart enough to admit they should have been paid.
There are other amendments to the plan, including coverage under Local Initiative and Local Employment Assistance Programs. Although this is a very small item, it now seems that anyone who runs out of unemployment insurance can apply under the LIP program and get back on unemployment insurance; then the next year he can apply under the LEAP program and once more get back on unemployment insurance. I think that is the best deal yet for anyone who is a professional and not working.


An hon. Member:: From LIP to LEAP.


John Raymond Ellis: From LIP to LEAP, with UIC in between. The government is also introducing greater flexibility into the payment of sickness benefits. This is something that needs to be done. We have all come across claimants who have been laid off during the winter time for one or two weeks. There are a number of reasons for this; for example, the owner of a small business might take a holiday so he has to lay off his employees for three or four weeks. They all draw unemployment insurance, then five or six months later the employer himself becomes seriously ill but receives no sick benefits because of his previous entitlement.
A few years ago I went into considerable detail in looking into the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Most hon. members will remember some of the situations I ran across, catalogued and presented to the House; for example, there were abuses of the plan involving some $1 billion. None of my findings was ever seriously challenged by the minister or his department, though they had the RCMP trying to find something wrong with them. One of the challenges that I issued at that time, and which I issue again now, is in the area of sick benefits. The department is well aware that errors have been made in their calculations to the tune of $250 million to $300 million, yet despite those errors in calculation the bill was allowed to proceed. These figures were never corrected, showing an arrogant and ill-disguised disregard for the people of Canada.
Four years later we are facing the same problem. But what are we doing about it? We are using a band-aid where
November 4, 1975

major surgery is required. The minister has made quite a point of saying that he is eliminating the disincentives that might be associated with the current legislation. In other words, he is saying that if workers quit then they have a six-week disentitlement. According to the information given by the minister, the number of disqualifications has not improved very much. As a matter of fact, the situation is a little worse; the number is around 300,000 annually. I suggest this number will not be changed by imposing a piddling little penalty that increases the period to six weeks. If you work for a while, then get yourself laid off or fired so as to get unemployment insurance benefits, the length of time you are off work before receiving benefits really is not that important. If you are going to milk the system, a couple of weeks one way or the other is not of much consequence.
Would it not make more sense to relate the length of the period of benefits to the work period? One of the major problems employers find today is getting decent help. I am sure there is not a member of the House who has not had this problem put to him by small businessmen who are trying to compete with unemployment insurance. I do not think I am unique, and my files are full of such cases.
One of the changes made in the legislation which seems to me almost like a damn fool clause is the provision removing from coverage persons who control 50 per cent of their own company. Frankly, these people did not want to be in the plan in the first place. I previously have spelled out to the House the case of a gentleman in the $50,000 a year bracket who successfully collected unemployment insurance for seven weeks and still drew full salary-and all of this legally, without abrogating the legislation at all.
There have been many abuses of the act, and I do not need to go into them now in detail. But the important thing is that the legislation is not going to change the situation at all. Surely, the provision regarding voluntary termination need not have been written into the act. If someone wishes for some reason or other to cease drawing benefits, surely it is not necessary to write this into the legislation.
The threshold formula, the new benchmark, is surely an admission by the government of its inability to bring unemployment down to the level it should be. The government increases the rate by 20 per cent, yet at the same time preaches restraint. It asks management and labour to hold to the 10 per cent line, then forces both into the position of paying an extra 20 per cent to the UIC.
I do not have much sympathy either for big corporations or big unions, most of which are quite capable of looking after themselves. The worry I have, and I am sure it is the worry of most members of parliament, is for small businessmen, carpenters, tradesmen who work in a very small company, people who do not have the protection of major unions or corporations to look after their needs. These big corporations, and in some cases big unions, are as much responsible for inflation as anyone else, but they run a poor second to the Government of Canada.
The increase of 20 per cent is not fair at this time. Why put it in now, particularly when the minister admitted to me in answer to a question yesterday that income is coming in faster than it is going out? Why put it in, when
Unemployment Insurance Act
the minister said-if I read his answer correctly, and I double-checked it today to make sure-the premiums collected are in fact being used not only to pay benefits but to pay back the overcharges during the past few years? The minister suggested that if this situation continues as it has in the past, there will be enough premiums collected to balance the account in the very near future. If that is the case, why do we require the extra 20 per cent right now: it only adds to the burden that labour must carry? I am as much in favour as anyone of our having an actuarially sound scheme, but in view of the way the situation appears to be developing there is no need for this increase at this time.
I see that my time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker. Unlike hon. members to my left and to my right, I do not take a great deal of pleasure in opposing this bill. I would much prefer to see the bill properly rewritten to include some of the changes suggested by my colleagues. Other hon. members have gleefully referred to some of the problems. I wish I could vote for a bill that would do the job that is necessary, but as I see it the minister is still deceiving the Canadian public by telling them that this measure is necessary to solve our unemployment insurance problems. What we need is some basic honesty in this or some other piece of legislation to correct the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would gladly support such a piece of legislation.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity of this debate on second reading of Bill C-69 to say a few words about the unemployment insurance program. Although the bill deals with specific amendments, it is normal, at this stage of the discussions, to talk about the whole program.
I support the motion that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration because I think that it has been sufficiently improved to be submitted to the consideration of the committee where the members will proceed to a thorough study.
However, I will make a few reservations later with respect to this bill.
I congratulate the minister for the amendments pertaining to old age and maternity insurance, which have already been passed pursuant to another bill. As for the entitlement of LIP sponsors, the legislation will enable applicants to discontinue voluntarily the benefits and provide for the extension of the qualifying period as well as for the eligibility of claimants who are in receipt of workmen's compensation payments, of prisoners and other workers who had to quit their jobs for reasons beyond their control.
I think these amendments are wise and will result in a better program. The minister listened carefully to the debate and I hope he will be convinced of the value of amending the bill. In my view, we should not start disqualifying any claimant from the unemployment insurance program, nor should we delete any item from the program, which may result in making it less liberal, until a comprehensive survey of all our social and economic adjustment programs has been carried out. An attempt should be made to merge those programs one way or another and perhaps it could be useful to have a parliamentary committee consid-
29956- SVi

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
er the suggestion. At one point, Mr. Speaker, I thought of introducing an amendment to that motion which would precisely have the effect of withdrawing the bill and referring its subject matter to a committee. But I see that such an act on my part, if my amendment were accepted, would seriously delay the passage of the good aspects of the bill.
So I thought it might be better if I joined others of my colleagues and opposition members to try and improve the bill at the committee stage or the report stage. However, I will continue to make that suggestion before we make other minor changes at random in the unemployment insurance program, those changes will not be an improvement but a departure from the program we had in 1971. I will continue to make the suggestion to try and get terms of reference for a parliamentary committee so hon. members may examine the variety of our programs and our policy of economic and social changes so we can, at least at the conceptual level, merge some of those programs and have a much more rational approach that would meet most of the recognized disadvantages of the program and the criticisms we hear in this House or elsewhere.
I think all participants in this debate agree on certain points of the unemployment insurance program. I see a common denominator on many factors. First, all those who spoke in this debate agree that we need an unemployment insurance program, a work insurance program. Second in amending the legislation all want as much as possible to stop abuses in the unemployment insurance program. Third, they want our social programs to encourage productivity, and when I use the word "productivity" I do not mean mere economic productivity, but social and economic productivity.
I really think that parliamentary committee could make a non-partisan and in-depth study and arrive at recommendations that would improve our social programs. Hon. members can assess those programs because they know the problems. There are few of their offices where the staff is not constantly urged to intervene with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, or the provincial social service departments, on behalf of the unemployed or those who feel ill-treated by the civil service or by the programs themselves.
To my mind, this Bill C-69 goes too far on the one hand, and not far enough on the other. Still, I can understand that the minister intended to bring in changes at this time, that he had reasons to wait-as he mentioned in his speech-for a far more complete and comprehensive revision. As regards the change in the legislation aiming at solving the problem of voluntary retirement from work through legislative means, I think that we should try to solve this problem through administrative means. I admit that it is important for some people to put it into the act, but in my opinion this problem can be solved through administrative improvements. It is not necessary to amend the act, but on this point I can say that personally I would rather not see this amendment in the bill, although I can accept it, precisely because I think it is an administrative problem.
If a recipient cannot prove that he is actively seeking employment, he is disqualified for an indefinite period. So what then is the solution of the proposed amendment? Nothing, from a legislative point of view, because with a

good administration, a humane administration of course, good results can be achieved. By the way, I might say that the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is improving, at least in my region. We have had problems when the two programs were combined, the one before 1971 and the new one, but I can say that in my region, and I think that it is the same in the Atlantic region in general, the administration of the program is improving as regards efficiency and that it is becoming more humane following the changes made last year.
Thus we can now eliminate indefinitely, and not only for three or six weeks, those who are not actively looking for a job.
Unfortunately, the bill ventures into two other areas concerning the philosophy of the program and, as I said earlier, I think the government should steer clear of a piecemeal approach toward important programs like the unemployment insurance scheme before a study is made on the whole situation. I hope that before proceeding to his new series of amendments, the minister will ensure that a parliamentary committee, and I insist on this, makes a study on the subject. I insist on this because, through the very nature of their work and through their participation in society, hon. members know the problems of social adjustment and of poverty in general, and I would like to have a parliamentary study on the subject.
Those two provisions which I would have preferred to see deferred are the lowering from 70 to 65 of the maximum age for coverage under the plan. I said earlier that I would support the motion for second reading of the bill, but I wish to tell the House and the minister that I am against the change in maximum age for coverage. I will oppose it in committee if I get a chance, and I will oppose it in the House if amendments are moved; moreover, I might move some myself. I also oppose another proposed change in the rate of benefits for claimants with dependents. I understand the arguments of the minister in favour of both of these changes. I agree that, had we introduced those changes when we increased old-age pensions and modified the family allowance plan, it might not have been possible then.
I agree in principle that the Unemployment Insurance Plan should not normally be used in that way, since it is a problem which will have to be dealt with in another program. Unfortunately, timing is important when dealing with government affairs, and I do not think we should start denying anyone benefits unless we clearly have something else to offer. I might agree to those changes later, when we have carried out a more detailed study of the matter as the minister mentioned, with a view to bring all social programs into line. Perhaps then we will be in a position to come up with an evaluation. But right now, I object to those measures. This, however, is no reason for opposing the second reading of the bill, which contains some good provisions. I think we all agree with some of the amendments proposed in the bill. I do not think it would be reasonable to oppose it on second reading. But later, when it comes to third reading, unless those measures are modified, I will find it extremely difficult to support the bill.
November 4, 1975

I would like to deal very briefly with some of the arguments that have come forward concerning the philosophy of the program. I said earlier I would agree to a basic and comprehensive reform not only of the unemployment insurance program but also the economic and social adjustment program of the government. I think a parliamentary study of this problem would be useful. The minister in his speech mentioned that he is conducting a review of the UIC program. I should like to quote the minister in order to put in proper context what I am saying. As reported at page 8567 of Hansard, the minister said:
I should like to emphasize that the changes contained in this bill which is being presented to parliament are the results of the first findings of our review of the legislation. However, as is proper with a program of such significance, this comprehensive examination is continuing, particularly in relationship to two parallel policy developments. I mentioned one, the over-all harmonization of all our social security programs. The other is the evolution of an integrated and more comprehensive manpower policy.
I was glad to hear the minister say those words. He has shown in the past that he is the type of man who would be very co-operative. I am sure he will consider favourably my suggestion that once we have dealt with this bill, in conjunction with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) he conduct a review of all these programs, not only UIC. In my view, it has to do with all social and economic adjustment programs.
Given the fact that unemployment is a reality in this country, primarily it is a regional problem. I have always said that one day I would like to make a special study in this regard, and probably I will. I would like to know exactly what the impact of unemployment is on the Gaspe peninsula, the northern region of Quebec, the northern region of New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and a few other regions of the country. I should like to see exactly what impact national unemployment has on employment situation in these regions. Perhaps we are not talking about an employment problem or a social adjustment problem at all but, rather, a regional economic problem.
That is the reason I would like to see some kind of approach adopted that would try to merge the unemployment insurance program with the local Employment Assistance Program-which is a wonderful program-the Local Initiatives Program, the Canada Assistance Plan and even some DREE agreements. There is a DREE agreement in my constituency-a FRED agreement. We are initiating discussions to renew it under the present development agreement. Really, we are dealing with social adjustment and not only economic development. It has been proven now that industrialization is not the only answer to economic development. We will have to look at other things.
I should like to say briefly that I cannot agree with those on the opposite side, both Progressive Conservatives and members of the New Democratic Party, who say it is a terrible thing to change the threshold of 4 per cent unemployment to a given average of unemployment in the pre-vions eight years. To me, it does not make very much difference when one considers that contributions are tax deductible and that some people who pay income tax into the consolidated revenue fund have no relationship at all
Unemployment Insurance Act
to employment. I refer to retired people and people with savings who pay income tax.
People, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, raise the fundamental problem of the employer and the worker contributing to the program, versus the consolidated or general revenue of the government. When one balances this argument, I do not see that it matters. One could take the position that the unemployment insurance program is primarily for workers and employers, and that probably they should pay for the administration of the program in order to receive benefits under it.
I can see, on the other hand, having the threshold, the principle we introduced in 1971, because there is a degree of incentive on the general economy and the government to try to lower unemployment. I have listened very carefully to the debate, all the arguments made by members of the New Democratic Party and some from the official opposition, but I am not convinced that this is a serious problem. I can live with that part of the bill.
I repeat, I regret that in starting our review of the Unemployment Insurance Act we have to hurt some people. I know the minister to be a reasonable and flexible man. I hope he has listened to and appreciated the concern of members from all sides of the House, on two questions particularly. One is the reduction of the age of eligibility from 70 to 65 and the other concerns doing away with the special allocation to claimants who are dependents. I sincerely hope the minister will see fit to accept amendments in the committee or in the House when the bill comes back here.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am one of those who is not very impressed with some of the arguments we hear, particularly from some members of the official opposition. We are lucky there are members from the Atlantic provinces in that party, as well as from other regions, who-probably for regional reasons, if one can call them that, because their constituents are mainly people of low income, working people-bring some reason to the debate. I have been concerned since 1971, and was in the 1972 campaign-the same arguments are being advanced again now, probably because of events coming up in February in the Conservative party-that the unemployment insurance program is a mess and that it will cost $3.6 billion compared to the many hundreds of millions of dollars which it cost before 1971.
I should like to say first of all to people who put forward this cost argument-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was one of those who advanced this argument last week in another debate-that they are not completely honest because they are comparing apples with oranges. The fact is that we are not dealing with the same program at all. Before 1971 there was no provision for sickness in the unemployment insurance program, no provision for maternity benefits, and the income tax was not recoverable. So we are not talking about $3.6 billion. Even if the amount is high-I have said this before in the House-I do not know why people become so upset when governments intervene in society and in the economy. I am surprised, because those who argue against government spending, against social subsidies-unemployment insurance is one

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
of them-are the very people who benefit from higher technology and higher productivity brought about through these various adjustment programs. They are the very same people, from the same regions and the same sectors of this society.
I have heard people from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the business community complain in private about the terrible unemployment insurance program which is costing so much money and which, in their words, is a disincentive to work. In fact, they are the people who need this program, because without good social and economic adjustment programs, which really the Unemployment Insurance Act is, there would be reluctance from communities and from provincial and municipal governments to change. There would also be reluctance from workers and labour unions to technological change.
I have given examples previously of projects which have gone ahead which are in the long-term interest of the nation or of a particular region, but which in the process of increasing productivity and technological advancement have required the dislocation of people. When you dislocate people, you need some kind of adjustment program. The people who benefit from higher productivity and technology have to pay for those who are dislocated-and who will do that, if not the government?
Therefore, it seems to me that the search to be more competitive in the world, more technologically advanced and more productive, is compatible with high government spending on social intervention programs, because without these programs there would be reluctance from the different segments of society. Unless people who advance these arguments want to suggest that we adopt a kind of system that would force people to do things and ignores pressures in society against change, I cannot see that they are serious.
With regard to this program being a disincentive to work, I do not believe that in today's society we can say that generally speaking the unemployment insurance program is a disincentive to work. I admit that there are abuses of the program. I have seen cases of such abuses and I deplore them, but I say that with good administration and a human approach we can deal with these problems. Before concluding I would like to make one point, namely, that the unemployment insurance program is not the only government program where abuses exist. There are abuses in any public program, abuses of the income tax system and of other programs, so this is not the only program in which abuses exist.
With regard to the argument that it is bad to have working people off work for a certain period of time, let me point out that working people are not the only people off work for part of the year. I know of people in the professions, people from the business world who spend two or three months a year in Florida or in California. They are not very productive there. If they can earn enough in six or nine months to be able to go elsewhere for the rest of the year, or if they can play golf half the time in the summer, then I am happy for them. What is the difference if it is the working people who are doing this? The only difference is that if the working people do this, if they are off the job

and are not being productive for a certain part of the year, the only recourse for them is a public program.
I would not like to hear anyone argue that the working people or people who are unemployed are the only ones who are not productive the year round. Other people in society are not productive the year round, and I am not suggesting that they should be. Some people can earn a very high income for six or nine months of the year and then be off for the other three months. If some people, because of the geography of this country, because of their particular region, the nature of the economy in that region or the nature of the industry where they work, happen to be unemployed for part of the year, I do not see why it is worse than having people from other classes in society take off for part of the year.
I will watch very closely what goes on in committee with this bill, and I will watch very closely what happens in the House when it comes back here. I have mentioned that there are two provisions I cannot support, but I will not vote against the second reading motion because I believe the bill should go forward, having, as it does, some good provisions in it. As I said a short while ago, unless these two provisions are changed I will find it very difficult to support the bill. But I will see what developments take place in committee. I have been in the House for seven or eight years; that is long enough to know that one should not become concerned about the future before it comes around. We will cross those bridges when we come to them.
I hope the minister will seriously consider my suggestions. I suggest to him, again, that a parliamentary committee should receive a reference from the House to study the whole spectrum of social and economic adjustment programs in order to see how the programs in place are functioning. He has spoken about the harmonization of our social programs. I believe that either a joint committee or a House committee should receive a reference from the House to study this whole problem before the minister proceeds with a second review of the unemployment insurance program, because this act is a crucial element of our social security programs and it also has implications in respect of economic adjustment, not only social adjustment.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, like others in the House, I welcome the opportunity to express my views on Bill C-69 and the Unemployment Insurance Commission which, after all, is an institution with which all of us as parliamentarians have had many dealings. It is, therefore, with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to speak on it because I believe a discussion in the House on this subject is long overdue. Happily, the Unemployment Insurance Commission has managed to serve a need in difficult times, and for this we can all be grateful. However, because of its structure under existing law it has also created new sets of mores and attitudes, many of which I find rather frightening.
There are frightening financial implications as well. Let us consider the figures for the 30 years between 1940 and 1970. Unemployment costs for those years were something of the order of $6 billion, whereas in the last four years the cost of financing this institution, or unemployment costs, were of the order of $10 billion. In other words, 30 years, $6 billion; 5 years, $10 billion. The Unemployment Insurance
November 4, 1975

Commission is a controversial institution, and therefore this debate is most welcome. Of course, I shall only be able to address myself to certain elements but I hope that in the course of this debate and in committee some of these matters may be resolved.
There is no question in my mind that even in its present form the Unemployment Insurance Commission serves a need, because we can all recognize that we have a regrettably high degree of unemployment, and for those who are unable to find employment the commission offers temporary financial assistance for qualified workers. Unfortunately, sometimes it also offers assistance of more than a temporary nature for workers who may be qualified but who are unwilling to rejoin the labour force. This assistance is offered on such a scale that the disincentive to rejoin the labour force can become extraordinarily high. I say this for good reason. Despite the high rate of unemployment there are many opportunities for work in this country. This is still a country of opportunity.
Figures are not easily come by, but I did manage to find some. In a period of high unemployment the Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Manpower office was indicating, on a long roll of paper, that there were 1,132 vacancies in the area. This was in June of 1973. I do not have comparable figures for people receiving unemployment insurance benefits. This was a chance release in the newspaper. These were not all specialized jobs; the list comprised skilled and unskilled jobs, marine draughtsmen, psychiatric nurses, medical technologists, legal stenographers, secretaries, accountants, bookkeepers, automatic transmission specialists, and bricklayers. Even when people are on unemployment insurance benefits there are many jobs available, and this is an aspect which I find a little frightening. I shall be returning to this point and seeking ways to overcome this shortcoming of the present organization.
In this context, I welcome the statements and thoughts expressed by my hon. friend opposite, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), who said that he would like to see a study of all the social security programs or, as he calls them, the social adjustment programs, to see if out of it cannot be made an amalgam. However, I shall be returning to this matter before the end of my comments. I leave it to others in this debate-some have already done so; some, no doubt, will turn to it again-to underline the financial consequences to our society of having to face the monumental cost of financing the operations of the commission.
I have mentioned the scale of those costs. There are provisions in the amendments to reduce, at least to some extent, the charges which will fall upon the Canadian public. These operations, however, have consequences other than the financial ones, having equally frightening effects on the social fabric of our nation such as destroying or at least wearing down the urge to work, which was denied by the previous speaker but which I insist does exist. By wearing down the urge to work and to retain one's independence of action, we accept slavery and dependence on the state for all our being's needs, wants and fulfilment. That sterile prospect is too frightening to contemplate. We must stop that trend before it overwhelms us.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I am led to make these comments because indisputably there are a large number of unfilled jobs in this country at a time when there is rising unemployment. The phenomenon cannot be explained in any other way. Those who are out of work either do not want to fill the jobs available, or are perhaps refusing to seek retraining which would prepare them to do so, because of the comfortable haven offered by unemployment insurance benefits. If this practice continues unabated it can lead to social bankruptcy and economic disaster.
This automatically brings us to the role the Manpower offices play in restoring this matter to equilibrium. On good authority I have been informed that one Manpower officer has tossed out, without too much show of concern, the fact that in the 17 years he has been employed at a Manpower centre-presumably to find employment for others and safely employ himself-he has not placed a single person in a job. In the sharpest and cruellest light, this comment underlines one great defect in the unemployment picture in Canada today: the failure of the unemployment offices and Manpower centres to work as one service-first, to take care of those in financial need and, second, to meet the employment need. It should be one service. In various locations in cities which I know there is rivalry between the two services. Refusal to accept an employment offer or a reasonable offer of retraining-and they can be equated-ought to be a cause to have the individual concerned removed from the insurance rolls.
Contrary to what has been said by some whom I have thought to be reliable spokesmen, the unemployment insurance system in Canada is not, I insist, one of the means by which the wealth of the nation is to be more equally distributed. To my way of thinking, that is not the purpose of unemployment insurance. If that is what the law is doing, then the law must be changed. An unemployment insurance fund should be an insurance fund to insure against the financial consequences of economic adversity which any one of us can meet. We should all be prepared to say, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." The insurance fund is there to help those of us who are in need; it is not for the redistribution of the wealth of this country. It is called an insurance fund and that is the role it should play, not any other.
I should like to get into a little more of the philosophy which ought to motivate the commission in its handling of a serious socioeconomic problem. I may do so, if time permits, at the conclusion of my other comments. Incidentally, I seem to have forgotten to look at the time I started my speech and I shall therefore rely on the Chair to remind me when my time begins to expire.
I should like to discuss the criteria for entitlement, such as total family income. I should like, also, to deal with seasonal workers, as well as with long time employment as deserving special consideration under the act. However, I shall have to leave these considerations to others, since my time is limited.
My principal concern today is the deleterious effect on Canada as a whole of the deterioration of the work ethic which unemployment insurance benefits promote or foster. It is a very fine point whether they promote or foster it; in

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
any event, they do nothing to halt it. I want to put forward some notion about how the whole process could be reversed so that the very existence of unemployment insurance benefits would prompt people to spend less time drawing benefits.
In this connection, I was delighted last evening to hear my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), explain his views about combining certain features of the social security system. I have already mentioned that I welcomed the comments of the hon. member for Gloucester who immediately preceded me in this debate. It is my desire to see several features of our social security system and our social adjustment programs brought together, but first I think it is worth recording a bit of history.
As long ago as 1948-49, the Progressive Conservative party developed a multifaceted scheme of social security. This involved a consolidation or a combination of schemes then in existence or on the horizon. Today, as we see the variety of schemes designed for the security of the citizens working out their fate, we think the time has come-as the hon. member for Gloucester said-to revive that consolidated program or something like it. Its implementation would remove the tremendous financial burden under which federal budgets now labour in meeting the high cost of unemployment. But equally important, its implication would restore that vigorous independence that so distinctively marked an earlier generation of Canadians.
Earlier this year, in a report entitled "Canadian Work Values'' issued by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, we find the following comment:
Clearly, Canadians are committed to work ... Canadians see themselves as industrious people to whom work contributes a feeling of success and, for a large proportion, of personal fulfilment.
This "motherhood" statement was obviously verbalized in order to provide comfort and gratification to those who feel that in the Manpower section of the department, at least, they have a sense of personal fulfilment. That sort of self-adulation and self-congratulation is dangerous, Mr. Speaker. It leads to complacency and that is something we can do without at any time in our lives, but at this time particularly.
If only I could convince myself that all Canadians and all draft-dodging immigrants, if I may bring them into the picture, merited that form of compliment, I would be happy. But we must consider that a good number of the LIP grant applicants dream up their projects with two objectives in mind:-to get in on some of the fresh bread that is lying around, and to build up some credit, saying to themselves, "Let's hope we can keep the projects stalled for at least eight weeks," which would entitle them to unemployment insurance benefits after their LIP bread is used up. When I consider this, I question the smugness of such self-comforting phrases as those contained in the report.
Of course, many of our farmers, independent businessmen and other working Canadians are committed to work; they are not committed to unemployment insurance. But far too many other Canadians are, and many of them are proud of it. I do not like to hear people boasting about being able to get on to the unemployment insurance rolls

and I do not suppose anyone in this House does. This is where a great deal of danger lies, and we must overcome it.
If I could return to the consolidated scheme advanced by my party some 30 years ago, I should like to explain some of its features and the solutions it would provide to the problems I have been discussing. The proposal was based on the following schemes then more or less in operation or in contemplation: the unemployment insurance scheme, a hospitalization plan, a medicare plan and the old age pension scheme. There was an accident program thrown in for good measure, but I think we will just deal with those four.
The philosophy underlying this consolidated program was based on the notion that these four schemes could be united under one single scheme, with a single contribution for each Canadian, and placed on an actuarial footing. It was also based on the observable fact, a fact that could be proven statistically, that the generality of Canadians seldom or never, in normal circumstances, have cause to rely on unemployment insurance benefits, are seldom, or for very short periods only, obliged to go into hospital, and only a bit more frequently have to come under the medicare plan. A good many Canadians are healthy people and do not have to call on these plans but contribute to them gladly.
It is surprising, when one looks back on one's own life, just how little one has needed these services. I count myself lucky, fortunate perhaps, and I do not in the least mind paying my insurance premiums because it is comforting to know that the service is there if it should ever be needed. Unemployment, hospitalization and doctor's care were the main schemes. The actuarial tables, based on reliable statistics at that time, demonstrated that a normal healthy Canadian, making his contribution throughout his working life to this consolidated scheme and looking forward to an old age pension-at that time, munificently set at $100 a month-because he had not called on the unemployment insurance scheme, the hospital scheme or medicare to any great extent, would find his old age pension increased by about $150. This comes back to the age 65 limit that was being put on it. If a man was paying all his life to age 65 and not drawing benefits during those years, why should he not get them at that age?


Mr. MacFarlane:: He is a work-dodger at that age.


Donald W. Munro: You try finding work at that age. The underlying theory is that to the extent that there was no call on the services available, their end of work pension or old age pension will be increased. When this was first explained to me, it was quite a new concept. I am surprised that parliament did not get down to it earlier. I do not know what happened. I think perhaps 1961-62 came along and the Liberal government decided that anything devised by the Conservatives was not worth considering. But it is there, Mr. Speaker; it is a sensible program and it would meet some of the problems now before us. It would get people off unemployment insurance and out looking for a job simply because at the end of their life they would enjoy those benefits. They would want to work in order to enjoy those benefits later. This is the great extractor of the disincentive that is causing so much concern, and has caused so much concern, to this government.
November 4, 1975

The consolidated scheme was found to be actuarially sound in 1949 when it was devised by a professor from the University of British Columbia. It was updated and found to be sound in the 1959-60 era by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It would obviously take a number of years to put into place the machinery for establishing such a comprehensive program today. It could be done. As I say, however, the scheme is there and it is an answer to the work disincentive.
The unemployment insurance program must not become another welfare program. I have said it before and it cannot be too frequently or too forcefully said. It is an insurance program, as are the hospital insurance and medical insurance schemes. Canadians can be prudent. They want to look after their own needs in these areas and will do so much more satisfactorily, and at less cost to other taxpayers, if provided with the right kind of program and the right kind of leadership which, regrettably, we lack today. I submit that the consolidated program briefly outlined is just such a program. It remains to be seen whether this government will respond to the call of the hon. member for Gloucester and other hon. members to look into the possibility of improving not only the unemployment insurance program but the other social programs available to Canadians.
There are some elements in this bill which are commendable. However, it is a patchwork exercise. In parts, it is even offensive. It leaves aside those who have reached the age of 65, denying them an entitlement to draw unemployment insurance benefits which they might otherwise have had. The amendments put forward here merely paste over cracks. The worst feature is the debilitating effect that an even more inefficient Manpower or job-creation scheme is having on Canadian society. Something much more fundamental is needed than this bill provides. At the very least, the unemployment and job-creation aspects of government programs must be brought more closely together. Better still, we should get some hint that the whole welfare scheme will be overhauled along the lines I have suggested. Until that is done we are in grave danger of social disaster, with the working majority carrying throughout their working lives the non-working minority. The Canadian public is thoroughly fed up with piggy-backing in this way.
We may be hewers of wood and drawers of water, but we will not willingly become draught animals as well, drawing after us a small but ever-growing group of people who have latched on to a good thing, a scheme which offers them greater financial return than they are prepared to look for in the labour market. It is obviously not possible to shift the Unemployment Insurance Commission into this area of reform within the terms of the present bill. I should like to leave my comments on that for a moment. There is one particular case that I feel is worth recounting for the record, in the hope that it will be remedied by different rulings than those which have prevailed.
We have all had experience with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We have all had constituents come to us with their problems, their disentitlements, their being cut off benefits, and their failure to qualify. Even if
Unemployment Insurance Act
our debating time were not now restricted there would be insufficient time for each of us to document all of these problems. There is one, however, I wish to speak about.
The circumstances in this case were that the worker delayed her application for benefits until the exact period of her absence could be accurately determined. She was expecting a baby and wanted to receive the maternity benefits. She might, within her rights, have applied earlier but she did not. This proved her downfall because before she did file her application the municipal employees, of whom she was one, were locked out as a result of the activity of other workers. She was not directly involved in the negotiating argument that led to the lock-out, but once locked out she was considered as though she were on strike and, in consequence, not eligible for benefits.
I insist that this was a miscarriage of justice, a faulty judgment on the part of the official. I referred it to the minister and received some specious replies. Surely, some distinction ought to be made between a person who is disqualified on account of being on strike and a person who is disqualified because, through no fault of her own, she is unable to report for work. The doors were locked; she could not get in the front door. Why should she be disentitled? The doors were locked against her because others had threatened to go on strike and the lock-out occurred.
In summary, I have managed to mention the disincentives inherent in the unemployment insurance system as it now stands. I look for improvements. I have mentioned the need for closer integration between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Manpower centres. I managed, within my time, to cite one instance that has really bothered me. It has been the basis for a good many exchanges with the minister. I hope it will be settled, even retroactively. I know that I can count on a sympathetic hearing.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to follow this debate. Some hon. members have complained that the act and its application are too lenient, that it lends itself to so-called abuses and should be tightened up either administratively or by law. Others approached it on the basis of their own experience and the requirements of the people they represent, asking that it be made more generous and that it take into consideration factors that at present the law does not. Some members have tried to be on both sides of the fence in the same speech, arguing on either side. I suppose that is human nature. In an effort to find a better answer, everyone approaches it in what they think is the best possible way. However, surely it would help if there was a certain degree of consistency. The question is, what do we want this act to be? Do we want it to be an insurance scheme, as proposed by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), or do we want it to be an income support scheme?
Those of us who were in this House in 1971 will remember the debates at that time. We knew then, as we know today, that we were about to introduce a system of income support, not a system of insurance but a social program- not just a businessman's program, as some Tory spokesmen would like it to be. Not all of them are in agreement, I am sure. I imagine that a few minutes from now the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir), who

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
represents an industrial riding, will speak strongly in favour of the approach we have adopted, namely, and income support approach, because this is a good sheme, a good law.
Let us not try to make law by legislating with an eye only to abuses. If we, as legislators, were to do that we would be acting as administrators, losing sight of the general approach, a philosophy toward social legislation. We could then become civil servants administering the act and, surely, we ought not to be performing the second role; that is not our task.
Like other legislation, the bill before us today has good features, bad features and technical features. The trouble with this legislation is that it contains some very bad features. First, though, I will deal briefly with the good ones. There is a proposal for an amendment making sponsors of LIP of LEAP projects eligible for coverage. There is a provision allowing claimants to terminate their claims should they wish to do so; at present the law does not permit them to do so. There is a proposal for an extension of the period during which sickness benefits will be paid. The period is 29 weeks at present and it is be extended to 39 weeks.
There is to be an extension of the period during which uninsurable earnings may be counted for entitlement to benefit, from the present 52 weeks to 104 weeks. This amendment probably stems from proposals made in various private bills brought forward in the House from time to time during the past few years. Injured workers, exinmates of prisons and persons handicapped because of illness will benefit from this measure.
I commend the minister for having incorporated in the bill propositions which have been advanced by members from both sides of the House in the past three years. Further, it is made clear that a worker who receives workmen's compensation payments is entitled to receive benefits. As the wording presently reads, he is not entitled to do so even though he might receive compensation for one day only. The law is to be clarified to permit a person in receipt of workmen's compensation to receive benefits from unemployment insurance for parts of a week.
We are also asked to approve a measure to increase premiums paid by employers and employees. This was a responsible decision made necessary by the requirements of the program itself. I support it, as I am sure most hon. members do.
I shall not deal with the technical features of the bill. Instead, I shall consider briefly the bad features, the ones which seem, to me, to be of a negative character. There is a proposal in the legislation to reduce the present special benefit rate of 75 per cent paid to unemployed people with dependants to a level of 66 percent of their normal earnings. The consequence, I suppose, will be that in the rural or poorer areas of Canada where there is a high and constant level of unemployment, people so affected will be obliged to turn for help to provincial and municipal welfare arrangements. The onus will be shifted to other levels of government, though in the end, I suppose, it will still be a federal responsibility, indirectly, if payments are made through the Canada Assistance Plan to which we contrib-

ute to the extent of 50 per cent. It seems to me that this measure is not a good one; it will hit particularly hard the areas I have mentioned and it will hurt people whose level of income is already amoung the lowest. I would ask the minister to reconsider this proposal when the bill is before the committee.
Another bad feature has to do with the treatment of workers aged 65 and over. Take the case of men and women in our society who marry late in their lives, in their fifties, form families and are deeply interested in gainful employment for the maintenance of their families when they reach age 65 or over. If the proposed amendment is carried, we shall be treating workers aged 65 and over in a manner different from that in which we treat workers younger than 65. We shall be saying to them: You have old age security coming to you, and that should be adequate to cover your needs, whether you become unemployed or not.
Madam Speaker, we do not put forward that argument when we consider the treatment of widows and widowers below the age of 65 who receive a pension under the Canada Pension Plan and who wish to be active in the labour force. Yet we apply this type of reasoning to people aged 65 and over. I believe that in a system such as ours- undoubtedly one of the best in the world-there should be no obstacle in the way of a man or a woman who wishes to remain in the labour force, no matter what the age might be. If this premise were accepted, it would follow that entitlement under the unemployment insurance system should be the same for them as for others. There should be consistency. The drawing of a line at a certain age is completely artificial and is most frustrating to elderly people who wish to remain productive members of our society. It introduces a double standard of treatment which I do not think is a good idea.
I should like to move on to another aspect that I discussed in this House at the time of the budget. It has to do with the proposed amendment to the act that would impose a double disqualification on workers dismissed for misconduct. I ask the House, who is going to define the word "misconduct"? Will it be the employer? Will it be the unemployment insurance official? Or will it be the board of referees? It is true that when the minister spoke last week we were assured there is ample jurisprudence on the question of misconduct. Nevertheless, how are we going to apply and administer a law with a definition of "misconduct" that is so broad, that is so much left in the hands of those who will have to interpret the legislation? Surely, in the eyes of a worker "misconduct" means something quite different from what it means to an employer. What may be an offence to an employer may, in the eyes of a worker, be an insignificant pattern of behaviour.
One needs only to speak to people engaged in an assembly line operation, say, in the automotive industry, people who work under considerable tension and strain, to discover that their pattern of behaviour may be quite difficult to understand from the point of view of management. At times, such behaviour could be interpreted as misconduct. But who is to decide on a worker fired for misconduct? I regret to say that I find this proposed amendment to be one that treats workers like school children. It is like the state entering the work place and trying
November 4, 1975

to determine who is behaving well and who is not. I am not saying we are going too far; I am saying that this is an area we should not even touch.
It seems to me that these three areas do not require amendment. Where we do need amendment is, first of all, in shifting the emphasis from unemployment to employment. I should like to give the House an example that occurred in the great city of Toronto from which I come, which was reported by Wilfred List in the Globe and Mail a couple of weeks ago. The headline of his article is "29 zoo workers ignore layoff, want to work for UIC benefits". Stated simply, 29 employees of the metro zoo expressed their intention to carry out their regular duties and be ready for work for unemployment insurance benefits of $100 a week, to which they would normally be entitled. This arose out of a decision by the Toronto Zoological Society to lay off 49 employees.
Mr. Patrick O'Keeffe, the representative of CUPE to which the zoo workers belonged, sent a telegram to the minister on behalf of the workers. In the telegram he asked that the workers be paid unemployment insurance while they continued to do necessary work at the zoo without salary. The relevant question is this, as asked by Mr. O'Keeffe: "If they are going to give them $100 a week for idling, why not for voluntary, necessary labour?" This is why I say we need amendments that shift the emphasis from unemployment to employment, amendments that would permit using unemployment insurance funds to design and to create jobs.
Secondly, we need amendments that will shift the emphasis from inactivity to training. To some extent we have already done this. The minister has initiated some interesting examples of this on a small scale in Newfoundland. Unemployed workers there were given, in addition to their regular Manpower allowance, a UIC allowance, to top it all, while in training. We need amendments to apply this approach to the whole country and make it possible for those who become unemployed but who wish to work and upgrade themselves to utilize the period they are unemployed constructively and purposefully both with regard to the present and the future.
Thirdly, we need amendments of a day to day nature, particularly in our large cities, which will permit people no longer unemployed to deal with the commission. For example, the office should be open evenings so that a person who has found employment can settle a claim. People should be able to telephone the commission in the daytime and get through to the officer in charge of their claim, which is not possible now in Toronto-and, I suspect, in other cities too-so as to clean up their case by telephone instead of being required to attend at the office personally.
Lastly, we should extend into the evening hours the hearings of the board of referees. Why should the operations of the commission be oriented to the convenience of the commission? Why cannot operations be oriented to the convenience of the users, particularly those users who, through their own efforts or with the help of government services, have managed to become employed again? Surely there is a recognition there that is due to people who have managed to re-enter the labour force. I would not be surprised if a few years from now there are amendments to the act to permit the use of unemployment insurance funds
Unemployment Insurance Act for constructing low-cost housing in this country. After all, why not? There are several billions of dollars yearly in the fund. At certain times this substantial source of capital could be used for specific projects.
In essence, Madam Speaker, I have tried to outline this afternoon a series of amendments that we need and which would allow the commission to perform a positive role. I do not subscribe to the theory that the workers abuse the plan. Most Canadians would work if given the chance. This is what they tell us every weekend when we return to our ridings. When we look at what happened in Canada last year and at what happened this year, the pattern that emerges is clearly visible beyond the scope of Bill C-69 which we are now debating. The financial capital is there; it is provided by working Canadians. It amounts to a substantial sum every year. We have the human resources-those people willing to work and who would much rather work than be idle.
The question, then is, when will the political will be there, because surely we can do better than just insure the unemployed or introduce punitive measures some of which are contained in Bill C-69? The system as it is now, as the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) said some time ago, can be tightened through better administration. However, the law, the spirit of the unemployment insurance program and the direction that was taken by this parliament in 1971 are sound and require support, particularly in times of high unemployment and difficult economic conditions.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, I, too, welcome the opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-69 which is a bill to bring forward certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I listened with interest to comments by Liberal and Conservative members during this debate, and I was reminded of the description or explanation of what makes a Liberal politician unique, namely, that he is double-jointed and has the ability to sit on the fence and keep his ear to the ground at the same time. The only difference between that and Conservative members is that they are able to stay on both sides of the fence at the same time.
When I listened to criticisms of the bill by certain Liberal members, I wondered how they would vote when this bill came up for third reading. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they see, as many of us do in the NDP, that some of these amendments are unfair and will impose undue hardship on the working people, then let them stand up and be counted.
The purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is one which I think takes a few minutes to review but is worth reviewing. This act is a response to the problems of unemployment that have plagued Canadian workers for generation after generation. There was the option of leaving it to the soup kitchens and the charitable organizations to provide the destitute unemployed with some means of sustenance, or the belated recognition, mainly due to pressure by the CCF, the forerunner of this party, that in a democratic country the democratically elected government had a certain social obligation to its citizens and a special obligation to the worker who through no fault of his own

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
was thrown on the unemployment rolls. So this act is a social insurance act in that sense. It does provide some minimal income for those who have no other recourse because of the fluctuations of the capitalistic economy in which they work; it does provide financial support for the unemployed worker and his family until he finds new employment.
At the same time, it at least keeps the economy going because it puts purchasing dollars into the hands of the unemployed person so he can buy the necessary consumer goods to keep body and soul together, and in the process keeps manufacturers manufacturing and other workers employed. Let us not forget the necessity and the beneficial aspect of unemployment insurance in that sense. It is not just a hand-out to the individual unemployed person; it is a means of keeping a slowed down economy moving until, hopefully, it comes out of a recession or whatever economic downturn may happen to exist at the time.
Another point that should be remembered is that the unemployment insurance scheme retains for companies and for businessmen a trained working force which has been temporarily laid off. This is a point that is often overlooked. With unemployment insurance those unemployed workers, many of whom are skilled, will continue to reside in the community until there is an upswing; therefore the employer has the benefit of drawing on that pool of skilled labour. If we did not have this program, many of these people would be forced to pull up roots and travel to other parts of the country in the hope of finding a job. So it is a benefit to the employer in that sense as well.
My experience with the local unemployment insurance office in the constituency of Sault Ste. Marie has on the whole been good. I find the staff there quite co-operative. However, the staff is hindered by a multitude of very complicated regulations in the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are times when I feel the unemployed workers are unduly and unfairly victimized because of the complexities of the regulations and the fact that their rights as workers have not been fully explained to them.
I could go through many cases of people who have signed written statements presented to them by UIC officers without fully realizing the implications of signing, and finding to their chagrin at a later time that they had removed the option of appeal and other avenues because they did not fully realize the limitations of the regulations. This is something we cannot legislate; it has to be a policy decision; it has to be a directive from the minister to the local offices to put the regulations and the operation of the act into plain language so the local staffs understand and can interpret them in a plain, forthright manner to the unemployed in order that they are not victimized by the legal jargon and complicated technicalities found in the act.
We have before us today a number of amendments, most of which we in the NDP oppose on the basis that they place an undue financial burden on the unemployed. Our most fundamental objection to this bill is in respect of the change in concept respecting what unemployment insurance is all about. When this plan was set up, there was a built-in incentive for the government to try to reduce unemployment in this country. When the plan was set up, there were to be contributions from employee and employ-

er toward funding the unemployment insurance program. This was to take effect as long as unemployment did not go above 4 per cent of the labour force. If unemployment went above 4 per cent, then the government would supplement the program with money from the consolidated revenue fund. So there was a built-in incentive at that point for the government to keep unemployment down, because if it did not it would have to make up the deficit with tax dollars.
The change we have before us will remove that 4 per cent unemployment ceiling. That move, in itself, is an admission by this Liberal government that unemployment has increased beyond its control and that the government's economic policies have not brought down the unemployment rate in this country but have exacerbated it.
A few years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was boasting that he would be quite willing to hold tough in his government's battle against inflation by deliberately creating unemployment, and if the rate reached 6 per cent he would be prepared to accept that. Of course, it has gone beyond that now, being in the neighbourhood of 7 per cent, and it might go even higher this winter. So what we have is an admission by this government that its employment policies have failed and that the unemployment situation is worse and will become worse still. I dare say that with this government's wage control policy, people will have less money to spend, there will be less demand and, hence, more unemployment.
The government has now brought in an amendment to let the ceiling on unemployment rise from 4 per cent to 5.8 per cent before it will supplement the plan. That means, quite obviously, that the weekly unemployment insurance premiums for workers and for employers will have to rise accordingly. In effect, by this amendment the government is introducing a regressive tax, not in the sense of an attempt to combat unemployment but a regressive tax only to make up a growing deficit in the fund. Therefore, working people and small businessmen especially will have to pay more from their already diminishing incomes because of the government's inability to control inflation in this country and the government's claim that workers' premiums will rise from the current $1.40 per $100 of earnings to $1.60 or $1.70 per $100 of earnings.
We have made calculations which show that the increase will be around $1.96 for each $100 on income earned because of the projected higher unemployment the country will face this coming winter and the years ahead. Therefore, since the average weekly wage in this country is about $200, the cost of unemployment insurance premiums will not be $2.80 per week, as the government claims, but it will more likely be $3.40 a week, or $176 a year. This is an added expense, an added burden, placed on workers today at the time when the government very cynically brings in a wage control policy that will limit increases in workers' demands to some 10 per cent.
Working Canadians who have seen their wages eroded by inflation escalating at a rate of 11 per cent or 12 per cent over each of the past three years now find their wages controlled by 10 per cent, while at the same time the government slaps a tax on the average worker in respect of the unemployment insurance fund amounting to some $176
November 4, 1975

a year. If that is not regressive and unfair, I do not know what is. We oppose this amendment because of that unfairness and because the government has really given up and does not have any built-in incentive to reduce the unemployment rate.
As unemployment rises, all the government has to do is increase the premiums workers and businessmen have to pay; therefore, the government gets around having to supplement the deficit. In other words, we have the sad state of affairs in which the government has accepted high unemployment as normal. Gone are the days when we were horrified at an unemployment rate of 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Now the government seems to be saying that an unemployment rate of around 5 per cent or 6 per cent is normal and we will have to live with it.
In a country with the resources we have, not only natural but human in terms of skilled workers, that is a sad state of affairs and an admission by this Liberal government that it is bankrupt of ideas with regard to getting the economy stimulated and getting people back to work. Therefore, we will vote against this amendment and oppose it as strongly as we can.
There is another amendment which we find equally reprehensible. I refer to the amendment which would raise the disqualification period for workers who quit their jobs. The plan is to raise the disqualification period from three weeks to six weeks. We must remember, of course, that there is a two-week waiting period in addition. This will mean that the worker who quits his job or is fired will have an eight-week waiting period before he can claim unemployment insurance benefits.
The figures brought forward to justify this change are very interesting. The minister says that the annual rate of those leaving employment is 250,000 workers. I must remind hon. members that this is out of a work force of some 10 million people in this country. That places it in perspective. The annual rate of those who refuse suitable employment out of this work force of 10 million people is only 21,000 workers, or two-tenths of 1 per cent.
Why do people quit their jobs? The reason, I believe, the minister is bringing in this legislation is that he thinks these people are slack, they want to quit, they are not serious about work and want to take advantage of the program. I would like to see statistics to back this up. I am confident the minister could not produce such statistics. When we look at the reasons people leave their employment, we find that in the great majority of cases they have legitimate, valid reasons. For example, the pay may be too low. If an employee has been trying to get a raise over a period of months, and comes up against a stone wall where the employer refuses to give him a raise, and if this employee knows he is worth more than he is receiving, he should have the option to quit and look for another job.
By this amendment, such a person could be frozen into a job classification. This is discriminatory and unfair. It reminds us of the labour practices of the seventeenth century. There could be cases where the employer takes advantage of the worker. We can document many cases where employers have made, shall we say, passes at female employees. That is reprehensible. There are cases involving employers who have demanded that their employees work overtime without pay, or who have demanded that the
Unemployment Insurance Act
employees perform certain jobs which are not classified as part of the regular employment.
Sometimes employers expect employees to perform personal favours for them, and so on. In those circumstances, I would say the employee who quits has a legitimate reason and therefore should have the option of quitting and not being disqualified from unemployment insurance. There are other reasons. Many workers have to quit because of health and working conditions. Near Sault Ste. Marie there is the community of Elliot Lake where the uranimum mines have caused many miners to come down with lung cancer due to silicosis. Would one deny a worker in such circumstances the opportunity to quit his job and receive unemployment insurance benefits?
So, of the 21,000 people who quit and refuse jobs, statistics show that in many cases the reasons are quite legitimate. Therefore, they should not be penalized in the way in which this amendment would penalize them by causing a longer waiting period. I think we should make it very clear that many people who find themselves in the position of having to quit are non-unionized workers. I might remind hon. members that only 33 per cent of the workers in this country belong to labour unions. The unorganized people in the low-paying jobs do not have any kind of bargaining power or back-up to protect their rights. It is they who are victimized by bad working conditions and low pay, and in many cases they have no choice but to quit or be fired if they want to improve their conditions. I must say this amendment is unfair because it discriminates against the unorganized workers in our society.
There is another amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act with which we also disagree. I cannot for the life of me see how this amendment which is to end the payment of benefits at age 65 will save the government very much money or prevent any kind of real abuse. Currently, unemployment insurance coverage ends at the age of 70 or earlier when a retirement pension becomes payable. What is so unfair about this amendment is, first of all, that those currently between age 65 and age 69 who are working and are insured under the unemployment insurance plan will be automatically cut off from any kind of benefits as a result of this amendment. There is not even the option of a phase-out period for people who in good faith and because of circumstances which have made it impossible for them to retire at 65 have had to stay in the labour force. They will be cut off from benefits in one fell swoop. As I mentioned earlier, those who want to work to the age of 70 at least will no longer have that option once the amendment is passed.
The argument presented by the Liberals for introducing this amendment is that they have taken care of people in their senior years by increasing the old age pension. I must remind them, of course, that that was during the term of a minority government when we forced them to do so. But they say they have increased pensions under the Canada Pension Plan and thus are taking care of people in that age bracket. I would like the minister to try to survive on an old age pension, on some of the Canada Pension Plan payments that retired workers are receiving in my constituency.

Unemployment Insurance Act
I have a horrendous problem in Sault Ste. Marie of zero vacancy rates in apartments. We do not have enough senior citizens' units, and these people are confronted daily with rate increases as well as rising costs of food and medicine. Many of them must continue to work beyond the age of 65. This government will remove that option from them and will remove protection through the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think it is most reprehensible when people who have contributed so much to the growth of our economy through their hard work, and have contributed by paying their premiums into the unemployment insurance scheme, suddenly at the age of 65 find themselves cut off from benefits and are unable to continue working with the security of unemployment insurance protecting them.
I think this government, despite all its claims about how it is interested in and wants to help senior citizens, shows its true spirit, through this amendment, in its attitude toward our older working people. Despite the groans from the Liberal backbenchers, I am sure they know that what I am saying is true because the older people in their constituencies have experienced it.
We also find another example of the niggardliness of this government in these times of high inflation. They have an amendment to reduce the payment to dependants of unemployed workers. Presently, the payments are 75 per cent of insurable earnings for lower paid claimants with dependants. The government is now introducing an amendment which will bring that payment down to 66% per cent for precisely the people who are on low incomes and who are finding it so hard to survive in these days of inflation. On the other hand, if they become unemployed they will be penalized even further by the reduced rate of benefit as a result of this amendment. We say that this is unfair in principle. To try to argue that it will save the government a few dollars does not make sense. One has to take into account the human misery that will be caused to low income people who are unemployed. I agree with my colleagues that this provision should be withdrawn. We will argue that matter in committee.
There are a couple of points in the bill with which my colleagues and I are in agreement. We are not totally negative on the amendments. We are in agreement with the amendment which will extend the qualifying for benefit period. At present, the period in which all claimants may calculate their weeks of insured earnings to qualify for benefit is limited to 52 weeks. Under the proposed change, the qualifying period would be extended to a maximum of 104 weeks for special types of claimants. I am glad the minister has responded to the representations made by opposition members and has recognized that certain people need special consideration; for example, people who are on training courses for 52 weeks and cannot qualify for unemployment insurance premiums because they have not been working in the standard sense of the term in that 52-week period. So we see this move as a progressive step and will support it, as we will the amendments to provide for flexibility in the sickness benefit provisions under the plan.
I do not want to dwell on that matter in detail. Other of my colleagues will do that. I want to reiterate a simple and valid point, namely, that the bulk of the amendments brought forward by the Liberal government will really

force working people to pay for high unemployment caused by the poor and misguided economic policies of this government. This government is giving up the fight on unemployment. It will make the workingman and the businessman in Canada carry the burden of high unemployment by increasing their employment insurance premiums. To add insult to injury, at the time when they are bringing forth these punitive and regressive amendments, this government is bringing in an anti-inflation policy that will control the workers' wages and limit their increases to 10 per cent, in the longer run creating higher unemployment which will reduce consumer spending, causing manufacturing industries to face a slump and lay off workers.
I think this government's legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act is misguided and mistimed. I urge all hon. members to stand up and be counted in committee and on third reading and to vote against these unfortunate and regressive amendments which the minister is proposing in the bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Layoff of employees at Winnipeg-Government action; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Alleged scrapping of freight cars- Request for investigation; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-Olympic Games-Limitation of construction contracts to Quebec companies-Government action to eliminate discrimination.



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.
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, in my brief contribution to this interesting debate I want to suggest that one of the more positive and forthright suggestions in the June 23 budget of the former minister of
November 4, 1975

finance was that basic changes would be proposed in the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The minister pointed out that these changes were necessary for two basic and fundamental reasons: first, UIC costs to the government were becoming unwieldy and, second, the present Unemployment Insurance Act contains, and I quote, "some features which . . . have undesirable effects on work incentives."
Bill C-69, of course, is the instrument of the government to try to face up to our current UIC situation as indicated in the budget of last June. Various amendments are long overdue when we consider that the 1975 UIC pay-out will be approximately $4 billion, while the equivalent pay-out for similar uses in the United States for the year 1973 was about the same dollar figure. That is a most interesting comparison. Further, after three years' experience in my own constituency, the most frequent complaint I receive about UIC is that it is a disincentive to our time-honoured work ethic or, put more bluntly, it is a government institution which very often pays a person not to work.
I wish to begin by making a few comments relating to those three years of personal experience in the Medicine Hat federal constituency. First, however, I should point out that in a letter, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) indicated on August 29, 1975, that we in Medicine Hat had an unemployment rate of only 3.23 per cent, well below the 5 per cent start level for LIP projects, thereby establishing my constituency as eligible only for the minimum allocation of $100,000 for LIP financing. On this very day, by local estimates, my home city of Medicine Hat has some 480 unemployed persons and some 450 available jobs. I suppose it is a situation which could be construed as a negative unemployment rate.
Over these three years of operation of my constituency office, this UIC subject is still the topic brought to my attention most frequently, by a wide margin. The following are a few of the inequities which continue to come to my attention through my constituency office. There is a situation in smaller rural towns which precludes a worker from becoming eligible for benefits unless he moves to a different area to continue his job search routine. There is another situation where a husband is moved to a smaller area; his wife gives up her job to move with him and then runs into trouble establishing eligibility for benefits when she gives up that job.
The requirement of 20 insured weeks to qualify for sickness or pregnancy benefits can involve hardships which bear no relation to regular claims, which require only eight insured weeks with a much longer benefit period possible. There is an instance of a woman having a heart attack after 18 weeks and being unable to qualify for UIC benefits because she did not have the required 20 weeks of insured work. Again, in the case of sickness benefits, the regulation calling for a two-week waiting period after application is not clearly understood by many of those who apply, neither is the implication of a sickness claim which is only valid over the initial 15 weeks.
Overpayments are a continuing and often embarrassing source of annoyance. Surely some procedural improvement is possible here instead of the lame excuse of computer
Unemployment Insurance Act
errors. These tempting overpayments invite illegal action by younger recipients and cause extreme frustration and annoyance to elderly people. The job search routine, especially during winter months, seems to present special frustrations to elderly workers which lead to misunderstanding and sometimes hardship.
I mention these specific experiences from my constituency office in order more fully to support the statement that in my opinion almost every UIC problem brought to my attention is a personal and private one to which it is difficult to apply the UIC regulations and difficult to categorize. It seems to me that some form of means test could be instituted to respond more completely to these personal and private situations to which I have referred. I do not suggest that this means test be applied to all UIC claims, only that it be an optional procedure which could very well be of great assistance to the board of referees.
I shall now make some brief comments on the bill itself. I fully support the proposal to increase the disqualification period from three to six weeks for those who quit, are fired or refuse suitable employment. I have heard some representations that this disqualification period should be extended even more. The decision of the government to raise the break-even benchmark for self-financing from 4 per cent unemployment to a moving eight-year unemployment average is a clear indication to me that this government has given up on our persistent and seemingly ever-increasing unemployment problem. It is an inward-looking, passive and unimaginative attitude which surely is not acceptable.
While it is true that the increased premiums to be shared by employers and employees, plus the added costs due to this increased benchmark for self-financing, will amount to a considerable saving to the government, it is really an added cost or tax of considerable magnitude to all employers and employees. The cost is still there, and as the press has already pointed out, this change in UIC financing could reach an additional total for 1976 from $800 million to $1 billion, more than double the recent ten-cent gasoline excise tax total.


Robert Knight Andras: Totally inaccurate.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: This averages $89 or more per year for all Canadians who work for pay cheques. I wish to associate myself with my colleagues comments which suggest serious consideration should be given to moving the entire UIC policy back to the true insurance concept instead of the welfare mixture now offered, which is such an invitation to open abuse.
UIC policy should, surely, relate directly and be an incentive to an extended and continuing period in the work force. I have to admit to strong support for the call of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for a 20-week eligibility period. Such an incentive could easily be provided by reducing premium rates which vary directly with the length of service with a given employer and ultimately providing for paid-up insurance after long service with very few or limited benefit claims. I should also like to add my further support for the excellent suggestion that Manpower and UIC should work much more closely together, with the eventual merging of the two. I am sure there

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
would be financial savings and a vast improvement in operation and efficiency of both agencies.
Before concluding, I should like to return to my earlier remarks which were based on my constituency experiences. It seems to me that a very useful and practical suggestion would be to make available at UIC offices a short, concise and abbreviated set of instructions to be followed in applying for UIC benefits. They would have to be concise. Finally, certain UIC officials should be encouraged to make occasional personal visits to the homes of UIC applicants who are genuinely concerned about developments that have caused real hardship over UIC claim decisions.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-69. I should like to say to the minister that any mild criticisms I may have are certainly not directed to him personally. In any portfolio this minister has held I have always been able to talk to him and receive his co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: That is a lesson that could be learned by some other cabinet ministers. At no time have I ever brought a problem to his attention when he did not try to help.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But that didn't help.


Robert Muir: In many cases it did help. I listened to the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) who raised the question of abuses. This has been referred to by other speakers. One point he did raise referred to clause 11 and the claiming procedure for sickness benefits which can be undertaken during the first 25 weeks on claim rather than the first 15 weeks. That is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about all the proposed amendments.
The hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) raised a very good point. There is a popular misconception in this country that people like to go on unemployment insurance for 52 weeks, but the hon. member pointed out that the average for an individual on benefits is 16 weeks. He also said that the amendment referring to those people over 65 years of age would be understood by them. I do not think it will, Madam Speaker.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) also referred to abuses. He said this amendment would reduce the payments by the government. That is true; it loads them right on to the workingman and the businessman. He also referred to the amendment correcting abuses and said it rationalizes the plan. That is a vague statement. It rationalizes the plan to the extent that it unloads responsibility from the government on to workingmen and women.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) said he had heard nothing but contradictions from the opposition. I suppose in a democratic parliament one is liable to hear these opinions. Everyone has a right to express his viewpoint. The greatest contradiction of all occurred some months ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his supporters said that a restraint policy or

a freeze would not work. Now they say it will and that the Canadian people have been overspending. So there is quite a change there. Of course, it has put the load on the back of the working people again: wages will be restricted, but not prices.
My colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), referred to unfilled jobs. I wish he would ship some of them down to the east coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: He mentioned such highly skilled positions as psychiatric assistants and technological people. That does not mean much to a man who works in the coal mine. He cannot take a position as a psychiatric assistant, but on second thought maybe he would know a lot more than the psychiatrist. The hon. member also said that officials at the Manpower centres were not too co-operative. I have been dealing with Manpower centres and Unemployment Insurance Commission offices over the years, Madam Chairman, and have received the greatest co-operation at all times. The officials have worked very hard. Mind you, we give them plenty of bother as there seems to be so much confusion in the regional offices, particularly the Moncton office. It is always blamed on the computer, but it is only as good as the information put into it. I hope someone will look at the Moncton office, because many people have difficulty making ends meet while waiting weeks for their benefits.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) raised the question of board of referees and said the chairman of the board of referees decides whether an applicant can appeal to the umpire. That is most unusual. I have had correspondence with a Mr. Guy Cousineau for a number of weeks concerning a Mr. Pickup. In a letter dated September 9, Mr. Cousineau wrote:
In Mr. Pickup's ease, it was determined that his interruption of earnings occurred as a direct result of a labour dispute and a suspension from benefits was imposed, under the act, from the outset of his claim. It was indicated that while the electricians employed by Magna Electric and Computers Limited were not interested in and were not financing the dispute, they respected the picket line of the striking union and were, therefore, considered to be participating in the labour dispute.
He certainly was not participating. He was unable to go to work. The company could not work because the other trades were on strike. I wrote Mr. Cousineau again on the question of why the chairman of the board of referees would have such great power. He had sat on the case already, and he made the decision as to whether it could go any further. That was most unfair. If he had said it could go to the umpire he would really have been saying he had been wrong in the beginning. In the same letter, Mr. Cousineau wrote:
The unemployment insurance legislation provides that an employee who ceases to work by reason of a stoppage of work, attributable to a labour dispute, is not entitled to benefit for the duration of the stoppage of work, unless he can establish that he is not participating, financing or directly interested in the dispute-
The workingman I am speaking of was not participating, was not financing and was not directly interested. However, he never got his money. I hope this might be discussed and gone into a little further. I repeat that I agree with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on that point.
November 4, 1975

There is one other matter I would like to mention, the question of having to indicate to the Unemployment Insurance Commission that you have searched for a job in four or five places. As far as I am concerned the official employment agency in Canada is Canada Manpower. It is supposed to have its finger on the pulse of industry, knowing every place that workers may be needed. If they cannot find employment how can they expect an individual to find it?
An individual must apply for work at four or five different places. If there are no jobs available he must ask for a letter saying that he has applied. In an area like mine it is absolutely ridiculous. You can wear out your feet looking for a job. You just cannot find one. I wish I were in the enviable position of some hon. members who referred to their areas having too many job vacancies.
In any given area there is a percentage of people who will not work. Even if you take them in your arms and place them in a job, they will not work. However, that is not the case in my area. We have a rate of unemployment of between 25 and 30 per cent. If there are 5 or 8 per cent who will not work when there is full employment, that still is no excuse for those for whom jobs are not provided.
Before leaving the comments of different members I want to say that I agree with much of what was said by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. But the rest was pure socialist drivel, particularly when he said "Of course if we were a civilized democratically planned Christian socialist society, there would be no need for unemployment insurance." That is the same phoney drivel we always get from the socialist party. They say that the hard-hearted Liberals, hard-hearted Conservatives, and hard-hearted Social Credit members do not have a bit of feeling for the working people or for anyone who has a problem. It is only they, wrapped in their cloak, who would be presumptuous enough to say they originated Christianity. That is going a bit far.


Mr. Leggatt:: Stanley was in at the beginning.


Robert Muir: There may be a few misplaced clergymen in their party, but that does not make them any more Christian than any other party in this House. I just wanted the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre to know how I feel about his comment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate it.


Robert Muir: When the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was speaking about draft dodgers, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) made an interjection to the effect that those aged 65 and over were work dodgers, or words to that effect.


An hon. Member:: He did not say work dodgers, he said work makers.


Robert Muir: Are you the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain?


An hon. Member:: No, but I would like to be.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Robert Muir: It was the inflated member for Hamilton Mountain who made the interjection. It is a pretty sad commentary on those 65 and over who have contributed to this country for a lifetime. Many of those over 65 are still working. They certainly should not be referred to as work dodgers. That is a bit serious to make that kind of remark.
Bill C-69 is nothing more than a government rip off against the people of this nation to whom the government pledged it would give the greatest possible protection. It more and more produces evidence that Liberal times are hard times. The workers of this nation will pay the bill for the government's almost unbelievable incompetence and ineptitude in managing the economy of the country.
The government created unemployment just a few short years ago. It said that that was the answer. We were told that by creating unemployment it would remedy the economy of the country. It got on a downhill slide. It is now having to take more and more money from the working men and women of this country to pay for the problem it has created.
We have moved from an unemployment insurance scheme that was actuarially sound and only in trouble in times of deep recession to one that has become an added tax on most of the work force and most businesses. While the workingman and the businessman have to pay the bill they have little to say about the size of that bill. Most derive absolutely no benefit from the tax they pay.
Since 1968 the government with its Trudeaucrats has completely obliterated the image meticulously developed that Liberals, and only Liberals, are the competent managers of the economy. They like to blast the Diefenbaker administration every chance they get. However, those who examine the performance of that administration yearn for that administration that year after year produced a rate of inflation of less than 1 per cent. What is the rate of inflation at this time? The Diefenbaker administration scored triumph after triumph in developing our increased gross national product, while at the same time finding jobs for the many thousands who entered the work force. Since this minister is also in charge of immigration, he will remember the situation in Europe in 1956 when several hundred thousand hit the labour market of this country.
The government goes to any length to transfer its major miscalculations to others. No group of Canadians, including the poor and the aged, are exempt from its mad dash to eliminate the responsibility for its mistakes.
It is hard to believe that Bill C-69 clearly sets out that those 65 years of age and over will not receive benefits under the amended UIC legislation. It clearly discriminates against them. What an achievement, laying it on the backs of the older people of this country.
Approximately 5,000 Canadians will either be forced out of the work force or find it difficult to continue working. This is being done for a miserly saving of $3 million. The taxpayers' contribution to bolster the fund to meet the demand of claimants runs from $1,750 million to $2 billion, depending on how high the rate of inflation goes.
This legislation says to the working men and women who have trouble keeping pace with skyrocketing inflation that it will be made more severe, or that their pay cheques will be that much thinner as a result of this added tax or

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
higher contribution. They are also told that inflation will be promoted by higher costs for the products they will purchase in the market place. The businessman will have to go to the same market place to recover the same payments he must make to the fund. And those sums are not to be sneezed at-they are expected to be in the area of $800 million to $1 billion next year, amounting to an average extra tax on every person paying into the fund equal to some $89 yearly.


Robert Knight Andras: Completely inaccurate.


Robert Muir: Well, the minister will have his opportunity to speak when he takes part in the debate later on. If the unemployment bench mark moves from the present 4 per cent to 5.3 per cent, it is expected the breakdown will be something like $443 million from employers and $317 million from workers; it could well be more if the unemployment rate jumps above the present 7.2 per cent to 8 per cent or higher.
Also, it is nothing short of rank discrimination against the worker to tell him he will face a six weeks disqualification if he quits his job. That amounts to a month and a half plus the two-week waiting period, after which he has to face the delays and the letters couched in legalese, involved language, and bureacratic jargon. That is one of the points I should like to comment on. For Heaven's sake let them get down to using normal language in these letters they send out to claimants instead of language which even lawyers sometimes fail to understand.
The minister would be doing a good service to the working people of Canada if he would instruct his staff to get down to earth and put the statements contained in their letters and documents into language people can understand. However, I was talking about the delay occasioned by long delays in payments. Not many workers can accept an attack on their limited savings for six or eight weeks.
Then again there can be many reasons for leaving employment. I appreciate, of course, that there should be investigations associated with such cases, but I believe each case should be treated individually and action taken on individual cases as warranted. The amendment put forward smacks of total discrimination against the worker and places a valuable weapon in the hand of the employer. Some hon. members may ask why. Well, I still have my little card from the National Employment Service; I am not as old as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I do have the card. I was among the lucky ones; fortunately, I never had to draw unemployment insurance benefits, unlike millions of other Canadians.
When investigations and so on are in progress, a weapon is immediately put into the hands of employers. I have run into a number of employers across the country who have said to people in their work force, "Either do this, or that, or you are not with us any more". The task indicated might be altogether apart from the work the man is supposed to do. As I say, there can be many reasons which compel a man to leave his job. This is an area which should be carefully analyzed and each case should be judged on its merits.

I wish to say a few words now about abuses. It is a favourite topic. Like every other member of the House I do not condone abuses of the unemployment insurance fund and I favour every step being taken to eliminate the blood suckers. I state definitely that I will support every effort by the minister to prevent abuses of the fund, because the more abuses there are the harder it is for those with legitimate claims to get their claims recognized. Abuse creates suspicion in the minds of those who work within the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They are apt to approach claims with the attitude that the claimant is probably just another character trying to get money which is not really due to him. As a result the applicant with a legitimate case is screened carefully, and settlement of his claim is likely to be delayed as well.
Sometimes we can overdo this concern about abuses. As the hon. member for St. Catharines said, everyone seems to think that once a worker's claim to benefit is allowed he remains in receipt of benefit for 50 weeks or 52 weeks. That is not correct. The average period is 16 weeks. And often, because of some bureaucratic difficulty about which an innocent claimant is not aware, payments come to an end.
I represent an area which, unfortunately, has consistently returned an unemployment rate running two or three times the national average. Unemployment insurance benefits are absolutely essential in order to maintain the work force during periods of trouble which never seem to cease to plague the area. We also have a great many older citizens within the work force, and because of the continuing high rate of unemployment and the inability of workers to move from one job to another-simply because the opportunities are not there, unlike the situation in other parts of the nation-the legislation before us is bound to discriminate against older members of the work force and place employers in a position to threaten the work force with the weapon of six weeks' disqualification.
Yesterday the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) made a suggestion which I believe to be worthy of consideration. In the course of his remarks he said:
We should have a scheme whereby those who work and never draw benefits but pay into the fund day after day, year in and year 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 am not an actuarial expert; in fact I am not an expert in anything, but I think something along these lines could be worked out and I commend the suggestion to the minister. There are many millions of people who contribute to the fund week after week and year after year without drawing benefit, and possibly a certain proportion of the fund could be set aside for such a purpose as my hon. friend proposed. At the end of their working lives they would receive a payment in some form, taking into consideration the size of the amount which had been taken from the fund. The amount would be based on the record. Such a scheme might discourage people from drawing a benefit needlessly; they might well look ahead and say. "The time may come when I shall need some extra help when I choose to retire."

Let us consider some of the reaction to this bill. This is from the Gazette of June 28, 1975, and the writer is Don McGillivray, a financial analyst:
The change in unemployent insurance financing faces Canadian employees and employers with an additional tax burden at least twice as heavy as the extra tax on gasoline . . . this extra payroll tax under the new formula may reach $800 million to $1 billion next year. The new tax load will amount to an average of $89 or more a year on the wages and salaries of all Canadians who work for a pay check.
Then there are the comments of Joe Morris, President of the C.L.C., in a press release on July 21. He said of the proposal that:
Low income workers chiefly will bear the burden of longer penalty periods, elimination of benefit for workers age 65 and other money saving provisions ... It appears that the government seeks to slowly but surely reduce the social security protection now afforded Canadians by the social legislation it has taken the trade union movement and kindred groups so many years to establish.


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


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. This amending legislation introduces a new class of insurable employment.
Any member that will listen to his constituents will know that unemployment, or at least the lack of steady revenue, is a continuing concern and a day-to-day problem with thousands of Canadians.
Unemployment figures published monthly by Statistics Canada make the headlines each time there is an increase. Surveys show unemployment is always the most urgent and dramatic problem in the people's mind.
Amendments made by the government to the Unemployment Insurance Act, either to add to or delete from classes of claimants are but useless patchwork, not to say harmful patchwork. The way the government amends the act, it would appear that by changing drivers it believes its jalopy will become a Cadillac. The engine is worn out, all four tires are flat, the suspension is finished, the transmission whines, but the government seems to think that by changing drivers, everything will be better.
Bill C-69 is the latest of a series. The government realizes the unemployment insurance program is inadequate, but rather than bringing the scheme on a sounder and more logical foundation, it introduces minor amendments that do nothing to meet the real needs and expectations of Canadians.
Before discussing one by one the amendments proposed in Bill C-69, it is essential in my view to note that the minister and the government as a whole do not understand the meaning and the nature of the unemployment problem now facing Canada. This lack of understanding of the actual causes of unemployment explains why this government is bringing in such a ridiculous legislation as Bill C-69.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The first distinction the government seems unable to make is the one between "unemployed" and "without income". The government has always made known its wish to achieve full employment. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made quite a radical statement saying that if the government had the power to do what it pleases, it could put an end to unemployment by compelling workers to go where jobs are available.
If you apply this principle a little further, you end up with hard labour camps in the Arctic, which would not fail to please the Prime Minister who expressed all his admiration during his trip to Soviet Union for developments in Siberia.
We know that the work there has been done by millions of people sentenced to hard labour by the Moscow dictatorship. The basic principle guiding the government in the face of unemployment is to seek full employment. A job for everyone is the priority of this government. However, the real unemployment problem, the real tragedy of millions of unemployed Canadians is not to be without a job, but to be without a regular income.
Let us consider the unemployed. What is their problem? They do not have any money. They cannot buy the bread and butter needed to feed their family. They cannot buy the clothing and all the items required to keep their family warm and secure. It is always a matter of money. Even this government which would have us believe that the individual problem of unemployment can be solved through full employment. It is recognized that the real problem of the unemployed is primarily one of income. In fact, when it came to taking action against unemployment, the government established unemployment insurance benefits to provide an income to those without any.
It is then obvious that what is considered as an unemployment insurance problem is actually an income problem. Even if the government made a step forward by recognizing, maybe unknowingly, that the jobless must have an income, the efforts in this field are still based on the false principle that full employment or the fact of giving a job to everyone is the final solution to the unemployment problem.
Brought to its logical conclusion, that principle would disregard all technical progress which resulted in the elimination of some occupations. Power shovels would be replaced by labourers with pick and shovel. Farm tractors would be replaced by horses. Finally, a man will be substituted for a horse since it would take a job from another man.
With this foolish rule, we will soon return to the prehistoric age when a man did everything manually. This is the conclusion, Madam Speaker, to which leads full employment. A machine can do in ten minutes the work and production of 1,000 men. Now, Madam Speaker, what remains to be done? Destroy that machine and make a man work very hard. Madam Speaker, may I say that it is six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

November 4, 1975

Unemployment Insurance Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying just before recess at six o'clock: Is it logical? Is it clever? And yet, it stems from the principle of full employment. For years, the Social Credit Party has been advocating a guaranteed minimum income. The important thing, is to put into the hands of the people an income that will enable them to buy the products available in Canada. When 1,000 workers are laid-off because technology and progress dictate that they should be replaced by one machine that will do their work ten times faster, what are we to do? Destroy the machine on account of the absurd principle of full employment, because it deprives 1,000 men of their work, or distribute to these workers replaced by the machine the income derived from the use of a more efficient and more profitable means of production?
Because the government advocates full employment rather than efficiency and productivity, thousands of Canadians are kept in useless jobs. Instead of giving them their share of the machine-made production, machines are scrapped and men put to work needlessly. An unemployment rate of 7 to 8 per cent means that the entire production can be made available 92 per cent of the available manpower.
Dr. Richard Belman, an American specialist of production methods stated that the entire present production could be obtained with 2 per cent of the present manpower. In other words, the products we now have could be available with a 98 per cent rate of unemployment. This could be made possible if the government was not fighting technological progress and advances.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the problem to be solved is how to distribute to all those removed from the production process an income that will allow them to benefit from the abundance of products available to them thanks to automation. That is the challenge we have to meet now in Canada. The government should stop listening to such stupid economists who say: Better employ people at digging ditches they will fill afterwards, than not employing them at all.
Mr. Speaker, the government should rather listen to the solutions proposed by Social Crediters and free Canadians from the tasks machines can do in their place. In a coherent system, the machine must be at the service of man, not man at the service of the machine. To the extent that they make it possible to distribute to the unemployed an income which enables them to buy the many products available, unemployment insurance benefits are acceptable and desirable. Unfortunately, the Unemployment Insurance Act, like the amendments discussed today for that matter, is too often only a means of placing workers in the power of the government and civil servants. Mr. Speaker, in 1973, no fewer than 92,871 Canadians were disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits under Unemployment Insurance Act regulation 145 alone, because an almighty civil servant considered that they had not sought employment actively enough.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
In 1974 the number of disentitlements was over 93,000. This is only one example and we could give many more. Thus, the provision of Bill C-69 now under study which will double the penalty for an individual who voluntarily quits his job is just another measure which does not consider the particular situation of each individual. And what shall we say about the fact that Bill C-69 takes away from people aged 65 their rights to benefits? It is an unacceptable measure and I would be tempted to support the hon. member who suggested to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) who had proved his openmindedness by proposing at least five amendments aiming at significantly improving the Unemployment Insurance Act, that he should consider the possibility of giving workers aged 65 or over the opportunity to express their desire to withdraw from the unemployment insurance plan, to receive the three weeks' benefits provided for in the government's bill and to allow all those who wish to continue working to pay premiums, which means accepting all responsibilities and obligations stemming from the plan.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be logical for the minister to move this amendment to the legislation. The government has no right to say to people of 65 or over: "Go away from the labour market, we have no more room for you." The UIC cases submitted to us by our constituents can be counted by the hundreds within a month. The root cause of the problem is an administrative decision or the interpretation of a nebulous regulation by officials who suffer from delusions of grandeur. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, one has to go all the way up to the department to get justice and have the mistakes corrected.
By the way, I would like to thank the minister for the cases I submitted to him and which have been settled to the advantage of the claimants. Last May 5 I submitted to the minister five cases which the Unemployment Insurance Commission office of my riding could not settle and the minister really proved to be very helpful to us. But I have to point out that a more logical and realistic system would probably put an end to all those problems which are extremely annoying for the members of the four parties in the House.
That is why I believe that the government should listen to the suggestions made by Socred members and should consider a thorough reform not only of the unemployment insurance plan but also of the whole economic system. If the government, instead of trying to achieve full employment by eliminating the abundance that would result from a greater productivity thanks to an improved technology, would give to the people the financial means and the purchasing power required to buy the available production, the problem of unemployment insurance would be completely solved. With the machine, people would gradually free themselves of manual jobs and they could develop more and more and improve the country through creative and rewarding activities. Some people believe that a system based on the distribution of a national dividend to all individuals depending on the available production would be a disincentive to work.
As the Social Credit leader said: Show me only one lazy millionnaire. It means that the individual who has the
November 4, 1975

income he needs will automatically be hard working instead of being lazy. Social Credit would not discourage private enterprise as does the present system. Unlike the present system, Social Credit would not compel the individual who draws benefits to stay at home and decline work offers. In a Social Credit system, the individual would receive his national dividend and would be encouraged to add this amount to his salary.
Social Credit proposes a modern system taking into account technical progress and human nature. The individual benefits from technical progress through national dividends and is encouraged to add this amount to anything he can earn through personal initiative. And being paid to everyone this dividend will be fair to all Canadians. That is the Social Credit alternative!
I ask this government now that we are studying Bill C-69 concerning unemployment insurance to review its position and the basic principles upon which its obsolete unemployment insurance system lays. I am sure it is also the wish of all Canadians who believe in the future of their country.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite interesting to take part in this debate, not to advocate revolutionary solutions, nor to attack an opposition far more bent on criticizing the bill than finding out advantages for the population, but simply, Mr. Speaker, to remind hon. members that the philosophy underlying unemployment insurance is sometimes misunterstood. Unfortunately, in too many circles that legislation is misinterpreted. I am not contending that opposition members are the only ones responsible for those misinterpretations, and I, as a government member, take my share of the blame for the view, prevalent among the public, that unemployment insurance is a form of social assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for politicians to assume a minimum of responsibilities and tell people frankly why we introduced and passed that act. To some people, especially claimants, it is too stringent a legislation. Those who draw unemployment insurance benefits claim, sometimes rightly, that the waiting period before they can be paid benefits is too long.
Several mentioned it, my friends in the opposition pointed it out, and sometimes rightly so. It is normal that the person who applies to the UIC should not have to wait too long before getting the money he needs most of the time to secure his right to live. And I deplore that on many occasions the system set up does not achieve the normal objectives that the people have a right to expect. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether behind that bureacracy, those electronic machines probably designed to improve the legislation, did not accomplish exactly the opposite in certain quarters.


An hon. Member:: That is also true.


Gilles Marceau: I think we should gradually come back to a more human approach towards the claimant who, after all, finds himself in an extremely difficult situation, through his fault or not, whether he quit his job voluntarily or was laid off because no job was available for him. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to try and find within our
Unemployment Insurance Act
system, which theoretically is excellent, some means to improve it and make it more effective. May I be allowed to make a suggestion to hon. members. I had the opportunity this afternoon to discuss with the manager of my local UIC office. He told me that they made an experiment in our area. They sent to 100 persons chosen at random notices informing them that they would no longer be getting their unemployment insurance benefits, without giving them the reason for that decision. Out of the 100 persons who received that notice only 50 answered and objected and asked for an explanation. Then they were simply told, very well, you can have your unemployment insurance back.
This seems to show that the mail delivery system for cheques seems to be used by several claimants to receive benefits that do not belong to them. I come to the conclusion, and the manager agrees with me, that it would be a good thing to revert to the system under which the claimant must come and collect his cheque. Of course, this requires a measure of decentralization, opening offices closer to the people so that they would not have to cover long distances to collect their cheques. But I think this would make the act more effective and ensure that those who come to collect their cheques are entitled to them. And I make that suggestion in a constructive way. I do not want to find fault with the public in general nor with the claimants, but it seems to me that here we have a problem which could be solved by reaching two objectives: making the law more humane and perhaps avoiding greater expenses, since this is one of the goals we are aiming at with the legislation we brought in and with the amendments we are putting before the House.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the unemployment insurance concept, as people understand it, was warped in certain quarters.
Mr. Speaker, I think I should recall that unemployment insurance is an insurance, as the name says. It is temporary insurance made available to those who are on the labour market but cannot immediately find employment.
I think I was repeating what every hon. member could say when I said that some people come to us and insist that they paid unemployment insurance for months and for years and that they have a right to get benefits as long as provided by the act. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we emphasize in no uncertain terms that unemployment insurance is a right of recipients, but in given circumstances.
The first condition to be met by the claimant is what my friend opposite, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) did not seem to take into account when he spoke about people who had been excluded because they did not take the necessary steps. Mr. Speaker, it is elementary!
A few months or a few years ago, you only had to stop working, stay home, complete a form and wait for your cheque for a certain number of weeks, most often, the maximum number provided, as though it was due to you.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is absolutely essential and moreover normal to ask the claimant not only to register with the manpower office, but also to look for a job.
Obviously, people must exercise some judgment and common sense in looking for a job. It is impossible to ask the claimant to go personally to prospective employers dozens of times every week, but he must make an effort, he

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
is not required to find a job, but only to cooperate in looking for work and to show, by his availability and his efforts, that he is interested in finding a job.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on an extremely sensitive aspect of this legislation, a point about which many members have expressed their views. I believe that it is my duty to try to explain my opinion about the provision which, if passed, would prevent people aged 65 from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that those who say that we do not respect people who are retired distort the meaning of this legislation. It is precisely because we have consideration and respect for people who are 65 that we are passing this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that a 65 year old citizen who has worked for society deserves to be no longer in the obligation of working hard to earn his living and support himself and his family. We believe that he has reached an age where he deserves certain benefits from society which will allow him to live comfortably without having to earn a living.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is normal to say to an individual who has reached age 65: "You can obtain the old age security pension, the supplement as well as your superannuation fund or an annuity. You can even work if you wish." There is every kind of opportunity and assistance for people who are 65 years old.
Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that those measures are perfect, that they are sufficient and enable the 65 year-olds to live in wealth and affluence. No, I do not say so. But I feel there are some who play politics by saying to those people: "Through that legislation the government wants to harm you and does not understand your problems." That is not responsible nor honest. I think it is essential to say to those people: "The Unemployment Insurance Act is a legislation meant to protect the worker." It is designed for the worker just as the old age security pension is not paid to those who are 45, 50 or 62; we pay it to people of 65. It would be abnormal to give people of 65 years and over the same benefits available to those under 65. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people over 65 would understand this bill if someone explained it to them frankly and made it clear to them that it is intended to do away with the confusion which exists in this act at the present time and to help those who are now on the labour market and are temporarily unable to find a job. It may happen that a person will pay premiums all his or her life without ever collecting unemployment insurance benefits, but he or she should rejoice for having had the courage, the luck and the good fortune of working and earning a living without living off the State.
With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is possible in all fairness and honesty to understand that the purpose of this bill is to put unemployment insurance back in its true perspective. I even wonder at times if we did not go a little too far in this legislation by trying to accommodate, to please everyone, to the extent where it has lost its real purpose, that of helping those who are temporarily out of work. I say it again, we do not aim at depriving other needy citizens of what other forms of assistance may be at

their disposal. But the fact remains, and I am convinced of this, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments proposed, in addition to achieving real savings, tie in with the objectives the act should achieve, to make it easier for those who are entitled to benefits to get them while preventing those who try to take undue advantage of the act from doing so through appropriate penalties.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not meet with the approval of all categories of citizens since it affects some of them.
This legislation is the expression of a minister's feelings in an attempt to put some order in a measure that had gone beyond its objectives and had lost a little of its orientation. We are returning to a legislation that seems to me more just, more honest.
I hope hon. members will understand that since I represent a working class, I am in a position to understand the meaning of the statement I am making this evening, the importance it can have among my constituents. But I believe I am honest enough to express it very sincerely so that they will know that if I accept to vote in favour of this measure it is because I believe it will help the worker, because he is the one who pays for it, he is the one who has the right to request the government to find ways to reduce unemployment insurance costs. Often the worker says: the laws enacted by the government are not helping us. I feel this is a law that will help the worker. Clearly, there will be an extra cost but the savings made thanks to the proposed amendments may show we are going in the right direction.
To conclude, I would urge those of my constituents that might read these remarks to cooperate with us in trying to find those who rip off the program. Too often, people call our constituency offices and state they know of people receiving benefits unduly. But when asked for names, they will not say because "they wish no harm to anybody". I hope people will understand that in so doing, they would help us fulfill the true goals of the act.
People must help us, they must try and understand that we want to go in the right direction. If it turned out that the bill did not meet its aims, if it were more harm than good, I would be the first to say so. Because I belong to a party in which I am not forced to blindly accept any proposals, a party that allows me to discuss matters. We may make mistakes, but I do not believe we are making one now. We are going to pass the bill, and if it does not really help those we wish to help, I believe we should and will bring in further amendments.
For this reason, I fully support the bill. I hope that, if it does not bring the expected results, the government will introduce other amendments to make the act more efficient, more honest and more helpful to the unemployed.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to enter into the debate on this bill with regard to unemployment insurance because of the involvement I have had over the past three years with the people in my riding who wonder just what is going on in the field of unemployment insurance. We need only look at the record to see that something is certainly wrong and has been wrong because the cost of our unem-
November 4, 1975

ployment insurance scheme in Canada is now up to approximately $4 billion, which is up from $1.8 billion in 1972, or an increase of 186 per cent in the past three years.
In 1972 unemployment insurance made up 1.51 per cent of the gross national product. In 1975 we see it as 2.72 per cent of the gross national product, and when we consider that Canada, with just over 20 million people, has a cost of unemployment insurance the same as the United States with over 200 million people we begin to wonder what really is taking place.
We read in the Vancouver Province of June 19, 1975, headlines indicating that Ottawa will not compel workers to take jobs. We read that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) told the Senate Committee examining federal manpower policy that the government will not force workers to accept jobs they do not want. In a riding such as mine this sort of thing makes people very uptight, especially when they know about UIC ski teams and when they see young people walking around the cities or on the beach having a good time in the sun. They know there is 20 per cent unemployment in the Okanagan Valley, and that the mines and the lumber mills in the area cannot get enough people to work. No wonder a statement such as this makes them uptight and they write to their member of parliament.
We also hear of many abuses of the unemployment insurance scheme, and I get many complaints from my constituents. Maybe not all are legitimate but some of them are, and people are very concerned.
I think we must decide whether this should be a welfare scheme or an insurance scheme, Mr. Speaker. I submit it is really a welfare scheme. It has taught people not to work and, as a result, we are losing the work ethic in Canada.
I know that the unemployment insurance offices have people in the field trying to police the scheme, but in most cases it is the innocent who get caught. Some people have worked 20 or 30 years, have paid into the scheme, and for some reason find themselves unemployed. Then they have to fall back on unemployment insurance. These people are not experienced in beating the system and we know that those who are experienced in this sort of thing are hard to catch. The easy ones are caught and an example is made of them. Usually they are quite innocent people who do not know how to manipulate the system.
At the moment there is a post office strike and some unemployment insurance offices are open on Saturdays so that people can get their cheques. In my riding the first day they were open 45 per cent of the people did not pick up their cheques. We do not even know if they are still in the country. Why should they not pick up their cheques? This seems to suggest that a lot of people are abusing the system. They might not even be in the area or could be out working-they could even have two or three different names on the list.
The strike has taught us that we should stop mailing these cheques. People should go to the office to pick up their payment. After all, they are unemployed and should have more time than anybody else. They should be available when the payment is ready.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The Manpower offices and unemployment insurance offices should be put together, with an emphasis on Manpower. Shortly after I was elected I went into the new federal building in Kelowna to visit the Manpower office and the unemployment insurance office. The latter was on the second floor and very easy to get at, but the Manpower office was on the third floor and down a hall at the back end of the building. I think the reverse should be the rule, with the Manpower office easy to find, not the unemployment insurance office.
I should like to read a letter from one of my constituents which originally appeared in the Penticton Herald. I think it points out what I am talking about. It is headed "A Mother Pleads For Help", and reads as follows:
In a cheek out line at a local grocery store today, I was behind five husky, beautifully tanned young men who made their food purchases with food vouchers. They reminded me of construction workers with their big brown bodies-or beach bums-and I here confess, without facts, I suspected the latter. Later I watched them drive away in a late 1960 auto.
I watched too, the faces of the young female clerk and even younger packer as they put the groceries in bags and did the necessary signing of forms. When my turn came, I commented that it was unbelievable that five healthy males would need food vouchers with local orchardists begging for pickers . (My own 15 and 12 year olds are picking cherries part of a day). The clerk said it really "gets you down" when you see as many as ten some days going through her checkout alone.
So when I got home, I phoned Human Resources and asked how this was possible. The gentleman told me transients are given food vouchers of $5 only when they have proof that are going to a job. (In my cynical manner I wondered how they check up on that!!) I told the chap I was annoyed. No one minds widows and orphans, but adult healthy males are another thing. I told him of the faces and feelings of the working folk I had observed, and became more annoyed as I talked.
He finally said, "How would you feel if you had a job to go to and no money for food?" Now how, thought I, can he possibly know the total facts about a person, after an hour's interview-even days of interviewing? I am not the only one who thinks emotionally and irrationally, without knowing all the facts at times. So do trained social workers and governments who propose and pass legislation on an emotional basis.
My answer to him was fact, I believe. These young men knew yesterday that they would have to eat today. They were intelligent (to take advantage of a system) and educated; they spoke and wrote and drove a car.
And that reminded me of our recent holiday and a notice we read while deep in the Oregon mountains, where the beautiful cheeky Stellar's blue jays ate right out of our hands. It said, "Please do not feed the wild life. By doing so, you attract unusually large numbers to the area, which in turn over use and destroy their environment. The animals gradually forget to forage for themselves. The squirrels and chipmunks forget to store food. When the winter comes, they will destroy themselves. In other words, your charity can kill them."
We are not so concerned with our environment, yet here we go, disturbing and destroying our human ecology. For the saddest thing about this whole story is not what we have given to those young men, but what we are taking away from them. We have taken away their ability to face a problem and think their own way out of a dilemma. We are conditioning young people to a reliance on the state to solve problems, and this is an erosion of the individual's independence and responsibility. Again we have taken away pride and self respect, proof of which is the acceptance of charity while able to work.
But the greatest thing we have taken away from them is their "spirit," the life blood of any nation. And so sadly, and by and far, more dangerous, this same "spirit" is what I watched, fading from the faces and speech of the young clerks in the grocery store, by a system which no longer rewards healthy minds and bodies at work, but instead taxes them to death, both physically and mentally. Yes, it does "get you down." No wonder there is a tremendous increase in artificially "blotted spirits" and prescribed, or otherwise, drugs.

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
This epistle must cease. My 12 year old has just come bounding through the door, proudly announcing he earned $5 picking cherries today. Please society-you and I-let's not kill his spirit with irrational kindness.
This lady has put it very well. I might say that a tremendous number of copies of this letter to the editor were sent to me. It sets out very well what is happening in my constituency.
Unemployment insurance should be a program that helps people when going from one job to another. It should be an insurance scheme. Other members of my party have ably pointed out the salient points of this bill. Those aged 65 will no longer receive benefits. I do not know how the government rationalizes that when all that will be saved will be approximately $3 million.
I received a telephone call today from one of my constituents who is approaching the age of 65. He has paid into the unemployment insurance plan all his life. Now that he is about to retire, he will not receive any benefit. He will not receive the full Canada Pension Plan benefits because he has not been on the plan long enough. He has paid into the unemployment insurance plan and feels he should receive some benefit. Under the regulations he must be looking for a job in order to enjoy the benefits.
I had to agree with this person that there are many people who receive unemployment insurance most of the time. They only have to work for two months to receive the benefits. Even though they have to wait eight weeks, that is not much of a hardship for many of those who do not want to work. If they know how to manipulate the system they can go for a year or even better without working. They do what they know best, and that is what we are teaching them, namely, to watch work. I often say that I like work so well that I can sit and watch it all day. This man knows what is going on. He feels that be is being discriminated against. I have to agree with him as the amount that will be saved is low.
The low income worker is the one who will be hurt. The cost of it is being put on to the backs of the poor. It is not designed to save a great amount of money, to get people used to the work ethic again, or find jobs for those who are unemployed.
I do not wish to delay this debate. However, I do want to point out that I feel this is just a housekeeping bill. It will help the government solve some of its problems by putting the cost on to individuals, businessmen, and companies. There is no doubt about it, it is just another tax. It is a regressive tax. The business people and companies will not be pleased when they see what is going to happen to them. They may not understand it now, but they will certainly understand it when they see how much it is going to cost them. My friends from the NDP say-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


George H. Whittaker: I am sorry. I must explain that a Liberal member, another socialist from British Columbia, is sitting with the NDP. I thought the NDP had learned not to heckle me. I think they have learned that. Possibly this Liberal member has come over so that I will be able to hear him.
As I was saying, I do not think that the amendments in this bill will do the job that is necessary. It has taken the

Liberal government a long time to introduce it. I have been waiting three years to say something about the unemployment insurance scheme. It has taken them a long time to bring down anything we can debate.
I sincerely believe something should be done about this massive welfare-type scheme we have in Canada. A board of inquiry should be set up to determine exactly what is going on in the field. It is not easy for politicians and legislators to do this, especially when we are deeply involved in helping people almost on a daily basis as a result of the complicated way in which the scheme is run. In my opinion there ought to be a properly set up board of inquiry to find out just what is going on, and present a report so that we can make proper and necessary changes.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches made by a number of hon. members today. I get the impression-it may not be correct- that it is almost like having a free vote in the House; in our approach to the bill we tend to reflect the demography of our own constituencies. If it happens to be a highly labourintensive constituency where there is a lot of unemployment, then regardless of its geographical location we tend to reflect the specific problems of that constituency. I think this is admirable and I am not being critical.
We have heard in the House during the last few days speeches which reflect deep concern not just over Bill C-69 but over the whole approach we are making to social questions and social security. We have listened to hon. members who represent the wide open spaces in Alberta. We have listened to members who represent poor ridings, comparatively speaking, in Atlantic Canada, and we have heard them almost crossing party lines in terms of philosophy. I shall not mention any hon. member specifically but I am very impressed by this kind of scattered approach which expresses the attitudes of individual members concerned about the effects of a bill such as Bill C-69. There are extremes in this country which cross party lines.
As for myself, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of crossing either parties or party lines this evening. I happen to represent a constituency which is primarily urban, primarily labour oriented. We are not experiencing high unemployment but we do find unemployment running close to the national figure. We have been through bad times; we have seen times much worse than they are at present.
Though in terms of social philosophy unemployment insurance is both desirable and necessary I must state at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is one of the most poorly managed of all federal government agencies. I suggest without equivocation that the commission and its regional and branch offices have displayed an inordinate propensity to err, to be disrespectful toward claimants, and at times to show an almost total disregard for people's sensitivities at a time of financial crisis.
I believe the state has a moral obligation to assist those citizens who are temporarily out of work due to sickness, a lay-off, pregnancy, or any other reasonable cause. We must always bear in mind that those who claim unemployment
November 4, 1975

insurance benefit are not those who exert any real influence on our economy. It is not they who make the major decisions, or blunders, in the Ministry of Finance or in the boardrooms of our major corporations. It is not they who manipulate the economy, who cause the peaks and lows in the business cycles. It is not they who control our trade policies or the amount of money in circulation. They are the victims of "the system", not the managers or administrators of it.
One constantly hears of the big UIC rip-off. One is constantly told of the terrible waste in financial and human terms caused by unemployment insurance, that it contributes to the desire to get something for nothing and that it is anti-work oriented. In fact, Mr. Speaker, most Canadians would rather work than draw UIC benefits, as I believe hon. members who talk to their constituents at week-ends will confirm. In the second place, such benefits are not excessive.
If a family man budgets on an income of $180 a week and suddenly finds himself without a pay cheque, he is in trouble. The average Canadian family cannot last longer than three weeks without income before having to dip into savings. If the head of the family has to wait four or five weeks, he is in a state of financial crisis. When he does get his UIC cheque, the current rate of about $120 is a far cry from the $180 I mentioned before. His whole budget is upset, and debts begin to pile up. Therefore I do not subscribe to the school of thought which believes that UIC benefits are excessive or counter productive.
It is true that a small proportion of claimants deliberately take advantage of the system, but there are con artists to be found on every street corner across Canada as well as in the boardrooms of our corporations. I am not condoning their behaviour. Those guilty of abuses should be severely dealt with, but let us not condemn the concept of unemployment insurance because a very small minority abuse it.
I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 21, 1975, entitled "U.I.C Called Poor Employer in Consultant's Report: Workers are inadequately informed and motivated." The newspaper story describes the report as saying that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is a poor employer and that most employees were "defensive, negative and poorly motivated". If this report is not accurate it is certainly the impression that most claimants get on entering a UIC office to discuss a problem with the staff. I use this word in a general sense, but I am old enough to have travelled a great deal on our railway system in this country, and in my opinion many UIC employees take the old CNR attitude that the public are second class citizens, and "If you don't like the system, get lost and don't bother us."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is the CPR attitude.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: My friend says that is the CPR attitude and perhaps that is so. It is true that some people love to attack the government by verbally assaulting those civil servants closest to them, in this case UIC employees. None the less these employees should be emotionally mature enough to meet the public, even a hostile public at times.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Moreover, they should be able to give out information without adding to a series of contradictions, and without always being able to hide behind the vicissitudes of that infernal computer. It would seem that it is always the computer at fault, never the programmer.
As far as motivation is concerned, I find it difficult to understand why UIC employees are not happy in their work. They are well paid compared to private industry, they work in nice clean surroundings protected from the public by movable walls and jungles of plants, and they are usually falling all over each other because of overstaffing. What more could anyone want?


Mr. Mazankowski:: A typically socialist example.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A typically Liberal example, not socialist. The consultant's report also stated that in all the thousands of words written and spoken about the Unemployment Insurance Commission there does not appear to exist a cogent and coherent statement of the objectives and policy of the commission. Even the new act of 1971 setting up the commission fails to make a definitive statement. The act does not deal with the principles which underlie the legislative and regulatory pronouncements.
It could be this glaring weakness that has led some of the public to look upon unemployment insurance as a kind of handout or welfare program, whereas in fact it is a compulsory contributory insurance program to protect working Canadians against loss of income due to unemployment.
The report also stated that the bulk of employees are confused and uncertain about society's perception of the value of the work they are trying to do. One cause of this, I am convinced, is the breakdown in communication between the UIC and claimants as a result of having to attempt to provide personalized service in a basically computerized constructed vacuum. The result of all this, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a constant turnover of staff. Moreover, there is little commitment on the part of UIC staff to do the best they can for their clients-not their slaves but their clients-who in many cases are looked upon as mere nuisances.
It is small wonder then that the average claimant has one hell of a time getting information from his local or branch UIC office. Usually the claimant gets no information, or inaccurate information. The claimant becomes bitter and frustrated. This in turn leads to bitterness among the UIC staff. And so the situation gets worse.
There are, however, staff members who are dedicated and knowledgeable, but unfortunately most of these are not accessible to the average claimant. I would, therefore, strongly recommend that the Unemployment Insurance Commission make available properly trained staff at all levels of its operations, particularly those dealing directly with claimants. After all, this is the front line. If people are to receive not only a fair deal from the UIC but are to feel that they have received a fair deal, it is incumbent upon the Unemployment Insurance Commission to make sure that their best trained people deal with claimants or clients in a very intelligent, acceptable, and humane way.
Another aspect of the Unemployment Insurance Commission that has given me serious concern is the position,
8862

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
responsibilities, and activities of the benefit control officers, in rural areas of Canada sometimes referred to as the "local Gestapo". This group was originally set up to provide claimants with information and guidance in searching for employment. The basic responsibility to date, however, has been to ensure that payments are made to bona fide claimants. This has led to all kinds of problems.
Benefit control officers, by and large, seem to have adopted the attitude that most claimants are guilty unless they can prove otherwise. For example, a claimant goes to a UIC office for what is called an interview with a benefit control officer, but for what is really a very subtle interrogation. The benefit control officer asks all kinds of leading questions and then summarizes his findings in the form of a statement in his own words. Claimants are not warned of the impact the statement will have. Moreover, a person in some cases is being asked to incriminate himself, something which runs counter to our basic concept of the common law.
Often the benefit control officer's report does not reflect the interview but, rather, his interpretation of the interview. It is also interesting to note that in 1972 and 1973 many retired policemen were hired as benefit control officers. That, by implication, speaks for itself.
Benefit control officers for the most part do not assist in directing claimants to job opportunities, which was the original reason they were engaged as members of the staff of UIC offices. They are really just "cops" chasing "crooks". As a result of this situation, I recommend that claimants be accompanied by representatives during all interviews and that claimants also be told before the interview the full meaning, impact, and consequences of the interview. Claimants should simply not be forced to sign interpretative statements of a self-incriminating nature.
I made reference a few moments ago to con artists. There are some slick operators but very few people who know how to handle benefit control officers. I have personally talked over the telephone, as well as in person, to middle aged men and women not too well versed in the English language who have had interviews with benefit control officers. The benefit control officer says to them, "You understand what you are reading?" If they say no, he reads it to them. Many of these people come from Europe, and they sign their names to the statement. These people then come to my office on a Saturday morning or afternoon and I ask them whether the statement is really what they said. Or they have a friend knowledgeable of the English language, and when they get talking together they say it is not exactly what they said but that is what they were made to sign.
I am not saying that the benefit control officer said, "Thou shalt sign or go to jail", but the impression was at least left with these people that if they did not sign they would be in trouble. We have to look at this sort of thing very carefully. I realize that a few people are taking advantage of the UIC system, but there are also a lot of innocent people being led down the garden path.
I should like to suggest some other changes that I think should be introduced at this time to eliminate not only hardship but bad feeling on the part of many claimants. I have never been able to understand why the so-called normal or regular waiting period after termination of earn-

ings must be two weeks. I am now talking about a regular or a maternity claim, not a sickness benefit claim. Surely in this computerized age one week would be sufficient. I do not understand why the waiting period has to drag on for two weeks, and then a claiment has to wait another two or three weeks afterwards.
Another aspect of the Unemployment Insurance Act which has not been altered relates to severance and vacation pay, and I think this is an injustice particularly to those in the construction industry. As hon. members know, vacation and severance pay are work credits earned during the claimant's employment, not when he is unemployed, and this money should not be classified as earnings after layoff. That simply is not fair. The construction trades in particular are badly hit. Most of this work is seasonal and subject to many layoffs. Since that is usually when they begin looking for new work, they are caught in the vicious circle of not having a vacation and having their vacation credits wiped out by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Surely a more equitable and reasonable system can be worked out.
Another source of problems is the artificial division that took place some ten years ago, and this has been mentioned by other hon. members, when the old National Employment Service was separated into the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Canada Manpower. I suggest this arbitrary division has, for the most part, weakened the function of both agencies.
On the one hand the Unemployment Insurance Commission, in close consultation with claimants, is unable to place the claimant and tends to become punitive in its approach if the claimant remains unemployed for any length of time. On the other hand, Canada Manpower, though it often fails to find employment for its clients on UIC benefits, acts as a spy, surreptitiously passing on information to unemployment insurance officials, or benefit control officers, for punitive action by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This situation obviously gives both agencies a very poor image in the community. This specific kind of relationship is also highly questionable and unfair.
Quite frankly I have found very few employers or employees who are satisfied with the present division between Canada Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In fact I have not found very many employers or employees who have any use for Canada Manpower at all, but that is beyond the purview of this act.
Another aspect of this lack of fairness stems from the fact that the unemployment insurance offices receive information from Canada Manpower that "X" number of jobs are available in any given community. The Unemployment Insurance Commission then uses this information to disqualify claimants even though the UIC really has no idea where the jobs are, or what type of jobs are available. I recommend that the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Canada Manpower stop living common law and get married, or get married again.
I would now like to look at some of the proposed amendments introduced by the minister at first reading in July, and about which he spoke last week. I disagree completely
November 4, 1975

with the extension of the penalty period from three weeks to six weeks. That arbitrary extension results in an eight-week waiting period for those who quit employment voluntarily without just cause, and for those who refuse suitable employment, or who are dismissed for misconduct.
Just how is one to define "just cause" and "suitable employment"? This amendment could, and in many cases probably will, turn benefit control and insurance officers into petty local tyrants. There are many valid reasons why people leave employment voluntarily. There are also many valid reasons why people must refuse a specific job. What will be the yardstick, and what will be the criteria?
It is fair to say that most employees are pretty reasonable people, but you will always find personality clashes and conflicts in large plants, and even in small plants, between a worker and a foreman or, in a construction gang, between a labourer and a straw boss. If this conflict is of a personal nature the employee is at the mercy of the straw boss, the foreman, or the superintendent, and under the terms of this amendment he is in real trouble. If the job has become intolerable for him on a personal basis, let alone because of working conditions, what alternative does he have? He either sits back and takes it from the foreman or the employer, if that employer is not a reasonable man or woman, or he quits and is then penalized to the extent of six weeks instead of three, with another two weeks added, making it a total of eight weeks. This almost goes back to some of the old sweatshop days of years ago.
Let us not forget that 250,000 annual voluntary quits in the labour force represents only 2.5 per cent of the work force, and that 26,000 job refusals represents only two-tenths of 1 per cent of the labour force. This is certainly not "alarmingly high", as the minister suggested in his speech. The minister should know there are thousands of jobs today which are repugnant to most Canadians. Even he and his army of civil servants who drafted this legislation would find them unacceptable.
I realize that in some cases where a person is laid off and there is a job available, and if the individual is able to do that job, then that person should go back to work until something better comes along. However, when you have unemployment running at the rate of 7.2 per cent nationally, and from 15 per cent to 18 per cent in Atlantic Canada and in other parts, it is one thing to say you should go back to work and it is an entirely different thing to find a job in those parts of Canada.
Let us remember that this is a federal House of Commons. This is not the Alberta House, the British Columbia House, the Saskatchewan or Ontario House, this is the federal House. We are enacting federal legislation here and we are not just talking about those beautiful and wide open spaces of Alberta which I love. We are talking about heavily congested cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax and so on. We are talking about the mining cities on Cape Breton Island. This is a federal House so let us not be too parochial in discussing a bill that affects all Canadians.
I would now like to look at the formula for financing the unemployment insurance program introduced in this bill. The minister said:
-it is now time to face practical needs for adjusting the application of
Unemployment Insurance Act
the financing methods and to bring them in line with current economic reality.
What is current economic reality? It is that since 1971 and the last amendments, or in fact since the new bill of June, 1971, the rate of unemployment has fallen below 5 per cent for only one month. The average since then has been 6.4 per cent in 1972, 6.3 per cent in 1973, 5.6 per cent in 1974, and at least 7 per cent this year.
The government by this amendment will face the practical needs not by reducing unemployment but by shunning its responsibilities, and making those who work pay for its bungling. In 1971 a threshold of 4 per cent unemployment was set as the level above which the government would assume the additional costs of UIC benefits. This would give the government incentive to fight unemployment. As we all know, this incentive was not good enough; now we find that the government has had to bear great financial responsibility for its lack of initiative and lack of ability to create enough jobs for enough people to reduce unemployment to acceptable levels.
The amendment would allow the benchmark to be adjusted each year on the basis of monthly unemployment rates over the last eight years. Extra costs would thus be borne by individuals.
High levels of unemployment have meant big payouts from UIC funds. Granted, this is not acceptable, but why should the working people of this country take the blame for it, for that is what this amendment virtually does? It is estimated that if unemployment reaches 7.6 per cent in 1976, as some predict, payments may reach $5 billion. What happens, for instance, if the anti-inflation program, so-called, drives unemployment up, as I am quite sure it will? Again it will be those least responsible who will have to bear the added cost through increased premiums.
What is probably most disturbing about this amendment is that the Liberals have said in effect that "normal unemployment" will now be considered to be 5.3 per cent, the average of the last eight years. Premiums will rise from approximately $1.40 per $100 insurable income to $1.60 or $1.70 per $100. However, and this is crucial, there is a ceiling on contributions. Thus, the UIC premium represents a bigger proportion of the income of lower paid workers than of higher paid workers. In effect this is another tax imposed on those on lower incomes. This is really what it amounts to, and those at the bottom pay a higher proportion of their insurable earnings for unemployment insurance.
I understand that my time is running out, Madam Speaker. When it comes to unemployment insurance, after being involved in it for four and one-half years I have come to the conclusion that these amendments-will really not amount to a hill of beans on the positive side, and on the negative side will make things worse for the lower paid employees. I call upon the minister to think a second time, and I call upon the members of the committee to whom this bill will be going to bring in meaningful amendments so that we will have some fairness and equity in respect of these amendments that will be commensurate with the needs, the demands, and ability to pay of the average Canadian.
29956 - 914

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


Robert Jardine McCleave: Madam Speaker, as is the case with other members, over the last few years I have dealt with hundreds of cases involving unemployment insurance claims. Perhaps the most interesting was a claim that was turned down on the grounds of a pregnancy. It is interesting that this happened in such a place as Halifax-East Hants. Not since Adam gave birth to Eve has any man been pregnant, and yet this claimant was turned down on the ground of his pregnancy. There was no discrimination involved. The fact simply is that the young lady who punched the computer machine got the figure transposed.
After six days of debate I do not intend to cover a very wide range, but instead would like to bring to the attention of the House and the minister what I believe to be a discrimination against a small group of working people in Canada. These are Americans who have come to this country, have obtained work and have paid unemployment insurance premiums. Then, as happens in certain cases, they are not able to have their work permits renewed. The specific case I think of, occurred in respect of a young woman, a secretary at St. Mary's University in Halifax.
This young woman was supporting her husband who had come to this country as a student. He was also an American. Things went well until suddenly this summer she was refused an extension of her work permit. When she phoned the unemployment insurance office she was told she had made enough contributions to qualify for payments for a certain number of weeks, but when she went to collect it was a different story. She found that the payments were refused because she was not in a position to say she was available for work.
Physically she was available for work, and if a job had been offered and she had been in a position to take it she would have been working. But she had to advise the unemployment insurance office that she could not work because she did not have a permit to work in Canada. Here I believe we have an example of a very strict ruling being made. This woman was refused unemployment insurance payments because, although she had made all the necessary payments into the fund and her employer had as well, she could not obtain a permit to work.
This is the type of injustice I wish to bring as forcibly as I can to the attention of the minister. I hope the minister, when he appears before the committee and examines this case, will determine whether there is a remedy. I should like to say to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), and to the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission who read these proceedings, that it is possible that the ruling made against this American woman in Halifax was a local ruling, and was inspired by some Philadelphia lawyer who had temporarily taken up residence in Halifax and had construed the law in a very strict and discriminatory sense. He went by the strict letter of the law, rather than by the intent of parliament or by anything that would represent common sense.
It is possible that the person advising the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in Halifax made a very strict and wrongful interpretation of the law which would not apply in other parts of Canada. If this is the case and the minister so advises me, I will give him the name of the young woman. She has now returned to the United States.

Perhaps they could send her at least her payments, or the money she paid into the unemployment insurance fund in good faith.
That is one way of looking at it. It may just have been a local error. If it is not, may I suggest two approaches to the minister. The first is that the young woman in her predicament be treated exactly the same as a person in the final year of work before going out on pension or retirement, that is, if she is over age 65 she cannot collect. Surely some method will have to be found so that those people do not have to pay into the unemployment insurance fund. After all, it is an insurance fund and one should pay in only if there is a reasonable probability that, certain circumstances having happened, one would receive payment or compensation for what he or she is trying to insure against. That is one aspect of it.
The other is that if the Department of Manpower is to give work permits to Americans and force them to pay into the unemployment insurance fund, then I think simple justice requires that if those people are put out of work through no fault of their own but through the fault of a change in government policy in Canada, they should receive unemployment insurance payments. I think that would have been the just result in respect of this young woman of whom I speak this evening. There it is. I hope the minister and the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission will put their heads together and come up with a solution to achieve justice for a small but important class of people.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, I am pleased tonight to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I come from the province of Alberta, where there are not that many people unemployed. In fact often we are looking for skilled and unskilled people to help us out in the agricultural and energy fields. However, I have a number of problems, just as other members have, which I should like to take the opportunity tonight to bring to the attention of the House and the minister.
Many of my colleagues have spoken and have very clearly outlined many of the criticisms that can be levelled at the unemployment insurance bill. I do not mean to repeat what has been said because these criticisms have been very well set out. I am concerned about some of the measures that are being proposed, especially those aimed at the so-called low-income claimants and people over 65 years of age. Several positive and constructive suggestions have been brought forward. I hope the minister will look at them with a favourable eye and, as well, will look at some of the constituency problems that bother a great many of us constantly and which should be solved by some adequate amendments to the act.
Before discussing certain aspects of the bill I should like to pinpoint another problem which is of great concern to me. As I travel through my riding, and even throughout Canada, I come across a great many people who are discouraged with the Unemployment Insurance Act. They constantly say it is really only another welfare program. This concerns me because unemployment insurance is insurance against unemployment, and we should have an act which pertains to that element only. I should like to see
November 4, 1975

changes made so that we really do have a program of unemployment insurance that can stand on its own feet.
Assuming that the concept behind this program is insurance against unemployment, I should like to examine the situation which was described many times before but which I think bears repetition and which occurs in rural ridings. My riding of Westaskiwin is essentially rural. It contains some 30 to 40 communities numbering from around 600 people to around 5,000 people each. People working in these areas pay unemployment insurance, yet when they apply for unemployment insurance benefits when they lose their jobs they find they are often disentitled because of the so called distance rules. Let me give some examples.
I have had many complaints from communities in the Drayton Valley and Winfield areas in my constituency, some 85 miles from Edmonton. A man living in this area who becomes unemployed and applies for unemployment insurance often cannot find another job in that area, and if he does not state that he will take a job in Edmonton, 85 miles away and 170 miles round trip, he is disentitled. The commission justifies its decision by claiming that the individual concerned has limited himself to seeking work in an area where no opportunities for employment exist. And we call this an unemployment insurance program!
I would suggest to the minister that perhaps we could amend the act so that it would place a limit on the mile radius within which employment could be sought, say, for example 40 or 50 miles which would be the outside distance within which an individual must travel to work. If he cannot find a job within that area and if the only job for him is available some 100 or 200 miles away, some assistance should be given to that man in order to enable him to move himself and his family to another location nearer his work. This is important, and it is a matter which many hon. members representing rural ridings have been bringing up time and time again. It appears that there is certainly a problem here.
I am a member of parliament who perhaps does not have as many people calling me about unemployment insurance problems as do a great many of my colleagues, and I feel I am fortunate because in my riding a great many people can find work because they are close to the city of Edmonton. But there is the periphery area to which I referred which is having problems with the commission.
Another complaint that I receive fairly often is from a person who receives unemployment insurance while he is actively attempting to find work and, for some reason or another, finds he has been disentitled and then is asked to pay back in a lump sum what he has received. I agree that mistakes can be made, but it would seem fair for some type of payment program to be worked out so that this person is enabled to pay back the unemployment insurance which has been overpaid.
I have had cases of people who, three weeks after they had paid back the money to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, were told there was a mistake, that they were entitled to the benefit, and were then put back on unemployment insurance. This is a serious administrative problem, and I think it could be corrected and the matter dealt with in a more humane manner in cases where a person is paid more than is justified and then is disentitled.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I have another problem which occurs in my riding and which I would like the minister to consider because it is one that causes me a great deal of concern. The town of Ponoka and the surrounding area are some 75 miles from Edmonton and 110 miles from Calgary, yet the way the boundaries are divided the people in Ponoka who have legitimate complaints against the Unemployment Insurance Commission must travel to Calgary to have their cases dealt with there. They are closer to Edmonton and they cannot understand why they have to go in the other direction to have their problems solved. I think this could be changed easily. It is a complaint that I would like to get off my chest. I see the minister nodding his head and I am happy about that.
I want to emphasize a point that has been made by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) and, I am sure, by other hon. members, regarding the fact that unemployment insurance and Manpower should be reunited. In Edmonton the Unemployment Insurance Commission is located in one building, and across the town, some 10 or 15 blocks away, the Manpower office is located. Perhaps it would be possible to have one file for every individual and in this way a great many of the problems and discrepancies could be solved.
In the rural constituencies many jobs are available on a seasonal basis, sometimes for only two or three weeks. Any one who has run a farm, a ranch, or a small business knows that many times in the year he could employ a person for a short period of time. At the present time an individual who is collecting unemployment insurance benefits and who is offered short-term work, say, for example, on a farm during the harvest season or in a small business, will not accept such employment because he knows that if it is for less than eight weeks he will subsequently be unable to claim unemployment insurance.
However, if one file were kept on a person, it might be possible for him to accept short-term work provided he is all the while, even while employed, actively seeking a permanent job. This type of incentive could be built into the act, and if the Manpower department and the Unemployment Insurance Commission were amalgamated the problem would be largely solved. It is a complaint that comes to me many times from rural areas where farmers cannot give a job to people who are on unemployment insurance or on welfare to help them out for a few weeks because of the fact that they would lose their benefits.
I realize that the argument has been put forward many times that we should ask a claimant to work for six weeks before he is entitled to benefits. At present the act says that he must work for eight weeks before being entitled, so the suggestion I am making would not fit in here, but I think it would be possible if that individual had one file for the two departments.
Now I would like to deal briefly with the amendments that have been proposed. It seems to me that we are spending a great deal of money on unemployment insurance. We should want to tighten up the regulations so that it is in fact an insurance program and so that we are not spending so much money on it, when really we should be finding employment for these people. When I look at the amendments I really do not see how we will accomplish that.

November 4, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
We are estimating that we will cut people who are over 65, and who are unemployed off unemployment insurance benefits. This will affect approximately 5,000 senior citizens. It is a minute group. It has been stated that this will only amount to a saving of $2 million or $3 million, and I am not sure that we are saving it on the backs of the right people. If these people want to work after they lose their jobs and are actively seeking employment, they should be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
The so-called reform directed at low income recipients will severely hit individuals in that group who have dependants. No differentiation is being made between people having different needs or different ascribed circumstances. Under the 75 per cent benefit rate individuals in this group could receive a maximum of $46.26. At the 66% per cent rate they will receive a maximum of $41.07. The intent of the proposal is therefore to achieve restraint by denying $5 per week to those who are unemployed and who are in the most need of financial assistance.
Before I conclude I wish to make one more point. This matter comes to mind often when we speak of unemployment insurance. It is about seasonal employees who make a great deal of money in a short time. There are many in Canada today who are employed in the construction business or in oil fields. There are many examples I could use, but these people earn $10,000, $12,000, $13,000, $20,000 in six, seven or eight months of the year. They are still eligible for unemployment insurance, and I think it would be easier for us to amend the act to make it necessary for a claimant to state the amount he has earned in a particular year. If it is over a certain figure he should be unable to collect unemployment insurance.
I think it would greatly help the people of Canada who are working and paying unemployment insurance to feel that the program is doing something for those who really need insurance against unemployment.
I hope the minister will be open to suggestions in the committee from all parties in order to tighten up this bill and make it an insurance program, and I know we will be helping him in any way we can.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker, before dealing in a general way with the bill I should like to go into some of these amendments in some detail. I am glad to see that the minister is here.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: He is here all the time.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Well, most of the time. I must say that I am not one who is totally at odds with the amendments which have been introduced in the bill.


Miss Campbell:: Let's pass it then.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The amendments themselves are a mixed bag, and if I have any criticism of the bill it is not as much in the amendments we are dealing with as in the fact that certain matters have not been changed by this bill at all. In other words, it is not what has been done in these amendments, it is what the minister has failed to change which bothers me.

One of the complaints I receive from claimants and from the general public deals with the question of the minor attachment provision in the bill which allows an initial benefit period and then a re-establishment period. One of the problems here is that to the mind of the average claimant it is extremely difficult to figure out which benefit period he is in. I should think that no one except some re-established bureaucrat would understand what a reestablished claim is. The program should be made more simple and meaningful for the claimant, as well as lawyers, union representatives, and all the professionals who become involved in this program so intensively, and to some extent further complicate the program.
In my view the minor attachment provision is a complicated factor. I suggest to the minister that he give consideration to there being only one attachment period, a major period, but the amount of work a person has to put in in order to establish himself for benefits should be reduced.
The idea of two sections is counter productive in terms of incentive for those seeking employment. Let me give an example of someone who is on a minor attachment, and who is then laid off. If he takes a new job for less than six weeks he does not go back on benefits because he has not re-established himself under the provisions of this act. The difficulty is that a claimant who does not re-establish himself has no incentive to take anything but a permanent job. If he goes back to a job which looks as though it could be for less than six weeks, there is a tremendous temptation-although it is a violation of the act-on the part of that claimant not to take the job because he will destroy the prospect of future benefits under the program. It seems to me that serious consideration should be given by the minister to the question of the minor attachment.
There is another aspect with regard to the minor attachment which bothers me, and that is that eight weeks of employment qualify those who are at achool for unemployment insurance. The student returns to a full time study program at a university or high school, and there are now a number of examples of people making claims on the ground that they can qualify by saying that they will be available for employment. They say that they are seeking employment and that therefore, their education is a temporary thing.


Robert Knight Andras: Pretty tough to get away with that one.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Some have.


Robert Knight Andras: Let me know their names.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Perhaps we should have a look at how they have done it, but they have been on claim. In fact, my daughter told me that she was going to go on unemployment insurance, and she is a high school student.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I told her that there was no way she would go on unemployment insurance.


An hon. Member:: I didn't know she was that old.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Oh, yes, but of course she did not go on unemployment insurance. When I look at the act I have a
November 4, 1975

strong suspicion that she could attempt to qualify herself on the ground that she had intended to leave her education for permanent employment, and as soon as she found it she could leave, and therefore she would be available for work even though attending an institution full time.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Did you advise her?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I advised her not to go on unemployment insurance.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, on Monday, October 20, four days before it happened, I raised a question in this House concerning the pending lay-off of CPR employees at the Weston shops in Winnipeg. On that occasion I put the question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), but in all frankness he told me that he had nothing to report. The lay-off actually took place that Friday evening, October 24, and my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) and I were at a meeting of a couple of hundred of those employees in Winnipeg on Sunday, October 26.
I raised the question again on Monday, October 27. On that occasion I put my question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I notice his parliamentary secretary is here tonight. I had hoped from the conversation I had with the Minister of Labour yesterday that he would be here, for he assured me that he regarded this as a serious question. If the parliamentary secretary is answering for him I hope he has an answer worthy of the minister.
The situation is a serious one. Some 760 workers in the CPR shops at Winnipeg were laid off on Friday night, October 24, for what could well be an indefinite period, and this at a time when we are being told that our railway equipment needs to be modernized, We get questions in the House such as the questions that came today about the lack of sufficient equipment to move stock in western Canada. On all counts it seems to us to make no sense at all to lay off railway workers at this time.
Some of us feel it is part of a squeeze play at which the CPR has been a past master for a great many decades. There are railway wage negotiations coming up. It looks to some of us as though the CPR is laying off employees in the hope it will have a case against a wage increase that is worth anything at all.
There are rumours or expectations that we will soon have the report of Dr. Noel Hall on railway pensions. I trust it will make recommendations for substantial
Adjournment Debate
improvements. No doubt the CPR is ready to say no before its officials even see the report. It is well known that the CPR is forever putting pressure on the government to provide it with money. I suppose it is not to be blamed for that because it has been getting money, land, mineral rights, and things like that from this country for a good many decades.
It is precisely because of what the CPR has got out of this country that we feel it has an obligation to provide proper and adequate railway service and that it has an obligation to play its part in maintaining our economy at a decent level.
A corporation like the CPR is not doing that when it lays off employees to the tune of 760, as happened in Winnipeg recently. I believe this may have happened, although not to the same extent, in Calgary and other cities in Canada and even to some extent in Montreal. My plea to the minister was that he indicate to the House what the government is going to do about this matter.
I started by indicating a couple of dates, namely, October 20 when I first raised the matter in the House this fall-we have in fact been raising it for months-and October 27 when I raised it again. Between those two dates the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Labour were both at Winnipeg. They were met there by these employees who were about to be laid off and both of them assured the workers that they would look into the case to see what could be done. When I put that in as part of my question to the Minister of Labour on Monday, October 17, he agreed that what I said was correct, that he and the Prime Minister had met these men and had assured them they would see what could be done. They are still waiting for a reply.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Leblanc) can tell the House that the minister has taken up this matter with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, and that the cabinet as a whole has become aware of the seriousness of the situation, and that he has something to say tonight that will be more hopeful news to these CPR employees at Winnipeg than the unemployment they are suffering at the present time.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, first it is important to reassure the hon. member and tell him that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) is very much aware of the vital problem he has raised with his usual competence, and that he is quite concerned about the future of those CPR employees. For that reason, the minister has immediately set up a group of senior civil servants, as the Prime Minister himself had promised the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This group includes representatives from the Departments of Labour, Manpower and Immigration and Transport; it has undertaken a comprehensive study of that problem.
The group already met on Friday October 31, 1975, and is to meet again tomorrow Wednesday, November 5, 1975, as well as in the near future, as required. There is no doubt that the Minister of Labour will inform the hon. member and the House of the solutions recommended by this group of senior civil servants from the three departments mentioned.

November 4, 1975
Adjournment Debate

It is important to note that CP Rail have given written notice to each individual concerning the lay-off and have advised the minister of Labour accordingly. In all cases the employees have received lay-off notice in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement. Such terms, of course, provide for the lay-off of the person with the least seniority.
At one time the unions had alleged that CP Rail was in violation of the lay-off notice provisions in the Canada Labour Code. When this alleged violation was reported, officials of the Department of Labour met with the respective union leaders and it was ascertained that no violation of the lay-off notice provisions of the Canada Labour Code had taken place.

The minister apologizes for not being present tonight. As for the question of knowing whether the CPR is responsible for the dismissals, I cannot discuss it for the time being because I do not know all the circumstances surrounding them.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-ALLEGED SCRAPPING OF FREIGHT CARS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), on October 29 I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with regard to lay-offs that had taken place several days earlier of some 760 CPR employees.
My colleague and I had raised this question a number of times earlier in the year because of the rumours and warnings of the lay-off of a substantial number of people with fairly long service. That is a large lay-off for one city. On each occasion that we raised this matter we were told by the minister that, first, he had no direct control over CPR and, second, that we had his assurance he would look into the question.
When it became obvious that more than 700 people had been given virtually permanent notice that they would no longer be employed by CPR, I started to look into the matter more intensively. It became obvious that the lay-off to a large extent was due to the CPR using hopper cars built on the order of and paid for by the Government of Canada. Because of the use of these hopper cars to move grain from western Canada to Thunder Bay or Vancouver, freight cars that had traditionally been used by the CPR were no longer being used.
It seems strange to me that the CP should be laying off several thousand people across the country while CN has laid off virtually nobody. This has been confirmed for me. As I say, it seems strange, since each railway carries about half of the grain which is transported.
The second question to which I addressed myself was whether in fact the government had made any arrangements when it decided to purchase hopper cars for use by both railways in moving grain-whether the government

had had any discussions with the railways and the Wheat Board as to who should own the cars, who should be responsible for their maintenance, and whether the railways had been asked to give any commitment that the hopper cars used to move grain would be in addition to the freight cars used until then. I found that not only had there been such discussions but that questions had been asked and that the minister then responsible for the Wheat Board has answered them in a positive fashion. I refer to a question put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on May 29, 1972, by the former member for Regina East. The exchange was as follows:


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Can the minister indicate what assurances have been given by the railways that they will maintain their present quantity of rolling stock engaged in grain movement-


Otto Emil Lang: It would be very much the purpose and intention of the government to make sure that the hopper cars put into use in this fashion are additional to other rolling stock made available for the movement of grain.
Then the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked a supplementary question:
Am I to infer from the minister's answer that to date, at least, the railways have given no commitment that these hopper cars will be in addition to existing equipment and that the equipment now in use will be maintained?
To which the minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quite incorrect in thinking that. The railways have had very firm discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board on the amount of rolling stock they have available which is to be dedicated to grain. These 2,000 hopper cars will be additional to that rolling stock.
We find now that this agreement has not been lived up to. Of course there is a reduction in the amount of freight which CP is moving, but the CP is destroying up to ten boxcars a day, many of them in very good condition. I say that the CP, unlike the CN, has not lived up to its agreement with the Government of Canada and I call on the minister to take action to ensure that the CP ceases this wanton destruction of very useful equipment which it is scrapping simply because it suits it to use the hopper cars and not to use the equipment it promised the minister it would continue to use. It is because of this misuse of authority that 750 people have been laid off. I think the minister could, and should, take action.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in 1974 when there was a serious shortage of grain cars the federal government agreed to pay part of the cost of upgrading and repairing of, I believe, 2,400 cars for grain service. This aid was given on the understanding, contained in the agreement, that the removal of regular cars could not be accelerated. The agreement is being adhered to by both railway companies. I am informed by CP that of the cars affected by this agreement only two have been scrapped- they had both been involved in major accidents and repairs in each case would have been extremely uneconomical.
The hon. member referred specifically to a problem in Winnipeg. CP Rail does not scrap cars which are in good condition. He referred to the situation involving the purchase of hopper cars. Of course the justification purchase by the government of some 4,000 new hopper cars, now being delivered, was largely based on the inability of the railways to provide capital for hopper car replacement.
November 4, 1975

I have been assured by Canadian Pacific that the scrapping program for boxcars in Winnipeg has involved basically boxcars 35 years of age or more and which are requiring extensive maintenance. It is more economical to take them out of service than to maintain them with constant and expensive repairs. This is the normal program that is also being pursued by Canadian National.
With respect to the matter of lay-offs, I know the hon. member will have heard the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Leblanc) indicating our concern for the problem and our present attention to it. As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) pointed out to the hon. member in his reply earlier in the House, the lay-off situation affecting the railways is in part due to the slowdown in the economy and a resultant modification in the use of cars. This sometimes means fewer maintenance forces to keep the fleet operative. The railways are forced to lay off where services are no longer required. It is apparent that the situation is a difficult one, but even under present circumstances the railways are able to satisfy the unusually high target for grain movement that they have been set this year by the Canadian Wheat Board.


OLYMPIC GAMES-LIMITATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS TO QUEBEC COMPANIES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to debate, not for the first time, a question pertaining to fair play for all Canadians. On October 28 I asked a simple question of the government House leader in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. I asked if the government planned to investigate the allegations that only firms having their principal place of business in Quebec were allowed to bid on projects at the Olympic site in Montreal. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) replied that the government did not have administrative responsibility for the Olympic projects.
That answer is unacceptable, Madam Speaker, both to me and to the Canadian people. When the Olympic financing bill was before the federal parliament this House passed a bill allowing the federal government to advance a considerable amount of money from the federal treasury to enable COJO, the Olympic organizing committee, to get started. That same bill authorized the post office to issue a continuing series of Olympic stamps. Part of the proceeds from the sale of those stamps has been turned over to COJO. The bill also authorized the Royal Canadian Mint to strike seven sets of Olympic coins. Part of the proceeds from the sale of these Olympic coins is also turned over to COJO, and I might add that these stamps and coins are sold in every province of Canada and the two territories.
Moreover, there is an Olympic lottery in operation, where for $10 Canadians in all parts of the land can take a chance on becoming an instant millionaire. Here too, the tickets on the lottery are sold everywhere in Canada, not just in Montreal, and not just in the province of Quebec.
The mayor of Montreal tells us on frequent occasions that the sale of stamps and coins and Olympic lottery tickets will cover the cost of the Olympics, and that this will not be a repeat of the 1967 world's fair in Montreal
Adjournment Debate
when the Canadian people picked up the deficit for the fair. Madam Speaker, I do not believe this.
We know already that the 1976 Olympics will incur an enormous deficit, and we have already heard figures of the deficit that run as high as half a billion dollars. Be that as it may, Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Canadian people have been sold a bill of goods, that Canada is the host of the 1976 Olympics, and that the cost of the games should be borne by all Canadians.
Let us pursue the matter of the Canadian Olympic Games a step further and take up the question of security. We are told that several thousand men and women from the Canadian armed forces will be assigned to the Olympic site in Montreal and to other areas as part of the security arrangements for the games. In addition, the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General's department will be involved in security for the games, including the assigning of thousands more people from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the immigration service.
It begins to look as though the tail is certainly wagging the dog in the matter of the games, if in fact the federal government is not in any way involved in the administration of them. As I mentioned earlier, I do not accept that as the truth, nor do the rest of the people of Canada who are paying the cost of the 1976 extravaganza.
In spite of the fact that the province of Quebec changed the name of its provincial legislature to the national assembly, it is no less a province of Canada than is Ontario, and Quebec is no more a sovereign state than the province of Ontario. If Quebec is a sovereign state, Madam Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can tell us how any foreign state can enter into international agreements that involve the armed forces of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Canadian Mint, the Canadian Post Office, or strike-bound, rather what is left of it, and the other federal departments that are presently involved in the 1976 Olympic Games in one way or another.
The tendering regulations employed by COJO were not drawn up by that corporation. They are provincial regulations, and that means that the province of Quebec does not recognize the right of companies having their main offices in Ontario or other provinces to pour cement at the Olympic site, or to sell furniture to the games committee, or to have any meaningful, gainful part to play in the construction or outfitting of the Olympic facilities.
In other words, we are expected to pay for the Games and we are encouraged to help pay for the Games not only by the Olympic Games committee, the province of Quebec, and the city of Montreal, but by the federal government. However, we in other provinces should not expect to be allowed to bid on any Olympic projects. Bidding is restricted to companies having their principal place of business in the province of Quebec, and we are told that this is right and proper since the federal government is not responsible for the administration of the Games. This is the Trudeau just society. This attitude on the part of the federal government cannot be condoned.
We are entitled to a better answer than the one offered by the government House leader. This "hands off" attitude
8870

November 4, 1975
Adjournment Debate
was reflected in the federal government's refusal to convene a full-scale investigation into the allegations of fraud in the letting of contracts for the first phase of construction at the Olympic site. I ask, in the name of my constituents, how long does the federal government intend to keep silent on the appalling mismanagement of the Olympic Games administration?
The matter of discrimination against Canadian contractors and suppliers outside Quebec by the Olympic Games committee is only a part of the broad question of mismanagement of the Olympic Games administration, and I suggest that the federal government cannot get off the hook simply by stating that it is not responsible for the administration of the Games.
When we debated the Olympic financing bill we were told by members on all sides of the House that the 1976 Olympic Games would be a sort of catalyst to draw Canadians closer together, sharing the burden of getting the games site ready and sharing in the honour and glory of the best Olympic Games ever. Because of the administration of the Olympic Games it has had the opposite effect. It has had a divisive effect, fed by the greed of Quebec contractors and suppliers, the deceptive impostures of Liberalism, and by the high and mighty attitude of COJO officials and political figures in the province. I am asking for a more suitable answer to my question of October 28, Madam Speaker, and I will continue repeating my question until I do get a plausible answer to this enigma
which deprives the majority of Canadian contractors of their basic rights.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked questions in this House relating to which firms are being invited to bid on construction contracts at the Olympic site in Montreal. On October 28 the Acting Prime Minister, (Mr. Sharp) stated that the federal government does not have administrative responsibility for the Olympic projects.
Furthermore, in answer to questions from members of this House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has restated the position of the federal government, in that it would not pick up any possible deficit on the Olympic Games, and that the federal government has not been asked to do so by either the province of Quebec or the city of Montreal. We, therefore, have no involvement in these construction activities.
Construction on the Olympic site is the responsibility of the city of Montreal. It is the city which is responsible for the tender calls and the allocation of contracts which are monitored by the province of Quebec.
It is true, I might add, that aid has been extended to the Games through legislation of this House relating to the stamp program, the Olympic coins program, and others, but the terms of that legislation do not permit the Government of Canada to supervise or intervene in the process of tendering on the Olympic site.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, November 5, 1975