1975-12-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning Canada's consistent worsening relations with the United States and arising particularly concerning the statement made during the weekend by U.S. Ambassador William Porter with regard to the necessity of something being done about this unfortunate situation. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the House regrets the necessity of United States Ambassador William Porter having to draw attention to the deterioration in relations between our two countries; that the House regrets the anti-American statements made by the Prime Minister on such occasions as his visit to the Soviet Union and also on return from his last visit to the United States; that the House further regrets certain of the government's anti-American policies and, finally, the House requests immediate steps be taken to improve relations with our closest neighbour and largest trading partner by putting an end to our present foreign policy toward the United States, dominated by Ivan Head and the Prime Minister's office, and by placing it more properly under the direction of the entire cabinet and in the hands of a competent Secretary of State for External Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which arises from the tragic loss of life which occurred last Friday at a level crossing in Scarborough. In view of the fact that metro Toronto has requested the grade separation at three particularly hazardous crossings as long ago as last February, and despite
repeated prodding no action whatever seems to have been taken by the Canadian Transport Commission or the Ministry of Transport to approve the applications which, if carried out, would have prevented this tragic accident, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the government to ensure that a full inquiry be made into the circumstances of the accident, in particular as to delay in providing for the construction of grade separation projects, to speed up the procedures and to provide the necessary funds so as to proceed with meeting such requests with a due sense of urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the constant devaluation of the purchasing power increasingly affecting the small Canadian wage earners and since the workers have no other choice than to try to make up for those losses with salary increases already spent which bring about price increases, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House consider right now the serious decrease of purchasing power by indicating the correctives which the government must take as soon as possible and by demanding more particularly that the basic rate of tax exemptions be raised to leave additional purchasing power to the Canadian taxpayers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.
21130-11'/2

December 15, 1975
Oral Questions



TRANSPORT


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the tragic accident at a railroad crossing in Toronto last Friday causing eight deaths and dozens of injuries, partially as a result of the delay by the Canadian Transport Commission in approving applications by the Toronto metro roads commission to proceed with grade separations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to take all necessary steps to have the Canadian Transport Commission make immediate decisions on all pending applications relating to grade separation projects, and that he look into the reason for delays in this and other applications and report to this House his findings.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to ask the Prime Minister about the statement made by Ambassador Porter suggesting that our relationships with the United States have deteriorated during the past two years and an atmosphere of suspicion, if not of hostility, is developing in important American quarters. Does this come to the Prime Minister as a surprise, or does the information that the government has been receiving from our own diplomatic service confirm the views expressed by Ambassador Porter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it comes to me as a surprise both as to the substance and as to the form. I have not seen the text of Ambassador Porter's statement and therefore I should not like to make any final comments on it, but I must say I am surprised that an experienced diplomat like Mr. Porter would not find other channels for expressing views if he thinks they are right.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: You are anti-American, that is what is wrong with you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, I am surprised about the form, and I repeat that I have not seen the text of Ambassador Porter's statement. I hope I will be seeing it fairly soon.

On the substance, of course, we do know there are problems being solved between our countries, and that there have been, will be and are various forms of irritants that we are always working to overcome. On the over-all substance, I think the most fair answer is to say I have seen President Ford three times during the past year and talked at great length with him at those meetings and at other times on the telephone. Secretary Kissinger was here a very short while ago, and made private and public statements to the effect that our relations were very good. I am, I confess, somewhat surprised at the tone of the remarks, as reported, of Ambassador Porter, and I must say they do not correspond to what either the President or Secretary Kissinger have been telling me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we can all agree about the importance of the question. My question really was basically whether the government of Canada would advise us of the tenor of the advice or information the government of Canada has been receiving from our own diplomatic services in the United States, and does it confirm or refute positively, one way or other, the opinions expressed by the ambassador? If the Prime Minister needs to look into this matter, does he intend, either himself or through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to make inquiries of our diplomatic people in the United States in order to confirm or otherwise the impression the Prime Minister now has about relations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that in my reply. If I can be more precise, let me say I did talk to Ambassador Warren last week, our ambassador in Washington, about other matters and this type of remark did not come up. I repeat that Ambassador Porter's remarks do not in any way reflect what I have learned from President Ford or Secretary Kissinger or from our own ambassador. This does not mean there are not difficulties which are arising all the time, solutions to which we are working on and attempting to find. The House knows that ever since the two countries have existed there has been a constant series of problems which have been discussed and solved, and that to me is the nature of our relations, not the kind of relations that Ambassador Porter is reported to have stated.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO INVITATION OF UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES EXPLAIN FOREIGN INVESTMENT LEGISLATION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister referred to the views he has received from President Ford and Secretary Kissinger he may be aware of the fact that Ambassador Porter referred as much to the media as to other aspects of government, particularly Congress. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that the Joint Economic Sub-Committee on Inter-American Affairs of the two Houses is meeting tomorrow and Wednesday basically to study our foreign investment review legislation, and whether or not he is aware that the staff have asked for representations from our government and have so far been refused, even though there are some prominent Canadian businessmen who will be appearing over the next few days? Will the Prime
December 15, 1975

Minister indicate why the decision was taken not to appear to explain this important legislation to the United States legislative body?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this request but I will look at it with some attention. As a matter of general principle, I am sure all members on both sides of this House will agree that it is not proper at first blush for members of the Canadian Public Service to appear before legislative bodies of other countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED REVIVAL OF CANADA-UNITED STATES MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON TRADE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Prime Minister meant to indicate by the final part of his answer that there will be no spokesmen there to explain the Canadian government policy position. I should like to ask a further question of the Prime Minister in view of recent representations to the committee of the other place studying Canadian-U.S. relations, specifically by former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Schaetzel, in respect of the Canadian-U.S. ministerial committee on trade and economic affairs which has not met for the past five years. Ambassador Schaetzel specifically recommended that this committee be revived as an important instrument to overcome some of the difficulties referred to by Ambassador Porter. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether the government is giving consideration to this important committee in order that we might be able to overcome some of the difficulties that have presently been suggested.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the
first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, what I intended to convey, and think I did convey, was that if the United States wants to know about our policies, the way to know about them is not to summons our civil servants in front of their Congressional committees. Our ambassador is there. There are constant meetings at the ministerial level between Canada and the United States. We, of course, are very prepared and desirous to defend any aspect of our policies and to explain them to the American government, but we are not a colony of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the meeting of the committee to which the hon. member refers, I think this is an interesting suggestion. I will see when the last meeting was held and whether another one is called for. It may be that because of the frequency of the meetings by ministers of many departments in the past several years the committee was not absolutely necessary. I know the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Finance have all been meeting at a fairly frequent pace. Perhaps it was not necessary to have this continuing committee meet.
Oral Questions


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, just to be clear to the Prime Minister with regard to this joint economic sub-committee that is meeting tomorrow and Wednesday, the request was made through the regular diplomatic sources in Washington through our embassy. The embassy officials there did not offer either to advise the names of anyone or suggest in what way we might be adequately represented. Perhaps the Prime Minister should look into that in order that we can effectively explain this new policy initiative taken by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR PORTER ON CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS-SUGGESTED PROTEST OF AMBASSADOR'S ACTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the remarks made by Ambassador Porter were not in print but apparently were deliberately made without a text before some senior journalists in Canada and that therefore the Prime Minister will not be able to check the text, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since pretty well all the people at this conference with the ambassador are in agreement concerning what he said or is alleged to have said, whether he and the Government of Canada would make clear to the United States government that we do not accept as appropriate ambassadorial activity explicit criticism made internally of federal and provincial government operations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is as stated by the Leader of the New Democratic Party that I do not have the exact text. I can only assume that some of the things alleged to have been said, if said, were meant to be stated personally as an opinion of the ambassador. Certainly he was not speaking as the ambassador. Some of the quotations attributed to him, particularly as they concern provincial politics, certainly are beyond the acceptable bounds within which an ambassador should stay. I am sure the United States government would agree with this, but once again the whole case is based on reports which I have not been able to verify. I would like to add that word of caution. It is possible that Ambassador Porter himself will want to deny some of the statements which have been alleged or put in his mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the ambassador apparently took pains to say to some journalists as they were leaving the meeting that they were free to comment either in the written media, on television or through other forms, it seems to be the deliberate policy of the U.S. government at this time for the ambassador to make such a statement and it seems extraordinary that such an experienced man would simply express a personal view in such a serious area. I would like to repeat in a sense the first question to the Prime Minister to confirm if this is the official U.S. policy and, if it is so, would he make clear that it is unacceptable to Canada?

December 15, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Stated in that form, the question is hypothetical, but I will try to answer it nonetheless by repeating my earlier statement. I know from President Ford and from Secretary Kissinger that they consider they have good relations with Canada. Secretary Kissinger publicly stated here that there is no country with which they have closer ties and better communications than Canada.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is when the switch was open.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He also said, "I consider our relationship to be very healthy". This is enough for me, and if Ambassador Porter has views to convey, it is just possible that he should be conveying them to this own government rather than in this particular way.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the reputation of the new ambassador, who will be coming to Canada before long, is, from the Canadian point of view, one about which we should be even more apprehensive than about that of the present U.S. ambassador-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -and I say that with care-considering his reputation in making statements about the internal affairs of other countries, I would like the Prime Minister to make it clear, not only to the present U.S. ambassador but to the future U.S. ambassador, that that kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable in Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: After he has heard you, he might not come.

| Translation]


FINANCE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Considering that the cabinet is now busy drafting the forthcoming Speech from the Throne, a speech which will reflect on the gist of the next budget, and since a great many Canadian workers, witnessing the constant erosion of their purchasing power, are vainly trying to compensate for this loss with already eroded salary hikes, which is also responsible in part for price increases, could the minister advise the House whether he will consider the possibility of increasing the basic income tax exemptions to compensate for this loss in purchasing power?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are not now considering the projects likely to be included in the budget. However, I take note of the hon. member's suggestion.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, and I also have a supplementary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. O'Connell:: Will the minister meet at once with representatives from metro Toronto and Scarborough city councils to investigate any causes for delay with a view to expediting approval of the application for regular plus special grants for the grade separations at Midland and St. Clair avenues in Scarborough? I ask this in view of the tragic accident there on Friday, December 12, which has taken nine lives.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the processing of this particular application was underway and the final recommendation was being prepared for me in connection with it. I am not sure a further meeting may be required, but I will certainly consider the suggestion.
I should point out to hon. members, however, that even in the original planning for the submission, the earliest time in which the grade separation would in fact have taken place would have been some time in 1977, and the crossing would have been in use until that time. So that however much sympathy one may have for those involved in the accident, the processing of the application would have no effect upon it.


PROPOSAL TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS
Alan Gray Martin: Will the minister undertake to maintain the capital funds available for grants for railway overpasses and underpasses at a level substantially higher than the average of the past three years, in view of the safety requirements of rapidly growing municipalities, especially those with rail commuter systems, and in view of the rapid escalation in construction costs?


Otto Emil Lang: Obviously, the question of maintaining a fund at a particular level is not one for the minister alone but for the government as a whole. This is an area about which we have a great deal of concern and in which we have had an active interest over the years. There has consistently been a demand for funds in excess of whatever could reasonably be provided, and no doubt that will continue to be the case. However, I am glad to have the support of the hon. member for the application of funds for this purpose.


REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT OF ADEQUACY OF SAFETY MEASURES AT LEVEL CROSSINGS IN SCARBOROUGH
Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Transport. Again with regard to this major accident involving, as it did, two types of public transportation, will the minister undertake an assessment of the adequacy of existing safety measures at this and two nearby level crossings, all of which involve main Scarborough bus routes as well as extensive automobile and pedestrian traffic?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, immediately following the accident officials from the Canadian Transport Commission were on the scene investigating the various aspects of the accident which relate to the rail mode of transportation to determine whether there was any failure in the rail or signalling system. Part of the other aspects of the safety measures required is, of course, in other hands, but we will certainly consider the whole question.
 * *


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister give clarification to the House with respect to the statement he made this weekend that advisory services will be designated as bilingual, and in particular the commitment that the last phase of the transition to bilingual air-ground communications would be the introduction of bilingual operations at Dorval and Mirabel international airports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify, in view of some of the press reports about the statements which have been made. I should like to make it clear to hon. members that the discussion of immediate implementation of measures in both languages at Dorval and Mirabel was specifically in relation to ground to ground communications, where we anticipate that following the development of procedures which are nearly complete and discussions about those procedures it will be possible to implement rules for such ground to ground communications in either language on April 1.
The question of any further steps, and specifically the question of the introduction of IFR bilingual procedures, was clearly indicated by me in my statement to be subject to the need for extensive tests of procedures. We will be proposing to make use of a new simulator in the Department of Transport to test IFR procedures during January and February to develop therefrom certain procedures which may be appropriate for the use of two languages; that these will in turn have to be tested again on the simulator; that in each case of the development of procedures we will be consulting all parties involved in safe air travel; and we will repeat the procedures of development
Oral Questions
of methods and the testing on the simulator until we are indeed satisfied that safe procedures are available.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON WHICH DECISION TO ESTABLISH BILINGUAL AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS BASED
Jack Burnett Murta: Regardless of what the minister says, I should like to ask him if he would be prepared to table the reports which led him to the conclusion that air communications at Quebec airports will gradually become bilingual. Would he be prepared to table this report so that the House and also the country can see the considerations whi?h led to this decision?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I would be very glad indeed to provide the hon. member with the four or five page statement which I made in Montreal, and I will provide it to him in both languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE SAFETY ONLY CONSIDERATION
Jack Burnett Murta: Would the minister assure the House that the policy being followed is in the best interests of air safety and air safety only, which certainly should be the overriding concern of everyone involved with this transition?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I do not
agree that that is the only interest involved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It had better be.


Otto Emil Lang: It may be very important for hon. members to appreciate that air safety is a pre-eminent consideration and one which we will not in any way downgrade. However, there is another consideration involved, and that is that in this country there are two languages, and when we can we will develop proper procedures for the use of both languages in this area. We will do that with safety, but it is not the only element involved. We will ensure safety, but we will also, when possible, ensure the use of both languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 15, 1975
Oral Questions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since the government House leader advised the House on Thursday that it was not the government's plan to have parliament reassemble until January 19 or January 26, but at the same time gave us a long list of legislative items which the government considers must be passed immediately for the public good, a list which cannot possibly receive adequate consideration before Christmas, would the Prime Minister not agree that it makes far more sense to have parliament reassemble on Monday, January 5 so that we can proceed then in a constructive, orderly fashion to deal with this very large volume of work-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: -in a way in which the people of Canada would like us to operate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, certain bills which must be dealt with even before January 1, and I understand that the government House leader has been discussing with his colleagues ways in which this might be done before January 1. However, as the hon. member can see, there is great support on this side for coming back on January 5 or earlier. This is something I hope all parties will discuss. In the name of the government, the government House leader has mentioned January 19 or January 26, but of course we are always willing and able to meet without any holidays or any break at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUDITOR GENERAL
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move to a related subject. I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Do you agree with George?


An hon. Member:: Did you hear what George had to say?


Gerald William Baldwin: Is it the intention of the government to change its course and move away from the easy ride it has been having in connection with government expenditures? As a substantial element in any such program will the minister introduce, before this House adjourns, for first reading at least, the new bill to deal with the role of the Auditor General so that we can take some steps to staunch the very considerable waste and extravagance which has been recently demonstrated?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we hope to table the bill concerning the Auditor General as part of the next Speech from the Throne and thus proceed with the legislation as early as next spring. We considered the Wilson report and most of the recommendations are acceptable. We are considering the Auditor General's report and the hon. member will understand that it takes a few weeks to go through such a complex, although well prepared, document as the one submitted by the Auditor General. The federal government certainly intends to proceed as soon as possible with both aspects of this problem.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that there has already been a period of gestation of seven months in connection with this report of the independent review committee, if the government fears to move because of bureaucratic apprehension will it at least refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts under the able chairmanship of a member of this House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is because we want to proceed as quickly as possible that we have decided to proceed with the bill and the bill will be ready. If we were to proceed the way the hon. member is suggesting, I am sure we would still be debating the matter in committee. Now that the government has made the decision about 95 per cent of the problems suggested by the hon. member will be taken care of.


TRANSPORT
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport is supplementary to a question asked by the hon. member for Scarborough East. What steps is the minister taking to expedite the procedure for grade separation of hazardous crossings?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated that, with regard to this specific crossing, the application went through the usual process and a recommendation was on its way to me. That is the normal procedure when there are almost always more applications than there are funds available.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary. As the normal proceeding seems to have taken over ten months and produced no results, is the minister considering some further method of expediting these proceedings?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the examination of the application was at the point where a recommendation on it was now available. It is of course a matter of choosing between applications where funds are limited and not available for all purposes to which they might be
December 15, 1975

applied and the decision being taken. I also pointed out that tying them to a particular incident is rather unfortunate, in view of the fact that even the period of construction would have taken another year or a year and a half before there would have been grade separation at this point.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I welcome him back to the House. It has been a week or ten days since I put a question to him with respect to the industrial benefit arising out of the LRPA program. Is the minister now in a position to indicate what protection will be built into the program with respect to regional companies such as IMP?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his welcome. In so far as IMP is concerned, which I believe is the company for which the hon. member has the primary concern at the moment, I will be glad to provide him with figures as to how much they will participate in the actual LRPA program. There has not yet been a determination of repair and overhaul work following the introduction of the LRPA. I would be glad to sit with the hon. member and discuss with him what possibility there may be in that connection for maritime companies, for example.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House whether he would agree-and indeed the Prime Minister left some impression in this regard the other day-that there is not much point in the transfer of some 400 jobs from one part of Canada to another; at the same time, if he does agree, would he not give some assurance that some input into the technological and engineering development of this new LRPA should go to IMP so that those 400 jobs in the Atlantic area could be protected?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the proposition the hon. gentleman puts forward. He should recognize, however, that in changing from the particular aircraft on which IMP has been working to the new one, we must work out some formula for repair and overhaul. As I said, I will be glad to do that in detail in the period we have, which is perhaps three or four years, between now and the point where the new aircraft comes into operation.


J. Michael Forrestall: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The very thing we are all afraid of has just come out now in the minister's answer. I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that unless this question of access to the industrial benefit of this program does include the technological and engineering involvement by companies such as IMP-and the minister is correct that it is not the only one-they will not be able to participate later on in the program. It is in the next two weeks that such a decision has to be made. I
Oral Questions
wonder if the minister might not look closer at that some time this week.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I fear there has been some misunderstanding in terms of the question the hon. member asked. I thought he was primarily interested in whether a percentage of the repair and overhaul that presently exist could be maintained and that is what I said we had a period of time to examine. If we are talking about what part of the construction program can be transferred or assigned to IMP at the moment, of course that has to be decided shortly. I think there has been an assessment already of what the program may mean in terms of that particular company but I will be glad to talk it over with the hon. member.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Communications. I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her new appointment.
Nothing having transpired since October 13 in the field of cablevision, could the minister tell the House when she will make a statement to the House about the discussions between Ottawa and Quebec in order to refresh hon. members' memory and inform them of the state of negotiations on that matter?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: thank the hon. member for his good wishes. There is no negotiation going on between the province of Quebec and the federal government on the question of cablevision in the region of Matane and Rimouski at the present time. However, an appeal is now before the courts and that is why it is difficult for me to comment on that question right now.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and concerns the report of the Food Prices Review Board on food prices in northern Canada which has just been released. At the urging of the Consumer Association of Canada and of the Yukon that an independent investigation be conducted with respect to establishing the reasons for the high cost of food generally in the north and since that appears to be a recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board, will the minister exercise the authority which he undoubtedly has and cause such an investigation to be made which appears to be in keeping with this recommendation?
10000

December 15, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely certain that I possess such powers but I will be happy to look into the matter.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. Since the report also recommends that, in order to help bridge the nutrition gap in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which is caused by this unjustified gap between food prices and the cost of transport, a selection of nutritious foods be subsidized by the federal government, particularly fresh foods and dairy products, in the interim will the minister speak to his cabinet colleagues in the hope that a decision might be made to implement that recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board forthwith in order to ensure a continuous supply of nutritious foods in the north at the same prices as other Canadians pay for them?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into the recommendation of the hon. member.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General, I will put my question to his parliamentary secretary or, rather, the President of the Treasury Board who is closely connected with this subject matter. In view of the fact that over the weekend an American television network, CBS, stated in a report that Canadian silver Olympic coins, due to over-production and overpricing, are unlikely to increase in value, contrary to the Olympic coin advertising campaign, is the government prepared to take steps to have the advertising campaign under the coin program altered in a way that it will no longer be misleading to the public?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the CBS statement. We have an excellent coin program in all respects. Sales have been very good. It seems that the problem lies with the lack of sophistication in the American market. We have done extremely well on the European market in the sale of our coins. Sales have been excellent. It seems that the American market may be a little slow due to this lack of sophistication.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Otto John Jelinek: Notwithstanding the parliamentary secretary's non-answer to my question, I will put my supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that many Canadian coin dealers, as a matter of fact nine out of ten I talked to this morning, confirm the statement

made on the Columbia Broadcasting System as factual and added that there is even a likelihood of the coins decreasing from their original value and therefore clearly making the whole Olympic coin advertising campaign, through its ads over television, misleading to the public at large, is the minister now prepared to enforce the provisions of his own Combines Act, Section 36, dealing with false and misleading advertising?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, given the type of questions he puts and interventions he makes, I have always wondered whether the hon. member is really for or against the Olympic Games. One again I notice that his intervention reflects a rather clouded mind, and the way he puts his questions surely hides ulterior motives. On the other hand, if the hon. member has elements of proof or other pertinent information to convey, I shall be pleased to transmit them to the director of inquiries.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister because I am anxious that we do not send any gunboats as a result of Ambassador Porter's frankness. There is a fair amount of hyperbole about this issue. I think it is worth while keeping our perspective. Is it not a fact that it is healthier for relations between two countries to have this type of exchange rather than the usual platitudes that take place on our respective national days? Does the Prime Minister not welcome this somewhat unorthodox method of reminding Canadians and Americans of what are obviously irritants on both sides of the border?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that gunboats will not be called for. I thought I made it clear that we had no quarrel with what the President of the United States or the administration said in these matters. Therefore, if gunboats were called for, it would be against an ambassador. That obviously is overkill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member seems to feel that this is a healthy state of affairs. I do not want to intervene in the way in which the United States runs its affairs. However, I suggest if it has this kind of representation to make to me, I find it passing strange that it does not come from the President or Secretary of State, but comes from some ambassador talking to somebody else. I suggest that is not the usual way of proceeding.
December 15, 1975

Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AIRPORTS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether he will table in the House a letter which I believe he received from the Commissioner of Official Languages relative to working conditions at the control centre in Dorval.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do that.



FINANCE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the statement made by the ambassador from the United States and the irritants between the United States and Canada which have become more acute, has there been any discussion at a high level or another level with regard to a reduction of investment in the oil and gas industry, exploration and development of which is going to be accelerated in 1976? Has there been any discussion with regard to a unilateral cutback in the United States or a discussion between the two nations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I saw the Secretary of the Treasury in Washington last Wednesday. There was no such suggestion at all at that meeting.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can the minister assure the House that discussions at the high level he has just stated will continue so that exploration and development of natural gas in particular in Alberta and elsewhere will continue in order that we will always have a guarantee of being self-sufficient in Canada, something that is very important to our domestic and industrial welfare as well as with regard to controlling inflation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the present Secretary of the Treasury is a former federal energy administrator. As such, he knows a great deal about the energy scene in North America. In particular, he is supportive of the energy policies we have been following in Canada.



ALLEGATION MINISTER SOLICITING FUNDS FOR LIBERAL PARTY FROM EXECUTIVES OF CROWN AGENCIES

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This relates to the decision by the minister recently to solicit donations for the Liberal party directly from the executives of Crown corporations and Crown agencies through letters sent to these employees using their official titles and business addresses. Will the minister say whether he intends to expand the letter solicitation for the Liberal party to bring pressure on larger numbers of public servants and will he table in the House a list of those employees of Crown corporations and government agencies who were solicited for donations?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to point out that, contrary to the Progressive Conservative Party at least, we did not send any letter to the Treasury Board and most of the departments to obtain contributions.
Secondly, those letters were sent out by the Quebec branch of the Liberal Party of Canada to a large number of citizens, as such, throughout the province of Quebec. If some of them happen to be employees or civil servants of Crown corporations, it would not surprise me. But I feel there is nothing in the law, nor even in political tradition that prevents the citizens who work for a Crown corporation or even a government, from contributing or refusing to contribute to the political party of their choice. They are free, as citizens, to do as they please. However, I am very pleased that the Liberal Party should invite all Canadian citizens to contribute to our party, because I feel it is an excellent thing.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am going to permit the hon. member for Calgary South one supplementary which will conclude the question period. I should caution him that initially he questioned the Minister of National Health and Welfare in an area that is outside his jurisdiction as a minister. Because it pertains to solicitation of employees of Crown corporations, I let it go. It must stay in that area.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate how sensitive the minister and members opposite are about this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Colwell Bawden: It would be appropriate if the minister would inform the House whether donations from such public servants will affect promotions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Colwell Bawden: If not, what action has he taken or will he take to assure these public servants that such donations
21130 -12'/2

December 15, 1975
Oral Questions
will not in any way change their future employment opportunities? At the same time, will he assure the House that this practice will cease?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, any contribution exceeding $100 made to a political party is public, recorded and available to all citizens, the hon. member included. He will be able to see who contributed and what happens or does not happen to contributors. As far as I am concerned, any Canadian is free to contribute to the Liberal party, and I invite people to do so.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and Your Honour may even rule that it is a question of privilege because of the fact that every time I have raised an Olympics question the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and other ministers have implied, with racial overtones, that I am against the Olympics. I cannot accept an accusation of that kind on the part of the government.
I should like to make my position very clear, as I always do when I speak on this subject: It is not that I am anti-Olympics, or against the fact that the Olympics are to be held in Montreal, but I am anti-fraud and I am against the manner in which the government has allowed the financing of the Olympic Games to be dealt with. I simply asked the minister whether he would apply the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is laughing. I would remind him that the Olympics are going to cost Montreal $1 billion. I simply asked him whether he would apply the law, the Combines Investigation Act, Section 36 having to do with misleading advertising, which is applicable to the Olympics silver coins issue since nine out of ten of the coin dealers across Canada say that the coins will not increase in value by three, four, eight or nine times as the advertising suggests, particularly on television.
I hope the minister will either assure us that he intends to apply the law, the Combines Investigation Act, Section 36, or not and continue to deal fraudulently with respect to the financing of the Olympics Games through these coins.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised, by way of a point of order, what is primarily a complaint about the answer he received from a minister today. As such, it cannot be regarded as a valid point of order. There was, however, another aspect of his complaint, one which is more serious. As I understood it, the hon. member did say something about a racial overtone in the answers he had, been given. If such has been the case during the question period while I have been in the chair, I certainly was not aware of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If there is any evidence that the hon. member might wish to put forward in this respect, perhaps he would bring it to my attention. His remarks on introducing the point of order prompted the reflection that the Chair might have allowed, perhaps unwittingly, some

suggestion of a racial overtone to pass. But as far as I am aware, that has not been the case. If there is any information to the effect that there has been any kind of racial overtone in any of the answers given, it should be brought to my attention.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond is rising on a point of order.


Léonel Beaudoin: I would like to point out to Your Honour ,that today we could only ask one question without any ''supplementary. We do not want to appear to be smart, but I understand we had today supplementaries with an excessively long preamble and that took most of the oral question period. With the cooperation you always gave our party, we would like to have a chance in the future to ask at least two questions. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that there was a problem today. Only 12 hon. members of the official opposition and two of the New Democratic Party asked questions today, according to the normal proportion. There was also one hon. member of the Social Credit today. This is unfortunately the situation which prevailed during the oral question period. The hon. member is perfectly aware that on other days at least two and sometimes three hon. members of the Social Credit can ask their questions. Unfortunately it was impossible this afternoon. I regret it as much as the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-80, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for public works and general purposes.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,085, 3,129, 3,165, 3,262, 3,311, 3,315, 3,481, 3,563, 3,592, 3,619, 3,661 and 3,679.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
December 15, 1975


Mr. Cossitt: Other than news media personnel, what are the (a) names (b) addresses (c) job designations of government employees, accompanying or in any way connected with the Prime Minister on his current trip to Europe including Helsinki, Finland and, in each case, what is the purpose of the presence of each individual and the particular service provided?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Prime Minister's Office: Mr. Ivan Head, Special Adviser to the Prime Minister; R. W. Murdoch, Executive Assistant to the Prime Minister; Miss C. Viau, Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister; C. Tower, Assistant Press Secretary; Ian MacDonald, Assistant Press Secretary; R. Coleman, Press Assistant; Miss F. Courtemanche, Special Assistant, P.M.'s office; Miss L. Brazeau, Assistant (Press). Department of External Affairs: J. G. H. Halstead, Deputy Under-Secretary of State; C. F. W. Hooper, CSCE Co-ordinator; H. C. Ahrens, Secretary to the delegation; J. P. Gombay, Advisor; B. V. Johnstone, Administration/Logistics Officer; Miss I. Bourque, Secretary; W. Horner, Security guard; Miss A. Sarzynski, Communicator; W. T. Delworth, Ambassador to CSCE; G. J. Warren, Legal Advisor; W. M. M. Fairweather, Delegation Secretary-general; W. Rabbie, Technician; Miss Jean Bearss, Secretary; Miss A. Lambert, Secretary. RCMP: Inspector Barry Moss. Department of National Defence: Commander J. D. Toogood. Department of National Revenue: Miss J. Lester, Customs Officer. In addition to employees listed above, Mr. M. E. Corbin M.P. accompanied the Prime Minister. The descriptive titles of the individuals indicate the area of assistance to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works call tenders for moving certain goods from the Language Centre Pavillion on Carson Road to the Killenay Building at 460 O'Connor Street and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are the names of those who tendered (c) was such tender invited or advertised?
2.	What are the names of those who bid on the contract and what was the amount in each case?
3.	Was one of those who bid, C.W. Faulkner and, if so, what is the exact address and telephone number of this moving firm?
4.	Was a contract originally awarded to C.W. Faulkner transferred to Parkway Movers and, if so (a) for what reason (b) at what price did Parkway Movers do the job?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. (a) August 26, 1975. (b) C. W. Faulkner, Parkway Van Lines, A and D Moving, (c) Invited.
2.	C. W. Faulkner, $4,200.00; Parkway Van Lines, $6,438.00; A and D Moving, $7,481.00.
3.	C. W. Faulkner Cartage, 1803E Russell Road, Ottawa, Ontario. K1G ONI. Telephone 521-7958.
Order Paper Questions
4.	No.


Mr. Reynolds: By province, what were the total payments in (a) DREE grants (b) PAIT grants for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows:
(a)	Province	April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975
Total Expenditure Budgetary and Non-Budgetary (000's)
Newfoundland	$ 68,392
Prince Edward Island	22,801
Nova Scotia	40,789
New Brunswick	63,423
Quebec	122,144
Ontario	18,846
Manitoba	28,460
Saskatchewan	26,804
Alberta	16,069
British Columbia	6,156
Not Allocated	24,670
Total	438,554
For 1972-73 and 1973-74	see answers to question No. 3
(September 30, 1974) and question No. 1,518 (February 5, 1975). (b) PAIT contributions by province for the fiscal years 1971/72-1974/75. See following table:
Province	1971/62	1972/73	1973/74	1974/75Newfoundland	-	-	-	_Nova Scotia	38,000	35,586	14,894	95,003New Brunswick Prince Edward	13,000	28,044	20,253	9,169Island	-	7,920	30,479	8,805Quebec	8,104,000	5,710,945	5,686,271	4,987,223Ontario	14,577,000	17,461,501	15,600,224	18,554,922Manitoba	431,000	415,203	243,219	187,000Saskatchewan	-	35,940	88,713	85,402Alberta	1,071,000	745,359	678,922	875,852British Columbia	3,194,000	2,096,425	3,194,872	4,695,306Total	27,428,000	26,536,923	25,557,847	29,498,681


Mr. Muir: 1.	Since April 1, 1975, how many applications have been received under the Native Communications Programme of the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	In each case, what was the name of the organization and how much funding was requested?
3.	How many applications have been funded and, in each case, what was the (a) name (b) address (c) amount of each application?

December 15, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. Since April 1, 1975, 27 applications have been received by the Native Communications Programme of the Department of the Secretary of State.
2. Although the information provided by organizations relating to the amount of funding requested is not received as formally declared confidential material, organizations generally tend to view it as confidential. It would be preferable therefore that the organizations be approached directly for the amount of funding requested. The names of the organizations which have made application since April 1, 1975 are: 1. Raven Society of B.C.; 2. Indian Voice; 3. That-Lun-Lin Native Communications Society; 4. Alberta Native Communications Society; 5. Indian News Media; 6. Native Communications Society of the Western N.W.T.; 7 Federation of Saskatchewan Indians; 8. Metis Society of Saskatchewan; 9. Native Communications Inc.; 10. Manitoba Metis Federation; 11. Manitoba Indian Brotherhood; 12. Kitikmeot Inuit Association; 13. Keewatin Inuit Association; 14. Wa Wa Ta Native Communications Society; 15. Ontario Native Communications Society; 16. Taqramiut Nipingat; 17. Laurentian Alliance of Metis and Non-Status Indians; 18. Baffin Inuit Association; 19. Native Communications Society of Nova Scotia; 20. Metis and Non-Status Indian Association of New Brunswick; 21. Native Association of Nfld/Labrador; 22. Labrador Inuit Association; 23. p.E.I. Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians; 24. Native Council of Canada; 25. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada; 26. National Indian Brotherhood; 27. National Association of Friendship Centres.
3. Following are the grants approved to date (November 12, 1975):
Name Raven Society of B.C. R.R. No. 1	Grant Approved
Qualicum Beach, B.C. Indian Voice 201-423 West Broadway	$ 75,000
Vancouver, B.C. Thay-Lun-Lin Native Communications Society 22 Nisutlin Drive	25,000
Whitehorse, Yukon Alberta Native Communications Society 11427 Jasper Avenue	75,000
Fdmonton, Alberta Indian News Media Box 58	300,000
Standoff, Alberta Native Communications Society of the Western N.W.T. Box 1992	165,000
Yellowknife, N.W.T. Federation of Saskatchewan Indians 1114 Central Avenue Box 1644	178,000
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan 	25,000
Native Communications Inc. C/O 804 Montreal Trust Building 213 Notre Dame Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba	75,000
R3B 1N3 Manitoba Metis Federation 301-374 Donald Street	
Winnipeg, Manitoba Wa Wa Ta Native Communications Society P.O. Box 1180	25,000
Sioux Lookout, Ontario Tagramiut Nipingat C/O 6-110 Cartier Street	125,000
Ottawa, Ontario Native Council of Canada 77 Metcalfe Street 2nd Floor	200,000
Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5L6 Inuit Tapirisat of Canada 222 Somerset Street West	25,000
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2G3	25,000


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What was the cost lor the rental of the St. Lawrence Centre's Town Hall and the cost of promotion for the free screening of (a) "Les Ordres" and "Why Rock the Boat" in addition to several National Film Board shorts on October 22, 1975 (b) "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz" and several short National Film Board films on October 23, 1975?
2.	Are there any plans for similar free screenings in other Canadian centres and, if so, which ones?


Coline M. Campbell: 1. The film showings (October 22 and 23) referred to, formed part of the Canadian Film Awards activities. The Canadian Film Awards is a private organization, composed of various groups of professional Canadian film associations and funded, in part, through a grant from the Department of the Secretary of State. A final statement of costs for this year's awards has not yet been received.
2. I am not aware of plans for similar free screenings in other Canadian centres.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	For each year since 1968 (a) what are the details of all grants or loans received by Bombardier Limited (b) from which departments did such grants or loans originate?
2.	Did the Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin serve as an officer, a member of the Board of Directors or in any other capacity for Bombardier Limited and, if so, in what capacity and during what period of time?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Bombardier Ltd. has received the grants or loans shown on the following table under Industry, Trade and Commerce programs. Payments for development of Export Markets "PEMD" total $31,121.00 and are repayable as a percentage of sales resulting from the marketing activities supported. Payment for industry modernization "IMDE" total $387,058.00, 50 per cent of which are repayable. Payments to share the cost of the development
December 15, 1975

of new products or the improvement of existing products "PAIT" total $1,664,277. Grants have been paid under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. Information on these grants is privileged and cannot be released.
Bombardier Ltd. - Grants or Loans Received
F/Y	PF.MD	1MDE	PAIT1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73	$ 2,691	$ 309,016 289,9641973/74	14,142	456,2871974/75	14,288	$387,058	455,3591975/76 Total	31,121	387,058	153,651 1,664,277In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:	1.	(a) Bombardier Limited
through its wholly-owned subsidiary "Materiel de Transport Bombardier Ltee", obtained an offer of assistance in the amount of $1,108,559 in 1974. (b) Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
2. When the request for assistance from "Materiel de Transport Bombardier Ltee" was evaluated, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin was a member of the board of directors of Bombardier Limited. Our files contain no information that would enable us to specify in what capacity or during what period he served on the board of directors.


Mr. Mazankowski: Have grants been made to Versatile Manufacturing of Winnipeg since its incorporation and, if so (a) what were they (b) for what purpose (c) on what dates (d) in what amounts?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: (a) $467,152.08. (b) Contribution for development under program for advancement of industrial technology, (c) and (d) See below.
Date	Amount
March, 1971	$ 56,728.50
April, 1971	26,614.62
June, 1971	17,686.54
July, 1971	7,398.50
August, 1971	29,070.47
October, 1971	23,709.51
November, 1971	22,732.64
January, 1972	10,117.31
April, 1972	46,695.74
August, 1972	17,248.85
September, 1972	9,372.39
December, 1972	55,697.41
March, 1973	17,994.47
April, 1975	126,085.13
	$467,152.08
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the government financed the construction of the Ste-Justine and St-Anselme high schools in the Constituency of Bellechasse and, if so, in each case (a) in what amount (b) under what agreement (c) through what department?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by several departments as follows: no.


[Stage Direction]
Question No 3,592-Mr. Reynolds:
With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,170, could the Minister responsible for the National Harbours Board advise on which harbours the $6 million reduction in cash requirements will have an effect?
Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises that reductions in cash requirements at the harbours listed below are as follows: St. John's, Newfoundland, $2,620,000; Halifax, $500,000; Quebec, $250,000; Churchill, $1,380,000; Vancouver, $1,250,000; total $6,000,000.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Transport during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the government's present, up-to-date best estimate of the total tonnage of containerized freight handled by the Port of Montreal in 1974?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1,774,008 tons.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What is the amount remaining in the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund?
2.	How many payments have been made out of the Fund and, in each case, in what amount?
3.	To whom have the payments been made?

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport) 1. $32,796,340.80 as of December 4, 1975.
2.	One. $345.90.
3.	Mr. William Guimond, fisherman, Pointe Au Pere, Quebec.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Consideration has been given to a number of motions which were tabled at the report stage. Two, it seems, of the 22 motions which are before the House for consideration appear to be out of order, and perhaps the question of procedure involved could be discussed when we come to them. I refer to motions 4 and 6. These two motions appear to the Chair to introduce into the bill a concept larger than that originally envisaged in the royal recommendation, in that they would extent the qualifying period to those who are on strike lawfully and to those who are out of work for the purpose of establishing a self-employed operation. Both would appear to increase benefits by extending the period of qualification. When these motions are called, hon. members might be prepared to put forward arguments addressed to the procedural aspects.
Furthermore, the Chair has some concern about motion No. 13 in that it appears, by way of amendment, to delete a section which is not proposed to be deleted by the bill. However, there is the fact that clause 11 proposes to amend a very similar subclause of the bill regarding the initial benefit period and the amendment would delete a second or a different section, but a similar kind of prohibition, with respect to the extended benefit period.
It may be that by argument and explanation the motion can be shown to be in fact in order. I simply caution that when motion 13 is called, there ought to be some attention paid on both sides to the procedural argument. On balance, it would seem to the Chair that the motion should probably stand, but there may be a question whether or not it goes beyond the scope of the bill. The two provisions seem to me to be so related that probably the motion should stand, but I would simply suggest that when motion No. 4 is called there ought to be argument about the procedural regularity of motions 4 and 6. When motion 13 is called, it ought to be argued procedurally as well.
The remaining motions seem to be in order. Motions 1 and 2, it appears, ought to be discussed together but voted on separately. Motion 1 should be voted on first, because it

proposes the deletion of a clause; motion 2 would be voted on if motion 1 does not carry, because it proposes the deletion of a portion of the clause. Motions 9, 10, 16, 21 and 22 ought to be discussed and voted on separately. Motions 7 and 8 should be grouped for debate, I would think, along with motions 14 and 15, and perhaps all four motions could be disposed of by a vote on motion No. 7. It appears that motions 11 and 12 ought to be grouped together for discussion, and motions 17, 18, 19 and 20 could be grouped for debate and disposed of with one vote.
Perhaps, while motion No. 1 is under discussion, hon. members could give consideration to that proposition and return to further argument on it as the day progresses.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if it pleases the Chair. My point of order has to do with the royal recommendation. I should like to enter a caveat against the royal recommendation to this bill being taken as a precedent. These recommendations limit the right of all hon. members, except a minister of the Crown, to propose amendments. There appears to be a tendency on the part of the person responsible for drafting these recommendations to overwrite them; that is, the recommendation is written to cover clauses that do not appropriate public funds, as well as those that do.
Here the offence is worse. Funds for the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, are only appropriated out of public funds if unemployment exceeds 4 per cent; below that figure all moneys in the account are private funds. Yet the recommendation is written as though all funds were appropriated from public revenues. Indeed, the recommendation is so written although one of the purposes of the bill is stated in the recommendation to be "to provide, in the manner prescribed, for a new basis for the calculation that determines the proportion of the basic cost of benefit for a year that will be borne by the government". In effect, the provision supported by this recommendation will make the public contribution to the account less, and the private contribution more.
There is a definition in section 136 of the act which indicates the extent of the commitment of public revenues under this act. That definition is headed, "Government cost of paying benefit". That phrase should be used to limit the recommendation so that it would read, "To the extent of the government cost of paying benefit, His Excellency the Governor General has recommended", etc. That is all His Excellency can recommend and that is as far as the recommendation should go.
As I understand it, the private sector is responsible for the cost when unemployment is 4 per cent or less, so not only is the government contribution involved. We would not want the draftsman of the legislation to consider that a precedent has now been put forward with which we on this side agree, and I bring this to Your Honour's attention so that Your Honour is apprised of the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has raised a point of order concerning the drafting of the recommendation. At this stage 22 motions respecting amendments to the bill have been put forward. The bill has gone through committee, and opportunity existed for amendments at that time. I therefore take it that the hon. member for Hamilton West
December 15, 1975

is not seeking, at this particular time, a decision on his point of order but, rather, is pointing out generally that there may be a problem existing and he is putting on record the fact that a complaint does exist. I would tell him that his point is well noted. If there are no other hon. members who wish to contribute to the point of order, perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West should have the floor on motion No. 1.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since Your Honour said that motions Nos. 1 and 2 would be grouped together for debate, should not both motions be placed before the House at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the point well taken, of course. His motion No. 2 seeks to delete a portion of the clause that is sought to be deleted in its entirety by motion No. 1. Therefore, motions 1 and 2 should be before the House at the present time. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) should presumably have the floor first, followed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The hon. member for Hamilton West moves:
Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-69, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting clause 1.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moves: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-69, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended in clause 1 by deleting subclause (2) at page 1 and by renumbering subclause (3) as subclause (2).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is surely not our intention on this side of the House to filibuster this bill, but as a result of concern expressed by members on both sides of the House-though I do not speak particularly for those members sitting across from me-there is some question about the purport of clause 1. Firts of all, I believe that clause 1 is not only discriminatory but is taking a certain direction that we find difficult to follow at the present time. Clause 1(1) (e) provides that sponsors of programs like LIP, LEAP or programs of the federal government to create employment are entitled to unemployment insurance, notwithstanding that these sponsors are employers. Although the act states that selfemployed persons are not within the jurisdiction of the legislation, an exception is being made of sponsors who may be employers.
Programs like LIP and LEAP are essentially short-term programs which have been brought in to help alleviate high unemployment in Canada. We on this side of the House have continually indicated to the minister and the government that we are not impressed with this sort of move, particularly when it is related to an eligibility period of eight weeks within the work force. A period of eight weeks in the work force is sufficient to qualify for unemployment insurance. Indeed, the minister has himself indicated that he is taking a look at the whole benefit structure. What this means to me is that the minister is looking into the eight-week eligibility period and perhaps even into the amount of benefit payable thereunder, whether it is too high or too low. Indeed, the eight-week period may be a disincentive to work. Bearing in mind the latest government statements concerning the possible
Unemployment Insurance Act
dropping of LIP, LEAP and the Company of Young Canadians, we are wondering whether the right hand in fact knows what the left hand is doing.
My objection to this particular subclause is that it is discriminatory in that it indicates that a certain percentage of individuals within the work force shall be treated as self-employed and brought within the confines of the act. Of course, generally speaking the act disallows this. I will rest my case on that.
We on this side of the House have expressed our concern in no uncertain terms about the second paragraph in clause 1 in which we find there is a substitution by the words "employment of a person who is 65 years of age or over". Those are the words that are being substituted for something else. This appears to be the first step of this government in its fight against high unemployment insurance costs and it is put on the backs of our senior citizens. We resent this very much, because it seems to us that when this bill was first brought in there was every reason and every need for including our senior citizens in the work force. Senior citizens should be involved in the work force because of what they can contribute. In this way they could contribute to unemployment insurance up to the time they reach age 70, or until they opt out by applying for the Canada or Quebec Pension Plan.
It seems to me this government is trying to bring about the forced removal of our senior citizens from the work force. These are people who have made an excellent contribution to the work force of this country, without whose contributions we could not get along at this time. Notwithstanding what has been said on several occasions about appreciation for the work ethic not being what it used to be, if anyone appreciates the work ethic I suggest it is our senior citizens. The minister has said that the government is not trying to take them out of the work force; they can work if they want. He then limits them by saying that if they do stay in the work force, they will not be allowed to make a contribution to the unemployment insurance scheme or receive any benefits. It is this that we find unjust, harsh and callous. It shows complete disregard for the plight of those who are in the twilight of their years but find, for a number of reasons, they want to maintain an effective role in the work force. Many of these people find they must keep working because of the high cost of living coupled with double-digit inflation. It is only right that they should be given the opportunity to work when there are so many people in this country who do not want to work.
We on this side of the House register our concern in the strongest possible voice about this part of the legislation, because it is discriminatory. In effect, the legislation provides that the government appreciates involvement in the work force of those over 65, but it does not need them now because payments under old age security and the old age supplement have gone up.
I would ask the minister what this has to do with the fact that certain individuals want to belong to the work force and continue to make contributions to and get benefits from the unemployment insurance scheme, but through no fault of their own they find themselves unable

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
to work. These people should be given that opportunity, which has nothing to do with how much money they have paid in. I am not talking about that at all. I am trying to emphasize the part that it is time we considered what this government is doing to our senior citizens.
We heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde)-I will only digress for a moment-talk about spouses. What he said was discouraging and disillusioning to a lot of people between age 60 and 65. The minister, in effect, said that a spouse would be looked after, but he would not even recognize the fact that within the bill a spouse would, in effect, be either party to the marriage.
There seems to be a trend to put the blame on our senior citizens for a good many things. This is not the correct approach. We must be more concerned in seeing that these people are kept in the work force in order that those who wish to do so can still make a contribution. We believe that many of them still have a great contribution to make. The minister says that this program will cost the country in the neighbourhood of $120 million. What we should look at is the way in which this government is climbing on the backs of our senior citizens. This government and the minister should be more concerned with reducing high unemployment, the national rate now being about 7.3 per cent. A 1 per cent reduction in that rate would save a great deal of money, without picking on our senior citizens to whom we owe so much.
We are extremely worried about this kind of approach by the government. We do not understand the government's thinking, and we will not accept this kind of move. We on this side of the House register our concern and we will not go along with the government in this regard. We will not go along with the government's attitude in respect of our senior citizens or its attitude in respect of calling a sponsor under LIP or LEAP a self-employed person who, under ordinary circumstances, would not come within the confines of this act but will now because of this government's thinking. For these reasons I have moved that Clause 1 of the bill relating to these matters be struck.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at this point we are debating report stage motions Nos. 1 and 2 at the same time. They are similar in that each of them would do something to clause 1 of the bill. As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has pointed out, his report stage motion No. 1 would strike out clause 1 of the bill in its entirety. My report stage motion No. 2 would strike out only subclause (2) from clause 1 of the bill.
That may sound as though we are being very fine in our perception of the situation. May I point out that subclauses (1) and (3) of clause 1 of the bill propose to bring under unemployment insurance coverage certain individuals not now covered. In the main, those are persons who are sponsoring certain programs funded by the federal or by other governments. We suggest that if the individuals working in these groups are entitled to unemployment insurance coverage, the sponsors or the persons in charge of the project should also be covered.
It is for this reason we welcome the inclusion of subclauses (1) and (3) in clause 1 of the bill, and that is the
|Mr. Alexander.)
reason I put down my report stage motion No. 2 in wording different from that of the hon. member for Hamilton West what I wanted to pinpoint was the need to strike out subclause (2) of clause 1.
One or more of my colleagues will have something to say about our position particularly as it pertains to subclauses (1) and (3), but I want to make, in a strong terms as I can, the case for the removal of subclause (2) from clause 1. Subclause (2) is the portion of this bill which would deny to persons 65 years of age or over any participation in the unemployment insurance program either as contributors or as recipients of unemployment insurance benefits. With the part of the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton West which dealt with this matter, I am in full agreement. I was glad to hear him speak as strongly as he did, and I hope that there will be many members from all parties in this House who will support our contention that the right to participation in unemployment insurance should not be denied to persons between age 65 and age 70.
As the previous speaker pointed out, one of the arguments advanced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) is that by making this change the government will save $120 million a year. That, of course, comes as a very cruel argument since in effect we are being told that the government wants to get out of some of its unemployment insurance financial difficulties by imposing this burden on senior citizens between age 65 and 70.
Sometimes it is argued that in this age bracket there are large numbers of persons who really do not want to work and wish merely to carry on their unemployment insurance participation to the point where they can then pick up benefits. I submit that is probably less true of persons between age 65 and age 70 than it is of persons in the lower age brackets. By the time persons have reached an age between 65 and 70 they have a pretty responsible attitude. This is a 67-year old saying it, so I can confirm it. I suggest that the notion of exploiting or abusing the fund is less likely to be the case with persons in this age bracket than in any of the other brackets below that age level. In any case, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration made it clear in the committee that it is possible for the government, with its extensive use of computers, to ascertain those who really do not want employment, those who are turning it down.
I suggest that that method of denying people unemployment insurance, while in some instances we think it is very rough, is much more fair than applying the refusal to a particular age group. The government says it can sort out the married women, the young persons or the persons of advanced age who really do not want to work and therefore should not receive benefits. If they can do that with those categories, they can do it with those persons between age 65 and 70. I think it is unfair to deny arbitrarily to everyone between age 65 and 70 the right to participate in unemployment insurance either as contributors or as recipients of benefits.
Therefore, because, like the hon. member for Hamilton West, I think this is most unfair, I hope the House will support my motion No. 2 for the deletion of subclause (2)
December 15, 1975

from clause 1 of the bill. I suggest that, coming at this time, this amendment is particularly unfair; indeed it is almost cruel. Up to a few years ago there was no age limit on the right to participate in unemployment insurance, but in the bill which became law in 1971 there was an age limit inserted, namely, age 70. That affected quite a few people. There were persons age 70 who were offended and annoyed by that provision, but at least time has gone by and people now know that when they reach age 70 they can no longer participate.
One of the things we felt was unfair about the insertion of age 70 in the law previously was that it caught people who had been contributing in the belief they would receive benefits if they qualified in other respects, and then suddenly any entitlement they might have built up was wiped out by the passage of that bill. While that act had its adverse effect on persons over age 70 at the same time at least it seemed to say that persons under age 70-in other words, persons between age 65 and 70-were protected. The law said that up to age 70 one could be a contributor to unemployment insurance, and that if one contributed and met the qualifications one could draw the benefits. So there are those persons between age 65 and 70 who are at work, who have been at work and who have been contributing in the belief that if they become unemployed they will qualify for benefits.
These people, who may have contributed for two, three or four years in that period between 65 and 70, suddenly on January 1, 1976, if this bill should become law, no longer will have that right. I do not think this right should be taken away, but if it is, I suggest it should be taken away gradually, with some notice that persons between age 65 and 70 who are now paying and have the right to expect to draw benefits will not have that right taken away from them now, but that by 1980 the change might be in order. As I say, I think this is unfair in general terms. We think it is unfair particularly to those persons who are now in the age bracket between 65 and 70.
One argument that has been used by the government in presenting this proposal is that persons in this age bracket are now taken care of by other government programs. Of course, those programs are favourites with some of us, such as the old age security program, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan. These programs are coming along. They are a lot better than was the case when I first came to this chamber. However, it still is not luxury living even if one is on the full amount of all these various programs. There are many instances of persons who do need additional income, not because they are greedy old folks but because they have responsibilities, because they married late in life and still have children going to school or university, or because they have other family needs or have grandchildren they must raise. There are persons who, whether they like the work ethic or not, feel they have to work. I submit that it is not fair to say to them that from here on they must be satisfied with what they get as old age pensioners. I do not mind an adequate old age retirement plan taking the place of unemployment insurance and taking the place of employment for remuneration, but what I do not like is seeing these things taken away before there is an adequate plan in its place.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I remind you, sir, and I remind the minister that for all the tremendous progress we have made in the field of old age legislation-and I speak of that with some pride-we have not reached the end of the road. There is that very interesting document produced a short while ago by the Canadian Council on Social Development which assesses our retirement plans and says there is much that is yet to be done. One of the main elements in that volume is that the Canada Pension Plan needs to be greatly expanded and enlarged. If that were the case, if the Canada Pension Plan were paying pensions up to 75 per cent of the recent earnings of those who had left the labour market, that would be a different story from the case at present, where the most you can get out of the Canada Pension Plan is 25 per cent of the average of your recent earnings.
So I join in expressing approval of the progress we have made in terms of old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan, but they have not reached the point at which it can be said they are adequate and, therefore, people should not expect unemployment insurance coverage. This raises another question-and I am glad that not only is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration present but so is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde)-regarding the attitude of our society toward persons between age 60 and 70. As you, sir, I hope, are aware, I am a strong advocate and a hard fighter for lowering the pensionable age to 60. I have made it clear in every speech I have made on the subject that what I advocate is that old age security and Canada Pension Plan benefits be available at the age of 60 for those who leave the labour market. In other words, I have not advocated compulsory retirement at 60 but, rather, legislation which would make it possible for those who wish to retire to do so.
It is in this connection that I am especially interested in the report of the Canadian Council on Social Development which argues very strongly that we should do something to remove the idea that there is any age at which one must retire compulsorily. That report has some critical things to say about pensions at 65 as we achieved them. Even though the report wants them improved, it points out that there has been a tendency to establish the proposition that people must retire at 65, are supposed to retire then, and that it is the ethical and social thing to do. I really think we have to adopt the more voluntary position that our legislation, both our old age pension legislation and our unemployment insurance legislation, should be designed to create a state of voluntarism, should be designed to make it possible for people to do either, that is, to stay in the labour market up to 65 or 70, if they wish, or to leave the labour market early.
I think one of the things that is wrong about this measure of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is that it seems to harden the notion about the age of 65, namely, that that is a point at which you should not be working any longer, you should not be in the labour market and you should not be drawing an income other than what comes to you by way of pension of one sort or another.
As I have said, I support vigorously those parts of the report of the Canadian Council on Social Development which state that we should do some more thinking-and I

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
am prepared to include myself-as to what we do with regard to the decade from age 60 to 70. I do not like this measure because it flies in the face of thinking about the rights of people between age 60 and 70. You do not have to go back many decades to the time when those people had little or no rights at all. If they lost their jobs, as they did because of age, they had to depend upon their children or their relatives. They had no social life, no public life, they were left in the back room, they did not have clothes to wear to go out, they did not have car fare-in modern terms that is bus fare.
We have come a long way from that. Now we provide pensions that are more reasonable. We have medicare and free hospitalization for almost everyone, and certainly we have it for our older people. We have pharmacare in a number of provinces, and we have senior citizens' residences which make it possible for many of these people to enjoy accommodation which was unknown to them some years ago. That is fine. I am glad that we have made this progress. But there is a terrible tendency around here to think that because we have done something for older people-done a fair amount, if you will-that is the end of the story and there is nothing more we need to do. By this bill the government is in effect saying, "once you are 65, that is it. Enjoy your pension, enjoy your senior citizens' accommodation, your free hospitalization, medicare and all the rest of it, but forget it so far as being an active member of society or an active member of the work force is concerned."
I think it is wrong to do this. Certainly the whole decade from 60 to 70 should be a time during which persons, ought to have the choice either to work or to retire. What our legislation should do is, not fix things is some hard and fast way but make it possible for persons to exercise that choice. You do not do it if you say to persons at the age of 65, "You are not in the unemployment insurance picture any longer." That is what subclause (2) of clause 1 of the bill does. For these general reasons, and because I think that the whole proposition is unfair, I plead very earnestly that this House give serious consideration to this matter. Other colleagues of mine will have something more to say about subclause (1) and subclause (3) of clause 1 of the bill. An argument can be made against those subclauses such as the one made by the hon. member for Hamilton West, but I think they are far less important, either way, than what is in subclause (2) which cuts persons at the age of 65 off unemployment insurance. In many ways it is completely wrong and unfair.
As I said earlier, I thought the same about cutting them off at the age of 70, but it did not affect as many people and we did not have as many complaints about that action as we are getting now. There were not as many persons who had already built up some kind of entitlement because the law was changed, but there are many of them now who will suffer, when this bill goes through, the loss of entitlements for which they have paid. I think that for the government to bring the cut-off age from 70 down to 65 so soon after it seemed to make the age of 70 the age of retirement by law, is cruel and harsh. Therefore, I urge very strongly that the House support my report stage motion No. 2 which would cut subclause (2) out of clause 1 of the bill and leave Canadians the right to participate in unemployment insurance up to the age of 70.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to unduly extend the debate on Bill C-69, on which I understand all hon. members apparently have agreed, so that we can adjourn on December 19 for the Christmas and New Year recess. However, when a few weeks ago I raised in the House the question respecting the government's intention to deny people aged 65 to 70 any benefit entitlement, I was told my question would be answered in the House when this debate on the bill took place. Well, I trust the minister can give me a proper explanation for that amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, having said that, I would remark that I had the occasion yesterday to meet with a number of people in that age bracket; three quarters of them are still gainfully employed and were concerned about the Unemployment Insurance Act amendment to deprive them of their benefit entitlement should they decide to retire.
Mr. Speaker, I can imagine those people remain on the labour market because they need a higher income to meet their commitments, because I guess with their old age income pension and even the supplement, their income would not equal what they get through their present employment. All that is depending on the fact that they have commitments which force them to go on working and the fact that their physical condition enables them to do so. However, if they are granted that benefit entitlement for three weeks only, they also will obviously become unable to contribute to the plan.
I would however like the government to consider very seriously the possibility of proceeding gradually, because it would be unfortunate that a great number of people who would have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund, and never or hardly ever derived any benefit from it, would be bereft in such a radical way of their right when they were in a position to take advantage of the legislation. I think the government would be wise to proceed by stages, so that those people would be informed beforehand of those changes and might prepare for them accordingly.
I would not, Mr. Speaker, elaborate on the statements made earlier by the two hon. members who spoke before me, because they actually pointed at problems which I consider to be extremely serious, and the arguments put forward with respect to the proposed amendments in clause I confirm the fact that those amendments in my opinion are quite appropriate because in this way we want to ask the government to review its position so as not to effect a too sudden change for those people.
Here is the second point it would be time to point out. If we finally decided to lower to 60 the age of retirement and old age security on a voluntary basis, which means that those who want to keep on working could do so, we should not exclude others from the benefits of the legislation which Canada can afford to provide to more people. I think there should be some link between the proposed amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Old Age Security Act. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I must sincerely support the amendments moved by the two hon. members and which appear as motions Nos. 1 and 2, because I think they are justified.


I hope that before completion of the study of the bill, the minister will consider the comments and ideas that hon. members will have expressed and that the government might be able to reverse its stand or still give explanations so convincing that all hon. members, I mean Parliament, will have to accept the bill.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to say a few words in support of the motion introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I take some exception to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that only one of these subclauses be deleted. It has been mentioned that one subclause proposes to bring another category of workers under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the other proposes to delete a group of individuals from participation in the plan.
I suggest that to bring an additional number of individuals under the provisions of the act at a time when the minister is using the argument of restraint, and to remove some others, is rather paradoxical. When we think of those who are to be brought under the provisions of the act, those who are sponsors of projects under programs conducted by the Government of Canada pursuant to any act of parliament,-some of these programs are LIP, OFY, CYC, and possibly others which may be introduced from time to time-it seems rather strange, at a time when the minister is contemplating disposing of such programs, that he now sees fit to propose that the sponsors of such projects be brought under the provisions of the act.
While these programs have done a great deal of good in many areas and in many respects, they are only palliatives at best. The problem is unemployment. These programs were brought about to provide employment opportunities for those who were unable to obtain employment, and if the government paid more attention to solving the unemployment problem in a long-term fashion rather than by these piecemeal programs, greater credit would accrue to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: In budget debate after budget debate, when the former minister of finance was bringing down budgets, he proclaimed the necessity of solving the unemployment problem and stated that the government was determined to do this. However, like some other promises, particularly with regard to inflation, we find that instead of getting better, the unemployment problem is getting worse, which just shows the complete inadequacy of the plans and proposals of the government to meet this very pressing problem in Canadian society.
Instead of bringing out these piecemeal programs and trying to put sponsors of projects on the UIC rolls, the government should be doing something to solve the overall problem; then we would not be faced with the necessity of doing so. It has been pointed out that these programs are short-term. LIP is an example of one of these. They are short-term programs; those who were engaged for a very short period of time would qualify to take their place on
Unemployment Insurance Act
the Unemployment Insurance Commission rolls and receive benefit. It seems that when we tie this in with the additional provision of deleting those over age 65, it is cynicism at its worst. I would say in passing that programs such as winter works and winter employment expansion which were used in this country at one time were very effective in many respects, much more effective than even some programs that have been mentioned today.
I should like now to refer to the second proposal included in clause 1, the removal from participation in unemployment insurance of individuals over age 65. In the debates that took place in this House at the earlier stage of the bill, the minister stated that the unemployment insurance plan was not a short-term pension plan. Like a great many Canadians I could take exception to that and say that is just about what it is in many respects-a short-term pension plan. The minister also argued that other provisions had been made for people over 65 years of age, but I say they are still inadequate to meet the needs of our senior citizens. When the Canada Pension Plan was introduced, it was pointed out in the course of debate that it was an extremely poor investment program and that, considering the small returns or the benefits received after 45 or 50 years of service, it was not really worth while. I know improvements have been made to the plan, but I suggest it is still not a very good investment as far as the workers of this country are concerned. If you tie in with that the basic pensions that accrue to senior citizens today, I do not think they would justify the removal of this group of individuals from participation in the unemployment insurance program.
We think of those who would be affected by this measure, those who have made a tremendous contribution to the development and building of this country. I know it is almost trite to say it, but it is a fact that they have made a tremendous contribution. Now we find they are going to be put on the shelf. They can take work, and although they have been paying unemployment insurance for many years, if they are past age 65 they will not be able to receive benefits from the scheme. This is an insult to those individuals in the declining years of their lives who are without adequate resources and are unable to provide for their later years. One of the reasons they are unable to provide is that the government has allowed inflation to eat away their savings to the point that they cannot meet their needs. I think these people deserve better treatment.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said that people should not be required to retire at any age. Here we have individuals who have gained a vast store of experience, knowledge and skills that would be of benefit to our society, but we are placing them at a disadvantage in saying they may continue to work but must not expect to participate in the unemployment insurance program. Put the two things together: people are allowed to participate after a brief period of employment, and another group of people have worked for years and years, many never claiming unemployment insurance, and now they will be told they cannot qualify for it.
Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in speaking in favour of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
West because I believe this clause should be deleted in its entirety.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my contribution will be brief. The point has been made by other participants in this debate, but I should like to say a few words on how this issue strikes me in theory and in practice. With other members of the House, I have given a considerable amount of thought to the merits and disadvantages of this measure. I clearly understand the motive and the reasons of the minister and the commission in proposing the measure. Evidently it has the great advantage that it cuts down on all sorts of administrative control: you decide that any Canadian in the labour force above this age will. no longer be a participant in the program, and therefore he or she is no longer the object of intensified administrative control. From the point of view of practical administration, therefore, and from the point of view of saving money on the program, this would appeal to anyone concerned with the difficulties of administration.
On the other hand, if one looks at the total issue and tries to avoid being drawn into rhetoric on the whole subject, it does not seem proper to exclude from the right to participate in this program anyone who wishes to be in the labour force, whether they be young or old. It seems to me that the way to make sure no one abuses this particular measure is to apply the same controls that we apply daily to everybody who has to turn to the Unemployment Insurance Commission for service because of reasons beyond their control. We all know this is done very effectively in the field every day, every week and every month of the year. If it can be done for people below the age of 65, surely it can be done for people over the age of 65.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: There are people of this age still with family commitments because they started a family late in life. In addition, we have people who have assumed family responsibilities because of the sudden inability of parents to take care of their children and this falls to the lot of the grandparents. Then we have immigrants who work in this country and have not reached the residence requirement of ten years needed to qualify for the old age pension at age 65. A variety of persons in the age group over 65 are bona fide workers with attachment to the labour force, and they ought not to be disqualified from this universal right of contributing to and drawing from this general fund.
Therefore, it seems to me that if the administrator feels there is an abuse in this particular area-and the hearings in committee and the speeches made so far do not seem to indicate that this particular group abuses the scheme more than any other large group-this kind of screening and control would best be carried out by the commission itself. The liberal approach to this question would be that we do not look at the age or sex of the person, or any other consideration of that kind. We only look at the willingness of the person remaining in the work force and seeking an alternative job when the opportunity arises.

It does not disturb me that if a person in this age group, having worked for 40 years and having contributed for a long time, is allowed under the law to draw benefits for up to 52 weeks. Actually, this kind of consideration, retribution or a lengthy period of benefit-drawing, is an indicator to us as to the kind of program we should have. We should have a program of rewarding people in the labour force, one that would allow them to draw from the fund in proportion to the number of months, years or decades of contributions they have put into it. This seems to be the notion that you pick up when you speak to the workers.
If a person has paid into the fund for 31 years, he does not understand why he should not be able to draw a considerable amount from it. He wants to know why a person who has contributed for only eight weeks can draw almost as much from the fund as him if he becomes unemployed. It is perceived in the field by those for whom the scheme has been designed as a measure that is not quite fair. Those aged 65 or over could draw for up to 52 weeks if they were so entitled and if no alternative job could be found, provided search for a job has been demonstrated by the action of the claimant. I would have no objection to that at all. However, I do see the merit in tightening up the administration to ensure that those not legitimately searching for a job but just trying to beat the system would not be allowed to do that.
The legislative route with a legislative measure of this kind draws a very deep line between those below age 65 and those above it. It should, instead, be approached through a kind of administrative measure as we find it possible in the daily operation of the commission for people who are below that age.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on this clause. Everyone, of course, is for those who are 65 years of age. According to what the minister told us in committee, last year there were 17,500 in this group who were drawing benefits. According to labour force statistics, the average number of unemployed was 7,000. It is hard to believe that this government can be so hard up at this time in Canadian history. They have been preaching the just society and talking about being compassionate Liberals, yet they pick on those in this country who are over 65, completely wiping them out of the unemployment insurance plan.
How much money would it involve? The Canadian Council on Social Development-this was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-made a study of those over 65 years of age. I am sure members opposite know they found that one-half of those people were living in poverty. Not only do we have a regressive tax system from which to fund this unemployment insurance plan, but we are "doing in" those over age 65, so much so that Mr. Baetz, executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development, said:
-I have a good deal of heartburn over removing the age 65 and over from coverage. We all know that many of this group have effectively retired, the majority of them, it might be stressed, compulsorily, not necessarily of their own volition. We are also aware that some employers, in collusion with aging employees, have violated the spirit of unemployment insurance. Nevertheless, we must seriously ask whether
December 15, 1975

it is sound social policy to throw the baby out with the bath water, to use a poor metaphor for this age group, by excluding all of this age group from further coverage. Should we not try again to find a formula that would accommodate those 65 and over who continue to have a bona fide attachment to the labour force? Surely, the principle of personal choice should be exercised here to the greatest degree possible.
With deference to the minister, I am sure that those in the gallery and others have done a considerable amount of study in the past month on the present situation in Sweden with regard to this problem and the handling of old age security. That is still on an experimental basis; it has not yet passed into law. As my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, stated, there is a voluntary aspect to the Swedish program.
We should not be cutting off from the labour force those 65 years of age. At one end of the scale we are keeping people in college for many years; they are cut off from the labour force. This, of course, results in better employment statistics. By cutting off all those aged 65, taking away their incentive to work by refusing to allow them to collect unemployment insurance benefits even though they have contributed to the fund, this also shows up in the employment statistics. As far as the government is concerned, it affects the revenue picture.
I strongly suggest that we listen to people such as Mr. Baetz. We do not like hearing this because most of us, especially those in this House, live a rather affluent life. We, of course, have heavy expenses. However, as long as I have my seat in this House I want to repeat that we have constantly to remind ourselves that in 1951, 20 per cent of the families of Canada, those on low incomes, were getting 4.4 per cent of the total economic pie, or the total GNP pie. In 1975, the bottom 20 per cent are receiving only 4 per cent. As far as distribution of income in this country is concerned, 60 per cent of the people are only getting 33 per cent of that pie, while 20 per cent are getting 44 per cent. I am proud of Canada, but I am not proud of that fact. I am not proud of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) who would treat those 65 years of age in the way they are being treated in this bill. That is a shameful, scandalous, Scrooge-like policy on the part of this government.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear at this point that I rise to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Certainly I could not support the sweeping amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). We have on this side of the House begged, cajoled and urged the government to embark on some kind of program-any kind of program-which would stimulate job opportunities in this country.
One of the direct ways it has gone about doing that is with LIP and with LEAP. We could make criticisms of those programs, but in effect they have attempted to get down into the municipalities and have attempted to create employment. Any move on the part of the government to include coverage under the unemployment insurance plan for the sponsors of LIP or LEAP programs-I stress here that I am talking about the sponsors of LIP and LEAP-to
Unemployment Insurance Act
get them into the work force, possibly giving them some experience in that area so that they might find fulfilling jobs in the future, would meet with our approval.
The clause which my hon. friends and I are concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is clause 1(2) which deals with 65-year olds. I think it appropriate that the bill has come before the House at this time of year, just ten days before Christmas. There sits Scrooge. I can just see him in his dream. Instead of the clanking of chains, he hears the creaking bones. As far the minister is concerned and as far as his hon. friends over there are concerned, with the exception of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), they wish these 65-year olds would just go into a corner and get away from them. They don't want to be bothered. They just wish they would go away and be unemployed on their own.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are talking about.


John R. Rodriguez: Members over there from the province of Quebec have a great deal of unemployment to deal with. I can imagine the number of 65-years olds who are involved in that high rate of unemployment. But they do not care. Any Liberal who can stand in his place and support the government on this particular clause has got be sleazy, mean and miserable like the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: The question which occurs to me is why the government, at the advice of its nabobs, has decided to bring in this measure. Having sat in the committee, having looked around at those sittings and having seen all the aparatchiks from the Unemployment Insurance Commission sitting around the room-at least 100 of them-I would like to commend the minister on his one-man attempt to solve the unemployment problem. All we have in evidence is what the minister tells us concerning the reasons for which he has brought the measure forward. The first reason he gives is that we have so many other social programs in the country. He tells us we have the Canada Pension Plan, the old age security plan and the guaranteed income supplement plan. He says in effect, the unemployment insurance program is not designed for people who are 65 years of age or over; it is not intended to be an income supplement for 65-year olds.
We tried to tell the minister during the committee hearings that nobody in our party had suggested we wanted to see the Unemployment Insurance Act used as an income supplement program for 65-year olds. The minister fails to realize, and his nabobs fail to realize, that people of 65 years and over who must still work should still have the choice as to whether they wish to stay under the coverage of the plan or not. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is a plan sponsored by the people of Canada and it discriminates when it prevents people who are 65 and over from participating in the coverage.
The fact of the matter is that the programs the minister talks about-the old age pension, the Canada Pension Plan, the guaranteed income supplement-provide workers of 65 years and over with a monthly benefit which is less than 39 per cent of the average industrial worker's earnings. These benefits were never intended by the government to

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
provide adequate income as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) himself noted in an address made late in 1973,1 quote his words:
The Canada Pension Plan was not set up to provide full retirement income. Rather, it was viewed as the middle tier of a three-tier system; old age security, the Canada Pension Plan and private pension benefits.
This means that older workers must depend on a private pension to provide an adequate income. Statistics Canada has reported that less than 40 per cent of wage and salary earners have a private pension plan. We tried consistently during the committee hearings to bring home to the minister and to the government that when a worker becomes 65 years of age and becomes unemployed, he does not retire from the work force. He must seek work, Mr. Speaker. It is economically important that he continue to seek work. People do not all look forward to the day when they are 65 and will stop working to retire to the cottage, or to Florida. They must continue to seek work. Many of them still have dependants who need support. What the minister has proposed is to cut them loose from the protection of the Unemployment Insurance Act. What a miserly thing to do, Mr. Speaker.
What the minister has admitted-one of his nabobs, the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner, admitted it to the committee-is that there is some problem about the administering of this group of people. He states that the average number of weeks a person of 65 years or over collects benefits is 31 weeks, representing the sum of $2,800. He says this proves something of a problem for the administration. Surely we do not make legislative decisions based upon what is wise for the administration. Obviously, the minister and his nabobs do.
A 65-year old who is unemployed and seeking work and meets every other requirement of the act is not just a statistic to be administered. Surely we must not allow these people to be thought of in such cold and calculating terms. People in the age group 65 years and up find it very difficult to obtain work. The minister admits this is so. Nevertheless, provided they fulfil the requirements of the act, that is to say, are available for work, capable of working and are actively seeking work, they should be eligible for the benefits under any plan set up in Canada to benefit Canadians who meet the requirements. What the minister has coldly and calculatingly done is to eliminate them from that particular piece of government legislation.
We are not thinking of just a small group of people. Statistics Canada reports that the participation rate in the work force of those 65 to 69 years of age is 29 per cent. So we are not talking about a small group of people. The minister has said of these people-he has inferred it, and hinted-that they are dishonest, that they want to continue to collect private pensions and collect unemployment insurance benefits when they are not actively seeking work. But what the minister is really telling us is that his department is really incapable of enforcing the act. It came out during the committee hearings that the commission is able to segregate groups of people by sex and by age and, having done that, can enforce the regulations with respect to specific groups of people.


Mr. Symes:: It is on the computer.


John R. Rodriguez: Certainly it is on the computer. Well, then, surely they can do it for those aged 65 to 69. If it is possible in one instance, it is surely possible to enforce the act with respect to the 65 to 69-year olds, as it is, I would hope, to enforce the act with respect to any other age group and not just selectively on women or on 60 to 65-year old women. We should be able to enforce the part of the legislation that provides that a claimant must be available, capable of working and actively seeking work. Surely it is not beyond the capability of the legion of administrative nabobs that I heard from during the committee hearings to do this.


Reginald Cyril Symes: It is easier to make the elderly scapegoats.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) says that it is easier to make the elderly scapegoats, and it is. It is easier for the minister to do that under the guise that it is administratively difficult to enforce this provision. Indeed, he argues that since we have all these other "rich" social programs, the 65-year olds really do not need to collect unemployment insurance.
Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, how the government restraint program is operating? It is beautiful the way the government restrains itself. Certainly there is no restraint concerning all the nabobs who were before the committee; I am sure they were making an everage of 25 G's a year. The restraint is for those least able to defend themselves, and there are three groups in society who fall into this category-children, women, and the 65-year olds and over. In this particular case the minister is picking on the 65-year olds and over.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: Certainly it is a shame. The minister comes from the same sort of area of the country as I come from, where it is difficult for a 65-year old to find work. Such a person is unemployed. He goes out to seek work and is conforming with the act in every instance, but he cannot find employment. The minister is telling this person that he has to live on his Canada pension, old age security and GIS, which may bring a grand total, in all its generosity, of about $3,000 a year. That is how the government restrains itself.
The government says it wants to save about $125 million. This does not include the $31 million that is due almost immediately, in 1976, to those who, under the government's amendment, become eligible for the three weeks' retirement benefit which I call a bonus. According to the minister, the government is saving, under the plan, about $89 million. It is of interest to note that when the legislation having to do with retirement of members of the Senate was amended to set 75 years of age as the retiring age for senators, those already sitting in the Senate were excepted. So far as we are concerned, this is restraint in the wrong area.
If the government were really interested in saving the unemployment insurance fund money, it would take action to increase productivity in this country. If it were interested in raising tax revenue in order to extend present pro-
December 15, 1975

grams, the answer, surely, is to reduce unemployment by even 1 per cent. If this were done, the consequent savings would be three times the saving that will be realized by the government's restraint program as it affects the 65-year olds and over.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Five times.


John R. Rodriguez: Certainly five times. We on this side of the House are not alone in recommending deletion of the part of the clause having to do with the 65-year olds. The Canadian Labour Congress, which represents a vast number of those organized into trade unions, has advised that this is a regressive step at this point in time. Unemployment continues to rise with every monthly report from Statistics Canada. The Canadian Council on Social Development representatives appeared before the committee and also recommended that this amendment be not carried. But the minister is not interested in these opinions. He has already had advice from above, literally and realistically, and he intends to follow that advice.
If there is any doubt about the restraint program, the minister makes provision later in the bill for that particular clause to become effective January 1, 1976. This is why we have called this the Christmas present from the Liberal government to the 65-year olds and over. It is of interest to note that at least one member on the government side has had the courage, foresight, humanity and sensitivity to realize that what is being put forward in the legislation, by his colleagues on that side of the House, is indeed regressive and hits the 65-year olds and over very hard.


Reginald Cyril Symes: He is obviously a man of principle.


John R. Rodriguez: He certainly is, and when the time comes for the vote on this amendment he will stand and be counted with the progressive forces in this House. As I have said, the minister hopes to save the plan some money, and I have suggested that he can do this by embarking on programs to create employment.
There is one other point to be made. This party has not suggested in any way, either inside or outside the House, that any person who does not conform to the act should collect employment insurance benefits. We must stress that point. The minister will later rise in this House and say that somehow or other we on this side of the House want these people to continue to rip off the unemployment insurance system. That is his own idea; he thinks that somehow or other the 65-year olds are dishonest. That is not our view on this side of the House at all.
We have said consistently that the minister can enforce the act. He has benefit control which, in effect, can sort out those 65-year olds and over who are not available for work and those seeking work actively and are capable of work. The minister should be progressive in dealing with this problem. It is surely not beyond the technical and administrative ability of the nabobs in the Unemployment Insurance Commission to separate legitimate claimants under the act from the illegitimate. That is what we said in committee as well as on second reading. This is what the government should be doing, rather than wiping out holus-bolus the 65-year olds as if they did not even exist.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I know that the minister is going to reply, "We certainly don't deny the 65-year olds the right to work, and there is nothing in the amendment that prevents them from seeking work", and so on and so forth, ad nauseam. That is what he said in committee, as though he had been programmed to say that by the Unemployment Insurance Commission officials, who will be well taken care of when they are 65. They will not have to worry about collecting unemployment insurance, unlike those who have no pension plan through their employer but must depend on continuing to look for work, and to take work if it is offered, beyond the age of 65.
As I have already said, we are concerned with the 65 to 69-year olds presently active in the work force or who will become active in the work force. The minister tried to hide behind the argument in committee that somehow this gives the 65-year olds security. It is all one government and it is responsible for the old age security program in this country, the Canada Pension Plan and every other piece of social legislation at the federal level. The minister should not be allowed to duck or to escape his responsibility as a minister of this government to keep progressive legislation on the books, making it more progressive, and not regressive as he has suggested in this particular clause.
I urge hon. members of this House to stand and be counted when the opportunity arises, saying to the minister and his nabobs in the commission, who I might say are ill-advising him, that we do not want those 65 years of age and over, who must work and conform to the act, treated in such a shoddy manner by a government which starts restraint with others rather than with itself.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I already had the opportunity on second reading to say what I thought about that bill concerning individuals 65 years of age and over. Really I am surprised to see that the minister and his advisers have not seen fit to make proper amendments to that bill. It is truly unfair to try to have those regulations passed for the good reason that 65-year-old persons who have contributed during 30 or 34 years to the unemployment insurance fund are still anxious to work and take advantage of all the benefits of a legislation passed several years ago. And suddenly without any warning, the government makes such a decision.
I had even suggested that if only to lessen the after effects of this clause of the legislation we could at least do as we did when the old age security act was amended and begin at 69 years of age, then 68, 67, 65. I do not know why such a procedure cannot be used, because at least the older people would not be so taken aback with that unfair legislation.
But no, it seems the government wants to have this piece of legislation passed just as it is. I have also had on numerous occasions the opportunity to say that the main clauses of this act are always intended to protect the fund and, in the present circumstances, I would very much like to hear someone prove the contrary, because according to information provided us in committee, I find what they mean by that subparagraph "repercussions on implementing conditions". Indeed, these repercussions mean: dis-

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
qualification of persons, 65 years or over; net reduction of costs: $120 million; persons involved, 170,000. What a beautiful Christmas gift to these 170,000 persons. Really, to draft such a legislation, one has to be totally devoid of any humanitarian sense; this is total nonsense. Estimations of basic cost for the year 1976, taking into account a 7 per cent unemployment rate, these estimates are based on that calculation. The 170,000 persons involved include 63,000 active claimants, aged between 65 and 69 who will no longer receive any benefits. And we seem to rejoice in this.
One would think that the technocrats who drafted this famous legislation and made the calculations submitted in committee greatly rejoice in depriving a group of workers who have contributed all their life to the maintenance of an unemployment insurance measure that was passed by this House, in this Parliament of Canada for all Canadians. And now they are told: You are not entitled to it any more. There will be some old age security legislation to replace this program advantageously. I shall say that it is not entirely true. If we take a look at some particular cases, we can see that many 65-year-old people are still willing and able to work and still have some responsibilities. Those who married late for instance and still have children at school.
Then, they need a relatively high income. Two lumbermen came to see me at home last week. They are brothers one is is 66 years old and the other 68. They had finished their work in the bush. They were in cracking form; they had cut many cords of wood during the summer and they asked me what they could do under this legislation and what they could expect from it. I told them: Make an application, the legislation is not passed yet and I hope that the majority of members will study thoroughly this clause and take it off from the bill. Those were the suggestions I made. And then, what surprises me most, is that hon. members have recently received, like ourselves, requests from several old age groups. I have here the recommendations sent by the secretary of l'Association des fonctionnaires a la retraite du Quebec Inc. and it was, I am sure, sent to every Liberal and Progressive Conservative member from Quebec. How come those people did not take this seriously? Yet, I think it is clear in the second recommendation that the proposed amendment is unfair and discriminatory toward people aged 65 or more and who do not have a sufficient income to live decently.
During the current period of inflation which this government contributed to create, those people are told: You do not need benefits any more. Manage as best you can with your income, with the procedures you will have to follow to get several things under the old age security legislation. Of course there were some improvements in that respect, but in too many cases it is not enough and it all depends on the commitments those people have. They are still working and they expect to get eventually unemployment benefits as they have contributed to the fund for many years. But this was sent to all members; they are certainly aware of that matter.
From what is recorded in the report, I should be quite surprised if English province residents had not done the same thing. Hon. members of the Liberal party and Mr. Minister, you are in the right position to meet senior

citizens and inform them that you have adopted legislation to favour them. It is easy to congratulate the aged and wish them the best of health, even when it is necessary to adopt bills which will deprive them of all the benefits of the current legislation. To conclude, I dare hope hon. members will wake up and vote in favour of the proposed amendment to strike out from the unemployment insurance bill this clause which would deprive people 65 years of age of the benefits they should rightfully collect.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the enthusiastic remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I wondered what part of the administrative anatomy a nabob was- either a serf in the department or at a higher level-and I had to go to the dictionary to find out. For that reason, I assume other persons who may be reading his remarks will wonder at which level nabobs are to be found, particularly in view of the fact the description has been used so often.
There are before the House in these amendments two ideas which are unrelated in terms of interpretation. One I can wholeheartedly endorse. The other I would support with some reservations. The amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which would withdraw the restriction in respect of unemployment insurance benefits for persons between age 65 and 70, would seem to be worth considering in light of the remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Commission being in a position to sort out these people.
As has been pointed out by other speakers, many of these people must work, for personal reasons. There are no universal, supplementary pension plans in industry throughout the country that would enable a large number of these people to take advantage of any private insurance program. Therefore, what we really are talking about is the social security of the people of our nation which would go into effect at age 65, or in some instances at age 70.
We are not talking about any great sum of money. The amount involved is not what is considered the normal retirement standard of 60 per cent of one's income. Many hardships are placed on a number of people in this category and there is some unfairness, as has been pointed out by previous speakers. Two things bother me about the reduction in the age in respect of unemployment insurance. First, many people are not mentally tuned to retirement at age 65. I think this represents a larger category than those who may of necessity require unemployment insurance beyond age 65, or employment, as the case may be.
I think one problem in this country has been our inability to educate or to train people for retirement. People spend many years in a job which has become very routine, with which they are familiar, where they have friends and where in fact they spend a large part of their waking day. When that situation changes and a person finds himself in his home for 24 hours a day, he finds mental and physical problems develop. I do not think many of our senior citizens have been able to cope with this situation.
December 15, 1975

The minister, coming from an area where there were large bush operations and where the railroads were a major factor, will remember there has been a long history of political decisions having been made. These decisions were made in respect of fishermen, bush workers and railroad workers. These were political decisions which in my opinion represented abuses of a program which had been in effect. Previous speakers have referred to people who have come to count on being able to work beyond age 65. In many cases these people have never been unemployed, but they are now at an age where sickness may develop and when it may not be easy for them to find a job.
It may be necessary for many of these people, for the first time in their lives, to face unemployment, yet with this legislation they would have no protection in the form of unemployment insurance. I am not, and never have been, in favour of a situation like that in respect of railroaders who were granted six months' or a year's pay after retirement and were told they were entitled to draw one year's unemployment insurance benefits. That is a fact. They were never bothered, because the Liberal party looked at the number of seats that party held in railroad areas and made that political decision in exactly the same way the decision was made in respect of Newfoundland. That decision was also made in respect of northern Ontario, for the same reason, relating to the bush workers.
There have been some bad principles. I think that was a bad principle. It is a principle I cannot support. I do not support the idea that if one pays into unemployment insurance for 40 years, one is entitled to receive his money back. I do not think such a person should get the money back. I do not expect to get back the money I have put into life insurance policies. There will not be any more money there than I have paid in, in any event. One is insured for a specific purpose. Unless that event takes place, one does not receive any benefit. One insures one's house for fire protection, and unless it burns down one does not receive any money. One insures his automobile against an accident, and unless there is an accident there is no payment. I do not think one should get back the payments one has made over a long period into the unemployment insurance fund.
On the other hand, if for 30 years you have been paying premiums and expect some coverage, and then the government decides it does not want you in the labour force after age 65, the government may not be taking into account some of the problems you have. You may have married late in life and may have two or three children still at school. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be receiving the old age pension before his children are in high school.


An hon. Member:: He does not need it.


William Arnold Peters: Probably he does not need it. Some people, however, believe that what one does for himself one should do for everybody else, and vice versa. The Unemployment Insurance Commission can sort out the situation on its computer and determine whether or not a man has a good work record. The commission also has the advantage of being able to ask the type of questions they ask everybody in my riding. I am surprised that the people in the riding of
Unemployment Insurance Act
the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) are not having any difficulty with unemployment insurance. In my area, where there are ten times the number of people seeking jobs as there are jobs, every day someone is cut off unemployment insurance because he will not travel 200 miles to look for work.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to intervene at this time, but I must point out that the hon. member is incorrect when he says we do not have any problems in respect of unemployment insurance in my riding. Of course we have problems. At the same time, I must state that the staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission have been good in this respect and we have been able to solve many of the problems. The hon. member should not mislead the House by saying we do not have any problems. That is my only comment.


William Arnold Peters: I certainly accept that statement. I apologize. In listening to the hon. member, I had the impression that really the benefit control problem was not a problem any longer and that with respect to persons 65 and over it would not be a factor. I am sure the benefit control officer would be able to handle the problem in respect of people over age 65. I do not suggest it would be easy, because we know abuses would take place.
Many people want to get their money back. I am not in agreement with that. But I know of many persons between the age of 65 and 70 who, if they are not out looking for jobs and actively seeking work, are not able to support their families and must go on welfare assistance. This applies even to people beyond the age of 70. I know of many cases of people over the age of 70 who have to seek welfare assistance because employment is not available to them. I suggest that this could be worked out and that protection could be given to people at that age who are actually looking for work and are capable of taking it. There are many people who do not qualify because their health is not good, but there are many others in my area who are denied any kind of provincial or municipal assistance simply because they are not declared unemployable, and if they do get employment they cannot receive these benefits.
I should like to say a few words about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West to delete the whole of clause 1, which would affect the sponsors of LIP and LEAP projects. I agree that that clause should be deleted. However, it seems odd that we should include a qualifying sentence stating: "An individual referred to as the sponsor of a project in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) shall, for the purposes of this act and the regulations, be deemed to be an employer in respect of his remuneration from the project."
I assume that this presumption is put in there to indicate that he is not a government employee, yet he is selfemployed. He dreams up the project and he administers it. As soon as the project is over, he can draw unemployment insurance benefits and start writing his application under the Opportunities for Youth Program or one of the other programs, and then perhaps qualify again. This can go on almost continuously. It would come under the same catego-

December 15, 1975
Royal Assent
ry as perennial students. They will be perennial sponsors of projects which they initiate. This is like planning your own business but not being allowed to decide when it ends; that is up to the ones who administer the project.
I am inclined to agree on the necessity to eliminate the whole clause rather than just the part contained in paragraph (2)(a), because I believe that although there are abuses, in the case of LIP and LEAP projects there is no need to establish under the act another category which I consider to be a political category. People in that category can provide employment and receive money for the project, and when the project is completed they can draw unemployment insurance. In many cases the length of employment may last no longer than the life of the project.
I hope the minister will give some consideration to amending the provision on retirement at the age of 65. It may not be so important in rural areas and in some of the urban areas where it is not hard to find a job, but it is of major concern in my area and in some other parts of northern Ontario where many people 65 years of age and over should be given special consideration.
I suggest that if the minister, who is also responsible for Manpower, wishes to do something in this field, he might allay some of my fears and the fears of some of my colleagues, and certainly those of some people who are about to retire, by considering the provision of a period of training before retirement. The aim of such a training program would not be the time of employment but, rather, the time of retirement. We might then be in a much better position to recommend to persons over the age of 65 that they retire, with the knowledge that the benefits they receive will be sufficient to allow them to maintain a reasonable standard of living.
Other countries which face this problem make sure that the pension plans provide in the range of 50 per cent of the salaries or wages earned in the five or six best years of employment, but we in Canada, despite the claim to the contrary of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), certainly do not come close to meeting the needs of many of the people who retire in this country. I hope that hon. members on all sides who are concerned with Canadians who have to retire at the age of 65 will give favourable consideration to the amendment before us, so that these people will find it less difficult to retire if they are allowed to do so gradually rather than being dumped off, as the hon. member who preceded me indicated, knowing that this Christmas will be the deadline for them.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received from Government House, which is as follows:

Government House Ottawa, December 15, 1975
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 15th of December, at 8.00 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie)-External affairs; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social security; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Regional economic expansion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 15, 1975


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. Accordingly, this would also postpone a division on motion No. 2, which will stand deferred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, are you not going to put the question on motion No. 2?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are having a procedural difficulty. The hon. member will agree with me that if motion No. 1 had been accepted by the House, there would not be a clause 1 in the bill, so motion No. 2 could not be put. We have to wait and see what happens to motion No. 1 before we can make a decision on motion No. 2. If the hon. member agrees with this, we will defer putting the question on motion No. 2. This is my opinion, but I am prepared to receive the opinions of hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just thought the point should be made so that we will have the right, when the vote on motion No. 1 is taken, then to call a vote on motion No. 2 if motion No. 1 is defeated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is one other point I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members. When he was in the Chair, Mr. Speaker suggested some groupings but he forgot to say anything about motions Nos. 3 and 5, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), which attempt to achieve the same purpose, to exclude people under sentence from the provisions of the act. I suppose the hon. member would agree that both of them could be debated together, and that one vote on motion No. 3 would automatically decide motion No. 5. Is that agreed?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) moves:
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-69, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended in clause 4 by striking out lines 22 to 24 inclusive at page 2.
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-69, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended in clause 5 by striking out lines 19 to 21 inclusive at page 3.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in prefacing my more concrete remarks I would say, without imputing motives, that any hon. member using his mind or his mouth to vote against this must have rocks in his head. It is my conclusion that, through implication, the government has indicated that crime does pay. Let us consider a hypothetical situation, a person who is a law-abiding citizen who, through the good graces of the work ethic, acquires an eligibility period and then goes sour for some reason or another. I cannot imagine a situation whereby he may go sour-but he then goes to jail.
The government says that after he comes out of jail he is entitled to pick up his eligibility period, because the government has now extended it to cover the amount of time he spent in jail. When I think of what the government has done with respect to our senior citizens, by indicating that it wants to remove them from the work force and thus from taking advantage of unemployment insurance, and on the other hand then saying that if a person commits a crime-and I am not talking about the merits-he is to be allowed subsequent to his release to pick up where he left off, I wonder what kind of nonsense this is.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government now says there should be a moratorium. If a chap goes to jail, I do not hear mortgagees saying that they are very sorry and that because he has gone to jail they will not call for payments. Can the minister advise me of any organization or institution which has moved into this area? Of course he cannot. I do not hear of banks, as a result of their loans which demand repayment, saying, "Gee, we are not sorry you stole from 'X' bank and not from us. We appreciate that, and as a result of this kindness we will not call for the repayment of the loan while you are in jail." They do not give a moratorium; you pay a penalty.
I get a little worried about this government. If a person, through a quirk of fate, ends up in jail, finance companies still want their money. All these institutions to which I have just referred demand payment and there is a penalty involved.


John R. Rodriguez: That is ridiculous.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is my socialist friend with his big mouth. The hon. member, I am sure, will debate this point in his usual-


John R. Rodriguez: Wise way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -wisecracky way, and he will be given that opportunity; but in the meantime I should like to finish. I am not trying to filibuster this bill because, unlike my hon. friend, I will make my point in a very short space of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: However, the hon. member will go on for days being repetitious and bringing in a whole lot of nonsense and extraneous material, and we will all have to sit and listen.
As I was saying, I think I have made my point. We must be concerned about what this government is attempting to

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
do. We are all concerned about the rehabilitation of criminals. But why in the Unemployment Insurance Act? The minister and his officials stated that they received some representations. Representations from whom-the ordinary Canadian? Could the minister accept this if he saw his mother, a senior citizen, his father or his uncle in the twilight of their lives, being kicked out? If the minister thinks Canadians will accept this, that is a lot of nonsense. I plead with the minister to bring some sanity back into the Unemployment Insurance Act in terms of being at least fair and just.
There are not very many people involved in these two clauses. I think I have made my point. Under the circumstances, there is no way the minister can justify an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which indicates to me and to all reasonable people that crime does pay, at the expense of our senior citizens. Therefore, I hope that after the minister gets a blast from one or two more speakers from this side of the House, he will ask that this clause be stood. The minister shakes his head. Shame. If the minister says no without giving this any further consideration, I think he ignores the reality of the matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: The government is looking after its friends involved with dredging companies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let the record show that the House leader on this side is a very wise man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He understands the situation here. As I said, we do not want to hold up this bill unnecessarily, and we did have a good crack at it in committee. The minister understands our position. He understands that he has made a mistake. We would only hope by accepting that he could be wrong he would have second thoughts about bringing in these two amendments, particularly when it is noted what he has just done to our senior citizens. He plays Santa Claus to those who are incarcerated and plays Scrooge when it comes to our senior citizens.
My friend from Spadina (Mr. Stollery) laughs, but I know that a man of his worldly travels, with the understanding and compassion that he has expressed for senior citizens, knows that these two clauses are nonsense. If he is the kind of man I think he is, he might want to take part in this debate. But perhaps he has been misled like the rest of the backbenchers over there. They have a lot of sympathy with what we say, but they never get the opportunity to be honest with themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They might be honest and say, "My God, the hon. member for Hamilton West is right on because he knows the direction the minister is taking." Mr. Speaker, we have to be extremely concerned about the principle the minister is espousing. He is calling for a moratorium on matters in which criminals are involved in terms of unemployment insurance. I think this is vile, odious and obnoxious and I hope that after listening to me he is convinced
|Mr. Alexander.]
that I am right. I ask my colleagues on the other side to break away from partisanship, to bring a sense of justice to this place and vote in favour of the amendments related to clauses 4 and 5.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have known the official opposition for the last three years- such men as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). Their leader is a sensitive man who recognizes the need for reform, and that is why this particular amendment is put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). We could never accuse him of being Santa Claus, but surely we could expect that his party would live up to the ideals of sensitivity and reformation and would correct past bad practices, enabling those who have been incarcerated because of their mistakes to fit into the fabric of society much more smoothly than in the past.
My party argues against this particular amendment. We recognize that prisoners who have been incarcerated probably have a difficult time obtaining employment. Surely any kind of society that would want these individuals to be reoriented into society must extend to them the things which we recognized prior to 1971. This is nothing new; it was part of the act prior to 1971. Surely these people are injured; surely they are suffering because of their own faults and their mistakes against society. Certainly these are not involuntary acts, as the minister said in committee, but many were made in the full knowledge of what was being done. But it is up to society to ensure that after a sentence has been served, double punishment is not being imposed. They have been behind bars, so surely we do not want to deny them support when they are released, whilst they try to get back into society.
I know the Neanderthals on the far right would find that a repulsive suggestion, but I appeal to the more enlightened minds in this House. I call on them to defeat this amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West and to treat it as it ought to be treated, with immediate defeat.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a brief word. The clause under discussion is a very positive and liberal measure and the minister ought to be congratulated for it. Hon. members with good memories know that clause 4(b) resulted from debates held during private members' hour over the years. If I am not mistaken, during those debates a number of members from the Conservative side spoke in favour of a measure of this kind being included in any future amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The argument was made, and quite rightly, that if you contributed to the fund for a certain period of time and then happened to get into trouble with the law, it would make sense that upon release from prison you could draw income support until you found employment. That is the aim of this clause.
We are not only in favour of the clause, and in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Conservative party, but we congratulate the minister for having included it in this bill.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is always unwise for a member to enter a
December 15, 1975

debate that he has not followed as attentively as those who sat in committee, but I cannot help wanting to add a word or two. I would put them in the form of a question and perhaps the minister could respond next time he intervenes.
The point made by my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), is born out of concern that we seem to be licensing unlawful activities. We all know that this country has a cadre of habitual criminals. It would seem that if this particular clause were accepted, a habitual criminal could establish his benefit rights and then for some reason find himself in jail. He can establish his right to benefits, be in jail for the winter, warm and comfortable, and pop out when there is no job opportunity in his trade classification or general work area. When such opportunity does become available, he could again provoke police authority and end up back in jail. Indeed, by wilful decision he could spread this over two or three years.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Only up to two years.


J. Michael Forrestall: Two years. If it is in fact suspended, you could have a new benefit period and supplementary period extending over three calendar years without any difficulty at all. This is not just a technicality. Anyone familiar with the comings and goings in our magistrates courts could, on the basis of their experience, find situations where this could occur. Should something like that occur it would be a travesty of justice, which is the point made by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very short; however, I rise to say that I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), because I do not think it is normal to find in one piece of legislation provisions which deprive senior citizens of benefits, and other provisions which encourage those who were convicted. So, if I understand the law correctly, somebody who has been in prison for, say, two, three or four months, and who has already contributed to the unemployment insurance program, would be eligible for benefits when he gets out of prison. I do not see anything in the bill which could prevent it. That means, therefore, that the law would protect criminals who have been sentenced to more than a year, that is 52 weeks. That is going a little too far. I do not really agree with that clause of the bill. I am willing to try to help those people by all means of rehabilitation possible, to try and find ways of giving them jobs. But, now we are encouraging them. The previous speaker said that there are people who manage to stay in a warm place during the winter and work for a few weeks-eight at least-to be eligible for benefits. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and other members on this proposed amendment.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Somebody in an aside comment stated that the hon. member for Hamilton West was thinking of a filibuster. I do not think this is so. He is, of course, often full of bluster. Perhaps that is what was meant by the aside. Anyway he and I have had various exchanges of this sort.
I can defend the basic amendment in Bill C-69. I think it is probably a bit opportunistic to make the comparison he made about restoring this provision, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), that was in the previous act. That comparison to the other amendment we were debating a few minutes ago is odious, not relevant, and a bit politically opportunistic. In fact I wonder if that was not the reason for the attack on this particular amendment in Bill C-69.
As the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) indicated a few minutes ago, in the debate of several years ago when this matter came up, it was supported in almost every corner of the House, certainly in the corner occupied by the hon. member for Hamilton West and his colleagues.
There has been very considerable representation over the past two or three years, since the amendments of 1971, by provincial governments and many other organizations concerned about them. We are not rewarding crime. We are not making it pay off by any stretch of the imagination. We are simply saying that people who run afoul of the law after having earned unemployment insurance entitlement through legitimate work activity were, under the amendments of 1971, when the clock started ticking from the time they were incarcerated, losing their entitlement even though that incarceration might have been for a short-term sentence. We are simply providing 104 weeks in which that entitlement can be maintained. When they come out of incarceration they have to answer to all of the obligations under the act such as a job search, willingness to accept suitable work, and so on.
The amendment proposed in Bill C-69 is a decent amendment. It does not in any way encourage crime. It simply restores a position long established and accidentally left out of the 1971 amendments.
I would ask for the support of hon. members in denying the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West and leaving as is the amendment in Bill C-69.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division. This disposes of motion No. 5 at the same time. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would at this time be ready to receive some argument as to the acceptability of motions Nos. 4 and 6, as suggested by Mr. Speaker in his comments at the opening of report stage on this bill, or any other suggestion, unless hon. members prefer that we suspend the consideration of motions Nos. 4 and 6. I leave it to hon. members.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems that the arguments are not too prolonged and could be disposed of at this time. I see that the mover of this motion is here.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, what I have attempted to do with Section 18 of the act is to extend and expand the classes to which the extension of the clarifying period would apply. This is not foreign to this particular section.
Those on legal strike or attempting to go into self employment and fail were covered with this section prior to the 1971 changes. As the minister stated about those who are incarcerated, these people were left out when the new act came into being in 1971. What I am attempting to do is put back into Section 18 something which had been included prior to 1971.
I cannot quote reams and reams of Beauchesne and back it up with procedural arguments. I am asking that this motion be allowed to be debated and voted. Surely the members of this House can decide whether they would like those two groups included in Section 18. If members are permitted to move motions to delete certain classes, it is only logical that they be permitted to add classes. This ought to be a two-edged sword that can cut both ways for members of parliament.
I do not hold myself to be an expert on parliamentary procedure. I prefer to leave those matters to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. Nevertheless it seems only common sense that if we can move to take out certain classes from the bill we ought to be permitted to move motions to add classes.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has just established what is unacceptable about this motion. He says quite candidly that it adds classes extending the Unemployment Insurance Act as amended in 1971-classes which were certainly not contemplated in Bill C-69. In his opening comments about the admissibility of certain of these motions the Speaker referred to citation 246(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. I believe this citation clearly demonstrates that the motion is unacceptable on the

ground that it does add classes and constitutes an additional financial burden. Beauchesne reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
On those grounds, Mr. Speaker, motions No. 4 and 6 are not acceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would first of all bring it to the attention of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to change the rules. It is the duty of the Chair to apply the standing orders and to abide by the precedents and practices established. I have no objection to the hon. member making the point that the powers which private members enjoy might be extended, but I would point out that to accomplish this the basic rules of the House would have to be changed, even the constitution, since the proposal the hon. member puts forward would seem to imply setting aside precedents which have been followed for many, many years, and the provisions of the BNA Act.
The hon. minister, it seems to me, has correctly cited the precedents. Citation 246 in Beauchesne is clear on the subject, and if the hon. member wishes to consult another author he might read Erskine May, page 508 in the eighteenth edition, where it is stated that an amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or goes beyond the scope of a bill.
The hon. member knows that in accordance with our practice any expenditure of money has to be accompanied by a Royal recommendation. When one looks at the bill one finds that the Royal recommendation does not specify the enumeration of persons to be included or excluded but is attached to a measure in which one finds these specifications. So even if the hon. member is tempted to make the argument that the Royal recommendation is sufficiently open to include the persons he wishes to include by his amendment, in my view the Royal recommendation is limited by the bill, the hon. member's proposal would go beyond the bill, and would create an additional burden on the finances of the country.
I would refer the hon. member also to page 510 of May, eighteenth edition, paragraph 12, where it is stated that amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed.
In the light of all these considerations the Chair must reject the motions as proposed by the hon. member. Motions four and six cannot be accepted.
As suggested by Mr. Speaker, we should now proceed to the consideration of motions 7, 8, 14 and 15. It was suggested that these be debated together and that they might be disposed of by a division on motion No. 7. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 15, 1975


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Alexander moves Motion No. 7:
That Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting Clause 6.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Rodriguez moves Motion No. 8:
That Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting Clause 6.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Alexander moves Motion No. 14:
That Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting Clause 12.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Rodriguez moves Motion No.
15:
That Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting Clause 12.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have had some delightful news from my House leader. I may not reveal it at this time because it is extremely confidential but I can say it is most encouraging in terms of Christmas-I will put it that way. Therefore I do not intend to take up much time.


An hon. Member:: Is Christmas coming this year?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What we are attempting to bring home to the government is the unacceptability of the amendments it has produced with respect to the poor. This amendment of mine affects those at the lower end of the income scale.
Section 24(1) of the Act provides as follows:
The rate of weekly benefit payable to a claimant for a week that falls in an initial benefit period
(a) in the case of a claimant without a dependant is an amount equal to sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of his average weekly insurable earnings in his qualifying weeks or twenty dollars, whichever is the greater,
Pausing there, this provision applies to a person who, without a dependant, is entitled to unemployment insurance equal to 66% per cent of his insurable earnings. Then in the same provision, the government, in its wisdom, said, "Just a minute, we must be more concerned, rightly or wrongly, about those who have dependants and are faced with financial hardship". The key phrase there is "who have dependants". Therefore section 24(1) (b) went on to provide:
-in the case of a claimant with a dependant is an amount equal to
(i) seventy-five percent of his average weekly insurable earnings in his qualifying weeks or twenty dollars, whichever is the greater-
In other words, in 1971 the government said the amount for single people is 66% per cent of their average weekly insurable earnings and for those with depedants 75 per cent. This could have been questioned in the first place in terms of pure insurance. But this is not the only area in which the government moved away from the principle of pure insurance; sickness and pregnancy were added, I think as a result of the International Labour Organization convention which declared that these events amounted to the involuntary removal of a person from the work force. The insurance scheme, as it were, was destroyed at that time, even though I have continued to bring home to the
Unemployment Insurance Act
minister that we want a program that is insurance oriented, not one combined with welfare or one that destroys the work ethic.
In Clause 6 of this amending bill the government is providing as follows:
Subsection 24(1) of the said Act is replaced and the following substituted therefor:
"24.(1) The rate of weekly benefit payable to a claimant for a week
that falls in an initial benefit period is an amount equal to sixty-six
and two-thirds per cent of his average weekly insuranble earnings in
his qualifying weeks or twenty dollars, whichever is the greater."
In other words, everyone will now receive the percentage of 66% per cent in the initial benefit period, and I wonder why. Upon questioning the minister we find that the amount of money to be saved is something like $30 million, though to be fair to the minister this is out of a total of some $3.75 billion. I think the minister thought I was going to say $4 billion.


Robert Knight Andras: It is $3.4 billion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In the long run I think it will be $3.75 billion. In other words, to make it look as if the government is credible in its attack on the high cost of unemployment insurance we are going to shaft the poor. The government has forgotten all about the reasoning used by the minister's predecessor, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey), in 1971 as to why this provision was necessary. He related it to the cost of food and shelter. We all cast a quinzzical eye on that move, but nevertheless it made sense.
Things are even thougher today as a result of the government's archaic approach to the fight against inflation, especially now that we have a bill that will not work. The dependants who require this extra money are going to be the ones hardest hit. At the same time there is going to be an increase in premiums. We do not like the flip flop of the government in this regard, which says that because dependants get $20 per child under the Family Allowance Act they no longer need nor should they require benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act at an extended rate in the initial benefit period.
I say that the payment under the family allowance scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with unemployment insurance. You pay your money and you get your benefits, as they say in the street, and that is as it should be. For some reason the minister wants to save money. He may be saving money, but at the same time, with the environmental malaise that a lot of these people suffer from, further payments will have to be made under our social assistance plan since the minister feels that what was right for 1971 is wrong for 1975.
I see it is now six o'clock, so may I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
10024

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act AFTER RECESS


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion no. 7 which, for the purpose of discussion, has been grouped together with motions nos. 8, 14 and 15, and it stands in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, when I called it six o'clock I was trying to bring home to the government as vividly as possible the error of its ways in respect of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which deal primarily with fighting the high cost of unemployment insurance on the backs of the poor.
I attempted to indicate that the reason the bill stands as it does is that the government, back in 1971, had some compassionate feeling for those faced with the high cost of food, shelter, and clothing. At the time the government felt that if a person had a family or dependants that person should be recognized as such. Now, as I stated earlier, it seems that the government is taking from the poor in order to give to those who are pregnant.
The government's reasoning now seems to be that it does not want the scheme to be a welfare scheme and is trying to move in the direction of a pure unemployment insurance plan or an insurance scheme. Let me point out that so far as this principle of unemployment insurance is concerned, it is destroyed once the government moves in the direction of recognizing pregnancy as a sickness for the purpose of the plan. It is interesting to note that the government did not move in this regard in violation of the principle, but rather in favour of pregnancy, making coverage even more flexible. It seems to me there is an undue amount of hardship being placed on those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder, at this particular time of high inflation and high cost of living, making these people feel the pinch even more.
What is even more strange is that the clause, as I understand it, subject to check by the minister in his usual style, is talking about $5 per person. This is the type of saving the government anticipates when it is referring to savings of some $30 million.
I was impressed by one or two briefs that were presented to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration when it dealt with the bill clause by clause. We heard from the Council on Social Development, represented by Mr. Reuben Baetz, and we also heard from the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I express my appreciation to those people for having taken part in what I felt at the time, and now know, was a very significant debate.
Let me read just one part of the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress. I realize I may be repetitious in this regard, but I want hon. members to know how concerned this group is about the moves the government is engaged in at this particular time. The brief states in part:
In a time of rapidly rising prices it is inconceivable for the government to remove this protective clause from low income earners who are struggling to maintain themselves and their families. The loss of 25 per cent of their original earnings is bad enough without the government knocking them even further down the economic ladder.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker.]
It seems to me the government is attempting to achieve restraint by taking $5 per week from these unemployed with dependants' earnings at a maximum of $3,200 per year only. That is when the circumstances are the most dire and the recipient could most use the money. In light of the fact that the new principle of unemployment insurance has been destroyed in any event by the government recognizing that sickness and pregnancy benefits should form part of unemployment insurance, then it seems to me that it is morally wrong at this time to remove this very small bit of protection for those who are with family, if you like, and who are counting on this amount of $5 a week.
In conclusion I would state it is wrong for the government to take from the poor-I do not say this lightly-and give to prisoners in order to bring about a facade in terms of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. These small reforms dealing with the aged and the poor mean nothing whatever. What should occur is that the government should move in an area whereby it can initiate policies that would bring about a satisfactory employment level. We will get into that later when it proposes to move the bench mark up to 5.6 per cent on an eight-year moving average.
This is where the government must move if it wants to make money. It must bring down the interest rate and bring down the eligibility period whereby someone can become eligible for unemployment insurance after being involved in the work force for a period of eight weeks. The minister should direct his attention to this particular clause. The fact is that after being in the work force for eight weeks one can continue for a period of 40-odd weeks as a recipient of unemployment insurance. Surely if the minister wants to do something for the Canadian people he should direct his attention to those two areas. He should convince his colleagues on the front bench to bring about a meaningful policy to reduce unemployment and, second, to move in on the eligibility period. Then I am sure he would get all the support required on this side of the House.
In the meantime I would ask the minister to pay particular attention to the speakers who will follow me in this regard because I am sure I speak for not only those on this side of the House but for many of my other colleagues who, for one reason or another, will not stand up and give voice, or be counted as my hon. friend says.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, once again we witness an attempt on the part of the government to embark upon restraint. Once more we embark on restraint. Earlier today we saw the initial move toward restraint. Who was the government restraining then? It was restraining those people 65 years of age or over, eliminating them from benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Now we find another group being restrained. One would think that perhaps this is a very powerful group. We find it is a group of Canadians who, through no fault of their own, have become unemployed. We should ask ourselves what group it is which receives the extended benefits and the dependency rate under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Is this group composed of those who have
December 15, 1975

earned the top buck while working and before becoming unemployed? Let us find out.
The people in this group are the claimants whose earnings were less than one third of the maximum, $185 a week, or in other words less than $62 a week, because the scheme is based on a percentage of earnings. Therefore workers with families, particularly those on low incomes and in severe difficulty, even when employed would face extreme hardship.
Let us look at these workers who earn $62 a week or less. One of the statistics provided by the minister shows that this particular group of workers which will become unemployed represents .2 per cent of the total claim load. It is interesting to note that when we go to the extended benefit period that particular group becomes 7.4 per cent of the total claim load.


Mr. Speaker:: Presumably the House will want to resume at this point.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Excellency, the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will want to know this is probably Colonel Fortier's last appearance in this role.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-79, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1975-Chapter No. 74.
Bill C-73, An Act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada.-Chapter No. 75.
Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.-Chapter No. 76.
Bill S-27, An Act to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.-Chapter No. 77.
Bill C-76, An Act to wind up The King George V Silver Jubilee Cancer Fund for Canada and to authorize the sale of the assets and securities of the Fund and to transfer the sale proceeds and the balance of moneys to the National Cancer Institute of Canada.-Chapter No. 78.
Unemployment Insurance Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and of motions Nos. 7, 8, 14 and 15 standing in the names of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as I was asking before I was so rudely interrupted-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: -who are the latest victims of government restraint? I am most concerned about this because tomorrow the government will announce its restraint program, and what it is prepared to do to cut back its expenditures so that it can show to the Canadian people that it is about to fight inflation. If this legislation is an example of what we saw earlier this afternoon when the government brought in an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to remove 65 year old people from contributing and collecting under the act, then we will see another aspect of that restraint program. I fear what is to be announced tomorrow in terms of the sacrifice the government is prepared to make on social legislation and on social programs in its so-called fight or great war against inflation.
Who are these people who are getting the dependency rate? We are told by the government and by the Unemployment Insurance Commission nabobs who are in the gallery that these are the people who earn $62 or less. They are the people who qualify for the dependency rate provided they have one, two, three, or more children. I was pointing out earlier that the minister told us in committee that this group of persons who are collecting the dependency rate represent .2 per cent of the total claim load. It is interesting to note that in the extended benefit period it jumps to 7.4 per cent of the total claim load, and that is an important distinction to make because these are the people who are the poorest of claimants and who obviously are the longest on unemployment insurance.
It is absolutely imperative that if these people are spending so much time on unemployment insurance, there ought to be some make up for the cost and the upkeep of their dependants. We might ask what was at the back of the mind of the government when it brought in this clause in 1971. Surely there must have been a reason for it in the first place. I realize that the government does not need reasons, but all we can go on is the report which was prepared for the particular minister at the time. It is interesting to note that it is called "Some background notes on the unemployment insurance program", and this deals with the dependency rate. These are the reasons, and I quote:
21130-13 Vi

Unemployment Insurance Act
Studies indicated that the benefit structure should permit the unemployed worker to meet at least non-deferable expenses while in search of new work. Economists estimated that about one third of a family's expenses could be deferred for a short time and it is for this reason that benefit payments in the initial stages of the program are set at two thirds of a claimant's average weekly earnings.
In the later stages, benefits can be raised to 75 per cent of average earnings if the claimant had dependants, because non-deferable expenses become more critical if unemployment persists.
That is important in light of the information the minister provided in committee, that in the extended benefit period that group grows to 7.4 per cent of the total claim load. This report went on further to state the following:
As well, the low income groups, i.e. those earning $50 a week or less at the time they become unemployed, are permitted the dependency rate from the outset of their claim in recognition of their lesser capability to absorb a drop in income.
These are the people against whom the government is proceeding with its restraint program. It is not proceeding against the powerful but against those who are the lowest paid while they are working and those who have dependants to maintain.
What reason could the government have for bringing in this kind of amendment at this particular time, that is, the measure to reduce everyone to sixty-six and two-thirds? The government has said that since it has improved family allowance benefits, etc., there is no real need any more for this kind of dependency allowance. Let us consider that for a moment. One has to be a pretty hardhearted chiseller to chisel poor people out of a dependency rate.
The government would have our 100 per cent support if it were really attempting to do the kinds of things which ought to be done in terms of fighting inflation. For example, all it has to do tomorrow is to bring in a bill to suspend the 7 per cent increase for members of parliament and the maximum of $2,300 or $2,400, and this party and this corner of the House would certainly support that. That would really be action against those who have in our society. But what does the government bring in? It brings in this kind of clause which takes a real swat at those who can least defend themselves.
As I was saying, what is the argument? Family allowances are up. Let us consider that. The grounds for this change are the increases since 1971 in family allowances, which for a family with three young children, have risen from $18 to $66 per month. Considering the fact that family allowances were low in the first place, that they are now taxed, and that the increase amounts to an additional $3.71 per child per week at a time when inflation alone has increased the costs per child for a low income earner by a minimum of $4.50 per week, there is absolutely no justification for the government to reduce the benefit rate to unemployed workers with dependants, many of whom are at or below the poverty level. What does the government say? It says it has brought in family allowance increases. I have just demonstrated that the family allowance increases are a sham. How many times can the government use that as an excuse?
In my hands I have a press release regarding the extension of the fluid milk subsidy. The government announced on August 16, 1974, that the fluid milk subsidy would be dropped. It was being dropped because it had increased the
(Mr. Rodriguez.J
family allowance. Time and again subsidies that would help the poor people have been dropped, and the reason given was that the family allowance had been increased. How many times can the government use that argument, Mr. Speaker?
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) pointed out very effectively that we have done nothing to redistribute wealth. After a hundred odd years of fiddling with the Income Tax Act we have not approached that problem at all. We find that the poor people of this country are no richer than they were a hundred years ago. There has been no appreciable change in the redistribution of wealth, and every time the government has to fight inflation or tighten the belt it is the poor people who suffer. The government can spend millions and millions of dollars on new aircraft for NATO, and hundreds of millions for leasing tanks and armoured cars, but it does nothing to eliminate poverty. Instead it brings in this kind of amendment and asks us to make decisions with respect to cutting the dependency rate for those who earn $62 per week or less.
It is not coincidental that at the same time this House approved Bill C-73, the anti-inflation bill, the government was fiddling with the Unemployment Insurance Act and redefining what is an acceptable rate of unemployment. From 1968 to 1972 every time the government had to fight inflation it was on the backs of those least able to defend themselves.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was proud to boast that he was prepared to let the unemployment rate rise to 6 per cent and that he was going to hang tough. It has risen beyond that and it is very difficult to bring it down, but what does the government do? It does not bring in measures to improve employment opportunities; it brings in measures which will only create hardship for those who can least defend themselves.
What else has the government said in committee about the dependency rate? It said that if a person applies for a job he is not paid on the basis of whether he has dependants. There is a pay scale and he fits into that. The minister wants to extend that argument to the act. We know that the act is not an insurance act, Mr. Speaker, because it is not based on any actuarial study. We can insure fishermen and lumbermen, but we do not pay rates according to groups and the incidence of unemployment in those groups. There is a rate and everybody pays it. It is not an insurance scheme but more a wage replacement scheme in case of unemployment, and in many cases it can be predicted when unemployment will occur, yet there is no differential in the rates.
The argument that the unemployment insurance scheme is not a bona fide insurance scheme is not a good one. While it may hold true in the work place that a person should not be paid on the basis of his number of dependants, surely when the government sets an earnings limit of $62 it cannot then tell the workers that they are going to lose 66% of their weekly income. How in heaven's name does it expect to come to grips with the disparity in incomes by proceeding that way?
December 15, 1975

Figures presented by the minister to the committee showed where most of the unemployment insurance money goes in this country. A great deal of unemployment insurance benefits goes to the maritimes, for example, and similarly in parts of Quebec a great deal of money is transferred from the central fund of the Unemployment Insurance Commission directly into the hands of people in areas of high unemployment.
We have said, and it is a truism indeed, that the answer to the problem of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is unemployment itself. But the government is not addressing itself to the problems of unemployment in Canada. Bill C-73 does nothing about unemployment, it does nothing about the 82 per cent of plant capacity we are using at the moment, and it does nothing about the 700,000 people who are idle. Instead the government proposes to redefine the unemployment insurance rate and to tackle the old unemployment insurance act.
We in this party object to the removal of the dependency rate from the Unemployment Insurance Act. The reasons given for a dependency rate when the act was introduced in 1971 are as justifiable today as then. Those who are receiving this dependency rate need it. From my experience, those who are on benefits, those who come to the M.P.'s office for help with the commission are the poor people, the least educated, those who have great difficulty reading and understanding the act and the application forms. People who are wise and can handle the reading level of the application form and the act can certainly handle themselves when it comes to obtaining benefits.
This particular aspect of the government's proposal is one which we cannot support. We feel that removing the dependency rate can only acerbate the problem and, as a result, we recommend support for motions Nos. 7 and 8.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a few comments on the motions that are now before us, that is motions nos. 7, 8, 14 and 15, which have been grouped together by authority of the Chair. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, the hon. members of this House went to the other place where Royal Assent was given to a few bills. This is an interesting and impressing ceremony that should urge us, as members of Parliament, to think more about our responsibilities and to consider very carefully the various bills that will become laws after they receive Royal Assent, laws that all Canadian taxpayers should obey and respect.
Therefore, it is our duty to thoroughly discuss all bills before us at their various stages and to amend them, if need be, in the most efficient way to make them as sound as possible and consistent with our way of life, so that Canadians who are called upon to respect and observe the laws passed by Parliament may have absolute confidence in them.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments proposed under motions 7, 8, 14 and 15 should be studied in the most objective way as they are of interest to all members. I often reflected on the Unemployment Insurance Act. As the number of unemployed is rising alarmingly in our country, more Canadians must have recourse to this legislation to get benefits for which they have paid.
Unemployment Insurance Act
As it is presented, the bill provides for reduced benefits for several groups of claimants. As it was passed by Parliament some years ago, the legislation aimed at protecting workers who were occasionally and accidentally unemployed against running into debt. They were asked to contribute to a fund in order to get some benefits during their period of accidental unemployment.
I recall that when I was secretary in a municipality, I often had to fill forms for workers who became accidentally unemployed to help them benefit from this legislation during their period of unemployment and, if my memory serves me well, the amount of the benefits was much lower than today. It was $14 a week for workers with a family and less for single persons.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I think that because of an economic situation that could be corrected by this Parliament if we really wanted, if we really assumed our responsibilities, because of an economic situation compelling many people to stay inactive and unemployed.
As the situation worsened, the Canadian government brought forward some amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, as regards the weekly amounts to be paid. But, in 1971, the act was amended in such a way that one was entitled to get, if one had a dependant, 75 per cent of one's salary. I think that at that time, the House of Commons passed a wise legislation that recognized the responsibilities of the head of the family towards his dependants.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-69 is to reduce benefits from 75 to 66% per cent of the worker's salary. In my opinion, we will be failing in our duty if we pass this bill in its present form. Actually, if we are to admit that a person has the responsibility of one or more dependants, we have to provide him with an additionnal benefit, to allow him to meet his obligations. I understand the principle that says "equal pay for equal work". This is a well-known principle of economics, which emphasizes the truly human aspect of our country, and of our statutes. We wanted to recognize in our laws a basic right, the responsibility of individuals with a dependent wife or children.
We should not move backward. We should continue to progress and keep this legislation into effect to enable those who have greater responsibilities to enjoy higher benefits. While those motions are under consideration, I would suggest some amendments which I think are quite effective. I admit that when an employer has an unmarried person or the head of a family who render him equivalent services, he must pay them alike. However, since we live in society and must encourage those who assume the responsibility of raising children to give the best to society, that is human capital, through our laws we must promote the fulfilment of that vital cell called the family and recognize to the head of a family the right to a supplement enabling him to face his responsibilities. I am tempted to say something. What I will say will not fetch votes for a politician who wants to get re-elected, but we must at times take risks and we must speak plainly and this is what I want to do this evening when I say the following.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is going through very difficult times, being the neighbour of a great country which is

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
economically strong, but suffering from a terrible fever. The newspapers are reporting on this situation and, because we are the neighbours of this great country, when the economy of the United States is strained economically, automatically so is Canada's.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we must take the necessary medicine to be able to recognize that, in our society, it is not normal to pay each week to the unemployed wages which are as high as those paid to the employed. The time has come for us to think about that, because it is shocking sometimes to hear some people tell us to our faces: Why work? Why get up early in the morning to get to work? The government chops off three quarters of the salaries through taxes and levies. Whereas when someone lives on unemployment insurance benefits or on social welfare, at least he does not waste his health nor his clothes, he does not make any effort and he gets as much as those who work.


An hon. Member:: The average is $74!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: If the hon. member wishes to express his opinion, he should resume his seat and wait till his turn comes.
In this situation, we must consider things as they are. A great many employers could expand and produce more, which would help fight the plague of inflation, but they cannot get workers at salaries allowing them to produce at a cost which could bear foreign or national competition. Many very gifted industrialists are giving up the idea of expanding, creating employment, increasing their production and helping our country pull out of an economic situation that need not be desperate if the Canadian Parliament were willing to take the necessary steps to solve the situations that can be solved through appropriate legislation. Mr. Speaker, criticizing alone is useless; proposals must be made, measures passed to encourage workers to depend on work as the instrument that will enable them to earn a decent living.
Mr. Speaker, whoever earns a fairly high salary and who, because of a special situation, is laid off for reasons over which he has not control, should be given an amount equal to his salary, because his unemployment is accidental and will last only a few weeks. He will soon be called back by his employer and asked to reintegrate the work force. But whoever banks on an act that will allow him to go to work, at times nonchalantly, to then enable him to get unemployment insurance for 52 weeks, deserves a decrease in payments because he is not encouraged to work, to make a personal effort and contribute to our social and economic life. In fact, the amendments now proposed to the present act place on the same footing he who takes his work to heart and he who works reluctantly.
That is why, in my opinion, the amendment to the bill on unemployment insurance, Bill C-69, is not quite appropriate and why I support amendments 7, 8, 14 and 15 because they maintain the status quo in favour of those who want to work, to go back to work as soon as possible to earn a reasonable and decent living.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the consideration of a bill like Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance
Act, is a good opportunity for the House of Commons to remember the first law of work which was given us by our Creator and which says: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." We all agree, Mr. Speaker, to eat our bread in the sweat of our faces, but we do not want an economic system which has no respect for those who have such courage.
We want an economic system which would allow those who are willing to work to find a job; and if by accident they become unemployed, we want them to be protected by an adequate legislation which will uphold the sacredness of any human being who wants to earn a living through his work.
That is how I look at things, and that is how I wanted tonight to briefly tell you my thoughts, honestly and objectively, to induce a true reflection on those amendments to the act, so that those changes will provide incentives to those who want to work.
A lot of things can be achieved through work; work can change the whole economic aspect of a nation for it is disheartening for those who work, those who get up early, who go to work in spite of snow and ice, to see other people draw their curtains and make fun of them passing by.
Mr. Speaker, I think 800,000 unemployed in Canada is too much. We can control the situation by passing legislation to provide incentives to work and to encourage employers, businessmen, intelligent Canadians to give our nation what best they can offer through initiatives in keeping with their abilities and intelligence; those brave people could thus provide their fellow citizens with an economic development and a level of production which can be achieved here, and we would not have to import what we can produce in our country. Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Act should be viewed in its true context. It is a legislation for particular circumstances, aimed at helping those who, as I said earlier, are accidentally faced with unemployment, so that they do not run into debts.
Such is the fraud of unemployment insurance, Mr. Speaker, and if we are not intelligent enough as members of parliament to view it in its real context we will by that very fact have failed to assume our responsibilities and generations to come will have to judge us; and if their judgment is severe, we will have to bow our heads and accept it.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, mine will be a very short intervention. It seems to me that the government, in its effort to reduce the cost to the general taxpayer of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, has done very well by introducing at least three measures which are worthy of support.
It has increased the premiums to be paid by employers and employees, while at the same time increasing the moving average above which it must contribute to the plan, formerly this was 4 per cent but the rate is now to be brought up to 5.6 per cent. It is also proposed to eliminate the measure commonly known as advanced payments. I find these measures commendable considering the fact that the government wishes, and understandably so, to

December 15, 1975

reduce the tax burden on the shoulders of the taxpayer. However, when it comes to this particular measure I think perhaps an alternative approach would have been preferable. I would have looked very hard in the direction of increasing by a number of weeks the period before which a claimant becomes eligible for unemployment insurance.
As we all know, at present the period is eight weeks. I have the impression that employers in particular are rearranging their employment plans around this provision to take advantage of this period of only eight weeks. I would have preferred an alternative approach for the very simple reason that the reduction from 75 per cent to 66% per cent affects people in Canada who, according to the evidence given to the committee, live in areas that benefit from the government's regional economic expansion program. The provision means for the average claimant a reduction in benefit from $75 a week to $66 a week, assuming a benefit in the range of $100 a week.
The approach of increasing the number of weeks would have affected people who have a short attachment to the labour force but who also live in the large industrial areas where there are alternative opportunities for employment much greater than for people who live, say, in parts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, northern Ontario and other parts of northern Canada.
I say this not only to put my remarks on record but to encourage the minister, who evidently has gone through a very difficult process of decision making, none of which is palatable, before making his choice, which was not an easy one. Nevertheless I have to express these thoughts in the hope that we will one day come to a concept of unemployment insurance that is at least as broad as it is now.
This is where I part ways with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). He seems to be torn between the narrow concept of insurance as it is known in the private sector and the concept that we have gradually adopted over the years, which is not insurance but really income support. The hon. member reluctantly came to the conclusion in his very fine speech tonight that this is exactly what we have before us-a program of income support-and that we might as well call it what it is. Otherwise we would not have in the program maternity or sickness benefits as we know them.
These were fine Liberal measures introduced by the Liberal government in 1972, which we all supported both here and out in the field, and quite rightly so. Through these measures we have made Canada's unemployment insurance scheme one of the most advanced and enlightened in the world. This is why I believe this benefit rate for claimants with dependants would be within that spirit, and would be more advanced if it were kept at the level it is now, namely, 75 per cent.
Let me conclude by quoting an excerpt from a speech that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) made to the Board of Trade in Vancouver on November 25 last year which I think reflects very well the dilemma he is facing and the choices he had to examine. I hope it will be the direction we will take whenever in future we think of unemployment insurance in the 1970's meeting the needs of a fairly sophisticated and progres-
Unemployment Insurance Act
sively educated labour force. This is what the minister said on that occasion:
.. . why can't we use the public funds that we spend through this program ...
That is the unemployment insurance program.
... in a way that not only meets the income requirements of the U.I. claimants, but which also enhances their capacity to engage in useful and satisfying work?
Then the minister went on to say that it seemed to him much more sensible to talk of employment insurance rather than unemployment insurance. This speech was delivered just over a year ago to the Board of Trade of Vancouver, and I hope the minister still remembers it clearly.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, if I had any doubts that the government has given up any intention it may have had of dealing with the problem of unemployment or inequity in this country, those doubts would have been dispelled not just by the introduction of this bill but by the speech just concluded by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I had always thought of him as being one of the more progressive Liberal members of parliament, yet a moment ago I heard him endorsing two principles which he correctly said are fundamental to the changes being proposed by this bill: first of all, that the premiums for unemployment insurance paid both by employers and employees should be increased; secondly, that the percentage of unemployment insurance above which the government assumes the cost of payments should be raised from the previous 4 per cent to, I think he said, 5.6 per cent this year on a sliding scale, which would mean that next year it would probably be up over 6 per cent, and more than that the following year.
Why are the two proposals endorsed by the hon. member for Davenport necessary? They are necessary because the government has completely failed to deal with increasing unemployment. In fact through this bill and others it has made clear that it has no intention of aiming for full employment.
Let us look at the record, and I hope that the hon. member for Davenport is listening. For the first 11 months of 1975 we have not had less than 6.7 per cent unemployment in any month. This 6.7 per cent was registered last January, up 1.2 per cent from January of 1974 when unemployment was 5.5 per cent. In actual numbers this was an increase of 140,000, from 520,000 to 660,000. In actual numbers as well as percentages unemployment has been increasing every month since last January.
I am not going to put all the figures on the record tonight, but let me take the month of November as an example. In November, 1974, there was 5.5 per cent of the labour force unemployed, representing 542,000 people. In November of this year 7.3 per cent of the labour force was unemployed, or some 734,000 people, an increase of almost 200,000. The increase in jobs between October and November was only 15,000 and that did not keep pace with the increase in the labour force consisting of 24,000, leading to a .1 per cent increase in unemployment. That is the situation in which we are today.

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
Let us compare that situation of today with what the minister accepts, and what the hon. member for Davenport thinks is quite normal, as reasonable unemployment. Apparently this is acceptable because the government is prepared to see the benefits and the premiums increase, because the increase is necessary in view of a much larger percentage of people being unemployed.
Let us compare that with what the former minister of manpower and immigration said in 1971 when he introduced these major changes that almost completely rewrote the act. I do not think it is an accident that that minister is not in the House for this debate. He must be terribly ashamed about what his successor is doing. Let me quote these words of that minister, who is not some wild-eyed socialist in the New Democratic Party. This must be a man with some ability, if ability counts, because he is again a member of the Cabinet. Let me read from page 5043 of Hansard for April 19, 1971, where the minister is reported as having said in respect of this question of what is an acceptable rate of unemployment in this country:
Since the figure of 4 per cent has attracted a good deal of attention, I imagine somebody is going to suggest that the government has determined 4 per cent to be an acceptable rate of unemployment in Canada. Well, it is not my criterion. Like everybody else, I believe the acceptable rate of unemployment is the least possible rate. This is what we should be working toward. This should be our goal as a country. Our system is really on trial if we cannot operate on the basis of lower rates of unemployment than have been traditional, particularly in the light of the fact that the working force is growing at a tremendous rate. We have used the 4 per cent figure because 4 per cent, according to our computer estimates, triggers the government's contribution to the fund at a realistic level. If it were lower, the government's injection would need to be extremely massive, so massive that some form of additional income by way of taxes would be required. Five per cent would practically eliminate the government's contribution. So, we think 4 per cent is a realistic figure.
That is a much better and more concise explanation than I could ever give of why the government is changing the whole system with the result that instead of 4 per cent being the acceptable level it will be 5.6 per cent in 1976, more in 1977, and even more in 1978. The government no longer believes it can eliminate or is desirous of eliminating unemployment.
I presume the then minister spoke on behalf of the government of that day when he referred to grappling with unemployment. This was his whole approach to the question. It was an approach that would be humanitarian, sensible, and decent, instead of an approach that will result in a higher rate of unemployment, and it will be higher because of the government's anti-inflation program. That program will create more unemployment.
Those of us who have been around for a while know that inspired rumours come from some minister who is preparing the climate of opinion for something that is to happen within the next few months. We have been hearing inspired rumours to the effect that the government intends to cut expenditures by $1.5 billion.
I am not one who believes that every dollar spent by the government is a dollar well spent, but I do not intend to disagree at this time with every program of the federal government. If the government is talking about cutting
(Mr. Orlikow.)
government expenditures by $1.5 billion we can be certain that this will increase the number of unemployed by several tens of thousands, and it will increase the rate of unemployment probably by at least one quarter of 1 per cent.
When the former minister talked about the changes he proposed, he talked about making this program part of our whole system of economic distribution. We should compare that idea with the proposition put forward today, keeping in mind the speech the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) made last year, and which I am sure he wishes could be expunged from the record. That speech was great reading at the time because the minister talked about the inequities in our society. I suggest they are as bad in 1975 as they were 25 years ago.
Some 25 years ago 20 per cent of the population at the bottom of the income scale in Canada received just over 4 per cent of the gross national product while the top 20 per cent received over 40 per cent. That was back in 1950. Now in 1975, after 18 or 19 years of Liberal government, we have precisely the same situation. Still about 20 per cent of the population at the lower income level in this country receive just over 4 per cent of the gross national product, and the 20 per cent at the top, in spite of all the valiant efforts by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, receive 42 per cent of the gross national product.
When he was introducing his major changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1971 the then minister gave his reasons for the changes. Let me put on record a few sentences from the very fine speech he made at that time, most of which I agree with, and compare this with the parsimonious, penny-pinching, ruthless attitude of the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). Reading again from Hansard of April 19, 1971, at page 5038, the minister said:
-we have substantially increased the benefits to which a person is entitled under the proposed act so there will be a direct relationship between the benefits received and the level of income that he has achieved over a period of time.
Returning to the specific question we are discussing and the amendment we have proposed, what the minister proposed is that those few people with large families, and I will come to the details in a few minutes, who could not get by on their unemployment insurance benefits were permitted, as a result of the amendment introduced in 1971, to 75 per cent of their potential. This is now being reduced to 66 2/3 per cent, just like everybody else. I suggest that is a complete rejection of what the minister suggested in 1971.
The minister then went on to say:
It is significant that of the 1,200,000 who will be coming under the act for the first time, at least 700,000 are earning less than $7,800 at the present time, and only about 500,000 of those people coming into the plan for the first time earn above that figure.
I suggest that the people who will be adversely affected by this proposal of the minister are precisely the people in the lower income brackets who need most the assistance the minister is cutting down. Then he said:
Another reason for the proposed increase in benefits stems from the fact that many Canadians today drawing unemployment insurance must also draw a welfare cheque in order to support themselves and their families.
December 15, 1975

Of course the then minister thought that was bad. He disapproved of that. Yet that is precisely what the present minister is proposing. There is no question in my mind that a person with a large family, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, if he only gets two thirds as proposed will require extra to make up the difference between what he is getting in unemployment insurance and what he requires. He will require benefits through welfare in order to live.
The then minister made some calculations and said:
By increasing unemployment insurance benefits substantially we will effect savings of some $80 million under the Canada Assistance Plan, $40 million to the federal treasury and $40 million to the provinces.
I suggest that what the present minister will take away from the unemployed who qualify for the extra benefits will have to be paid in substantial part through welfare payments. Now let me quote the last sentence from what the minister said in 1971:
... the increase in benefits will postpone the day when people chronically unemployed must turn to welfare if they have no other sources of income. It can be said that the benefit structure has been developed by people who care about people.
I suggest to the minister that the converse of what the then minister said is happening today. This benefit detriment is being prepared by a minister and officials who do not care about people.
One of the main arguments the minister gives for the elimination of the dependency rate is the idea that unemployment insurance benefits are strictly a wage insurance plan. If that is so, and benefits for those with dependants have no place in the program, the insistence by the government on the insurance aspect of this program, to say the least is in contradiction to the refusal of the government to provide insurance to people aged 65 who have been and are working.
There are many people who over the years have been considered eligible for benefits and who will never pay in sufficient to insure themselves. I refer to people such as fishermen, those who take part-time work in the woods and so on. Of course in a theoretical way I could agree that their needs ought to be met in another way than through an employment insurance fund, but we have not developed that kind of a comprehensive social security system. Liberal governments may talk about it but they talk about it as taking place some day in cuckoo land, in the dim distant future when none of us, including the new 20-year old members, will be here if we wait for the kind of people we now have in the Liberal government to act.
One member opposite who does not have the courage to stand up says that now they are in power they have to be responsible. Is he suggesting that in the years when they were not in power they were irresponsible? I never pay attention to those dough heads at the back who just bray and do not get up to speak.


An hon. Member:: You are wasting time.


David Orlikow: If I am wasting time then I can at least take the pleasure that I am inflicting the same waste of time on members opposite. If we depended on the backbenchers on the government side, the whole business of parliament could be accomplished in about three days in a
Unemployment Insurance Act
year because they would just come down here, press a button, say yes to anything any minister said, and then they would go home. So long as we have a democratic system and so long as there are opposition members of parliament, those opposition members have a right to speak. It does not bother me that the member opposite interjects. I have a right to speak and I will decide when and for how long I speak. I will not wait for some Godhead in the front rows, as back-benchers on the other side do, to tell me how or when to speak.
Perhaps I might return to the argument I was attempting to put forward. Let me say that in our opposition to this provision in the bill we are in pretty good non-partisan apolitical company. We have as company the Canadian Council on Social Development, the chairman of which, if not at the moment, until recently was a very close relative of one of our cabinet ministers. Therefore it cannot be too radical an organization. The council has opposed this proposition. Mr. Baetz, the executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development, said:
The low-income earner is not only hit inequitably with a 20 per cent increase in his premiums but the provision in the bill to eliminate the 75 per cent benefit rate for claimants with dependants hits the low-income earners since they are one of the two categories that had received this special assistance.
He said further:
Now admittedly it has been argued in many countries that unemployment insurance benefits should not take dependants into consideration since wages also do not take this into account. Wages do not take into account the size of the family. I will say this, that I have, on occasion, theoretically argued that point as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, since several members of the opposition said great truths about the amendments to Bill C-69, I think it would be superfluous on my part to further comment on the amendments to this bill.
The fact still remains that one clause among others drew my attention. I refer to section 24, subsections (2) and (3), dealing with rates of benefits and qualifying weeks.
Often, Mr. Speaker, one finds that the last 20 weeks of insurable employment do not generally correspond to the salary earned in the business, for in businesses hiring on a seasonal basis one usually finds a reduction in working hours corresponding to the demand for production.
So one may conclude that it is normal for an employee who at a certain moment was hired for a period of 40 hours of work to reduce his hours either because of a temporary slowdown in production or still because of the forthcoming closing down of the business. And that employee leaves his work voluntarily because it is easy to imagine that if the eventual claimant persists in working at reduced hours for a few weeks before voluntarily leaving his job he will be penalized twice because, first, he will be penalized under subsection (1) of section 41 for a period of three weeks under the present legislation but as soon as the amendments that were brought in are accepted it will be for a period of six weeks because then the employee will have left his job voluntarily. Out of spite there will be a change
10032

December 15, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
in the service contract because it is extremely difficult to use that reason to prove there was a just cause to leave one's job voluntarily.
Furthermore, the eventual claimant will be penalized a second time under subsections (2) and (3) of section 24 of the act since he will have worked only a few weeks at reduced hours and the rate of qualifying weeks will be deducted accordingly.
We can therefore conclude that under the provisions of the act as it now stands, the employee who notes at a certain time that the company for which he works will soon reduce its production or close down its plant because of a lack of market opportunities for its products or must reduce the hours of work of its employees will naturally find that it is to his advantage to quit immediately his job instead of working a fewer number of hours, which would reduce his salary.
Consequently, the government should take action so that unemployment insurance rates be based on the average of the 20 highest paid weeks of insurable employment during the qualifying period instead of amending the act and establishing the rates on the basis of the last 20 weeks.
As concerns the dependency rate, which would be reduced from 75 per cent to 66% per cent, this seems to my mind very unfair because, at this level, the government says that the reduction is guaranteed by higher family allowances.
In my opinion, family allowances are not sufficient to cover even the cost of feeding and clothing the children. In any case, Mr. Speaker, family allowances have nothing to do with the future claimant, the future unemployed, because when he works, he also receives his unemployment insurance benefits, and when he becomes unemployed, he is once again punished, as I said earlier, because he has lost his job.
I find it very unfair to treat in this manner those who help build society and contribute to the development of our country by punishing them in this way. For this reason, I shall not support this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could it be made clear that the vote which will be recorded on motion No. 7 will also cover motions Nos. 8, 14 and 15?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the understanding on this side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is
that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: We
now go on to motion No. 9 in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


William Arnold Peters: should be applied equally. This was not the case in so far as this provision is concerned.
If the reason the government is recommending the removal of section 28 of the act is that the payment of the three week benefit when a person becomes unemployed will be done by computer rather than by hand, and that not many people have taken advantage of that provision, then perhaps we should consider whether or not it has some merit. When I inquired of our member on the committee, he indicated that this had not been abused, or at least there had been very little discussion about abuses, but the indication was that it also had not provided many jobs.
If it did not provide for what it was supposed to, then the person who received the three weeks pay would subsequently go on to regular benefits, and when he did he had to make up the three weeks which he had already been paid. The only time he received anything for nothing, and that would be doubtful, would be if he was to suffer any further unemployment at some time in the future in the benefit year. However, it would only apply, and it would only be a benefit, to the person who was off for a week or two weeks, or less than three weeks, and received the benefit and did not have to repay it. In other words, if this was not a factor, was not abused, and was not a big cost factor, it seems to me we should leave it in because it does mean that the person would at least be paid in the first three weeks.
Though the officials will not agree, in my area it is impossible to receive a benefit payment in less than four weeks, and not likely before the sixth week. Normally it is considerably longer than four weeks, and there are few who receive it in four weeks. As a result the three weeks is paid within a period of a month and a half, and families earning $6,000 just do not have enough money to keep themselves for six weeks with the cost of living as it is today.
The unemployed in my area go to municipal welfare offices and receive assistance while waiting for their cheques. They make an assignment to the welfare department. When their money comes from the UIC, the welfare agency is paid back. However, it seems to me that in many cases we are asking municipalities to cover the period during which the application is being processed, the time in which the separation slip is sent in and the cards are made up, when they are sent to Belleville, and a cheque is sent from Belleville to the claimant. In most cases that is four weeks plus. It is normally a six week period, and I suggest that in paying this three weeks pay we are really paying for the inability of the UIC to make that payment within six weeks.
If the minister thinks he can do something about this problem, I wish he would tell me what it is. I remember in 1971 sitting in the committee, and we were told by UIC officials that there would be a cheque within a three week period. I told them no one was getting paid within three weeks, and we had only a two week waiting period at that time. We extended it another week. It was just impossible to collect within that time. It worked out that I was right and they were wrong. It takes six weeks for an applicant to
Adjournment Debate
receive that money in my area, and if anything goes wrong it could take up to ten weeks or more. It cannot be less than six weeks, and I should like some hon. members who think we should move to this three week waiting period to tell me why. This has very seldom been abused in my area, and it has been useful. If the officials are pushed hard, they will issue a cheque by hand for someone, but it is not usually within the six weeks, it is usually longer than that, and they will issue a cheque because the act gives them the right to write one cheque within three weeks.
If we take away that right a person through no fault of his own will not receive any money for a period of six to eight weeks. That is two months, or four pay days, and a person living on $6,000 sure as hell is not going to get by for two months without going to the welfare department. If we keep this three weeks and we do not need it, then what is lost? If it provides a means of creating employment in the cities, that is obviously the only place it could work; it cannot work in small communities. It cannot work for the simple reason that they cannot get the three weeks pay. From where will they get it? They cannot get it from the sub-offices in my area.
A person could drive 150 miles and talk to the officials in Timmins, but to whom could he talk? When a person drives to Timmins to talk to UIC, he talks to the dumbest person there because that is the last person hired and the least qualified. That person answers the telephone and is also on the desk. It should be the manager on the desk meeting the public, or at least someone who is able to give some answers.
So if a person drives 300 miles there and back, he has talked to a girl hired off the street two weeks before who hardly knows what UIC stands for. let alone what the program is about. Whoever drives to Timmins is not likely to receive the three weeks pay anyway, but there might be a chance. If a person were really belligerent, swore at everyone and kicked the door down, he might receive it, but it is always possible that a member of parliament can telephone the office stating that this person has not received any money for the last six or eight weeks and how about issuing a cheque.
On occasion the officials will be generous and issue a cheque, because under this act they have the right to issue that three weeks cheque. If we take away the three weeks, how are they going to issue one even if they want to do so? Until it is totally cleared through the computer they will not be able to issue a cheque. The only way is through this loophole which has been established. If we expended some energy on job placement agencies, which would likely mean the elimination of Manpower centres, this would be a better route, but until we do that we will not be able to provide the three weeks pay, or expect people to get jobs during that three weeks.
There are probably 10 people unemployed for every available job, and while in cities like Ottawa or Toronto it is quite possible that there is room for mobility in a region, in an area like mine where the pulp and paper companies are all shut down, where the wood industry is in serious difficulty and where the mining industry is also in serious difficulty, it is not possible. So I suggest that unless the government is willing to give us some justification as to
21 130-14'/2

December 15, 1975
Adjournment Debate
why it wants us to take this out-it has in rural areas served some purpose-I damn well think hon. members representing rural areas in other parts of Canada should get up and say why they think we should take it out, and what the reason is for the abuse.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on December 5 I asked the Acting Prime Minister if he had conveyed to the Israeli ambassador the Canadian government's concern about the attacks by the Israeli air force upon Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. I note that later on in the question period the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) put forward a question on the same subject.
We all know that deep emotions are involved in the continuing Middle East crisis, and suffering and violence are widespread. No thoughtful or reasonably informed person would assert that acts of violence are the exclusive approach of one side to the confrontation in the Middle East area.
It is sadly true that for the last half century, and indeed, longer, death and destruction have stalked the ancient land. The years prior to the U.N. establishment of the State of Israel were especially marked by terrorist violence. The blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where British military and mandate officers were quartered, the assassination of Lord Moyne, and later of Count Ber-nadotte, were grim highlights of the activities of those who were determined that, despite the views of the indigenous people, a State of Israel would be set up. There were massacres of villages and other violence of horrendous proportions. Of course those who did not wish the creation of the state of Israel did not confine their response to passive resistance; far from it.
While one cannot establish a graduated scale of violence nor measure the iniquity of a violent act by the numbers killed or wounded, there are some incidents which by their very nature cry out for an expression of moral outrage. The Munich attack by the Black September group, the shoot out of innocent airline passengers at international airports, the shooting down of the Libyan civilian plane come to mind as particularly reprehensible.
The incident to which I referred the other day is thoroughly deplorable. In the past quarter century no group of people have suffered more painfully nor longer than the
|M. Peters.)
Palestinian refugees. These unfortunate people were driven from their homes, and after terrible privations they ended up in camps scattered over the Middle East where they have lived year after year in tents or tin huts, without hope, without normal home life, and in prolonged misery.
One might think that people living in this kind of squalor and depression had suffered enough. How then can we visualize the feelings and fears of the women and children when the Israeli air force launched an attack upon them the other day? As a consequence of this military attack by modern aircraft many innocent women and children were slaughtered.
Not surprisingly, there were expressions of anxiety and concern from many parts of the world. Pope Paul roundly condemned the unmerited and exceptionally ruthless attack, and for this humble, stubborn Presbyterian the pre-eminent Catholic spoke nobly on the issue.
Tel Aviv's own afternoon newspaper asked why the air strikes were ordered immediately after a United Nations Security Council decision to which Israel objected.
The Ottawa Citizen in an editorial said:
... the Israeli air attack on Palestinian refugee camps and guerrilla bases in Lebanon this week was a shocking example of savage terror.
Many victims of the attack were women and children whose only crime seems to have been that they were Palestinian. For this accident of history, they could not return to their homeland, despite repeated United Nations resolutions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and were doomed to a life of exile in a foreign land. Even so, they were not safe from death.
Honest people everywhere can only condemn the Israeli attack as wanton massacre of innocent civilians.
A Globe and Mail editorial had this to say:
... the traditions and principles around which the State of Israel is built are not such as to prepare us for the callous decision to go ahead, in the certain knowledge that innocents would be among the victims, with this week's strikes against camps in Lebanon. There is nothing Israel could have done that would have blemished more darkly its own cause.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that our government, known for its devotion to compassion, fairness, peace and good will, made its view clearly known to the Israelis on this matter.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his very thoughtful statement. It is evident from the time he took in preparing for this late show that he feels very deeply. I recall when the question was asked in the House by the hon. gentleman, and I recall as well the statement made by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs at that time.
I am informed that the text of the statement made by the hon. minister has been drawn to the attention of the Israeli ambassador in Ottawa by the Department of External Affairs.
I have not spent as much time as perhaps I ought as a parliamentarian in studying the problems of the Middle East. It is a situation that all Canadians are intimately aware of, whether they concentrate on the difficulties or not, because some of our citizens are representative of that area. We have groups on both sides of the conflict, and the human problem faced in that area is one common to us all and has transcended historical ties.
December 15, 1975

I do not want to appear as a philosopher but I know the difficulties there are very human and deep. Both sides deny the recognition of individuals and groups and it is of necessity, therefore, an extremely violent, fundamental and basic conflict. One often tends to pass judgment on the rights of one party or the other in these circumstances, but I want to avoid that temptation. One can express, as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has done, his shock and dismay at the consequence of the acts of either party involving innocents. One can express that dismay; however, one must refrain from passing judgment as to the motivation for the acts that are performed.
The comments of the hon. member have been noted. As I pointed out, the government has indicated its position. It has indicated its reaction to the repugnant acts not only of one side but of the other. I take it the hon. member is content that the government has been very active and analytical in its consideration of the facts.


SOCIAL SECURITY-PROPOSED INCREASE IN OLD AGE PENSION AND STUDY OF RETIREMENT POLICIES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 27, as recorded at page 9495 of Hansard, I put this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde):
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian Council on Social Development has recently published a report entitled "How Much Choice-Retirement Policies in Canada" in which it is declared that more than half of the senior citizens of this country exist on incomes at or below the poverty level, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if consideration will be given to an immediate catch-up increase in old age pensions, and will the government also institute a study of retirement policies in this country?
The answer of the minister, which appears at page 9496 of Hansard for the same day, was to the effect that in this view there are different levels of poverty and that he was not sure it would be useful to have a general debate on the poverty level. He concluded his answer with this sentence: As for the member's suggestion for an immediate increase in the basic pension, the matter is not being considered at the present time but, as I said to the hon. member, it will be increased according to the rise in the cost of living as of January 1 next.
I readily understand the attitude of the minister every time I put these questions to him in defending the government's old age security program. I have a fair amount of pride in it myself because I have been involved in it over a good many years. Although one can compare what is done for older people today with what was done ten, 20, 30 or 40 years ago and realize that we have made progress, surely we never come to the end of the road. Surely what counts is the living conditions of our senior citizens today, compared with today's standards.
I hope, therefore, that the government will join with me in welcoming the report produced by the Canadian Council on Social Development entitled "How Much Choice- Retirement Policies in Canada" which was written by Joan C. Brown. I hope the government will pay attention to the facts in this volume and the proposals made therein. It does document the situation with respect to retirement at the present time. It is ever so much better than it was a quarter or half century ago, but it is still true that more
Adjournment Debate
than half of our people 65 years of age and over are at or near the poverty level. It is also true that our pension plans, good as they are, are not filling the bill. Proud though we may be of what we have accomplished, surely common sense and ordinary decency require that we take another look at our whole system. That is what this report calls for and I urge the government to undertake it.
There are a couple of points made in this report which are extremely important and which, it seems to me, go to the heart of the issue. One is that although no one should write off what the private sector could do, it does seem to be a fact that the best chance of improving pensions for everyone lies in substantial improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, for example, getting it to the point at which it pays, let us say, 75 per cent instead of 25 per cent of one's recent earnings. I hope the government will consider this very seriously-the need to improve substantially the advantages of the Canada Pension Plan in association with old age security measures.
Another point which is made in this document, and one which I believe to be of extreme importance, has to do with the age of retirement. The author urges very strongly that we should introduce more voluntariness into the question of the retirement age and that persons over the age of 60, indeed between 60 and 70, should have the option whether to retire or not. This may be putting it in language somewhat different from the language I sometimes use when I call for the pension to be brought down to the age of 60 for those out of the labour market, but in effect it is the same proposal. However, my purpose is not to get into an argument between two doctrinaire positions, but rather to urge the validity of my assertion that further studies should be made as to the retirement age and that the government should take this matter seriously.
I have just about reached the end of the time allotted to me on this subject tonight. I trust I can persuade the government to make a serious study of the pension situation. I know this cannot be done in a week or a month or even, with the present government, in a year. It takes time. But it is grossly unfair to those who are at or below the poverty level to fob them off with a statement that a study is being made. That is why there should be an immediate catch-up increase in the basic amount of old age security. Though the minister said the other day that the matter is not being considered, I hope that in his absence the parliamentary secretary will speak from his own heart tonight and admit that such an increase ought to be provided without delay.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for doing his usual job of helping to put before us and before all Canadians the situation of our senior citizens, their standard of living, and their treatment at the hands of the government. I might say, since he has asked for a response on my part, that my earnest desire is to become, one day, a senior citizen of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It doesn't take long.

December 15, 1975
Adjournment Debate


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It doesn't take long, but it is not inevitable. In that spirit I want to tell the hon. member that the government has found the report to which he referred to be an extremely valuable one, and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) does propose that a far reaching study be undertaken of all pensions in Canada. We are now in the process of organizing a review of the entire pension issue.
The hon. member referred to the need, as he put it, to improve the Canada Pension Plan to the point at which it would provide a pension on the basis of 75 per cent of earnings. I might say that the Liberal Party of Canada supports that position. At our recent national conference a resolution very much to that effect was passed.
As for the question of the age of retirement, this is a much broader question than simply one of the government taking action. It is a question that I hope will be considered with a view not only to flexibility for a lower retirement age in our society in general but also flexibility for a later retirement age for those Canadians who choose to spend their senior years in continuing employment.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member say that he took a fair amount of pride in Canada's pension system, in old age security and GIS which are provided. I think he ought to do so. I think all Canadians ought to take a fair measure of pride in the burdens that they gladly bear to help assist our senior citizens.
However, I want to point to what I believe is a misreading of the report on the hon. member's part. It is true that the report notes that over one half of those over 65 have incomes that are regarded as being below the poverty line. But the report goes on to point out that they are eligible for some assistance through the federal guaranteed income supplement scheme, and that indeed over one half of our senior citizens receive this form of assistance, which takes their income up considerably higher. That is to say, a great many of the incomes of these people are lifted above the poverty line by the very programs in which the hon. member and all of us take so much pride.
Since October 1, 1975, the basic OAS pension has been $129.28 per month for an individual pension. In addition, the single pensioner with no other income-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-SUGGESTED ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF REDUCED FEDERAL EXPENDITURES ON UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC REGION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, while the question I am raising this evening was originally raised on October 28 and had to do with the operation of the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion, it is altogether appropriate that I should be raising the question again on the adjournment debate tonight, on the eve of the announcement of the government's restraint program in respect to its own expenditures.
Hon. members will recall that on October 28 I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard)
whether or not he had been asked by his colleagues in cabinet to monitor any alteration in federal expenditures or programs which would have a negative impact on programs of regional development administered by his department or in which his department might have an interest and responsibility.
Before I elaborate on that question I want to say at the outset that this question is fundamental, I think, to the fiscal and economic responsibility of the government in regard to the disadvantaged regions of the country. I say that because of the experience we suffered about five years ago under a federal restraint program. Members in the House at that time and citizens generally will recall the situation that existed in this country when it was announced by the government that there was an overheated economy in the more highly developed parts of Canada, such as the central part of the country, around the Toronto area, and of course in western Canada, particularly in some of the major urban centres.
At that time there was a specific program of federal restraint, but to put it briefly, the war on inflation, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said would be wrestled to the ground, was fought very largely either on the backs of the low income people or of the people in the disadvantaged regions. Those of us who were able to monitor the cutbacks in federal expenditure which occurred in federal programs generally were unable to see at that time any kind of selectivity or priority in relation to the very real economic burden that existed in the Atlantic provinces, where unemployment was running at double the national average, where we experienced in many cases a very high cost of living factor while incomes generally were as little as half the national average.
That situation is now in danger of being repeated. I say that because very shortly after the announcement of the program of price and wage restraint by the Prime Minister on October 13 I asked, on October 20, the following question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald):
-in view of the likelihood of there being some restrictions in federal expenditures. Will the minister be announcing a program or will he be designating the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to be responsible for making sure that possible cut-backs in federal expenditures will not create further unemployment but rather that a specific program will be devised to deal with the difficulties in regions of economic and social disparity?
At that time, on October 20, as recorded at page 8339, the minister is reported as having said:
Mr. Speaker, when the colleagues of the hon. gentleman call for reduction in total expenditures we all bear in mind the difficulty this can cause in areas such as his.
I was quite frankly shocked at the lack of sensitivity or historical recollection to recall the previous difficulties we had encountered in the early 1970's in respect of the previous restraint program, and I asked the following supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. I asked whether there would be some flexibility with regard to these potential reductions in order that greater hardship would not be created for substantial numbers of the people in underdeveloped areas. The Minister of Finance in effect repeated his first answer and said:

December 15, 1975

-of course, the call for reductions in expenditures would fall particularly heavily on those sectors of his area-
Of course, that meant the Atlantic provinces, and that is why on November 28 I moved a motion under Standing Order 43, the same day I had asked the question being responded to tonight, urging that the House recommend that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be instructed to review and monitor all federal programs that could possibly be altered in order to prevent or offset further unemployment in regions of persistently high unemployment during a period of national fiscal restraint.
That is the specific problem we are faced with tonight, on the eve of an announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) about substantial proposed cutbacks in federal expenditures. Will there be flexibility and will there be allowances for specific needs and very high unemployment? In my constituency unemployment is close to 20 per cent, and in other parts of the Atlantic provinces it is well over 25 per cent. These are hardship depression statistics, and ones that must be responded to.
This is not just a question from one member of the opposition in this House. As quickly as the day following the announcement by the Prime Minister, on October 14, the premier of my province is reported to have said, and I think he has stood by this since, that while he indicated morale support for the program, that support had to be qualified. He said:
-I am worried that the coming restraints on government spending will be applied uniformly, without proper recognition for the limited budgets of PEI and the other provinces in the Atlantic region. The program does not appear to be sensitive to regional disparity.
That is the motion I was trying to bring before the government, and I have tried on a number of occasions this fall. To date we know, on the basis of what the government has done or is planning to do that it is not yet sensitive to regional disparity. The premier went on to say on this occasion that:
-his government will make immediate representation to the Trudeau government seeking assurances that capital spending and investment in the "slow growth areas will keep pace with inflation."
Since we have a parliamentary secretary with us tonight who has his roots deep in the soil of the Atlantic provinces, more specifically Prince Edward Island, I am hopeful that he will be able to reflect this concern. It is of crucial importance to the credibility of the program the federal government is engaged in, and it is also of crucial importance to the credibility of this particular department the parliamentary secretary represents here tonight.
When the department was established in 1969 it was given a very clear responsibility, because for the first time we had established a federal department that was not only going to administer a program to deal with regional development, it was going to act as some kind of over-all coordinating agency to ensure that the actions taken by other departments, whether they be Public Works, Nation-
Adjournment Debate
al Defence, Supply and Services, or whatever other agency may possibly have an impact on future development of regions like the Atlantic provinces or parts of western Canada, which the parliamentary secretary knows well, would be co-ordinate and effective in this regard.
It is not enough for the minister to give me the assurance he gave me on October 28 that there would be no reduction in the program, or the assurance he gave my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), on October 22. What is equally if not more important is assurance at this time that there will be effective co-ordination. The credibility of this program and the credibility of the department are very much at stake.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Egmont put the case very well. I appreciate very much the sincerity of his remarks on the subject matter he has brought forward in his question.
I think the hon. member is well aware that the government's total package insofar as anti-inflation measures are concerned is distinct from what has come to be known as traditional methods of fighting inflation. For that reason I do not share the same fears he has that his part of Canada, or indeed other less advantaged areas of Canada, will necessarily suffer as a result. This certainly would be counter-productive, if you like, to our policies in this regard.
Indeed it is the Atlantic area and other similar areas that will suffer even more if we do not take action and do not bring about some control to the inflation that has been taking place. Those areas do not have the large industry, the large unions, and the powerful sectors that there are in other areas, and for that reason those areas perhaps are more susceptible to the rigours of inflation than some others. I think the figures in respect of the cost of living in Saint John and in some other cities show this is the case there more than elsewhere.
As the hon. member knows, a great deal of progress has been made since 1969 with the establishment of this particular department. I know he is well aware that my minister was recently in his province of Prince Edward Island where he signed another five-year agreement, which I think is an indication of the concern of the government in trying to ensure that that area of the country, and indeed other similar less fortunate areas, are not affected by the impact of the government's program and policies such as we are now embarking on in connection with the question of inflation, government expenditures, and the rate at which these are increasing federally, municipally and provincially, which is a factor in the sense of the inflationary pattern we have seen. I can assure my hon. friend that the points he makes are the concern of my minister and the government, and that the action we take will be taken in light of the points made by my hon. friend from Egmont.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Tuesday, December 16, 1975