1975-10-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's last program and under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the earlier unwillingness of the Minister of Transport to prevent an escalation in railway freight rates as indicated by him on October 15, and in light of the remarks of the Minister of Finance on October 21 refusing to provide for flexibility or discretion in the reductions of federal expenditures in areas of large and growing unemployment, such as the Atlantic region, which in some instances is as high as 30 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House recommend that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be instructed to review and monitor all federal programs which might possibly be altered in order to prevent or even offset further unemployment in regions of persistently high unemployment during a period of national fiscal restraint.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 this motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the tragedies that have occurred, first, at Brampton and now at Ottawa involving the use of unrestricted weapons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House direct the Minister of Justice and the Government House Leader
(1)	to place a higher priority on the introduction of proposed gun law changes by introducing the proposed gun legislation to first reading by next week;
(2)	to include in such legislation provisions for vicarious liability for gun owners who negligently allow their weapons to fall into unstable or criminal hands; and
(3)	that special provision for security of storage of weapons be included in the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO CONTROL VIOLENT CRIME-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
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 urgent and important matter.
In view of the alarming increase in Canada of violence of all kinds and at every level, from the common assault to murder, especially among young people, as shown once again by the drama which occurred yesterday in Ottawa, as the result of which two teenagers were killed and several others were wounded, and since those conditions cannot be tolerated because they could reach alarming levels unless the government and the authorities give them special consideration, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House do now consider the serious problem of rising violence and criminality in our country, in order to fully identify the matter so that the government may take immediate action on it, with a knowledge of all the facts and taking into account recommendations from opposition parties to take as soon as possible remedial measures.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.

October 28, 1975
1976 Olympics
lEnglish]	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF MERCURY POISONING AMONG INDIANS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recent medical evidence clearly indicates that mercury poisoning exists among native people, and epidemiological studies suggest that the problem could develop into epidemic proportions.
In view of the fact that the federal government has not demonstrated leadership in resolving the severe socio-economic problems associated with mercury poisoning, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the matter of mercury poisoning vis-a-vis the native people be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
My motion is based on the fact that the organization and implementation of plans for the 1976 Olympics are obviously out of control, as evidenced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), who does not even know the chief of security or what security costs will be; or the fact that Canadian manufacturers are being deprived of the opportunity to bid for major contracts; and on the fact that over-all costs now seem certain to exceed $1 billion notwithstanding the many direct and indirect federal government commitments.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the government order an immediate full scale public inquiry into the organization and implementation of the 1976 Olympics in order to reduce any further unnecessary expenditures and so that public confidence in these games can be restored and the games assured of the success Canadians wish them to be.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General on the question of legislation concerning gun control. In so doing I do not wish to exaggerate the reduction of violent crimes or events which could be accomplished through gun control or to suggest that gun control would necessarily have avoided the tragedies of yesterday, but ministers expressed concern about existing legislation as long ago as January 17, 1973, when the former minister of justice said that the government had this under constant review.
I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he can give the House any valid reason why the government has not long since presented to the House its views and its version of gun control legislation which should be adopted.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the government approved a series of measures with respect to gun control a short while ago, and the Minister of Justice and I discussed these measures just last Friday in Halifax with the attorneys general of the provinces. We wanted to get their reactions before proceeding further because much of the work of enforcement with respect to these laws would have to be carried out by the provinces. We now know the reactions of the attorneys general, and we will proceed to work further on these measures. We hope to announce these measures within a short period of time in the House and to introduce the bill soon afterwards.


POSSIBILITY THAT GUN CONTROL PROVISION WILL BE INCLUDED WITH OTHER AMENDMENTS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Solicitor General indicate whether the gun control legislation will deal with that and nothing else or is one of the reasons for the delay in presentation of legislation the government's desire to package gun control legislation along with a lot of other things and with something else in mind than simply getting gun control legislation through the House?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. It is likely, however, that the gun control legislation would be in an omnibus bill with other Criminal Code amendments-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: -but very unlikely with capital
punishment.


Mr. Wagner:: Great courage!


William Warren Allmand: So, Mr. Speaker, it is likely we would see it in an omnibus bill with other Criminal Code amend-
October 28, 1975

ments, such as was done the last time when the government tightened up on the gun control laws but it is unlikely that we would combine it with capital punishment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think the delay is inexcusable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT OF TASK FORCE ON GUN CONTROL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: It
seems to me there is a great deal of confusion in the public mind as to what additional gun control legislation can accomplish. In view of this I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he is prepared to table in the House the report resulting from the special committee of a task force in his own department that he commissioned?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the delay, I should point out to the House that during the period I have been advocating tougher gun controls more opposition has come from the opposition party represented by the hon. member than any other party in the House. With respect to the report, Mr. Speaker, there is no formal report by the study group working within my department. They presented their views to me verbally and by a memorandum which went to cabinet as a cabinet memorandum.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement a few moments ago that he now has the approval of the attorney general, and particularly in view of the inadequacy of the answers given by his colleague the Minister of Justice to the right hon. member for Prince Albert on October 16 and to me on October 20 with respect to the stages through which the legislation had advanced, is the minister telling the House today that the legislation has in fact been drafted and the decisions made? If that is so, can the minister inform the House today what rules are going to apply with respect to gun control as to sale, ownership, possession and use of firearms? Is it not possible under the circumstances for him to inform the House that the legislation has been drafted and basically what it contains?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the legislation has not been drafted. I told the previous questioner that we presented the attorneys general with certain proposals-a series of proposals and got their reactions to these proposals. We will now make a revision of the proposals to a certain extent in view of what the attorneys general had to say, then announce the proposals and put them in the form of legislation. We hope this can be done this fall.


Walter David Baker: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this matter has been going on for some period of time-almost a year as the Leader of the Opposition has just said-and that the government's own statistics seem to indicate that violent crime has increased in the first quarter of 1975 over the
Oral Questions
same period in 1974 by 4.5 per cent nationally and 9.2 per cent in the province of Ontario, does the minister not think it is high time this legislation was ready? Does this government, which has the courage to control wages, not have the courage to control guns?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Sick!


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a very important matter and I have been pressing this House for several years to take action. I am now happy to see that the Conservative opposition will support us in stronger gun control.


POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY SECTION IN GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, who has responsibility for introducing changes to the Criminal Code concerning guns. In view of the delay in introducing the legislation, continuing problems in the community and tragedies such as those which occurred at Brampton, Ottawa and other places, will the minister at least inform the public by informing this House if, in the proposed legislation, there is to be included a vicarious liability section under which those who own guns will be responsible for keeping them out of the hands of unstable people or people with a criminal history.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is desirable for the Code to be amended in such a way as to create stricter criminal liability. Measures to establish stricter civil liability or to attach civil consequences to the ownership of guns lie largely within the purview of provincial governments and provincial negligence acts. So I answer, first, that I think it desirable to amend the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code in order to increase strict criminal liability for incidents resulting from gun ownership. Also, I think provincial governments should be urged to amend their laws relating to vicarious civil liability along the lines of their motor vehicle acts. These provisions would relate to the owners of guns.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should still like a basic answer to my question. In a sense, the minister sidestepped it by dealing with the civil aspect. The minister, being a lawyer, knows that charges of criminal negligence can arise under the Criminal Code in relation to the question of security of storage of weapons and that when a violation occurs, when, because of inadequate security of storage an unstable person commits a crime or an act which causes harm to the public, a further penalty can be imposed. Basically, I ask the minister to direct his attention to this question: will the Code itself be amended, not the civil law but the criminal law, so that those who do not properly secure their weapons will be made responsible if those weapons are involved in crime or homicide.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member misunderstood my answer. The answer to the first part of

October 28, 1975
Oral Questions
the question is, yes. I think that it is desirable and possible to amend the Code in order to create stricter liability.


FINANCE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
In 1972 and 1973, there was a federal program called Winter Capital Projects Funds Program which, in co-operation with the provinces, aimed at helping municipalities fight against unemployment throughout the year and especially during winter. Could the Minister of Finance indicate today how things stand, whether there are any funds available from the Winter Capital Projects Funds and, if not, could the Minister assure the House that he will hold meetings or discussions with his provincial counterparts to revive this important program?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire concerning the hon. member's question and reply later.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General? As the unfortunate incident which took place at Ottawa, yesterday, is somewhat similar to the earlier Brampton incident, may I ask the Solicitor General if his department is undertaking studies into the causes underlying the increases in rates of violent crime in Canada? According to Statistics Canada, during the first quarter of this year violent crime involving firearms and offensive weapons increased by more than 42 per cent. Has the minister's department conducted studies, to determine the cause and if, perhaps, the media may have some impact on the cause?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are conducting studies into separate areas of violent crime and we are continuing with our work. As for the terrible crime which took place yesterday in Ottawa, we have been in touch with the Ottawa police and are awaiting the results of the coroner's inquest in order to obtain more information on the causes of that particular incident.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As the minister stated yesterday that an effort would be made to restrict the rate of increase of our money supply, will the minister indicate when this restrictive action will start, bearing in mind that we heard about restraint in the June 23 budget but that our money supply, since then, has been allowed to grow at the unbeliavable annual rate of 27 per cent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I again remind the hon. member that he might be well advised to note the increase in interest rates announced by the governor of the Bank of Canada early in September, and the statements which accompanied the governor's decision at that time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement, will he indicate why the government feels they can only make an effort to control the growth of the money supply? Who is in control? Who is at least responsible for the growth of our money system if it is not the government? Will the minister also indicate if the report in the morning press that by restricted money growth the government has in mind restricting it to the rate of our inflationary increase is true?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I say, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might do well to read the governor's statement in this regard. Under our system, the Bank of Canada can of course control the growth of our money supply over the longer period. It cannot under our system have an immediate impact on short-term swings.


ATTENDANCE OF CANADA AT RESTRICTED ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETING IN FRANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will the minister indicate if we have been invited to the restricted economic summit meeting in France in mid-November, bearing in mind that monetary questions are to be raised there. If not, will he explain why we have been snubbed when there will be nations in attendance that have less at stake than Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs has been involved in those discussions. The hon. member might like to address his question to my colleague.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why have we been snubbed with respect to the restricted economic summit meeting in France in mid-November in that we believe that to date we have not received an invitation to attend?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the final decisions have not been taken with respect to attendance at the summit.

October 28, 1975

Canada has expressed, and is continuing to express, its interest. The hon. member will recall that Canada has received quite important public support for its presence from the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. We are still awaiting a decision that we hope will make it possible for us to attend.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader which is supplementary to some questions asked earlier. In view of the interesting answer of the Solicitor General that it is highly unlikely that capital punishment will be tied to an omnibus bill, regardless of some of the answers given to questions last week which indicated the minister did not know, has there been a decision on whether the question of capital punishment will be decided by a free vote or will the whips lay it on?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion on the matter. A final decision has not been taken. That will be announced when the legislation is presented.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for part of that answer. Contrary to what the Solicitor General started to intimate earlier concerning the delay of this measure, and in view of the very real concern of the public about administration of justice-the question of capital punishment has been symbolic of administration of justice-can the House leader some time this week state in the House whether capital punishment will be separate from an omnibus criminal bill covering everything from slot machines to bail reform and gun control and so on and whether there will be a free vote. If we have to wait for the bill, there may be another parliament before any action is taken.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the time to make such an announcement is when the bill is presented to parliament, otherwise the hon. member may not know what I am talking about.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board? Bearing in mind that the government is making every effort to cut its own costs while at the same time remaining conscious of the need to increase job opportunities, can the minister inform us of the actual cost of the computerized cash registers now installed in the cafeterias
Oral Questions
on Parliament Hill and, in human terms, the cost in job availability for stock room clerks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since the principal weakness in the program the minister has brought forward to deal with inflation arises from the fact that while it controls wages and salaries no provision is made for effective control over prices, I should like to ask whether the government has given any further consideration to dealing with prices, either by following the example of the government of British Columbia and bringing in an immediate price freeze or by following the suggestion of the premier of Saskatchewan which would result in freezing the prices of certain key commodities and require subsequent notification and justification of any desire to increase the prices of those commodities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: might point out to the hon. gentleman that he is wrong in his preamble. I understand that in the case of many commodities, already there can be an effective requirement of advance notification and justification. The Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board has already so signified to a number of firms.
With regard to the plan in British Columbia, it seems to me that the principal weakness of that proposal is that absolutely no mechanism has been provided in order to make certain that the declaration of a freeze will be carried out in practice. This seems to me to be a critical weakness in the proposal.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-FACTORS CONSIDERED IN CONTROLLING PRICE OF AUTOMOBILES
John Edward Broadbent: Without agreeing with the comments the minister has made on the British Columbia plan, may I point out that the minister did not deal with the Saskatchewan proposal in the course of his reply; perhaps he will do so when answering my second question. He indicated that the government would require some justification in advance in respect of certain proposals to increase prices. In reply to a question I put to him concerning automobiles in the course of the speech he made winding up the debate on Friday, he indicated that in this sector of the economy advance notification would be required.
May I ask what factors will be considered in terms of prices of automobiles, something which affects Canadian consumers to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars annually? What criteria does the government intend to apply? Will it take into consideration simply its own guidelines in this respect or will it follow the urgings of the former minister of industry, trade and commerce and deal with the question of price parity in the industry,

October 28, 1975
Oral Questions
comparing prices of cars produced and sold in Canada with prices of the same models sold in the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the Saskatchewan proposals, as soon as we receive copies from the government of Saskatchewan I shall be glad to consider them and see whether a comment is required. It would have been helpful in the cases of both British Columbia and Saskatchewan if the ministers from those provinces had given us some indication of their intentions in this regard when they met with me last week. We have sent an official to British Columbia to obtain information about their program, if we can. When we have it I will analyze it and be glad to comment. With regard to the pricing of automobiles, as with other commodities, the cost pass-through criterion will be used.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR LIST OF COMMODITIES ON WHICH JUSTIFICATION FOR PRICE INCREASE REQUIRED
John Edward Broadbent: Can the
minister tell us if and when the government will be providing for the benefit of hon. members, and thus for the people of Canada, a list of commodities in addition to automobiles on which the government will be applying, if I understand him correctly, an effective price freeze until justification for future increases can be provided?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That, of course, would be most wisely done by the AntiInflation Board. The question is one which could certainly be canvassed in the course of the committee hearings. But, of course, definitive action in this connection will not be possible until the bill receives Royal Assent.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POWERS OF REVIEW BOARDS TO DEAL WITH UTILITY RATES
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Finance about price control.
Mr. Speaker, may I thank my colleagues from all sides of the House for their warm welcome. Be assured I deeply appreciate it.
To come back to the Minister of Finance and to the price control policy, we were advised last week that Quebec Hydro wants to raise electricity rates by 25 per cent. Ontario Hydro, I believe, started to apply a 25 per cent increase yesterday, and the natural gas company is announcing a 30 per cent increase. Was the minister consulted by the provinces on that question and what action does he intend to take to protect consumers against those price rises?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the applause indicates that all hon. members welcome, as I do, the hon. member back to the House, and that they are happy to see him hale and hearty.

In reply to his question about Quebec, I would say that the government of that province has decided to have its provincial commission set the price of public utilities, such as electricity and gas, in the public sector. So, it is up to the Quebec commission to determine, as agreed, the proper level of cost increases for such services.
With regard to Ontario, if the government of that province decides to give the federal government of Canada and the federal board the responsibility for setting price rates for Ontario Hydro, then the Anti-Inflation Board is responsible. In that case, it must consider what costs Ontario Hydro has incurred during the past year.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Does not the commission which is supposed to be organized in Quebec consult with the Anti-Inflation Board before proceeding on an increase such as is now being asked in Quebec? Have we reached a point where there will be 10 different boards on price and wage control in Canada or will the national board have authority over the provincial boards?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. We prefer a single federal board to control both public and private sectors. But we have recognized that there are provinces, like Quebec and perhaps others, which would rather have their own board to control the public sector and Quebec indicated its preference in this regard.
We hope, however, that there will be close contact between the Quebec board and the boards of the other provinces and the federal board.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary to the Minister of Finance relating to a previous question-I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has the information I require. Has he knowledge as to when the New Democratic Party acquired its enthusiastic support for a general price freeze as opposed to the stand it took during the last election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: have some detailed quotations from Mr. David Lewis in this regard but in my new conformation as a non-partisan statesman I shall not be able to give them here in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 28, 1975


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue whom I should like to congratulate on his appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: At the present time it is possible to strip the surpluses of companies and transfer those assets to other countries without paying corporate income tax on the funds. Since some $4.2 million owing by six taxpayers have been written off since 1972 because the men concerned are no longer resident in Canada, would the minister take this fact under consideration and advise the House whether he and his staff are considering the early introduction of legislation to put a stop to this particular practice?
6'


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for his good wishes. I would say to the non-partisan statesman holding the office of Minister of Finance that, given the tools, we will finish the job. We do not bring in the legislation, we simply administer it; but most assuredly we are working in close consort with finance on that particular problem.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Has provision been made in the postal contingency plan for delivery of registered Canada savings bonds dividend cheques which are due on November 1, in three days, to 450,000 trusting citizens of Canada? Many senior citizens are dependent on these cheques to supplement their meager pensions, and I should like to know whether arrangements have been made for delivery.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as acting Minister of Finance, I shall take note of the question and inform the Minister of Finance.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it follows on his answer to a question from the hon. member for Northwest Territories yesterday concerning the report on the Panarctic air crash. In his reply the minister suggested some sort of satisfaction with the
Oral Questions
report, though there seems to me little room for satisfaction in that department. Considering the serious nature of the comments regarding inadequate safety measures and checks on flights to the Arctic contained in the report, would the minister enlighten the House as to exactly what steps have been taken to tighten up regulations concerning these flights? Are these to await the inquest or are they in place now; and have some changes been made?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it quite fair of the hon. member to twist words in that fashion. I indicated that what I was satisfied with was that we had, from the point of view of the Department of Transport, the information that we needed as a result of the investigation. I wish the hon. member would restrict himself to the words that were used. I had indicated as well that the Department of Transport some months ago formulated potential changes to the regulations to further control the private air sector; that is to say, the non-commercial sector. These draft proposals have been in the hands of the persons affected for some time and their comments are to be back in our hands by the middle of next month, at which time we will begin the drafting of the regulations.


MEASURES TO PREVENT OBSTRUCTION OF INQUESTS INTO ACCIDENTS
Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister suggested a day or two ago that there would be legislative changes to bring forward the independent accident investigation commission. At the same time is the minister, or his colleague in justice, considering changes that would prevent the kind of delay and obstruction in an inquest that was cited in the Northwest Territories? Will there be legislation that will permit the inquest there to subpoena witnesses from any part of Canada or from outside the country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can answer only in relation to the legislation referred to. We do have plans, as I indicated to the hon. member previously, to bring forward legislation to set up an independent accident investigation and examination board.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister ordered a complete and full inquiry into the circumstances pertaining to the fire on Air Canada flight 211 departing Halifax at 8.50 a.m. on October 18 with 97 passengers aboard, and also the L-1011 engine explosion during take-off at Toronto airport on October 22?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check into those two cases and see where they stand.

October 28, 1975
Oral Questions


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services.
Has COJO contacted the Canadian Mint to have a medallion struck in commemoration of the 1976 Olympics before granting a contract to a company operating in Switzerland?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mint has received no request from COJO and surely if it did, it would investigate all possibilities of designing such a medallion in Canada. At any rate I am sure Canadian industry would be very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the manufacture of a medallion to celebrate the Olympics.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the fact that many, many months have gone by since the Canstel report was commissioned and tabled, can the minister advise what steps his department and the government are taking to bring the proposed new steel complex to Cape Breton Island?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot report to the hon. gentleman specific progress regarding the report of Canstel, but as he knows we have engaged in a study of the location. We will have to wait for a further report before we can decide on any course of action.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the Liberal candidate in my riding during the last election said that this steel complex was coming to Cape Breton Island, and in view of the fact that a cabinet minister intimated the same thing, would the minister now advise me what meetings he has scheduled with Premier Regan of Nova Scotia and what cooperation he is getting from Premier Regan with regard to the proposed complex, or is Mr. Regan still having pipedreams in between his overseas travels?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that if personal commitments were made by condidates at the time of an election, they were certainly not binding up on the government as such. But with regard to our negotiations with the government of Nova Scotia, I can report that they are still under way, and although I do not think I will meet Premier Regan within the next few days, I will surely have the opportunity to meet with him on this subject within the next few months.
[Mr. Lang.)


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Late this summer or early fall the Prime Minister had a request from one of the locals of the United Mine Workers in Cape Breton, after a fire in a coal mine temporarily took away many jobs, for an investigation by the government of the top management division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. This request also came from the district 26 executive of the United Mine Workers. Would the Acting Prime Minister please inform me and the House whether the government has definitely turned down this request once and for all?


Mitchell William Sharp: As far
as I know, Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no, no such request has been definitely turned down. As my hon. friend knows, the Minister of Labour continues to have a close interest in the safety of mines.


Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the Acting Prime Minister's reply- he does not seem to know that the Prime Minister has received a telegram saying there was going to be-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Andrew Hogan: Given the evident frustration expressed by the union in its request, would the minister consider, given his responsibility as the one in charge of reporting to parliament for the Cape Breton Development Corporation, trying to bring together in a closed meeting the executive of district 26 of the United Mine Workers Union and each president of the four mine locals in the Cape Breton area with DEVCO's top coal management in an all day session that will include detailed investigation and discussion of the district executive office's charges, so as to bring closer co-operation in this industry at a very crucial time in the history of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of the hon. member is pretty close to being totally out of order up until this point, but the minister might like to give some sort of reply.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can say one thing. I believe the government, and indeed I, as the minister, have full confidence in the officials at DEVCO down in Cape Breton. As to the specific request, I can say I look forward to meeting with these people if such a meeting can be arranged. This may not be in the immediate months ahead, but I will be looking forward to going to Cape Breton and meeting with
October 28, 1975

these people with a view to finding the best solution to the difficulties we have been facing. The accident happened in June, with the closing of one colliery, Number 26, after the fire occurred.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the Snauley Commission investigating transportation costs and rates on the prairies been advised of the government's position as stated Sunday on the CTV program "Question Period", namely, that the government is prepared to subsidize the railways over and above the revenue now received from the Crowsnest Pass rates.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get the transcript of the program for the hon. member so that he will have exactly what I said. I do not know whether the commission received any word of that. Maybe they got an accurate version if they listened to the program.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the assistance of the minister in offering to get the transcript. I heard the program, but I will read the transcript when I have it. Are we to believe that the Snauley Commission will not be investigating the Crowsnest Pass rates as to whether or not they are revenue producing and to the extent that they cover the variable costs of the railways.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will try to help the hon. member a little more by indicating what I think I said. The philosophy of the MacPherson Commission, which he may or may not agree with, would have supported those payments and I know he was in the House when he stopped those payments becoming a possibility in 1967, which was a very serious mistake. However, the scope of the investigation of the Snauley Commission is rather specifically into the cost of moving grain. The Crowsnest Pass rates are, of course, on the revenue side and may be used in comparison, but the specific terms of reference relate to the cost of moving grain.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question.
Yesterday, my colleague from Central Nova asked the Minister of Transport a question on an alleged fraud related to the Mirabel project, and the minister replied that those allegations were without any foundation. Immediately after that, the Solicitor General was confirming to a Montreal daily that an inquiry was set up regarding allegations of a fraud amounting to $60 million. In the
Oral Questions
light of this confirmation by the Solicitor General, is he able to tell much more concrete things than his colleague the Minister of Transport? Is he prepared to make a statement on this matter and when will he make such a statement?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did not say there was an inquiry into those matters. I said that the allegations had been transmitted to the RCMP and that at the present time they were evaluating the allegations. If they found there was sufficient substance to the allegations they would undertake an investigation, but there is no investigation at the present time.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Acting Prime Minister told the House that the government had not decided on the length of time the postal strike would be allowed to continue before back-to-work legislation would be introduced. In view of the fact that negotiations have broken off and recommenced again since that answer was given, I should like now to ask what consideration has been given by the government to any measures to restore the postal service which is so vital to all Canadians or is it the government's policy that postal service will not be restored before the labour dispute is settled.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's view that the postal workers should resume work when the settlement is reached. I am sure the hon. member agrees with that. These negotiations are under way now, and I do not think I should say anything that would interfere with their success.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I should like to ask him a question following the motion I presented today. Has he 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 over which his department might have an interest and responsibility.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a request having been made to my department.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could indicate if his officials have
8610

October 28, 1975
Oral Questions
made any assessment of the impact of any potential reductions or alterations in federal programs or expenditures, particularly as they might affect areas of chronic high unemployment such as the Atlantic provinces.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the implications of the department activities are always regularly analysed by the officers to correct the shortcomings, if need be, and to improve the program. It is a permanent process with the department: it has been done six months or a year ago, and I think it is worth maintaining it.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and Government House Leader. It deals with reports that only firms having their head offices in the province of Quebec are allowed to bid on construction contracts at the Olympic site in Montreal. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he plans any action to ensure that this discrimination against other Canadian contractors is removed immediately.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government does not have administrative responsibility for the Olympic projects.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can he inform the House whether or not he has recently met with the representatives of the city of Montreal to follow up the development project of the old port of Montreal, and if so, why the filling work of the river between Victoria and Jacques-Cartier quays could not be stopped, as requested by the Minister of Indian Affairs?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Lamarre and other officials and with other officials from the federal government to talk about the entire question of redevelopment of the urban area of old Montreal. We are in discussion with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but I also believe there is a very intense involvement by the National Harbours Board. Their intention is the preservation of that area to open it up for the residents of Montreal because it is a
very valuable historic asset for Canada. We have just had a study done by a firm of planners which is being studied by my officials and it is one I am following very closely. I met with Mayor Drapeau a week ago yesterday and he continues to take an interest in the development of this area. We are working very closely with him. However, I will have to check specifically on some aspects of this which I understand are causing some concern to Montreal.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question and a short supplementary for the Solicitor General. It is in respect of the proposed medium and maximum security institutions, a staff training college and rifle range in the municipal district of Sturgeon in Alberta. In view of the fact that the residents of this area are already over-burdened with numerous rehabilitation centres and are strongly opposed to these being situated in the proposed area mainly because the area is only one-quarter of a mile from the school and is to occupy 328 acres of prime agricultural land, would the minister please bring the House up to date concerning what conclusion his department has reached about establishing this institution in this location.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, before we picked that particular site we consulted the government of Alberta and the local authorities and they gave their approval in principle. Since that time, however, there has been some objection and we have decided to have further discussions with the people in the area. We will await the outcome of these discussions.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Has the minister's department given any consideration to moving the site somewhat to the north and east to more marginal land, and in view of the fact that the department's first proposal did not include a maximum security institution and rifle range, and originally was to occupy only 160 acres instead of 320 acres, is the department planning to hold hearings again? Would the minister also be so kind as to instruct his officials to keep the member of parliament concerned informed of the department's intention?


William Warren Allmand: As I mentioned in my last answer, we will have further discussions with the people in the area, and I believe they will be held at a public meeting. In addition, I do not think we would want to pick any particular site, whether north, east or south, without consulting with the provincial government because the provincial government had given us the authority to proceed on the site which was picked, but we will consult with them further and with the people in the area and I will be pleased to meet with the hon. member and give him more information.

October 28, 1975




[Stage Direction]
Second report of Special Joint Committee on Immigration Policy-Mr. O'Connell.

Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker,
seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) I move:
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 99, the petition seeking the incorporation of Northland Bank, filed after the time limit specified under Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, together with the Fourteenth Report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, presented to the House on Monday October 27, 1975, for any recommendations the Committee deems advisable.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,233, 1,442, 1,684, 1,686, 1,687, 2,031, 2,120, 2,328, 2,503, a corrected question, 2,983, 2,990, 3,140, 3,160, 3,175, 3,215, 3,216, 3,236, 3,266, 3,268 and 3,272.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who have approached anyone in government, including the Prime Minister, concerning the donating, constructing or in any way whatsoever supplying a swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive (b) on what specific dates were such approaches made (c) in each case, to what specific person were they made?
2.	(a) What is the estimated total cost involved in construction of the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive, including all items of construction or alterations made necessary as a result of such an addition (b) what portion of these costs is being paid by (i) the taxpayers (ii) private donors?
Order Paper Questions
3.	What are the names and addresses of all private donors involved in this project, including exact amounts donated, pledged, or promised in each case?
4.	Was any examination conducted by the government into the identity, business connections, political connections, etc. of all persons involved with this project and (a) if so, on what date and what are the full details (b) if not, for what reason?
5.	(a) What are the names and addresses of all designers, architects, interior decorators, contractors, etc. involved in this project (b) in each case, specifically by whom were they chosen and/or recommended (c) were any tenders called and (i) if so, on what dates, by what public advertisements and what are the names and amounts of all tenders received (ii) if not, what are all the reasons?
6.	(a) What is the identity and job designation of the highest government authority accepting full or partial donation of the swimming pool (b) on what date was acceptance finalized (c) what is the name and address of the person to whom acceptance was communicated on behalf of the government?
7.	(a) What are full details of the Prime Minister's involvement in this enterprise including any involvement on his behalf by members of his family or personal staff (b) on what date did the Prime Minister first become aware of the proposed project and by whom was he approached or informed (c) who are all persons that he has dealt with directly or indirectly in regard to the project (d) what are the details of the Prime Minister's part in all decisions pertaining to this project?
8.	What are all reasons that the government and/or the Prime Minister did not from the outset make full disclosure of details pertaining to this project in order to establish clearly that no improprieties or conflict of interest factors are involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: In 1974, after carefully considering the factors, the Prime Minister agreed to accept from a representative group of Canadians the gift of a swimming pool for the official residence at 24 Sussex Drive. In Canada as in most other countries, the making of donations to the state is a common practice and many public buildings have been built as a result of this tradition. The group of donors was concerned that the Prime Minister and his successors have ready access to adequate physical fitness facilities without being confronted with the obvious security and privacy difficulties. The Prime Minister agreed to be one of the contributors. He also chose not to ask for the names of the other contributors, except for their trustee, Dr. W. H. Fader, of 395 Brooks Street, Toronto, lest he be influenced or give the appearance of being influenced by them. The donations, if a properly documented tax return is filed, entitle the contributors to the deductions provided for under Section 110(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act. Given statutory provisions extant which ensure confidentiality of income tax returns, the government is not in a position to disclose the names of the contributors. The service of Herbert Brune Construction of Ottawa was engaged by the trustee for the donors to install the swimming pool at the official residence. As the costs incurred by that firm have been assumed by private donors, they are not of government record. Since these proposed fitness facilities were to be built on crown-owned land, the Department of Public Works assigned one of its architects to design the pool and related facilities subject to conformity with requirements of the National Capital Commission and the latter's approval at various stages of progress of work. Design costs incurred by the Department of Public Works are the responsibility of the government and are covered by vote 10. As to the operational costs of the facilities, (and related expenditures by departments concerned), they will be included in the overall cost of the administra-
29669-61(4

October 28, 1975
Order Paper Questions
tion of the Prime Minister's residence under the relevant statutory provisions and will therefore, in the usual way, be open to the scrutiny of parliament. To confirm or complement the above statement, see, inter alia, the following: House of Commons Debate for February 5, 1975, page 2933; March 26, 1975, page 4505 and May 22, page 6009. Answer to questions Nos. 1323; 2211, 2525; 2691; 2692; 2961 and 2964. Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for May 12, 1975, pages 33:31; 33:32; 33:33; and May 20, 1975, pages 36:37 and 36:38.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Who prepared the plans and specifications for the erection, installation and construction of a swimming pool and allied facilities on the lands adjacent to the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa?
2.	Who authorized and approved the preparation of such plans and specifications and what is the estimated cost?
3.	Were public tenders called for the construction of the swimming pool and allied facilities and, if so (a) on what date (b) who were the tenderers (c) what was the tenderer's price?
4.	What firm, or firms, is erecting, constructing and installing the swimming pool and allied facilities?
5.	What are (a) the detailed costs of the preparation of the plans and specifications (b) the administration costs (c) the costs of equipment (d) the costs of supply, construction, erection and installation of the swimming pool and allied facilities?
6.	What do the allied facilities include?
7.	What are the estimated costs of administration and operation of the swimming pool and allied facilities?
8.	Has consideration been given to suspending the erection, installation and construction of the swimming pool and allied facilities and diverting the monies proposed to be expended thereon to help communities such as the City of Moncton in the erection and construction of an Olympic size swimming pool?
9.	Has the Prime Minister ever considered volunteering to act as Chairman of a Fund Raising Campaign to raise funds for the erection, installation and construction of an Olympic size swimming pool for the City of Moncton?
10.	What contributions, from whom and for what amount, have been received or pledged from private sources towards the total cost of the swimming pool and allied facilities?
11.	(a) Are any of such contributions deductible for income tax purposes and, if so (i) what amount (ii) under what statute (iii) what are the names and addresses of such donors (b) have any contributions or donations been made by any political party, association or organization and, if so, from whom and in what amount?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question 1,233.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works or any government authority award a contract in connection with swimming pool construction at the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex Drive to Herbert Brune Construction Limited, 141-A Bentley Avenue, Ottawa (a) was the contract in the amount of $180,000 (b) on what date and by whom was the contract awarded (c) were tenders called and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, was this done by public advertisements and what were the names of all those tendering along with the amounts of such tenders?
2.	What is a full description of the work to be done under this contract and what percentage of the total cost of the swimming pool and all appurtenances thereto is represented by this contract?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question 1,233.


Mr. Cossitt: What is a full and detailed description of any involvement whatsoever with the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex Drive, by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (a) specifically, has the Surveys and Mapping Unit of the Department been involved and what are absolutely all details in this regard (b) were surveys, including aerial surveys, made of 24 Sussex Drive and, if so (i) on what date (ii) at whose request (iii) on whose orders (c) what is the total amount of public funds in any way spent by the involvement of this Department?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question 1,233.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is a full and detailed description of any involvement whatsoever with the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex Drive, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	What are all connections, if any, directly or indirectly, that William Teron, President of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has had with this matter including dates, persons dealt with, etc.?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question 1,233.


Mr. Kaplan: Did Statistics Canada carry out analyses for any of its statistical reports to determine (a) the time delay between the period covered and the date of the report (b) the length of delays which are acceptable to users of particular statistics (c) whether any of the reports are too late to be of significant use and, if so, what are the results, if any, of such analyses?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that, although it has not been satisfied with the timeliness of certain publications in the past, the data has not been rendered unusable by reason of delay in publication. Statistics Canada endeavours to satisfy users' data needs as quickly as possible, and it should be noted that publication release dates are not truly indicative of the service that is provided. For many statistical series, as soon as data becomes available, notice of that availability is announced in service bulletins; the Statistics Canada Daily (Cat. No. 11-001E) or Informat (Cat. No. 11-002). Many users are subsequently provided with the specific information they require without having to wait for the complete publication. Wherever possible, advance statistics and preliminary figures are also published. In addition there is a continuous effort to improve the timing of both data collection and production, without risking the reliability of the statistical product, and improvements in release dates of many publications reflect the results of these efforts.
October 28, 1975


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister make certain remarks concerning the War Measures Act in a press interview recently in London, England and, did he state that it was the government's intention to replace the Act with new legislation which might include special provisions in the Criminal Code?
2.	(a) What are the full details of government policy on this matter (b) when will changes be proposed to Parliament (c) what will be the nature of such changes?
3.	Will any changes proposed include safeguards against government infringement on civil liberties and will they include safeguards to prevent any government acting in a panic or for political purposes?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. Yes, in the following terms: Question: Mr. Trudeau, in Bonn your visit coincided with the Berlin kidnapping and you told us that the senior German leaders had remarked to you their approval and complimentary views of the way you had handled the Cross and Laporte kidnapping in 1970. Then, in the Chalfont interview the other night, you gave a long account of the democratic principles implicit in your government's actions. Do I take it from the things that you didn't say in connection with this that you now believe that the Canadian government must retain the range of powers in the War Measures Act and you've given up all intentions of legislating a less thorough Act for emergency powers? Answer: No, not at all. I think our policy would be still to have an act which would be of considerably less scope than the War Measures Act, which could be invoked in certain cases of emergency, well short of war, and which would perhaps be incorporated in special provisions of the Criminal Code, to be brought into effect by declaration, debatable in parliament and so on. The kind of idea we were putting to parliament after the revocation or the end of the special measure which then followed the War Measures Act back at the end of '70 and beginning of '71. This is still a preferable step that I personally believe in. Question: When? Answer: When we have parliamentary time; when we find that there is a general agreement amongst the opposition that this is a better way of proceeding; when we have general support amongst the pundits of the press to urge us to go in this direction; when the rationality of our approach has been accepted by those who have sometimes voiced excessive opinions on the subject in the past.
2 and 3. See answer to (1) above.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost to taxpayers of Mr. Michael Pitfield's trip to London, Paris and Brussels for a period of thirty-six days from business?
2.	What is the name of the person who authorized Mr. Pitfield to make this trip?
3.	What are all ways in which taxpayers have benefitted from this expenditure of public funds?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	$1,890.13.
2.	His deputy head under relevant provisions of the Financial Administration Act.
Order Paper Questions
3.	This question is too vague to be answered. (See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171(b)).


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): (Corrected)
1.	What was the total debt incurred by Canadians by way of mortgages on their dwellings as of December 31 (a) 1950 (b) 1960 (c) 1965 (d) 1970 (e) 1972 (f) 1974?
2.	What percentage of such debts was incurred with (a) chartered banks (b) trust companies (c) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the data submitted in response to this question, and printed in Hansard on July 8, 1975, (page 7350), are to be revised in accordance with the table attached:
Mortgage Debt Outstanding (1) on Homeowner Dwellings, Canada 1950-1974
Per Cent Distribution
Life
Year	Amount	Chartered	Trust	Insurance	(2)	$ Million	Banks	Companies Companies	Others	CMHC1950	1,000	**	* *	**	**	**1960	1,700	20.7	5.8	44.3	5.8	23.41965	7,500	10.8	12.2	35.6	21.4	20.01970	12,000	8.2	16.1	25.2	34.7	15.81972	20,000	11.8	15.8	13.7	47.7	11.01974	27,000	16.4	22.3	10.2	41.5	9.6
**Not available.
(1)	Estimated.
(2)	As at December 31.
Revised October 1975.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What are the (a) guidelines (b) regulations determining the practice of hiring outside consultants for the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office?


Mitchell William Sharp: Subject to provisions of the Financial Administration Act, consultants are selected and the terms and duration of their contract are determined by their qualifications and specific requirements of the two offices concerned, that cannot be met by existing staff and which are of such nature that the hiring of permanent staff would not be justified.

October 28, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: Is any action contemplated to stop the contravention of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by the Government of Ontario in giving a cash rebate of provincial sales tax on new cars built in North America and, if so, what form will it take?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Federal-provincial discussions focussed on the international implications of the tax rebate. At one point the Prime Minister was in direct contact with Premier Davis. The issue was satisfactorily resolved when eligibility for the rebate of the 5 per cent Ontario provincial retail sales tax on automobiles was extended retroactively to automobiles produced outside North America.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,232 which stated in part that a lawyer named Mr. N. D. Dixon of Smiths Falls, Ontario, received $15,585.53 from the government for legal services in 1974-75
(a)	is the government aware whether this is the same Mr. N. D. Dixon who became President of the Leeds Liberal Association in 1972 following the resignation of the President and seventeen members of that Association's Executive (b) did the Minister of Finance attend later in 1972 a Liberal Party meeting in the Town of Gananoque in the Constituency of Leeds and, if so (i) on what date (ii) is the government aware whether this meeting installed Mr. Dixon as President of the Leeds Liberal Association (c) did the Prime Minister or anyone acting on his behalf or anyone else in government or anyone acting on behalf of the government have any part in arranging with Mr. Dixon to take on the Presidency of the Leeds Liberal Association at that time and, if so (i) what are all details of such arrangements (ii) by whom were they made?
2.	Is the government aware (a) that Mr. Dixon was President of the Leeds Liberal Association during the election of October 31, 1972 (b) if he is still a member of the Executive of the Leeds Liberal Association?
3.	(a) What is a detailed description of the legal work done by Mr. Dixon for the government (b) what are the names and addresses of all persons involved in any way whatsoever with this work including job designations of any who are government employees?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. The subject matter of this question does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada.
3. The information will be communicated at a later date to the hon. member.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the budget of the Food Prices Review Board in (a) 1973
(b)	1974?
2.	How many persons were employed in (a) 1973 (b) 1974?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. (a) 1973-74, $977,500; (b) 1974-75, $1,880,000.
2. (a) 1973-74, (Man-Years utilized) 27; (b) 1974-75 (Man-Years utilized) 58.5.
Note; The Food Prices Review Board was appointed by Order-in-Council May 25, 1973.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Was the Canadian Film Development Corporation satisfied that its objectives were met in the funds that it provided for "Sweet Movie"?
2.	Is it the intention of the CFDC to investigate further the intentions of producers to determine in advance whether movies to be supported will in fact be pornographic?
3.	In future, will the Corporation be financially supporting pornographic productions or producers who normally produce such movies?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171(d).


Mr. Whittaker: What is the breakdown by province on the number of people who have won prizes in the Olympic lottery?


Mitchell William Sharp: The subject matter of this question does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada.


Mr. Whittaker: Does it state on the contest forms of the COJO 76 Olympic "special right-to-buy" ticket drawing contest, that winners of the special prizes are required to answer a skill-testing question, as advertized in the Ottawa Journal of October 4, 1975 and, if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question 3,215.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,352 that a Super Venus Nappa was purchased from public funds for the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive (a) is this some kind of celestial object (b) is it a form of map or guide book for 24 Sussex Drive (c) for what reasons is it classified as "Super" (d) what is a full description of the object?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a), (b) and (c) See Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, Citation 171 (a), (d) Chair covering material.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,473 that shows Vickers Benson Ltd. of Toronto as receiving seven contracts totalling $2,132,952 in advertising contracts without public tender from the government since July 8, 1974 (a) is the government aware that either Vickers Benson Ltd. or any members of that firm did advertising work for the Liberal Party of Canada during the federal election on July 8, 1974 (b) did the firm, or any officer thereof, assist directly or indirectly in the 1974 election campaign on behalf of any of the Ministers of the departments involved in these contracts?
October 28, 1975


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) and (b) The information requested deals with matter not officially connected with the government (See Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171(dd)).


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister state on his current trip to Western Canada: "I turn the thermostat down every time the kids turn it up and I turn down the lights all the time" and, if so (a) was the statement made in Winnipeg to members of the press (b) does it illustrate the full extent of the Prime Minister's examples of restraint at this time of high inflation?
2.	Will the Prime Minister (a) discontinue to use government aircraft at public expense for personal holidays and political trips (b) curtail expenses from public funds for the purchase of other than necessary items for his official residence at 24 Sussex Drive (c) curtail the use of his eighty thousand dollar six mile to the gallon Cadillac?


Mitchell William Sharp: I.	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171(e).
2. (a) No. See House of Commons Debates for December
II,	1973, page 8618. (b) See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171 (i). (c) No, on security grounds.


Mr. Herbert: What studies have been undertaken or are contemplated to ascertain the degree of discrimination which may exist concerning health standards and/or physical handicap as a consideration for employment?


Mitchell William Sharp: The question is too vague and broad in scope to justify an attempt to answer it as drafted. Ministers concerned shall be pleased to do their best to provide the hon. member with adequate information upon request on specific aspects of this question in so far as it deals with matters under federal jurisdiction.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,909 and 3,004 could be passed as orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Stanbury: As of June 30, 1975 (a) what amount was owing by each country in arrears of payment of the special United Nations assessment for maintenance of the UN Emergency Force and the UN Disengagement Observer Force in the Middle East (b) how much has Canada received on account of its contributions to these forces (c) what amount is owing to Canada on this Account?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD 
Question No. 3,004-Mr. Friesen:
1.	What is the cost of operating the National Parole Board?
2.	How many persons sit on the Board?
3.	What is the amount paid to each member?
4.	What are the qualifications, professional, etc. of each of the officers?
Return tabled.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 2,527 and 2,812?


Mr. MacKay: 1.	What is the name and position of the public servant who, on January 30, 1975, occupied the office described as "Parliament Buildings, Room 203, East Block, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OA2"?
2.	What government office, on January 30, 1975, had the long distance telephone listing "613-992-4211"?
3.	When using official letterhead on January 30, 1975, was the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, Jack (Jacob) Austin, acting on behalf of the Department of National Revenue and, if so (a) was he authorized to write that the original investors in Hearne Coppermine Explorations Limited were being re-assessed in connection with their sales in 1968 and that it was the view of the tax office that the transaction was an income one and not a capital gain, and was it government policy that the tax office interpretation of the transaction was in dispute (b) was he directed to advise that information was available on this matter by contacting in Ottawa the following number "613-992-4211"?
4.	Does Jacob Austin have the option of using the Prime Minister's office to facilitate matters of this nature whether or not they pertain to the official business of his employer?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: The reply to the question is as follows: (1) The office described is shared by the secretary of the principal secretary to the Prime Minister and the secretary of the assistant principal secretary (Plans and Policy).
(2)	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171 (ff).
(3)	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171(h) and (i).
(4)	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171(h) and (i).


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What was the amount of the Prime Minister's contribution to the Official Residence swimming pool alluded to in answering an oral question at page 6778 of Hansard?
2.	To what group or individual was the payment made?

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: The reply to this question is to be found in the reply to 1,233 answered this day.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be reserved.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, through you, that at the beginning of this session I had on the order paper some 80 questions on CIDA which were not answered, under the guise of restraints, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs said it would cost too much to answer all these questions. I deleted the questions after discussion with the minister and an agreement that if I put any ten of them on the order paper, he would have no problem in answering them. I should like to put that on the record. I am sure, now these ten questions are on the order paper, that they will be answered within the next couple of weeks.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, just before I called it ten o'clock last night I was dealing with a number of abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act and I had categorized them into permissible abuses and those which are not permissible. When I described the case of the fisherman who was embarking upon a holiday trip and loading up his car and his silver trailer, having earned $40,000 that year and having established his status for unemployment insurance benefits for himself and his wife, it was inadvertently recorded in yesterday's Hansard that this particular fisherman came from the city of Prince George. There are no such rich people in Prince George. The fisherman actually came from the city of Prince Rupert, in the riding of my colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo).
During my speech the minister objected to some of the estimates I had placed on the record with regard to the cost to parliament and the country this year of the unemployment insurance fund. I inadvertently mentioned the figure of $2 billion. My notes contained the figure of $1.5 billion, but since my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) had earlier mentioned the figure of $1.5 billion, and since four hours had expired from the time he spoke until I had the floor, I thought it would be only fair for me to increase the figure a little because costs are going up steadily.
To get back to the people who in my opinion abuse the Unemployment Insurance Act, and speaking about the various segments of our society which use the act for their own purposes, I would like to demonstrate how, in the opinion of the minister, the bill addresses itself to this problem. It proposes to increase the eligibility period from eight weeks to twelve weeks. Rather than reiterate the effect in monetary saving that this would have on the public purse, I will tell the House what this would mean in money and time saved by a person who works in a sausage shop in Victoria. Since she is only suffering from boredom while her husband is away from home, this bill will not have any effect on her. She actually works six to eight months per year, and after that she has an arrangement with her employer to let her go, because her work is usually during the winter months when her employer has problems in obtaining employees.
Also, this bill does not affect fishermen on the west coast with whom I have talked, nor does it affect construction workers whose cases I have described. In the case of fishermen, they have special arrangements with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and construction workers work longer than the period prescribed in the act. A vast number of Canadians find the services of the Unemployment Insurance Commission convenient when they decide to change jobs frequently just for something to do and without regard to where they will next find employment. The bill addresses itself to that problem as well by extending the waiting period, or disqualification period, from three weeks to six weeks. This means that Canadians who practice frequent job migration will have to wait two months, if clause 16 of the bill is passed, before they qualify for benefits. While this may act as a deterrent to some offenders, it will place unbearable hardship on those people who for just reason, and probably for the first time in their life, leave their employment.
I ask the minister how many Canadians he considers are in a position today to be without income for such a prolonged period of time, particularly in cases where the claimant supports a family. Of all the proposed changes, I find clause 16 the most offensive, for this reason, particularly since there are other ways in which this problem could have been avoided. In most cases people will find it necessary to opt for some form of social assistance in order to bridge the gap. This means, of course-I am sure the minister is aware of this-that the burden of sustaining such a family for the two-month period is shifted partially to the provincial governments.
Before I attempt to suggest solutions to some of the problems I have enumerated-I have done this on previous occasions directly to the minister-I wish to deal with the second category of offenders who benefit from the act illegally. During the last postal strike the minister was surprised to learn that in the Toronto area alone, 6,000 people did not pick up their weekly unemployment insurance cheques at the designated places. One can only speculate that these people had good reason for not presenting themselves to the commission. I am sure some were receiving several weekly payments. Others may have had trouble getting time off from work to collect their cheques. At least that is one positive aspect of a postal strike. Next,

October 28, 1975

there are those who forget to declare earnings from other sources, and those who deliberately make themselves scarce, avoiding offers of employment. The list is seemingly endless, as endless as the army of investigators and adjudicators who roam the regions of our land spying out the guilty but usually only succeeding in punishing the innocent.
I said earlier that the government has not defined for Canadians, or for business or labour in particular, any basic underlying philosophy to the Unemployment Insurance Act. A consultation with business and management, for instance, would reveal that they consider the act to be viewed in the context of insurance only. They have, therefore, considered premiums to be based on a risk factor. The construction workers whom I mentioned would have to pay a higher premium to compensate for their heavy demand on the service.
Labour leaders tell us that they view unemployment insurance as social security and, as such, a redistribution of the general wealth. Based on these predilections, labour is more concerned that all legitimate claims are met and that the system runs at peak proficiency. The total cost is therefore not of concern to labour. Labour would be prepared to trade off the act for some sort of guaranteed income scheme. Little wonder my constituents are confused.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Frank Oberle: It can be seen that the members of the NDP are also confused. Little wonder that senior citizens, who are now denied access to the benefits of the act, and low income earners who must now pay a higher premium and find their benefit rate reduced, are confused. In light of recent developments, it is surely reasonable to ask the government how much longer it will allow this horrendous disease to go unchecked.
With the implementation of wage and price guidelines, the government has established a precedent which could also apply to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Stern emergency powers are requested by the government to deal with the economic crisis in Canada. The government not only hopes to check but also plans to bring serious budgetary and trade deficits under control. Canadians will be compelled to do certain things and to adhere to certain things. These strong measures became necessary because it was found that restraint did not come voluntarily. Is it not time to insist on similar action with regard to the unemployment situation? After all, it is the single, most contributory factor to the need for deficit financing in our country today.
There are two areas which should be considered immediately. First, we should consider establishing a ceiling of allowable annual earnings beyond which benefits would either not be paid or would have to be refunded with the income tax return. It simply does not make sense to me that a person earning in excess of twice the average Canadian's income should be entitled also to collect UIC benefits for part of the year. Certain professional groups, such as teachers, are already assessed on a 12-month average. Furthermore, serious consideration should be given to restricting the fund to the head of a household in cases
Unemployment Insurance Act
where the combined income of wife and husband exceeds a certain level.
I understand and appreciate the desire of the government to make the program universal and equitable, but the new features in Bill C-69 are anything but that. A significant number of Canadians have reached middle-age and their families have struck out on their own. The husband has reached a peak in his career and enjoys a middle or upper income bracket. The wife, unable to cope with being idle and not having anyone left to care for, opts for some form of employment to keep her busy. She considers it a hobby job, to which she does not wish to become permanently attached. I suspect some of my colleagues in the House of Commons have wives with the same problem who take some kind of job to keep them from becoming bored. My wife does not fit into that category; she does not wish to be a burden on the public purse by accepting any form of income assistance, because she does not need it. I suggest that a number of my colleagues find themselves in the same situation.
It should be our aim to assure a climate of work opportunity in which everyone can find fulfilment; but is it really necessary also to pay benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act during periods when the hobby loses its novelty and it is no longer convenient to go to work? In my case, that is the time I spend in the summer months talking with my constituents in British Columbia.
During our discussion with business and labour it became apparent that due to lack of any kind of demographic profile we were unable to identify these obvious areas of abuse. Also, during our dialogue with business and labour there was no argument when we advanced ideas to consolidate the services of Canada Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This brings me to the second area with which the government must concern itself if we ever hope to have a check on UIC spending. It will become imperative to develop a better system of matching jobs with workers.
In a statement to the standing committee on November 26, 1973, the minister stated that the current paradox in Canada, of high unemployment and increasing labour shortages-I am quoting his words- indicates clearly that employers as well as workers may have special problems. I say they do have special problems in Canada. The minister also stated that the heart of any employment service is the technique it uses to match jobs with available workers. He went on to say that in Canada we have used, and used well, the traditional approach to job matching followed by other advanced countries. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. In a survey conducted in my riding we found that Canada Manpower satisfied only 7 per cent to 10 per cent of the available jobs. Only 15 per cent of employers in both the industrial and service sectors consult Manpower at all.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, what is needed is a complete, and at all times current job inventory. I know these are strong words, but they are not out of season when we talk about some of the other measures the government finally had to bring in. It must be made compulsory for employers to
8618

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
report their total capacity, and any changes thereto, on a weekly basis. Annual forecasts should also be filed with the commission.
The computer would, as it does in other industrial countries which the minister talked about, compile and reconcile the bank of employment opportunities against those who are looking for work. In that way we would not have to question the honesty and integrity of those who find it necessary to cash in on the unemployment insurance scheme. We would know whether he or she was making himself or herself available for work. We would have information as to the number of jobs available and the types of jobs, and the location would be at the fingertips of the counsellor who dealt with the claim in the first instance. There would be no further need for claim adjudicators and spies to roam around trying to keep everyone honest.
Mr. Speaker, I have advanced these ideas in the form of a private bill to the House and also in a private letter to the minister, pointing out to him the results of my surveys and how other countries cope with the problem. I would like, for the record, to quote a portion of the minister's reply to my submissions. He wrote:
As you may know, enabling legislation exists in the Unemployment Insurance Act to require employers to report job vacancies to my department. This legislation was not repealed after World War II and it remains, as intended, as an instrument to be used in national emergencies.
That is contemporary rhetoric, something we have heard for the last couple of years every time we discuss the economy. He went on:
Measures designed to compel employers to list all job vacancies with the CMC are not compatible, in my opinion, with the current social and economic climate of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I said in my opening remarks that I hope the government will adjust its sails to the prevailing winds in Canada, as they have with the demands Canadians are putting on the economic sea. Bill C-69 fails in this regard. The letter continues:
We are committed to improving departmental services and programs so that employers and workers alike will voluntarily use the CMCs to satisfy their manpower and employment needs.
As I stated to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee on November 22, 1973, we are now into the first stages of a plan to revitalize the placement service by adopting a more flexible and dynamic approach in the delivery of our services. This approach includes "self-service" job information centres for job ready workers where workers can see up-to-date listings of job vacancies and training opportunities. To date, 18 job information centres have been installed and in these areas placements have increased by 25 per cent. It is planned to introduce these "self-service" JICs in all Canada Manpower Centres across Canada as quickly as possible.
The letter concludes by saying:
All these efforts are directed to giving better service to employers and workers and the experience to date, with the new approach, indicates that we are indeed on the right track.
The letter was written on December 21, 1973. To date, experience indicates that the minister's efforts have been a dismal failure. Mr. Speaker, all of us here know better, of course, and with Bill C-69 the minister admits defeat. He has now decided to shift the burden of costs which he can no longer control to someone else, and he is adjusting his sights as to the rate of unemployment we should aim for in Canada.

It must be a matter of serious concern to us when we see the government's attempts to achieve that by regressive taxation, placing the additional burden on those unfortunate Canadians who can least afford it. It is also a matter of serious concern that we should surrender unconditionally and without a fight to the shortcomings of our economic situation, the improvement of which is the only real solution to the heavy costs in human misery and degradation inherent in unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, as in other fields, this government is failing its people miserably in the area of employment security. The only positive thing the minister suggests in introducing the bill is that in his opinion further changes are absolutely essential. I agree with him on that.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, the major argument I have against this bill and the proposed amendments concerns the change in the 4 per cent maximum that the government has used since 1971 as the full employment norm. They changed the ball game completely with regard to economic policy relating to employment policy and the possibility of overcoming unemployment.
This situation has to be viewed against the history of the last 10 or 15 years. In 1965 the Economic Council of Canada made its first report. Dr. Deutsch and his companions defined full employment as an unemployment rate of 3 per cent. Due to the changes in the economy by 1971, the norm was viewed as 4 per cent. With the 1975 budget and the amendments introduced in Bill C-69, the norm is set at an 8 per cent moving average. Actually, nobody can say for sure, now, what the government's full employment norm is. We do know, however, that in June, according to the then minister of finance, it could have been 5.3 per cent and now it would be about 5.7 per cent. It is likely that it will go as high as 6 per cent or 6.5 per cent in the next few years. This is not only reneging on the 1971 white paper but on the definition of the norm of full employment.
I find the government's position interesting. When it introduced its anti-inflation bill, it said that it wanted to see the consumer price index rise by no more than 4 per cent per year in three years. But it refuses to tell us its goals with respect to unemployment. Apparently, according to the bill before us, the government defines full employment as a situation when there is 5.3 per cent unemployment or more.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mostly more.


Andrew Hogan: The minister and the parliamentary secretary yesterday suggested that as economic conditions have changed so much since 1971, this changed definition as to what constitutes full employment, or the norm in unemployment, is needed. We all know that under this government inflation has reached double-digit levels. We all know that unemployment has risen from an average of some 4.5 per cent in 1970 to an adjusted annual average of 7.2 per cent or 7.3 per cent. This winter, unemployment could easily reach 8 per cent.
It has always been difficult to define what is full employment, and unemployment. Those who represent
October 28, 1975

areas of traditionally high unemployment know that many workers become discouraged and no longer seek jobs. When this happens, when they no longer collect unemployment insurance, they are considered as being out of the labour market and are not counted among the unemployed. As native people are not defined as part of this country's labour force, it is clear that when you talk about 7 per cent or 8 per cent unemployment you are really talking about a total unemployment rate of 10 per cent, 11 per cent or more. The discouraged workers who no longer seek jobs are not included in the labour force survey; they do not count as workers making up the normal part of the labour force in all parts of Canada.
In the 1971 act, the government assumed responsibility for payments when unemployment rose above 4 per cent. Under the present bill, the government will assume responsibility when unemployment rises somewhat above 5 per cent, depending on the eight-year moving average. Clearly the minister, who does not like to be told these things, will make things worse by introducing Bill C-69. The government's response to the present crisis is like the government's ostrich-like response to the housing crisis, a response made evident in the June budget. It is satisfied with glib generalizations and glib cliches like "the changing evolution of our economic realities" which hon. members opposite used yesterday.
The fact is that the unemployed are surplus workers, whether or not they are included in official statistics. The income needs of workers remain the same, even when they are unemployed. It does not matter how bureaucrats define workers as forming part of the official labour force; any unemployed worker has less money to spend. This decreased purchasing power means that we must forgo, in this country, millions of dollars worth of consumption and, therefore, of production. We hear government supporters and members of the official opposition talking about the number of man-days of production lost through strikes, but we never hear them talk of the billions and billions of dollars in goods and services that we could produce if unemployment were kept to within 4 per cent.
We want price stability; we want prices to rise by no more than 4 per cent a year. I cannot understand why we cannot establish a 4 per cent unemployment rate as our goal. But the government has not done this. As I have said, it has done what is politically convenient and it has camouflaged the real situation. Consequently, if we are to get price stability at 4 per cent per year, we might have to settle for an unemployment rate of 7 per cent or 8 per cent as normal. Of course, the minister and his colleagues do not seem to give a darn; they are not on unemployment insurance and most of the middle and high income people they represent are not on unemployment insurance.
The Atlantic provinces and other low income areas of this country will bear the brunt of this legislation. As I see it, our policy-makers are following the lead of Mr. Simon and Arthur Burns in the United States and are content to let unemployment rise to 8 per cent or 9 per cent in order to achieve the goal of prices rising no more than 4 per cent a year. They must know that policies of tight money, high interest rates and fiscal restraint will generate more unemployment. They decided, as is evident from perusal of this bill, to abandon the concept of 4 per cent unemploy-
Unemployment Insurance Act
ment as the norm. They decided to switch the extra burden of the unemployment insurance program to the working poor and other low income groups, worsening the situation of people in low income regions like the Atlantic region.
They did this by introducing a regressive payroll tax, whereas the money ought to be taken from general revenues. In short, this program ought to be based on the progressive income tax concept. The present bill does not say much for present-day liberalism. It is based on basic economic conservatism, a conservatism which is part and parcel of the approach shown by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to our problems. I have become even more convinced of the truth of this contention since hearing yesterday's interesting exchange between the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) on the relationship between the money supply and price levels in the economy.
The Minister of Finance struck me as a struggling lawyer trying to understand what the economists, monetarists, bureaucrats and the Bank of Canada are saying, and trying to determine what the whole game is about. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings implied in his question that an increased money supply, more than anything, boosts inflation in the short run. The minister seemed to indicate that the Bank of Canada was seriously considering adopting the monetarist point of view and making it part of policy, although he suggested, I understand, that the rules would not be adhered to rigorously as far as economic grant was concerned. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that before he and Governor Bouey become too enamoured of the monetarist view with which Arthur Burns and the federal reserve system of the United States have been toying, they should read the October 20 edition of Business Week, pages 16 and 17. I say this in view of what the minister said yesterday in his exchange with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. The editor of Business Week-it is hardly a socialist magazine-stated:
Monetarist economics came into its own back in 1970 when the Fed's open market committee adopted moderate growth of the money supply as a major policy goal. Since then the monetarists, who generally subscribe to Milton Friedman's-
He is a professor at Chicago University, dictum that "inflation is at all times and everywhere a monetary phenomenon," have made numerous converts in the canyons of Wall Street and the executive suites of American business-
Also, I might say, in the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada.
-so much so that any significant pickup in monetary growth is now taken by many observers as a harbinger of higher inflation.
A newly released study by the prestigious Conference Board, however, suggests that the Fed's preoccupation with gradual monetary growth rests on shaky empirical grounds. In ongoing research reported in the October issue of the Conference Board Record, economist Michael E. Levy employed several equations to explain the inflationary patterns of the past 21 years. Levey found that purely monetarist equations linking short-term monetary growth directly with inflation were the least reliable predictors of subsequent price behaviour.
Therefore, I would advise the Minister of Finance to again get together with Mr. Bouey before making announcements about the latter in effect following the line of Arthur Burns and the federal reserve of the United
29669-62%

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
States. My conclusion at this point is that this government's policies as envisaged in this bill and the one dealing with anti-inflation will create more unemployment. I also have emphasized that the government has given up the notion of getting back to a 4 per cent level of unemployment in the life of this parliament. They decided then that they had better shift the greater share of the premium-paying for unemployment insurance, since this is bound to go up, to a payroll tax, which falls on the working poor and lower income groups proportionately harder than on middle and upper income taxpayers. We in the Atlantic region, who have so many in the poverty category and the low and middle income groups of this country, will once again be indirectly shafted by the policies of this government which at the same time is protesting they are doing so much through DREE.
I want to discuss for a few minutes the relationship between unemployment insurance and the work ethic, something that was introduced indirectly into this debate yesterday by the minister and picked up by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). The minister led off this matter with his clause to amend section 43 of the act which refers to disqualification of workers" who leave their jobs without just cause, who refuse suitable employment and who are discharged." He wants the disqualification period changed, raising it from three weeks to six weeks. The proposed changes result from what he called the alarmingly high number of persons leaving their employment. He referred to the annual voluntary quits as being 250,000. I would like to know whether that figure, presumably arrived at after serious study, compared with the ten million people in the labour force, is really alarming. He also seems to think that the figure of 21,000 who annually refuse suitable employment is quite high. It seems to me to be extremely low when you compare 21,000 with a labour force of ten million.


Mr. Darling:: Two hundred and fifty thousand.


Andrew Hogan: There are 250,000 voluntary quits, and 21,000 who refuse to take suitable employment. The hon. member for Hamilton West dealt more fully with this point in the debate. I want, for his edification and possibly that of the minister-although I shall be more humble in his regard because he has had an opportunity, to do research- through his specialized personnel, to refer to an article by Harold Greer in the Toronto Star this summer, entitled "Matching Jobs and People". This refers to Ontario. I quote:
One of the curious paradoxes of the Canadian labor market in the last few years, especially in this province, has been the phenomenon of high unemployment rates while job opportunities go begging.
It has, of course, been a paradox with highly political implications, in that it invites the conclusion that work is available for anyone who wants it and those who don't are job-dodgers sustained by unemployment insurance benefits. P. E. Trudeau exploited that idea very adroitly in the last federal election campaign, even as he cracked down on claimants for the expanded benefits introduced by his government in 1971.
It is not, however, a conclusion supported by a research study by the Ontario ministry of labor. In a paper entitled "The Paradox of Unemployment and Job Vacancies-Some Theories Confronted by Data," M. L. Skolnik and F. Siddiqui of the ministry's research branch find little evidence for, and much against, the theory that laziness and unemployment insurance explain the coexistence of unemployment and manpower shortages.
Going away from Ontario to those parts of the country where you would expect the most abuses because unemployment has been around so long, I want to refer to discussion paper No. 33 of a study by the Economic Council of Canada for the Council of Maritime Premiers last year. In that document, which studied the relationship of unemployment insurance to labour market activities, among other areas, there is a chapter entitled "The Effect of the Unemployment Insurance System" of 1971 and the increased benefits of labour force activity in the Atlantic region. I will just use a short quote from the conclusion of the chapter:
The greater generosity of the unemployment insurance system has not decreased true labour force participation in the maritimes.
In other words, rather than the bias of those who are trying constantly to say there are too many people using unemployment insurance in the Atlantic region, this study strongly suggests that if the jobs are there, the people will take the jobs. They want the jobs. Of course, this flies in the face of those who say there is a disappearing work ethic as far as Canada is concerned, even in parts of Canada where there is heavy unemployment constantly, as in the Atlantic region.
One of the amendments the minister suggested yesterday which seems eminently fair is that which extends the choice of weeks for a pregnant employee. An amendment I should like the House to consider arises out of an experience we had, admittedly in an emergency situation, in my constituency this summer. Perhaps I can best introduce it by reading part of a letter from Mr. Daniel White, vicepresident of local 4520 of the United Mine Workers of America, district 26, after a fire in the only coal mine in Glace Bay had resulted in the loss of 775 jobs and pushed unemployment as recorded in the Glace Bay unemployment insurance office up to between 26 and 29 per cent. Mr. White wrote:
The membership of No. 26 local union 4520 are requesting the assistance of your office in helping us to determine whether we have been unjustly treated under the UIC Act with regard to the disqualification of a week's waiting period which followed the fire at No. 26 colliery on June 19, 1975.
The week following this date the men had no work and were putting in a week's waiting period under the UIC Act. However, retroactive money due to the men dating back to January 1, 1975, was paid to the miners on the Thursday of that week. According to the UIC Act this disqualified the men from a week's waiting period. The membership feel this was an abnormal situation and this retroactive pay was issued early due to the unforeseen circumstances.
The background to this is that the last contract negotiated between the United Mine Workers and the Cape Breton Development Corporation included a clause giving the miners benefits in case of lay-offs. The terms of the agreement provided for $100 for the first week and $20 a day for the second week, up to a maximum of $200. This was certainly a step forward and both the mine union and DEVCO should be commended for it. It was put in to help the men get by their two-week waiting period for UIC benefits. Unfortunately, the unemployment insurance regulations under section 172, "determination of earnings for benefit purposes", section 1 and 2(a), defeat the purpose of this arrangement by treating the payment as "income of a claimant arising out of any employment".

October 28, 1975

As the act now stands, this $200 payment would have penalized the miners in the eyes of the UIC if it had been paid during the first two weeks. To prevent this happening, DEVCO, in conjunction with the union, worked out a plan under which the unemployed men would be paid a special advance at the rate of $15 per week. Under the circumstances, this was the best way of giving the miners the money due to them, with the least penalization.
The upshot was that the $30 for the first two weeks was deducted from the first UIC payment on the third week. This is because any money received during the two-week waiting period is deducted from the claimant's first UIC cheque. The balance of the $15 payments to the claimants by DEVCO did not affect UIC payments because such a sum is below the minimum allowable earnings received while collecting UIC. To give an example, a miner eligible for $100 in UIC benefits would have received $15 from DEVCO in the first week, $15 from DEVCO in the second week, and $70 from UIC in the third week along with DEVCO'S $15. In the fourth week he would have received the full $100 from UIC, plus $15 from DEVCO. The additional payment of $15 from Devco would have continued until the miner had received a total of $200.
Mr. Speaker, the miners effectively lost $30 of their benefit because it was deducted from their first UIC cheque. This is regrettable. But far more disturbing, in the eyes of the miners, is that they cannot collect this special payment during the first two weeks when they need it most. Admittedly, a fire in the mine-which is what caused these lay-offs-is an emergency which does not occur every day, but things like this ought to be provided for under appropriate regulations of the UIC. It is intolerable that UIC regulations should conspire against a good agreement worked out between management and union to help the unemployed miner.
The regulations should be changed so as to allow DEVCO miners and other workers with similar agreements to draw special payments during the waiting period without being penalized. In such urgent cases, the waiting period should be drastically cut or eliminated completely. There is also a need to clarify whether or not forgiveable loans from the company in times of hardship or emergency should really be computed as earnings by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I want to conclude by saying that the amendments embodied in Bill C-69, especially the regressive tax elements in it as well as the change of the 4 per cent norm, lead us to realize that over on the other side is not a government of compassionate liberalism but a government of confusion in objectives and means to obtain its objectives, with more than a little bias against low income workers and low income regions. This is all underscored in the government's anti-inflation program and the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which the minister introduced yesterday.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, the bill presented in the House on July 20, 1975 includes amendments meant more particularly to protect the fund than the worker confronted with the unemploy-
Unemployment Insurance Act
ment problem, a social evil hitting too many well disposed persons. As a result many problems crop up and often lead to poverty with its usual consequences.
It is proper to examine for a moment the situation of an individual tackling with the unemployment problem. The head of the family who loses his job feels that it is the end of everything. He cannot bear facing his wife, his children and his friends. If he does find temporary employment it will usually be a semi-skilled job with low wages. He is deprived of the necessaries of life and he is also suffering from psychological deprivation. He got a better salary in his previous job and was proud of his work, whereas he feels humiliated in his new position. He feels rejected, his pride withers.
When the head of the family is at home all day long and has to face financial troubles and feels sorry and helpless, he sometimes becomes irritable and difficult to put up with, and his family life suffers as a consequence. He feels sorry for himself and guilty at the same time. His situation gets even worse when he sees prosperity around him. After six months or maybe a little more, his standard of living deteriorates and he becomes one of the unprivileged. If he has completed only primary or secondary studies, is unskilled and over 45, he has but little hope to find a satisfactory job and his chances get smaller and smaller every day.
Let me by the way mention that aspect of unemployment which I call dangerous. It can become explosive if handled by opportunists, mind you. In these days of hardship, the executives and personnel of news media, the employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and manpower centres should perform their task in a totally unbiassed way, and be careful not to let themselves be prompted into a provoking answer which might increase existing social tensions. We, in this Parliament, should use every parliamentary procedure to have the government start with all the means at its disposal looking for real solutions to the great problems of today. We should provide the civil servants who assume responsibility for enforcing the bills we pass with the appropriate means to really help the unemployed who show their good will. They have been hit by a hard enough blow when they left their employment. Let them not be submitted to endless vexations before they can be paid benefits.
When referring to the July 8 memo, I find that the amendments in Bill C-69, which are important in some ways, are mainly changes aimed at smoothing out some of the drawbacks inherent in the enforcement of the act. I notice in the documentory notes given to us on July 8 a reference to a number of supplementary changes proposed to reduce as much as possible the injustices and complexities now existing. I notice this reference and I hope that fuller changes will be introduced without too much delay.
As regards persons who take part in job creation projects, such as local initiatives program promoters, it is normal that they take part in the benefits as well as inconveniences deriving from the Unemployment Insurance Act. The proposed changes also mention that claimants may be allowed to terminate a current benefit period and establish a new one, if it is in their interest to do so.
This procedure might be profitable, especially in the case of payments for an illness, since there is always the

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
question of an initial phase. About this kind of benefits, changes are also suggested to ease somewhat the eligibility conditions. The problem of medical certificates will have to be settled, and the certificates provided by local physicians will have to be deemed as valid for eligibility purposes without any need for confirmation by other physicians at the head office of the commission who do not know anything of the patient's illness.
I have here a photocopy of a letter adressed to a claimant who had incurred an illness during the initial period. I think it is appropriate to quote from it a paragraph which shows the difficulties which result from the act and the related regulations. It reads:
The claimant submitted a second application for the week of December 22, 1974. She provided us with an employment record with eight weeks of insurable employment between December 9, 1973 and February 2, 1974. However, she needed 8 weeks between December 23, 1973 and December 28, 1974, which was her reference period, that is to say 52 weeks from the date of her second application.
This is a real mathematical problem and the result is a big zero for total payment. Insurable period, initial period, reference period are so many words used by officials to try explain the periods when there is no payment at all.
I have often said in the House that the Unemployment Insurance Act, while providing a necessary help to unemployed people, is also set up first of all to protect the fund. We see clearly an example of such a financial cooperation in this provision regarding the benefit disentitlement after the age of 65, since the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) himself announced this feature in his budget speech last June 23. We cannot be blind to the fact that those workers have contributed to the unemployment insurance scheme for many years, in the hope of keeping their entitlement to benefits till the age of 70. It is an injustice for this group of workers, and we do not think the savings permitted by this measure will contribute significantly to balance the budget.
Most of those workers re poor people who would deserve better treatment at an age when they are still available and eager to do some work according to their skill. Representations have already been made by representatives of various associations on behalf of their group, and it would be advisable that this discretionary measure be completely deleted from the bill under study.
If the technocrats who drafted Bill C-69 had really been concerned about the workers, they would have found, at the very least, a solution to the transfer of the contributions, either to the Quebec Pension Plan or the Canada Pension Plan, in order to increase appreciably the inome of the workers in the event where they were forced into retirement. It is inconceivable that workers who for years have contributed to maintain an insurance fund should be faced with the denial of their right to benefits when they are still available on the labour market, and without compensation from a fund to which they have contributed for many a year.
I therefore urge the minister to at least find a solution that is more humane.
On September 22, 1975, the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil reported that the delegates of the golden age at the close of
the convention of the federation attended by delegates of 802 affiliated clubs, representing 90,000 members of the federation, expressed the wish that their federation exert pressures on the government to convince it of withdrawing Bill C-69 through which persons over 65 will be denied the right to unemployment insurance benefits.
On September 5, 1975, the secretary of the Quebec Retired Civil Servants Association Incorporated sent the members of parliament and the news media copy of the resolution passed at a meeting of the administrative council of the association convened on September 2, 1975.
Here are some extracts of the whereases in their resolution:
That the proposed amendment is unfair and discriminatory for those who are 65 or more and who, because they do not have sufficient income to live comfortably in these inflation times, have a job and hope to be able to get unemployment insurance benefits in a more or less distant future after they have contributed to the fund for many years.
That the government established a program called "New Horizons" aimed at keeping active those who are 65 or more by encouraging them to have a job to stay in good health as long as possible.
That the government spent in this regard $10 million and that a sound and fair philosophy ensures that those who take part in this program are not penalized, as would be the case if the bill were enacted.
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is drafting legislation to make courses available to the unemployed so that they can have a new training to get a job, thus integrating manpower training programs into the unemployment insurance program.
That a pilot project is now on trial in Newfoundland, under which a larger number of unemployed would receive both unemployment insurance benefits and some training, which would create, if the experience were successful, a glaring contradiction with the provisions of Bill C-69.
It is therefore proposed and resolved unanimously that the government of Canada be urged to delete in this bill all provisions relating to the non-eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits of people aged 65 or more, in order that the latter, as in the past, be entitled to eventually receive total benefits after termination of employment.
I have in hand the text of a communique appearing in Le Droit of Ottawa on Friday, September 19, 1975, signed by Mrs. Wilbrod Dufour, from Sainte-Foy and entitled: "The hell with people aged 65 or more". It is a good opportunity during this debate to quote the whole text of that communique, which summarizes so well the situation:
This title may seem a little startling but in my view it faithfully reflects the federal government's attitude towards older workers. Indeed we read in the budget speech that the applicants' age limit will be lowered from 70 to 65.
What is the rationale? To keep afloat the unemployment insurance fund which is supposed to be in the red. If the unemployment insurance is poorly administered, one cannot blame it on the older workers.
I support this statement 100 per cent.
What is meant by "older worker"? It is someone who has reached or will shortly reach the age of 65. He is about to be dismissed from his job because he has reached the compulsory retirement age which is

October 28, 1975	COMMONS DEBATES_________________________________________ 8623
enforced in the business where he is employed. He may be entitled to a meagre pension or he may not. And surely the old age pension cannot fill the grap and provide him with decent livelihood. Therefore he has to work.
Many of these people enjoy good health and are perfectly capable of working. They are bona fide workers as defined in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is precisely because they make many contacts to find a job that they need unemployment benefits. Nevertheless the government has just arbitrarily decided that at 65 a man has no right to work, in a word no right to live. Yet most of them have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund for 34 years-since 1941-and in many instances have never collected benefits.
This important group of people, made up of elderly workers and their families, is compelled to judge very harshly the governing body for wanting to treat them in such a way.
Is there anything more enlightening than to hear our federal ministers utter, on every possible occasion, pious wishes with regard to our senior citizens: they built our society, they deserve our respect, our regards, our consideration, etc.
But when it is time for action they merely think of getting the Unemployment Insurance Fund out of the red at the expense of the elderly workers, those who built it by contributing to it for 34 years.
It is obvious that all those who contributed for many years to the Unemployment Insurance Fund deserve a lot of attention from the administration. They are not responsible for the administrative complexities resulting from a legislation and regulations that should be improved on the basis of the needs of everyone of its participants.
Most of these workers are poor people who should deserve a better treatment at an age where they are still available and ready to work within their capabilities. We do not believe that the savings resulting from this measure will be useful in balancing the budget.
I am convinced that this measure will not help balance the budget. However, it can easily be seen that a legislation with a too sophisticated phraseology brings out regulations which often are inapplicable. Insurability problems could be eliminated to a degree with some appropriate amendment to the multiplication of the waiting and qualifying period, the extended period and the length of the employment period and to the total earnings with the same employer.
The four consecutive weeks of ineligibility, although it might be due to four weeks of work, is a feature which has to come out of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It contributes to discourage the unemployed to go back to work.
Recently, in my riding the employees of the Moto-ski plant had been called back to work by their employer for a four week period and when they re-established their claim they lost in its entirety the unemployment insurance to which they were legitimately entitled simply because of the formulation of a section of the act that did not mean anything.
These difficulties arising out of a poorly written act might sometimes lead to illogical decisions on the part of an officialdom qost in that complexe red tape.
I shall give you an example of what happened when eligibility to pregnancy benefit had to be determined. Here is the answer given by an employee of the Commission to a claimant: That claimant does not meet the eligibility requirements for pregnancy benefits. She does not have, as mentioned in the regulation, the 10 insurable employment weeks during the 20 week period immediately preceding the thirtieth week before her delivery. During
Unemployment Insurance Act
this period, she made no contribution and, as a result, she received no payments. Can you imagine such administrative complications?
As concerns job searching, it is sometimes revolting to see what happens. Unemployed workers are required to visit employers who are having extreme difficulty remaining in operation in an industry like the furniture industry, because of higher transport rates between provinces, like the leather goods industry which must bear the fluctuations of custom rates, like the wood industry in general which is half paralysed. The type of cooperation which must exist between manpower employees and Unemployment Insurance Commission employees should help the unemployed instead of giving them trouble.
To give an idea of the answers given concerning job searching, I would like to read question No. 2095 placed on the order paper on March 21, 1975, at the request of my colleague from Abitibi. It is as follows:
Question: Does the Unemployment Insurance Commission have daily data on the number and type of jobs available in a region and, if so, how does the Commission inform the concerned citizen?
Answer: Yes but these data are maintained by district office rather than region to enable the Commission's local offices to provide a more effective service to UIC claimants as distinct from the concerned citizen at large. This information is used for adjudication purposes and to assist claimants in meeting their obligation to seek and find work.
That gives an idea of the problem caused by the regulations concerning job searching. It is obvious that the commission has required the unemployed to search for more jobs than there can possibly be available at certain times of the year. It must be noted that the cost of advisory services in job reference or research is evaluated at $1,345,730 for Canada and at $427 million for Quebec.
I believe that these sums would have been better used if more projects had been accepted through the Local Initiatives or the Opportunities for Youth Programs. All the preparation work had required different types of research and this was not costing the government a penny, and the projects in most cases were valid ones. This would have provided work for many unemployed anxious to work. The same thing will happen again there.
In my area 82 projects were submitted. We have $1,077,000 to distribute and there are projects for over $3 million. So imagine that some will have to be told that their projects are not accepted. And the unemployment rate in our area varies from 17 to 25 per cent based on the calculations usually used by the officials of various boards under the Department of Labour. I have never been against the idea of implementing the Local Initiative Program, it was fantastic, it required preparation work on the part of people. The spirit of initiative was being discovered in workers, well-intentioned people. But at the same time provision should have been made for sufficient amounts to accept at least two thirds of the projects. We cannot accept more than one third.
This year some advertising was done to encourage people to submit projects. Yes, there is a lot of unemployment. A lot of money was paid to advertise and then discourage people because most projects are not accepted. That was a way of solving the unemployment. That avoided the red tape complications of an overly complicated legislation.

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
The consideration of a bill whose object is to reduce the demoralizing effects of inflation should not take us away from another objective whose purpose would be to take the appropriate means to organize work so more citizens can participate each according to his tastes, skills, aspirations and knowledge. There is so much work to do in a young country like ours.
I would not suggest there is nothing good in Bill C-69. Only I wanted to show the act's deficiencies in general, as I had reasons to believe more sections would be amended. However, I recognize extending the eligibility period will help some unemployed persons. Those that suffer from an accident will receive certain benefits. But I note these various clauses are still couched in a way that makes them very complicated and difficult to understand by the majority of unemployed workers. It is hoped the bill will be amended, either in committee or elsewhere, to become acceptable.
I still feel officials from the department and the UIC do not adequately consult labour representatives before they prepare this kind of legislation. For this reason, and unduly large proportion of unemployed are victimized under the act, which does not relate to present day needs.
Extending the disqualification period for those who leave their jobs without good reason or refuse suitable employment may have serious repercussions. I do not approve of a worker leaving his job without a good reason or refusing suitable employment. However, we should consider the circumstances and the kind of employment offered. This is where arbitrary decisions will happen.
It may be said that the unemployed can always appeal, but that is a long and complicated process. We should certainly add something that would force the officials to scrutinize the case before they render a decision. I do not criticize the officials as a whole, because most of them are relatively well inclined. However, let us make it easier for them. The legislation is so complicated they are sometimes compelled to take attitudes contrary to common sense. According to my information, the commission employs 118 investigators for the province of Quebec and 26 liaison officers. By comparing the number of investigators and liaison officers, one can conclude that the commission is taking more interest in investigations than on information given to claimants about their entitlements and liabilities.
On several occasions, I mentioned that complications have multiplied when the commission appealed to the income tax office to determine the insurability, this fact has caused many a headache. And if that continues, no one knows when it will end. I have in hand an advertisement published in newspapers indicating the computing methods to use for reimbursing to the Department of National Revenue the overpayments of unemployment benefits. A whole page, 8V2 by 14 inches, just to explain how to pay back the overpayments. A fine example of cooperation, indeed, which does more for the unemployment insurance funds than for the interests of the unemployed. We seldom see the commission advertise to explain to the unemployed how to get an adjustment of their benefits in case of miscalculations. No wonder the Unemployment Insurance Act is the target of so many criticisms. I attempted to explain that it is mainly because it is often written in quite an incomprehensible manner.

I have here an editorial by CJRC dated October 10, 1975 and entitled "The Unemployment Insurance Scandal". I would like to quote in part. It reads as follows:
It is an open secret that thousands of unemployed draw unemployment insurance benefits to which they are not entitled, through the help or the ignorance of some UIC officials, while thousands of others who would be entitled to those benefits have seen the payment of benefits being refused, through arbritrary action of officials, both intransigent and arrogant!
And one reads further down:
Let me quote now the content of a memorandum adressed to UIC officials by insurance director D. R. Brown, which, however unlikely it may seem, reads as follows:
"It is not the responsibility of commission officials to inform the parties concerned that the time may have come for them to submit a claim for benefits, nor to invite them to submit one, NOR TO KEEP THEM INFORMED OF THEIR POSSIBLE BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT.
The insured who claims that he or she did now know the provisions of the act, nor his or her resulting duties and obligations HAS NO ADMISSIBLE EXCUSE IN CASE OF NEGLIGENCE". This confidential document has fallen into our hands; it is reproduced in its integrity for your information. You will certainly ask yourselves, as we do, if the unemployment insurance scheme is not a poor joke, and if the UIC is not mocking benefit recipients who are at its mercy.
I should like to conclude by insisting on the employment search problem. For some time and especially since last fall, commission officials have certainly given instructions to their employees as to the recipient's obligation to search for employment. I am not against commission employees suggesting the unemployed ways and means to find employment. Let's not go too far however. Various factors must be taken into account with regard to job seeking. First the unemployment rate in the area, the number of industries likely to need manpower; the season in the case of forestry, farm, fisheries workers or of any other seasonal industry; besides, and this is very important, the working and wage conditions that prevail in the area where the worker is sent; travelling expenses, the approximate duration of the job and that must be checked by people well informed of the prevailing working conditions in the area suggested to the unemployed.
It is well known that those directives resulted in forcing unemployed to seek jobs in areas where manpower centre employees had no job to offer. Those bureaucratic requirements do not solve the unemployment problem, but rather help wear out the patience, and I repeat it, the patience of overstaffed employers and of unemployed who lose heart when they see the results of their efforts.
I conclude by expressing the hope that the bill will nonetheless be revised, re-examined and, after consideration in committee, practical suggestions will be made and most of all studied by those in power so there will be major amendments to improve a little the sometimes complex relations that result from a legislation drafted in a way that is not suitable to those who are out of work.


Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: I think that applause indicates that hon. members have been waiting a long time.
October 28, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: The applause must mean that they would like me to finish as quickly as possible.
There was one sentence, particularly, in the speech the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) made to the House yesterday which caught my attention and which, it appears from Hansard, received considerable commendation in the House. That sentence is as follows:
-we intend to make certain that Canadians who are working hard to maintain self-sufficiency, to maintain the momentum of this country's economy, and who are contributing to the unemployment insurance program, do not have to carry the added burden of supporting ablebodied people who do not want to work.
That is an indication by the minister that he is concerned about the problem colloquially called a rip-off but perhaps more accurately called abuses which attach not only to the Unemployment Insurance Commission but to many progams both inside and outside government. There are problems of cheaters and chisellers in relation to avoiding Customs, as we all know. There was even cheating and chiselling with regard to the guaranteed income supplement, though we do not talk about that very much. These cheaters and chisellers are a small proportion of those who might benefit from any program.
If I understood the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) earlier, he suggested that perhaps the number was not terribly significant and that we should not worry overly about this kind of abuse of the program. I suppose it would be easy to reply that as long as any abuse is taking place, members of parliament should be concerned with saving taxpayers money. However, even more important, I think it would be fair to suggest that it is important that the unemployment insurance program should have the credibility which requires those who abuse the system to be cut to the absolute minimum and that the cheaters and chisellers be sought after and, hopefully, caught. It is not simply a question of absolute numbers. It is a question that the program must not only be just but it must appear to the public to be one in which the interest of the public is protected through efficiency and through concern about those who might abuse the system.
Where I would agree with the hon. member is that we should not, in that tired old phrase, throw out the baby with the bath water. In concerning ourselves with abuses and the necessity of restricting them, we must make sure not to limit the benefits under the program for those who are genuinely deserving of them. In bureaucratic jargon, concern about abuses is translated into the phrase "the disincentive to work problem." That is a phenomenon we have had to deal with in terms of unemployment insurance since the inauguration of the scheme in 1941.
There is a continuing dilemma with regard to this program. On one hand, benefits under the system must be adequate in order to meet the primary objective of offering adequate income replacement to those who are unemployed, but in so doing we must keep in mind the disincentive to work. If these benefits are too high, they may cause people to try to take advantage of them when they are not entitled to do so.
Unemployment Insurance Act
One way of dealing with the problem of disincentive to work would be to ensure that the benefits under the program were so small that people would not have an incentive to leave work and accept the benefits. That would certainly minimize the problem. If benefits were reduced to an extremely low level-I am sure no one in this House would like to see that happen-individuals would be forced back into the labour market and obliged to take any kind of work because of the inadequacy of the benefits under the program.
However, the effect of taking the action of reducing benefits would be dramatic in its influence on Canada's labour force and on the economy. It is desirable for highly skilled people to retain their skills, but they would be forced to accept less skilled, or unskilled jobs in order to survive. The social investment and their investment in their training and education, and the effect of their education would be lost to the labour market.
Clearly, the effects of the disincentive to work in any unemployment insurance scheme must be weighed carefully against the need to maintain the stability of the labour market, to protect skills and to maintain a pool of trained workers from which the economy can draw in times of high productivity. Many employers are forced to have periods of lay-off. They need, and it is desirable, to have their work force readily available when production resumes. It would be costly and damaging if the work force of those employers was unavailable because of inadequate unemployment insurance protection which would force them to disperse what would otherwise be a skilled work force.
Clearly, what we must do is try and draw a balance in dealing with the disincentive to work problem between the needs of maintaining high levels to protect those who are legitimately without work and to find, also, mechanisms which will discourage those who might be tempted to cheat on the system, who might be tempted to try to find ways of claiming benefits when they are not genuinely those which the act has in mind as beneficiaries.
I was pleased to see that the minister, in bringing forth this legislation-though he did not deal with this in great length in his speech to the House-has taken steps to deter individuals from unfairly battening on to the system. The most significant of these changes is the proposal that those who voluntarily quit their jobs without good cause, those who are discharged for misconduct, those who refuse suitable employment, and those who refuse to upgrade their skills by taking courses of instruction, will be disqualified from receiving benefits up to a maximum of six weeks.
This is not simply an extension of the maximum; it is, in effect, a doubling of the penalties under the existing act. Those under the existing act who were penalized by one week's disqualification would now face two weeks disqualification, those with two weeks would face four, and those with three would face six. It is perhaps misleading to say that it is an extension of the maximum disqualification; it is, in effect, a doubling of the disqualification under the existing act.
Under the old Unemployment Insurance Act, the disqualification was simply a deferment of benefits, not a

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
reduction in the number of weeks payable. The Gill committee, which studied the Unemployment Insurance Act more than ten years ago, recommended that the penalty be a loss in benefits rather than a deferment, and that provision was introduced in 1971. With the current proposal, people who quit their job without good cause face up to eight weeks, including the two-week waiting period, without benefits. I hope this will be a disincentive to those who might be tempted to take advantage of the system.
I know there are some members on the other side of the House, and perhaps even on this side, who consider six weeks disqualification to be harsh. There will be some who under some circumstances-and I might put myself in this category-feel that it is not harsh enough. There are jurisdictions in which those who leave employment voluntarily or are discharged for misconduct, and so on, lose all entitlement to benefit and must requalify through working in insurable employment.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Spain.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. gentleman across the way is knowledgeable of activities in Spain, but one can look closer than that, to the United States, and see that they have that kind of provision.
The government has decided that approach would be unduly harsh, and feel that the provision they have brought forward meets the middle ground. It is a more desirable disqualification, and more generous than the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) would like to see followed. I hope it will have the effect of retarding unjustified demands on the system which we, as representatives of the taxpayers, should be concerned about.
The second provision in the legislation which I support relates to the three weeks' lump sum advance payment of benefits to claimants, which does not have to be repaid in the event that they find work immediately. This was introduced in the 1971 act and we on this side supported it because it was felt that we were adding an incentive to those who were unemployed to get back to the work force quickly. It was conceived as an incentive to re-enter the work force. It was assumed that this kind of lump payment would be a bonus on top of the salary an individual would receive, and so he would be extra active in efforts to find work quickly.
Unfortunately, the opposite proved to be the case. Rather than being an incentive to early return to work, advance payments of unemployment insurance in many cases seems to have resulted in a disincentive. There appears to be evidence that those receiving the payment did not return to the work force more quickly than other people. It appears that the 1971 legislation conferred incentives and benefits which did not have the intended effect, so it seems logical to discontinue them.
In summary, Madam Speaker, one of the reasons I am anxious to support this legislation is that it takes steps to reduce the disincentive to work which, perhaps unfairly, in the public mind has been associated with the unemployment insurance program. These are useful steps to diminish the kind of cheating that could take place, and I think they will assure the public that we are concerned about that problem.

I hope the minister will not be complacent in the administration of this legislation. In the last three years I know there have been considerable improvements in the consideration of the act and improved liaison between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Canada Manpower division of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. There are now better procedures, however, to ensure that persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits are made aware of and are given the option of suitable job opportunities as early as possible. The commission has developed an active job search program. This means that persons in receipt of benefits must prove they are making reasonable and customary efforts to find jobs during the time they are receiving the benefits.
There have been improvements in the administration of the program, but I do not believe the minister should be sanguine or content or overly satisfied with the administrative application of this program. My concern is not for the basis of the program, which I support entirely. My concern is that since such a large proportion of public funds is involved, the program should be operated with the utmost efficiency. Those who are not entitled to benefits under the program should not receive them: public support for the program will thus be maintained.
I think it is a necessary program and we must maintain its credibility. That can be done through effective enforcement of the present procedures and the steps the minister has shown he is prepared to take to dissuade those who might feel they can get away with ripping off such a program.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with keen interest to the debate thus far. While it is obvious that there are some problems with the suggested amendments, as referred to by many members, particularly from this side of the House, I should like to address myself to the few points relating to some amendments which should have been included in the bill but for some reason were not.
I refer to the inequities which have always existed in the Unemployment Insurance Act as related to fishermen. To me, it is entirely inexcusable that after so very many promises made over the past few years to bring in an income support program for fishermen, there is still no sign of anything realistic happening in this area. Until the government comes up with that type of income support program, interim amendments should be introduced to satisfy the needs of the fishermen and to overcome the inequities and discrimination which exist in the present act. The only reference to fishermen that I have found is contained in the information papers on Bill C-69, issued by the minister, dealing with the exclusion of fishermen from the general rule of employer-employee relationships. Unfortunately, this is always the case and is always referred to.
If I may digress for a moment, Madam Speaker, I wonder why a clear definition cannot be made between a fisherman employer and an employee. When is a fisherman going to get equal consideration with others in the work force? It is true that a fisherman who owns a lon-gliner and his sharemen can be considered as selfemployed, but in the general rule the act is discriminatory toward those who contribute. If the department respon-
October 28, 1975

sible, and the Department of National Revenue, consider fishermen eligible to pay premiums, then surely they should be entitled to equal benefits.
Many suggestions have been made along the following lines from interested parties in all areas of the country: One is that fishermen would be eligible on the same basis as at present, that is, with eight weekly contributions. However, eight contributions entitle fishermen to benefits for 12 weeks. Each additional week of contributions should entitle a fisherman to IV2 weeks of benefits, to a maximum of 24 weeks. The period of eligibility should be extended by two months. This would give the fishermen greater flexibility in determining when they would draw benefits, and would be more realistic in view of the fact that the normal fishing season varies in different parts of the country, particularly in the province of Newfoundland. The amount of benefits should be calculated by averaging all weekly contributions, and trawler fishermen should be placed on the same basis as regular employees. At the present time, claims may be established between the week in which December 1 falls and the week in which May 15 falls, and the benefit period runs from the week in which the claim is established to the week in which May 15 next falls, unless benefits are exhausted at an earlier date.
We have been told time and time again that an income support program will be forthcoming. This process even went to the extent that early in 1974 the previous minister of the environment, the Hon. Jack Davis, wrote to provincial ministers asking for their views on the contemplated income support program. In their reply, the Newfoundland government urged the implementation of the program to be no later than the start of the fishing season in 1975, and requested that they be involved in formulating the administrative and implementation details.
The province recommended that in the event of a delay certain changes should be introduced in the intervening period. Further, they suggested modifications which were compatible with the proposed income support program and their adoption of it. They suggested that this would ease the transition from the unemployment insurance program to the income support scheme, as follows. The effect of adopting their suggestions would be to increase the flexibility of the defined employment and benefit periods. They stated that current definitions are too rigid and preclude consideration of the variability of local fishing seasons. It was suggested that the beginning and end of the fishing season should be determined each year and for each geographic zone on the basis of weather and ice conditions in each zone. The length of the fishing season could be determined jointly with the federal Department of Fisheries after consultation with local fishermen, union officials and members of the industry. The method for determining the number of benefit weeks should be the same for fishermen as for regular claimants. The rule that the total number of benefit weeks cannot exceed five-sixths of the insured employment period should therefore be eliminated. The only limitation should be this, that no benefits may be paid to any fishermen in any zone during the defined fishing season in that zone.
I suggest that the limit of $170 per week on a fisherman's maximum insured earnings should also be eliminat-
Unemployment Insurance Act
ed. Currently, maximum insurable earnings are determined on a weekly and annual basis. I think the figure used for an annual basis is $8,840. Fishing income is highly variable, and if a fisherman is lucky he can earn $2,000 in a couple of weeks. But only $340 of the sum earned in two weeks is counted as insurable earnings. This inequity, under which the extra amount earned is excluded, should be corrected because the fisherman might earn no more for the rest of the year. That amount may represent his total earnings for the year.
So, here we are, almost at the end of 1975, still lacking income support legislation. The minister indicated that legislation would soon be introduced to provide for an income support program. I only hope that this will happen. If it does not, I suggest that it is incumbent on the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), who is responsible for unemployment insurance matters, to amend Bill C-69 in the way I have suggested. There is still opportunity for him to introduce such amendments.
The other point I want to make concerns discrimination against women in the fishing industry. In this regard, it is obvious that those responsible for the equality of status of women have completely missed evidence of discrimination against women who are or can be employed in the fishing industry. The Unemployment Insurance Act discriminates in its provision for benefits. Why do I say that? At certain times of the year, certain species of fish are in abundance. Then, manpower on an emergency basis is needed to process certain delicate species such as scallops.
To illustrate the disparity, let me refer to an incident which took place in a remote area of Newfoundland. In order to process the scallops, manpower is needed. Naturally, the people of the area found it impossible to contact a Manpower centre 200 or 300 miles away in order to apply for personnel for processing the scallops. Therefore, it naturally fell on the fishermen to hire their families and wives. Before doing so, they checked with the Department of National Revenue and were told by an official that they could not hire their wives. A fisherman could only hire his neighbour's wife. In turn, that neighbour could hire the fisherman's own wife. The people of the area accepted this decision made by a responsible official, but the decision was overruled by superiors. The result was overpayments of UIC benefits to many individuals, to say nothing of the resulting embarrassment and financial difficulties.
This situation has continued for almost two years and stems from ridiculous regulations which neither the UIC nor the Department of National Revenue can reconcile, despite their supposed expertise. As I say, no attempt has been made to clarify this predicament or to correct the regulations. Neither was any reference made to this inequity in Bill C-16. I suggest that an amendment to Bill C-16 could have corrected the situation. I only hope that the ministers responsible will address themselves to this serious discrepancy and I hope the government will act to wipe out overpayments made to the innocent victims concerned.
May I comment on the bill itself, Madam Speaker? I think the minister should be taking a harder look at the uniformity with which the regulations are applied, particularly in view of varying conditions existing in different regions of the country, conditions to do with the

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
geographic, economic and social situation of the area concerned. Certainly, the number of grievances with which members of parliament are daily inundated should indicate that something is wrong with the system. For example, I ask the minister to refer to section 39 of the act, which authorizes the commission to refer claimants to approved courses of instruction and to waive the requirement for the claimant to be capable of and available for work while attending the course. At present, an individual who earnestly takes any kind of job, then applies for and is accepted in a government-sponsored course of instruction which will enable him to better himself and upgrade his capabilities in trade, is bound by the present regulations and must waive his claim for assistance. This is particularly true of students who must attend a provin-cially-sponsored course. Hardship is created because pay is so minuscule that the student cannot even meet minimum living standards. My point is that the commission is therefore hindering the initiative of the individual.
The minister should also consider and explain something else. If it is the aim of his department to help people to upgrade their ability to enter the work force and thus ensure a reduction in the unemployment rate, why has the minister seen fit in the past few years to reduce drastically the number of Manpower seats purchased in vocational and training schools in some parts of Canada? The minister should also take a good look at some of the conditions students must contend with because of the low rates paid to them under provincial rates of pay while they undergo course training.
Another inequity arises under section 25 of the act, which requires the claimant to be capable of, available for and actively seeking work. Let me give you an example of a ridiculous situation in order to demonstrate this hypocrisy. A partially blind citizen of my district was working in a restaurant and had to leave because her husband became sick and required care. When she applied for benefits she was turned down because it was deemed that because of blindness she was not capable of working in a restaurant-even though she had performed her duties for months to the satisfaction of her employer. Similarly, claimants living in isolated areas are disqualified from benefits if they refuse to take a job miles away from where they live. In such cases, after they pay for their travels to and from work, for board, etc., it costs them more to work than it would cost to stay at home or if they did not work. Yet the present system disqualifies them from benefits under the "just cause for refusing to work" provision.
Those examples indicate the weakness in our system, the inflexibility and the lack of individual attention paid by those responsible to Canadians who most need that individual attention. Under the present bill, the government can do whatever it wants with regard to increasing disqualification periods. It can put all it wants into the act on disentitlement. It can put in all the benefit control system it wants. They can keep adding new clauses. They can refer to just causes all they want; but the jusc causes have to be just, and at present it is obvious that they are not.
I was a bit surprised to read in the report of the advisory committee that they were satisfied the benefit control
(Mr. Marshall.]
system was working well. I was even more surprised with the evidence presented by officials of the head office that the benefit control system was working to the benefit of the claimant. This statement of fact indicates a complete lack of recognition of the countless hundreds of thousands of grievances submitted to me and other members of parliament. It proves my point that it is useless to write to the commissioner to inquire into a claim that has been adjudicated against a claimant at the lower level.
It is useless for claimants to appeal their cases. I venture to say that in 99 per cent of the cases-and I am only using a rough figure-the decisions of the local office are turned down. I would like to know the percentage of cases submitted for appeal that were judged in favour of the client, compared with the percentage against.
It is obvious that the purpose of Bill C-69 is to stop the runaway costs of unemployment insurance. It was recently pointed out by a responsible official of an interested group that it is almost impossible to imagine that the cost of our Canadian system is almost equal to that of the United States. When one compares the population figures, something has to be wrong.
It is true, and everyone is aware of this, that as a result of the inefficiency of those responsible for designing the act, rip-offs are occurring. What is really happening is that in the confusion and attempts of the unemployment insurance commission to correct their projections, as pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), costs have gone beyond the capability of the imagination as to how anyone responsible can be so inadequate that the stopgap measures introduced are hurting the innocent.
To emphasize this point, I refer to the amendment which discriminates against senior citizens and the indignity it inflicts. The government is really saying to those aged 65, "You had better quit working now. You had better stop contributing to Canada. Just stop what you are doing and get out of the mainstream of opportunity, because we do not need you any more. Even though you have been contributing to society and unemployment insurance for many years, we are going to give you $129.28 a month or, if you have a wife and are in need, $419.62 a month." The government thanks them for the contribution and then tells them to get out of the way. For someone receiving a Canada Pension Plan benefit, this is deducted from the amount he is eligible to receive.
I realize that the minister has a tough job to do as a result of the Unemployment Insurance Act that has been developed over the years. He has the important job of having to correct the inequities. I sympathize with him. However, it is surely inexcusable that in his thrust to stop the runaway and rampant cost increases, the low income earner, the underemployed and the aged should be the ones to suffer most. I feel the minister is doing his best and is as concerned as myself and other members about the hurt that will be inflicted on the innocent as a result of the jungle of inequities that exists.
I hope that the referral of the bill at the committee stage, and the subjective and responsible criticisms that have been offered during the second reading debate, will give the minister an opportunity to reflect on those inequities, and that he will consider and introduce further
October 28, 1975

amendments to produce a corrected bill on third reading which will be fair and just to all Canadians.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek)-Olympic Games-Request for assurance medallions minted in Canada; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Transport-Date of implementation of recommendation that commission ports give grants in lieu of taxes; the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga)-Grain-Allegation Wheat Board puts exports grain in non-board category and distributes to eastern farmers but not western farmers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English ]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Howard Earl Johnston: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate concerning an issue that has been very much to the fore in the last two federal election campaigns. Just a week or two ago someone said it was the politicians who made the Unemployment Insurance Commission an issue in the 1972 campaign. From my experience, I would totally reject that remark. It was made an issue by the people involved. Anyone who was a candidate in the 1972 campaign in the constituency that I represent could not avoid hearing about the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the problems it created. Every time one stopped at a business that was run by a small operator, be it a gas station, restaurant or motel, one had the proprietor of the business crying on his shoulder by the hour about the problems being created for him by the methods and means adopted by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
As I listened to them throughout that campaign, I realized this was one of the issues that would give the Progressive Conservative Party considerable impetus in the west. As it turned out, it did. Speaking from our own point of view, it was unfortunate that in the subsequent
Unemployment Insurance Act
election of 1974 some of the attention was diverted from that issue to the one that has just been before the House in a rather ironic fashion, namely wage and price controls.
The people about whom I am talking, the class of small entrepreneurs, are seldom given credit by this government for the role they play. Unemployment insurance as it has been constituted in this country has made their role even more difficult. They serve a very useful training function, not as part of any subsidized school system, provincial or federal, but simply as people in small towns, villages and communities who hire local young people to work for them. In the course of that first or second job, these people are trained to function in a gas station, wait at table in a restaurant, or take care of a motel. One of the great frustrations of these entrepreneurs is that following the eight-week training period, the trainee immediately-or soon after-leaves the job, not because he has become terribly efficient at it but to draw unemployment insurance. That is one of the examples I had repeated to me over and over again during that campaign. As one restaurant operator explained to me, it means the loss of fulltime jobs for adults who could be employed full time.
One thing many of these operators have learned is to hire high school students to work part time, because they can keep high school students for two years until they graduate from school to continue their education elsewhere or take jobs with the permanent labour force. They get more out of the training period that way than by hiring employees full-time, only to see them ready to leave after a short while.
One of the reasons I heard a great deal about the more pressing problems connected with unemployment insurance is that my own constituency is one of those gloriously beautiful mountain constituencies embracing some of the finest scenery to be found anywhere in the world. A common complaint made to me concerned the skiing holiday. A person would work half the year, or two-thirds of the year and then, when the snow on the mountains became deep enough to provide good skiing, would leave his or her job and finance his skiing through the Unemployment Insurance Commission, returning to work some time in the spring or when the payments ran out. The skiing holiday paid for by the UIC is something I heard about over and over again. One begins by discounting stories of this kind, thinking them to be invented or exaggerated. But when you hear them over and over again from a variety of ski areas and from people who feel very strongly about these circumstances, you realize they are a key factor in the whole picture.
I shall not comment further on the cost factors involved in this scheme. There has, surely, been an enormous temptation built in to quit a job or to refuse a job which has been offered. It seems to me that a course which ought to be taken and which might return to the Unemployment Insurance Commission a much needed sense of discipline lies in extending the period of time for which a person must work in order to establish eligibility. In recent years we have seen an erosion of the kind of restraint, discipline and loyalty in a work force which used to be an important part of job holding.

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
I feel that various programs established by the government opposite have contributed to this lack of restraint, this lack of discipline. Too much money has been made available too easily to people in this country. When the decision was made to alter the nature of the unemployment insurance scheme, making it a kind of guaranteed annual income or a scheme for the redistribution of income, both the scheme and the country were in trouble.
There is one group of people in particular to whom I should like to make reference, because even as one criticizes the scheme for being too easy and for permitting people who have worked for only a short period of time to draw benefit for extremely long periods, one must have regard for cases brought to one's attention where real injustice is done to certain people who find themselves disqualified although they know they are entitled to benefit. I am thinking particularly about the older woman, the long-time faithful employee, the one who has never drawn unemployment insurance in her life, the one who has not quit, who has been loyal, who has worked 10, 20 or 25 years, who is laid off through no fault of her own and who finds herself disentitled while knowing from her own experience that others who learned early how to make the system work have been drawing benefits annually or biannually, year after year-they have made a business of getting something out of the scheme.
The older woman I have in mind, brought up in a generation which possessed a somewhat deeper sense of responsibility, a somewhat greater degree of independence, has refused to take advantage of her situation, feeling there would be something wrong about doing so, only to find, in her time of need, when she was laid off and when the reward for being faithful should come to her, that there was really no insurance aspect about the scheme at all. She had merely been paying another tax all those years, a tax that returned nothing except the knowledge that virtue was its own reward in the unemployment insurance business as in other areas of life.
There are certain things I feel the department should not do. It should not promote the break-up of marriages, particularly long-term marriages. It is a common thing in our society for wives to live longer than their husbands and for husbands to retire before their wives are eligible for old age security pensions or retirement pensions. Also, it is a common feature of retirement for families to make a move, often a move from our crowded cities to the countryside or to the smaller towns. Working wives in this position resent the letters they receive telling them they are unemployed voluntarily. And so do I. It seems to me that short of separation or divorce, such a move cannot be avoided by them; it is not the result of any frivolous choice, nor has a job held for a long time been given up as a result of a mere whim. There is too much involved here for the department to put itself in the position of forcing or promoting separation.
Neither should the department involve itself in depopulating small towns. This is something that has been decried in this country for many years. I know it is a natural trend for people today to leave our small centres and go to urban areas, but we do not need any incentive to do so from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Both sexes do this, but particularly women in small towns

who find themselves unemployed, again through no fault of their own, who apply and are disentitled because they are not prepared to move long distances and resettle in a larger centre. It seems to me they are entitled to some pay-out, having contributed to what is supposed to be an insurance scheme for them.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission should not confuse the search for work with work itself. I find this sort of confusion very prevalent, particularly in the attitude to women who lose their jobs and place their names with Manpower-perhaps there is a certain humour there. These women feel that this should count for something. They search for work with which they are familiar but they are unable to find any, and at that time they become disentitled because they are told that their search has been inadequate.
One case that comes most forcefully to mind concerned someone who was 59 years of age and who had worked in one job for many years. She went to all the equivalent employers in town searching for work, without success. She placed her name with Manpower but was told she had not done enough. She then went through an extended period of time walking up and down the main street of town presenting herself to potential employers. She was in the position of having to tell them that she was 59 years of age but knew nothing about any job they might have. At that point her chances were zero, and the Manpower department knew it. Nevertheless, what they said to her, in effect, was this, "We won't pay you unemployment insurance but we will pay you for the hours that you march up and down the street"-in, of course, a vain search for work. They said, "If you put in enough time, we might consider giving you an entitlement". I feel that kind of treatment is inequitable. It is not the kind of complaint that is made to me by a male worker; it is particularly a feminine problem.
They should not force an applicant into accepting a job below the minimum wage and then disentitle him or her because that job is turned down. I am not a proponent, and never have been, of high minimum wages, and I realize the subject of minimum wages is a sort of sacred cow of our economic system. One does not talk about them much, but if we are going to have them, they must mean something. It seems to me that one of the ultimate indignities to inflict on any woman seeking a job and who turns one down because it pays below the minimum wage is for her then to receive a letter from an official of the UIC telling her that that is the reason she is being disentitled from payments that are hers.
I listened to the speech made last night by the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) and was disappointed that she did not apply herself to the sort of problem that has been brought to my attention and, I am sure, to the attention of members right across the country. I utterly reject the kind of letter sent by the minister's department stating that an insurance principle is involved here; that when a person contributes to unemployment insurance he is buying a year's insurance, that it is like term insurance with no carry over. I do not follow that reasoning and cannot accept it.
Term or fire insurance have certain specialties about them. For one thing, they are not compulsory, nobody has
October 28, 1975

to buy life insurance or term insurance. You do not have to have fire insurance on your building. You take a chance; if the building burns down you do not collect any insurance. One thing about life insurance, term insurance or any other kind of life insurance is that you collect it only once. But I do not accept that a woman who has paid into a compulsory scheme for 24 years should be told that she cannot collect because there is an insurance principle involved and that she has voluntarily put herself into a position where she cannot find work. She is then at the point when she needs insurance for the very first time, yet when she needs it the most she finds that for her there is no insurance.
In many occupations, sick leave is allowed to accumulate. Then at the end of 35 or 40 years of faithful service, recognition is given that sick leave in the form of a bonus on retirement. I am sure all hon. members know that unemployment insurance is sometimes paid out at the end of a long period as a kind of retirement gift.
I am pleased to see that women are now more militant than they were, but they need to be a lot more militant. I found, when in this House seven years ago, that it was almost impossible to get a woman to take her case to the appeal board. They deemed it an example of throwing good money after bad. Very often a very long trip was involved if a woman did not want to hire a lawyer to present her case for her, or could not afford to do so. She would hear from others that it was a hopeless cause anyway, that she would not get anything even if she did appeal, and as a result it was very difficult to persuade a woman to take her case to the first board of appeal.
I am very happy to see that women are now more prepared to appeal their case, but even so there are problems. In addition, I am concerned about the number of women who sit on appeal boards across the country; the women still tend to get turned down pretty regularly. During the summer recess I was talking to one woman who had written to me and told me she had been reinstated. She said there were at least six others in the same position but they would not appeal their case, so I suspect that those who do appeal are just the tip of the iceberg. The problem is that once the appeal has gone against them, they cannot take the matter to the umpire because the only person who can pass the appeal on is the chairman of the very board that turned the appeal down. I find such people are very reluctant to send to the umpire a case on which they have given a negative ruling. It seems to me there could be some reform undertaken there which would make the umpire more truly an umpire than that official is at the present time.
There is another area on which I should like to spend a little time. It is a little different than what I have been discussing. I listened with interest last evening as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Portelance) spoke. He talked about the decision to take anyone over age 65 out of the scheme altogether. The excuse he gave is most interesting. As recorded at page 8593 of Hansard he mentioned there are other programs for elderly people, and then said:
Unemployment Insurance Act
Considering all those improvements, the programs would unnecessarily overlap if persons having age 65 were still covered by the unemployment insurance plan.
That is a laugh. At one time Manpower and the UIC were one. The decision was made in the 27th Parliament to divorce the two. If there are any bureaux or offices which overlap they are the Manpower offices and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. If the Unemployment Insurance Commission is so concerned about overlapping then I suggest action be taken, as quickly as possible, to put the two parts of what should be one body back together again. That would end the overlap that is there.
It might also end the other factor where a person who puts his or her name in at the Manpower office, assuming that has some meaning, finds that not even the Unemployment Insurance Commission pays any attention to that. The woman who puts her name in at the Manpower office is told that her search for work is inadequate. This is one of the scandals in the way the Manpower offices and Unemployment Insurance Commission offices operate at the present time. So, I find it all a little amusing when the parliamentary secretary refers to an overlapping. The only thing which counts these days at a time of double digit inflation in Canada when one is over 65 is dollars and cents.
I would like to know, and I would like to know if the department knows, whether the senior citizens of 65 years of age will be better off by this change. That is the only argument to justify it. We need some figures to tell us whether that is true.
I can well believe the second part of the parliamentary secretary's speech when he said it is almost impossible to apply effectively the provisions of the law pertaining to availability and active search for a job to persons of that age since a great many of them are no longer members of the labour force. That goes along with the argument I presented earlier. I contend that that sentence has been applied by the Unemployment Insurance Commission for a very long time to the woman between age 55 and age 65. She is the one who has found it almost impossible to convince the commission that she is part of the labour force any longer. God knows, if the fact that she is in that age category is a problem, then the problem for those over age 65 must be almost insurmountable. One thing which may make it easier for them might be an extension in the period required for eligibility because that extension would show their connection to the labour force more clearly than anything else.
There is another thing about which I wonder. What would happen to the employer who employs only people over age 65? Would he or she be freed of the obligation of paying anything into the unemployment insurance scheme, and how long could that employer function? I am sure there are many employers who could get along very nicely for long periods with a staff composed entirely of people over age 65. The savings to them in not having to contribute anything to the scheme would be significant. I should like to know whether any thought has been given to that. These days one knows that the margin between profit and loss for a great many businesses, especially small businesses, is not the market but rather the government and its various forms of taxation required of companies.

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
I think I would have more respect for the parliamentary secretary if he had said in his remarks that this action had to be taken to make those people over age 65 more employable by offering that sort of negative bonus to anyone who employed them, since they would no longer have to continue any share to the UIC. If that was the reason behind it, it would make some sense. However, if it is the other way arround and the real reason is to divorce them further from any hope of being hired, and in effect they are being told they should not clutter up the employment picture and should not cause headaches to the UIC in determining whether or not they are truly part of the work force, that would really be a negative aspect of this part of the bill because, it seems to me, that if we can encourage our senior citizens to function normally and usefully in our society we should do so.
I should like to have a clear explanation of the reasons. I should like to hear the minister, or someone from his department, tell me that this change will mean more money in the hands of people over age 65, because if it means there will be less for them, this is not the time to introduce that step since inflation has eroded the position of these people to a very great extent, and there are too many of them who for too long have paid the price of inflation.
So, Madam Speaker, while there are some parts of this bill which meet with approval it is not the total second look at the Unemployment Insurance Commission that this party promised during the last election campaign. That was one of the issues on which we campaigned. Were we elected there would be a total review by a royal commission, I believe, of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. That is what I believe is needed at the present time, a very serious and a very top level lengthy re-thinking of the whole matter so that representations could be heard from anyone with an interest in it, and so that there could be representations from women's groups, senior citizens, and the working men of this country.
I have a feeling that what we are doing now is tinkering with the scheme, and that the effect of the passage of this bill will be not to improve the scheme but rather to work hardships on some of the people who can least afford to have any more hardship thrust upon them.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the speech made by the minister as well as in the speech of the hon. member who is the candidate for the Ontario Liberal leadership, and I was particularly interested in the simple facts which both stressed and the others which they overlooked. They stressed the abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the fact that the government has had to make payments in excess of what was necessary, and so they wanted to strengthen the benefit control section.
Yet the minister, in talking about this bill, never referred to the fact that 4 per cent unemployment is totally unacceptable to the majority of thinking Canadians, and that probably even 2 per cent unemployment would be a higher unemployment rate in Canada than most people would want to accept. What the minister said in effect was that because the government has not been

able to provide employment for Canadians, it wants to divest itself of this responsibility and lay it on the shoulders of the working people and of the employers, with the result that unemployment will probably be raised to 6 per cent. This year it will be around 5 per cent, but with the record of this government it is foreseeable that it will be 6 per cent or 7 per cent, and that it will continue to grow.
That is really what we should be talking about, namely, what we should do to solve the problems of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The easiest way to solve these problems is to provide employment for all Canadians. The people in my area are no different from the people in the minister's area. His people also are unemployed seasonally and are not able to find full employment. They look to unemployment insurance as a stopgap because the government has not been fair to them in providing a climate of full employment. When there are jobs, they work; when there are no jobs they would like to get some assistance, but they do not want that assistance to be paid entirely to them; they want all the people of the country to share in the responsibility.
We considered that it was a complete distortion of the principle to have the floor based on 4 per cent unemployment, and now the minister has based it on a sliding scale so that there is no incentive to stop unemployment from growing, and no incentive for the government to provide full employment.
We hear members saying that there are abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Sure there are abuses. There are abuses among my constituents in Timiskaming, although not many. There have been some frauds that have been reported, and action has been taken on them. I am sure the same is true in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and even in the minister's own riding in northern Ontario, but what prospects do we have as Canadians?
A question was asked this afternoon in the House about the six Canadians who reportedly stole $4 million and are now enjoying themselves in the sunshine. Is the government worried about that? Has it sent anyone down to try to do anything about that? No, but it would surely send someone 200 or 300 miles to Timiskaming, Thunder Bay, or Geraldton, or any of these places in the hinterland, to look for some little guy who may have taken three days off to go hunting when he was supposed to be looking for work. When it is all settled, they will take away from him unemployment insurance for the three days, and then they will find out he was looking for work on the other days.
No one considers the cost of having a benefit control officer travel 200 or 300 miles and of his being wined and dined. He may be away two or three days and then he may have a great report written up when he comes back, because many places to which he went are hardly on the map and he has never been there before, but he has been wined and dined at the expense of the taxpayers. I have had difficulty myself in getting to some of these places on occasion.
There are many roads around there and many communities in the bush area where roads go in all directions. You can drive for five or six miles and finally see the same shack or the same building, and then you know you are going around in circles. There are no real roads in these

areas, but the benefit control officer will try to go there to catch a person and then find he is not able to look after himself. But everybody is quite proud of him. The minister has mentioned that there have been 250,000 disqualifications out of ten million claims. Is that very many?


Mr. Andras:: It is two million.


William Arnold Peters: Let us say it is two million, although I doubt whether the minister is right. In my opinion there are not that many disqualifications because it is a simple fact about unemployment insurance that those who continue to abuse the system know the rules and do not get into any trouble.
The previous hon. member who spoke referred to a lady who went down the street to every place on the street asking for a job although she knew she was not employable in that community and she knew every job available there. After she had gone 10 or 12 times to the same employers asking them for a job, which they had already told her they did not have, she knew there was nothing more to do and that she could not get a job even if these employers needed someone. That is a fact.
Our bureaucracy is stupid because the officials know all about this, and the commission has been told about this many times. They know they could telephone Manpower and find out if there are any jobs in Geraldton for a woman who had been employed for a considerable period of time in the office of the local lumber company and was then laid off. They would know there are no jobs for women in that category in Geraldton. They do not need to have her traipse around to a hotel looking for the job of a waitress because those jobs are also filled. Yet they still disqualify her if she has not gone to five or six places in that week looking for a job, although she knows there is no job for her there, and the stupid officials know that also.
Everyone involved knows that, and yet they continue to say she has to go to these six places again. Quite often they are so dumb that they will telephone to ask if she has been to a certain place. We should not treat people who are looking for work as if they had no brains at all, and yet that is what these officials do. We really do not do much for them as a government either when we say to people they have to look for a job in a certain area even though Manpower says there is no work there.
The previous speaker mentioned-and perhaps the minister was not listening so I will repeat it-that one of the things that the minister must do if he is going to do anything to improve the unemployment situation, to improve the functioning of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and to improve the functioning of Manpower, is to put those two agencies together. The present minister without portfolio (Mr. Marchand) is the cause of the division of these departments. At one time he had one of the departments under him and he did not want the other one, so they broke them up and created a new department. That department should never have been broken up.
I remember going to the offices in the old set-up. One went to one side-perhaps the minister knows this, but if he does not I will repeat it-if you were looking for a job, and if you could not find it you went over to the other side where they accepted your application for benefits and where they paid you your benefits. The next week you
Unemployment Insurance Act
would be back looking for a job there, and if there were no jobs the same people who were handling both divisions would speak to each other and know what your situation was, so one hand knew what the other was doing. When the departments were divided, orders were given that the officials should not talk to each other. Manpower was not to help fill out an unemployment insurance form. Unemployment Insurance was to have nothing to do with employment.
What has happened? The minister knows what the problem is because he has played around with the hiring set up, and he has in fact placed a number of people. I believe he said the other day that his department, through unemployment insurance, had placed 45,000 people in jobs. I give him full credit for doing that, but the minister will have failed the Canadian people, those looking for jobs and those who apply for benefits, if he does not unite those two functions and connect the person who is looking for benefits with the agency which can supply him with a job or inform him that there are no jobs available. If there are no jobs available, he should receive benefits. If there are jobs, then he should take a job.
We are not interested in defending people who abuse the system, but we are less interested in defending a system which is stupid, and the system is often plain stupid. One of the reasons why I say that is that we, as members of parliament, know particular areas, the peculiarities of particular communities, the employment picture in those communities, and the transportation facilities. When we bring that information to the insurance appeal officer after a case has gone through the appeal structure and all of the crap that it must go through, and he has that new information, he makes the right decision and the person is reinstated.
This raises the whole problem of appeals. A person appealing without the help of a union, some other official, a lawyer, or a member of parliament, cannot go to a tribunal with any hope of winning his case. If he could, all he would need to do is write out the reason why he thinks he should not be disqualified. That is sent to the insurance officer who considers it, and if that information is sufficient to override the information which warranted the disqualification, he will cancel it.
I can honestly say that in my years of dealing with unemployment insurance, and particularly in the last seven or eight years, I have developed a great respect for the insurance officers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I have seldom seen information given to an insurance officer when it came through on appeal, or when it became public information at a hearing, which would have justified a decision other than the decision made by the insurance officer.
I wrote a letter to a judge some time ago, to which I did not receive a reply. He was on a tribunal, and I told him what I thought of him and the system because he simply sat on that tribunal and endorsed the decision which had been made, without any means of deciding whether the claimant had any justification for appealing his disqualification. The claimant had no ability to appeal. He just said that he was entitled and therefore appealed, and the judge

Unemployment Insurance Act
took that and made his decision on it. He is dishonest and could not possibly be a judge. How can one judge after hearing only one side of a case?
We have discussed this with the chairman of the commission, and he is quite interested in setting ip an appellate agency. I am not in favour of setting it up on a legal basis where there are lawyers involved, but I believe that if we have the money to send out a benefit control officer to disadvantage a claimant further when the claimant feels he has already been treated unjustly and unfairly, the tribunal should at least have the right to send out an official to ask the claimant on what basis he believes he was unjustly treated so that on that basis it can be decided whether the claimant is entitled to transportation, whether he has been looking for work, or whether there should be someone to care of the claimant's baby if it is a maternity benefit. Surely it is not asking too much for that judge, who says he is an honourable person, to hear the claimant's side of the story.
The minister is doing a great job. He has provided for transportation, but transportation is not really important. Why should claimants go through the process of sitting in Sudbury all day, driving 250 miles, perhaps staying in a hotel room, and listening to many cases which he cannot understand? The procedure was very formal when I was there, and very like a courtroom. They might as well wear gowns and wigs. Obviously there are people there asking nasty questions with a view to calling claimants liars because they have already been disqualified. The claimant has already met the benefit control officer, and that is enough of an experience for most people.
We have been through this before. Everyone knows that this tribunal is a farce. Going to an umpire should not be allowed unless it is on a case of law. I do not think there should be an appeal unless there is an allegation of dishonesty. I am not prepared to say that there is dishonesty. I think these people are incompetent, but I do not think they are dishonest.
I will say to the whole country that I think the labour representatives on most of the tribunals are a damned disgrace; that they do not represent the claimant any better than the employer, and in some cases are worse than the company. They become part of that little club. They meet every few days, and have nice little meetings. I know some of these people personally. I worked with some of them, I was in the same union with some of them, and I have told them that I think it is a disgrace. They do not ask questions which should be asked, on behalf of the claimant, even when the claimant is there. Madam Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: 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.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the supper hour I was raising with the minister the problems we are having in relation to appeals and the appeal tribunal. I tried to make the point that I have tried to make in the last number of years since unemployment insurance was separated from the national employment agency. I think most people will agree that there was a good deal of merit in the procedure when one went and reported to the employment agency and asked for a job. If no job was available you just went over to the other side and collected your benefits. There was a very clear relationship between the job market and the availability of benefits.
The system we have now hardly takes the employment agency into consideration, and while it is true that in order to draw unemployment insurance benefits you must be registered with Manpower there does not seem to be any relationship between the functions of paying benefits and providing employment.
We have had seven or eight years to see the mistakes that arose from separating our employment policy and our unemployment insurance benefits. It seems to me that the minister has an obligation to consider what the public believes to be an abuse when the person drawing benefits is not really looking for work. The system reflects detrimentally on the rural areas, particularly those where no employment is available. It is foolish to disqualify people on the basis that they are not actively seeking work when they know full well that there is no work.
Two clauses in the present bill will have to be given a new interpretation. One of them is "just cause"-I think the minister referred to it as "good reason". Just cause has not been interpreted as a simple, good reason. The application has been very strict and very detrimental, and many people seeking unemployment insurance benefits are being hurt.
The second problem arises with the average person who says that the people drawing benefits are not looking for work. An argument used by many small employers is that they cannot afford to hire anybody because the unemployment insurance benefits are too high. I think the minister has an obligation to see that the minimum wage paid for menial jobs and unorganized occupations is at least as high as unemployment insurance benefits. In many cases there is the legitimate complaint that people will not work in a certain plant because they can draw more from unemployment insurance benefits than they would earn. I do not think unemployment insurance should pay more than the minimum wage, and in a modern society the obvious solution to that problem is to increase the minimum wage to compare favourably with unemployment insurance benefits.
There was a former member of this House who never impressed me very much until I heard him explain unemployment insurance one night, and that was the late Joe Habel. He said that if you paid insurance on your car for 20 or 30 years as he had, and never collected on it, that was a good thing because it meant you never had an accident. Using that principle, if you pay unemployment insurance and do not collect, that means you have never been unemployed. From my point of view that is an ideal condition.
To reduce the age to 65 is commendable, but it raises a number of problems. I have talked to a number of people
October 28, 1975

who work for the railroad and in other places and who face mandatory retirement at 65 even though their physical or mental condition does not really require it. They can work and want to work. They know nothing else.
I suggest that the minister and the department will need to consider the question of retirement itself. In this country there are no federal or provincial programs to qualify people for retirement. In future people will not retire at age 65. Retirement age will be reduced to age 60, and even lower, as automation and computers play an ever larger role in our lives. No longer will people work from the age of 14 or 15 until 70 or 75. They will enter the labour force in their 20's and retire at 60. Unless they retire early other people who want to enter the labour market will not find jobs. Therefore we must create programs which will train people for retirement.
Interestingly, railroaders retire at age 65, but, on average, live no more than two years after retirement. One day they are operating the train on the run they have known all their working lives, and the next day they are retired with nothing to do. I think it is wrong to cut off unemployment insurance benefits at age 65. Under this legislation, it will become mandatory for people to retire at age 65.
It is no good telling any man to retire if you have not introduced some kind of program which will train him for his retirement and allow him to pursue some interest, some hobby or recreational activity which will occupy his time. I suppose railroaders are a particular group, as they sleep and eat at odd hours, knowing they can be called at any time of day or night. They have so many hours to reply to the call, or book off sick; otherwise they must work. Their lifestyle does not allow for social activities of the sort enjoyed by people with normal working hours. Consequently retirement weighs more heavily on them than it does on others. One can see that we are creating great difficulties if we insist on retiring people at age 65.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


William Arnold Peters: I believe we are obligated to train people for retirement, to allow them to pursue meaningful activities. Yet really this bill says that after age 65 you are no longer on the labour market. Clearly we must help people who must retire because of age but whose physical and mental condition enables them to go on working. The bill says that they are not entitled to unemployment insurance after age 65. We must remember that not all people who reach 65 or 70 want to retire. Some find it difficult to retire. For that reason the government must act. So far it has lacked the courage or desire to institute training programs which will help people in their retirement.
May I now say a word about manpower programs. I remember a program known as program 5 under which people could train for various occupations, and the standards were applied nationally. Training was provided with a view to employment, beginning often at high school level. The program continued in that manner until Quebec kicked up a fuss about control, as it was entitled to do under the constitution.
As I say, the standards applying to subjects taught under program 5 applied right across the country. That
Unemployment Insurance Act
meant that if you trained as a plumber in Ontario, you could work as as a plumber in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, or pretty well anywhere else in the country, because the federal government was instrumental in providing the jobs, and that federal program trained people to meet job requirements. We were well on the way to establishing national standards. I raise this point for this reason that our manpower centres do not always send employers qualified employees. Take the case of the truck driver.
I remember an experiment which was tried by the Manpower office in my area, in conjunction with Simard Beaudry, who was working on a large project. The office put pressure on him to accept truck drivers they sent to him. Simard Beaudry put those men in a large truck and said, "If you can drive the truck, you can have the job; if you cannot drive the truck, you are not a truck driver". It turned out that most applicants could not drive heavy construction trucks. They had driven half ton trucks on the farm, but they are completely different from the sort of trucks used during the construction of a large dam.
Usually the Department of Manpower office cannot assure the employer that the applicant sent to the job is qualified. As a result, Manpower offices have fallen into disrepute with employers. Under program 5, the employment office could assure the employer of the employee's qualifications, because the department was in the position to train the employee, and did. That is no longer the case.
We must make many changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Certainly abuses should be eliminated, but it is unfair to expect people living in high unemployment areas to go without benefits for six weeks, on grounds that they may be ripping off the system. Clearly we must change the act, to provide benefits immediately to those who are truly seeking work but cannot find it. I think the minister is well aware of this problem. I am surprised that so far he has done nothing about it.
Another problem concerns the definition of suitable employment. What is suitable employment? For instance, what is suitable employment for a teacher who cannot renew a contract? Is her suitable employment work as a clerk in a store? After four or five weeks, does she have to take that kind of job at the minimum wage because she is not able to get a contract as a teacher at a fairly good salary?
I think this "suitable employment" has been badly abused. Surely we can work out some kind of system that allows a person to drop his standard as the months go by. It may be in this country that unemployment will go so high that people will be glad to dig ditches because there is no other job available to them, no matter what their education or ability may be.
I remember the last depression. We hired someone to work on the farm who had an electrical engineering degree from Queen's University. That young fellow worked on the farm for $25 a month plus room and board, and he was glad to get the job. He left shortly after that. My father was instrumental in getting him a job with Northern-Hydro in Quebec. He started as an oiler and within a few months he was running one of their plants. The next time I saw him he was in charge of the Common-

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
wealth program at the electrical school at St. Thomas. He was responsible for the electrical training of airforce personnel. It was not because he did not have the ability or education that he was glad to work for $25 a month on the farm.
If the Liberal government stays in power long enough it may be that suitable employment will be building an airport for ten cents a day, plus tobacco once a week, and a pair of pants when you can scrounge them. That is what some people received during the last depression. That is not what we are hoping will happen, but is the kind of criteria being used now for those who are unemployed. Those who are unemployed today are having just as difficult a time in making an adjustment as people did during the depression. When you ask someone to go from a good paying job, without the opportunity of having a reasonable period to obtain similar employment, to a job that does not pay nearly as well, you really are not doing anything for them.
Many people are in favour of any change that will cut down the number of people on unemployment insurance. If it were up to those who are complaining about minor abuses by those seeking unemployment insurance, I am sure they would be very much in favour of supporting the proposition of having full employment in this country.
This change in the act will remove the ceiling, floor, or whatever it is called, the 4 per cent benchmark of unemployment insurance. It says in effect that the government and the private sector will participate in the extended benefits, but up to the 4 per cent level it will be the responsibility of the employer and the employee. I remember when that 4 per cent was put in there. It was considered at that time that a reasonable level of unemployment would be 2 per cent. It has now been raised to considerably above 4 per cent. It is on a sliding scale. The minister said that, as far as his government is concerned, unemployment not only is going to be with us but will increase, and the workers with their employers will have to carry the.,unemployment insurance fund.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate on the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We have a good unemployment insurance plan in this country and we must continually strive to make it better.
Unemployment insurance is important. All Canadians recognize that. Some say it is being abused. Obviously that is so in some cases, but I think it is in the minority of cases. It is to be hoped that the amendments now before us will rectify some of those abuses. However, in my riding, Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance is used rather than abused, and used to a great degree because we have one of the highest rates of unemployment in Canada, with well over 20 per cent. Many of my people depend on unemployment insurance and will continue to do so for some time to come. They depend on it because in most cases their occupations are seasonal, and for a portion of the year there is no cash income. That is not to say that they are idle.
The people of my riding are not afraid of work and never have been. There is adequate evidence to show that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have always been a proud and independent people, a self-reliant people who have worked hard for a living. They still want to work

hard for a living. I do not believe for a minute that they want to exist solely on handouts. They want to work, and in fact surveys show that the work ethic is strong all across the country. In spite of the fact that we have a relatively high rate of unemployment, I feel that most of those people are not working through no fault of their own. I believe the majority want jobs and will take jobs when we offer them.
Unemployment insurance is the first line of defence against unemployment, but the best form of defence is often attack. I think this was referred to by some speakers before the supper break and, indeed, afterwards. That is the case here. Unemployment insurance can only be clearly seen in relation to its more important counterpart, employment insurance. This is the most important phrase. That is the key phrase that sums up the philosophy that we should be pursuing and that we are pursuing, for one of the great successes of this government and the Department of Manpower and Immigration, of which the Unemployment Insurance Commission is a partner, is its job creation programs.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) referred to the split-off in the department of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the difficulty of integrating the two aspects of the department. I want to tell him that those two branches are working very closely together. In fact Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission in many cases work as one.
The evidence of this is the Newfoundland project where over a two-year period about 2,000 unemployed, including people chronically on unemployment insurance and people on welfare, are being given positive training in vocational schools and in industry while they continue to receive unemployment insurance. This project recognizes that a defence against unemployment is not enough, and that there must be attack. It recognizes that it is not enough to keep people, because in many cases this means keeping them down, keeping them in a rut, keeping them in a section of society which has the welfare syndrome. Those chronically unemployed are often there not because they do not want to work, or because they are lazy. There are some in that category, it is true, but I do not believe they are in the majority. I believe a great many of the unemployed are thus because they are disabled for some reason, or because they do not have the skills or the education to get and hold meaningful jobs.
Many people, more and more in fact, are getting caught in the rapidly changing job patterns caused by advancing technology. The machine age is rolling right along, but in its path it is crushing many men and women who formerly trained for years to gain a marketable skill. Therefore we must continually improve and expand our training programs because in the long run I believe that it is only through these training and retraining programs, together with our job creation programs, that we can deal effectively with the unemployment problem.
The Newfoundland project is an attempt at this type of training and retraining. It is a unique experiment wherein those receiving unemployment insurance are placed in training programs according to their skill level and their expectations. Manpower tops off unemployment insurance where necessary and provides other programs of its own, such as travel and housing allowances. This project is
October 28, 1975

being monitored closely, and hopefully it can be implemented elsewhere in Canada. It illustrates that the UIC is not simply a body which hands out cheques. This project shows that they are interested in the growth and development of people. I can attest to that, having worked closely with the commission. A great deal of credit is due the commission for the positive attitude it has fostered in its administrators and its employees, and credit is due to its chairman for the dedicated way in which he has worked toward this end.
There are other success stories in job creation-the attack on unemployment at its source. The LIP program is a Godsend to a province like Newfoundland and Labrador, and to a riding like mine where work is largely seasonal. If members of the House could come to my riding and see the projects which have been completed by men and women who would otherwise be unemployed they would appreciate the value of the program. I can show them community halls, slipways, wharves, breakwaters, town halls, roads and many other things-things they regard as essential- which otherwise they would not have. The only difficulty is that there is never enough money to fund the many worthwhile projects in communities which desperately need them.
Even though my riding received $1.5 million this year there were still projects turned down in communities where there will be no other work this winter, and where men and women will have to get by on unemployment insurance or welfare. The fact is, of course, that the federal government will be funding many of these people in one way or another. I believe that what we should do is to design a winter works program along the lines of the
project now going on in Newfoundland so that people are not simply kept but are doing something meaningful in return for the money they receive. I believe they want this. There are always many times the number of applications we can fund under LIP. People want to work; they want to improve their community. We are spending federal money in these communities anyway, so their potential should be put to a positive end.
An even more successful program within the department is LEAP. I believe that in the long run this program has more potential than LIP when it comes to alleviating chronic unemployment. I should like to refer to many projects which are now under way but I will confine myself to mentioning three which are now in progress in my riding where this program is well on its way to solving the chronic unemployment problem.
It is a program which gives people training on the job, plus a chance to become productive in the long run and acquire skills which will be marketable for years to come. I am thinking, for example, of 13 farmers in the Green Bay area who have been working under a LEAP program; their wages have been paid for two years and at the end of the coming year they can go on to become self-supporting. I am thinking, too, about a boat building project, and about a fishing operation under the LEAP program. Each of them represents a meaningful attack on the problem of unemployment.
Unemployment Insurance Act
A further program which is at work in my riding is the community employment strategy. This is presently operating in the southern portion of Labrador in my province, where a number of communities have organized under the guidance of the job creation branch of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to determine the directions in which government programs of all kinds are succeeding or failing, where amendments or modifications should be made to them, and where new programs are needed. These people are attempting to decide for themselves what resources they possess, what kind of jobs can reasonably be created in their communities, what help is needed, and what training or skill development is needed.
The main point here is that government, hopefully, will become what it ought to be-the servant of the people. The people will decide where they are going and how they will get there. And government will give them support, and follow in the direction they wish to take. This is decentralization of decision-making taken to its extreme. But it is absolutely the right approach. For once the local people have an opportunity to make the bureaucracy work for them. It is still too early to assess the situation, but the initial signs are good and I am hoping the strategy will work. It must work if we are to attack chronic unemployment effectively.
I have tried to show that there must be not simply a defence against unemployment but an attack upon unemployment. Unemployment insurance and other funds coming from the government can be used in a meaningful way, not simply to keep people going but to get them back as productive citizens. So the best defence, to my mind, is attack. This does not mean, however, that we do not need defence. Unemployment insurance is the first line of defence against unemployment, the first defence against temporary loss of income. Hon. members might note that word temporary. It is not a defence against permanent loss of income. We have other means of looking after the elderly, the disabled, and single parent families. This is an insurance plan against temporary unemployment and in that sense it is like any other term insurance plan.
I note too that the hon. member for Timiskaming referred to this aspect in his speech and remarked that if, at the end of his career, a worker had paid into the scheme without deriving any monetary return from it he could get some satisfaction at least from the fact that he had never lost his job. Unemployment insurance is an insurance plan, and it is like term insurance plans. Now the premium to be charged is going up, as are the premiums of other insurance plans. But I do not see how we can avoid this if the tripartite nature of the plan is to be retained.
From the beginning the unemployment insurance plan has been tripartite in concept. When it was developed in 1940 the administration of the act was entrusted to a commission composed of a chief commissioner, a commissioner representing employers, and one representing employees. This arrangement, symbolizing the tripartite nature of the plan, has persisted to the present day. There are three partners-the employees, the employers, and the government.
A partnership arrangement was set up which provided that the employer and the employee would pay an equal

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
contribution, and that the government would pay an additional amount equal to 20 per cent of the sum collected from employers and employees. In addition the government was to pay for the administration of the program. In 1962 the Gill Committee recommended that the costs of benefits be shared equally by employers and employees, and that there be no contribution by the general taxpayer toward the basic insurance plan. This idea is carried to an extreme in the United States where employers pay the entire cost of the insurance plan, with the exception of extended benefits during periods of very high unemployment. These benefits are totally paid by the state or federal governments.
In this country, however, the original principle of tripartite participation has been retained. It has been altered, though, so that the government might adjust its share of the cost to varying rates of national employment. What is really being proposed in the present instance is a similar operation. But in this case, as in previous cases, the government will pay for benefits extended due to high regional or national rates of unemployment.
What is being proposed is a change in the threshold of 4 per cent. The proposal is that the threshold not be fixed but that it be made flexible and allowed to rise and fall with the national unemployment rate. This principle of coupling thresholds and limits to moving averages which reflect current trends is one that is followed elsewhere, for example, in the calculation of the old age pension, in salary matters, in cost of living clauses, in family allowances. What is proposed now is to apply this principle to premiums paid for unemployment insurance.
It should be noted that the calculation of maximum insurable earnings, and therefore the maximum benefit payable, is based now on an eight year moving average of the industrial composite wage index. Here again the principle of limits being tied to a moving average reflecting economic trends is evident. It would seem reasonable, therefore, that the calculation of the participation of the private sector in the program should be made in a similar way.
The tripartite arrangement for sharing the cost of the unemployment insurance program is an extremely good one. It provides for the active participation by both employers and employees in a program which benefits them both, while at the same time providing for the federal government to acknowledge its effect on the labour market through its monetary and fiscal policy, and thus on the cost of unemployment insurance benefits.
The proposal in Bill C-69 to relate the threshold at which government participation starts more realistically to prevailing economic conditions is consistent with this tripartite formula. It reflects the principles embodied in the 1971 legislation which state that the private sector should be expected to pay the basic costs of the scheme which are more directly related to insurance, and the government should assume responsibility for those costs which are more in the nature of income transfer or income support.
The proposed eight year moving average threshold rate will not only reinforce these principles but will also provide for an automatic adjustment in the participation

formula which can respond to changing economic conditions. The only alternative, of course, would have been an increase in taxes, drawing the additional cost of the program from general tax revenues, which again would be a departure from the user-pay principle and would impose upon people who did not use the plan the cost of the plan. Besides that, I believe that the major increase in cost will be borne by the employers, not in fact by the employees, certainly not those in the lower income brackets.
There are other amendments to the act that I think are good in principle, and on which I should like to comment. One increases the penalty for those who quit their jobs for no good reason. This idea is good in principle. The waiting time is being doubled. Although it is a good idea in principle, I hope that the application of it in some areas will be with an understanding of local conditions.
For example, there are many people in my riding who have no choice but to work away from home since there are no local jobs for them. In many of these cases they leave their families at home while they go away for many months at a time to areas far away. I would not want to do that and I do not think many members of this House would either. I can understand why men would want to leave a job under those conditions, especially if housing is inadequate and the amenities of life that they expect to find in the communities are not there. So I think, generally speaking, the penalty for quitting a job without good reason is a sound principle; but let us get at the cause rather than at the symptom.
I think we can solve a lot of these problems if in northern and remote communities, and in industrially rich communities, we do provide proper housing and amenities. If that is the case and these men can take their families with them they would have no reason to quit the job. We must examine the cause of why a person quits his job, and come up with a solution, such as the provision of proper housing.
I am also glad to see the amendment that would provide unemployment insurance benefits to sponsors of LIP and LEAP projects. Quite often in small rural communities the sponsors of such projects are in fact themselves unemployed. I have had cases in the past in my own riding where sponsors of LIP projects did not receive unemployment insurance benefits, so there is very little incentive for them to apply for them in the first place.
Another matter I want to mention is that raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), namely, unemployment insurance for fishermen. At the present time fishermen feel discriminated against. They cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits for as long as other workers; the maximum is something like 23 weeks, with eight weeks of contribution. Other workers can draw almost 51 weeks.
I know the history of this plan and why it is this way. I think there are inequities in it, and I agree with my colleague who spoke this afternoon that the fishermen are not fairly treated. They cannot draw benefits until December. A fisherman may finish work in September, for example, but he cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits until December. Thereafter he can draw them until May, but not after May, yet the fishing season may not open until June or July. These inequities in the program must be remedied.
October 28, 1975

We have been working to change them, but not within the unemployment insurance program. The Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) has promised to bring into the House this winter, during this session, an income support plan for the fisheries. It would be meaningless to make amendments at the present time to the bill on behalf of the fishermen, much as they are needed, when this plan is in the offing. The best we can do is to wait for the fishermen's income support plan to be brought in by the Minister of State (Fisheries), and hopefully we can get it through parliament and in effect before the next fishing season. The present unemployment insurance scheme for fishermen is with us now for this year, bad as it is, but having lived with it for this long we can live with it for a few more months until the new income support plan is put in place.
I do not want to go into the details of this new plan and what it contains; that will come in a later debate. I recognize the problem is a real and serious one. The fishermen have been waiting patiently for the new plan and they must be given meaningful help. We must have a new scheme or we can say goodbye to the inshore fishery. The fishermen must be adequately supported during the off season, and they are not at the present time.
These are difficult times. Like all countries in the world, we are experiencing economic difficulty. One of the effects of that difficulty is an unemployment rate that is unacceptable. It is doubly important, therefore, that we ensure that we have an unemployment insurance plan that guards against erosion of the work ethic while at the same time it provides adequate protection to people when and as they need it. I welcome the flexibility that these amendments introduce into the plan. I believe they will be for the better and will improve the service that the plan provides to our people.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, as I begin my contribution to this debate on the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971, I must say I took some interest in the remarks of my hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. He heaped high accolades upon these amendments, the unemployment insurance program as it now exists, and the job creation program of the government which as he says operates in conjunction with this unemployment insurance program. If I remember correctly, his statement was that unemployment insurance is the first line of defence against unemployment.
However, prior to this the government had created a lot of work programs to help the worker in his every day life. It rather reminds me of the boy scout who was very late home from school. As the evening grew longer and it got dark his mother became very worried that he was not home. Finally after dinner he showed up. His mother asked him why he was home from school so late, and he said that he had been helping this little old lady across the street. So his mother said: "Well, what took so long?" He replied: "Well, she didn't want to go".
That is the impression I get of the government and its program. It parades around like a boy scout helping out everyone, but helping them out in ways in which they do not want to be helped. It seems to me that part of the problem with our economy is that the government is so
Unemployment Insurance Act
busy trying to help people out that it will not let them help themselves. If the government would let them help themselves, the economy would be far ahead of where it is today.
I am pleased that the minister is bringing forward these amendments. I have a great deal of regard for him and I think he is trying to do a good piece of work in his portfolio. He has been given a sizeable job by his predecessor and he has a lot of cleaning up to do. So I not only admire him, I feel sorry for him in the work that he has to do.
In a sense I have no quarrel with the need for some of these amendments. In some cases I suspect they do not go far enough. But it is encouraging to find the government realizing that there is a need to upgrade the UIC program. I would seriously question the timing of the legislation, coming as it does in a period when we have 7.2 per cent of the work force unemployed. It seems that the minister is changing the rules of the game right in the middle of the game. The government engaged in a program of overindulgence and over-generous policy for a number of years while we had high employment, during which time it encouraged workers to assume that benefits would come continuously. Any time a worker became unemployed there would only be a short waiting period, if any waiting period at all, before he would be in the chips again. Many people never prepared themselves for a period of extended unemployment such as they are facing today. Yet the government adopted an attitude of paternalism toward the worker, an attitude of encouraging dependency on government. There was no need to plan for an emergency, but now the minister introduces amendments which tighten up the regulations.
At a time when more people than ever need help, they are faced with these new restrictions. I support these restrictions, such as the restriction for extending the period of disqualification from three weeks to six weeks. In fact I wonder whether it should be a longer period. I remember years ago speaking to a gas station operator. He told me he had some youngsters, gas jockeys, working for him and they practically begged him to lay them off so that they could take the lumps of the two-week waiting period and have unemployment insurance coming to them and do what they wanted. That experience, I am sure, is repeated time and time again across the country. The system is abused by people who do not treat the program as unemployment insurance.
Now I should like to draw attention to the minister's statement in the folder that was distributed to all members. He said:
This amendment is being proposed because of the alarmingly high number of persons leaving their employment without good cause and refusing suitable employment. The number of voluntary quits has been averaging approximately 250,000 per year and job refusals for the first four months of 1975 would amount to an annual rate of 21,000. This is taking place despite the current unemployment situation, and the low ratio of job vacancies to the number of unemployed workers.
Thus it is clear that the present period of disqualification has not been sufficiently effective and needs to be increased. Workers' rights will continue to be fully protected; they will continue to be able to present their side of the case to their insurance agent, and have full recourse to the appeal system.
October 28, 1975

Unemployment Insurance Act
I ask, where were the departmental officials in 1971 when this program was planned? Do they have no capability for prediction? Could they not anticipate a little how this system would be abused? Did they have no ability to assess the possible way in which people could use that particular measure? This department has been profligate in its abuse of the taxpayers' money. It has been callous in not planning for this amendment at a time of low unemployment, and thus was not in a position to forewarn workers to prepare for the unpleasant prospects of unemployment. So, while this amendment is necessary, and in some way I suppose even welcome, it seems tragic indeed that it comes at a time when workers across Canada need unemployment insurance more than at any time in the last few years.
There is another reason why I question this legislation. I refer to the uneven administration of the program. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out that the department has a curious ability to close a blind eye to the rip-off artists in the urban areas and then harry across the country the individual who tries to live within the rules.


Mr. Alexander:: That is the truth.


Benno Friesen: I recieved a phone call from an elderly man in my riding a few months ago. He was approaching retirement years and thought he would do what others do. He thought he would take advantage of the unemployment insurance fund into which he had paid for the last many years of his employment. So, he quit his job and applied to the UIC. The UIC did what it does in respect of most unemployed people. It set about to answer the inquiries by prospective employers. So he was sent all over the valley to look at these job prospects provided by the UIC and Manpower. He is 55 years of age. He is a hardworking man who believes in the work ethic. He does not want to rip off the government. So he goes everywhere the Manpower office sends him. He tries to do the work. He does it.
Whenever a job is over he goes to the UIC and they send him to another job. The poor man cannot do what many other younger people are able to do. Finally he is working with a crew, a group of young bucks, and it begins to sprinkle rain. They go to the beer parlor because they do not want to get wet, and on the way they go to the social service to get a cheque to tide them over. This is an example of a man who deserves the benefit of unemployment insurance but he cannot collect it simply because he is honest.
Then I think of a lady who wrote me. She has poor vision and cannot drive. She has spent much time working in nursing homes. The only job that was available to her was 36 miles away. She was unable to find commuting facilities in order to get to this employment at the time when the nursing home wanted her. She applied for unemployment insurance because she could not take the job that was offered her.
I think of another man in retirement years. He had been working all his life in a sawmill. He was retired and wanted to do something else. He went to Quesnel and looked around for work. He was not part of the bureaucracy and was not someone ripping off the UIC. Therefore he did not know the procedure used by some other people to

rip off the UIC. He did not know that it was necessary to report every day when he went to Quesnel. The upshot is that he did not get work at Quesnel and did not receive the unemployment insurance benefits either because he did not follow the bureaucratic procedure outlined for him.
This man's case was taken to the appeal board. I am sure the members of the appeal board gave him as good a hearing as possible but, as the other hon. member pointed out, at no time was this man ever in a position where he could state his case personally to that tribunal and have it heard.
I have a very interesting letter from an employer of a man. This firm had a very good accountant who kept track of the man's work record. He began work on November 12, 1974. The last day he worked was December 30, 1974. Including those days, and excluding one week during which the shop was closed for Christmas, he could have worked some 30 days. The number of days in which he did work all or part of a day was 22. He thus missed some 26.7 per cent of the days on which he could have worked all or part of a day. The total available hours during those 30 days is computed to have been 240. He worked 169 Vt of these, representing only 70.5 per cent of the total available.
The letter states that this company is a manufacturing plant with an assembly-line operation and thus it is essential that each employee maintain a good attendance record. It further points out that each employee has this fact pointed out to him or her, and that there is no misunderstanding concerning what is expected. They say this man attended some 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the time when he was needed, and they found the level of attendance to be unsatisfactory in the extreme and stated that this accounted for the term used on the separation certificate, "unreliable". What does this man do when he is laid off? He goes to the unemployment insurance office. The next procedure obviously is that the employer has to fill out a questionnaire advising the Unemployment Insurance Commission of the reason for this man's suspension. They point out that he is unreliable.
As I look into it a little further I find that the man apparently told the foreman that he had been sick. I suppose that if he has been sick, there is good reason for him to have a very hyphenated employment record, but then if he has been sick it seems to me that he should not get unemployment insurance. If in fact he needs that kind of help-and I for one would not deny him such help- perhaps he needs some kind of social welfare, but certainly not unemployment insurance. That is one of the grave problems of the unemployment insurance program.
The next thing I notice about the amendment is the ambiguous phrase, to say the least, "who refuse suitable employment". I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what does "suitable" mean? In what kind of subjective terms can you describe that? Suitable in whose judgment? Is it in the judgment,of a man who is unemployed and, theoretically at least, looking for employment, or is it suitable to the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
Is it suitable in terms of the salary that is being offered? Is it suitable in terms of the working conditions, the kind
October 28, 1975

of job that is being offered, or the location of that job? What does suitable mean?
I suppose I have the disadvantage of many other members of the House to remember the "dirty 30's" when we lived in Saskatchewan at the height of the depression and, I suppose, the height of unemployment. I remember very clearly that every summer during those depression years my father would go to British Columbia and find seasonal work there. He would go to the lower mainland of the Fraser Valley and get a job haying, working in the tobacco fields or wherever there was work to be had. He would take his bicycle along and pedal around the Fraser Valley looking for work. It did not matter if the work was for a week or two hulling strawberries, hoeing hay, or doing anything that would provide employment and an income. Toward the end of the summer he would come back to Saskatchewan just in time for the harvest season and do day work in the fields of Saskatchewan.
Now when I think back to those times I cannot help but think that any of the jobs that my dad took during those depression years was suitable. It was not very suitable for him to leave for three months of the year to go out to a job paying $1 or $2 a day in British Columbia; it was not suitable to the rest of the family, perhaps even demeaning in many ways, but somehow it was not as demeaning as looking for a handout when he could work. Any job was suitable so long as it was honourable.
I remember that the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) pointed out that one of the main problems of UIC is that it is not even UIC any more. It is called insurance, but actually the problem is that it is treated as if it were social welfare. Perhaps it is time we drew the comparisons to show just how ludicrous and anachronistic the term has become. Again I still remember hearing the words of my friend from Labrador when he pointed out that this was a good insurance program. Let us compare it with an ordinary insurance program to see whether it really is insurance.
First of all, as the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay pointed out, insurance programs are voluntary; no one has to take out a life or fire insurance policy if he does not want to do so. Second, insurance policies are pooled investment for real emergencies, and I mean real emergencies not inconveniences. The startling difference is that insurance companies by the law of the land and the law of this government have to be actuarially sound. When we take a look at the unemployment insurance program we realize that if any private company operated an insurance program the way this government operates unemployment insurance, it would be drummed out of business.
Think of the billion dollars or more that the UIC program has in deficit and then wonder if it is possible to make an honest and accurate comparison actuarially between UIC and an insurance company. Furthermore, insurance policies are very specific. Any riders mean additional costs to the premiums and you pay for each one of those riders. It is the person who buys the insurance who makes that payment.
UIC has many riders and all of these are good, but not necessarily relevant to unemployment insurance. For example, sickness benefits are very good riders and I for one would not criticize the need to provide for the workers
Unemployment Insurance Act
for that eventuality when they are sick and need those benefits to carry them over through the period of sickness, but I do not know how you can correlate sickness benefits with other requirements of unemployment insurance, such as being available for work. I sense a constradiction there and I think it is time we called a spade a spade. There is a place for UIC and there is a place for social welfare, and I think the first priority of the government should be to draw a distinction between the two and make this into honest legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: What the government has done is to train a whole generation of people to live on welfare, calling it UIC.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Benno Friesen: I think the government would do well to redesign its program to make unemployment insurance into insurance in fact. While there may be need for social welfare in some other form and through some other medium, the Canadian people should know what they are getting and what they are paying for.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, it may be relevant to point out that the present speaker on Bill C-69 is quite obviously female but rather less obviously an ex-chairman of the board of referees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I feel that in human terms this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we have seen before the House in recent times. The ramifications of the proposals are considerable and complex, but at this time I will limit myself only to the consideration of clauses 14 and 16. As regards the former, I welcome it wholeheartedly.
In the past, sickness benefits have proven to be an administrative nightmare for the commission and the cause of very great frustration for the recipients. Under the old act the establishment of a sickness claim started what might be termed a clockwork action and in many cases, even though the recipient recovered and returned to work, the clock continued its futile course with resultant loss of benefit when benefits were again needed. This was all the more prevalent in the case of maternity benefits. The new act will allow the claimant to terminate the claim voluntarily or, to repeat the metaphor, to stop the clock. This innovation is, therefore, to be welcomed.
I mentioned the effect on maternity benefits. In this respect I would urge a further improvement. I refer to the pregnant woman who loses her employment because of labour disputes and therefore may not be entitled to receive maternity benefits because of section 44(1). Under this provision if a pregnant woman is a member of a grade or class of workers on strike, she is disqualified from receiving maternity benefits, especially in cases where the termination of the stoppage of work is not fulfilled when she becomes eligible for maternity benefits.
This section would appear to affect adversely the unionized woman, whereas it will have no bearing on her nonunionized sister. I see a possible dichotomy here, and I
8642

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
strongly recommend that the provisions of section 44(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act be inapplicable in respect to maternity benefits.
Let us now consider clause 16 of Bill C-69, and its implications. On the surface it looks like a toughening up measure such as those long advocated by the people who will spend so much time and effort in decrying the weaknesses of the system that they have little energy to devote to the essential good offered to genuine recipients by the unemployment insurance scheme.
We must now ask ourselves: who will be the objects of the new and more stringent punitive measures? The answer is our youth and our women, two groups with whom I have particular sympathy. Why youth and women? It is because administrative statistics have proven conclusively that the rate of voluntary quitting is considerably higher among those two categories of employees.
Perhaps we should now ask ourselves why youth and women are more likely to quit. I believe the reasons are various and complex, and many of these are common to both groups. It would be very easy to assume that women are more likely than men to quit their jobs because of family responsibilities, but if they do, it is probable they do not ask the taxpayer to pay for their decision. In fact, of the women disqualified under the old act for reasons of non-availability, job refusal, and inadequate job search, a higher percentage of women with no dependants was registered than was the case for women with dependants. However, the difference was not so considerable as to constitute terms for debate.
In studying these and other results, it is of great importance to consider relevant aspects and to ask ourselves many questions such as: why do young people work? Why do women work? What is the importance of job satisfaction? Is job satisfaction itself a polemic which condemns too much, or a vision which promises too much?
A report entitled "Canadian Work Values" gives us the findings of the Department of Manpower and Immigration on a work ethic survey and a job satisfaction survey. I hope that in the national interest similar and ongoing initiatives will be undertaken. I suggest that in few other fields do attitudes change with such rapidity as in this. Consider, for example, the following statement: "60 per cent of Canadians still believe that a woman's place is in the home." This statement was recorded in 1975. We are also informed that this attitude is considerably less prevalent among higher educated and younger members of the population. It would be interesting, therefore, to see what is the more prevalent attitude in, say, another ten years.
There is a tendency for both women and men to believe that women should not have to work unless they choose to do so. Here again younger and more highly educated members of society feel they should.
What we are experiencing is quite obviously an evolution of attitudes. However, there is one area in which age and education make no difference. Regardless of age or education, women are more inclined than men to believe that women in general should supplement the household income.
Let us now consider the case of a woman with dependants. She has probably received much more formal educa-

tion than her mother. She has probably raised a family and has accumulated a wealth of experience as an administrator, economist, nurse, teacher, psychologist and arbitrator of disputes, to name only a few. She then decides to return to the labour market, probably to full time work, and if her children are young, more because of financial than any other need. What are her prospects? Is the labour force likely to recognize the full potential of this woman and justly evaluate her contribution? Unfortunately, the chances of her true worth being recognized are not good. All too often she will be offered jobs which are intellectually bankrupt. Because of her absence from the labour force during the time she looked after her children, her chances of promotion are limited, irrespective of her merit.
I believe that seniority in itself is a fine thing, but if it is used as the sole criterion for promotion at the expense of merit, then not only is it unrealistic, but it is positively dangerous to the economy as a whole.
This last point will also and perhaps particularly apply to our youth. We must remember that they too have an average education far superior to that of their fathers. Education widens one's horizons and also stimulates expectation. The resultant disillusionment and discouragement add another dimension to our mosaic of human frustration and miseries.
What of the working woman with no dependants, the one who preferred not to marry? Can she hope to achieve job satisfaction and promotion more easily than her married sister? The reality of the situation is not encouraging. If she is gentle and thoughtful, chances are she will be considered weak and quite expendable. To gain respect as a peer will almost inevitably require time, perseverance, and an extraordinary amount of patience.
If, instead, she is aggressive, she soon becomes the object of endless and often distasteful speculation, analysis, and innuendo. The recent case of an internationally successful female journalist is a prime example. During an interview published by Time magazine Signorina Fallaci was asked whether she is a lesbian. I know of few male writers since Oscar Wilde who have been subjected to such base sensationalism and whose private lives have been so dissected, and at the same time I fail to see what bearing her sexual preferences have on her undoubted ability as a journalist.
Administrative statistics have pointed out another interesting factor. It appears that the largest numbers of people who have abused the system come from clerical and related occupations. Here again I feel that employers must understand that if they hope to attract better educated personnel, they must make infinitely better efforts to provide in those jobs the challenge and prestige which education itself demands. Study has been devoted, and rightly so, to problems of alienation in assembly plants, but far too little is known of the numbing effects of months and years passed in the mindless atmosphere of a typing pool.
If there is one burning issue in this bill, an issue which will reverberate on the productivity of the entire nation, then surely it is the lesson that we are quickly learning that higher education will, of its very nature, lead to greater expectations. We cannot ignore these signs which
October 28, 1975

are already unmistakeably evident. Whether industry will accept the challenge and attempt to rectify the situation in the economic if not in the human interest, only time will tell. With this bill government will treat many of the symptoms but it certainly will not, and indeed cannot, cure the disease.
Many, many more thoughts could be and should be propounded on this argument but time simply does not permit. And so we ask why, despite compassion for and understanding of this problem facing our youth and women, will people such as I vote for and even advocate the punitive effects of this bill? It is quite simply because I feel that mature responsibility must, in the national and collective interest, take precedence over personal desires, legitimate though those desires may be.
Unemployment insurance is what it says-an insurance program much like any other. We will find people who do not like their houses but who would never dream of burning them down just to collect fire insurance. No, they will either tolerate them or look for alternative accommodation. So it should be with jobs and unemployment insurance.
In the interest of our national economy I would strongly urge employers to evaluate seriously the enormous wealth and human potential which, through lack of care and even minimal understanding, they continue to dissipate at an alarming rate.
At this very moment in time we are demonstrating an admirable and sincere concern for the conservation of natural resources. The time has come to include in the study of those resources the immeasurable riches of our undeveloped and under-employed human element.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, when we have the former minister of finance advocating changes in the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission on the grounds that "the cost to the government is becoming unwieldy" and admitting "that the act has some undesirable effects on work incentives", and when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) tells us that "additional amendments are proposed to reduce some of the inequities and complexities which now exist," then I feel that we have the right to be gravely apprehensive about the operation of that commission.
I guess you could call it unwieldy when the increase of the cost of operating this act has risen by 150 per cent over the past year. Yet just three years ago we had the then minister of manpower and immigration telling us that "the extra costs present no problem to the government," and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself commenting on the $700 million deficit of that same year, saying that he "saw no scandal in that. . . What if the fund needs another $100 million or $200 million . .. ?"
When the cost to the government and to the contributors has increased threefold since that time, I say that we do have a problem and that we do have a scandalous situation.
At the very time that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Prime Minister were not alarmed and saw no scandal, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was warning that expenditures on this program were "very much out of hand from both the government's and the contributors' points of view." However, it was a case of a warning falling on deaf ears again.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The government continues to display the most astonishing lack of realism in the present situation but an abundance of it in hindsight. This hindsight of the Unemployment Insurance Commission difficulty bears a remarkable similarity to the government's presentation of price controls, more than a year after they were proposed by the party which I have the honour to represent.
Every member of this House must know that the largest number of complaints that he and his staff have to deal with are those which pertain to unemployment insurance matters. Such letters far outnumber those about any other problem on a continuous basis.
The most dominant areas of complaint, of criticism, of distress and dissatisfaction are with this branch of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Day after day, at least until we had the postal strike, letters of anger and frustration with this commission flowed in. Constituents forward us volumes of correspondence which they have received from the UIC, and ask that we assist them to help to untangle the unintelligible mess. Applications whose format is unbelievably complicated, and letters which are thoroughly incomprehensible spew forth from this department. There are so many abuses and injustices in the Unemployment Insurance Act that it ought to be scrapped and a totally new concept undertaken.
The way in which the act has been mismanaged has caused it to deviate entirely from the meaning of insurance. It could more accurately be referred to as payment assurance. It is regarded by contributors as some sort of investment or savings account, and that if they have put money into it then they are entitled to get it back. It is about as logical as expecting to be reimbursed for premiums paid out for car insurance, if one chooses to drive one's car no longer. That is exactly the way many in the work force are thinking today. They feel that if they do not choose to work, then they are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. The only thing that will ensure, Mr. Speaker, is that a number of people are going to try to beat the system, and it is being done with great success very often.
It is no longer true insurance against the time when one is unemployed, but another con game in which the smart operator can pick the public pocket. The serious job searcher often finds himself strangled in the maze of red tape. Many times a recipient of benefits is informed that he has been receiving benefits for which he does not qualify after all, and that he must repay the commission as much as $1,000 or there will be dire consequences. If there are cases of overpayment, of no entitlement, then why were benefits paid out for so long? Who is causing these errors?
Let us change the name, the concept, and the reality to an employment insurance commission-a commission that will encourage employment rather than one which has built-in disincentives to work. Only when it becomes more profitable to work and be gainfully employed than to live as well, or even better, when unemployed are we going to have a society in which the prestige of the work ethic will regain its rightful position as a desirable attribute. Work has become another four letter word, a dirty word in the vocabulary and thinking of too many people. And the present administration has fostered that attitude.
29669-63%

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
The puny amendments which are proposed to the act are a farce as far as alleviating the existing problems is concerned. The senior citizen is going to be ineligible for benefits, and the lower salaried will have to pay the same premium as many who are higher salaried, at a minimal saving to the government. Does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration consider discrimination against the elderly and the poor to be a reduction in inequity, because that is what will happen if the proposed regulations do go into effect?
There is absolutely no consistency or logic in the way in which UIC matters are handled or mishandled within the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It is absolutely essential that there be more co-operation and liaison between these two sectors so that they work in harmony. Is the problem of unemployment not linked with finding jobs or training people to new skills to fit developing opportunities?
Manpower is woefully inadequate in its purpose to create and locate jobs for those in need of them. Stress must be laid on getting those who are without work back into the work force as quickly as possible so that they can be a contributing unit to the welfare of Canada, rather than a drain upon it. Far too many are allowed to exist in relative comfort as they wait to have cheques delivered to them from schemes and plans spawned by the federal government.
The industrious contributors are becoming demoralized by carrying the double burden of higher premium payments to the UIC as well as increased taxes to the government to handle its share of the UIC pie. We may see the day when the workers become so demoralized at carrying the drones in our society that they will either rebel against the system or decide that it would be much smarter to join them. Then we will experience the ultimate strike.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is urgently in need of complete rebuilding. The time for band-aid remedies is long past. I heard the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) extolling in her partisan way the supposed benefits of the present legislation. She expounded on the benefits of the Local Initiatives Program, benefits which I do not deny, as the program fulfills a need in society. But it is a stop gap program. Let me tell hon. members about an application made by the residents of the township of Flatbush in my constituency. They made an honest application to the government. They asked for only $2,873.


An hon. Member:: It was too small.


Peter Elzinga: The request was too small, as my hon. friend says. Despite their honesty, they were refused. And why did they apply for this money? They needed it because the government has mismanaged the beef industry of this country. When the government is so involved in the beef industry that, in a two-year period, it introduces 29 different policies and programs, I say the government does not know what it is doing.
Before concluding may I refer to what my party said during the past election campaign, to show that it is consistent. I shall also refer to what the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said in the present

debate. I shall refer to our policy commitments made in the 1974 campaign, and to the somewhat similar statement made by the hon. member for Hamilton West, to show that my party is consistent in its thinking, and that when we make commitments and statements we are willing to abide by them, which is more than you can say of the party opposite.
We, of the official opposition, still call for an independent inquiry into the operation of this act. Such an inquiry should examine the effectiveness of the act as now constituted, and its administration. It should envisage whether changes in the legislation are required, and investigate in particular the administration, with a view to maintaining an adequate program of unemployment insurance while avoiding disincentives to employment and excessive costs to contributors and taxpayers. This request is consistent with what we said during the election campaign and with my party's position. We feel, in short, that there should be a fully independent inquiry and not some sort of in-house inquiry about which the minister spoke, involving the unemployment insurance advisory council.
Further, we feel that there should be a fully independent inquiry into the workings of the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to determine whether it is an insurance scheme, a welfare scheme, or a combination of both, and if there are abuses, how to get rid of them. The inquiry should delve into the extent of disincentives, and recommend how best to remove them. The inquiry should be full blown and independent, and not something with which the minister can play hanky panky whenever he feels too much heat. In other words, we want an independent group to look at this serious matter.
The principle to which we should adhere is that any scheme such as the one we are considering should be a difficult one for any person to take advantage of, easy to administer, and easy to leave. In other words, it ought to be hard to get on the recipient rolls, and easy to get off. This, apparently, is not the case now, as this amending bill indicates.
By introducing disincentives to work the government has destroyed the work ethic. This is the result of a statement the Prime Minister made some time ago. He said that you do not have to work for money because there are other things in life which are so meaningful. That may be true, but it is the individual's responsibility to pay for those other things himself.
The hon. member for Hamilton West, my party's UIC critic, compared the situation in our country with that in the United States. His comparison was startling, and for that reason I shall quote a part of his speech made yesterday on October 27. He said, as reported at page 8572 of Hansard:
It is interesting to note that the United States, which has a population ten times the size of Canada's, spent $4 billion on unemployment insurance in 1973. On the other hand, we in Canada will spend approximately the same amount in 1975.
I have told the House what the government has done about the situation. My party has outlined what should be done. Unfortunately now, as in the past, our advice is falling on deaf ears.
October 28, 1975


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as Bill C-69 which deals with unemployment insurance will become one of the most important bills this House will discuss during the present session, may I at this time congratulate colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party who made such excellent contributions to this debate.
The subject of unemployment insurance and the operation of the commission have been of major concern to Canadians for a number of years. Clearly a major overhaul of our UIC program is long overdue. You could say that UIC recipients are almost like members of another profession. The commission in Canada has attracted thousands of Canadians to its doors. They come for the generous pay-outs. Some groups have formed UIC ski teams, and wear jerseys on which appear the words "UIC ski team." On the backs of other jerseys are printed the words, "Thanks, Pierre". I hope the minister is taking the necessary measures to stop UIC ski teams from being formed this winter, ski teams which will be financed by the Canadian taxpayer.
I shall now refer to a Gallup poll. It is a public opinion report on the UIC. The question the researchers asked was, "Do you think that the government has been strict enough, or not, in checking on applicants for unemployment insurance benefits?"
Canadians are watching for evidence of a program ensuring stricter control of unemployment insurance payments. While most people approve the increased benefits, provided they go to those who really need them, they give almost a three-to-one verdict that, at present, the screening of applicants for UIC payments is not satisfactory. Nationally 59 per cent hold this opinion, compared to 24 per cent who think the controls are satisfactory. Another 17 per cent are undecided.
These national levels of opinion are echoed in homes for all occupational segments in much the same degree. Conviction that supervision is not sound enough in accepting applicants is highest, however, among executive and professional workers and their families, with 61 per cent believing stricter controls are necessary, versus only 20 per cent who disagree. Argument is more closely debated in skilled and unskilled labour, with 63 per cent thinking supervision is too lax, and 27 per cent saying it is not. Only 10 per cent of those in the homes of labour are undecided about the issue, compared to 19 per cent among executives and professionals or sales and clerical workers, and 23 per cent among farmers and others.
I now touch on the work ethic. The work ethic in Canada has been destroyed by successive Liberal governments. No wonder it has been destroyed, considering the sorts of statements the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made. For instance, the Prime Minister has said in the past, as reported in the Edmonton Journal of March 20, 1972:
I say that the most sacred law is that a man who lives in society should be able to enjoy his own possibilities to the maximum, but work is perhaps not the way to do it.
If we are lucky, we will move toward a leisure society where we will work less. The aim of man in society is not to work, it is to realize his own potential to the maximum.
Unemployment Insurance Act
He went even beyond this philosophical musing to the point of suggesting that there is nothing wrong with a deliberate decision to collect unemployment insurance rather than work.
"There should be no stigma attached to that. They paid their unemployment insurance premiums," Trudeau said of those who "prefer" not to work.
All this, of course, is pretty strong stuff from the leader of a country whose traditions are still deeply rooted in the work-oriented Protestant ethic.
To the extent that it suggests unemployment is rampant in Canada by the people's choice, it's also downright misleading. The... majority of Canada's . .. unemployed want a job now, and couldn't care less about some future ideal of a leisure society.
I wish to quote from a letter that I received from the vice-president of Firestone Tire & Rubber Company of Canada Limited about the difficulties they are encountering in hiring people to work for their company. I quote:
-our Plant Employment Office interviewed 2,521 potential plant employees for our Hamilton Tire Plant. Of that total, we hired 224 (acceptable candidates who were able to pass our medical examination). As of today's date, there are 110 of these 224 employees who are still working in our plant.
From our experiences, we have noticed a new breed of 'unemployed' person. When answering our newspaper advertisements, many applicants possess one of the following attitudes:
1.	They are content to sit through the interview and be shown the job and then not appear for the mandatory medical examination. We conclude that at least 10-15 per cent of the people tentatively hired refuse to accept the job in this manner.
2.	They are content to appear for the interview and behave in such a manner that would not be acceptable to any company. The candidate actually appears relieved when informed that he does not qualify to fill the job vacancy.
This certainly indicates that the job ethic in this country is deteriorating. He went on to say:
To us, this growing trend towards 'acceptable unemployment' is the direct result of relaxed regulations and attractive unemployment benefits.
How can we as a corporation or our employees as taxpayers cover these rising unemployment costs? As a corporation, we can hope to increase our productivity. But how can we do so when we cannot fill our vacant jobs with responsible people? How can we increase our productivity if we cannot attract applicants and retain them as employees when they can easily receive large sums of money from our government NOT TO WORK?
As for our employees, how can we increase their take-home pay to compensate for these new insurance payments when we are unable to increase our productivity and thus warrant these payroll increases?
It is our considered opinion that immediate action is necessary. We strongly recommend:
1.	The Unemployment Insurance Offices and the Manpower Offices should be integrated.
2.	The eight week qualifying period for insurance benefits should be increased to 20 weeks.
3.	And whereas the currently 20 hours a week in a week qualifies as one of the eight weeks required, this should be increased to 24 times the minimum wage of that jurisdiction concerned.
These last two proposals would eliminate from the Unemployment Insurance Plan some of the people who have only a casual or part-time attachment to the Canadian work force.
They are not only complaining and making suggestions, but attempting to do something about it. I hope the minister will pay particular attention to what I will now read. I think the vice-president has an excellent idea. He stated, and I quote:

October 28, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
Attached, please find a copy of a form letter that we are now using in co-operation with the Hamilton office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It is our intention to work closely with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and assist them and their staff to discover violators and habitual offenders that defraud Canadians of millions of tax-paid dollars.
We sincerely believe that government action should begin immediately. With every company reporting similar information to their local Unemployment Insurance Commission office and revised legislation amending the regulations, maybe then we could eliminate the abusers of the system. A concerted drive must be started at once to clear up this disorder. The time is now to once again elevate the status of the Commission, permitting it once again to assist those Canadians who honestly and deservedly need this assistance. Let's correct our worst energy crisis, "The lack of energy of the unemployment rolls".
I hope the minister will consider contacting all firms across Canada with regard to providing the Unemployment Insurance Commission with this type of information on offenders. Mismanagement of the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been of concern to the official opposition. I wish to give an example of our concern.
Here is a report of a $3.2 million loss in overpayments at an Unemployment Insurance Commission office. I quote:
More than a quarter of the $12.1 million in overpayments by the Unemployment Insurance Commission's Montreal office in the past two fiscal years has not been recovered, Manpower Minister Robert Andras said yesterday.
Overpayments in 1971-72 totalled $2.43 million, and $1.79 million of this was recovered. In 1972-73, overpayments were $9.68 million, of which $7.03 million was recovered.
This makes total overpayments of $12.11 million in the two fiscal years. The total recovered was $8.82 million, leaving an outstanding balance of $3.29 million.
It must be very time consuming and costly to recover these overpayments. That is an example of just one UIC office. If they were all totalled, I wonder what the amount would be.


Robert Knight Andras: It is all in the reports.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I wish to read some comments by a former minister of national revenue, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), made prior to the last election. He stated:
-a Liberal government would amend federal unemployment legislation if re-elected July 8.
"The basic problem is not unemployment insurance, it's unemployment,"-
He went on to say:
-however, because of high unemployment the government "rushed into the program too quickly."
"Admittedly, there are holes we could drive a truck through."
I hope the minister is closing up those large holes. There are further shocking figures with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In 1974 Unemployment Insurance Commission payments made up 1.51 per cent of the gross national product. In 1975 total payments will amount to $4 billion, or 2.72 per cent of the gross national product. In other words, pay-outs will have increased by 186.3 per cent.
Here is where we are getting into trouble. In 1972 it was $1,871,808,000 with a government contribution of $717 million and employer-employee contributions amounting to $1,154 million. Listen to the figures for 1973. The total was $2,004,216,000. The government's contribution came to $573

million and the employer-employee contribution came to $1,431 million. Now for 1974 the figures are staggering. The total was $2,119,212,000, made up of $700 million in government contributions and $1,500 million in employer-employee contributions.
In 1975 it is expected that the total will reach $3,750 million. Of that, $1,750 million will be the government contribution, with $2 billion forthcoming from employer-employee contributions.
In closing, if Bill C-69 goes to committee a concerted effort must be made by the members and the minister to find out how the Unemployment Insurance Commission can be made self-sustaining financially, and not obliged to call continually for increases in premiums which amount to just another tax on the Canadian public.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that my friends on the benches opposite have not taken this sterling opportunity to speak out on this important bill. I am sure Canadians living in their constituencies are every bit as upset and alarmed at this horrible mess called the UIC as are Canadians in constituencies represented by members who support this party.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission can only be called a mess. Indeed that is too gentle a word to describe the operations of this program. If one had to identify any single government program or government action which was more responsible than another for the near defeat of the Liberal party in October, 1972, it would be the Unemployment Insurance Act brought in by the present Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey).
In a sense I suppose I owe the government a vote of thanks because there is no question but that the issue of the Unemployment Insurance Commission made it much easier for me to get elected for the first time in 1972. The famous Unemployment Insurance Commission ski team T-shirts were very much in evidence in my constituency, in the town of Banff as well as on the ski hills. The evidence of rip-offs at the expense of this scheme was very prevalent and known to a large number of people in the constituency and the backlash of that stupid government legislation contributed greatly to my victory in 1972. I should like to think that my victory in 1974 was more attributable to the record of the member in the previous period.
It is too bad it has taken so long for the government to respond by bringing in even these modest amendments to the act. Members opposite did recognize they had created a monster-that the act they had amended in 1970 was, in fact, a monster. The Speech from the Throne in January, 1973, promised amendments, but under the threats of the then leader of the New Democratic Party the government did not feel it could muster sufficient courage to implement that promise, feeling no doubt that though it would cost the Canadian public a few hundred million extra dollars to do so, the Canadian public would willingly pay that sum in order to maintain a Liberal government in office. I am sure that at this point in time the Canadian people, especially after hearing the Thanksgiving Day message, must have second thoughts about this.
October 28, 1975	COMMONS DEBATES	8647
The change which was made removing the limit was, really, a shocking mistake. Removing the limit on the amount the treasury could contribute to the fund opened up frightening possibilities, and many of us in this party regret we did not put up a more vigorous opposition to that particular amendment.
I am sure the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) was paying attention to the remarks of my illustrious colleague from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who very tersely and very concisely offered the minister a number of positive suggestions as to how this bill could be improved. I am sure the hon. gentleman took note of those suggestions and that when the bill goes through the committee there will be a willingness on the part of those opposite to accommodate them. If this is done, the minister's own responsibilities will be that much easier to bear; the Canadian people will be called upon to bear a lesser burden than would otherwise be the case, and we shall all, in short, be a lot better off. I notice the minister is smiling and I take that smile as expressing concurrence in my remarks.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act since this issue is one of great interest to many people in my riding. The Canadian people have now had four years in which to judge the effectiveness of the legislation since the previous amendment in 1971. Indeed, there are a lot more Canadians who are capable of forming opinions about the Unemployment Insurance Commission as a direct result of their own experience. In 1971 unemployment was running at 5.9 per cent, and roughly 495,000 were unemployed. Today, the figure is running at 7.2 per cent and some 800,000 Canadians are clients of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I am sure every member of this House has a dossier full of horror stories which they have received from their constituents in the course of trying to help them work their way through the bureaucratic maze. I am sure, too, that every member can also document cases where individuals are ripping off the system by receiving benefits which are really not due to them, or would not be forthcoming if, in fact, the act were carrying out the purpose for which it was intended. May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, tonight I intend to pursue my question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) of October 27 dealing with the possibility of minting Olympic
Adjournment Debate
commemorative medallions to supplement the drastically sagging sales of Olympic silver coins.
The concern which obviously arises in this connection stems from the fact that private Canadian mints such as the Lombardo mint in Quebec, the Jacques Cartier mint in Toronto, and others which did not get a chance to bid on the commemorative medals were all bypassed by COJO in favour of a Swiss firm whose so-called Canadian subsidiary Suissecon Watch Company Limited is found not to be an incorporated company in either the Dominion of Canada or any of the provinces.
The sad part of the matter is that the example just given is only one of the many ways in which qualified Canadian firms have been effectively shut out and prevented from taking part in the production and development of products for the Olympic Games.
I realize that the government's answer to my request for intervention by the federal government for the benefit of Canadian manufacturers and Canadians in general will be that COJO's business affairs are out of the federal government's jurisdiction. Let me point out, however, that the Olympic coin program is totally under the jurisdiction of the federal government and that the commemorative medal proposals are directly connected with the coin program. Allow me for the sake of clarification to quote, Mr. Speaker, from a coin program tender signed jointly by Gerry Snyder, vice-president/revenue of COJO, and Mr. Austin Page, managing director of the Olympic coin program, directly responsible to the federal government:
A description of the marketing program you are prepared to implement for the distribution and sale of coins and medals in the United States, Canada and overseas. This description should include order of magnitude marketing budgets proposed for each element of the marketing program and estimates of anticipated sales of coins and medals for each element. It should be noted that sales of coins should be restricted to the United States while sale of medals should be worldwide. The organizing committee and the coin program in this respect will develop with you a list of potential international distributors of the official medals.
You would have noted, Mr. Speaker, that reference in the quote is made not only to Olympic coins but to medals as well, which go hand in hand with the coins. There is no question, therefore, that to me this reflects the fact that since the medals and coins are part of the same category under the coin program, which is the sole responsibility of the federal government, it is the economic and moral duty, indeed the obligation, of the federal government to take immediate steps to intervene in COJO's decision to have these and other products manufacted abroad without giving Canadian businessmen a fair opportunity to manufacture them.
This is just one of the many reasons why I have today called upon the government to initiate a full scale public inquiry into the organization and conduct of the 1976 Olympics, in order to reduce any further unnecessary expenditure and so that public confidence in the games will be restored and the games assured of the success Canadians wish them to have.
As I have said, this is just one of the many reasons why an investigation is necessary. The fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) does not even know the man who

October 28, 1975
Adjournment Debate
will head the mammoth security forces, estimated to cost the federal taxpayer $90 million, is another reason. The fact that some maniacal terrorists are planning to use the Olympics as the stage for their political insanities is another reason. The fact that the cost of the games themselves are expected to reach an estimated $1 billion, compared with the original estimate of $310 million, is another. The fact that the direct federal commitments will reach, in my opinion, $250 million before the end of the Olympic Games, is yet another.
For example, I have here figures in a document produced by the immigration department, figures that to this date have not been made public, estimating that $3.2 million is reserved in that department to pay for Olympic immigration over and above the regular budget. The fact that there presently exists six million pieces of finished and unsold silver coins in the vaults of the Mint to the value of approximately $50 million is another reason.
In the time allotted me this evening I do not have time to expound on all the other reasons why it is necessary to have an investigation. The fact of the matter is that the time has come for the federal government to come clean with the people of Canada by making all the obvious irregularities public through an inquiry such as I have proposed; and perhaps even at this late date we as Canadians can end up being proud of hosting the Olympic Games.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the sale of medallions to which the hon. member refers is a project of the committee responsible for the Olympic Games. It is not, I repeat, a federal responsibility.


Otto John Jelinek: You were not listening.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I was listening very carefully, Mr. Speaker, to everything that the hon. member had to say, and I would ask that he would extend to me the same courtesy. The project for the sale of Olympic coins was authorized by a special act of this parliament.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) was consulted from the beginning about the program in respect of the medallions. He was assured there are two separate and distinct programs and that one does not compete with the other. All the expenses of COJO, the committee responsible for the games, and its purchasing policies are directly the responsibility of the co-ordinating committee established for this purpose. I repeat that the federal government does not have jurisdiction or authority to dictate to the committee responsible for the games its policies in this respect. No provision of federal law governing the Olympics applies in this specific situation.


TRANSPORT-DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION THAT COMMISSION PORTS GIVE GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, for the past year I have been drawing the matter of the Surrey container port facilities to the attention of the Minister of Transport. I would hope tonight that the parliamentary secretary would speak directly to the issue of the Scott report and its recommendations, and give us

more than simply departmental generalizations and public relations statements on this matter, because this is a matter of great import to the thousands of people in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
I have spoken to the former minister, in this forum as well as in personal conversation, about the matter, and on a number of occasions he has assured me that the Scott report will be the final answer to the problems of the municipalities as they relate to the commission port facilities across Canada. I have been assured on many occasions that the Scott report will be included in the recommendations and that the commission ports will pay grants in lieu of taxes.
The container port facilities operated by the Fraser River Harbor Commission of New Westminster were opened last December in Surrey. I should first of all compliment the commission on the excellent facilities, on the excellent operation, the very efficient operation and, I might add, the prosperous operation. It is making money. That is something to be commended. When any government operation makes money I think we should stop and take note, especially in contrast to the facilities of the National Harbours Board. As I have said, these facilities were opened last December, almost a year ago now. All we have had in the meantime is a vague assurance that something will be done, that the Scott report will be handed down and that it will be the answer. I should like to point out to the minister what this kind of dalliance means to the taxpayers of Surrey.
I have with me an estimate from the municipal engineer of Surrey concerning what it will cost Surrey to make sure that the access facilities to the container port facility will be up to the standards required. It will have to upgrade a number of roads. There will have to be Robson and Plywood roads with an asphalt overlay at a cost of $40,000. There will have to be 2,100 feet of two roads, Tannery- Scott to Timberland reconstructed at a cost of $125,000. There will have to be 900 feet of Timberland and Old Yale covered with an overlay at a cost of $60,000.
There you have a total cost for the roads alone of $225,000. This is no small item when you consider the soil conditions in the area. They are extremely poor. There is a very high water content and the soil in that area is peat. There is a large engineering cost involved in this project. Since it is a port facility it is obvious that on the low land of the river there will have to be drainage. The reconstruction of the ditch enclosures for these facilities will represent something in the area of $420,000. To bring up the access and drainage facilities will cost $645,000 to the taxpayer of Surrey. So much for the expenses to the taxpayers, but on the other side of the ledger is the revenue that should be accruing to the taxpayer, and there are four pieces of property involved in this facility.
The taxes that should be coming to the municipality of Surrey each year beginning in 1975, followed by the increments, should be $205,851.28. Those are the projected taxes for 1975. When you combine the lost revenue with the projected expenses, you have the total of $850,851.28. This is what it means to the taxpayer of Surrey municipality because this government had made promises and had said
October 28, 1975

recommendations will be coming which would take the pressure off.
If the government is really concerned about equity, justice, and fairness, then I think it will make the recommendations of the Scott report known to the Canadian people and to the Surrey municipality, and will ensure that the government there will receive the tax dollars it deserves so that it can service the facilities it has within its boundaries.
I underscore the fact that we welcome the facilities which are excellent and job producing, but if we want to make them the kind of facilities they should be in terms of services, then it will cost the taxpayer; and if the federal government insists on putting facilities within the boundaries of a municipality which create a burden to the taxpayers, it is only right that it share in the burden of paying for services for those facilities.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I begin let me say that I appreciate hearing the hon. member's kind words about the quality of the facility that has been installed in this case. I hope that in my remarks this evening I will be able to shed a little more light on some of the questions which he has raised.
As the House knows, last June the Scott report recommended that the government pull together the administration of ports in this country into a more unified system. It also recommended that further study be done on the financial administration of ports.
The government has since announced its new policy to create a Canadian ports commission as well as some 25 semi-autonomous local port commissions. This commission would be within the marine administration of the Ministry of Transport, and would have responsibility to exercise the federal mandate for ports, including ports planning, capital development, and financial control. To bring this policy into being, a ports task force has been appointed to prepare instructions for the drafting of new legislation, and to provide answers to a number of financial and organizational questions, including the matter of grants in lieu of taxes.
On the basis of this task force report the government will bring forward a new Canada ports act for consideration by parliament. As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) stated in the House, it is not possible to determine the exact timing of the changes which have to be made, in particular with reference to the changes mentioned by the hon. member. Implementation of the new policy and of the new financial arrangements, however, will immediately follow the passage of the required legislation.


GRAIN-ALLEGATION WHEAT BOARD PUTS EXPORT GRAIN IN NON-BOARD CATEGORY AND DISTRIBUTES TO EASTERN FARMERS BUT NOT WESTERN FARMERS
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, on July 4, 1975, I put a question to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) that dealt with a distribution discrepancy.
Apparently non-board wheat can be made available to eastern farmers but not to those in the west. This has been brought to my attention by several concerned groups in
Adjournment Debate
western Canada. They have stated that they cannot purchase non-board grain at non-board grain prices but what they can purchase is grain from the Wheat Board at Wheat Board prices. However, in the east Wheat Board grain is turned over into the category of non-board grain and the non-board grain sells for considerably less than the Wheat Board grain. This is just one area in which I feel that there is a certain amount of discrimination in regard to the grain situation as it now exists in Canada.
There are several other matters with which I wish to deal in making this brief presentation because there are many areas of dissatisfaction in western Canada, and I should like to mention a few of these this evening. I am aware that in the few moments the hon. gentleman has to respond to what I have to say, he will state that this is not the case, but let me remind hon. members that that is exactly what was stated throughout the 1974 election in regard to wage and price controls. How quickly hon. members opposite change their minds, and how quickly they can change their opinions to suit their personal expediency.
While dealing with this issue I do not just wish to deal with the narrow aspects of it, but I should like to include some other areas in which western people feel they have not received a fair deal in confederation. This feeling has been constant throughout history, and is there any wonder that there is such ill feeling when they in the western regions have been looked upon as a colonial state for the purpose of supporting the golden triangle of Ontario?
Agricultural economies throughout the world have always been poor. Consider the southern hemisphere in all the developing nations. Consider every industrial nation of the world, and where there are within them agricultural regions those are the poor regions, and yet agriculture is the most essential of all industries. Consider Canada. The agricultural regions are poor unless they have some other resource. That has been the history of the prairies and the maritime provinces of this country.
To some Canadians the west has been a source of agitation recently. Some have made the comment that Alberta is trying to get out of confederation. They saw one issue correctly. There is agitation, and there is a feeling of uneasiness, but they read the signs wrongly and gave the wrong interpretation to the facts of the matter. What is really happening is that the west is trying to get into confederation. That is what I hope I can convey through the parliamentary secretary to the minister this evening.
Just to give a bit of an over view on how the regions of this country have been treated by the federal government for the past 100 years, central Canada has had the protection of tariffs. The colonial regions paid more than did central Canada for textiles, automobiles, farm machinery, and manufactured products. This is very nice for central Canada, but the producers see it as pickpocketing. If we are truly a confederation, then the confederation must be two way. If we are to have cheap oil across the country and if we are to have cheaper food products across the country, then the federal government must consider the well being of all of Canada and not just that of central Canada. It must talk of Canada as being a whole nation from sea to sea.
8650

Adjournment Debate
If the government really feels it has been responsive to the regions, then we can ask legitimate questions. I ask hon. members opposite how it was that they accepted the fact that the great depression lasted a full three years longer on the prairies than it did in central Canada?
Let me ask hon. members opposite to justify why western Canada pays twice as much to bring manufactured rapeseed back from Toronto to Lethbridge than it does to ship raw rapeseed per ton from Lethbridge to Toronto? Why is it that iron and steel products from Toronto are cheaper when shipped to Vancouver than when shipped to Saskatoon?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I wish to bring to his attention that although this is a limited debate with regard to time, and although there have been no points of order, I think he still should abide by the rule under Standing Order 42 which says that no matter should be debated during the 30 minutes allowed for the adjournment debate unless notice has been given. The hon. member gave notice of one specific question with regard to grain which is distributed to eastern farmers and not to western farmers. Of course he might relate that to many other differences in the country, but I hope he will come back to the question he raised and of which he has given notice.


Peter Elzinga: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope you do not deduct that from my time. I was dealing with rapeseed, and that is considered a grain. I hope it is appreciated that we must relate these things to various other commodities. If we are to talk about what is good for Canada, let us talk about what is good for all of Canada. These are questions which must be answered. The prairie regions which are agricultural are treated only with crisis concept policies.
Another example is that it is cheaper to ship live western cattle to Ontario and to feed them there with grain which was grown in the west and shipped to the east under subsidy at low rates than to slaughter the cattle in the west and send them east for consumption. That documents another case where industry has been taken away, but according to the federal government it is the business of the west to supply the resources for central Canada and then in turn to be a market for central Canadian industries.
While we are talking about what is good for Canada, let me ask this: why cannot the Wheat Board have its headquarters in western Canada? Why cannot the salt fish committee operate in the maritimes? Why cannot the National Energy Board be based in Calgary since, every time they have a meeting, that is where 80 per cent of the delegates come from? What I am trying to put on the record is the fact that we are not talking about just one issue-but about the whole complexity of how we fit into confederation.


Ralph Goodale: rate issues. If we had heard and been given the benefit of considered and thoughtful discussion of feed grain freight rates beginning at that point in time two years ago, we would have been further along the road to a real solution now.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.
29669-64%

Wednesday, October 29, 1975