1975-10-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. I ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion, namely:
That this House protest the fact that residents of northern Saskatchewan are denied employment, and in particular the unemployed Indians and Metis, by reason of the action being taken by Eldorado Nuclear Limited in Uranium City, by importing 70 Europeans to fill current vacancies in the mine at Uranium City, there being 126 residents located within that immediate area, most of whom have been on the employment waiting list for over a year.
Furthermore that this House calls on Eldorado Nuclear Limited to reverse its refusal to meet with the agencies of the Northern Saskatchewan Employment Committee and to work out appropriate ways of satisfying the company's employment requirements among local unemployed persons.
**


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 this motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of this House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of recent reports of irregularities in the awarding of contracts by the Olympic Organizing Committee, COJO, the most recent being the awarding of a contract for the manufacture of Olympic medallions to a Swiss Firm, SwissCon Canada Ltd., despite the fact that several qualified Canadian firms, including mints in three provinces, had not been asked to submit bids and in view of the federal government's responsibilities in this area arising out of the substantial indirect financial support being provided through the coin and stamp programs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the government to initiate an investigation into the procedures followed by COJO in the awarding of contracts, with special reference to the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the contract for the manufacture of Olympic medallions, and, further that the House instruct the government to withhold further financial support to the Olympics, direct or indirect, until it has been established that the tendering procedures are responsible and fair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to 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.


MUSEUMS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion arising from the opening to be made by the Prime Minister of November 5 of the Raven Gallery of the National Museum of Man here in Ottawa. I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That the Prime Minister advise the House in connection with the official opening on November 5 of the recreation of Skidgate Village from western Canada to be known as the Raven Gallery of the National Museum of Man why none of Canada's native people, particularly the decendants of the original creators of the village, have been included on the invitation list for the opening ceremonies and that the Prime Minister also guarantee the House, first, that this slight will immediately be rectified and, second, that the present plan to hold the opening ceremonies almost entirely in the French language will be changed forthwith to provide for bilingual opening ceremonies in accordance with the government's supposed policy of supporting the principles of the Official Languages Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the continuing dissatisfaction exhibited by the
29669-581/2

October 27, 1975
The Late Gordon Dubroy
employees of the finance section of Air Canada at Winnipeg manifested by their walkout for a study session and their mandate for a strike their membership has given, as well as the fact that the company has been slow to answer the commissioner's report, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the House instruct the Minister of Labour to take immediate steps to have Air Canada deal with the report and make every effort to avert any further labour disputes before a strike occurs.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent for this motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LATE GORDON DUBROY
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the question period, hon. members, I hope, will bear with me while I report to them the rather tragic news of the death last night in an Ottawa hospital of Gordon Dubroy. As I had indicated earlier, there was every intention, following Mr. Dubroy's retirement last spring, to honour him at the opening of parliament on October 14. He had accepted our invitation to come here and to receive what we know would have been glowing tributes paid to him by all parties in the House.
I intend to speak personally, in attempting on your behalf to somehow describe the affection and respect in which this former servant of the House of Commons was held, by saying that when I was first elected to this very honoured position, I made a personal request that he postpone his retirement in order that my first year in this office be supported by his expertise, his advice and counsel. He was good enough to do that, I think, for two reasons: first of all, because of his interest in seeing as good a performance from any Speaker as possible, and he knew that his advice would be of some assistance; and second, I think, because although he was eligible at the time for retirement, he wanted to continue to play the active and important role that he had played in advising all of us on procedures of the House. Therefore, he stayed on, much to the betterment of the performance of the incumbent in this office and much to the betterment, of course, of the precedures of parliament during that time.
He had spent some 35 years in the service of the House of Commons, and I know that he will be deeply missed by all of us. I hope I have somehow adequately expressed on your behalf the regret that we feel. May I ask all hon. members to rise and observe one minute of silence as a tribute to him.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, but before I do, I should like to say that I am pleased to see him back in the House despite the reports of ill health over the weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I may presume to give a little advice, I suggest that the Postmaster General not make too many demands upon his health, and ultimately he will come to the same conclusion I did: that there is no one who is really indispensable.
I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether upon resuming negotiations the union has accepted what has appeared to be a condition imposed by the Treasury Board and those negotiating on behalf of the government that the union should accept the conciliation board report with regard to salaries and salary ranges before there be any further negotiation of the other elements in dispute.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his kind wishes and remind him that there is a saying with which the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert will agree, and that is that only the good die young, so I take solace from that.


Mr. Fairweather:: I think you'd better take the rest of the afternoon off.


An hon. Member:: You'll live to be a hundred.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Negotiations resumed today at two o'clock. We have agreed to negotiate in whatever order or fashion the union thinks preferable. I must remind the House that we do not have the right to lock workers out. Whether or not the union felt that we had delivered an ultimatum that was hardly a reason for calling a strike. In any event since we are prepared to negotiate money later on rather than immediately, it goes without saying that the sum of $1.70 for 30 months is something the union may or may not be able to eventually negotiate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Are the government negotiators no longer taking the position that the union has to accept this wage package before negotiating other questions?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We are also taking the position that $1.70 for 30 months is not necessarily automatically available in so far as the workers are concerned, and depending on other issues they could conceivably end up with a much lesser sum of money.
October 27, 1975


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-POSSIBILITY OF RETURN TO WORK AS PREREQUISITE OF NEGOTIATIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the government advised the union that a return to work order is a prerequisite to continuing negotiations in good faith?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There are many workers who want to go back to work and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia is an example. Provided their democratic right to work is not interfered with by goons, I suspect many people will go back to work on their own.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION-SETTLEMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government decided on the length of time that the postal strike will be allowed to go on with or without continuing negotiations before back to work legislation will be introduced? If so, what is the length of time?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A supplementary question. Is it still the position of the government that any settlement reached in the current negotiations will be subject to the approval of the Anti-Inflation Board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that will be the law as soon as this legislation has been approved by this parliament.


NATIONAL SECURITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Considering that during the course of a CBC television program last night, Premier Bourassa and the Hon. Eric Kierans, who was a member of the federal cabinet in 1970, said that at the time of the invocation of the War Measures Act five years ago there was not at that time an apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec, and considering that the act in question led to the most serious denial of basic civil liberties for many Canadians, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in view of those serious statements by responsible people directly involved, if, with the provision of this new information the government would, under the Inquiries Act, bring about an investigation into the causes and justification for the invocation of the War Measures Act in October, 1970?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, by way of reply may I read one or two sentences from the letter written to the Prime Minister of Canada by the Premier of Quebec on October 16, 1970:
Oral Questions
The Quebec government is convinced that such powers are necessary to meet the present emergency. Not only are two completely innocent men threatened with death, but we are also faced with an attempt by a minority to destroy social order through criminal action; it is for those reasons that our government is making the present request.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the reading of that quotation deals not one whit with the question I asked-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It does not at all even though a particular minister of the Crown may think it does. I would refer to the point that apparently Mr. Bourassa said something quite different last night than was written then, and perhaps verbally even said something different at the time. I know not. Considering the statements made last night by the Premier of Quebec, and considering also the statement made in the House of Commons by the then minister of justice on October 16, recorded at page 215 of Hansard as follows:
It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.
Given that expressed desire by the minister of justice at the time and the lapse of a five year period, I should like to repeat the question to the Acting Prime Minister: would the government not now consider making the full inquiry that is possible only within the terms of the Inquiries Act?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the government's intention. I should say to the hon. gentleman, however, that at the time the government did indicate its desire to have a better instrument for dealing with crises and emergencies in peace time other than the War Measures Act, and it is still the intention of the government to bring forward a measure of that kind for consideration by parliament.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Acting Prime Minister saying that, notwithstanding the expressed desire of the then minister of justice and, if I remember correctly, other ministers of the Crown at the time, that after a period of time elapsed there was a desire to provide full details which presumably would have justified the government's action, the government does not under any circumstances plan to conduct such an inquiry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to answer a question which says "under any considerable circumstances" but it is not the intention now of the government to have such an inquiry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You can bet your life on that one.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.

October 27, 1975
Oral Questions
Because of the increasing cost of the Olympic Games facilities and the enormous deficits that will accumulate and fall back on the shoulders of the Montreal ratepayers, can he tell the House whether he intends to introduce measures to lessen that burden?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: No,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Beaudoin@: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
As the Olympic Games are national in character, whether we want to or not, and as their image reflects on the whole country, can the minister give the House the assurance that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that Messrs. Jean Drapeau, mayor of Montreal, and Robert Bourassa, premier of Quebec, for whom the Olympic Games have become a matter of personal prestige, are required to give a public explanation of the situation, so that the public can know what is really going on, and more specifically to say what they intend to do about the deficits incurred through the construction of the Olympic site?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government has indicated to the House what steps it was prepared to take with regard to the Olympic Games, and what share of the financial burden it is willing to assume. We have no other assurance to give in that regard.


ALLEGED SURVEILLANCE OF WORKERS BY RCMP- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a last supplementary to put to the Solicitor General.
In view of the general trend which the Olympic Games seem to take, can he tell us by what right and by virtue of what principle the agents of the Montreal police force and some federal officers, accompany and watch the Olympic site workers to make sure that the deadlines are met, thus creating a totally abnormal situation? Would he also tell us whether he is willing to advise the Quebec Minister of Justice of the incomprehensible behaviour on the part of those policemen towards the Olympic Games site workers?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know we have no responsibility for that matter.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the increasing public awareness of the situation at Mirabel, does the minister now feel that he is fully briefed and in a position to confirm that investigations are being carried out with respect to certain aspects of the airport, and is he also able to say whether any of the consultant fees have been held up pending results of any investigations?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think often the public is aware of a falsely reported rumour concerning Mirabel rather than facts and, certainly, a good deal of what was depicted last night was not founded on fact. I have been adequately briefed and am able to confirm that to hon. members. Also, one often hears loose talk, since any time anybody voices a complaint a certain kind of investigation follows that complaint, however ill-founded it may be. That, in itself, amounts to very little. I know of no truth to the allegation regarding consultants' fees to which the hon. member referred.


MIRABEL-CONFORMATION OF RUNWAYS TO ICAO STANDARDS-DIFFICULTIES WITH PASSENGER TRANSFER VEHICLES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer. Can he assure the House that Mirabel runway designs and specifications conform with Annex 14 which, as the minister knows, dictates the requirements for ICAO operational safety standards. Also, can he confirm that severe operational difficulties are already becoming apparent with respect to the 14 passenger transport vehicles purchased for Mirabel against the advice of many knowledgeable people.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there was a well publicized difficulty about a vehicle which contained important guests, but I think it was a matter of somebody not knowing which switch to pull at the right time. I can confirm to hon. members that not only do the runways conform to ICAO standards; they conform to the much higher standards which Canada ordinarily applies. I was informed of that firmly during tight cross-examination this morning.


MIRABEL-ROLE OF DEPARTMENT IN DESIGNING RUNWAYS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I gave notice. Did the Ministry of Transport staff do the design and engineering work for Mirabel airport runways, aprons and taxiways.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, they did a good deal of that work, but I should want to be very specific about specific jobs. I understand that the Ministry of Transport did about a third of the design, in the over-all operation of the airport. I think the design was heavily related to the airport's runways and taxiways.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister can explain why the official BANAIM list of consultants shows the Department of Transport as the only agency involved in the design of runways, aprons and taxiways.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my earlier reply that I should be glad to check specifically whether anybody else was involved. They were certainly heavily involved in that particular work. If the hon. member will give me a bit of time, I will check and confirm whether they were actually totally involved and no one else was

October 27, 1975

involved in any part of the consultation in relation to them. That is the only limitation I would make in my answer.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of earlier questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party. The Prime Minister is reported as having stated that unless the so-called voluntary restraints provided under the bill now before the House are effective, the government intends to take stern measures. Having regard to the fact that there is this war legislation which was improperly invoked in 1970 and the Prime Minister says that the government has in mind stern legislation, will the Acting Prime Minister advise whether it is something in the nature of the War Measures Act which will deny civil liberties when there is an infraction on the part of those who do not live entirely within the provisions of the bill now before parliament when it becomes law?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we hope this will not be necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: If it is necessary to strengthen the controls that are included in the bill that is now before parliament, it will be the intention of the government-and I of course hope this will not happen-to introduce another piece of legislation. The government would not depend upon the War Measures Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer leaves a lot unanswered. I simply ask him this: Having regard to the fact that the bill now before the House does pretty well insofar as those covered by it are denied their civil rights, will the minister advise whether if that is not sufficient, the government has a measure already drafted and considered whereby measures equivalent to those permitted under the War Measures Act will be brought into effect.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. member knows, under the War Measures Act, it is possible in these circumstances to supplant parliament. During wartime, nearly all the control legislation was enacted under the War Measures Act. The government has no intention of anything of this kind. If it is desirable to beef up the controls, that will be done by this parliament.
Oral Questions FINANCE


POSSIBILITY OF ACTION TO RESTRICT GROWTH IN MONEY SUPPLY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the United States government has achieved such satisfactory results in reducing inflation by restricting the annual increase in the money supply to between 5 per cent and 7>/2 per cent, is the government considering a policy of keeping the annual rate of increase of our money supply to a comparable range of increase, at least until the rate of inflation has been reduced to a satisfactory level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there are really two separate questions here. The first is restricting the rate of increase in the money supply and, second, setting out in advance the specific rate to which the increase will be kept. With regard to the first part, as indicated in the announcement of the Governor of the Bank of Canada in September, there will be an effort to restrict the rate of increase in the money supply. While from month to month there may be variations in this, the long run goal over a year will be to have a very much less substantial increase. I am advised, for example, that the effects in the payment system caused by the postal strike this month will produce an increase in the money supply. However, it is anticipated that over the year, the rate of increase will be reduced.
On the second point as to whether a specific goal will be announced in advance, this has been much discussed at length both here and in the United States. I gather there is some debate as to the soundness of the policy adopted by the federal reserve system. At the moment, the government is not advocating such a statement, although the American experience is being closely watched.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour based on commitments that both the Prime Minister and the minister made to workers in Winnipeg who have been laid off from the CPR shops. In view of the commitments that both gentlemen made to these workers last week to the effect that they would look into the matter to see what could be done, is there anything the minister can now say with regard to the reinstatement in their employment of these 760 railway workers?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Nothing specific at the moment, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is quite correct. I said, as did the Prime Minister, that we will look into the situation and try to come up with some curative for what is obviously a very serious situation causing hardship to a good number of people. I discussed this with the Minister of Manpower. I hope to have further discussions this week with my colleagues, including the

October 27, 1975
Oral Questions
Minister of Transport, on the question. I hope to be more specific later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that telegrams from representatives of these unemployed railway workers were sent last night or this morning to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport, can we be assured that these telegrams will be answered as quickly as possible?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. PIERRE BERNARD COUSTE, VICE-PRESIDENT OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of members of the House, I should like to call their attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished delegation from the European Parliament, headed by their leader, the Hon. Pierre Bernard Couste, Deputy Speaker of the European Parliament.

In calling attention to the presence of this very distinguished delegation in the gallery, I want to indicate that this is the first occasion since our pronounced intention to strengthen our bonds with the European Parliament that we have been honoured by a national delegation from the European Parliament. They will be here for several days. We will make every effort to make them feel as welcome among us as they made our delegates feel on their side of the ocean. We will certainly do everything possible to foster the spirit of friendship and co-operation between our two parliaments.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Communications. Has the minister been made aware of the request of the B.C. School Trustees Association, transmitted by letter to the Minister of Communications on October 6, 1975, that the federal government's educational technology program be reinstated and, if so, what consideration has been given this request?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to check into this and report back to the hon. member.


PUBLISHING
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What steps has the minister taken to protect Canadian authors whose works are published in the United States and sold in Canada without the author or the Canadian publisher being entitled to either royalty or commission? This matter was first raised some months ago and the minister promised action. Have any charges been laid?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this question was discussed several months ago. The Minister of National Revenue then issued some guidelines to cope with the situation. We had been asked, if you remember, that an amendment be brought to the legislation. I had rejected that suggestion leaving to understand that the consumers' interest should prevail and that it was not the best solution. I think that some administrative action has been taken by the Department of National Revenue to solve some aspects of the matter.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that just last week the situation had not been remedied and authors were suffering because of this, what steps has the minister taken to end what is clearly an illegal and immoral situation.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the conclusions reached by the hon. member. I will not say this is news to me. Until I have a little more thorough grasp of the situation, I would not like to commit myself.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the Minister of Transport up north for a few minutes. Will the minister give some indication as to the intention of his department with regard to the closing of the Arctic to Canadian vessels for the purpose of extractive industries? I ask this in light of the discovery by Panarctic of what appears to be a commercial amount of oil, their intention to deliver that oil by vessel and against the background of their having gone to Europe for planning and technology with regard to ships with a northern capability of removing this oil. What are we doing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have a couple of efforts underway. One is in relation to the development of ice-breaking cargo vessels. We
October 27, 1975

are in the final stages of a decision with regard to one leg of that. In addition, we have been continuing some advance feasibility studies in relation to far northern ice breaking capability of ice breakers of a new and very superior kind. Of course, the next steps in that regard will take some time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Perhaps I could put the question more directly to the minister. Can he tell us whether or not it is the intention of the government to close the Arctic to Canadian ships and Canadian crews for the purpose of removing extractive oils and minerals which are there?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of such a suggestion.


J. Michael Forrestall: One final supplementary question. Would the minister kindly have a conversation with the former minister to see whether he can learn something about the protection which is required with respect to the north? I ask the minister very seriously whether or not he has advised himself of the practicalities and of the past commitments by the government with respect to the closing of the Arctic, the high Arctic, those waters above 60 degrees north parallel, for the purpose of removing Canadian ores and Canadian oils by Canadian ships?


Otto Emil Lang: My difficulty is that the hon. member is now asking whether we are proposing to close the Arctic to Canadian ships, and I am not sure if we are on the same wavelength.
  
*


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the President of the Treasury Board, wherever he has gone. In his absence, however, I am prepared to put it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the National Joint Council over the weekend dealing with the implementation of the controversial Phase II of the bilingualism program for the public service, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether the government is now prepared to approve the position taken by the National Joint Council that no part of that program is to be implemented unless and until there has been full consultation with the staff associations, and is the government through the President of Treasury Board prepared to make a statement in the House with respect to this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member himself has said, we have received these representations and I will see whether it will be possible for a reply to be made to Members of the House.
Oral Questions


IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASE II-REASON DECISION TO PAY BONUSES FOR SECOND LANGUAGE NOT ANNOUNCED
Walter David Baker: Again to the Acting Prime Minister. As part of the implementation program the government has devised a scheme whereby financial bonuses will be paid to employees based on second language skills. Would the minister please inform the House why this decision, which was apparently made by cabinet on April 17, 1975, was never communicated to parliament and whether it is now the intention of the government to proceed with this program, one which provides for subjective testing and could lead to misunderstandings and unfairness in the public service? If the Acting Prime Minister is not prepared to deal with this matter today, could he arrange to have a statement on motions made in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would say to the hon. member that the program which has been put in hand is one which is in accordance with the declarations and statements of policy which have been made in this House.


Walter David Baker: In view of the statement just made by the Acting Prime Minister, perhaps I should inform him that that is precisely why the National Joint Council had to meet-because the decision was not in accordance with the declarations made by this House in June of 1973. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister should inform himself of the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: That is a matter of opinion.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. Is the government satisfied with the accuracy of the devices used for measuring pollution around the Syncrude project in the Athabasca tar sands?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for this particular area is definitely that of the Alberta government. However, because of the expertise we have gained in the administration of the Clean Air Act, the Alberta government has asked us to review a study prepared by Syncrude. We indicated at the time that we are dissatisfied with this study which did not comply with our requirements as to possible pollution hazards, and we informed the Alberta government of our point of view. Moreover, in order to help this government meet the conditions which are indispensable to protect the atmosphere, we have agreed with the Alberta government to carry out a study of the environment hazards resulting from the planned development of the Athabasca oil sands. This study may cost up to $40 million. The cost will be shared equally by the Alberta

October 27, 1975
Oral Questions
government and the federal government, over a period of five years.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It concerns a recent release by his department of a report with respect to the air disaster at Rae Point in the Arctic last year. In view of the fact that the report places the blame for the accident on the pilot in charge of the flight and in view of the fact that this same pilot was classified as qualified to fly the Queen in the Arctic in the summer of 1969- although he did not, in fact, do so because his aircraft was unserviceable-would the minister take immediate steps to see that a full public inquiry is made into this disaster?


Otto Emil Lang: I would not wish to associate myself with specific words which seek to determine where blame should be placed. I think I would rely upon the report as having spoken for itself and put the matter rather more technically: as far as transport safety is concerned we are satisfied with what has come out during the investigation and what we can learn about flying in remote areas. There are, of course, other proceedings going on at which further matters can be raised and dealt with and at this point in time I would think those proceedings would be adequate.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is one for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who expressed his satisfaction to the House last week when reporting that his department will continue to develop in spite of restraints, and his hope that there would be further expansion. I should like to ask the minister whether, since assuming his portfolio, he has found it possible to address himself to the situation affecting British Columbia where the program has never worked, and particularly to the problem of the inability to sell the program to that particular provincial government?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that, although we did face some difficulties in our negotiations prior to the signature of the agreement, since then negotiations that have taken place on the contingent signature of an auxiliary agreement have followed their normal course and we hope to be able to take part in the next few months with the local government of British Columbia in some projects which are considered as top

priority by the two governments and which are now under consideration.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and in his absence I will refer it, if I may, to the Acting Prime Minister. Bearing in mind that United States courts will render a decision this week establishing a precedent that may be followed in Canada concerning the rights of parents to discontinue the preservation of a child's life by artificial means when that child has suffered irreversible brain damage and is in a comatose state, will the Minister of Justice give immediate consideration to directing the Law Reform Commission to immediately study and report at their earliest convenience on this matter involving the right to life and the extent of the duty to preserve it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we will give this representation consideration.


SUGGESTED DEFERRAL OF INCOME TAX ON ADJUSTMENT PAYMENTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board on October 17 to a question put to him by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, stating that he was looking into the question of allowing producers to elect to defer income tax on adjustment payments on grain sales prior to October 9, would the minister advise whether he has made a decision, and will he bring in the necessary legislation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it was not in my mind at that stage that this involved a question of legislation, but a question as to whether under the existing law it might be possible to act in a certain way to produce that result for at least certain of the producers who would want that. We have been conducting discussions, particularly with the Department of National Revenue, in that connection, but these discussions are not yet completed.
October 27, 1975

Oral Questions


MANPOWER
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Once a municipality has a LIP project accepted, can the minister tell the House whether this municipality may invite tenders and ask a private contractor to execute the project?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that is not in the potential operation of the program. We designed this as an antiunemployment program and the purpose is to hire people who otherwise would not find employment, and I would find that practice unacceptable.


FINANCE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. At the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-73, I asked the Minister of Finance about the government's intention with regard to constraints on its own spending and I got the usual meaningless answer about the matter being in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board. I now ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government, before the debate on Bill C-73 is concluded at all stages in parliament, to indicate with precision precisely the extent to which it is prepared to make sacrifices in order that it will show an example for the rest of Canada?


Mr. Chretien:: Read the budget of June.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will be possible to cross all the t's and dot all the i's before the estimates are presented to parliament at the usual time. I do know that the particular cuts announced in the budget in June have gone into effect.


Gerald William Baldwin: They were not cuts.


Mitchell William Sharp: There will be more coming. I would like to say in defence of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, that he is the toughest man we have had in this job for a long time.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), I want to put a question to the Minister of the Environment.
Can the minister assure the House and the nation in a non equivocal way that the vessels whose task is to guard and protect our fishing resources will keep on doing their job without interruption or reduction, that is in their usual way, in the days and months to come, in spite of the restrictions announced lately by the government.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, we have never shrunk from our duty to protect fishermen and the areas where they are entitled to fish.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In light of the answer given by the minister, I should like to ask her how she can reconcile this answer with the fact that there is only one patrol boat on the west coast although there are 19 foreign fishing boats, Polish, Japanese, Korean and Russian boats, within the zone limit.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably thinks that one vessel is not enough to control 19 boats. Nevertheless, the Minister responsible for this control should decide how many boats are necessary in the circumstances.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that there is now a differential in freight rates of 43 cents per bushel box of apples in favour of Washington State over the Okanagan Valley shipping to Toronto or Montreal, and in view of the fact that this differential has to be absorbed by the apple grower at the farm gate, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture what action he has taken to answer the request of the apple growers of the Okanagan Valley to help in equalizing these rates?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: None at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTION TAX REMOVAL BE APPLICABLE TO USED FARM MACHINERY
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question as well to the Minister of Agriculture. I noted during the course of the summer that

October 27, 1975
Oral Questions
there was a special tax to be taken off new machinery purchased by farmers. In view of the representation or suggestion that failure to remove it in respect of used machinery will discriminate against small farmers and devalue used farm machinery, will the minister give consideration to having that same tax relief applied to used as well as new machinery?


Eugene Whelan: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


AIR CANADA
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, over the past three years there has been continuous labour unrest at the finance branch of Air Canada in Winnipeg. I have raised this matter in the House on numerous occasions, bringing it to the attention of the present Minister of Labour and the former Minister of Transport, neither of whom was able to solve the job description and job security issues. Will the minister investigate this three year old problem to see whether he can negotiate a satisfactory solution between Air Canada and its finance employees before they go on strike? Perhaps he might consider tabling the Estey report on the investigation he conducted into these problems of the finance branch, thus assisting all members on both sides of the House to perhaps help find a solution to this problem.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly see what I can do to find a solution to this problem. Of course, the Estey report cannot be made public until it is translated and printed, and that will require some time.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of Olympic coin sales falling badly behind schedule and the intention to mint and distribute cheaper Olympic medallions, will the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that these or any other medallions for the purpose of raising funds for the Olympic games will be minted in Canada and not by a Swiss firm which has already received the go ahead by COJO?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know all the implications of the hon. member's question, but obviously COJO will have to comply with the policies established by Parliament regarding the financing of the Olympic Games. If that decision is not covered by the act, it will have to be considered.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Revenue but he has left the Chamber.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, during the recess the Minister of State for Science and Technology released a report by Mr. Robert Grasley on the availability of risk capital for technological innovation. In view of the many important and very valid recommendations and observations contained in this report, will the minister give an indication to the House as to the disposition of the report and any government action that will or has resulted from it?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the report having been translated was published with a view to seeking public comment. We are now in the process of receiving those comments, and when a reasonable time has elapsed the proposals, if any, will be made by the government.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in order that this very well done study which contains a number of very important recommendations does not end up gathering dust on the shelf, as many other similar government reports have in the past, would the minister consider referring the report to an appropriate standing committee of the House with the reference that it develop a plan of action for the implementation of the recommendations in this report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give consideration to that representation, but I think it is perhaps a little early yet to do that.


Mr. Nystrom:: I notified you last week, Mr. Speaker, of my intention to raise a question of privilege. Unfortunately, however, the Prime Minister again could not be here. With respect to the Prime Minister, I want to defer that question until he returns tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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 ques-
October 27, 1975

tions will be answered today: 2,304, 2,816, 3,010, 3,091, 3,158, 3,161 and 3,166.


Mr. Towers: 1.	What guidelines are applied in the procurement of antiques and Canadiana by Heritage Canada, the National Museum of Man or any other government agency or department for public viewing?
2.	At what level are decisions made as to the choice of such purchases?
3.	Are export permits required to sell antiques and Canadiana beyond Canadian borders and, if so (a) on what basis (b) on how many occasions have such restrictions been imposed?
4.	Does the government compete with bids received by dealers and/or individuals, for instance, from the United States, for antiques and Canadiana?
5.	Is there a maximum amount allowed for the purchase of any single item by the government when attempting to retain these in Canada and, if so, what is such amount?
6.	Does the government automatically purchase such items when their export is prevented and, if not, what incentives are there for vendors to retain antiques or Canadiana rather than sell to the higher foreign bidder?
7.	(a) What protection does the antique dealer or individual have if he is denied the right to export to a prospective purchaser outside Canada (b) is the right to export denied only because the government will purchase the item or items in question?
8.	Is emphasis centered on any specific region of Canada when purchasing antiques or Canadiana such as the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario or the Western Provinces and, if not, does the government make periodic assessments of the proportion of such displays representing each area?
9.	By what means is the government assured that each province is represented on an equitable basis in federal museums or other displays?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned: 1. Procurement of antiques and Canadiana by the National Historic Parks and Sites Branch of Parks Canada is confined to the acquisition of artifacts required for the period furnishing of structures which have been declared of national historic significance on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
2.	Recommendations for procurement are made by the curator qualified in the pertinent field of expertise. Approval for acquisition is made at the appropriate level of financial responsibility.
3.	The Secretary of State is sponsoring legislation relating to the export of antiques and Canadiana.
4.	Yes.
5.	No, each individual item is assessed on its own merits.
6.	See reply to 3 above.
7.	See reply to 3 above.
8.	No.
9.	National Historic Parks and Sites are in operation and/or under development in all the provinces and territories.
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State and the National Museums of Canada are concerned: 1. On
Order Paper Questions
behalf of the National Museums of Canada and its component museums and institutions (the National Gallery of Canada, the National Museum of Man, the National Museum of Natural Sciences, the National Museum of Science and Technology and the Canadian Conservation Institute): the guidelines are extensive and vary according to the different requirements of each institution and according to the nature of the article to be purchased; on major purchases curators with expertise in the relevant period examine the article to be purchased or outside expert advice is considered before purchase.
2.	On behalf of the National Museums of Canada and its component museums: decisions are made by several senior officials and others, according to the circumstances and amount of funds required.
3.	At the present time export permits are not required. Until such time as Bill C-33 is proclaimed there are no restrictions.
4.	On behalf of the National Museums of Canada and its component museums: Yes.
5.	On behalf of the National Museums of Canada and its component museums: no, only availability of funds at the time limits maximum to be spent on approved items.
6.	The answer to the first part of the question is no, not at the present time. The Emergency Purchase Fund is used to purchase heritage items in danger of leaving the country.
7.	The question does not apply.
8.	On behalf of the National Museums of Canada and its component museums: the board of trustees, through the director of each national museum, continually attempts to ensure that the museum collections are balanced and representative within the limitations of the budget. Artifacts in the museums are categorized in many ways including by place of origin.
9.	On behalf of the National Museums of Canada and its component museums: we try to assure this representation by appointments to the board of trustees, to the consultative committee and to other advisory committees of Canadians from all across Canada. In the allocation of grants we are careful always to consult the appropriate provincial official. Above all the Secretary General of the National Museums of Canada and the directors of the component museums are conscious that they are administering a federal institution.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Was an authority for expenditure bearing reference number YYZKK-02-74 dated January 3, 1974, processed in the amount of $1,204,216 of funds, paid to the Department of Transport for rental of space in Terminal II of the Toronto International Airport and, if so, was this approved and authorized according to regular financial control procedures and authorized by the proper official of Air Canada?
2.	At the time in question, was any conclusive and accurate determination of the space and facilities in question detailed in the form of a lease, or was this payment merely "on account" in lieu of regular formal arrangements?
3.	In the interim, have precise negotiated rates been formalized in the form of a lease and, if so, what is the monthly rental currently being paid by Air Canada for space in Terminal II?

October 27, 1975
Order Paper Questions
4.	Is such rental in accordance with rates being charged other tenants?
5.	How does the rate per sq. ft. compare with that paid by other airlines?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. An Air Canada authority for expenditure bearing reference number 37-727-02 was raised in accordance with regular financial procedures in January, 1974 for the amount of $1,204,216 to cover interim rental billing from the Ministry of Transport for Air Canada's occupancy of Toronto Terminal II. Because the terms and conditions of the lease were found to be not acceptable, the AFE was not approved and the payment not made.
2. A detailed lease was being negotiated at that time describing the space and facilities in question.
The Ministry of Transport advises as follows: 3. Yes. Rental is $109,364 per month.
4.	Yes.
5.	Rates per square foot are on the average of 17 per cent higher than those paid by other airlines in Terminal Building I.


Mr. Huntington: Since 1968, has Mr. Pierre Des Marais II, Director of Telemedia (Quebec) Ltd. been or is he a member, officer, director or in any way whatsoever associated with (a) a Crown corporation (b) the government (c) a department, agency, advisory board, council or committee and, if so (i) what position did he or does he hold (ii) with what corporation, department, agency, advisory board, council or committee (iii) between what dates (iv) was the position attained by appointment, contest, promotion or through a personnel agency (v) if by appointment, by whom or by what authority was he appointed?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Ministry of Transport and the Business Advisory Council, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: Mr. Pierre Des Marais II is: (i) Member, (ii) Board of Directors of Air Canada, (iii) December 15, 1969, to date, (iv) Elected and re-elected by the shareholders, (v) By the shareholders of the corporation at the annual meeting of December 15, 1969 and again on May 27, 1975.
The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Mr. Pierre Des Marais II is: (i) Director, (ii) Canadian National Railways, (iii) November 7, 1969, to date, (iv) Appointed, (v) By the Governor in Council. At the invitation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce Mr. Paul Des Marais II was a member of the minister's Business Advisory Council from January 1968 to December 1970.


Mr. Beatty: 1. Since 1970, has (a) Statistics Canada (b) the Department of National Revenue received any requests from third parties (i) within (ii) outside the government for personally identifiable information about individuals which was collected from those individuals under

the threat of penalties for failure to disclose the information to the government?
2. In each case, what was the response of Statistics Canada or the Department of National Revenue to such requests?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. (a) and (b) (i) Yes; (ii) Yes.
2. The response from Statistics Canada in each case was that unless permitted under Section 16 of the Statistics Act, the confidentiality of identifiable information is guaranteed by law and accordingly all such requests were denied. No records are maintained in the Department of National Revenue which would provide the information necessary to answer this part of the question. However, as a matter of general policy, (a) information is provided to other federal agencies and provincial governments in accordance with legal entitlements, (b) Identifiable information concerning individuals is not provided to third parties outside government except in cases of subpoenas from competent courts in criminal matters and in cases of information exchange with governments of other countries under reciprocal income tax treaties.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the budget of the Commissioner of Official Languages for (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974?
2.	How many employees worked directly for the Commissioner in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 and, in each case, how many (i) were bilingual (ii) had English as their mother tongue (iii) had French as their mother tongue?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be put to him directly.


Mr. Reynolds: Is there a back log of heroin and other drug cases in the courts of British Columbia and, if so, will the Minister advise what action he plans to take to solve this problem?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Yes, and the Minister of Justice is reviewing the matter as a priority item with legal officers of the Department of Justice with a view to determining the necessary measures required to rectify the problem.
-<	FARRIS REPORT


Mr. Reynolds: Does the Solicitor General have a copy of the Farris report in his possession and, if so, on what date will it be tabled in the House of Commons?


William Warren Allmand: Yes. As indicated by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries in a press release issued on June 13, 1975, criminal court proceedings are in progress in respect of this occurrence and three inmates are charged with non-capital murder. He also
October 27, 1975

indicated that it was his intention to eventually publish the report of the Commission of Inquiry except for information affecting employees personally as well as the security of penitentiaries, once the matters now before the court have been resolved.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Knight 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. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to stand up before I do?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) will really be very angry if I get my licks in first. I am sure he will have some constructive and other types of measures to suggest.
The bill before us which is designed to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act is one that deserves very serious consideration. The basic act provides short-term income support to unemployed workers while facilitating their quick re-employment. In this way, and in addition to that very important need of personal and individual help, the program assists in the proper functioning of the labour market, the stabilization of the economy, particularly in times like these, and the redistribution of income where it is needed.
Since the labour market is constantly subject to change and adjustment, as the needs of the economy and the composition of the working population alter, the act will be subject to adjustment in order to respond smoothly and effectively to those changes. I think that is doubly important when one considers the great significance of the amount of the transfer funds committed to this program, of which we are all aware.
I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is conducting a comprehensive review of this legislation and its administration to ensure that the policy remains responsive to our needs. In July, of course, the government introduced the bill before us, Bill C-69, based on the first results of that comprehensive review. Bill C-69 is intended to complement measures outlined in the June 23 budget and is in accordance with our efforts to provide a more rational allocation of government resources. It has been developed to reflect the spirit of the 1971 act and to contribute to the achievement of one of the fundamental objectives of the ongoing social security review which is to rationalize the various schemes of income maintenance in this country. At the same time, the amendments are directed toward improving the influence of the act on the relationship
Unemployment Insurance Act
between supply and demand of workers and, in addition, to deal with some of the inequities and complexities in the act.
I should like to emphasize that the changes contained in this bill which is being presented to parliament are the results of the first findings of our review of the legislation. However, as is proper with a program of such significance, this comprehensive examination is continuing, particularly in relationship to two parallel policy developments. I mentioned one, the over-all harmonization of all our social security programs. The other is the evolution of an integrated and more comprehensive manpower policy.
We may determine that further changes will become necessary, which we will present to this House. For the present, in this bill we propose the following amendments. First, to double the maximum period of disqualification from benefits for claimants who leave their employment voluntarily, without good cause, and for those who refuse suitable employment or who are dismissed for misconduct. Under the existing act, as hon. members will recall, there is a maximum three-week period, which now will be increased in the measures contained in Bill C-69 to a maximum of six weeks. This means that, added to the mandatory two-week waiting period for all claimants, this could result in a maximum period of eight weeks in which no benefits are paid to disqualified claimants.
This amendment is being made because the number of disqualifications based on voluntary quits has been running at an alarmingly high average of approximately 250,000, plus, per year. Job refusals accounted for what could amount to an annual rate of 26,000 for the first six months of 1975. These trends have been developing in spite of high unemployment and a low ratio-a descending ratio-of job vacancies to the number of unemployed workers. To us, these facts indicate that the present period of disqualification has not been effective and needs to be increased.
We realize, and the commission recognizes, that people very definitely have the right to improve their situation and a right to secure better jobs. We do not intend to penalize those who presently want, and are seeking, work. Claimants who are disqualified under this section will continue to have the right to present their case to their insurance agent within the commission to show that they left their job for good cause. Decisions of the commission on this basis will continue to be based on long established-about 30 years-jurisprudence, so that they are not made simply at the whim of the commission officials or employers; and, of course, all these decisions will continue to be subject to appeal.
If a claimant shows that under the terms of the legislation and the jurisprudence long established in connection with it, he has good cause for his action, he will not be penalized. However, 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 able-bodied people who do not want to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


Robert Knight Andras: Another amendment eliminates the special benefit rate of 75 per cent of insurable earnings for claimants with dependants. That rate is paid to claimants in the extended benefit period, and to those earning less than one-third of the maximum weekly insurable earnings, in the initial benefit period. Now, under the amendment proposed, that benefit rate is being brought into line with the standard rate of 662/3 per cent. The 1971 act acknowledged that the longer people were on claim, the greater would be their non-deferrable expenses, particularly if they had dependants. However, since 1970 a number of much more appropriate measures have been taken to increase support for people with families.
Most notable of these, of course, is the family allowance, which has tripled since 1971. For example, a man with three children between the ages of one and six, who received $18 a month in family allowance support in 1971, may now expect $66.24. That allowance, too, has now been indexed to rise with the cost of living. That increase, combined with the indexing of income tax, eliminates the justification for a special benefit rate for claimants with dependants.
I feel very strongly, not in any way denying the income need relative to size of family, that the use of demo-grants-in this particular case, family allowances-is a much more appropriate way to recognize the legitimate additional need based on family size, rather than through the unemployment insurance plan under which benefits are-and, I strongly believe, should be-essentially
wage-related.
Another amendment reduces the age from its present level of 70 years to 65 years at which people will no longer be covered by the unemployment insurance plan. That reduces overlapping of the program with others which are more appropriate, and provides improved support to this age group. People of this age will no longer be required to contribute to the plan, nor will they be eligible to receive benefits. The special retirement benefit, however, will be made available to persons at the age of 65 under the current conditions, that is, if they have a major attachment to the labour force, whether or not they have stopped working.
Members of the House will note that the removal of the earnings test for those who apply for a retirement pension under the Canada Pension Plan, the indexing of old age security and taxation, and the enrichment of the guaranteed income supplement which have taken place since 1971, will all combine to provide support for persons aged 65 and over, again, in my opinion, through much more appropriate methods.
Increases in these programs have been substantial since the introduction of the act in 1971. For example, the maximum retirement pension available under the Canada Pension Plan increases from $65 to approximately $130 on July 1 of this year. Old age security increased from $80 in 1971 to about $126 in 1975. The guaranteed income supplement also increased from roughly $34 for a single person in 1971 to $88 this year. In addition, the personal income tax exemption was increased by $1,000 for persons aged 65 to 70 in 1972. Last year, that exemption was indexed to rise with increases in the cost of living. Another consideration relates to the fact that it is virtually impossible-indeed,

at times almost brutal-to apply those aspects of the act which relate to availability and active job search in an effective manner to persons in this age group. The fact is that most of them have, in effect, withdrawn from the active labour force.
I know that the argument is made on occasion that these persons, having contributed premiums most of their working lives, are entitled to draw benefits from the program at the end of their careers. However, this is a fallacious argument. Unemployment insurance is like term insurance. It was designed to protect against certain situations which result in a temporary interruption of earnings. The entitlement to this benefit is subject to that and certain other specific conditions in the act. Equity, the payment of premiums, no matter for how long, does not carry forward entitlement beyond the conditions stated in the plan.
The principle of the termination of the need to pay premiums, and entitlement to benefits at a certain age, has been established for years. The Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 set that termination date for premiums and entitlement at 70 years of age. That corresponded formerly to the age of eligibility of old age security, pensions, and so on. In all these programs, this was gradually reduced to the age of 65 which is now the age at which nearly all senior citizens enjoy state income-support programs.
Another important amendment will allow an extension of the period during which insurable earnings may be counted for benefit entitlement beyond the present 52 weeks to a maximum of 104 weeks for specified groups of claimants who find themselves out of the active labour force for periods of time due to reasons beyond their control. These groups include persons who are incapable of work because of sickness, disability or quarantine, persons receiving workmen's compensation, those claimants on approved training courses, and those who were inmates of penal institutions, all of whom can find themselves unable to get work after the period of their involuntary withdrawal from the labour force and when they are ready and able to rejoin the labour force.
It had originally been thought that the shorter eligibility requirement introduced in 1971 would obviate the need for such an extension. But experience has shown us in these last four years that a number of insured persons still have a requirement for it, and in order to ensure that these groups of people have full access to unployment insurance, this amendment is being introduced. Another feature of this amendment provides for an extension of the benefit period to 104 weeks for persons receiving workmen's compensation and for inmates of penal institutions.
The fifth important amendment to which I wish to refer is one to make the availability of sickness benefits more flexible so that we will allow major attachment claimants to draw up to 15 weeks of sickness benefits during both the initial and the re-established benefit periods-a total of 39 weeks instead of the present limitation of the first 29 weeks.
Another feature of the amendment eliminates the present element of rigidity whereby the drawing of regular benefits results in a reduction of entitlement to sickness benefits. Under the new proposal, a claimant can draw up to ten weeks of regular benefits without reducing his entitlement to sickness benefits.
October 27, 1975

A further amendment under section 28 removes the provision for advance payment of benefits to major attachment claimants. In order to provide a strong incentive for claimants to find work quickly during the early weeks of their claim and draw no subsequent benefits, an advance payment equal to three weeks of benefits was made available to major attachment claimants in the 1971 act.


Mr. Peters:: It applies to hardly anyone.


Robert Knight Andras: This was provided without reference to whether they had earnings in that period, and the active job search and availability obligations were waived for that period. We found, however that in practice in 1974, for example, 85 per cent of the recipients of the advance payments were still on claim in the sixth week, whereas only 66.2 per cent of non-recipients of advance payments remained on claim at that point. Quite clearly the original purpose of the advance payment was not being served, and in order to encourage these people to find work more quickly it was decided that the provision should be removed from the legislation.
We are introducing an amendment which will allow claimants to terminate a claim voluntarily. I think this will considerably enhance the fairness and the flexibility of the program. This change is designed to accommodate certain claimants who would find it to their advantage to terminate an existing claim and establish a new one. For example, persons may establish a claim for benefit and then return insurable employment for 20 or more weeks. Under the present act, they cannot terminate their existing claim and establish a new one, so they are ineligible for sickness and maternity benefits which are only payable in the initial phase of a claim. The amendment will allow the claimant to terminate a claim where it is in his own interests and, in the process, remove an inadvertent but practical disincentive to work.
In view of the importance this government is placing on job creation in the current budget, it is appropriate that one of the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act-this was recommended by all sides of the House-will permit the extension of coverage to sponsors of job creation programs like the Local Initiatives Program and the Local Employment Assistance Program. I have heard from all parties that it is discriminatory; the employee on a local initiative project can obtain unemployment insurance but the sponsor cannot because of the contractual relationship that person has with the government.
Another amendment which at least one member of the official opposition will welcome relates to the issuing of social insurance numbers. It authorizes the issuance of new numbers in several specified situations; for example, where SIN cards have been lost or stolen and fraudulently used. In such cases, where a second SIN number is issued the first number will become void. I have made a commitment to one member of the opposition to let him present the first new card with regard to a rather famous case which caught some attention a year or two ago.
Unemployment Insurance Act
A number of additional amendments are proposed to reduce some of the inequities and complexities which now exist in the act. One of these changes will clarify and formalize a number of powers which are currently given to the commission, through regulations, by embodying them in the act itself. These are fundamentally important and I invite hon. members, when in committee, to consider them carefully because they concern the rights and obligations of claimants.
Another amendment will allow the commission to pay the travelling expenses of persons and their representatives to attend hearings of the umpire in cases concerning coverage under the act which are up for appeal. These umpire hearings are usually held in large centres, and this change will allow appellants from remote areas to attend without imposing undue financial hardship on them.
These amendments are complemented by administrative measures which are constantly being improved and refined to make the program more effective in terms of service, control and cost. An example is the commission's special job finding and placement drive, set up a year ago last April in co-operation with the Department of Manpower and Immigration to ensure that as many claimants as possible take advantage of all the services of Canada Manpower centres. In this way, it not only assists claimants to find jobs as quickly as possible but it ensures that those who are not meeting their obligations under the act do not receive benefits.
In the 14 or 16 months of the operation of this program, some significant results have been achieved: 429,000 claimants were exposed to the program; 33,000 claimants were placed in jobs by CMC; 46,000 claimants found jobs on their own after exposure to CMC counselling; 3,000 claimants were placed on training courses; and 144,000 claimants were disqualified or disentitled from receiving benefits following Manpower reports indicating that they were not actively seeking work or had refused to take suitable jobs when offered.
The commission also achieved a number of administrative economies last year. The unit costs of performing such functions as issuing benefit warrants, processing claims, collecting overpayments and conducting benefit control investigations were all significantly reduced in 1974 in comparison with the previous year. Efforts to continue and to improve this kind of cost-saving remain a primary administrative aim of the commission.
A major amendment has to do with the formula for financing the unemployment insurance program. This program has remained unchanged for almost four years- years which have seen a very rapid and dramatic change in Canadian society and in the structure of the labour market. We believe it is now time to face practical needs for adjusting the application of the financing methods and to bring them into line with current economic reality.
When the current Unemployment Insurance Act was proposed in the white paper of 1970, it was stated that costs of the plan over and above the self-financing component would be assumed by the government in recognition of its share of responsibility for dealing with the problems which cause unemployment. At that time, a threshold of 4 per cent unemployment was set as the level above which

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
the government would assume the additional costs for unemployment insurance benefits.
That 4 per cent threshold was related to the economic conditions in the decade preceding 1970. The basic financing principle continues to hold true. Nevertheless, under social insurance principles, normal cost under the unemployment insurance program should be financed as much as possible through contributions from employers and employees. That principle was the basis for the formula in 1971, and remains the basis now, but economic conditions have changed considerably in the past five years, not only here but in most countries of the world, and it is now time to update that benchmark for calculating the self-financing component of the plan. The new threshold will be adjusted automatically each year on the basis of a moving average of monthly unemployment rates over the preceding eight-year period.
Applying this formula in 1976, the benchmark for the year will be about 5.6 per cent, a level based on average monthly rates of unemployment in the eight years preceding June 30, 1975. The regular adjustment of the benchmark will relate only to the sharing of the costs of initial regular benefits payable. The cost of extended benefits payable to those who are unemployed for longer periods will continue to be financed entirely by the federal government from the consolidated revenue fund.
Excluding the threshold change and the premium change, if the proposed amendments are fully implemented as of January 1, 1976, we can expect a net saving of $170 million in 1976 at a 7 per cent rate of unemployment. On the basis of the same assumption-and it does vary by rate of unemployment-the net increase in employee-employer cost for 1976 would be approximately $490 million, while a net reduction in government cost on these two measures in combination would be approximately $660 million.
Obviously, in consideration of the threshold to which I refer, it will be necessary to increase the rate of premiums paid by employers and employees in 1976. The employee rate, which presently stands at $1.40 per $100 of weekly insurable earnings, can be expected to rise to a level between $1.60 and $1.70. Assuming that the ceiling for 1976 will be raised to around $200 through the operation of the statutory earnings index, then the resulting maximum weekly employee premium during 1976 could range from $3.20 to $3.40. Based on these assumptions, the premium rate for employers should increase from its current level of $1.96 per $100 of insurable earnings to a level between $2.25 and $2.40. Applying the $200 a week maximum insurable earnings which we anticipate for 1976, the maximum weekly employer premium would range from $4.50 to $4.80.
The precise employee rate and maximum weekly employee premium will, in accordance with past procedures, be announced shortly, bearing in mind the requirement that the accumulated deficit in the unemployment insurance account must be reduced or eliminated, which we anticipate will be the case next year. In 1977 and subsequent years, there could be relatively small increases or decreases in premiums, depending on the trend of the eight year moving average of unemployment rates.
I said earlier that requirements for additional changes may emerge as our review continues. For example, I have

mentioned in the past that we have been examining such important parts of the program as the benefit structure. To sum up, the unemployment insurance program continues to play a vital role in the Canadian economy in terms of the protection it gives unemployed workers. The measures which are being proposed in Bill C-69 will in no way undermine that important function. Indeed, they will contribute substantially to the over-all effectiveness of this program by eliminating some rigidities and inequities, by removing some disincentives to quickly return to work, and by cost reductions and better allocation of resources.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, all of us have looked forward very eagerly to the introduction of the so-called amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I want to thank the minister for giving us the details of what he thinks the act will do. He spelled out about 11 amendments and then summarized them. What I find most interesting is that the minister, perhaps conveniently, did not spell out what the future holds with respect to further investigation. It was unlike him not to mention the 12-week period we had talked about in terms of eligibility. This leads me to believe that the minister is going to move in this direction. According to recent reports, he is thinking very seriously of relating the eligibility to the number of weeks work in a year.
In view of the minister's last statement, I believe he is perhaps thinking of the amount of benefit when he talks about benefit structure, and is going to give serious consideration to whether the amount of benefit is a disincentive. When he said, in concluding, that he has attempted to remove the disincentives to work, the minister-like all other ministers who sit on the front bench-suddenly saw the light. This party has been talking about the act being a disincentive to work. We have continually indicated to the government that of its own free will it has almost totally destroyed the work ethic of this country as a result of this act.
Why did the minister not mention the projected cost of UIC for 1975? He would not tell you, Mr. Speaker, but I will. It is $4 billion.


Robert Knight Andras: That is not correct.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Having listened patiently, and with very little interruption, to the minister's speech, we on this side of the House believe that what we see now is a cosmetic, ad hoc approach to a very serious problem. That is reason enough to fight this bill on second reading. Let me go further, however. The minister talked about actual savings, and at long last we have some indication of the figure-$660 million. With all due respect, I do not believe the minister or anybody else on the front benches when it comes to the projection of figures. We see what a mess we are in now as a result of the projection of the minister's predecessor. I do not know what he is talking about in terms of savings. This bill is fighting the unemployment insurance irregularities on the backs of the poor, those who can least afford it.


Mr. Rodriguez:: You are on both sides of the fence now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will let me continue. If he wants to take me to task later, let him do so, but I ask him to give me the opportunity to make my speech now. Let him pick on the minister. Why
October 27, 1975

pick on me? It is the minister who is messing this country up with a bill that is inequitable and will cost the employee too much.
Let me get to the meat of my speech and talk about these amendments. On this side of the House we do not know whether they go to the root of the problem. The problem is whether this is an insurance act or whether it is a welfare scheme, and what the amendments do in this regard. No matter what the minister says about the new benchmark and this threshold, we take a dim view of this new approach of the government. It seems to me they opted out of their responsibility when they moved that benchmark over an eight-year average.	.
The minister suggests that the government will involve itself with the scheme when unemployment reaches 5.6 per cent. Clearly, it is abdicating its responsibility to create employment. Previously, the government said it would intervene when unemployment reached 4 per cent, but it did nothing significant to reduce unemployment. Why does the minister think we shall support this new concept providing for government intervention when unemployment is somewhat over 5 per cent? I suggest that the new level will provide the government with even less incentive to involve itself with the creation of employment.
The regressive tax the government is imposing means that the government is opting out of its responsibility for creating jobs. The government's approach to the problem will make it difficult to determine if the system is being abused. Obviously, the government does not care. Unemployment insurance premiums really are a regressive tax. The minister said that employee-employer contributions would increase by some 35 per cent. I tell the minister that we intend to vote against the bill on second reading, for the reasons just suggested. Unless the minister comes forward with hard facts, hard information and credible statistics, we may not support the bill at the report stage or on third reading.
I want the minister to know that this time the government will not snow us. We asked previously what was wrong with the $800 million ceiling. The removal of the ceiling was a snow job; members of this House and the people of Canada were unable to find out what was happening with regard to unemployment insurance. Any information we obtained was after the fact. The legislation ought to have spelled out the supremacy of parliament. The government ought to have come to this House and said, "We need more money, even though we boobed, as usual." But as matters now stand they need not explain anything to us. We learn about what happens after the fact. The money is spent, and somehow we discover what has gone on when we attend the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We discover it about ten years later.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We learn the facts about ten years later.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member speaks like a true PC.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) saying something. He is a member of the class of '68. Let me digress for a moment. I was glad to see that this government recognized his abilities. I hope that as Minister of National Revenue he will do a good job. We of the class of '68 do not want to be disappointed. So far, members on my side have not thought the minister's job all that important. I do not want to be mean, but they are not even asking questions of the minister. Therefore, I hope the Minister of National Revenue will mind his business and let me mind mine.
Let me bring to the attention of the House some general thoughts about unemployment insurance. We must ask some questions about its fundamental role. Is it an insurance program or an income redistribution scheme? If it is an insurance program, then surely we ought to be considering a program which is designed to protect bona fide members of the work force from the effects of unexpected unemployment. If it is an insurance program, it ought to be placed on an actuarially sound footing. If it is an income redistribution program, then of course it is just that. Any program of income redistribution may be defined as a program designed by the government to shift resources from one group or level of society to another, according to predetermined guidelines. Income redistribution, by definition, considers what is normal, not what is unexpected, and takes account of actuarial principles.
If we consider whether the program should be one of insurance or one of income redistribution, we should honestly conclude that unemployment insurance should be exactly that-unemployment insurance. To interpret unemployment insurance as social security, however noble, is to misrepresent the constitutional underpinnings of the unemployment insurance concept. Canada has a plethora of other programs specifically designed for the ends of social security. The minister mentioned some of them. They form the income maintenance and social security component of our social welfare programs.
Finally, I suggest that unemployment insurance as a means of wealth redistribution is extremely regressive because all wage earners grossing more than the maximum insurable earnings pay the same premium rate. Therefore, this concept lacks progressiveness. The suggested provisions for raising the benchmark or unemployment level above which the government will intervene, will make the situation even more regressive. The current premium scale is already highly regressive as it establishes the maximum pay-in at a relatively low income level. Accordingly, the brunt of financing the program's costs will be carried not only by the upper income groups; it will be carried also by the lower middle and middle classes. Therefore, the suggested regressive financing of this income redistribution program really runs counter to every principle which the Liberals opposite hold to be true.
The other point worth raising concerns the maximum pay-out figures. The minister mentioned a period between 52 and 104 weeks for pay-out. We shall need to examine that more closely. Allowing a person to remain on unemployment insurance for a full year because suitable employment could not be found for a full 12 months or, even worse, allowing a person to collect weekly cheques for one year while that person's feelings of dignity and

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
self-worth go down the drain, is totally unacceptable to me, and to my party, I suggest.
It should be our view, except in the most exceptional circumstances, that unless an unemployed person can find a job within a relatively short period-say, six months- that person does not possess the requisite skill to be employable and is, in fact, unemployable. In that case, we face what economists call a structural problem. It is far better, it seems to me, to face this fact and insist on retraining, relocation or whatever is necessary, instead of letting the person sit at home and become, in fact, a new member of the welfare state at enormous cost.
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 in that area. I point out that between 1940 and 1970 we spent a total of $6 million on unemployment insurance. That is how much we spent in 30 years. On the other hand, between January, 1971, and December, 1975, our unemployment insurance costs, as predicted, will rise to some $10 billion.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The question the Canadian people must ask is, can we at any time afford such a plan which is costing $10 billion? The answer is no. Let me compare UIC pay-outs with the gross national product. In 1974, UIC 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. These figures have not been put before the Canadian people, but they show clearly what has been the result of this government's approach to unemployment insurance, particularly that of minister's predecessor who now serves as Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) and who I was happy to see sitting here this afternoon. That minister and his officials where less than honest with the Canadian people in 1971. That is why we are in such a mess.
Do you know why I say that? Let me just review some of the white paper prognostications and projections, as the case may be. In the white paper, the then minister, now the Postmaster General, in an attempt to exhibit his government's knowledge of the issue made some predictions the nature of which history has proved quite erroneous. The following represents his administrative cost projections compared with actual expenditures. These figures are very important. This is another reason why I do not believe the minister when he talks about $600 million. The minister talked very definitely about the projection of $600 million. I have heard that baloney before about savings in_ costs. I will not sit here and accept what that minister states unless he comes out encompassed in gold and blessed by the Almighty. I say that with all due respect to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister knows I have high regard for him. However, when it comes to unemployment insurance, he is a disaster. I will get on with my speech. I want

to talk about the administrative cost projections compared with actual expenditures. I know the minister does not want to hear this. He gets embarrassed when he hears these figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will ignore them and talk through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the class of '68. This is what the white paper, the minister's predecessors and the bureaucracy behind them, projected.


An hon. Member:: Hurry up.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't tell me to hurry up; I have unlimited time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Would the hon. member please address the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member was dropped as parliamentary secretary and that is why he is so miffed. I cannot help it if he did not make any significant contribution to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Don't blame me, Mr. Speaker.
The administrative cost projected in the white paper by the former minister, for 1972 was $71 million. Do you know what it actually was? You would not guess; nobody would. I will tell you what it was. It was $120 million. There was a difference of $49 million. What about 1973? The projected cost in the white paper was $73 million. Do you know what it was? It was $141 million, a difference of $68 million.
What about 1974? These are the projections that this government gave to the Canadian people. The projected administrative cost for 1974 was $74 million. What did it end up to be? You would not guess, again, sir, with all due respect. It was $162 million, a difference of $88 million. Let us now go to 1975. I see the minister and his parliamentary secretary laughing. They are having a great time with this thing. This is important to the Canadian people. The minister should be paying attention to my remarks because these are the figures which he has conveniently forgotten about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have many more figures here. I know the minister will turn red with embarrassment. He would not tell this, so it is up to the opposition to tell the truth. In 1975, according to the white paper, the projected figure was $77 million. What is the actual figure? Together with my colleague, I pulled this out of the minister in the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration. That was in May, 1975. What did we pull out? In the first quarter-January, February and March-the administrative costs were $62 million. Look at the minister smile. He knows I am telling the truth. Multiply that figure by four and you get a projected administrative cost of $248 million. In terms of 1975, that means a projected difference of $171 million. In four years, that represents an expenditure of $376 million over the estimated cost of administrative operation-and the minister wants me to believe that this bill will cost $600 million. Rubbish!
Let me move on. The now Postmaster General at that time declared, in general, that contributions would be
October 27, 1975

lower for both employers and employees participating in the unemployment insurance program. That was in 1971. The statement was in large measure true. Both employers and employees covered under the former act were paying $1.40 per $100 of insurable earnings up to a maximum of $100. Since then, however, premium rates have risen substantially. The following displays this increase. I want to again show how this government is deceitful and less than honest with the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I want to show the weekly employer-employee premium rates as envisaged from 1972 to 1974. In 1972, with respect to employees, it was 90 cents per $100 up to a maximum of $1.33. In 1973, it made a significant jump to $1, with a maximum of $1.63. In 1974, it jumped from $1.40 per $100 to $2.59. Those were significant changes which we called then, and still do, regressive taxation. It is an unwarranted tax upon the taxpayers of this country who do not seem to get any compassion or sympathy from this government.
What about the employer? It is not up to me to come to the rescue of employers, but in terms of small businesses they have made a significant contribution to the development of this country. This government is removing the incentive from small businesses. It is hard to say just where we shall end up. In 1972, they paid $1.26 per $100 and it could go up to a maximum premium of $1.86. In 1973, it jumped to $1.40, with a maximum of $2.28. In 1974, it jumped to $1.96, with a maximum premium of $3.63. This increase in premium contribution represents a 55 per cent escalation for employees and employers over a period of just three years.


Robert Knight Andras: What was it under the old act?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am talking about the act the minister foisted on the Canadian people. Furthermore, by removing the 4 per cent benchmark on federal financing, contributions will increase, again, by anywhere from 20 per cent to 35 per cent. In real dollar terms, this will mean an employee premium rate of between $1.69 and $1.89 per $100 of insurable earnings, and between $2.37 and $2.65 per $100 for employers. In summary, then, premium pay-outs, under the changes recommended in Bill C-69, will have almost doubled by January 1, 1976 over that which was being experienced during the first year of operation under the new act.
While individual pay-outs have increased markedly, the aggregate increase and the increase concerning government expenditure is equally phenomenal. The following is an approximate breakdown of this outlay since 1970. The 1970 total was $695,221,000, of which the government's contribution was $224 million and the employer-employee contribution $471 million. Notwithstanding what the minister's predecessor said, these are the figures. They are very important. In 1971, the total was $890,594,000, of which the government's contribution was $333 million and the employer-employee contribution $557 million.
Now, here is where we are getting into trouble. In 1972, it was $1,871,808,000, with a government contribution of
Unemployment Insurance Act
$717,000,000 and employer-employee contributions amounting to $1,154,000,000. Listen to the figures for 1973. The total was $2,004,216,000. The government's contribution came to $573,000,000 and the employer-employee contribution was $1,431,000,000. Now for 1974: that was really a wingding year. The total was more than $2 billion- $2,119,212,000-made up of $700,000,000 in government contributions and $1,500,000,000 in employer-employee contributions.
But the year 1975 is the year that really grabs us. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, the sudden and dramatic escalation in terms of costs during while the government sat on its fanny for years without even considering amendments, without even considering whether the country could afford it? But now they are talking about restraint. They created a monster and did not even have it by the tail. In my humble opinion, they still do not have it by the tail. In 1975, it is expected that the total will reach $3,750,000,000. Of that, $1,750,000,000 will be the government contribution, with $2 billion forthcoming from employer-employee contributions.
In his budget address of June 23, the then minister of finance lamented this massive increase and stated that restraint would have to be introduced. However, the point to emphasize here is that the government was not really concerned about the direction the Unemployment Insurance Act was taking. On July 28, 1970, the hon. member for Verdun, who as minister of labour was responsible for the birth of this monster, prematurely declared that unemployment in Canada has passed the turning point and would thereafter show constant improvement. In 1970, 5.9 per cent of the labour force, or 495,000 people, were unemployed. This year, unemployment is running at 7.2 per cent and is expected to exceed 8 per cent, which would result in up to 800,000 Canadians becoming potential unemployment insurance recipients.
In the Financial Post of February 26, 1972, the present Postmaster General, then minister of labour, was quoted as saying that the extra costs "don't present me or the government with any problem." I can remember his saying that. Commenting on the announcement of a $700 million Unemployment Insurance Commission deficit in 1972, the Prime Minister declared:
I don't see any scandal... What if it (the fund) needs another million, a hundred million or two hundred million? What's the magic in numbers?
I will tell him what is the magic in numbers. The Canadian people are just tired of paying through the nose. Again, on May 25, 1971, appearing before the appropriate committee of this House, the minister of labour of that day said:
There is no reason for alarm and I certainly feel no reason for alarm.
Today, though, there is a great deal of alarm, to judge from the minister's statements. He says that the act as presently drafted is riddled with disincentives and he wants them removed. We on this side, accepting our responsibilities, have continuously stressed the fact that the legislation contained far too many disincentives.
The statements I have quoted show quite clearly that if members of the government were aware of the problems involved in the Unemployment Insurance Act, they were certainly not ready to admit to them, much less to deal

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
with them. As indicated in the budgetary address of the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), the situation was allowed to deteriorate and it is now being dealt with in a post facto fashion. However, although the government was not ready to grapple with problems which by then had become apparent, others were quite willing to point them out. In a press release on September 25, 1972, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) put his finger on the situation. He stated:
The situation created by the government in respect of those who are working is simply this: expenditures on unemployment insurance are said to be monstrously out of hand ... The cost to individual taxpayers will be staggering.
This year, Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance will cost every taxpayer in Canada an average of $175 above the regular premiums. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, went on to say:
By its economic policy, its legislation, and by the Prime Minister's own "non-work ethic" dissertations the government has been undeniably responsible for putting so many Canadians in both these situations-unemployment due to work disincentives, and staggering taxation.
Despite these warnings, it took the former minister of finance almost a full three years to recognize that, in his words, some features of the new system, that is to say, the post-1970 arrangements, have "undesirable effects on work incentives".
I wish, now, to deal with another area. Less than a month before the June 23 budget was brought down, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) dealing with the possibility of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, stated:
The fundamental reasons why we have not brought them (the amendments) in yet is because parallel to the development of these amendments there is a very serious consideration on the part of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the provincial ministers of health and welfare.
He went on to say:
Increasingly it is becoming apparent that there is at some stage going to be a reconciliation and a harmonization of the interface between the unemployment insurance benefit program particularly and the ramifications of it and the rationalization of the income security system.
The minister merely touched on this particular aspect- the harmonization of the two programs and the rationalization of the income security system. As I say, this address to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration was delivered less than one month before the presentation of the budget. It is difficult to believe that in one short month the executive of the present government was able to reconcile, harmonize and rationalize the working of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the health and welfare ministers' proposed income security system. If it has been able to do so, where is the minister's orange paper?
It is even harder to believe that proposed changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act were meant to dovetail with the primary objective as stated in the orange paper, because on his own admission the Minister of Manpower and Immigration believed it would be 2'A years before the orange paper would become legislation. I think this calls for some emphasis-2V4 years. In the absence of the required dovetailing, I say this is an ad hoc, cosmetic

approach to a serious situation. I refer to the bill which the minister has introduced for second reading. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration continued:
As we get more deeply into the subject (changes in the UIC) we find that almost every action we are contemplating would have some effect (on income security).
Yet, less than a month later, changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are proposed. This is why I have some hesitation about believing what the minister says when he asks us to believe in the justice of these amendments to the act. Since we are led to believe that any changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act will invariably affect the entire income security system, where are the parallel changes in the income security system? There is no dovetailing. In fact, it appears that as of May 27 of this year, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration had no inkling that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were proposed in the budget.
Speaking about Bill C-125 of the last parliament, a bill concerning unemployment insurance which died on the order paper, the minister said:
I felt the measures introduced in that bill had gone too far and were not measures I wanted to see introduced ... As I gained experience in the portfolio I did not wish to proceed with the Draconian measures which were in the bill.
Yet we now see very similar "Draconian measures" being introduced in the budget, especially those which are aimed at the so-called low income claimants and the aged. The bill before us is directed toward these groups. If the minister believes that these are the people who are ripping off the system under the present act, well and good; but he will have to show us that our senior citizens are so involved. I understand there are only about 5,000 or 10,000 who would be affected by this suggestion.
The then minister of finance in his budget address bemoaned the failure of consensus. It is no wonder consensus failed when there does not even appear to be consultation among cabinet members, let alone the provinces or members of labour, business and other interest groups.
In fact, the Canadian Labour Congress, an organization which will be greatly affected by these changes, was surprised and shocked that any such revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act would be contained in the budget. They have claimed that the budgetary revisions planned for the Unemployment Insurance Act are but "a political sleight of hand" and yet another attempt by the government to shift the blame for unemployment on to the unemployed. Indeed, in face of a budgetary deficit of almost $4 billion, the government's proposal to implement expenditures restraint can be looked upon as being at the expense of the aged and the poor and is tantamount to folly. It is a cruel trick on the Canadian people. If the minister has evidence that these are the groups causing or helping to contribute to the $4 billion deficit, we are prepared to listen.
The government has proposed-the minister has gone through them-five basic changes in the operation of unemployment insurance on the grounds that the cost to the government is becoming unwieldy and that the present act contains some features which have undesirable
October 27, 1975

effects on work incentives. There can be little argument that the cost of operating the Unemployment Insurance Act is becoming prohibitive. As I have said, total benefit payments in 1974-75 amounted to $2.3 billion, with the government picking up $700 million. However, benefit payments in 1975-76 are expected to exceed $3.75 billion, placing a total cost on the government of approximately $1.75 billion, an increase of 150 per cent over the previous year.
This total increase reflects in part the increase in unemployment. Unemployment in 1974 averaged 5.4 per cent, and has been running this year at an annual rate of 7.1 per cent-an increase of 31 per cent-and there are indications it will rise to at least 8 per cent by the end of the year. However, unemployment statistics as such do not account for all the increases in pay-outs. While unemployment rose by 31 per cent, the total cost of UIC from April, 1974, to April, 1975, rose 69 per cent. More important is the fact that the length of benefit periods for recipients increased by some 51 per cent over the same period. This factor, therefore, can be interpreted as being the result of either the mismanagement of the unemployment insurance fund or a growing trend in which people feel more secure collecting unemployment insurance benefits than in the work environment.
Because of that last supposition, we in the official opposition still call for an independent inquiry into the operation of this act. Such an inquiry should examine the efficacy of the act as now constituted, and its administration. It should envisage whether changes in the legislation are required, as well as investigate in particular the administration with a view to maintaining an adequate program of unemployment insurance while avoicffng disincentives to employment and excessive costs to contributors and taxpayers.
We feel there should be a fully independent inquiry, and not some in-housekeeping sort of thing about which the minister was speaking on the part of the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. We feel there should be a fully independent inquiry into the workings of the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to determine whether in fact this is an insurance scheme, a welfare scheme or a combination of both, and in order to determine whether there are abuses and, to the extent there are abuses, how to get rid of them. It should inquire into the extent of disincentives and recommend how best we can remove them. This should be a full-blown, independent inquiry, and not something the minister can play hanky-panky with whenever he feels the heat is too much. We want an independent group to look at this very serious matter.
The principle we should all adhere to is that any scheme such as the one we are dealing with now should be very difficult for one to take advantage of, but it should be very easy to administer. It should be difficult to get on the recipient roll of such a scheme, and very easy to get off. Apparently this is not the case now, as these amendments would indicate.
The government has destroyed the work ethic as a result of these disincentives. This, in turn, results primarily from a statement the Prime Minister made some time ago. He said: You do not have to work for money, because there are other amenities in life which are so meaningful. I should like to ask what they are and who is going to pay
Unemployment Insurance Act
the shot. I do not mind these theories, principles and political philosophies, but I know somebody has to work in order to pay the shot. We cannot have that sort of attitude, that one does not have to work.
Furthermore, while the government pays lip service to the issue of disincentives, it only offers one point that even remotely deals with the problem, and that is the penalty period being increased by 100 per cent, from three weeks to six weeks. This would mean a waiting period of eight weeks including the two-week waiting period. This party has suggested for some time that eligibility for unemployment insurance should be based on an extended period in the work force. We still stand by that suggestion. Such an extension would ensure that unemployment insurance was directed to those who were securely tied to the work force, and as such it would be unemployment insurance and not just another welfare program open to public abuse.
The latest figures of June, 1975, revealed, in terms of trying to determine whether we should move from eight weeks to 12 weeks or to 20 weeks, that of the total UIC caseload, 15.1 per cent only have an 8 to 12-week attachment to the work force, while 34.8 per cent have an 8 to 20-week attachment. Since all recipients with less than a 20-week exposure to the work force qualify as minor claimants, that is, a 15-week entitlement, we can conclude that by extending eligibility to 12 weeks we could save $487.4 million, or 12.2 per cent of the expected outlay for 1975; or by extending eligibility to 20 weeks we could save $1,123 billion, or 28.1 per cent of the expected outlay for 1975, based on average weekly claims of $82.77 for July,
1975.	,	.
We are not saying this is the answer, but we are saying we will have to look into the eligibility period. I think that is just what the minister is doing. He said earlier that they were looking into the benefit structure. When he said that he caught my attention and my eye. However, the fatal flaw in the analysis of the issue by the Minister of Finance rests on the fact that the problems of unemployment cost in terms of disincentives are inexplicably bound together with the government's inability to deal with the real problem of unemployment and job creation.
The minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission has stated that the commission has a double mandate, the first of which is-
-to ensure that workers who suffer an interruption of earning receive the temporary income support to which the Unemployment Insurance Act entitles them-
The second mandate-
-to facilitate the quick and effective reabsorption of unemployment workers into the labour force, thereby protecting the integrity of the scheme.
It is becoming very clear that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is fulfilling the first part of its mandate of providing some sort of support. This can be seen merely by looking at the massive increase in payments. However, it is failing miserably at facilitating a quick and effective reabsorption of unemployed workers into the labour force. Therefore, the problem is not only one of costs per se, but it is also one of unemployment and inefficient job creation.
We all know that the Unemployment Insurance Commission would not cost the government anything if unemployment were 4 per cent; that is, employer-employee

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
contributions would make it self-sufficient. It therefore becomes very clear that the mismanagement of the UIC is only a manifestation of the larger mismanagement of the economy and the government's inability to attack the task of job creation in any systematic fashion.
We have had some discussions regarding the minister's five-point reform program, and I would like to run through a few of them. The first is an increase from three to six weeks for the period of disqualification for those who have quit or have been fired from their jobs or refused suitable employment. This is something that is really difficult to criticize. As a matter of fact, I do not think we can criticize it at all, because this is what has been needed. But the government certainly has taken its time in bringing in such an amendment.
One of the amendments refers to payment of premiums and receipt of benefits terminating at age 65. The minister will have to explain this to my party. If he feels these are the people who are ripping off the fund, he will have to provide a good deal of proof. I do not like the minister talking about demogrants when it comes to unemployment insurance. Surely, if I have $1 million in the bank and receive income through working, that income would not be taken into consideration. Because I have income from $1 million and have lost my job, I would not receive unemployment insurance. That is what the minister is trying to say with regard to these demogrants. That has nothing to do with earnings and a man's entitlement to unemployment insurance.
Then we are told that the provision with respect to the special benefit rate of 75 per cent to low income claimants with dependants eligible for extended benefits will be brought into line with the standard benefit rate of 66 2/3 per cent. Once again, the minister talks about demogrants and family allowances. What has that to do with the next proposal, whereby the premium a person shall receive can be up to 75 per cent? The family allowance meant is to be spent for the children. That is what the minister has failed to tell the House and the Canadian people. He wants to confuse the issue and say that because the children are receiving the money, it is not necessary to give the man any money. The minister will have to explain that much better than what he has done this afternoon.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is bad grammar.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Never mind the grammar; I am making my points. There is the person who wants to be a leader of the New Democratic Association. The youngest member of the House of Commons complains about my grammar. It has not prevented my winning three successive elections.
Let me continue, Mr. Speaker. So far as I am concerned,* the points I have mentioned, the special benefit rate of 75 per cent and the payment of premiums and benefits to those 65 years of age, seem to constitute the total of the restraint program of the former minister of finance concerning the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It seems to me they are almost exclusively aimed at the aged and the poor.
People over age 65 who are unemployed are not even listed in the Statistics Canada publication. This group has a 10 per cent participation rate, and it can be estimated
that this cutback will affect, at the maximum, 5,000 senior citizens. Therefore, even if this entire group were receiving unemployment insurance benefits at the average Canadian rate of $74.61 per week for 15.9 weeks-and all of these points are highly unlikely and overestimated-the total saving to the government would be $2.77 million, or .07 per cent of this year's deficit.


Robert Knight Andras: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister says no. Perhaps my research is wrong. I am always prepared to listen to the minister in committee, but he did not tell me how much it would cost when he made his speech today in which he said nothing. Moreover, this reform removes entirely any insurance and security for those elderly persons who wish to remain in the job market. Is the government saying that it does not want anyone 65 years of age in the work force? Is it forced retirement the government wants? Perhaps it is.


An hon. Member:: Did you forget your lines?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, I did not forget my lines. I just want to bring some points to the member's attention. Then there is the provision concerning the extension of the period during which a claim can be made and benefits received for those suffering temporary disabilities or special training courses. I am not too sure what that means. This section is so nebulous as to be incoherent. We know that in due time the minister will explain this.
Then we have the change in which the claiming procedure for sickness benefits will be made more flexible by allowing eligible recipients to receive such benefits at any time during the first 25 weeks on claim, rather than the first 15 weeks. This change is really no change at all. It is merely an added courtesy to those workers who fall ill, by allowing them the option to choose when they wish to receive benefits. In no way does this provide for restraint. It could result in a slight increase in expenditure.
In respect of the new government-employee adjustment procedure, as mentioned, unemployment insurance operates entirely on the basis of employee-employer contributions when unemployment is 4 per cent or less. The present minister has claimed that an unemployment scheme like ours does have a crucial role to play in keeping the economic ship afloat in an industrialized country, and that this is something we should recognize when we examine the cost of a program like this. This was referred to on May 27, 1975, when the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Given the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act as outlined in the budget, it is apparent that the government has abdicated its belief in the worthiness of unemployment insurance for those who truly need it; that it has reneged on its commitment to fight unemployment, and that it is incapable of stimulating creative job creation programs. By changing the 4 per cent unemployment benchmark to an eight-year moving average, and by doing so during a recession, the government is ensuring that little or nothing of the additional cost of unemployment insurance which accrues from its inability to deal with unemployment will fall on the federal treasury in years ahead.

October 27, 1975

Since this reneging of the clearly established benchmark of 1971 makes it apparent that the government is no longer committed to 4 per cent unemployment, and since a great need still exists for unemployment insurance irrespective of the government's posture, it is safe to assume that the total cost of unemployment insurance will remain exorbitant and will probably even increase. The point is that now the burden for the government's ineptitude will fall directly on the shoulders of the taxpayer through what is in fact a new form of payroll taxation and, at that, regressive taxation of the worst ilk.
Don McGillivray, a financial analyst, writing for the Financial Times estimates that the change in unemployment insurance financing faces Canadian employees and employers with an additional tax burden at least twice as heavy as the extra tax on gasoline, and that this extra payroll tax under the new formula may reach $800 million to $1 billion next year. This new tax load will amount to an average of $89 or more a year from the wages and salaries of all Canadians who work for a pay cheque.
In addition, since the eight-year averaging formula will progress with time, it is safe to assume that this tax burden will increase as the formula moves, becoming more subject to the government's abysmal unemployment record. Even more alarming is the fact that this new form of taxation is highly regressive. Since premiums paid are based on a maximum insurable income of $185 per week- a level which is below the average Canadian income at present-anyone making $9,620 or more annually will be subject to the same tax. Therefore, this innovation shifts the balance of the tax system away from the income tax, which is termed progressive, to a payroll tax which bears most heavily on the poor because they are levied at flat rates and have a ceiling beyond which no additional tax is paid no matter how high the income. Mr. McGillivray stated in his article:
Sooner or later, Canadians will have to ask themselves whether they want to finance such plans from taxes which bear most heavily on those least able to pay.
There are several other minor revisions on which I would like to comment briefly with respect to the minister's major amendments. The minister said that someone on this side of the House indicated that sponsors of government programs such as LIP and LEAP will now be insurable and eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits. I do not understand that thinking and I will have to drag it out of the minister. Here the minister and his government create unemployment, which is something we certainly do not accept, and in creating unemployment they tell people what to do and how to do it by way of short-term employment, and after that they want to pay them unemployment insurance. I do not accept that and the minister will have to explain to me in no uncertain terms why this approach is viable and necessary.
I was pleased to hear the minister state that under exceptional circumstances a member of the work force can now receive a second social insurance number, under section 34. This section makes provision to eliminate the possibility of two persons having the same number, one person having two numbers, or the fraudulent use of another person's number. Social insurance cards will also
Unemployment Insurance Act
serve as a form of national identification without which no job can be obtained or held. We welcome that. It is through the tenacity and the aggressiveness of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) that this amendment has been pulled from the minister's clutches, in light of the hardship suffered when someone had his social insurance card stolen.
I will conclude by stating that we on this side of the House do not believe these amendments go to the root of the problem. We certainly endorse amendments which we believe will bring insurance principles back to the Unemployment Insurance Act, but at the same time, when it comes to spending $4 billion we want to move with caution. We remember well when we wanted to move with caution with respect to the removal of the $800 million ceiling, and the government wanted to hurry the bill through the House because otherwise, they said, the unemployed would not get their cheques. We will not be fooled again in the same way and we will certainly take our time.
Many of my colleagues want to take part in the debate on this bill. They will have more to say on the various matters which I have brought to the attention of the House but-this is most important-when the bill goes to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration we want to make sure that as a result of amendments the minister will bring in an unemployment insurance act that is an insurance act per se.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it used to be quite refreshing to listen to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) when he spoke on unemployment insurance matters, but having listened to him for three years it has become monotonous. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever gone east, where unemployment in Newfoundland is between 16 per cent and 20 per cent; to Nova Scotia where it is about 9.1 per cent; to New Brunswick where it is about 10 per cent; and to Quebec where it is 9.3 per cent to 9.5 per cent and I wonder whether he has made these great speeches about the work ethic and how the unemployment insurance pay-out is part of the great rip-off which cost the rest of the Canadian taxpayers $2 billion last year in pay-outs to benefit recipients.
I dare say they keep the hon. member on campuses at universities where he can safely make these great, statistical speeches, because I have heard other members of his party from the disadvantaged areas of the east and the north speak in favour of unemployment insurance benefits and even ask for extensions for their constituents.
We hear all these numbers thrown out, billions of dollars mentioned, statistics quoted. Let me point out, however, that the unemployed are not statistics. To be unemployed is a real and cruel experience. Remember that these people are unemployed through no fault of their own. Often their unemployment results from action by federal, provincial or municipal governments, or, in the private sector, because a corporation has changed its pattern of production in the interest of higher profits.
The hon. member for Hamilton West spoke about the work ethic. I always thought the idea was to teach our children to use their abilities to their best advantage in whatever situation they found themselves. Surely it is not above reason to expect that a person who embarks on a job
8578

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
should get satisfaction and enjoyment from it as well as remuneration. Surely it is not only work for the sake of working; there must be some enjoyment that one gets out of work. On the other hand, the minister was reading from what the Unemployment Insurance Commission had typed up for him. He came here and read it in a deadpan way as if he were trying to downplay the whole issue.
My party is not prepared to have its members make one or two speeches and then let the issue die, because the issue is more important than the unemployment insurance fund; it is far more fundamental than the fact that we have to put $2 billion or $900 million, or whatever the figure may be, into the fund. Surely the question is what the government is prepared to do about unemployment. The problem for the House is not to sit down and devise the finest and most perfect unemployment insurance act, but it lies-and the government must bear full responsibility for it-in the whole question of employment.
The government must accept fully responsibility for having failed working Canadian people because we have to pay for those who are not working, as well as the unemployed who have to face unemployment with limited incomes and must wade through the bureaucracy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission which often makes them wait for weeks before they get their benefits. I know something about this because it happens in my riding. I see the commissioner up in the gallery, smiling away. It is not a smiling matter at all. Surely, if these unemployed people are entitled to benefits there ought to be no delay. Though I must say, about that gentleman, that he has been most co-operative in dealing with some of my more serious cases.
When I see the government proposing Bill C-69, it reminds me of the story of the robin. A certain robin thought, when the fall came, that he would stay up north because the weather was very mild: there was a warm spell and he thought he would not fly south, although that was what his fellow robins did. As the fall progressed, the weather became colder, until December came and it was extremely cold. At that point the robin decided he could not stick around any longer and he ought to fly south. He went up into the air and started flying south. Of course, the air was cold and his wings became frozen. As he started to fall toward the earth, his wings being iced up, he said to himself; "I know I am going to die; the end is near."
The robin fell into the barnyard of a farmer in my riding. As he lay there on the frozen ground, eking out his last breath of life, he thought that the moment had come when he would die. The along came the farmer's horse and defecated on the robin. Then robin started to feel the warmth spreading through his wings and the ice started to melt. He was feeling so good about this that he began to whistle, because that is what robins do when they are happy and warm. The farmer's cat happened to be prowling through the barnyard, and as soon as the cat heard the whistling he tracked the robin down under the mound and popped him into his mouth. There are two morals to this story which Liberals and Conservatives ought to keep in mind: not everyone who defecates on you is your enemy, and not everyone who digs you out is your friend.


Mr. Darling:: Now let's have your speech; let's have the gospel.


An hon. Member:: Where's the punch line?


John R. Rodriguez: There is a meaning there, and when we think about it both sides of the House will see the connection between that little story and what this government is offering us in Bill C-69. The history of what is proposed by the government with respect to the Employment Insurance Act began back in 1971. Hon. members will recall that that was the year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) fought his first fight against inflation, and of course it was quite a battle. At that time he said:
I'm afraid there are a lot of people in this country who are bargaining that, oh well, this government can't hang tough (in its fight against inflation) too long because it will be frightened when it sees unemployment go up to 6 per cent... But if the people think we are going to lose our nerve because of that, they should think again; we're not.
That is what the Prime Minister said when he began the first salvos against inflation-and inflation is always fought on the backs of workers, poor workers and workers who are not organized. That battle was fought, but lo and behold, the gentleman who is now the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) came like the white knight on a charger and delivered to parliament an unemployment insurance bill in 1971. He was like the horse. We had before us unemployment insurance legislation which widened the scope of unemployment insurance coverage for that great battle with inflation. At that time, the threshold for unemployment was set at 4 per cent, and it was argued that anything beyond that 4 per cent would be picked up by the government and paid out of the general operating revenues. We know what happened: the 4 per cent unemployment figure became an unrealistic figure. We must remember that one of the arguments put forward by the then minister of manpower and immigration who was responsible for the legislation was as follows:
Our system is really on trial if we cannot operate on the basis of lower rates of unemployment that have been traditional.
As a matter of fact, he was saying that that 4 per cent threshold would indeed act as an incentive to the government so that it could go about creating employment and so that there would not be a drain on the fund and on the taxpayers of Canada if unemployment should go over 4 per cent. I must say, some incentive!
What is being proposed? Since that threshold has not been an incentive, and of course the government and the minister may not want to be trapped into any such predicament in the future, what is the government prepared to do now? It is prepared to adjust the situation based on the previous eight years of unemployment rates, and of course that figure will float upward as has been the case in the past. It never floats downward, it floats upward, and of course more and more of the cost will be picked up by those who are working. It seems to me that this is a very regressive form of taxation. Those who are working will pick up more and more of the cost of the program. The government will shift from its shoulders the responsibility for its bad planning and for the lack of programs which it ought to hring into this House with respect to employment.
October 27, 1975

What is the government going to shift in this particular amendment? It is going to shift its estimated $900 million for 1976 on to the shoulders of small businessmen and those who are working. This is a very regressive form of legislation. It is only one of three pieces of regressive legislation we have seen emanating from the June 23 budget. We saw one which imposed a 10 per cent excise tax on gasoline. That tax penalized the working poor, the handicapped and those who live great distances from their jobs. We fought that legislation, but the government had its way.
The second regressive move is the announcement that the government is limiting its contribution to increases in the cost of medicare. Again, taxpayers face an indirect form of taxation; again a regressive taxation will be foisted upon the working poor.
Then there is this particular bill, and I suppose these three items could all be summed up under what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has called "rough justice". First, the government creates unemployment, in the true Keynesian fashion, to fight inflation. Then the people start collecting unemployment insurance benefits; and now they are being blamed for their own predicament and being told that the government has to get tough with them.
We have seen how the government gets tough. The government can get tough when it deals with the little people, but when it deals with large corporations it sets up committees to study their structures but never to come to grips with the problems. It seems to me that when it comes to that kind of fighting, the government is great at doing battle with those who can least defend themselves. I find this very strange indeed. Here we have a government which just last week brought in an anti-inflation program which, according to the government, will fight to keep the lid on wages and prices. It turns out that it is only a lid on wages and not on prices at all. Prices can keep going up. In fact, the Prime Minister told one lady that prices will go up. That is small comfort for the unemployed and for those who are not organized in unions and probably earning only the minimum wage.
Even where there is an organized operation, such as that at Elliot Lake, the conditions are such that workers are forced to accept them or, I suppose, to refuse to work and be counted in that 23,907 the minister rhymed off in his blurb as "having refused employment". It seems to me that this is the situation; it is great to restrain poor people, but when we come to the rich and the powerful it is another story.
As I have said, the new proposal will change the level at which government contributions are triggered from 4 per cent to an average in the last eight years. It seems to me that in 1976, if the present unemployment rise continues, we could see a benchmark of 6 per cent in 1977. In just the same way the government argued that keeping a 4 per cent ceiling was an incentive for the government to keep unemployment down, it appears to me that putting it on a floating scale would just be opting out of their responsibilities completely. They are using it as an escape-hatch from their responsibilities, knowing they did not show any concern when they were taking it out of general revenues. Surely now, when they are proposing a system to take care
Unemployment Insurance Act
of those increases automatically, they will show even less concern.
I should like now to look at the question of who is going to pay, and why this party claims this is a regressive tax. The present maximum earnings which are insurable are approximately $8,500. Since about two-thirds of the work force is unorganized and most earn below $8,500, these are the people who are going to pay increased contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. That is why this party takes the position that this is a regressive step. The bosses get the benefits. So far, all we have heard from the official opposition is how the unemployed take the fund to the cleaners. The unemployment insurance fund provides employers with an opportunity to make changes in structure and lay-off people for a period of time and then recall them when they are ready. It is a subsidy situation for the corporation, more than the rip-off situation for the hundreds of thousands of people collecting unemployment insurance benefits that the hon. member for Hamilton West would have us believe.
The second aspect of the bill which we find objectionable is this disqualification of workers who quit jobs "without just cause," or who refuse "suitable employment" or who are "discharged". This is going to be a bureaucratic delight. I have had a very difficult time getting a definition for such phrases as "without just cause", "suitable employment" and "discharged", from the unemployment insurance office. What is "just cause"? There are examples of people who have been given a three-week disqualification period by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and in almost every instance these persons are the unorganized. Organized workers have grievance procedures and the benefit of union officials who are well acquainted with this very confusing act and the regulations. The unorganized people do not have this kind of help and invariably they suffer as a result of such disqualification.
I always thought that in our system you were innocent until proven guilty. At the present time, the bureaucracy slaps on the three-week disqualification and then a person may appeal and go through the board of referees, but if they are unorganized they have to get the permission of the board of referees' chairman before they can go to the umpire. Let us take the case of Miss "X", where an employer demanded to know the dates of her menstrual cycle. She refused to discuss the matter with him, and he told her to leave. That is just one incident. There is another one of a waitress behind the counter, and when the boss passes, his hands are too free so she quits.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: That is "just cause".


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. But my point is that they apply the disqualification first and then you have to prove "just cause". How does one prove that? It is the woman's word against the employer's word. Whose word does the bureaucracy take? Certainly not the woman's. They would just say she was one of those women who worked for eight weeks and then wanted to collect benefits. That is the kind of mentality that permeates the UIC bureaucracy. It actually happens that the disqualification is imposed first and then the worker has to prove that it is in fact "just
29669-59%

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
cause". What is "just cause"? It is very difficult to prove. The bureaucracy has had a heyday with it.
Also, the phrase "suitable employment"-there is terminology to delight the bureaucrats. The definition of "suitable employment" may be very clear to those at the top, but when it gets down to the level of bureaucracy that deals with the public, it takes on colour depending upon who is interpreting it. The government says the proposed change to six weeks is due to the alarmingly high number of persons leaving their employment. In the white paper that the government issued with the amendments, it says that "despite high rates of unemployment and low ratios of job vacancies to the number of unemployed workers, the number of persons leaving their employment without good cause and refusing suitable employment remain at alarmingly high levels."
The figures indicate that 250,000 people quit their jobs in 1974. That is 2.5 per cent of the labour force. I should like further information on that. Surely it is important to know why they quit and in what sectors of the economy these quittings occurred. Most likely, the people included are some who have been referred to Denison Mines at Elliot Lake, and when they saw the conditions and learned of the impact of silicosis and the measures both levels of government have taken to clean it up, they refused the job and now are included in the 250,000 figure.
The minister is throwing around these figures to justify his argument. I suppose this and the other bill before the House with respect to cutting back the government's contributions in any increased cost of the medicare program could be termed law and order amendments. He is making a big pitch that the government is going to tighten up the Unemployment Insurance Act, when what it is doing is coming down hard on those people who can least defend themselves. They do not belong to a union and have no procedure for expressing dissatisfaction for their working conditions. They do not have the benefit of counselling, so have no option but to quit.
Most non-union workers do not bother to appeal a disqualification. First of all, the appeal is probably heard miles away from where they live and, secondly, the language of the notice from the unemployment insurance office, the significance of the regulations and everything about them, is very confusing and the unemployed feel threatened. When they phone the UIC office there is no one there to help them prepare an appeal. Even though the Unemployment Insurance Commission thinks that the appointment of some kind of ombudsman to help people prepare an appeal is a good idea, it has not appointed one. Further, if the unorganized worker loses an appeal to the board of referees, he cannot go to the umpire unless he first gets the permission of the chairman of the board of referees. On the other hand, we well know that in the case of organized workers the appeal goes automatically to the umpire.
[DOT] <1700)
Clearly, the bill discriminates against those who are unorganized. Do we want to force those who are unemployed and unorganized to accept dangerous jobs, to accept frustrating and low paying jobs? It seems to me that the minister is delivering these workers to those
kinds of employers who pay the minimum wage or less than the minimum-whose working conditions are less than safe! He is locking these workers into such jobs because they will need to wait for six weeks, if disqualified, plus an additional two weeks waiting period. This means that those people will be without benefits for two months, if they become unemployed under the conditions of this Bill C-69.
I suggest that the act of 1971 was more flexible. It provided more support to those who were working. The virtue of that act was this: it forced employers to improve working conditions of workers who were not happy because of long hours or low pay. It forced certain employers to do what is done in other sectors of the economy where there are proper working conditions and fair rates of pay. It seems to me that was one of the good aspects of the 1971 act.
What has the minister done now? I know what was at the back of his mind. I know the sort of advice he was getting. I remember what happened during the last election, when he attended a so-called great big meeting at Chelmsford arena in Nickel Belt. I know who came to see him.


An hon. Member:: A robin, that's who.


John R. Rodriguez: No, it was not a robin. I have heard him called worse names. It was a fellow who owned a great lumber company at Island Lake, near Chapleau, north of my riding in northern Ontario. This fellow was incensed because workers could get more on unemployment insurance than by working for him. He said that the Unemployment Insurance Act worked as a disincentive to work. So he came to his father confessor the minister over there, and told him about the problem. He said that he wanted to pay workers $2.50 an hour and determine conditions covering meals and living conditions, etc. Father confessor listened and listened, and the result is this legislation. Surely he knows that some of these fellows, some of these employers, impose on their workers the very worst working conditions it is possible to imagine Yet here he is bringing forward this kind of bill. It can only tighten the control of such employers over their employees.


An hon. Member:: You mean, he is a friend of the employers?


John R. Rodriguez: I suppose he is. It is interesting to note that the government has not moved to increase the federal minimum wage. Oh, we have heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) promising that the government will consider raising the federal minimum wage. So far, it has not gone up. In relation to average industrial income, it has gone down. Between July, 1970, and July, 1975, the federal minimum wage increased by 58 per cent. In the same period, earnings in manufacturing increased by 70 per cent. Therefore, it seems to me that the government is ensuring a large pool of lowly paid workers for employers. These workers must work to support their families. We are providing many employees to employers who are not prepared to institute improved working conditions and fair rates of pay.
The other aspect of this bill my party finds objectionable is that amendment dealing with the dependency rate

October 27, 1975

of benefit. At present, the act provides for 75 per cent of the weekly wage to a claimant with dependants, and 66% per cent to a claimant without dependants. This bill contemplates eliminating the 75 per cent dependency rate and allowing only the 66% per cent, the rationale being that the government has introduced all sorts of programs for the benefit of families and that the claims for dependants can therefore be eliminated.
I happened to be looking at some documents and, lo and behold, I found a 1972 memo entitled "Some background notes on the unemployment insurance program." The memo set forth arguments to justify the then proposed dependency rate. The argument used then could be equally used now to justify the retention of the dependency benefit. The memo read in part:
Studies indicated that the benefit structure should permit the unemployed worker to meet at least non-deferable expenses while in search of new work. Economists estimated that about one third of a family's expenses could be deferred for a short time and it is for this reason that benefit payments in the initial stages of the program are set at two thirds of a claimant's average weekly earnings.
In the later stages, benefits can be raised to 75 per cent of average earnings if the claimant had dependants, because non-deferable expenses become more critical if unemployment persists.
As well, the low income groups, i.e. those earning $50 a week or less at the time they become unemployed, are permitted the dependency rate from the outset of their claim in recognition of their lesser capability to absorb a drop in income.
That argument is still valid, yet the minister has seen fit to eliminate the dependency benefit. That is a regressive move designed, I suggest, to make it difficult for unorganized workers to jump from job to job in the areas of Canada suffering from a slowdown in economic growth despite DREE programs and other programs which effectively accelerate technological change and increase profits but do little to create jobs.
The other amendment we cannot accept is the reduction in age from 70 years to 65 years of those eligible to pay UIC premiums and to receive UIC benefits. So far we have talked strictly about how this bill relates to people, to the unemployed. You cannot just consider statistics, whether there are 5,000 people of 65 or over who are unemployed, 100 such people, or only one person. If the bill discriminates against anyone 65 or over, it discriminates against all. Of course, the minister said that the government had considered benefits available under the Canada Pension Plan, old age security provisions and supplementary benefits to this age group are quite adequate. Do not forget, Madam Speaker, that two-thirds of working Canadians are not in unions. Hence, they do not participate in pension plans. Organized workers contribute to pension plans. Sometimes the employer only makes the contributions on behalf of the workers. As any economist will tell you, any worker who is not organized and who therefore does not participate in some kind of pension plan cannot quit work at age 65. It is not a matter of whether such workers want to work. The fact is that such workers must continue working. All our old age programs, supplementary benefit programs and what-have-you provide no more than $3,000, at maximum.
What is the poverty level in this country? It is approximately $4,800. The minister says they have given us the
Adjournment Motion
Canada Pension Plan and the old age supplement program, so we should be satisfied and get off their backs. That is not good enough. As I pointed out, for many 65 year olds, retirement is not a matter of taking your ease at the summer cottage or in a condominium in Florida. For many, it is a matter of economics. They do not continue working because they like it.
How many people do we know who have marked off the day of their retirement? I know many workers in my community who have marked the days on the calendar up to the date of their retirement. There are others who must still be available for work. Those people will be eliminated from the UIC rolls. All they can hope for is a low paying job that younger Canadians with higher expectations will not accept.
Even the three-week retirement benefit has gone out the window. In some companies, a person eligible for retirement at age 68 cannot get the three-week retirement benefit. This particular aspect of the bill discriminates against the elderly who are poor. This is a miserly, miserable, mean and insensitive proposal by the minister.
The minister represents a part of Canada where there is a great deal of unemployment-northern Ontario. There are a great many of these cases in his area. I am surprised that he is asking this House and this party to support Bill C-69. We on this side are not prepared to support it. We will fight against the bill as hard as we can. Our difference with the minister on this question is different from the position taken by the official opposition, which is that this bill should possibly be tightened up even more with still more people being cut off the unemployment rolls.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.

Before recognizing the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), I would like to inform the House of the questions to be considered tonight.



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 Lisgar (Mr. Murta)- Air Transport-Bilingual air traffic control communications-Suggested resumption of study by committee; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Veterans' Affairs-Request for tabling of bill relating to Hong Kong and European prisoners of war; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)- Canadian National Railways-Treatment of employees taking French language training-Government action.

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, it is with some apprehension that I speak on the bill introduced this afternoon. I carefully listened to the minister and having known him for many years as an honest and just man, I was wondering what he was really thinking while making his statement. I am sure that if the minister had drafted the bill himself, it would be completely different, that is more much human and just. It would be a bill where the financial considerations would surely not override the human factors. However, what can you expect, like everybody else the minister is struggling in our false and so-called democratic system, while we live under an omnipresent bureaucracy headed by a technocracy serving financial powers which still allow us to live in Canada for a few years. That is why I want the minister to know that my remarks are more directed at the system than at himself, for I hold him in high esteem.
Before dealing with Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, we must keep in mind that the purpose of this bill is to lighten the burden of small wage-earners. It is quite the opposite, since this bill stems from the fifth great element in the program of the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to limit public involvement in connection with unemployment insurance. If I make this statement in my opening remarks, it is to caution my readers not to fall for the misleading representations in the act which, it so happens, reads:
Recommendation
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 to add, in the manner provided, a new class to the existing classes of insurable employment; to provide, in the manner prescribed, for changes in qualifying periods, benefit periods, entitlement to benefits and, rates of benefits; to provide, in the manner prescribed, for a new basis for the calculation that determines the proportion of the basic cost of benefit for a year that will be borne by the Government; to make the employer's premiums of Her Majesty in right of Canada payable by statute; and to provide for the payment of allowances to persons or their representatives who attend before an umpire on an appeal from a decision of the Minister.
All the newspapers which were probably well paid to publicize the fact that the federal government had finally decided to lead the way in reducing federal expenses have left out the fact that all of this would probably be achieved at the expenses of minimum wage workers. We must recognize that those who claim to keep the Canadian public well informed are unwilling or unable to admit that the victims of the example given by the federal government are those who earn $6,000 or less per year. And it is precisely to those unemployed that the minister is saying:
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
We have felt it necessary to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to give it more adaptability and fairness. The minister dares talk about justice when he proposes to cut off unemployment benefits to those who are 65 years of age or over, the very persons who have paid premiums right from the beginning of the unemployment insurance program and have never put in any claim. Why? We were told this afternoon that it was because old age pensions had been increased.
But, Madam Speaker, did he figure out that the higher old age pension fell far short of the cost of living increase since 1971. The minister dares speak of justice when he wants to raise the small wage earner's premiums. There are 5 per cent unemployed who earned only the minimum wage, that is $2.60 an hour in Quebec, without any possibility of indexation. Is it just to penalize a person with six weeks' waiting when a worker quits his job for personal reasons? Because it so happens, Madam Speaker, that a worker has personal reasons as is often the case when an employer discharges a worker. In my opinion, it is an injustice in the Russian manner. Is it just to give a claimant with one or more dependants only 66% when the old law was granting him 75 per cent, after the escalation of the cost of living due to the government's blunders and carelessness. To excuse the government, the minister talks of more generous family allowances. He very well knows that they are not making up the difference since 1971. He knows it but he cannot say it. It is merely social injustice which is reigning supreme since this government is in power and which they are mistaking for justice, because of their parliamentary majority.
I have stated before, with supporting evidence, that 80 per cent of the so-called social legislation passed through the House was clearly anti-social, and this bill is new proof of that. This bill is presented almost as a favour granted to people, a favour granted to the unemployed, like a bunch of flowers offered by a perfect valet. But looking at it more closely, what is it there to see, Madam Speaker? We bear in mind the minister's disconcerting promises of justice and equity, but the more deeply we examine the bill, the more we realize the discrimination which will result from it if no major amendment is moved before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. To illustrate more clearly my remarks, I will draw hon. members' attention to a few actual experiences which will highlight all the imposture hidden under this complacent literary style.
Take, for example, the question of illness and pregnancy. The bill provides for an increase or rather an extension of the period of coverage in case of illness or pregnancy. But if the minister keeps the same regulations, and that is the point, all diseases will be well codified and the officer's decisions will be mandatory. What will be the use of such an extension, then? If the regulations made by the bureaucrats who are now listening to me and approved by the minister without the reelected members of this House having a word to say and being even able to read them, determine, for instance, that an appendectomy requires three weeks' coverage, as though all surgery cases were similar, what will that extension mean? It all becomes a practical joke. Since 1971, we of the Social Credit Party
October 27, 1975

ask the government to acknowledge in priority the attending physician's diagnosis.
We are always confronted with a fait accompli, that is to say that the civil servant reverses the medical opinion to conform with he standards approved by the minister and the dictates of the bureaucracy.
Is there anything more antisocial and more ridiculous? Not one word dealing with that urgent problem is to be found in Bill C-69! The minister will object saying that the unemployed who is sick can always ask for a second, a third or even a fourth certificate. That is precisely what is ridiculous, Madam Speaker, since the surgeon or attending physician has stated that such and such a patient must rest for five, six or seven weeks, because of the seriousness of the operation and resulting convalescence. That this same doctor should have to sign two, three, four or even five certificates confirming the original prescription because a civil servant devoid of any medical knowledge has made a decision instead of the responsible person, the attending physician. Again the minister may object that some technocrats have done so or that the commission has its own physician.
Do you sincerely believe that the physician designated by the minister can appraise all the cases in his office in Montreal or elsewhere? There is nothing more ridiculous when civil servants say in such cases that it is Dr. Dunn's or someone else's decision. Let us put an end to this practical joke.
We, of the Social Credit, advise the minister to put forward an amendment so that the physician's diagnosis can only be reversed by an ad hoc medical board.
This afternoon I thought the minister would reduce the number of weeks for eligibility in case of illness, but he did nothing. People will still have to work for 20 weeks before being eligible for unemployment insurance benefits in case of illness. However, if there is a worker who needs money, it is the worker who is ill. The number of weeks for eligibility should be the same as for a worker in perfect health. The minister hinted that he would introduce further amendments and we hope that he will pay particular attention to the case I have just mentioned.
Another shortcoming in this bill is that it fails to mention anything new regarding entitlement to benefits nor does it set a limit date to establish entitlement in case of complications and dispute with the employer. It is the case when an employer refuses to pay for the stamps of an employee who has worked for several weeks for this employer, he then quits and goes to work for another boss who offers him higher wages and better working conditions.
I have solved several problems of this kind but it was only after forceful discussions and two or three months' waiting that I finally won the argument on behalf of the applicants. Let us sympathize over the plight of a bread winner who has to wait two or three months for his case to be settled. That, is a serious matter!
Right now, I still know another case which is pending, from which I infer either that officials do not receive clear instructions, or that they do not have the authority to settle on the spot the case of employers who are trying to punish workers for not accepting starvation wages.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The most peculiar thing in this case, which has been pending for a few months, is that civil servants believed the statements of the employer, his wife, his children, his whole family, while they seem to ignore completely the statements made under oath by the worker himself, his fellow workers and all those who cannot talk, when faced with dismissal. In brief, one accepts without hesitation the employer's statement and considers the worker as a liar when all his companions declare before the commission or the civil servants that he was actually doing such work during so many weeks, then the employer says no, because he was paying him cash every Saturday night. Those problems and tricks are found particularly in restaurants.
In my opinion, this problem should be considered by the government. That is why I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what brings the civil servants to deny so casually the statements made under oath by a worker against an employer's false statement. Maybe the unemployed will win his case. But this poor unemployed, who is sick to boot, has been waiting for more than two months and a half for the civil servants' decision. That is why we ask the minister to bring an amendment if necessary so that civil servants will have more authority to take actions vis-a-vis employers who fail to acknowledge the amount of time worked for them and to pay their employees the stamps for the weeks worked.
Madam Speaker, I had an unfortunate experience respecting hundreds of workers. This was another situation. All of them had been working for the Quebec Department of Lands and Forest. Only after action was taken against the Quebec government which had had the work classified as non-insurable employment by the Department of Revenue did all those workers win their case after waiting for a year. Only after a year was justice done to those workers employed by the government of Quebec. How is that for logic?
An amendment will therefore have to be introduced with respect to those governments in order to compel provinces to determine, before works start, whether such works, or workers will or will not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
The bill does not deal either with lumberjacks-another serious problem in our parts-lumberjacks who are discriminated against as compared with other industrial workers. Indeed, if a lumberjack does not complete four weeks, the contractor has a right to give him no stamp at all, whereas in the rest of industry, if a worker is working for one, two or three weeks, he gets his stamps. Unscrupulous contractors can therefore take advantage of that measure by abusing it or even better by pestering the worker to have him leave the working site before completing the four weeks and therefore not qualify. Moreover, he gets disqualified for three weeks, and that disqualification will be extended to six weeks with the new bill. Do you know that in a whole winter, some contractors save hundreds of dollars through a form of legal injustice?
An amendment should be introduced to put the forest industry on equal footing with any other industry. We see every day that, contrary to the minister of manpower's own recommendations, the government appears to be acting unilaterally. They ignore representations by serious

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
bodies such as "Action-Chomage" in Montreal. I even wonder if bureaucrats in Ottawa took the time to read the latter's brief, otherwise Bill C-69 would be quite different.
I am referring here to claims for overpayment. Very often these overpayments are caused by ignorance of both statute and regulations. Even members of Parliament do not know these regulations, which are not submitted to them. How can workers find their way through that maze? The regulations are four times as bulky as the act itself, and they simply deprive the latter of any of its potentially good effects.
The government is proud of the $4 million of overpayment it got back. Who but the victims know of all the inequities caused by the exaction of forced declarations during house inquest, by threats of legal action or by intimidation. Over the last few years, the department doubled its army of inspectors sent to force declarations out of claimants. First, claimants were told they were being helped. Somebody came to their house, supposedly to help, and scribbled something on a piece of paper the claimant had to sign without any explanation, without any mention of consequences.
After these inquests, claimants received a benefit cancellation notice or a note of overpayment. The minister just admitted this afternoon that 144,000 unemployed were struck off the list in this way. Talk about a victory! There is a section on accounting errors. But there are also errors by omission, when the minister does not instruct his officials to explain the act and all the regulations, nor to fully inform workers and employers. There is a definite gap there.
It is ignorance of regulations on the part of both the employer and the worker. We say they are not allowed to ignore the law but, Madam Speaker, we are not allowed to ignore regulations yet they are not submitted to us, to this House for approval. And this is where the situation is serious. I think that you will obtain much more efficiency and honesty if you turn your staff into social workers instead of policemen looking for new victims that will only fill up the coffers of the government. The minister is not interested in giving justice to the unemployed, but only in boasting a fat unemployment insurance fund.
To this end, he will double the contributions if needed to have an unemployment insurance program financially self-sufficient. When the government grants almost half a million dollars to the CBC to hire actors at enormous salaries where is its concern about self-sufficiency? Yet the Unemployment Insurance Commsision has a social role to fulfill much more urgent than the CBC.
And, all those grants that the government allots for research or so-called manpower incentives-I could give you many examples of it-and that are nothing but political patronage. Let us not forget that all those selective grants are taken from the consolidated revenue fund, that is to say from the pockets and from the pay cheques of the workers. The minister had the honesty to admit it this afternoon.
The former Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said that it was necessary to change the way to calculate the part of unemployment insurance benefits financed by contribu-

tors. And he added that the cost of the program beyond the self-supported part was a burden for the state. The basis of his tabulations was then an unemployment rate of 4 per cent. But is it the workers' responsibility if unemployment has reached the present levels? Then why should the small earners support the burden of government mismanagement?
One only has to consider that in Quebec alone out of a labour force of 2,729,000 at the end of September only 2,476,000 workers were working, which means that 203,000 are unemployed. After all the increases in premiums and the restrictions on benefit payments, how does one dare talk about justice for workers? Is this really the time to restrict expenditures for unemployment insurance when we are facing the hardest winter in many years?
The minister was sincere when he admitted he agreed entirely with the principles of the unemployment insurance program. It provides, the former Minister of Finance used to say, a steady income to workers who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, and reduces the anxieties caused by unemployment. Well, I learned from certain bureaucrats that the new orders are that benefits are to be paid so the unemployed will look for work first.
I am under the impression that technocrats give orders to officials who must obey under penalty of tough sanctions although they are aware that those anticipated orders, to say the least, are in conflict with the very spirit of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
One may fool the public for a while, Madam Speaker, but not indefinitely. Today, the majority of workers have organized so they will not be bamboozled by the government. That is why we are not surprised to hear the protests of the leaders, the large unions, now able to detect all the double dealings hidden in a text of law. For example, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress stated that all small workers will bear the weight of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and confirmed that 75 per cent of all unemployment insurance claimants earn $6,000 a year.or less.
Madam Speaker, it seems to me the Unemployment Insurance Commission is a service to the public. What do we find out, after we have been promised two years ago that we would have independent offices in the riding of Roberval, offices where decisions could be taken on the spot in order to provide personal service to persons unemployed for 15 days at most?
What did we get? A limited staff whose only task is to receive complaints and refer them to the regional office. These poor officials are there only to hear the complaints and often the insults voiced by unemployed people who have had it up to here, simply because those officials have no decision power. On two occasions, I was nevertheless promised that everything would be settled, but we are still waiting for those services.
Far be it from me to put the blame on the regional office which is overworked and cannot therefore give adequate service. Anyway, the persons responsible for that office look forward to the day when the minister will finally decide to give the services asked for many months ago.
Madam Speaker, there are many other points with which I should like to deal, such as the four weeks without
October 27, 1975

benefits, for instance, but my time is running short. I want to ask the minister to read my remarks carefully and then, to introduce himself the required amendments to this House, if he really wants, as he said again this afternoon, to treat the unemployed fairly.
As a consolation prize, the minister tells us that in the future he will issue a new insurance number to those who have lost theirs. I believe this is already current practice because it has happened several times in my riding: I had no trouble getting another number for those people who had problems with their numbers.
Madam Speaker, those who are entitled to benefits and were denied those rights by decisions of civil servants can finally have their travelling expenses paid, when they will have to appear before the board of referees, while they used to pay all their expenses. In future, I am pleased to see that the minister has announced this slight improvement which is not much. Last year, I think that at least ten of my constituents had to refer to arbitration. Thus, very little is granted, only peanuts!


An hon. Member:: It is not all that bad!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: I solve the cases myself. If you come in my constituency and we will convince you. But above all, the minister admitted this afternoon that his department will save-this is the best gift-some $170 million with his new bill. I leave the conclusion to the 700,000 unemployed Canadians.


Iona Campagnolo: Madam Speaker, I think it is indeed a unique occasion when members of this House can speak on an unemployment insurance bill because it seems to me that most members of parliament spend a good deal of time assisting constituents through the sometimes intricate maze that is dependent upon their getting their benefits through that commission. As a result of the comprehensive review of that act, certain complexities and inequities have become very apparent. That is what Bill C-69 has come to grips with now.
For almost two years unemployment insurance has been the subject of comprehensive review to determine whether it continues to meet its mandate in the most effective way possible in a dynamic modern economy. A number of complexities and inequities have come to light through the four years of experience which are now on record with the act, and through the results of the review.
One important inequity which has been brought forward relates to a degree of rigidity in the maternity benefits provided under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The 1971 act limited the payment of maternity benefits to a set 15-week period, with eight weeks immediately preceding the week of confinement and six weeks following it. This called for a very precise estimate of the date of birth by a woman's physician and took little account of the vagaries of nature. Thus women often lost several weeks of benefit if the birth of their child was either premature, or miscalculated. Thus the spirit of the provision of maternity benefits through the Unemployment Insurance Commission was often frustrated by a simple matter of biology.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I should like to make particular reference to those women of northern and less populous areas who must often arrange to leave their homes in advance of a birth in order to bear their child in a modern medical facility. There was no differential possible in the previous legislation for such circumstances, circumstances which often cost them considerable loss of benefits not lost by their southern sisters.
We made the elimination of this inequity part of the omnibus bill, C-16, on which I was privileged to speak on May 29 in this House. That bill, which received Royal Assent on July 30, will be implemented the first week of February 1976, and its provisions will provide a measure of flexibility to maternity benefits which will guarantee that the mother will receive the full benefit to which she is entitled, without placing her unborn child on notice to be born on a pre-ordained Unemployment Insurance Commission schedule.
V50)
There have been inequities evident in the provision of sickness benefits as well, and a similar degree of flexibility will be introduced into the payment of these benefits by Bill C-69. Under the present legislation, sickness benefits are only payable during the first 15 weeks of a claim for which benefits are payable. As a result, a person who has been on claim for some weeks and then falls ill and becomes incapable of working must face either a much reduced eligibility for sickness benefits, or in some cases may find himself without any protection at all at a time when it is most desperately needed.
Bill C-69 proposes to redress this inequity by making sickness benefits payable for a maximum of 15 weeks during all initial periods of a claim that has been established. Thus, instead of limiting these benefits to the first 15 weeks for which benefits are payable, they may now be payable during the first 25 compensable weeks which may be paid at any time during the first 39 weeks of a claim. This almost doubles the degree of flexibility for sickness benefits and is expected to resolve a problem encountered by many claimants, one which has proved a real hardship for far too many Canadians.
A related problem, and one which my constituents have drawn to my attention on a number of occasions, relates to the fact that claimants may not under the present act terminate their claim, even when it is in their own interest to do so. This is particularly important in the case of special benefits, such as sickness and maternity, which are only payable in the initial stages of the claim. For example, claimants who draw several weeks of benefit, return to work for 20 or more weeks, and then fall ill, find themselves ineligible to receive sickness benefits because they are out of the initial benefit period of their claim. Bill C-69 will permit such claimants to terminate their existing claim and establish a new one on the basis of the 20 or more weeks that they worked, thus enabling them to establish eligibility for special benefits.
Prior to 1971 the Unemployment Insurance Act contained a provision allowing claimants who had been out of the labour market involuntarily to be granted an extension in their qualifying period so that they could have the protection of unemployment insurance during the crucial
8586

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
period of their re-entry into the work force. For example, persons who had been working in insurable employment and then fell ill for a year or more so that they could not work, or who were incarcerated in a penal institution, could have their qualifying period extended to enable them to establish eligibility for benefits once they were ready to return to the work force.
The 1971 legislation reduced the qualifying period to the point where people needed only eight weeks of insurable employment in the preceding 52, or since their last claim, to become eligible for benefits. It was thought that the eight week period would be short enough to allow people who had been out of the work force to re-establish their eligibility quickly. Unfortunately, however, experience shows that despite this easing of the qualifying conditions, situations still exist where persons are unable to qualify for benefits because of a lengthy absence from the active labour force. Bill C-69 proposes to extend the qualifying period to 104 weeks from the current 52 for persons in these unique situations who are actively seeking to reestablish themselves in the productive sphere of living by earning the means to pay their way.
In addition to extending the qualifying period, the bill also proposes to extend the benefit period for such people. That means that people who have established a claim for benefit and then lose their eligibility because of an involuntary withdrawal from the work force will be able to qualify for an extension of their benefit period when they are ready to seek employment again.
Groups which will benefit from this proposal include claimants on approved training courses, persons who are incapable of working for reasons of sickness or disability, those who receive temporary workmen's compensation, and inmates of penal institutions.
I do not know why it was at that point that I suddenly thought of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), but the hon. member really aroused my curiosity to a high degree when he mentioned that family allowance was for the children. I wondered if he really did give family allowance cheques to his children. I think the government made a very wise decision when it decided who the trustee for family allowance would be. It is the wife, not the husband, and with good reason, because allowances are issued for the benefit of the family and not as pin money in lieu of allowances. This is done by thousands and thousands of wise and thrifty women across this country.
Under the present act persons working on local initiatives and assistance program projects are eligible for employment insurance coverage. However, the project sponsors, that is, those who develop and obtain funding for projects and who often supervise the projects, spearheading them in many ways toward realization, these spark plugs, if you will, Madam Speaker, are not eligible. This is an inequity which this bill proposes to redress. This proposal is in support of the importance which the federal government is placing on job training, in particular on LEAP and LIP which have, from their inception, actively encouraged the participation of the unemployed in the creation and management of labour intensive projects.
The historic reason for criticism of LIP and LEAP escapes me, but I think it must be because so many members of the House are representatives of large urban

areas, and in those areas which are not gigantic cities LIP and LEAP have become a veritable touchstone of improvement in small places. They are visible and tangible assets to them. In non-urban areas of Canada you can look at recreation centres erected where they would never be erected any under any other program; you can look at the finishing of housing, at the erection of fire halls, and the establishment of senior citizens' help programs. I inspected one yesterday in the Queen Charlotte Islands. It was one that our federal and B.C. governmental agencies considered and said was impossible because it would cost probably $1 million, so of course it could not be done. It is an erosion control system which keeps the Pacific ocean from eroding village land. The people there put out a LIP project and during the first phase for a mere $27,000, with some voluntary and some paid work, have begun to make this possible.
I would like to continue, Madam Speaker, but I see it is six o'clock, so I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith), that the debate now be adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight at which time, may I remind hon. members, that pursuant to the order made prior to adjournment on October 24, 1975, the House will proceed to the taking of a recorded division in relation to the second reading and references to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-73, an act to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Pursuant to an order of the House made Friday, October 24, 1975, the House will proceed to record the deferred division on second reading of Bill C-73. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my name may have been inadvertently called during the taking of the vote. I did not vote. I do not think the government has yet presented its case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is absolutely right. He did not rise during the voting. I was able to observe that from here. However, I did hear his name being called inadvertently. The record will be amended to delete his name from the vote.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT (1971) MEASURE TO ADD NEW CLASS OF INSURABLE EMPLOYMENT
[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.
Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, when I left off at six o'clock I was describing some of the more successful and outstanding LIP projects. I do not want it to appear on the record as though there were only a few. On further research I have discovered that the few are those that are not successful.
Contrary to the popular history engendered by members opposite, LIP projects have been proceeding in an even greater and much more effective pattern in recent years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
29669-60*/2

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


Iona Campagnolo: I was describing a particularly successful project that I noted yesterday in my travels in the Queen Charlotte Islands where governments, both federal and provincial-hon. members will notice my lack of partisanship-estimated the amount in the excess of $1 million. The people in that particular village, through successive LIP projects, will have been able to complete the project at a cost in the area of $50,000, in just over two years. That was done with not only paid workers but with volunteer workers as well.
These are the kind of people we are talking about in this particular bill. We are talking about the sponsors of the bill, those who bring the projects to fruition and those who supply the energy and know-how behind the projects. Those are the ones I am talking about this evening. As I said, that is one example. There are a great many others. The program is working, and working very well.
For those who represent the very large cities which have vast amounts of money, it perhaps does not matter that a sea-wall has been built in a very small village in Canada. However, let me say that when you have 17.43 per cent unemployment, as Skeena does, you do not sneer at LIP and you do not deny the sponsor UIC benefits.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been trying to hear what the hon. lady has to say; however, her colleagues are busy chewing the fat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) has the floor. All remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the only fat I would like to see my colleagues chew are some of the fat cats over there, who pretend to be saviours of labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: Equal treatment is what I am talking about under the Unemployment Insurance Act, equal treatment for the worker and the sponsor under LIP and LEAP projects vis-a-vis unemployment coverage. This is justice! I appreciate the member opposite giving me the opportunity to be heard.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell that to the people in Regina-Lake Centre.


Iona Campagnolo: I was in Regina-Lake Centre last week. I found that a lot of people there are unemployed. Therefore I am sure the hon. member appreciates LIP projects as I do.
There has been concern expressed about the appeal system. The appeal system is an integral part of the whole unemployment insurance plan. It has been in existence since 1941, providing an effective recourse for both claimants and employers.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) talked today very knowingly about the sweet little waitress who had the misfortune of having a boss who put his hands where they should not be. He forgets there is legal
recourse for this kind of thing. Most of the women I know would not be above putting him in his place, going to court and getting a successful judgment against the offender and claiming their UIC benefits as a result.
Cases are heard by the Federal Court of Canada, the umpire if you will. I think "umpire" is a very good term. I think it puts succinctly what we were discussing earlier in this debate today. This is fed back into the eligibility determinations made by the commission. Thus the appeal system is crucial not only in terms of offering an effective channel through which to challenge bureaucratic decisions but also as keeping the program responsive and attuned to the judiciary's interpretation of the way the program should operate. And challenging bureaucratic decisions is a process which I am sure hon. members opposite are as happy to see as I am and, that includes members of the New Democratic Party.
An important amendment in Bill C-69 provides for the payment of travelling expenses by the UIC for its clients and their representatives attending hearings of the umpire in cases concerning coverage under the act. The legislation provides for the payment of expenses of appellants who are appealing cases concerning benefit. The proposed amendment increases the accessibility of the appeal system to persons who disagree with decisions of the commission.
I am sure members opposite who have small disagreements with the minister over this bill will bring them to the fore in the committee.
I think I would be really remiss in winding up this discussion tonight were I to do so without saying how much I appreciate the efforts of those in the field who administer the present legislation and who will administer Bill C-19 when it becomes an act. These are the men and women who deal day after day with the ordinary people we are supposed to represent here. We hear all too often from members opposite that there is nothing but a giant bureaucracy out there with no feeling for human beings. It is our job to make sure this is not the case. If the people at the bureaucratic level fail it is because we have failed to bring the message to them, and that is what I am asking you to do tonight. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the U.I.C. people in the field, who are dealing with the conflicts and human problems are faced every day by many people in this country, some of whom never dreamed they would ever be out of a job-they felt they were beyond the pale, that they would never need to call upon the resources of the country to protect them. More and more they find that this, indeed, can happen, and I would like especially to remember those who deal with them on a day to day basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, this is a most timely opportunity to talk about Bill C-69, a bill with unemployment insurance, because we are at almost the same time dealing with inflation and discussing inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested last weekend that union leaders who do not obey guidelines might well be put in jail in order to help the process.
I should like to quote something about the attitude of the public as stated by R. S. Malone in the Globe and Mail
October 27, 1975

of today, Monday, October 27. Speaking of inflation he had this to say:
But what about some of the larger and even more "untouchable" items? What about the staggering annual costs in unemployment benefits? All Canadians are aware that this program has become a national scandal to which Ottawa closes its eyes. Surely a time has come to bring a halt to the massive cheating and moonlighting which goes on, costing the taxpayers millions a month.
Some strict screening, individual investigation, regular monthly reviews, effective penalties and allowance cuts when reasonable work is refused, are long overdue.
This may be an extreme view but it is typical of the view held by many among the public. On the other hand of course, we, as members of parliament, tend to come into contact with many cases in which there appear to be an element of injustice following the application of unemployment insurance regulations.
As one who was involved with the legislation in 1971, I think I can say that as a result of the changes which were made then the whole plan was removed farther away from the concept of a general insurance plan. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the most important aspect of this legislation is the change being made in the bench mark rather than the regulations we have been discussing.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), when he was minister of labour, had this to say when he brought forward his white paper:
The government is not only willing to help provide a system of income support during an adjustment process; it is also ready to assume the cost of extra unemployment insurance benefits when the national unemployment rate exceeds 4 per cent. This policy is perhaps one of the most interesting in the entire proposal It clearly establishes the government's responsibility for the financial support of a national unemployment insurance program over and above the self-financing aspect.
With this change in the guidelines and the bench marks it is quite obvious the government has changed the whole goal of unemployment insurance. Now, as time goes on, bringing us into a moving average of the previous eight years of employment, within a few years employers and employees will be paying almost the full shot and, in turn, the government will be making the rules by which the money is spent. It seems to me important that we decide whether we are running a reasonable insurance program, or whether we are running a social welfare or social benefit program. If it is an insurance program then it is probably fair and reasonable that the employers and employees should pay for it. If it is a social welfare program surely the government of the day, the public exchequer, is the agency which must take a hand in it and put up a lot of the money.
What about the philosophy behind unemployment insurance? At first glance social justice should be the principal supporting argument in favour of unemployment insurance. It appears unfair that those least capable of bearing the burden of unemployment and least responsible for its causes, should suffer hardship. It might be felt, too, that productivity would increase because of an increased feeling of security among workers. Superficially, at least, unemployment seems to conform to the tests of an insurable risk: it applies to a sufficiently large group of people and over a sufficiently wide range of operations to permit the operation of the law of averages, and, theoretically, the economic loss can be compensated for, wholly or partially,
Unemployment Insurance Act
by indemnifying an idle worker on the basis of former earnings.
It should be noted that voluntary unemployment insurance plans, widely prevalent in Europe in the early part of this century, broke down because they were not actuarially sound. The same can now be said of our own unemployment insurance system. Further, in the event of major calamity or depression, the strain of cyclical unemployment of a severe sort will lead to the complete collapse of our way of handling payments to the unemployed. To some extent this has happened causing the federal treasury to step in.
There are certain inherent features which are detrimental to the unemployment insurance concept. In circumstances of severe unemployment the fund is likely not great enough to carry the excess load, and even if an enormous reserve were to be accumulated its sudden disposal on the money market would depress business.
There are bound to be all kinds of bad side effects attached to any unemployment insurance program. The contributions of employees tend to increase costs and prices, and the contributions of employers lead to increased wage demands. Then, too reliance on unemployment insurance in times of need curtails the incentive to save. This reduces savings which are necessary for our economy to prosper. The unemployment insurance program is detrimental to employees' loyalty and increases labour turnover. As well, the psychological side effects of unemployment insurance are harmful. Work is increasingly looked upon as being purely optional instead of being viewed as a vital necessity in order to survive.
Unemployment insurance promotes evasion of responsibility; governments turn a blind eye to all kinds of abuses; workers believe they have only rights, no duties; and employers are given no incentive to maintain employment. A true insurance program would have to offer financial rewards to employees who would build up credit in the form of reduced premiums by not applying for unemployment insurance payments, and to employers who maintain payrolls and do not lay off employees unnecessarily.
It is obvious now that there must be a recognition of the key here: "Unemployment exists", according to John Maynard Keynes, "because employers are deprived of profit". Therefore the only real improvement in the unemployment situation lies in preventing unemployment, not in expedience for distributing the loss occasioned by it. Obviously compassion and justice require assistance for those truly in need. By and large the working public would gladly support any such proposal.
Having given some thought to what pitfalls are in a truly insurance proposal, we may follow along to discuss some of the changes that occurred in 1971 when the new Unemployment Insurance Act was brought forward.
It is obvious that the government miscalculated when it brought forward this proposal. As one who was on the committee I might say that the government was obviously flying blind. It did not know or have any reasonable concept of what the cost of the program would be in the years to come. At that time the unemployment pay-out

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
was based on 43 per cent of the average worker's income, and rising as high as 50 per cent in certain cases.
The minister in charge of the unemployment insurance legislation and his officials obviously had no real forecast of what the expenditures would be. First of all they were presented with evidence to show that there would be a shortfall of at least $350 million, a minimum figure based on conditions existing in the year ending March 31, 1970, when unemployment was 4.8 per cent. The government made errors in its calculations and concluded there would only be an increase in the pay-out rate from 43 per cent to 66% per cent of the income of claimants generally, ignoring the fact that there would be a considerable cost in the form of additional benefits during the phase calling for 75 per cent of income.
The government did not calculate that the ceiling benefit of $53 a week then would increase to $100 per week under the new amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Furthermore the government proposed that the waiting period be extended from one to two weeks. The unemployment insurance people estimated this change would give rise to a saving in benefits of $160 million. That figure was impossible. It did not take into account that following the two weeks waiting period that the claimant would be paid three weeks's benefits. The only ceiling that would arise in this case was where a new job was found within the two weeks, but the white paper acknowledges that normally this takes from three to five weeks.
No allowance has been made for an obvious increase in benefit costs that would occur as a result of the shortened eligibility period of eight weeks. Certainly this is considered to amount to more that $65 million.
At that time facts and figures in respect of unemployment insurance in the 1970's were presented to the parliamentary committee. Following the estimate of what the cost of unemployment insurance would be in 1975 at a rate of 7 per cent, the estimate then based on 1972 figures would bring this to $1,081 million.
We have now an unemployment rate of only slightly more than 7 per cent; 7.2 per cent to 7.5 per cent, yet the cost of unemployment insurance is $4 billion. Even allowing for an increase in the average weekly wage from the $150 in 1970 to something like $200 now, the government's estimate was not even close. If its estimate had been accurate, the cost of unemployment insurance this year would be something in the neighbourhood of $1,500 million, a far cry from the $4 billion it is actually costing us. Never mind what happened to the fellow with the fishes and the loaves feeding the multitude. No one could have been more wrong than the unemployment officials and the minister in estimating the cost which has now reached $4 billion.
In the intervening period the minister kept saying there would not be an increase in the cost. It is perhaps difficult to relate unemployment insurance costs to the general economy because of the rapid inflation and the variation in the unemployment rate. It is difficult to relate this in constant dollars. We can only look back and compare it with what has gone before. Perhaps it would be beneficial to make a comparison between our gross national product at the market price and unemployment pay-outs. This might be illuminating and of some value.

For instance in 1964 the gross national product was about $50 billion and the unemployment insurance pay-out was $324 million, or 0.65 per cent. That percentage pay-out held fairly steady during the 1960's. In 1965 it was 0.57 per cent of the gross national product, in 1967 it was 0.54 per cent, in 1968 it was 0.61 per cent, in 1970 it was 0.82 per cent, and in 1971 it was 0.95 per cent. Then we came to 1972 when it suddenly jumped to 1.81 per cent. In other words, with the change to the Unemployment Insurance Act we had a doubling of the pay-out under the unemployment insurance fund in comparison to the gross national product. This has increased until at the present time we have a pay-out of nearly $1 billion and our gross national product is estimated at approximately $140 billion, or 2.92 per cent.
There has obviously been a fundamental change in respect of unemployment insurance. Some might suggest that the additional people brought in under the act in 1971 made the difference, but certainly these people would not normally be unemployed then or now. This includes government workers, federal, provincial and municipal, and certainly government workers are not usually unemployed. In fact a government employee almost has to be guilty of moral turpitude to be discharged.
Teachers were brought in, but I am sure they would not increase the unemployment rate. I think most members will have found it is almost impossible for a teacher to collect unemployment insurance. Employees of hospitals and charitable institutions were covered. Perhaps there might have been a slight increase in respect of workers in lower skilled jobs, but those in highly skilled jobs, I am sure, did not contribute to the increase. It also covered the armed forces, police forces, and professional athletes. Surely those people have not changed the pattern of payout under unemployment insurance.
When questioning the minister who appeared before the committee on May 25, 1971, I asked:
Mr. Minister, I would just like clarification of this saving on the first week of $160 million, on that paper you kindly sent around.
Later I asked:
-by increasing the waiting period from one to two weeks, you are saving about 45 per cent of the regular unemployment, based on a 4 per cent rate.
MR. Mackasey: But the money is going elsewhere into the plan. We have increased benefits, we have lowered eligibility to the eight weeks, despite the two weeks. It is really a distribution on the table. As I recall, this table shows were we save and where we spend, and we show that we increase the costs by $65 million by lowering eligibility.
MR- Ritchie: Mr. Minister, what astounds me is that by increasing the waiting period from one to two weeks, you are saving about 45 per cent of the regular unemployment, based on a 4 per cent rate.
MR. Mackasey: Unemployment is really front-loaded. Even in the month of January this year, at the height of all that high unemployment, over 110,000 or 120,000 people went back to work.
At the time the government passed the Unemployment Insurance Act it had no concept of the cost of this program. Furthermore, there is intense feeling that unemployment insurance is a great rip-off and that people are collecting benefits unnecessarily, to the detriment of the working fabric of our enonomy. This may or may not be true, but I think it can be said that when benefits are available a worker is entitled to manage his affairs so as to obtain them if he so decides.
October 27, 1975

At a time of statistically high unemployment I was astounded to hear tonight of a riding that was awarded nearly $1 million in LIP grants which is based on the unemployment rate, while in my rural area riding the total was $155,000. One wonders how accurate are the unemployment statistics. At a time of statistically high unemployment workers are difficult to obtain for industry. There has been a lack of available workers, particularly in agricultural and other basic industries such as forestry and mining. This is particularly true in respect of jobs which are not too pleasant.
In some of these cases I do not think it is because sufficient money is not being offered. There may be many unemployed workers, but they are unemployed because they cannot find the particular jobs they would like to have. If the economy is to function, then the jobs which are not too pleasant must be filled. If we are to have a healthy and vigourous economy we might ask whether unemployment insurance contributes to this.
In respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and certainly its administration, it has been one of my contentions that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is unnecessarily severe in respect of certain people who are not protected through belonging to a large union or a large company. I cannot help but feel at times that in a rural area it is unnecessarily severe in administering regulations concerning small people who are not likely to be able to fight back. The cases brought to my attention always involve people who do not belong to a large union or a large corporation.
Many people in my area, in the small hamlets and villages, cannot obtain unemployment insurance benefits because the officials have ruled that they must move to work centres a good many miles away. The distance rule at times is being applied very severely, and sometimes I feel unfairly. For this reason I maintain that many people who pay unemployment insurance dues and live in rural areas in fact are virtually excluded from receiving benefits because of the residence rule. I do not know whether this is fair. Generally the unemployment insurance officers rule that they must go many miles away. This really is impracticable.
Indeed Unemployment Insurance officials today I say would depopulate many hamlets and villages by moving workers to larger urban centres. Obviously in order to control abuses of the fund the officials apply the regulations very severely. Unfortunately in my area they seem to apply them to the casual people and those least able to cope.
These people to whom I refer are doing jobs which no one else wants. They are farm labourers, camp cooks, and people who work away from home on road work. It seems to me that before this bill is passed we should recognize there should be a thorough-going inquiry into the working philosophy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. What the government has proposed will not materially change the thrust of the Unemployment Insurance Act, other than shift it from a government role to a private role so far as paying for it is concerned. In fact, with the government still making the rules and regulations there will be a tendency on the part of politicians to increase benefits since the public treasury will not have to bear the
Unemployment Insurance Act
full cost. We need to know whether or not unemployment insurance is to be viewed in terms of true unemployment insurance, as income redistribution, or social welfare.
A recent publication of Statistics Canada gives an idea of what income redistribution has been in the country as a whole. I think this is quite interesting. For instance, for the month of July Newfoundland received $12 million in payments; New Brunswick received $11 million; Quebec received almost $95 million; Ontario received $80 million; Manitoba received $4 million; Saskatchewan received $3 million, Alberta almost $7 million, and British Columbia almost $32 million. When one examines these figures one finds a wide variation in the amount of money received relative to the population of each province. The total paid out was $256 million. Had it been paid out in Canada on the basis of Manitoba's insurance pay-out the total payment would have amounted to something like $88 million, while in respect of Saskatchewan it would have been even better at something like $70 million.
I ask what effect income redistribution has on the structure of our economy and our society. We have a very contrived country. The government works on rules which are based on political expediency rather than on the state of the market. So I think we should examine the effect redistribution has had on the growth of our country. We have paid out vast amounts of money in DREE and other grants to entice industry to backward areas or areas in which industries do not seem to thrive.
Does unemployment insurance aid and abet the failure of industries to establish and thrive in certain backward areas? Why should there be such a large discrepancy between one area and another? This is not entirely explained by the good or bad times which occur in our economy in selected regions, from time to time. Do the methods used in respect of employment vary from area to area? Do the criteria in respect of payment vary more in one area than in another? Certainly from my experience with unemployment insurance claims in my area I can say the officials could cause the spending or the saving of hundreds of millions of dollars in a year by applying the regulations severely or not so severely.
Does unemployment insurance encourage workers to remain unnecessarily in a high unemployment area? We must look at this particularly because of the extended benefits policy whereby a person with only eight weeks attachment to the labour force may receive benefits of up to 52 weeks if conditions are right.
We might look at the question of whether or not unemployment insurance benefits are too high at 66% per cent. We cannot blame any worker today who takes advantage of these benefits if it is in his interest to do so. If the system allows a payment then the worker is entitled to this payment. If the rate is 66% of a man's average weekly earnings, then particularly if he has a cold job in this cold country he may want to take advantage of it. His costs are increased if he has to buy extra clothes, or drive his car a long way and he is not able to start it in the freeze up. This is where the figure of 66% must be seriously considered.
In his recent budget the former minister of finance stated that unemployment insurance would be changed,

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
and he proposed five basic changes on the basis that the cost to the government is becoming unwieldy and that the present act contains undesirable features. He pointed out the fact that the act was too expensive in its operations, and that the present cost to the government is almost double the amount that the government had forecast in view of the rate of unemployment back in 1972. Benefit payments in 1975-76 are expected to exceed $3.75 billion, placing a total cost on the government of approximately $1.75 billion. This is cause for considerable alarm.
Unemployment in 1974 averaged 5.4 per cent and has been running this year at an annual rate of 7.2 per cent. It may well be that due to the state of the economy the rate of unemployment may well reach 8 per cent by the end of the year. But unemployment statistics do not account for all the increases in pay-outs. While unemployment benefits rose by 31 per cent from April, 1974, to April, 1975, the total cost of UIC rose 69 per cent. More important is the fact that the length of the benefit period for recipients increased by 51 per cent over the same period. In other words, people did not go back to work at the same rate as they did previously. This factor can be interpreted as the result of either the mismanagement of the unemployment insurance fund or a growing trend where people feel more secure collecting unemployment insurance benefits than working. Needless to say, the former minister of finance has tended to place the blame more on the latter than on the former.
With regard to disincentives let me say that I have not seen much evidence one way or another. In fact in a report put out by the Department of Manpower and Immigration entitled "Canadian Work Values" the following conclusion is stated clearly:
Clearly, Canadians are committed to work- Canadians see themselves as industrious people to whom work contributes a feeling of success and, for a large proportion, of personal fulfilment.
While this is a fact, it is true that more and more people confine themselves to work which they like. This is human, it is what we would all like to do, namely, work at jobs we feel we like. But in practice all sectors of our economy must be covered and some people must do jobs which they do not find too interesting.
I should now like to discuss briefly some of the solutions the government has proposed. First, the government proposes an increase from three to six weeks in the period of disqualification for those who have quit or been fired from their jobs, or have refused suitable employment. Superficially one cannot critize this proposal, but certainly I feel strongly that certain people who leave their jobs, who quit or who are fired, do so for good reason. We all have personality problems. Very often it is not the boss who is the reason for a person quitting his job, it is his fellow workers or some difficult situation, perhaps a personal situation. Therefore, it seems to me there is place here for providing some recourse for the one who is fired or who quits if the reason for his quitting was beyond his control.
The second government proposal is that the payments of premiums and the receipt of benefits will terminate at age 65. Again it seems to me that the government is saying to people 65 and over, "We do not want you in the labour force any longer". Perhaps due to the high rate of unemployment this can be tolerated at present, but we are fast

approaching an era in which we will need those who are 65 and over in our work force.
In other societies in Europe and in Russia people over 65 years of age are wanted in the work force. It would seem to be practical that some arrangements be made to allow these people to collect unemployment insurance if they wish. Many people over that age do not want to work because they have worked a lifetime and they do not want to continue. But I believe that within reason we should encourage people over 65 to remain in the labour force, and especially those people who do not draw unnecessarily on the fund should be allowed to continue. Perhaps one solution might be to give them an option of whether or not they draw on unemployment insurance.
I would like to make a few comments now on the new government employee adjustment procedure. Unemployment insurance currently operates on the basis of employee-employer contributions covering costs when unemployment is 4 per cent or less. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) stated to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration on May 27, 1975:
An unemployment scheme like ours does have a crucial role to play in keeping the economy ship afloat in an industrialized country and that is something that we should recognize when we examine the cost of a program like this one of ours.
What the government is proposing is a fundamental change. By changing the 4 per cent unemployment benchmark to an eight year moving average, and by doing so during a recession, the government is ensuring that little or none of the additional cost of unemployment insurance, which accrues from its inability to deal with unemployment, will fall on the federal treasury in years ahead. Since this renegation of the clearly established benchmark of 1971 makes it apparent that the government is no longer committed to 4 per cent unemployment, and since a great need exists for unemployment insurance, irrespective of the government's posture, it is safe to assume that the total cost of unemployment insurance will remain exorbitant and probably will even increase.
I should like to read to you what the present Postmaster General, the former minister of labour, had to say when he was giving evidence on 25 June, 1971, before the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. He said:
. .. The point I was making ... which is a valid one, I think, is that if we had no unemployment insurance plan, or if the government was not seized under this bill with the responsibility of providing the features beyond the 4 per cent, despite Mr. Thomas' arguments, which were good arguments, in that event governments would have to assume their legal and moral responsibility to reward the unemployed in this country. If you had a 10 per cent period for instance of unemployment at 7 per cent you would certainly have an added burden on the general revenue or on the Treasury to provide some financial assistance to people.
In other words, the minister of that day was adamant that the 4 per cent was necessary, that the country had a social obligation to shoulder the burden, and that it would be a good thing because it would provide the government with an incentive to reduce unemployment. Now, however, the burden created by the ineptitude of the government will fall directly on the shoulders of the taxpayer through what is in fact a new form of payroll taxation, and at that, regressive taxation of the worst ilk.
October 27, 1975

This may have been quoted previously, but Don McGil-livray, a financial analyst writing for the Financial Times, wrote the following:
. .. the change in unemployment insurance financing faces Canadian employees and employers with an additional tax burden at least twice as heavy as the extra tax on gasoline ... this extra payroll tax under the new formulae may reach $800 million to $1 billion next year.
The important thing is that this is merely a transfer of tax from the federal treasury to the employee and the employer, but is it in effect a scheme of viable insurance, or does it carry a large element of welfare? Employers and employees would be reasonably happy to carry a scheme which is a true insurance program, but when it is a welfare scheme or where there is a large element of welfare involved, surely it becomes the decision of the government of the day to modify it as to what pattern they shall pay.
Leaving aside the points which have been debated, the important thing is the changing of the bench mark which reduces the cost to the government and increases the cost to employers and employees, while in effect the same pay-outs and the same difficulties remain in the system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in taking part in this important debate on Bill C-69.
This most important bill was tabled for first reading on July 8,1975, and I hope that, with the cooperation of all members of this House, it will be passed without a deljy which might impede the application of measures designed to provide more efficient administration for the Unem-plc^nent Insurance Commission.
Since 1940, thousands of Canadians have taken advantage of this program, but it was not until 1971 that workers have been granted an unprecedented protection when benefits passed from 40 per cent of their weekly earnings to 66% per cent.
Previously, if a worker was so unfortunate as to become ill, he could not receive any benefits under the act. An applicant had to accumulate 30 weeks out of the last 104 to be entitled to benefits, which according to several members of all parties in the House, made the policy outdated and discriminatory for thousands of Canadian workers. And especially those who live in areas where the unemployment rate is higher, such as in the Maritimes, in Quebec or some locations in the prairies or Ontario. Therefore the 1971 legislation compensated for several injustices, reducing to eight the number of weeks required to qualify for some benefits and to twenty weeks for all benefits such as the allowance in the case of illness or maternity and granting a maximum of 51 weeks of benefits.
It is therefore obvious that the new unemployment insurance scheme is fairer and more efficient and allows a better distribution of incomes than before 1971. However, Mr. Speaker, since the coming into force of the new legislation, several members, especially in the government caucus, have made representations and recommendations to have the unemployment insurance legislation amended
Unemployment Insurance Act
to correct some problems which according to them create injustices for workers who are disallowed benefits for some rather technical reasons as well as the problem due to abuses by some workers.
According to current legislation, a person is not subject to pay any premium on reaching age 70 or when he or she is entitled to a retirement pension or a pension under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan.
Since 1971, both federal and provincial programs have been substantially improved, among other things the income supplement for persons 65 years or over. The most important improvements include the indexation of old age security pensions and the guaranteed income supplement, the indexation of tax exemptions and the increase in the retirement pension under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. For instance, the monthly old age security pension has gone up from $80 in 1971 to about $126 in 1975. The monthly guaranteed income supplement has also risen from $34 for a single person in 1971 to $88 this year. Particularly, the retirement pension paid in accordance with the Canada Pension Plan has increased from $65 in 1971 to $130 a month on July 1, 1975.
Considering all those improvements, the programs would unnecessarily overlap if persons having age 65 were still covered by the unemployment insurance plan. We must also take notice of the fact that 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.
In Bill C-69, it is proposed that persons attaining the age of 65 cease to be insured and pay unemployment insurance premiums. Thus persons who will be 65 years of age and will have had at least 20 weeks of insurable employment will receive a special retirement benefit equal to not less than three times the weekly rate of benefit, or an amount of not less than three weekly benefits, if the benefit period has already been established for the claimant.
Mr. Speaker, the old law specified that the age limit would be 70 mainly because at that time that was the age at which people became eligible for old age pension.
I think it would have been more realistic, in all those years, if unemployment insurance had ceased at 69 when people 69 years of age became eligible for pension and so on, gradually lowering each year until 65, which would have made it unnecessary to pass this legislation. However, the main objective was to provide income until retirement. In those days it was believed that the desirable retirement age was 70. And yet, there have been improvements in this area.
It is a fact that whenever the House was dealing with pensions, a number of hon. members, either from the Social Credit Party of Canada or the Progressive Conservative Party, and especially the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), claimed that, in their opinion, the purpose was for workers to become pensioners when they reached age 60. Their main argument was to create jobs when people retired from the labour force at age 60.

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
What I can hardly understand, although people are invited to retire at age 65, is that these people want to keep on working. Therefore, when they ask to create jobs for people 60 years of age, they are not using the same argument. I wish people who retire at age 60 could have decent lives. If there is a responsibility for people who are 65 years old or over and who are employed, it is not that of an insurance. I see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is in the House. It is his duty and that of provinces to look after that. We, members of this party, feel that the people who are 65 years of age have worked enough. They deserve a well earned rest after all these many years of working.
Moreover, to allow people of 65 to receive a pension in order to retire more easily, in 1971, those who quit their jobs, at least those who wanted to continue to receive unemployment insurance benefits, were not entitled to do so while being covered by the Canada Pension Plan. That has been corrected since then. Today, at 65, the person who retires is entitled to receive the old age security pension, the full amount of the Canada Pension Plan. Nothing is taken off, except perhaps in one province, and I hope that in that province amendments will be made rapidly to eliminate discrimination against Quebec workers, for instance, whose contributions to the Quebec Pension Plan will be reduced, if they are still working at 65, according to their income, which does not apply in all other provinces of Canada. I wish an amendment in that respect will soon be voted in Quebec.
The age limit for eligibility for unemployment insurance has long been a feature of European plans. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the insured cease to be eligible for benefits when they are 65. Mention is often made of Sweden by our friends of the opposition. There are many plans in that country that are managed by unions, and eligibility for benefits cease at age 65. In Great Britain, for a long time now, the age limit has been tied to the date of eligibility for a pension under the national plan. In Italy, unemployment insurance benefits cease at 60 for men and 55 for women. In all those countries, the age limit is roughly the same as that which is understood in Bill C-69. Unemployment insurance is meant to protect the worker during his active life, and in many European countries, as in Canada, it is felt that other social programs must ensure financial assistance after normal retirement age.
The act as it stands now provides, in the case of persons and dependents, a special rate equal to 75 per cent of the average weekly insurable salary. That rate applies to all those who benefit from unemployment insurance payments during the period of extended payments, and to those who earn the equivalent of or less than a third of the maximum insurable salary during the initial period of benefits.
Since 1971, the government has taken steps to increase the assistance given those who have dependents. The most striking example is family allowances: they have tripled since 1971. For instance, a person with three children aged one to six who used to get $18 a month in 1971 now receives $66.24. In addition, those allowances have been indexed to the cost of living. Those changes, added to higher old age security payments and the guaranteed income supplement meet, far more efficiently, the needs of
people with dependents; they also do away with the reason for a special rate of benefits in their case.
The situation as it exists now in the United States as regards the payment of higher benefits to the recipients with one dependent or more supports the proposal made in Bill C-69. In 41 of the 52 states which have an unemployment insurance plan, benefits are paid at a single rate and the benefits are equivalent to a fixed percentage of the claimant's salary during the qualifying period. In the 11 states which make provision for the dependents, the weekly benefits are nearing or equal to two-thirds of the salary. The rate does not change with the length of demand or the sum of the gains in any state.
The act which was in force before June 27, 1971 provided for an exclusion period of up to six weeks for applicants who left their employment of their own will, lost their job for misbehaviour or refused a suitable job. Normally, this exclusion did not reduce the number of weekly payments the insured person could get; it only delayed the payment of benefits for a period of up to six weeks.
When the new act was enacted in 1971, the maximum period of disqualification was reduced from six to three weeks. The number of weekly benefits payable to claimants was therefore reduced by three. Since 1971, experience has shown that the reduction to three weeks of the disqualification period did not reach its goal, which was to reduce the number of cases where claimants voluntarily left their jobs without reasonable cause, were laid off for cause or refused a suitable job. The number of disqualifications in one year, which is around 300,000, remains dangerously high despite high rates of unemployment and a small proportion of jobs versus number of unemployed.
In view of the proposed amendment to the Canadian program, it is interesting to see how in other countries claimants are disqualified in cases of voluntarily departure without sufficient reason, loss of employment due to misconduct or refusal to accept a suitable job. In the United States, penalties range from simple deferment of benefits for a specified period to complete loss of these benefits.
In other countries, the plan is less harsh, with a reduction in benefits that would otherwise be payable. Certain countries will not pay benefits during the unemployment period or longer, while requiring the claimant to work for a further period in order to requalify. In certain European countries, as Sweden and the Netherlands, the worker who voluntarily leaves his job without sufficient reason does not qualify for benefits. In other countries, the penalty in such cases varies according to the number of occurrences, being more severe on a second or a third voluntary departure.
In a country such as Canada, where unemployment insurance is aimed at favouring manpower mobility, such a formula would not be suitable. The insured persons must of course pay the consequences of loss of revenues through voluntary departure or job refusal. But after some time, they must be able to qualify again under the plan. Another recommendation involves the new threshold for the computation of the government's part of the cost of initial benefits. The principles embodied in the 1971 act, concerning the sharing of the cost between the government and the private sector, are that the private sector must pay for - the share of the basic cost of the plan that relates more

October 27, 1975

directly to the insurance part, and the government for that share of the cost that is more in the nature of a transfer payment. In fact, the federal government assumes the whole cost of those extended benefits paid to training allowance recipients and fishermen.
The private sector takes charge of the whole cost of sickness and maternity benefits, special severance benefits and administrative expenses. The private sector also pays the cost of common initial benefits as long as the unemployment rate is not in excess of 4 per cent. The public sector only pays for those benefits when the unemployment rate is in excess of 4 per cent. The 4 per cent threshold was inferred from comparable costs of the former and new plans for the 1960 to 1969 period. The government think the basic approach of 1971 as well as the concept of the 4 per cent threshold still are valid. However, the 4 per cent threshold stemmed from the economic situation of the decade preceding the introduction of the new legislation.
Since then of course, deep economic and social changes have greatly affected the labour market in general and the unemployment insurance plan in particular. Unemployment rates as well as the cost of unemployment insurance have consequently had a relative tendency to rise. Therefore, if the necessary association between the government and the private sector is to be maintained, in practice as well as in theory, a new sharing concept has to be developed that will be more in keeping with the changing patterns of the social and economic situation.
In view of those remarks, a new unemployment threshold is being proposed to achieve a better balance of initial benefit costs between the government and the private sector. The new rate will be based on the average of monthly rates for each eight years' unemployment period ending on the 30th of June of the year preceding the year for which the threshold is being determined. This moving average will reflect conditions much more closely than the present formula. At the same time it will offer some protection against any abrupt change from year to year. The regular adjustment of the threshold will only affect the division of the cost of initial ordinary payable benefits. The extension benefits to those who are unemployed for a longer period of time will remain entirely payable by the federal government.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) referred to this new cost of taxation. He accused the government of transferring $800 million to workers. First, there is no such amount as $800 million. I think the government is still going to save $600 million. That is accurate because in that $600 million they will be able to save about $170 million under all the recommendations included in the amendments to Bill C-69, and the part that employee and employer are going to have to pay is not $800 million but actually $490 million. In that $490 million the workers will not be the only ones paying but they will pay about $210 million. That would be more accurate than $800 million. Employers or corporations or all those employing them will pay 1.4 of that, which means about $280 million that they would have to pay for a figure of $490 million and not $800 million being thrown in, as mentioned earlier.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The financing of unemployment insurance plans in other countries-
I see an hon. member interrupting. He will have his chance to talk afterwards, and I will not interrupt when he is talking.
-especially in the United States of America, is of some interest because of the high rate of unemployment in that country. Many states are having difficulty financing their plans. Every state has a fund. That is where they take their benefits. The reserve of this fund generally increases during periods when unemployment is low and diminishes when it is high. Already 14 states had to borrow money from the federal government to meet their obligations to the unemployed, their reserve being used up. In 16 other states it is estimated that revenues might not be sufficient to pays benefits by the end of December 1976. Those facts show the important effects of high unemployment rates on unemployment insurance funds.
We see how much the protection given through unemployment insurance has changed in the Unites States if we compare the $4.2 billion paid to claimants in 1970 and the $20 billion that are going to be paid in 1975. In the United States, the programs also lay upon the federal government the obligation to pay a part of the benefit costs during high unemployment periods and to help people unemployed during an extended period.
Then, Madam Speaker, the principles underlying unemployment insurance are very similar in every country. However, their implementation should be adapted and modified in view of the changing situation in each country to offer constantly improved protection to the public. The Canadian system compares favourably not only to systems in other countries but also as we can see in Bill C-69, it is adapted to meet existing needs.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to see the minister in the House at this late hour, and delighted to see the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), as I wish to refer to what these two hon. members said in the second reading debate on this bill. The minister used such jargon as "income support," "income maintenance," and "term insurance" to describe the Unemployment Insurance Act. But he did not increase our understanding of the act or reconcile the paradoxes underlying the Unemployment Insurance Act.
About the only positive thing the minister said in his introduction on second reading was that there will need to be further changes to the unemployment insurance program. Indeed I assure you that there will need to be further changes before we can be excited about some of the things the minister proposed.
I am delighted to see my colleague from Skeena, and was interested to hear her assessment of the minister's speech. I have a good deal in common with the hon. lady. She represents a constituency similar to mine.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: And she is good looking.


Frank Oberle: It was interesting to listen to the way she dealt with some of the obvious discrepancies in the act, discrepancies which apply to the areas we represent. It

October 27, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
will be interesting to note what she tells the loggers of Skeena and the service industry of the area. It will be interesting to note the enthusiasm with which the industries of the area learn that not only must they compete for people on the labour market, but that they must compete with the unemployment insurance fund, as people will receive unemployment insurance after the LIP and LEAP programs run out, as will people who have come out of jail.
Industry is facing an awful time trying to find people to work. At the same time the unemployment rate in some localities is between 20 per cent and 22 per cent. I agree with my colleague. She ought to make every effort today and next week to obtain as much LIP money as possible before the program runs out. I agree that the people of the area suffer from problems, but I suggest that those problems have little to do with unemployment. They are of a social nature, and unemployment insurance really should
not be involved.
The bill before the House indicates to us that, as with the case of inflation, the government is adjusting its sails to the prevailing winds of political expediency in dealing with unemployment. It indicates that the government has identified the monster for what it is, and is now asking the House, by introducing Bill C-69, to arm itself with a slingshot with which to attack the beast. The bill, as my colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), indicated, will do little to bring the flood under control. And, of all horror stories, that of the government's financial bungling of the UIC fund truly takes the cake.
In 1970 the total outlay in this field was $695 million. The government's contribution was $224 million. In 1975 we expect to be presented with a voucher amounting to $1,150,000,000 in public money. That is the amount needed to sustain the UIC fund if unemployment rises in excess of 4 per cent. Employers and employees are expected to come up with another $2 billion in the current year.
The government with the introduction of Bill C-69 has now, in addition to removing any checks and ceilings from the funds, also abandoned the commitment to strive for a maximum rate of unemployment of 4 per cent in Canada.
Administrative costs as well have kept pace with the orgy of spending. The former minister's white paper of 1970 projected costs of administration of the fund which, over a three-year period, were exceeded by over 100 per cent. Administration costs for 1974 estimated at $74 million actually cost $162 million. I will not bore the House with long lists of the shameful performance of the government.
The hon. member for Skeena made reference to daily dealings with the unemployment office by talking of bureaucrats who try to administer. It was interesting to note how excited she became about travel expenses being paid to people to get their appeal referred to the umpire. In her part of the country and mine, people cannot get to the appeal board. Some must travel 700 miles-and then there is always a unanimous decision by the appeal board.
We have told the minister that people cannot get their appeals heard. For those in the northern parts of Canada, there is no such thing as an appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Commission or the appeal board. How, not
having been able to get to the appeal board, having been turned down before the appeal gets started, will they go to the umpire, particularly when the decision is always unanimous, as it is in Prince George? The chairman will not consider having the appeal referred to some other tribunal.
With regard to the orgy in spending, for those of us who daily deal with the UIC office, this does not come as a surprise. Armies of dedicated managers, adjudicators, counsellors, commissioners, agents, clerks, and janitors man the regional, district and local offices, carrying out the intent of an act, the intention of which has never been defined. Are they employees of an insurance corporation, or is it a social service they are providing? Is it a Manpower management agency or a relief agency for those who can either not find work or have no intention of working as long as benefits flow freely from the UIC commission?
A major division of the UIC army deals with abuses of the act. All of us know that abuses of the act present the major outlay, not only in the administration but also in benefits paid.
I wish to examine some of the obvious abuses. I will put them in two categories. The first deals with abuses permissible under the act. Unless the government addresses itself to this question, the flood will continue to flow over the dam. I have concerned myself with this question for some time.
In 1973 I canvassed my constituents with a questionnaire that asked some very serious questions. For example, I asked "How do you look at the unemployment insurance program (1) as similar to a savings program where you should eventually get something back?" Thirty-four per cent replied "yes". They felt that if you pay into the scheme, you should get something back. The other part of the question was "(2) as a life insurance policy where nothing is paid unless you are out of work involuntarily." The greater percentage, 72 per cent, was honest and said it should indeed be the intention of the act.
I also asked, "Do you consider the services of Canada Manpower adequate in matching job seekers with jobs?" Sixty-one per cent said no because it simply does not work. The services in my part of the country are not synchronized, nor are they anywhere else. I also asked, "Do you feel the services of Canada Manpower and of the Unemployment Insurance Commission should be combined?" to which 71 per cent replied yes.
Some people in Canada use the service as a bank, storing up leisure time. Let me give some examples of what I mean. The first is a family I know who live in the city of Victoria, British Columbia. This is no reflection on my colleague from British Columbia because the story is not very pretty. The man has reached middle age and is in a better than middle income category, earning between $35,000 and $40,000 a year. The children have left home and the wife is bored. The husband travels a lot and she is home alone.
To overcome her boredom she works in the local butcher shop for about eight months of the year. When her husband is home, she likes to be with him. She has an agreement with her employer whereby she quits her job and for four months of the year collects unemployment
October 27, 1975

insurance. She does not necessarily want the unemployment insurance or to make an abuse of the fund, but she is trapped in the system. What alternative does she have?
Another example involves some friends we were visiting in Prince George in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mrs. Campagnolo). The woman told me to observe what was going on across the street. A middle aged couple were loading a car and a very expensive silver trailer. They were about to embark on a journey to an undisclosed destination. It was not that cold, but the woman had on a fancy mink coat, apparently wanting to protect herself between the house and the car. The husband, a fisherman, earned about $40,000 a year. He is a good fisherman and deserves that income. The wife works in a supermarket. At the time they left Prince George, they were both receiving unemployment insurance. This is one of the permissible abuses.
I have just one more example. It involves construction workers in Powell River. Because of climatic conditions, they have cyclical employment, working seven, eight or nine months of the year. Because of the make-up of their jobs, the income they earn is much higher than that of someone who works all year. In addition to earning between $25,000 and $30,000 a year, they collect unemployment for four months. That is another example of permissible abuses. May I call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, at the outset of this short debate I should like to state that I question the use of the French language as a means of air traffic control. While sympathetic to the cultural aims of Canada's linguistic minority I believe that the highly technical field of aviation, with its critical safety factor, is no proper arena for the introduction of bilingualism in the pursuit of social ends.
Until I, and a good many people like myself, can be convinced otherwise, I cannot accept or condone the concept of bilingual air to ground communication. Introduction of such a concept would compromise aviation safety and in aviation the aim is, surely, to remove any compromise with safety. I believe there is a real danger involved in the continued and wider use of two languages in air-ground communications. One should not be so much concerned with personal or collective language rights to be found in the Official Languages Act as with personal or collective responsibility toward safety.
Adjournment Debate
The demand in one specialized sector that the use of French be authorized for regional aviation operations is dangerous. Superficially, it might appear harmless for the Ministry of Transport to allow the use of French, say, between Baie Comeau control tower and a member of the local airplane club, but it is neither desirable nor possible to work out a system catering to local pride in language without coming into hazardous conflict with general practice.
For whatever motives the newly organized group of air traffic controllers in Quebec wants French to be given equal recognition with English, it is willing to close its eyes to world-wide procedures designed to make aviation safer by eliminating language conflicts in communications. If choosing English discriminates against the French of French Canada it is also unfair to the Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese and members of all other language groups who must communicate with pilots or control towers during split second take-offs and landings in international flights. It appears that the Quebec controllers are aiming for a change in the Official Languages Act to expand the use of French.
All this may sound rather bigoted against the use of French but I assure you, Madam Speaker, that it is not. The main thing we must all keep first and foremost in our minds is the importance of aviation safety. I happen to feel that to compromise aviation safety by using a language other than English is at some point in time likely to be detrimental or fatal to the Canadian flying public. I believe that to make an exception for Quebec will merely isolate private pilots in that province who are described as the main beneficiaries of the proposals, making it more difficult for them ever to fly outside the province of Quebec. Regardless of a natural pride in one's mother tongue, English is the language of communication in aviation, as it is at sea.
What concerns many people is the question of what would happen if the use of the French language were to be expanded to more than the five airports presently employing it. What about the major airports in the Province of Quebec? For that matter, what about the rest of Canada?
It is interesting to note-and the government may attach some importance to it-that the Flying Farmers of Canada, a large organization composed of farm people using light aircraft in all the provinces across Canada, has come out full square in favour of the use of the English language in air-ground communications. The association has passed a resolution stating that it would prefer all air traffic controllers to be instructed in English only. The association makes it clear that the flying farmers are not speaking out against French but against the use of any language other than English-the universal language of aviation.
I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale), who is in his place, to come clean in the debate tonight and to state the government's intentions. The committee (BILCOM) has failed and it appears it is divided not on the safety factor but on the language factor. We see a minority report coming out of Project BILCOM advocating the use of the French language much more extensively than at the present time. The writer of that report talks more about the Official Languages Act than he does about air safety.

October 27, 1975
Adjournment Debate
I cannot and will not condone what is taking place at the present time in the province of Quebec in terms of air safety. I believe that if the experiment is allowed to continue lives may be lost, and an even greater fear is that at some point in time the Ministry of Transport may be talked into allowing the use of the French language to expand throughout the province of Quebec to the major international airports.
For these reasons I would urge the government to reverse its stand on the aspect of bilingual air-ground communications before someone is seriously hurt.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, let me say as I begin to reply to the hon. member this evening that I very much agree with his general concern for safety, and I assure him that the minister and the Ministry of Transport do so as well. However, I cannot agree with the hon. member's interpretation of the facts in the particular case to which he has referred.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) intends to continue investigation into the safety aspect of the use of two languages during air-ground communications, and consultation with the aviation community in that regard. The decision to introduce further changes to the existing language situation will not be made before the most exhaustive examination indicates clearly that such changes will appear to be safe and will in fact be safe.
The minister has said in reply to the hon. member's earlier question that while, where convenient and possible, the ministry would want to make French language facilities available to pilots, the uppermost consideration must be conditions of safety in flight. The minister further indicated that discussions would be continued with all interested groups involved in the air industry to demonstrate that this is what we are trying to accomplish.
Prior to its dissolution, the safety committee to which the hon. member has referred agreed on the provision of bilingual advisory service by air radio stations in the province of Quebec. The ministry has prepared a plan to implement this service but intends to brief the aviation associations prior to implementation.
Any extension of bilingual VFR control beyond the present five airport areas in the province of Quebec will be the subject of separate consultation with aviation associations, and will be contemplated only where fully consistent with safety.
The areas of Dorval and Mirabel airports will continue to be excluded from any such consideration of expansion. The more complex problem of the introduction of the French language into air-ground communications during flight operations under instrument flight rules will require extensive study and use of the air traffic service simulator and the joint participation of the aviation community before it can be determined that this change is feasible.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF BILL RELATING TO HONG KONG AND EUROPEAN PRISONERS OF WAR
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 29, as recorded in Hansard at

page 8023, I put this question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald):
Will the minister consider tabling, before the House rises for its recess, the government's bill implementing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs with respect to Canadian prisoners of war, both Hong Kong and European?
The minister's reply was to the effect that the recess was just about upon us and he doubted if it would be possible to meet my request before we rose for the summer. However, he did say this in respect of the legislation about which I questioned him:
It is being prepared, for presentation to cabinet.
Sometime later, on Wednesday, October 15, I put another question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in which I reminded him of the exchange on July 29 to which I have just referred. I concluded by asking him my question in these words:
Can he say whether a bill implementing these recommendations will be introduced shortly?
The minister replied, as it appears on page 8229, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the report referred to by the hon. member is presently under consideration by the government.
Perhaps I might take a moment or two to indicate what that report was all about. All of us are familiar with it but it might be well to have its terms on the record briefly at this point. It is a report which was approved unanimously by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It was submitted to the House on Thursday, June 12. The report followed an extensive study of the Hermann report on the whole question of what we should be doing for Canadians who were prisoners of war in Europe, and also whether we should be improving the pensions of Canadians who were prisoners of war in Hong Kong.
We made four recommendations. The first was that there should be a new act of parliament to deal specifically with the case of former prisoners of war. Second, we proposed that the compensation arrangements to veterans who were prisoners of the Japanese should be improved. At the present time there is a 50 per cent pension guaranteed to anyone who was a prisoner of the Japanese, but anyone who already has an assessed disability pension does not receive it on top of that 50 per cent. Our recommendation is that the 50 per cent would be given everyone who was at Hong Kong and that any assessed disability pension should be on top of that 50 per cent, with a ceiling of 100 per cent on the total pension.
Our third recommendation is that there should be established scales of pensions for those who were prisoners of war in Europe. We arrived at a formula which suggested that in respect of incarceration up to one and one-half years it should be 10 per cent, in respect of incarceration for a period from one and one-half years to two and one-half years it should be 15 per cent, and in the case of incarceration for a period of two and one-half years or over it should be 20 per cent. An assessed disability pension would be on top of these percentages.
Our fourth recommendation was that a basic change should be made in the provision of pensions for widows of veterans. The general rule now is that unless a veteran's
October 27, 1975

disability pension is 50 per cent or more-and for a technical reason that is the same as 48 per cent-there is no survivor's pension as a right for the widow. We are recommending this be changed and that there be in effect a pro rata pension for the widow of any veteran on a disability pension.
I am not arguing the case for these four points tonight. I do not think this is necessary. I simply felt they should be part of what is on the record at this point. We think we did a good job in the committee. We heard many witnesses. We sorted all the evidence and tried to arrive at a compromise where there were differences.
One thing which pleases me is that the member of the committee who happened to move the motion which received the unanimous support of the committee, who then was a private member, is now a member of the cabinet. I refer to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), now Minister of National Revenue. I welcome the smile on the face of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) because in him he knows he has a supporter for this cause.
My plea to the minister tonight is a straightforward one. I do not stand here arguing with him. I believe he is just as anxious for this legislation as I am, but it is a matter of deep concern that so many months can go by before action is taken in respect of a matter of this kind. The Hermann report was dated 1973 although we did not receive it until 1974. The recommendation of the standing committee was made on June 12, 1975, and here we are almost at the end of October. These veterans, especially the Hong King veterans, literally die off because of their experience as prisoners of war. There were many who were prisoners of war in Europe who were encouraged by the report of our committee, but what they need is for the legislation to come into effect.
I am happy that the minister has been able to say to me on two occasions that the matter is before cabinet. I hope he knows that he has the support of the entire House, and if he cannot tell us tonight on what day cabinet will let him bring in the legislation, I hope he will be ready to give that answer the next time I put the question to him, because he knows that if he does not bring it in soon there certainly will be a next time for this same question.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) requesting a bill relating to Canadian prisoners or war in Europe and Hong Kong.
Hon. members will recall that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs at its meeting on June 22, 1972, requested that a study be undertaken to identify any physiological or psychological long term effects which their incarceration may have had on ex-prisoners of war of the European theatre, numbering approximately 7,500. The government accepted this recommendation and on January 31, 1973, the study was undertaken by Dr. J. Douglas Hermann, a distinguished Canadian surgeon. Dr. Hermann's report was received by the government and tabled in the House of Commons on Monday, November 18, 1974. It was subsequently referred to the standing committee
Adjournment Debate
for study on Wednesday, March 26, 1975, and the committee reported back to the House on Thursday, June 12, 1975.
In the meantime I have held consultations on this very important subject with my colleagues. At the present time this, along with other government proposals, must be examined carefully in the light of the recently announced guidelines. I would hope, as would other members of the House, that the request for compensation for ex-prisoners of war will not become a victim of our financial restrictions.
I hope to have something more definite to announce before too long.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES TAKING FRENCH LANGUAGE TRAINING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, on October 16 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with regard to the application of the Official Languages Act vis-a-vis CNR employees of the passenger sales department at Winnipeg and the unjust treatment they were receiving under the Official Languages Act, and also respecting the 1973 resolution which was to protect unilingual civil servants but which is offering no protection to them at all.
I have received a letter from the minister in which he says that as a result of changes in the transcontinental train schedule the hours of service to the public of the Winnipeg ticket and reservation offices were reduced. This resulted in a decrease in two counter and three telephone positions. The necessary advance notice was provided to the brotherhood in accordance with the existing arrangement on operation changes.
There is confusion here because the brotherhood has contacted the members of the CNR department in Winnipeg and they have told him they are not covered by the 1973 resolution which was passed in parliament. The spokesmen for the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Workers state that CNR is in the throes of establishing six bilingual positions in Winnipeg, but so far they have designated only three.
The minister went on to say that as regards language rating only two ticket office personnel have completed the presently available French courses and they are considered bilingual for the positions they occupy. No employees who have taken any of the language training have been notified that they are bilingual, and if they had been designated bilingual it would not be necessary for CNR to hire bilingual persons off the street to take positions in this department, with job security, and to get all the overtime in the department. That is why this ridiculous document was passed in June of 1973, a document not worth the paper it is written on. It was never intended to protect unilingual civil servants at all. If the government had any intention of protecting them, it would have made this document part of the Official Languages Act, and made it law.
I would like to point out that I voted against the Official Languages Act. This is one of the reasons why we pointed out at the time that the federal government had no inten-

October 27, 1975
Adjournment Debate
tion of protecting unilingual civil servants, and that is why I did not support it at that time, and I have been proven right to date.
The letter from the minister goes on to say that CN has had more than 10 years of a very strong language training program. If the CNR had a very strong language training program, it would be providing these employees with the 12 month training which is called for in the 1973 resolution, but it is not doing this.
The minister goes on to say that they will allow language training which allows for training as long as it is deemed necessary for the position in question and remains within the spirit and intent of the resolution referred to by me.
However, the CNR is not providing this 12 month training. It is hiring people off the street to take these bilingual positions. I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he give the message to the Minister of Transport that it would certainly improve employee relations, and departmental efficiency and morale, if CNR officials met with these employees. This has not been done. There has been no contact with them at all, and I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that the CNR officials have not provided the minister with the proper information. I would say that he has been sold a bill of goods. This letter I have been provided with is contradictory and does not cover any of the points I have raised.
One French person has just quit the CNR, and the CNR will not offer this position to any of the men in that department. This letter says that two of them are declared bilingual. Why will they not give them this position if two of the employees have been declared bilingual?
Further, five workers whose jobs were abolished last month were not given the opportunity to exercise their seniority over bilingual workers in the same department, and I should also like to point out that every one of these employees is willing to take this French language training. They want to take the 12 month training program so that they can hang on to their jobs.
There is absolutely no requirement for the French language to be used at all in the Winnipeg office. I am told by these employees that they would be better off if they were learning German, so whatever training they get is just an absolute waste of money, and the whole operation is just another farce and a sham.
These employees have had to find jobs elsewhere within the railroad. One girl had to take a job driving a truck because she was not allowed to stay in her department, and she wants to take this 12 month training course.
In 1973 the passenger service centre hired three French speaking workers. Railway officials assured other workers that the hirings would not affect their job security, but it is doing so. Up to two months ago they were telling us that everything would be all right. However, more lay-offs or job transfers are feared in the near future.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will ask the minister to get back to Mr. Bandeen, the president of CNR, just to find out what is going on in this particular department.
There were assurances from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back in 1968. He stated that unilingual civil servants would be protected. He said that despite the extension of the bilingual system in the public service, protection would be given to unilingual civil servants. He said that achievement of federal bilingual plans must not involve any prejudice to the careers of civil servants who are not bilingual and who have devoted many years to the public service. This is not in effect in this passenger service department of the CNR in Winnipeg. I will point it out again, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will recommend to the Minister of Transport, that he should raise the issue in cabinet. If he is sincere in protecting unilingual civil servants he will have this resolution made law and become a part of the Official Languages Act.


Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, I am very interested in many of the comments of the hon. member but I regret that I must disagree pretty strongly with the tenor in which he delivered them. I do not think they convey an accurate assessment of the situation regarding CNR employees in Winnipeg, which I think requires some clarification.
As the hon. member mentioned, the minister has written to him in considerable detail on the points he raised in the House on other occasions. It must be made clear that there have in fact been no lay-offs in this particular department. As a result of changes in the transcontinental train schedule, the hours of service to the public of the Winnipeg ticket and reservation offices were reduced. This resulted in a decrease in two counter and three telephone positions. The necessary advance notice was provided the brotherhood in accordance with the existing arrangements on operational change. The incumbents involved in the staff reductions have since secured employment in other departments.
With reference to points raised by the hon. member on language training, the two ticket office personnel have completed the present available French courses. They are considered bilingual for the positions they occupy.
I was interested in the hon. member's assertion that these particular employees had not been officially advised of their status. I will certainly take notice of that and pursue it to see what is involved. The CN has had language training programs for over ten years. These programs allow for training for as long as is deemed necessary for the position in question, and remain within the spirit and intent of the resolution passed by parliament in June, 1973.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I think it would be useful to point out that CN has in fact established three positions above and beyond the union agreement which require fluent French. Only one of these positions is presently vacant and the employees in question in the sales department did not apply for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: 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 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, October 28, 1975