1975-10-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion arising from the arrogant and incomplete answers given yesterday to questions on the order paper concerning the swimming pool constructed at the official residence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at 24 Sussex Drive, and also arising from the fact that this House has every right to find unacceptable continued evasion and misleading information on the matter. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
With specific reference to the answer of yesterday to question 1,233 which asked for numerous details concerning construction of and donors to the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive along with the answers to questions 1,684,1,686 and 1,687 on the same subject, it is the opinion of this House that the Prime Minister is withholding legitimate information from the elected representatives of the people, and that this constitutes not only an affront to parliament and the people of Canada, but also indicates the grave possibility that severe improprieties and conflict of interest factors most definitely do exist with regard to this matter: and finally, the House calls on the Prime Minister to forthwith make full disclosure and tell the entire truth to parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of widespread public confusion over the implementation of the government's controls program, and in view of the statement by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) reported on CBC radio this morning to the effect that the government's program is unlikely to work because of the absence of public support, I move, seconded
by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House congratulate the minister on his acute political perception, and further, that the House urges the minister to make a statement on motions outlining alternative policies which he intends to place before his cabinet colleagues for their consideration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an important and urgent motion.
Since the costs of the 1976 Olympic Games, which were supposed to be moderate, have become astronomical if not disastrous and since the matter concerns and should concern all Canadians, especially at a time when the government is endeavouring to control inflation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House recommend that the government instruct the prices and incomes control commission to investigate the expenditures incurred up to now for the Montreal Olympic Games and to control other expenditures to be incurred till the games are held and even afterwards. In addition, that it recommend that the government take a direct part in financing the games through other new means.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

October 29, 1975
Quebec Innuit Negotiations



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Northern Quebec Innuit Association representing the Eskimos north of the 55th parallel in Quebec have been negotiating in good faith an agreement in principle signed on November 19, 1974, which is to be executed on November 1 of this week.
Despite satisfactory progress the Northern Quebec Innuit Association has requested that the negotiations be extended for one month to resolve outstanding differences. These negotiations are unique in that the Innuit in Canada for the first time are negotiating a way of life indigenous to northern Quebec for better than 4,000 years. This request for an additional month does not affect negotiations that have taken place to date nor affect developments occurring in northern Quebec, nor is it related to matters such as working conditions or hourly wages, but I must emphasize they are negotiating their future in Canada.
In view of the reasonable and responsible request to extend the negotiations for one month, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who represents the government of Canada in these negotiations take immediate action to have the negotiations extended by one month.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SUGGESTION COMMITTEE HEAR GRIEVANCES OF QUEBEC INNUIT CONCERNING CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43

Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the motion made under Standing Order 43 by the previous speaker is an example of the concern that I share. The Northern Quebec Innuit are now less than 48 hours away from negotiating an agreement in principle affecting their life style. I think it is important that they be allowed to extend the negotiations for at least one month as they have requested.
I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That representatives of the Northern Quebec Inuit Association be called before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development prior to November 1, 1975 with the objective of hearing their grievances regarding current negotiations between themselves and governments with the view to making specific recommendations to the minister forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the widespread public confusion over the implementation and implications of the government's controls program, and in view of a statement by the Ontario minister of education, Mr. Wells, with respect to negotiations involving Metro Toronto teachers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House instructs the Minister of Finance to make a statement on motions explaining the applicability of the federal guidelines in the case of Metro Toronto teachers and, in particular, making clear the government's position with respect to Mr. Well's suggestion that negotiations should proceed as if the federal guidelines did not exist, that the employer should commence the payment of higher salaries as soon as a contract is concluded and before any intervention by the federal authorities, and that, in any event, any final determination by the federal government on the Anti-Inflation Board, in view of the lengthy appeal procedures and the number of cases with which the board will be deluged, would take at least 1 l/t years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance? In light of reports coming from allegedly reliable government sources, to the effect that the government has a contingency anti-inflation plan involving a prices and incomes freeze which will be used if union opposition stymies the present program before the House, will the minister confirm whether the government has such a contingency plan?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have no such plan to either indicate or bring forward at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not answer my question. I asked whether
October 29, 1975

he had such a contingency plan. As the Prime Minister during his tour last week said repeatedly that the government would not hesitate to use stronger methods if organized labour stymies the anti-inflation program, will the minister explain why the government is making these threats regarding union compliance, since, obviously, the significant, large and stronger unions are already subject to the compulsory income guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman may be misquoting the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated that if the present, selective measures do not over a period of time take effect to bring down the rate of inflation in Canada, it may be necessary to resort to more comprehensive and encompassing measures of the kind from time to time described by the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I think the Prime Minister's remarks were directed to compliance by organized labour. May I ask the minister if his tough sounding talk is simply bluster, so far as organized labour is concerned? Can the minister indicate to the House what further compulsory measures would be imposed on union wages that are not already in the compulsory guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman could have been referring to comments of the Prime Minister misreported in the Globe and Mail and corrected by that newspaper yesterday, to the effect that in the bill now before parliament there are provisions enabling action to be taken against individuals, whether they be union leaders, heads of businesses or others, who wilfully defy the instructions of parliament in this regard. He was not, as the Globe and Mail pointed out yesterday, confining these remarks to union leaders. As I said, all this is in the bill presently before parliament and I commend the reading of that bill to the hon. gentleman.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-KNOWLEDGE OF PROVINCES OF CONTINGENCY PLAN IN EVENT LABOUR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH PROGRAM-FURTHER MEETINGS WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? As the minister has indicated that the government might have to resort to more comprehensive measures in connection with its anti-inflation program, will the minister indicate if he has informed the provinces what those comprehensive measures may be? More specifically, has the federal government scheduled a further meeting with the provinces, at which time full and decisive positions can be taken? If such a meeting is to be scheduled, on what date will it take place? If it has not been scheduled, why has it not been scheduled?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in replying to the Leader of the Opposition, measures of that kind would only be put forward after the present proposed selective measures have been given a full and fair trial in restricting the rate of growth of inflation in Canada. With respect to the further meeting with the provinces, we have suggested a
Oral Questions
further meeting with the provinces at a time convenient to them, but no date has yet been set. We feel it would be useful, if further provincial measures are to be taken, if the provinces come to the meeting prepared to advise us of them. From our standpoint, we are quite prepared to meet them just as soon as the several working parties have completed their task.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF REFERENCE TO &quot;TAXING AWAY PROVISIONS&quot;
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister, during his tour, has created confusion by referring to taxing away provisions he intends to institute with respect to excessive wage gains or increases, will the Minister of Finance indicate if this is just terminology? Did the Prime Minister actually mean that these taxing away provisions are already in the bill before the House, or was he contemplating further legislative measures for taxing away gains and increases to which he referred?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was referring to the provisions of the bill which would enable the Crown to take away from corporations, for example, which instituted unjustifiably increased prices the amount of the increase.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister expressed his intention of consulting the former Minister of Finance on important issues, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether he has discussed the anti-inflation program with the former Minister of Finance and whether the former minister endorsed the plan as well as the way it has been carried out?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hardly find it necessary to point out to the hon. member that I am not the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-APPLICABILITY OF PRICE GUIDELINES TO FIRMS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF PROVINCIAL FREEZE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Some of us might be excused for thinking it is a toss-up. Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a statement by the Minister of Justice and quoted in yesterday's Vancouver Province. It seems to clearly indicate that that minister does not believe the government's price control policy will be effective. The Minister of Justice is quoted as saying that "the British Columbia government's price freeze on essential goods and services invites a sudden, wild increase in prices once the freeze is lifted January 1." Can the minister advise whether the federal government's price guidelines will apply to firms in British Columbia that are affected by the temporary price freeze, and whether he expects those guidelines to be effective in limiting price increases to those that may be required strictly on the basis of increased costs?

October 29, 1975
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as has just been pointed out, the effect of the B.C. proposal is that it will dam up actual cost increases for a period of several months but then, under the guidelines, cost increases if justified may be passed on to the customer. In that respect, it seems that the observations of the Minister of Justice, if fairly quoted by the hon. member, are indeed sound.


John Edward Broadbent: To be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that the only increases in price that can be justified in these essential goods and services in the province of British Columbia after January 1 are those related precisely to and not more than the increase in costs? Is that correct?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is what the white paper says and what we have been saying for the past two weeks. I again confirm it to the hon. member.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF PRICE INCREASES BY BRITISH COLUMBIA FIRMS FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF PROVINCIAL FREEZE
John Edward Broadbent: In view of the special circumstances that apply in British Columbia, and in view of the minister's repeated assurances that prior notification and authorization will be required in the case of some proposed price increases, such as those for automobiles, can the minister assure the House that all B.C. firms in essential services who are affected by the price freeze in that province will be required to give prior notification to the anti-inflation board of any proposed price increases after January 1?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, many of those firms, as I recall, particularly B.C. Hydro and the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, are under the jurisdiction of the province. If British Columbia chooses to participate in the federal program, then increases there will be affected by the guidelines and judgments of the anti-inflation board. As to any other essential services, I would have to look at the list the hon. member has in mind. In general terms, firms with over 500 employees, and I am specifically thinking of petroleum companies, will be affected by the guidelines.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, I wish to put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering that the Olympic Games will cost roughly $1 billion and will probably end up with a deficit of several hundred million, could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to take measures so that the deficit incurred for the games will be shared by all Canadians, since all Canada is benefitting from the publicity and international prestige of the games?


Mitchell William Sharp: There has been no change in the government's policy in this respect. The Prime Minister indicated from the outset that the federal government did not assume any obligation toward these costs. It was prepared to put into effect legislation to help with the financing of the games-and it has done so-but not at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and is related to the matter I raised earlier in connection with Standing Order 43. Did the minister receive a request to meet with the Northern Quebec Innuit Association yesterday and was such a meeting, in fact, held?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Such a request was made. I did not meet with them but I did discuss the situation with Charlie Watt, the President of the Northern Quebec Innuit Association at midnight last night. I am happy to report that they had a good day yesterday and indicated they had made substantial progress toward an agreement.


John Robert Holmes: I welcome the minister's comments. Has the hon. gentleman held additional discussions with the other parties involved in the negotiations with a view to extending the time frame for one month. Bearing in mind that the Northern Quebec Innuit Association has indicated that the outstanding issues can be settled within one month, will the minister take immediate action to extend the period of negotiation?


J. Judd Buchanan: Basically we are not unsympathetic to the idea of extending the period, but the Grand Council of the Cree is absolutely opposed to any extension and is adamant that we sign the agreement on November 1. I might make an additional point, though. A procedure is being established in the agreement which is being negotiated which will provide for a period of 60 or 90 days during which a referendum would be held among the various communities to determine whether they are in favour of the agreement or against it.


Arnold John Malone: Since there has been a marked slow down in the negotiations brought about by the necessity of translating from Cree to Innuit-some of the volumes are about 800 pages in length-would the minister consider granting the Innuit people an extension of 30 days, apart from the Cree? In making this request I would point out that any precedent set here is likely to be followed for generations, and might possibly set a precedent for developments in the Northwest Territories also.
October 29, 1975


J. Judd Buchanan: As I have just stated, the government is not unsympathetic to the idea. But there are seven signatories to the original agreement in principle and there is a proviso that all seven signers must agree. As I pointed out in reply to the previous question, the Cree are opposed to any extension, so we are hung up on that issue.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise the House whether reports from Canadian officials in Washington are exact when they state that the President of France is still objecting very strongly to Canada's proposed participation in the economic summit to be held in November?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm any such reports with respect to the position taken by the President of France. The facts are that Canada's candidacy is being supported by a number of the countries already invited to the summit. Not all of them have taken that position, and I understand that one of them which is still outstanding in that respect is France. I hope that any remaining objection will be cleared away. I understand there is concern as to the ultimate size of any such meeting.


Claude Wagner: Would the minister confirm that President Ford is most favourable to inviting Canada to Paris.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, made it clear when he was in Ottawa that in his view Canada should attend. That policy, obviously, is the policy of the President of the United States also.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and has to do with the shocking revelations made the other evening in an unusually good piece of work by the CBC in connection with the FLQ difficulties of five years ago. In view of the fact that both the premier of Quebec and also the former minister, the Hon. Mr. Kier-ans, have clearly stated to the people of Canada that there was no serious basis for the action that was taken, and in view of the detriment to freedom in consequence of what was done, will the minister arrange to set aside a date for the House to find out the true facts in connection with what took place?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the interest of hon. members opposite indicates that what I am speaking about has no relationship to their thinking. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister stated some years ago that ultimately the true facts would come out, since they have now done so over the CBC will parliament have the opportunity of discussing a matter which today has all the appearances of applied tyranny?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept necessarily the description that the right hon. gentleman has given of the action taken by our former colleague Mr. Kierans, but I would recommend that he read once again the letter that Premier Bourassa wrote to the Prime Minister which is to be found in Hansard for October, 1970. It sets out fully the reasons that the premier of Quebec, the mayor of Montreal and all those who had responsibility at that time made a very strong plea to the Canadian government to invoke the War Measures Act. They may have changed their minds now but at that time they were very clear. Perhaps one of the problems is that people do forget the circumstances at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time there has been the revelation that the mayor of Montreal and the premier of Quebec determine the course of the people of Canada through the government. The minister still has not answered my question. In order to clarify the matter, not in the ex parte way the minister dealt with the question just now but in order to get the facts and to have Mr. Kierans and the premier of Quebec here, would the minister allow a date to be set aside so we can discuss the matter and determine the facts? Would he also tell the people of Canada whether the strategic operations centre that was described during that broadcast and which took over responsibility from the cabinet for what was called "crisis management"-a kind of CIA-is still in existence today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I deal first of all with the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman to set aside a day. I would point out to him that, of course, there are a number of opposition days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: If the party of my right hon. friend would like to designate one of those days to bring in a motion dealing with this subject, it would have to be accepted by the House and would be a privilege that does not have to be extended by the government. May I also say to the right hon. member quite seriously that it is the intention of the government to bring forward legislation to replace the War Measures Act to deal with civil disorders, at which time the right hon. gentleman and any other member who wants to take part in the debate can go back to history and go forward into the future as they see fit.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE

October 29, 1975


PETAWAWA-POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING CAMP AREA INTO QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the efficient Minister of National Defence. Further to the meeting held last night and the discussions with his officials and others interested in the possibility of expansion of the Petawawa armed forces base, perhaps into Pontiac county on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River, would the minister assure the House that if such expansion is contemplated the local elected councils will be consulted before such plans are finalized?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did visit Petawawa base yesterday and it is true that we do need to improve and possibly to expand the training area. However, there are no plans to expand the base across the river to the Quebec side. I can assure the hon. member that if in the future there are plans to expand across the river, the consultation that he has asked for will be provided to any officials in the communities that have an interest in the matter.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO ENABLE LOCAL GROUPS TO PARTICIPATE IN HEARINGS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of energy may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the National Energy Board pipeline hearings. In view of the fact that the proposed pipeline would have enormous social, economic and environmental effects on the Mackenzie valley, and in view of the fact that certain groups qualified to represent these concerns are prohibited from full participation in the hearings because of lack of funds, would the Acting Prime Minister undertake to supply these groups with sufficient money to enable them to participate fully in the hearings?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has used the word "prohibition" which I am sure, on reflection, he would not want to use. As I understand it, the National Energy Board is ready to hear any representations. These may be limited by lack of funds; many of us are limited in that way too. However, I would say to the hon. gentleman that the government does not intend to contribute public funds for this particular purpose.


HOUSING
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the government's $500

grant to new home owners has been extended to December 31 of this year in so far as occupancy only is concerned, what sort of program does the minister propose to replace the present program? Will the new comprehensive housing program be introduced into the House, what are the details of such a program, and when will the program be put into effect?


Mr. Speaker:: I trust that the minister, in attempting to answer, will skip the part of the question concerning the details of the program.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be making an announcement next week, and if I indicated what the announcement was now I would be making the announcement this week.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of public concern about the increase in crime and the fact that Bill C-71 calls for tougher laws in relation to applications for bail, will the Minister of Justice now advise the House whether he intends to amend the law to a greater extent than called for in Bill C-71, particularly in view of his recent statement to the effect that he intends to toughen up the regulations in respect of these bail applications?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there are important provisions in Bill C-71 and discussions are taking place among leaders of the House regarding the passage of that and other bills from this House into committee so we can deal with them. I would hope that Bill C-71 can get to the committee quickly. As to whether I intend to amend Bill C-71 further, at this point this is still a matter of consideration.


CRIMINAL CODE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In light of the fact the Minister of Justice has admitted that his jurisdiction extends to bringing in amendments to the code, and in light of the fact the Solicitor General has responsibility for the commutation of death sentences to life sentences, will the minister now without equivocation answer the question I asked earlier in the week, namely, if he brings in a bill to abolish capital punishment will he assure the House that it will not be mixed in with amendments to other laws, particularly an amendment involving gun control?
October 29, 1975


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I answered yesterday that it is likely that such a bill would not be put in with gun controls.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is the second time the minister has used the word "unlikely", Mr. Speaker. Will the minister without equivocation answer yes or no to this very simple question instead of acting like a wet nurse?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when a final decision is made it will be made known to the House. The reason no final decision has been made as yet is that we are still receiving representations on both sides of the question, not only from this party but from members of his party as well.


An hon. Member:: That is an unequivocal "maybe".


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the scientific data acquired by the Department of Fisheries in respect of the threat to the seal hunt, will the minister indicate what action he is taking to develop a method of protecting this seal hunt in the future?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice, and also to take this first opportunity of congratulating him on becoming his party's fisheries critic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: I can confirm that the scientific assessment of seal stocks is pessimistic. However, I have asked that this be reviewed and reviewed thoroughly. I have had a meeting with the industry, and met yesterday with the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland, and also a delegation from the government of Quebec. These are the two provinces most affected. I have asked that our evidence be double checked and triple checked before a decision is made which would affect the fishermen, and I will keep the hon. member informed as we go along.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the further discussions the minister is going to have with Norway and Denmark in this regard, will he take into consideration the importance of the seal fishery and the quotas to landsmen who depend on the seal fishers to supplement their meagre income? Will he assure the House that this will be taken into consideration?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding me that we do have complicated international negotiations with Norway and Denmark. These meetings will take place in mid-November. As for tilting the program in favour of the landsmen,
Oral Questions
the hon. member has understood my instincts. I agree with him.


FINANCE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Welcome back.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to disappoint my colleagues opposite, but I assure them I am not announcing my intention to run for leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance but it could just as well be directed to the Solicitor General as it refers to the upcoming conference of Attorneys General. Keeping in mind the conference between the provincial Ministers of Finance and the federal government in respect of the so-called attack on inflation, I am wondering how the minister intends to involve the Canadian citizens in the Yukon and Northwest Territories? Have the elected representatives of the people in those territories, through their legislative bodies, been invited to participate in this conference, or is it the intention of the government to impose whatever conclusions or decisions they reach on the people above the 60th parallel from on high here in Ottawa?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that there are some elected representatives in this House from that area north of 60. Of course, the interests of those people are represented in this parliament through its jurisdiction over the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I would be glad to confirm with the federal-provincial relations secretariat what arrangements customarily have been made in this regard. My recollection is that in the past there have not, at these meetings of Ministers of Finance, been separate representatives, but I would be glad to investigate the question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to consult with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in this respect and to urge upon him the likelihood of gaining a good deal more co-operation in the implementation of his program in the Yukon and Northwest Territories if he would involve the people through the local elected representatives of their legislative bodies, as he is doing with the provinces.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment.

October 29, 1975
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO USE OF CANADIAN SHIPS TO MOVE OIL FROM ARCTIC
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Transport has had two or three days to catch up on the nomenclature of Maritime activities for which he is responsible, I would ask whether it is the intention of the government to close the Arctic exclusively for Canadian shipping in terms of the extractive resource industries there?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly would not close the Arctic to all but Canadian ships. My colleague and I are still not speaking exactly the same language. It is, of course, a matter of importance for us to attempt to have as much Canadian shipping as possible in that development, and that is the general proposition and remains our policy. I would not want to become completely specific by suggesting in absolute terms that no other ship would ever be encouraged there.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport whether it is government policy at this point in time not to interfere with Panarctic's intention to go offshore to Scandinavian countries for the purpose of purchasing three ships in the eventuality of commercial oil being moved from the Arctic to a refinery located somewhere south of the 60th parallel?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would properly treat that as a hypothetical question which at some point I might discuss with my colleague, the minister responsible in respect of Panarctic. However, I would not want to rule out the specific purchase or use of ships from offshore in any circumstance, and I want to say that frankly to the hon. member. After all, there are times when our Canadian shipbuilding facilities may be fully taxed, and at that particular point one would encourage going offshore in order to have the ships. I just use that as an example.


ABORTION
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice regarding the new committee studying therapeutic abortions in Canada over the next six months. Will the committee equally be studying the adequacy of family planning facilities in all areas as a means of preventing the need for abortions in the first place?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the other day I tabled the terms of reference of the committee, and there is consideration being given in those terms of reference to that issue.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him if he would investigate the fact that CPR has been reducing its rolling stock by scrapping freight cars every day, many of them in good condition, a program which is contrary to the understanding which the minister had with the railways and which has led to the layoffs of almost 1,000 people in Winnipeg?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did some preliminary investigation when we purchased hopper cars. It was, of course, with the understanding contained in the subsequent agreement that the removal of regular cars could not be accelerated. It was never contemplated that all cars would be kept in service. I am told that so far as the CNR is concerned that agreement is being adhered to, and I believe it may also be true in relation to CPR, but we are looking further into that.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that there have been virtually no layoffs by the CNR but substantial layoffs in many cities in Canada by CPR, would the minister look into the question of whether CPR is in fact adhering to the agreement at which they arrived with the minister three years ago or whether CPR is exempt from following agreements and understandings which they made with the Government of Canada in good faith?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, they are not exempt, and I have indicated I have begun and will continue to look into that question. The layoff situation on the railways is in part due to the economic slow down in the economy and therefore a modification in the use of cars. When cars are used to a lesser extent, the repair required for those cars is also reduced. I think that explains some of the layoffs.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister be communicating with his provincial counterparts in light of the strong representations made with respect to violence in hockey in light of the protest by Bobby Hull last weekend? Will he be conferring with his provincial counterparts to ensure that similar action is taken in the various other provinces?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I understand that what Mr. McMurtry has done has been to instruct Crown counsel and police to take action under the existing law to deal with the question of violence in hockey. I would urge that all other attorneys general follow Mr. McMurtry's lead in this, but so far as I understand the situation Mr. McMurtry is not requesting of me any

change in the criminal code. He is simply asking officers within his jurisdiction to enforce the law, and that would seem to be a good idea.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am very pleased at the answer of the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that his own feelings are identified with those of the attorney general of Ontario, would he take the time and trouble to clarify this matter with the other provincial ministers who are responsible in this area in order that definite action be taken with respect to what has grown to be a very difficult and bad example for young people all across this country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In respect of the proper jurisdiction of provincial attorneys general, all that would be appropriate for me to do would be to draw the attention of the provincial attorneys to the remarks of Mr. McMurtry.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that last year the federal government, in agreement with the provinces, helped the beef producers because the price of beef was too low and that this year the price of calves is still lower than last year, could the minister advise us whether he proposes to meet his provincial counterparts to discuss this matter, in order to restore reasonable prices or to give a reasonable subsidy to the producers so that they can continue their production this year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the program that I announced the other day is similar to the one we had last year. That one, instead of finishing next August, is finishing this year, December 31, and a new program will be drafted beginning January 1, for the fiscal year. I understand that a consultative committee made up of deputy provincial ministers will be meeting in Ottawa to discuss this and other stabilization programs for agriculture.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Would the minister tell the House whether this new program the federal government will establish with the provinces will be a long term program aimed at compensating the producers for the chaos they were in in recent years as far as beef production is concerned?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the general principle of proper stabilization is to take the bust and boom out of agriculture.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Is the government reconsidering its guidelines relating to dividends and specifically is it now on the point of agreeing to the suggestion I made in the House on October 16 to the effect that the freeze on dividends be lifted and that dividends and wages be subjected to the same sort of guidelines, that is 10 per cent and $2,400?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that we have been considering a number of changes in the guidelines and that the representations with respect to dividends, among others, are under consideration. I hope to be able to make an announcement, probably in the course of committee hearings on the bill next week.


FINANCE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: While I am on my feet I should like to respond to a question put yesterday by the other hon. member from southern Vancouver Island about Canada savings bonds. We do indeed have under negotiation with the chartered banks an alternate system for getting the November 1 interest payments on Canada savings bonds into the hands of the recipients, we hope, by the end of this week or early next week.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister about progress in the negotiations on the postal strike. Since the statements by the Postmaster General indicate that the major issues have not yet been dealt with, can the Acting Prime Minister give the House an estimate of how long negotiations will continue, and would the government reconsider its refusal to restore postal service while negotiations are going on?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the negotiations are proceeding. They broke off today about noon and will be resumed at four o'clock. Progress is being made. I think that a statement such as the hon. gentleman asks me to make at this time would do nothing to advance the negotiations.

October 29, 1975
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY FOR SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has he had an opportunity since the time of his appointment to acquaint himself with the problems of the people of southwestern Ontario who have been without adequate public transportation since the government allowed the railways in 1971 to discontinue passenger service in the area and, if so, when will he be making the government's long awaited and much promised announcement of a public transportation policy for the area?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to look at quite a number of aspects of transportation in the southwestern Ontario area. There are some studies going on into a variety of questions there, including questions of improved rail service and studies with the province of Ontario in relation to transport in that area. Of course, the province of Ontario has significant responsibilities in the field as well and that should not be forgotten. At this point I do not have a date and I cannot predict the time of the announcement of further measures, but I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at the over-all situation very closely.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister regarding the gun that White Consolidated Industries is pointing at the head of the government with regard to the deal of Westinghouse. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in light of the urgency and importance of the matter, whether he and members of the cabinet have met with White Consolidated, General Steel Wares, Westinghouse and the union involved and, if so, whether this entire matter has been resolved to ensure the protection of 2,300 jobs. Can he report anything in that regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot report it quite as definitely as the hon. gentleman has asked for in his question. However, various members of the government have been concerned about this issue, and we have had some consultations collectively about it. I am not certain what the next step should be. We have been in touch with some of the parties concerned, but we have not met them collectively.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am very surprised that the Acting Prime Minister should indicate he is not sure what the next step should be, keeping in mind that this matter must be resolved by October 31, which is the deadline in terms

of the option to purchase. After all the discussions the minister has had, can he now assure this House that this matter will be resolved by October 31? If not, this whole contract will be frustrated, and therefore 2,300 jobs will be in jeopardy. Can he assure this House that the matter will be determined by the 31st of this month?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would like to be able to give that assurance; however, as the hon. gentleman knows, we do not have the necessary authority. For example, we had certain authority, in connection with the takeover bid, to make a decision. I do not think because of a lack of constitutional and legal authority we have authority to require any of the parties to take any particular action. However, we are trying as much as we can to bring about the same objective as the hon. member has in mind.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order with respect to what is anticipated to be the controversial report of Mr. Justice Bayda on west coast grain handling. On October 17, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), in response to a question asked by me, indicated in the House that he would be tabling this report within a week. I now discover that the report, which suggests a special tribunal be set up to enforce stiff penalties on management of labour groups involved in illegal grain handling disputes, has in fact been leaked. It seems to me that if this report is in fact ready, the government has an obligation to lay it upon the table so that all members of parliament and the public may see it in the ordinary course of events, rather than having it come through some kind of leak through the press.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to by the hon. member has been received and is being reviewed by the department. It should be tabled within a few days.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,964, 3,012, 3,053, 3,068, 3,123 and 3,168.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the annual estimated cost of all aspects of the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence and of the underground tunnel leading thereto including (a) heating, fuel and electrical power (b) water and cleaning and purifying (c) salaries of all full or parttime staff involved?
2.	In each case, will all such costs be paid for from public funds?
3.	What is a complete list of all the items of furniture, carpets and appertinences including (a) saunas (b) bars and bar equipment (c)
October 29, 1975

kitchen and kitchen equipment (d) all other items of any kind purchased for the swimming pool and, in each case (i) what is the exact price (ii) who paid for each item?


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


Mr. Huntington: Since 1968, has Mr. Alfredo F. Campo, Director of Power Corporation of Canada 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 Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: (a) No information, (b) See below, (c) Yes. (i) Member, (ii) National Advisory Committee on Petroleum, (iii) January 30, 1970 and January 17, 1975.
(iv)	By appointment, (v) Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Has the Department of the Secretary of State or the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs ever asked the Department of National Revenue to investigate the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	What form of investigation has been conducted by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs into the affairs and business practices of the Society and what were its findings?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	(a) Consumer and Corporate Affairs has not requested the Department of National Revenue to investigate the affairs of the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, (b) Consumer and Corporate Affairs had no reason or justification to request such an investigation.
2.	Consumer and Corporate Affairs has conducted an accounting investigation into the affairs of the company. Except as noted hereunder, a complete audit of the company's books and records failed to disclose any irregularity or impropriety, including the grants obtained from the Secretary of State. One particular transaction, however, deserves closer scrutiny and the Superintendent of Bankruptcy has requested the R.C.M.P. to investigate.
1 and 2. The Department of the Secretary of State has not asked the Department of National Revenue to investigate the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada. The reason for this is that the Society, in receiving funds from the department in previous fiscal years, met the required procedures in submitting budgetary and other necessary information, before and after their projects took place.
Order Paper Questions SWIMMING POOL AT 24 SUSSEX DRIVE


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answers to Question No. 2,691 which stated in part that the question of the construction of the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex Drive, at public expense by the National Capital Commission was once raised (a) was it raised by the Prime Minister or anyone acting on his behalf and, if so, on what date and what are the names of all those involved in such discussions (b) was it raised in conversation between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the National Capital Commission on November 13, 1974 (c) what are all the reasons the National Capital Commission declined to build the pool and what is the name and job designation of any person making such decision (d) how much money has been spent by the National Capital Commission in regard to construction of the swimming pool or any other matters whatsoever such as landscaping, etc. arising from the pool construction?


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


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the complete employment history of Mr. Marcel Roussin with the Public Service including (a) all positions held (b) dates appointed (c) salaries received (d) qualifications for each specific job?
2.	Does Mr. Roussin hold a position with the Department of External Affairs in charge of the bilingualism programme and, if so (a) does any of his work involve compiling, collecting or in any other manner gathering information on the attitudes of employees towards bilingualism (b) where does he file such information (c) has he at any time verbally or in writing characterized individuals critical of the government's methods of instituting bilingualism as "enemies" (d) what are all specific details that would justify such a remark (e) has he in any way compelled or had a part in compelling certain divisions of the Department to undergo French language training despite the fact that the need was considered negligible or nonexistent and specifically does this include the Materials Management Division and the Financial Administration Division?
3.	Is it part of Mr. Roussin's duties to circulate among various divisions of the Department interrogating various offices on the subject of bilingualism and, if so, what is the exact location of the filing system kept of such interrogations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.
(a)	(b)	(c)Positions	Dates appointed	SalariesAdvisor on Bilingualism; External Affairs Department	May	1969	$14,113-523,891Head of Index Branch (French); House of Commons	July April	1968 1969	$13,890Head of Recording and Transcribing Service; House of Commons	July June	1965 1968	$ 9,620-512,590Committee clerk; House of Commons	December June	1961 1965	$ 6,480-$ 7,650Translator; Secretary of State	February 1959 September 1961	$ 5,880-$ 6,420Executive Assistant (Solicitor General); Department of Justice	July January	1958 1959	$ 7,500
October 29, 1975
Order Paper Questions
(a)	(b)	(c)	Positions	Dates appointed	Salaries	Translator;	January	1956	$ 4,770-$	5,880Secretary of State	June	1958	Research Assistant; National Research	October	1942	$ 1,380-$	4,720Council	January	1956	Clerk; Department of Munitions	December	1941	$ 1,080	and Supplies	October	1942	Clerk; Federal Bureau of	August	1941	$ 720	Statistics	December	1941	1.	(d) Qualifications: Advisor on Bilingualism-External Affairs Department: Competition qualifications: University graduation, preferably in one of the Social Sciences; administrative experience, knowledge of federal government administrative practices. Mr. Roussin's qualifications: Academic: BA (1938) Seminaire de Joliette, Licence
(1941) Political Science, University of Montreal; MA
(1942) Political Science, University of Ottawa; Ph.D. (1945) Political Science, University of Ottawa. Administrative experience; knowledgeability, Head of Index Branch (French), House of Commons, 1968-69; Head of Recording and Transcribing Service, House of Commons, 1965-68; Committee Clerk, House of Commons, 1961-65; Translator: Department of the Secretary of State, 1956-61. Head of Index Brand (French), House of Commons; Competition Qualification:	University degree; linguistic competence. Mr. Roussin's Qualifications: See above. Head of Recording and Transcribing Service, House of Commons: Competition Qualifications: University degree; linguistic competence. Mr. Roussin's Qualifications: See above. Committee Clerk, House of Commons: Competition Qualifications: See above. Translator, Department of the Secretary of State: Competition Qualifications: See above. Executive Assistant (Solicitor General), Department of Justice: PC appointment. Research Assistant, National Research Council: University degree. Clerk, Department of Munitions and Supplies: Competition Qualifications: Secondary School Diploma; Mr. Roussin's Qualifications: See above. Clerk, Federal Bureau of Statistics: Competition Qualifications: Secondary School Diploma; Mr. Roussin's Qualifications: See above.
2.	(a) No. The Advisor on Bilingualism does not gather information on the attitude of employees towards bilingualism. (b) Not applicable, (c) The Advisor on Bilingualism has at no time in writing characterized individuals as suggested in the question, nor can he recall having done so verbally, (d) Not applicable, (e) No. The scheduling or language training is the responsibility of the Personnel Planning and Development Division.
3.	The duties of the Advisor on Bilingualism do not include "interrogating" various officers on bilingualism. His mandate authorizes him to make recommendations to the Department concerning its responsibilities under the Official Languages Act and, in this connection, he may,

from time to time, consult departmental officials both at headquarters and abroad.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Were any of the three prisoners who held the hostages called as witnesses before the Farris enquiry and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Were any of the staff at the Penitentiary who volunteered information to the enquiry Solicitor Mr. Rowan and had private meetings with him called as witnesses before the enquiry and, if not, for what reason?


William Warren Allmand: The Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries under the authority of section 12 of the Penitentiary Act operated independently Of any direction from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and subsequently made its own decisions on the conduct of the inquiry. However, the information provided hereafter was obtained from Mr. John Rowan, the solicitor for the commission. 1. No. Two of the prisoners declined to testify and the third refused to testify on certain essential portions of the events and therefore the decision was taken not to call any of these persons as witnesses.
2. Yes. In the case of those who were not called as witnesses, the reason varied in accordance with the individual witness but essentially, the evidence was peripheral or redundant.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,432 and 2,541 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask that questions Nos. 2,985, 3,092 and 3,093 be made orders for return, and also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What was the reported incidence of (a) tuberculosis (b) diphtheria (c) venereal disease (d) parasitic disease in each province for each of the past ten years?
2.	In how many cases where each such disease was discovered was the party a recent immigrant (within five years) to Canada?
3.	What steps are being taken to ensure that food handlers and persons in jobs of that nature, who come in contact with the public directly or indirectly, do not have contagious or infectious diseases?
4.	Is there any national coordination between public health doctors, nurses and other public health authorities to ensure that there is no complacency about contagious or infectious diseases?
5.	(a) How many new cases of leprosy were found in Canada in 1973 and 1974 (b) how did such cases arise (c) in what locations did those who contracted the disease come from (d) with whom did they come in contact to contract the disease?
October 29, 1975

6.	Does Canada have a school which specializes in tropical medicine?
7.	(a) What diseases are classed as communicable (b) which ones require (i) notification to the public health departments (ii) isolation of patients (c) are the (i) parents (ii) contacts and/or carriers quarantined (d) what are the other requirements with respect to each such disease (e) who is responsible for enforcing regulations with respect to such diseases?
8.	What is the responsibility of the government departments with respect to the various communicable, contagious and infectious diseases?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Since January 1, 1970, what gifts of more than a $50 cost to the taxpayer were given by the government and its officials to representatives of foreign governments for their personal use or the use of their families?
2.	In each case (a) what was the cost of the gift to the taxpayer (b) to whom was it given (c) on what date was it given (d) by whom was it given (e) for what reason was it given?
3.	What is the policy of the government respecting gifts paid for by the government and given to representatives of foreign governments and how are Canadian officials informed of this policy?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	By year since 1968, when the Prime Minister came to office, how many people have been engaged in public relations on behalf of the government for each (a) department (b) agency (c) board (d) Crown corporation and, in each case, what has been the cost?
2.	For the same period, how much money has been spent on advertising on other information programmes not covered in Part 1 and what are the component parts of these costs?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each (a) department (b) agency, what (i) statutes (ii) guidelines (iii) regulations govern the giving or witholding of information requested by private individuals or organizations?
2.	In each case (a) what is the substance of the (i) statute (ii) guideline (iii) regulation (b) by whom were they prepared or issued and on what date?
3.	In each case, what effect has increased computerization had upon the (a) ability to meet private requests for information (b) cost of providing such information (c) frequency with which requests are made?
4.	In each case, what is the general practice with respect to the (a) maintenance (b) destruction of manual files when the essential information within them has been computerized?
5.	In each case, has the experience with respect to computerization been similar to that noted in the United States by a study for the National Academy of Science which determined that strictly factual files were most likely to be the first to be computerized while those containing subjective information were likely to remain in manual files?
6.	In each case, how many computers are (a) owned (b) rented by the government?
7.	In each case, approximately what percentage of information stored for more than one month is (a) stored in a computer (b) stored manually (c) both?
Unemployment Insurance Act
8.	In each case (a) what is the present annual budget for automated data processing (b) how many man-years of labour are included in this figure?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each department or agency, what (a) statutes (b) guidelines (c) regulations govern the (i) collection of information (ii) use of information about individuals or organizations?
2.	In each case (a) what is the substance of the (i) statute (ii) guideline (iii) regulation (b) by whom were they prepared or issued?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 28, 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. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when I called it ten o'clock last evening I was reminding the minister that during the speeches given by my colleagues, and especially during the speech given by the spokesman for our party on this issue, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), there were numerous very positive, reasonable and worth-while suggestions made as to how this legislation might be further improved. I suggested to the minister that he would be serving his own interests, the interests of the country and the interests of all Canadians if in fact during the course of the committee deliberations he were to look favourably on these suggestions which would improve the legislation even further.

October 29, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
These amendments are certainly necessary. It is agreed that the Unemployment Insurance Act as introduced in 1971 can only be described as a mess. It has cost the Canadian public many hundreds of millions of dollars, and improvement is long overdue. I am sure that no member of parliament or, for that matter, many Canadians, would seriously quarrel with the principle of unemployment insurance, that is, the principle that insurance should be provided to deal with the consequences of involuntary unemployment. However, I believe there has grown up amongst the Canadian people a vast amount of confusion and, indeed, resentment over vacillating government policies which on one hand give at one period of time, and on the other hand take away at another time.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his Thanksgiving Day speech to the nation calling for severe restraint, stated:
All over the world, people are caught in the grip of what some have called the revolution of rising expectations. We have come to expect that there is some magic by which we can have cheap and plentiful food, energy, housing and government services, together with an ever improving standard of living. We expect this as a matter of right, regardless of how successful or unsuccessful we are in increasing our production of goods and services.
It is my opinion, and I am certain this feeling is shared by a great many citizens of Canada, that this Liberal government must take the major share of the responsibility for these rising expectations of the people of Canada. The Unemployment Insurance Act is only one example of Liberal government policies which have led the Canadian people to raise their expectations of government services to the point where the government is now calling for a program of restraint which, as the Prime Minister stated, is the heaviest imposed upon Canadians since the Second World War.
There are three measures in the proposed legislation which embody the principle of restraint. The first is an increase from three to six weeks in the period of disqualification for those who have quit, have been fired from their jobs or have refused suitable employment. I believe this provision is an improvement over the present legislation; it will undoubtedly reduce the number of abuses in respect of unemployment insurance benefits. The other two measures, termination of benefits at age 65 and the reduction of benefits to low income claimants, while contributing to restraint to some extent cannot, I feel, be justified on either economic or ethical grounds.
Let me expand on this point. Those in the labour force over age 65 have only a 10 per cent participation rate in the unemployment insurance scheme. Even if this entire group was receiving unemployment insurance benefits at the average Canadian rate of $74.61 per week for 15.9 weeks-and I emphasize that all these points are highly unlikely and have been overestimated-the total saving to the Government of Canada would be $2.77 million, or .07 per cent of this year's deficit. That is hardly significant, Mr. Speaker, in terms of employed persons over age 65. I believe the benefits to the government, whatever they may be, do not outweigh the detrimental effects felt by these persons. The provision to do away with the special benefit rate for low income claimants will affect those in dire circumstances, those to whom the benefits are most useful. In these three amendments we see measures which embody the principle of restraint. But can this restraint be

justified when it affects the poor and the aged, those least able to bear the added restraint?
When the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were debated in committee in 1971, some opposition was expressed to the provision of retirement benefits since these were not seen as falling within the principle of unemployment insurance with respect to interruption of earnings. This opposition was brushed aside by the government, however, and the provision for retirement benefits was passed. I do not wish to seem unconcerned about the plight of our senior citizens; indeed, this concern has been expressed a great many times. But I wish to make the point that this is a concrete example of the government's contribution to the "revolution of rising expectations". The government puts the blame on the Canadian people for their rising expectations, while their policies contribute directly to this attitude: they give with one hand and take away with the other.
I have said that I approve of the provision to increase the disqualification period from three weeks to six weeks as I feel it is, taken over-all, a valid vehicle for restraint. Moreover, I feel it will contribute to shoring up the Unemployment Insurance Act in the badly needed area of work incentives. Indeed, this is the only amendment proposed for the Unemployment Insurance Act which is designed to deal with the problem of work incentives. The inclusion of work incentives goes back to the basic principle of unemployment insurance, one which has been debated many times over the past few years but which has become even more pressing as the cost of operating the Unemployment Insurance Act becomes more and more prohibitive. This principle concerns, of course, whether the payment of unemployment insurance benefits should be regarded as strictly insurance or whether it should include aspects of income supplement.
My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, and others who have spoken in this debate have asked to what degree the Unemployment Insurance Act as presently constituted has undermined the work ethic in this country. The idea has been pooh-poohed by some, but not by those who have looked objectively at the effect on unemployment insurance. The destruction of the work ethic is something all Canadians should be concerned about. It represents a change in our society which is not an improvement.
Concern has been expressed about young people who show no concern for their future, about the degree of vandalism which is apparent, and about the disrespect for many features in our system. The statistics are alarming. I would not suggest that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is causing this, but I think it would be foolhardy not to recognize that the change in our sense of responsibility, in our appreciation of the importance of work, in the importance of initiative, and of being responsible each for his own welfare, has contributed to a general breakdown in our traditional patterns. If there is any improvement in conditions at all, it is an accident and is not due to the clear direction of this government.
The other aspect of the deterioration of the work ethic in this country is the drop in productivity of Canadian
October 29, 1975

labour. Recent statistics show that the drop has been dramatic in the last couple of years, and in fact is negative for the first time since figures have been recorded. The effects on our economy and our standard of living are extremely serious. It would be unfortunate if those in charge neglected the possibility that misconstrued and maladministered programs such as the UIC have contributed directly to that drop in productivity.
I would suggest that this government are taking an about-turn on the principle of unemployment insurance, not on the basis that they are concerned about the work ethic but, rather, on the grounds that the cost to the government is unwieldy and that the present act contains features which have undesirable effects on the work ethic. There is no question that the cost of the Unemployment Insurance program is becoming prohibitive. Benefit payments in 1974-75 amounted to $2.3 billion, with the government picking up $700 million. 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.
As to work incentives, while we support the extended disqualification period, the Progressive Conservative Party has proposed a measure which we feel would more directly contribute to fostering the incentive to work. We have suggested for some time that eligibility for unemployment insurance be based on an extended period in the work force. In the 1971 debate on amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, we proposed that the eligibility period should be at least 12 weeks and not the eight weeks that is currently required. This extension would ensure that unemployment insurance would be 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. Such a measure would also contribute to restraint in a way that would be universal, and would not bear only on those least able to pay, as in the case of the aged and the poor.
I believe that the most valid criticism of the current proposals to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act can be made on the basis that the government openly courted rising expectations on the part of the Canadian people by opening the terms of reference of unemployment insurance benefits to include welfare payments as well as insurance against involuntary employment. Now that they have reaped the harvest of their policy, prohibitive costs and abuses due to work disincentive, they turn around and call for restraint on the part of the people of Canada. These restraints, however, would affect those least in a position to practice restraint.
In addition, the government has abdicated its responsibility for rising unemployment in Canada and the ensuing rising cost of unemployment insurance benefits. This has been accomplished by establishing a new unemployment benchmark, thereby ensuring that little or none of the additional cost of unemployment insurance will fall on the federal treasury in years ahead. Originally, the government arranged to lift the ceiling on its contribution to unemployment insurance benefits as the true cost of their 1971 amendments started rolling in and the ineffectiveness of their economic policies began to show up in unemployment figures, and now they have arranged to bury federal
Unemployment Insurance Act
government contributions by adding them as a direct tax on the Canadian people. It has been estimated that this new tax in the form of increased UIC payments will amount to $89 or more annually on the wages and salaries of Canadians.
If the government were really concerned about workers in Canadian society it would use all its expertise and experience to devise means for bringing more Canadians back into the work force. It would do this by utilizing all the resources of Manpower, by encouraging work and by incentives, and not, as can be seen in these amendments, merely by working out ways to finance unemployment insurance schemes at the expense of people who are low on the wage scale.
As justice must be seen to be done, and not merely done, so the government must devise amendments to the act which will instil confidence in all Canadians, those who are working and paying for these benefits, employers and those who are in the unfortunate position of having to collect benefits. Measures are needed to tighten the eligibility for benefit. More effort must be put into finding jobs for the unemployed, and the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act must be improved for the sake of those rightfully receiving unemployment benefits.
Additional provisions must be enacted to curb abuses of the unemployment insurance system. One method that would accomplish this would be to base eligibility on both earnings, and the number of weeks employed during the full 52 weeks of the previous year. This provision would have the advantage of removing from the unemployment insurance rolls those seasonal workers who earn as much for working several months of the year as do some workers who work a full year and are laid off. This amendment, I feel, would bring a semblance of equity into the act, which is long overdue in the eyes of the Canadian public, employees and employers. I think most members could tell stories about people in their constituencies whose incomes are very healthy indeed. Because these people earn their income in less than a full year, they are entitled to go on unemployment insurance for the remainder of the year when they are not working. Technically, I suppose, these are not abuses because the act allows it to happen. Nonetheless, one can see that this is unfair. It creates a great deal of resentment on the part of those not so fortunate as to take advantage of the act in this way.
Secondly, the UIC must put more effort into the quick and effective reabsorption of unemployed workers into the labour force. This it can do only with a fully integrated program with the Department of Manpower. We have all, undoubtedly, as members of parliament, had brought to our attention numerous cases of the damage done to our constituents by the inability of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Manpower department to provide assistance to the jobless in finding employment. In some cases this has been caused by lack of integration of programs and, on the other hand, by duplication of programs. These anomalies could be erased somewhat if the Manpower department and the Unemployment Insurance Commission were to merge and if the unemployed receiving benefits were counselled on a regular basis.

October 29, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
The final point I should like to make regarding the present amendments to this act is on the question of administration. Even if the legislation were to contain all the amendments proposed on both sides of the House, I say that unless the act is well administered it is of no practical use. During the last couple of years the administration of the present act has been a source of numerous complaints. I have been a member of this House since 1972, and-I am sure other members will agree-by far the largest percentage of our constituency mail involves complaints about the payment of UIC claims. Surely, some simplification of procedures and forms can be instituted in the department to allow the average citizen to complete the requirements of the department without such difficulty. As it stands now, you must practically have had a higher education to fulfill the requirements of the commission.
I have outlined some of the features of which I think the government should take serious note. These are not paltry objections but, rather, ones which concern all Canadians, especially all Canadian taxpayers who are confused and resentful of the government's policies and the objects of the unemployment insurance scheme. I hope and trust that the government will give my views and the views of my colleagues their careful consideration, and that our joint discussions will result in a more equitable unemployment insurance scheme. As I said at the beginning, the majority of Canadians support a true insurance scheme which protects those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. By the same token, abuses made possible by mismanagement in the past and poor administration have built up a huge reservoir of resentment. This resentment must be removed. These abuses have deteriorated the sense of worth and purpose in this country and they have deteriorated the work ethic. The side effects have been serious.
The difficulty will be resolved, I suggest, if the government gives serious consideration to our suggestions. If it does, I suggest that this bill will receive quick and easy passage through the committee stage and all Canadians will benefit. But until we see a willingness on the part of the government to listen, I can only echo the remarks of my colleague from Hamilton West. We intend to vote against this legislation on second reading. Nevertheless, we hope that the committee deliberations will encourage us to vote in favour of the bill on third reading.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put on the record this afternoon some of my thoughts concerning the UIC program and this bill. Surely amendments brought forward at present and in future are designed to streamline and clarify the law. We need to cut down abuses and to shift some of the benefits of the program from those who are casually attached to the labour force to those who are permanently attached to the labour force. This bill deserves the support of the members from all parties, for we must help those who need help most.
I am disturbed to hear some of the bitter attacks made on the UIC both inside and outside this House. What is the alternative to UIC? I wonder if municipalities in parts of the country where unemployment is high have the tax base to fund the type of welfare program which would be needed in the absence of UIC. I suspect that the stroneest supporters of UIC are municipal councillors across Canada.
I hope I can make clear that we are considering some of the first amendments which will be brought down, for the act will be under continuous review. In future, there will be additional amendments to the UIC program which will need consideration. I certainly support the amendments presently being brought forward. These amendments are designed to eliminate the inequities and complexities inherent in the act. I agree with the hon. member who spoke previously: the act is complex and difficult to administer. These complexities and difficulties have given rise to many borderline cases, as the act does not always define clearly who is or who is not eligible for benefit. This lack of clarity has meant that people in our constituency offices, our staffs in the House and people in UIC offices, must spend much of their time dealing with marginal cases. Sometimes it is difficult to determine who qualifies for benefits.
I am particularly pleased with the amendment designed to eliminate disincentives-disincentives which, perhaps, may be associated with the present legislation. It is essential for the UIC program to be credible; its success depends to a large extent on public support and public opinion. I trust that these amendments will do much to increase public support.
I am concerned about the treatment of people leaving jobs voluntarily. It is apparent that some people engage in job misconduct. They are subsequently fired, only to receive benefits. I am concerned, also, about the high percentage of people refusing job opportunities. The present bill deals with these matters. Surely it should be the basic approach of the UIC program that we shall provide income to those who are unemployed against their will, provided that they have qualified for entitlement to benefits through previous attachment to the work force. That, surely, is what the amendments and the bill are all about.
I do not have as much difficulty with the amendments to the act as some members, in terms of eliminating from the act some of the provisions covered in other social legislation. If we approve of the amendments put forward, our Unemployment Insurance Act will be improved considerably. These amendments provide a greater amount of assurance against unemployment, as opposed to compensating someone with retirement income or the many other things factored into it. In this manner, assurance against unemployment will lead to stronger public support, in effect, this means the UIC act will be considerably easier to administer.
I am particularly pleased that introduced in the amendments is the payments of improved sick benefits. Nearly every other member of this House, plus myself, made representations on this amendment. Some of the most difficult and time-consuming cases we as members of parliament deal with are those pregnancy leaves where difficulties after the birth occur, or where a person has been sick, returns to work and gets sick again. Experience seems to indicate that the second illness may be more severe and prolonged than the initial one. This works great hardship on the individual concerned. Many times these people have no other income protection for sickness. It is a great step forward that improved more flexible sick benefits are included in the amendments.

October 29, 1975

If I may, I wish to raise another issue in which I am keenly interested. Who are the unemployed? In this area, we should be more definitive when answering that question. My understanding is that a survey is being conducted on 30,000 households to find out who is classified as being unemployed. There should be no quarrel with that number because statistically the number is large. Such a survey should yield a very accurate sample and response. However, what I take issue with is the question asked: Are you unemployed, and are you actively looking for work? It seems that many government policies are set and based upon the unemployment rate. In fact, many of our economic policies also rely upon the unemployment act. For this reason, we should have more detailed information as to who are the unemployed.
My suggestion is to change the survey so that the response indicates what percentage of the people unemployed are the principal wage earners of the household. That would be a very different figure from the total unemployed. In this survey we should also be exploring why these people are unemployed, whether these people left the job or whether these people are a new entry into the work force. That is a particularly significant statistic. We should also determine whether these people were laid off on a recall basis, or laid off without any recall possibility. That type of statistic would further define who are the unemployed, and possibly where we should be directing more of the benefits. I would like to see also, the weekly survey turn up information that will identify the number of new entries into the work force, the number of people who had a major attachment to the work force, and are now unemployed, and the number of people who had a rather casual attachment to the work force.
During this debate there has been a lot of talk concerning the over-all administration of unemployment insurance benefits. I have also heard that more emphasis should be placed on the role played by the Department of Manpower. In the offices where the Unemployment Insurance Commission works extremely well and UlC is extremely well handled, UIC is in fact performing some of the functions that we would ordinarily expect the Department of Manpower to perform. If it is in order, I wish to commend the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in Barrie which services part of my constituency. An activity that I think UIC officers should be performing, supported strongly by Manpower, is monitoring the job situation very carefully so that the UIC officers are aware of any significant lay-offs prior to such a happening.
At the time of the lay-off, the UIC officers are present along with the union and management people to sort out all the difficulties in establishing claims. Most important, by monitoring the work opportunities as closely as the UIC officers do, the UIC officers know ahead of time exactly when the callbacks are scheduled and where other opportunities exist. Therefore, those on benefits are very quickly directed to other opportunities. This drastically cuts down the number on benefits and gives the appearance that the UIC operation is sincerely concerned with employment rather than just the payment of benefits to the unemployed.
I know there are great variations across Canada in the nature of communities and problems. In some areas there
Unemployment Insurance Act
is a multitude of employment opportunities, with a great variety and number of industries. In another area there may be only one employer. The program should provide that where there is little or no alternate employment after a certain period of time, it is proper that Manpower retraining be supported by the UIC benefit. That would be a better use of the money and the individual's time than to be on benefit without any real opportunity of obtaining work in the near future. I support the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who on a number of occasions has advocated that the name "unemployment insurance" be changed to "employment insurance." That would be a worth-while amendment to be considered at some time in the future.
I wonder a bit about the amendment with regard to the situation where people lose jobs due to self-initiated misconduct, voluntary leaving without just cause, or refusal to apply for or accept a suitable job. The bill proposes lengthening from three to six weeks the period to become eligible for benefits, and in fact losing benefits for three weeks. Possibly the onus should be on the individual to prove that one of these three situations is not the case. If he is able to prove that, he should have the same benefit as anyone else under the act. However, the onus should be on him to establish the fact that he did not leave because of misconduct, that there was just cause for him to leave for some very valid reason or that he could not accept a job.
Members opposite have been proposing a 12-week period. The amendment speaks of an additional three weeks. I believe the entire onus should be on the individual to establish whether in fact he is entitled to regular benefits. Having done so, they should be available to him.
I support the amendment to delete the provision with regard to advance payments. I do not say that because it may or may not be an incentive to get back into the work force. I do not know whether you do an individual a favour by giving him an advance payment. The money may be claimed back after the person has spent it. I have seen cases where this has caused tremendous hardship. Certainly, many hours of my time are spent dealing with people who have had an advance payment, it is claimed back and they have neither the money nor the credit to get it. It would be better if they had not received the money in the first place.
I support the approach in the bill which, in effect, decreases benefits and increases the difficulty of getting benefits for those marginally attached to the work force, and increases benefits and decreases the difficulty in getting benefits for those who have a continuous attachment to the work force. Another amendment that I am glad to see speaks to the problem of social insurance. I am sure that many of the numbers we hear from time to time of people obtaining social insurance are exaggerated. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that there are abuses and that people do get social insurance improperly. This is a problem that does no one a service; everyone is hurt by it, the employer and the employee.
Those people obtaining social insurance numbers by illegal means will in most cases end up in employment which is paying the minimum wage or even less. I hope

October 29, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
that the social insurance number provision in here will help correct this problem. I would like to have the assurance that this provision would, if possible, almost totally correct any abuse where people might be able to get social insurance numbers improperly.
I see my time is just about up, and I would like to conclude by commending the amendments in the legislation. Speaking to the illness benefits, as everyone in the House knows, the present provision provides that illness benefits are payable only during the initial benefit period of a claim and are not payable during the re-establishment or extended benefit periods of any claim. It goes on in terms of regulations respecting the difference between a major attachment and a minor attachment. I find no difficulty with that part, but I think the major provision, whereby illness benefits are only payable during the initial benefit period, really works a tremendous hardship on a lot of people. We must all be aware of people who have been injured, who have been working with Workmen's Compensation rehabilitation programs, and so on, and have gone back to work only to find they have a recurrence of the illness or their injury is not sufficiently healed. In fact, they may well be off work longer the second time than they were the first time.
Many of these people have no other income protection for this eventuality, and because they cannot file a claim I think it works a good deal of hardship upon them, even if people had only used a small amount of their eligibility in terms of their 15 weeks. So by making it more flexible and allowing more latitude, this is a social measure I strongly support. I hope all members in the House share my opinion. To extend the period during which the eligibility for benefits may be established, to persons who have left the labour force for periods of time for reasons clearly beyond their control, like serious sickness or serious injury with resulting disability, seems to me to call for the unanimous consent of the House.
The other point I mentioned previously and I would like to comment on it again. I am an engineer, not a doctor like my good friend from Halton (Mr. Philbrook). It has always amazed me that the medical profession can predict the accurate date of birth. Whether they are as accurate as they pretend to be, I have no idea, but most certainly they all do in many cases where birth has in fact been premature, so that a person did not have an opportunity earlier to lay claim for that eight-week period. It seems that sometimes these women have serious difficulty and the six-week period afterwards does not adequately cover that problem. By taking the 14-week period and making it more flexible as to when a person can take advantage of it is surely a fair thing that should be available to any woman who has need of pregnancy leave.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying I am pleased the minister has brought the bill forward and that these amendments are contained in it. I would hope that the bill is only stage one of a review of the act, because it is a large act and affects many people across Canada. I think it is worthy of being continuously under review.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the unemployment insurance law is one of those measures which has to be reviewed by parliament from time to time. The present

Unemployment Insurance Act obviously has within it certain inherent weaknesses. I imagine there is not a member of this House who has not been called upon to deal with problems arising from those weaknesses, shortcomings and anomalies. Indeed, not a week goes by without our having to deal with questions arising from the administration of this statute.
So there is no doubt in anybody's mind that the present law needs tightening up. Certain of the provisions in the bill now before us address themselves to the shortcomings and anomalies to which I have referred. If that were the extent of the legislation, the bill would receive easy and speedy passage because we are all agreed on the need to take whatever steps may be necessary to prevent a small minority in our society abusing this legislation.
I am glad to see that some of the punitive sections of the act are being tightened up and that steps are to be taken to reduce, at least, the scope of the abuses which take place frequently. As I say, if this were the extent of the bill, it would secure an easy passage through the House. Obviously, our job as members of parliament would be made easier because the workload in our offices would be reduced. The most extensive problems we have to deal with, especially in our constituency offices, relate to unemployment insurance.
What concerns me are those provisions in the bill which lean heavily upon two groups in our society which already suffer most as a consequence of inflation. I refer specifically to old age pensioners and to low income earners with dependent children. First, let us take the case of low-income earners with dependent children. The bill proposes to end the secial privilege they now enjoy under the statute and to give them the same benefits as anybody else receives, notwithstanding the fact that their obligations are greater than those of others.
I listened to the argument put forward by the minister when he introduced the bill with respect to the new amendments to the Family Allowance Act which provide for increased family allowance payments. The minister suggested that these arrangements would look after the particular group to which I have just referred. He used much the same argument with regard to the position of old age pensioners. But let us take the case of an unemployment insurance recipient who has five dependent children. After this bill becomes law, he will receive the same benefits as everybody else-66% per cent of his income as opposed to the 75 per cent he formerly received. He would be entitled to receive $100 a month, in round figures, in family allowance benefits. But that sum in no way covers the expenses he must incur in providing food, clothing, shelter and other necessities of life for his family. Why should the low income earner with a large family be discriminated against in this way? Why lean on him? This is precisely what the bill attempts to do.
In my province we have the highest rate of unemployment in the country, the second lowest per capita income in the country, the highest rate of inflation in the country and the largest families in the country. Given these statistics, the bill is going to take a particularly heavy toll of the 18 per cent of the work force currently unemployed in the
October 29, 1975

province of Newfoundland. The majority of the people who are unemployed, statistics tell us, are the very group that the bill will lean on most heavily-the group with dependent children.
The minister has done a great job of administering the LIP program. He has involved members of parliament in LIP decision-making and as a result has taken away some of the administrative burden from his own shoulders. He has involved us all in the LIP program. But I would tell him that this is not the way to reform the Unemployment Insurance Act. This is not the kind of reform that the members of this House want. Indeed, I would say that the majority of the members of the House, if they voted according to their conscience, would vote against that particular provision in the bill. The people who will be affected by it the most are those who live in provinces where unemployment is highest, namely, the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec.
Coincidentally, these are the provinces where the largest families reside. According to statistics, families are larger in Quebec, Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces generally than any other part of Canada. These are the people who will be hurt the most by this particular provision in the bill, and I hope that before the bill is given third reading the minister will reconsider it.
While it is true to say that inflation hurts us all, it hurts the low income earner the most. I reject the argument that because a man is receiving unemployment insurance the state has discharged its obligation to him. Notwithstanding that he may be receiving unemployment insurance and family allowance benefits, the fact is that he has to devote a disproportionately greater amount of his disposable income, the little that he has, to the purchase of food. Food inflation in Canada is taking its highest toll at the present time.
A man in receipt of $75 a week unemployment insurance and $25 a week family allowance, which means he would have to have five children, has $100 a week to buy food, clothing, shelter, transportation and education for himself, his wife and his five dependent children. I ask members of this House, given the situation that we have in Canada today, with high food prices, high fuel prices, with the cost of everything disproportionately high as a result of the inflation that we are suffering, to try to imagine how anyone can live adequately and provide their children with an adequate diet on $100 a week.
For this reason, I hope the minister will reconsider this unjust and iniquitous provision of the bill. It will do great injustice to this particular group in society which is already suffering the most-the low income earner with a large family. He cannot help it if he is unemployed. He does not want to be unemployed. He did not bring on the monetary and fiscal situation in Canada that has created the recession we are now experiencing-7.3 per cent unemployment nationally, in excess of 10 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 18 per cent in Newfoundland-but he has to suffer the consequences of it. Why should we increase the price that he has to pay by reducing the little extra benefit that parliament in its wisdom put into the act to take account of the extra burden he has to bear owing to his low income and the large family that he has to support?
Unemployment Insurance Act
The other group that equally cries out for justice is the old age pensioners. They suffer even more because their income is fixed. I know their pensions are now indexed, which does help them in some small way, but nevertheless they watch their limited pensions being reduced in spending power monthly by an inflationary situation in Canada with which we have yet to come to grips. Take the case of the old age pensioner, man or woman, whether they worked all their lives or made a contribution in some other way: the fact of the matter is that in this bill we are adding to their burden by eliminating them from the unemployment insurance rolls. Secondly, and equally unjustly and iniquitously, we are removing the incentive that we presently provide these people, with their accumulated fund of knowledge and experience, to stay in the work force.
Many old age pensioners in this country write to members of parliament pointing out that they fail to understand how their representatives here can consider putting such a provision as this in an unemployment insurance bill, let alone pass it into law. The old age pensioners of this country are entitled to unemployment insurance as of right because they have paid for it. Their desire is to continue to be part of the work force. Obviously, the provisions of the act cannot apply to old age pensioners who are no longer part of the work force, and no one would want the act to apply to them. But what about the thousands of old age pensioners in Canada who are forced to retire at the age of 65? They want to continue to work, they register for employment with Manpower, and they rightly feel, having paid into this scheme all their working lives, that they are entitled to its benefits while waiting for the government to find them new employment. Yet these are the people we are eliminating from the unemployment insurance rolls of this country. This is unjust, unfair and cruel, and I hope the minister and his government will reconsider this provision.
The third aspect of this bill that has disturbed me is the changing of the benchmark, which will have the concomitant effect of increasing unemployment insurance deductions. Once again, who will have to bear the heaviest burden of this increase? Who will have to pay the highest price? Who will have to suffer most as a consequence? The answer to these questions is, the low income earner of this country and the person on fixed income who spends such a disproportionate amount of his disposable income on food, clothing and shelter and who sees his income dwindling still further by having to pay increased unemployment insurance contributions. This will be the situation if the provisions of this bill go through the House. These are the three aspects of the bill that bother me.
I hope hon. members will sufficiently impress the minister so that he will reconsider this measure in this period of high inflation and high unemployment. We all hope there will come a time somewhere down the road when we will have inflation and unemployment controlled at acceptable levels. Perhaps then, and only then, should we consider bringing in this punitive type of legislation which will rest so heavily on the working poor, pensioners and those on fixed incomes in this country.

October 29, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my participation	in this debate today	will not be	lengthy.	At theoutset,	I want to point out	to the hon.	member	for St.John's	East (Mr. McGrath),	who made	a rather	impassioned	plea on behalf of the	unemployed	in his province,
that we have in place in this country various other social assistance programs designed to provide aid to the needy-and that is not supposed to be the function of unemployment insurance. Perhaps he should talk to his Tory colleagues in St. John's about increasing the social assistance benefits to those in his province who are going to be excluded.


An hon. Member:: The same did story.


James Aloysius McGrath: What about your own province?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I should like to begin by commenting on some of the specific amendments proposed in Bill C-69. I think it is proper and sensible that sponsors of Local Initiatives and Local Employment Assistance Programs should now become eligible for coverage and benefits. It has always seemed incongruous to me that governments should provide funds for the purpose of alleviating unemployment at the local level, and then penalize those who take the initiative to sponsor such programs by making them ineligible for unemployment benefits. If, indeed, the government places importance on job creation for the unemployed in the creation and management of projects, then it has no choice but to bring in this kind of amendment. It will now afford equal treatment to both the individual worker and the individual sponsor under LIP and LEAP projects vis-a-vis unemployment insurance coverage.
With reference to the amendment in respect of coverage of workers 65 years of age and over, I must say that I, too, have some reservations. I can agree quite readily that anyone between age 65 and 70 who is receiving old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and Canada or Quebec Pension Plan benefits should certainly be ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits over an extended period of time. However, there are many people who choose, through desire or necessity, to continue active employment after age 65, and while old age security benefits are payable upon application to everyone who has attained age 65, that does not apply to the guaranteed income supplement or Canada Pension Plan benefits.


An hon. Member:: It does now.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It does now-automatically?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I am sorry.


Mr. Oberle:: You want to be a little more careful.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I will try. Therefore, it would seem to me that people who are not receiving a guaranteed income supplement should be eligible to pay into and receive benefits from the unemployment insurance fund. May I remind this House that many people between age 65 and 70 are still supporting depend-

ent children or other relatives who may well be attending university or other institutions of higher learning or who may, through sickness or accident, be unable to assist themselves. I do not believe that any government action, especially action by a Liberal government, should deprive such people of the expectations and historical rights which they have had under this act. I would, therefore, urge that this proposed amendment be redrafted in such a way as to make an exception of those whose attachment to the labour force and whose need for benefit is demonstrated to local officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I find it necessary, also, to say a few words regarding the amendments, in respect of the manner and conditions for claiming benefits. While the present legislation provides authority for the commission to regulate the manner in which a claim for benefit may be made, and while such procedure may be contrary to the basic principle that a regulation may only purport to explain the law or help in administering it, it must be pointed out that legislation is much more rigid than regulation. Therefore, it may well be that experience will prove that legislating the manner and conditions for claiming benefits is so rigid that no allowance is made for special circumstances. If, however, the legislation can be drafted in such a way as to allow for some flexibility in the administration of the act, then I have no objection to it.
I believe the amendments under the clauses dealing with the extension of the qualifying period and the benefit period are beneficial and sensible and I give them my full support. There is, however, one disincentive to work contained in the act to which this bill does not seem to address itself. I refer to the disentitlement of a claimant who takes a part-time job while still receiving unemployment insurance benefits-a job that lasts four or more weeks. After working for four weeks, the claim is discontinued and the claimant finds himself in a position of not being eligible to continue drawing benefits, even though through his own initiative and desire to work he has saved the Unemployment Insurance Commission the payment of four weeks' benefits. The incentive here is to encourage such people not to accept part-time work while receiving benefits. I suspect this is an oversight in the drafting of the bill. I strongly urge that new legislation be proposed to allow claimants to take such short-term employment and, at the end of this employment, be able once again to continue to receive benefits and to renew their claims.
The interpretation of the regulations at present seriously affects one particular group of prospective claimants in the province of New Brunswick. I do not know whether the same applies in other provinces, but several instances of this faulty interpretation of the regulations have been brought to my attention. It is simply this: in the province of New Brunswick, teachers' contracts are dated to coincide with the dates of the school year; that is to say, from July 1 to the following June 30.
Because of the interpretation given by the commission, any individual who signs a teachers's contract in New Brunswick is automatically disentitled to unemployment insurance benefits from July 1 of the year in which the contract is signed, even though the actual pay period for teachers in New Brunswick does not commence until September 1. Consequently, it is entirely possible in fact, it
October 29, 1975

has happened that legitimate claimants have been deprived of unemployment insurance benefits for the months of July and August because they signed a contract while they were receiving unemployment insurance benefits to which they had every entitlement. I might point out that this applies even if an individual signed a contract in the middle of August; he would then be required to pay back all the benefits he received from July 1 to that time.
Of course, I am not referring to teachers who are on continuing contracts from year to year, but to those who are just entering the profession for the first time or are just returning to it after a period of absence. I suspect that this is an administrative blunder made simply by people who do not really understand the peculiar circumstances of the situation, and I sincerely hope this anomaly will be corrected without waiting for the passage of this bill. I need not remind the House that teachers very strongly opposed being included in the unemployment insurance scheme. But since they have been included, and rightly so, no teacher should be deprived of benefits to which he or she has a just claim.
I stress that this is not a complaint against the local officials of the UIC in the area which I have the honour to represent. In fact, I have found the manager of the local unemployment insurance office to be extremely well informed, very capable and most co-operative; I do not want to pass up this opportunity of saying a good word for the oft maligned bureaucrats whose responsibility it is to administer the laws of the country which have a direct effect on the lives of so many of us.
I hoped that Bill C-69 might have included some provision to take into the unemployment insurance scheme seasonal, self-employed persons other than fishermen. There are many individual truckers, for instance particularly in the areas of the country hardest hit by unemployment, who can only work part time because their business is dependent on other business operations whose nature is also seasonal. Because of this, many of them are left with the necessity of supporting themselves and their families as well as making payments on equipment during fairly extended periods of time when they have no income.
I respectfully suggest that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) give more consideration to this problem than it has received to date. This is not to suggest that fishermen who are already covered by the act should not be entitled to the benefits they receive but, rather, that there are other groups of seasonal, selfemployed workers who find themselves in very much the same situation as fishermen. In my opinion, the government should be prepared to offer them the same kind of benefits as any other group in our society.
Having said all that, I want it borne in mind that this bill will receive my full support because it does go a long way toward correcting anomalies and injustices which have appeared through the administration of the 1971 act. It has consistently been the policy of successive Liberal governments in this country that government must be prepared to help those in our society who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the position of being unable to help themselves. This, indeed, is the basic princi-
Unemployment Insurance Act
pie underlying all the social legislation passed by the governments of MacKenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I am convinced that this is the spirit of liberalism to which the minister has addressed himself in this bill.


An hon. Member:: You mean the spirit of evil.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I see that the sanctimonious soldiers of socialism are becoming excited. Although the bill may not be perfect to all eyes, it certainly follows the noble tradition of social justice displayed by the governments of social conscience to whom I have just referred. It is a significant and important piece of legislation and I urge its speedy passage and implementation.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to participate in today's debate on Bill C-69 along with members from all sides of the House, and I welcome the presence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) throughout this debate. Let me say at the outset that, despite my many apprehensions concerning the government's management of the Unemployment Insurance Act, I am in complete agreement with the retention of an adequate wage-loss compensation plan. I fully support the true concept of unemployment insurance.
Unfortunately, however, the plan as we now know it bears little resemblance to what it was set out to be in the original act, namely, a plan of insurance for those whose salary or wages are suddenly interrupted through an unexpected job loss. Bill C-69 does little, if anything, to regain this proper perspective of an actual insurance program. Because benefits are not rigorously tied to employment records, the insurance principle is subverted and the whole scheme becomes largely a plan of social welfare and wage distribution rather than one of unemployment insurance. Because of the high and extremely appealing benefit rate structure, the risk of unemployment is no longer an integral factor in the decision to work or not to work. The traditional work ethic has been seriously jeopardized at a time in our economic life when the country can ill afford it.
What is needed, Mr. Speaker, is a redefinition of the work week and the benefits structure in order that these basic principles can, be put back into practice. Without accepting this philosophy, not only in theory but in practice, almost anything the government attempts to do in amending the Unemployment Insurance Act becomes useless. So, in spite of a sprinkled hint of reform here and there, the main thing that can be said about the introduction of Bill C-69 is that its provisions are superfluous to the real problem confronting unemployment insurance today.
In fact, I may even be accused of being overly generous to the government in this regard. On closer examination it would appear that the main thrust of this bill is in the adjustment of the benchmark, the point at which the government agrees to contribute to the fund. This is clearly a regressive step in that it greatly increases the burden of premium payments to employer and employee, yet without an adequate distinction between those who are high-risk insurees and those who are low risk. Surely, this
8674

October 29, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
should be basic to any organized plan of insurance, unemployment or otherwise.
What would make far greater sense would be a formula for reducing, on a percentage basis, the amount of premiums paid by those who compile a steady and continuous employment record and who are thus proven to be low risks as potential claimants of benefits. Such a system, if implemented, would be far more equitable than the one we have at present, in that those whose contributions are most reliable-indeed, those who are most conscientious- would not be continually forced to carry those who are not. Admittedly, this would not eliminate all imbalances but it would certainly be a good deal fairer than the present scheme, especially in view of the fact that the government proposes to raise the premium payments of employees through the new benchmark proviso in Bill C-69.
In the same vein, there is need to look at retirement benefits under the unemployment insurance program. As it stands now, one who has been actively employed all his or her working life, one who has contributed the maximum amount in the way of premiums, has little to look forward to in the way of a deserved retirement award. It is time for an adequate retirement clause to be incorporated into the act so that this inequity may be rectified. This would be a welcome addition to Bill C-69.
The very fact that the government deemed it necessary to adjust the benchmark is in itself a self-admission of failure in its handling of the unemployment insurance program. Things have clearly got out of hand and determined action is needed to straighten out the situation. Unfortunately, we can see nothing in Bill C-69 toward this end. It is another case of pulling a drowning man out of the water, then tossing him in again without first teaching him how to swim.
I have already noted that because benefits are not sufficiently connected to employment records, and because benefit rate structures are so appealing, the tendency to a disincentive to work becomes apparent. This obvious shortcoming could be overcome, Mr. Speaker, by redefining the work week and the benefit structure. Where in Bill C-69 do we see a concrete proposal to abandon the work week in favour of a more reliable work year? Rather than calculating benefits on the basis of weekly insurable earnings, why not calculate them on a yearly basis? Initial eligibility need not be affected, but the initial benefit rate could be calculated on both earnings and the number of weeks employed in the previous year.
If an employee had worked a full year prior to a claim, then his benefit rate would be substantially higher than a worker who had a much shorter attachment to the labour force. This scheme would have the obvious advantage of providing work incentives and it would guarantee that the original insurance principles of unemployment insurance were upheld.
I do not wish to go on record, Mr. Speaker, as being opposed to all the provisions of Bill C-69. Some of these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act may prove useful and are worthy of mention. They include, first, extension of the period during which a claim can be made and benefits received for those suffering temporary disability or those who are on special training courses and, 
second, extension of the time for claiming from 15 weeks to 25 for those entitled to sickness benefits.
It would have been equally constructive to tie maternity benefits to sickness benefits because of the difficulties and unfairness in the calculation of maternity benefits due to the use of the confinement date. I would suggest a set period for maternity benefits or, better still, including as a sickness claim the length, depending upon the doctor's estimate, of temporary disability.
With regard to the increase from three to six weeks of the period of disqualification for those who quit, are fired or refuse suitable employment, one hopes that this extended disqualification period will not only serve to differentiate between those who quit or are fired and those who are laid off or terminated for reasons beyond their control, but will also provide scope for more thorough investigation into the job search being conducted by claimants before they are allowed to collect any benefits at all.
It is a well known fact that many are receiving benefits who, although unemployed, are not conducting an honest job search. In some cases such claimants have no intention whatsoever of working. They are ripping off the system at the expense of honest taxpayers and are being allowed to get away with it. I know of cases where claimants have collected benefits for extended periods of time without ever being asked if they were conducting active job searches. For example, job search reports appear to be sent only to a random selection of claimants. Clearly, a more comprehensive investigative machinery is required. With six weeks available before some claims become payable, it is imperative that all such claimants prove to the Unemployment Insurance Commission that they are actively seeking employment. The burden of proof must be on the claimant, and the standard of proof must be raised.
One way in which this kind of reform can be more easily accomplished is through much further decentralization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Lack of decentralization has been one of the prime failings of the operation for many years, and I am indeed sorry that no definite _ amendments are present in Bill C-69 relating to this problem.
I believe that greater understanding between UIC officers and individual claimants, most of whose claims are perfectly legitimate, could be achieved through decentralization. Similarly, there can be no doubt concerning the need for higher quality performance at all levels. Such an undertaking, that is, decentralization, could also offer additional impetus to the promotion of relocation of those among the unemployed who find it impossible to locate work within their own area or territory.
The commission must be encouraged to develop more uniformity in its decisions. Most members of parliament deal with a great many UIC cases and most are acutely aware of the tragic lack of uniformity which mars the performance of most offices. I do not refer simply to the lack of uniformity between offices, but within offices as well. There is a multitude of unfortunate cases on record in which identical claims were processed in differing manners and the outcome of the claims differed considerably. While I have emphasized that more vigilance must be
October 29, 1975

exercised in weeding out those who abuse unemployment insurance, I wish also to reiterate that those who are honest, legitimate and needy claimants must be treated with greater dispatch and in a more uniform manner. As I said previously, this can be most easily accomplished through decentralization and through stronger ties between the commission and Canada Manpower centres.
I recognize that last year the department undertook to increase co-operation between these two agencies. This co-operation has yet to bear fruit. In other words, those who collect benefits because they are unable to find jobs have been given little help by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. While it is true that counselling on job placement is given to most clients, it is felt that a more active role must be undertaken to locate jobs for those unable to find work.
Bill C-69 is a mere drop in the bucket. A comprehensive investigation into the whole scheme of unemployment insurance is overdue. With Bill C-69 as an example of the inability of the government to cope with the problem, perhaps it is time for an objective investigation in order that some truly effective recommendations may be placed before us.
I note that there is no reference in Bill C-69 to occasional workers employed in the agricultural industry. This is a very troublesome problem, particularly in southern Ontario. A heavy percentage of these people are relatives, friends and sometimes neighbours of farmers who may work for one or perhaps two months at a time, thus working over 25 days and earning more than $250. A great majority of these people have no intention of availing themselves of benefits or of taking other jobs, yet they are forced to pay premiums into a fund from which they will never, or seldom, collect. As these workers have no interest in unemployment insurance, it would only be logical that they be exempt from paying premiums if they should so choose. It would be far more equitable to give them the option of contributing or opting out, rather than requiring mandatory payments as is the case now.
I should like to add a few words about seasonal workers of another sort entirely, those in industries who earn better than average incomes over an eight or nine-month period and are well aware in advance of their idle months. Many of these workers earn in excess of $15,000, and even $20,000, during the period they are actively employed. Why, then, are they permitted to collect unemployment insurance benefits?
Once again we return to the basic principle of unemployment insurance, and that is as insurance against job and income loss. In these particular cases jobs are not lost; they are only temporarily suspended. Perhaps more important, there is no unnecessary financial hardship imposed upon the individual worker. In accordance with these facts, it is my suggestion that a ceiling be placed on yearly earnings for which one is eligible to collect unemployment insurance, provided that the job interruption is on a temporary basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Amendments such as these would bring more equality and justice to the Unemployment Insurance Act, yet there is not a hint of them in the legislation of the
Unemployment Insurance Act
government-only a few morsels scattered here and there amongst the ruins. Obviously, the government has not given this issue a thorough study. Indeed, insufficient investigation, and thus misguided action, has been the regular practice not only for this particular department but for the government as a whole. It is time for a much longer look at the unemployment insurance problem.
In conclusion, I can support some of the provisions of Bill C-69. In principle, though, I must protest, not so much about what is included in the bill-excepting the benchmark-but, rather, to what is not included in the bill. Many constructive suggestions have been made, particularly by my colleagues on this side of the House, and it would be well for the government to examine them seriously and carefully. I sincerely hope that more amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will be forthcoming and that a change in attitude will soon sweep the department, for to neglect the many ills which still exist would represent conduct on the part of the government which could only be viewed as misguided and irresponsible.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, as I read the speech of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) which began debate on this bill, I was struck by the tremendous difference between it and the speech made by the former minister of manpower and immigration who introduced amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in April, 1971. This minister s speech was apologetic, offensive and pessimistic. He obviously forsees a long-term, persistent and high rate of unemployment. The former minister was hopeful, optimistic and obviously expected that the rate of unemployment which prevailed at that time could be drastically reduced.
The best example of the difference to which I have referred can be seen by comparing the parts of the two speeches which deal with the point at which the percentage of unemployment brings the government into the funding of the unemployment insurance scheme. On Monday, October 27, when introducing the bill the present minister referred to the 1971 proposals. He said:
At that time, a threshold of 4 per cent unemployment was set as the level above which 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.
He went on to say:
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.
Later he said:
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.
In other words, the minister accepts 7 per cent unemployment as normal. In fact, we have had higher than 7 per cent for almost a year, and the predictions for the next couple of years are that it will go still higher. What did the former minister say when he introduced his amendments in 1971? He said:
29669-6S'/2
October 29, 1975

Unemployment Insurance Act
Since the figure of 4 per cent has attracted a good deal of attention, I imagine somebody is going to suggest that the government has determined 4 per cent to be an acceptable rate of unemployment in Canada. Well, it is not my criterion. Like everybody else, I believe the acceptable rate of unemployment is the least possible rate.
He continued:
-We have used the 4 per cent figure because 4 per cent according to our computer estimates, triggers the government's contribution to the fund at a realistic level.
Then he said the government would have every inducement, if unemployment was at 6 per cent, to take measures to cut back the rate of employment because it would cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars to help finance unemployment insurance benefits. He was much too optimistic. Since 1971, the average rate of unemployment has only been below 5 per cent for one month. In 1971, the average rate of unemployment was 6.4 per cent; in 1972, it was 6.3 per cent; in 1974 it was 5.4 per cent; and each month this year it has been over 7 per cent, the highest rate of unemployment since 1961.
If there is one thing that the columnists are agreed upon, it is that the government's proposed anti-inflation measures will force the rate of unemployment even higher. They are divided on the scale, but most agree that the rate of employment will rise between one-half per cent and Wi per cent in 1976. Because of the government's mistaken economic policies, the unemployment rate is expected to reach 8 per cent or more.
In 1971 the government had to put $700 million into the fund because the unemployment rate was more than 4 per cent and the contribution of employers and employees only met the expenses of the fund up to a rate of 4 per cent. This year, the cost to the people of Canada is likely to be $3'/2 billion, and in 1976 it is estimated it will cost $5 billion.
Under the existing legislation, $2 billion of the 1975 pay-out would come from employer-employee contributions, and $l'/2 billion from the government. The government is committed to absorb the extra costs of unemployment beyond 4 per cent under the present legislation, but it will have difficulty explaining that kind of deficit to the Canadian people. It cannot admit, of course, that the deficit is to a large extent the result of its own stupid economic policy, so in typical Liberal fashion it has found an ingenious way to solve the problem; it will tax the ordinary citizen. The unemployment insurance premium of workers will be raised from $1.40 per $100 to $1.60 or $1.70, so about $500 million will be shifted on to the backs of employers and employees in 1976.
On June 30, 1975, the Financial Times estimated that premiums are likely to be closer to $2 per $100 and that the government will be shifting closer to $800 million on to employers and employees in 1976. As the unemployment rate goes up, then the potential pay-out of the government goes up as well. In other words, if the ordinary citizen pays more, the government pays less. We should keep in mind that, like so many other tax proposals of Liberal governments, this proposal is especially regressive. The Unemployment Insurance Commission could affect all incomes at the same rate. There is a fairly low ceiling on contributions, so premiums represent a bigger proportion of the income of lower paid workers than of higher paid workers. The increase will come primarily out of the pockets of the lower paid workers, and there are more of them.
We oppose the minister's present proposals. As I have said, we think this is the wrong tax put on the wrong people at the wrong time. Right now, when the rate of inflation shows no sign of abating and when the cost of living is so high after the enormous increases of the past two or three years, the government wants to tax precisely those who can least afford to pay. As I said earlier, when the former minister talked about the government bearing the cost of unemployment insurance when unemployment rose above the 4 per cent threshold, unemployment was much lower. In 1971, the unemployment rate was 6.4 per cent; in 1972 it was 6.3 per cent; in 1973 it was 5.6 per cent; in 1974 it was 5.4 per cent; but this year it is over 7 per cent. Surely, the government should not now ask the people of this country to pay more unemployment insurance to relieve the effects of unemployment which the government itself created.
There is something even more pernicious in the current proposal. By making everyone pay this extra tax, the government is saying that all workers, including those who work all the time, will pay more. Clearly, the government thinks, as do some members of the opposition including the hon. member who spoke before me, that many drawing unemployment insurance do not want to work and are not trying to find jobs. Many hon. members receive complaints almost daily from constituents who have drawn unemployment insurance and been cut off from benefits because, in the opinion of the benefit control officer, they have not looked energetically enough for
work.	.
Although the commission has intensified its aggressive investigation of people drawing benefits to make sure that benefits are only paid to those with bona fide entitlement, to those looking for and available for work, and although the commission has disqualified and cut off from benefits thousands who had been drawing unemployment insurance, the government obviously believes that many are drawing benefits who ought not to be.
I do not suggest for a moment that there are not people drawing benefits who ought not to be drawing them. I do not suggest that all on unemployment insurance are actively looking for work, as I am sure some are not. But I believe the number in that category is small. The government and some opposition members obviously believe that the number is large. The minister therefore proposes that those who are unlikely ever to be unemployed shall pay a substantially increased weekly premium because a few people are ripping off the system.
Is that not a strange view of the just society? Is it right to ask people who work steadily, who contribute to the fund and who many never draw benefits, to pay larger premiums? The government thinks this is necessary- partly because the government's misguided economic policies have led to the highest levels of unemployment since the beginning of World War II, and partly because it thinks some people are ripping off the system.
Let me voice further objections to the government's proposals. I object strongly to the provision under which people who voluntarily leave their employment will be disqualified from benefit for a certain extra period. According to the minister, about 25,000 people per year voluntarily leave their jobs. That is less than 2.5 per cent

October 29, 1975

of our labour force-hardly an alarming figure to justify so harsh an amendment. We shall never know how much hardship that provision will create, as we shall not know how many workers would quit their jobs but for this amendment. For example, a worker may work in a plant in which the high dust level is a hazard to health. I can tell the minister that during the last three or four years CPR workers have complained to me about unbelievably high dust levels in the repair shops. All their complaints to the federal Department of Labour have been to no avail.
We know-I will not make a long speech about it-about the dangers arising from asbestos dust in Arvida and other towns in Quebec. We know about workers at Elliot Lake who have fallen victim to cancer. If the worker decides that his job is a health hazard and that he must quit, to look for another job, he will be penalized unless he can satisfy some faceless bureaucrat of the Unemployment Insurance Commission that he had a legitimate reason for quitting.
I will not be overly critical of Unemployment Insurance Commission employees. They are trying to do their job, but they are only human; they can make mistakes. I wonder how they will deal with the extra burden of appeals this legislation will impose on them. I, for one, am not prepared to see the kind of decision-making I have spoken of relegated to some commission employee in Winnipeg, Vancouver or Toronto. I do not think the government needs to introduce so draconian an amendment to cover the 2.5 per cent of our labour force who quit their jobs voluntarily. If that particular provision is passed, many workers who have legitimate reason to be dissatisfied or unhappy with their jobs will not be able to quit. Many cannot afford the penalty of forgoing three weeks of unemployment insurance benefit while they look for a job. Therefore, they will stay on a job they do not like, a job to which they are not suited, and there will be adverse effects on health. Frankly, I am amazed that the minister would propose that kind of amendment.
The bill proposes the reduction of benefit rates paid to claimants with dependants. It would reduce the rate from 75 per cent of regular earnings to 66% per cent. The 75 per cent only applied to claimants whose earnings were less than the maximum of $185 per week or less than $62 in benefits. The government's reasoning that family benefit payments have increased since the act came into force is surely not sufficient to justify this amendment.
The area I represent is not particularly low wage in character. Therefore, I cannot speak with the same personal knowledge and experience as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who spoke earlier today. However, this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who talked so eloquently and frequently in earlier times about his concept of a just society, and this government should not be bringing in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will have the effect of cutting back drastically the benefits of those who need them most in order to meet the most minimal living expenses.
I want to register my opposition to the amendment which terminates unemployment insurance coverage for those 65 years old and defers Canada Pension Plan ben-
Unemployment Insurance Act
efits during the permissible three-week lump sum termination payment. Improved federal and provincial income support programs for workers aged 65 and over should not be an excuse for depriving them of their unemployment insurance benefits. This amendment hits hardest those with low incomes who are not covered by a private pension plan and whose payments under the Canada Pension Plan are inadequate. Those who for economic or other reasons must continue work after age 65 will not be able to draw unemployment insurance benefits, as has been the case in the past.
In my years as a member of parliament I have been approached by dozens of people who have paid unemployment insurance premiums since the day the plan began in 1940 and were never unemployed and never received a penny in unemployment insurance benefits. I have heard the argument that this is an insurance plan and they are lucky if they have never been unemployed and have not received any benefits. If one is dealing solely with statistics, that is a good argument. However, we are not dealing with statistics; we are dealing with people who have contributed to the plan for 30 or more years and are entitled to some benefits.
We live in an age where it is believed that a person aged 65, 67 or 63 should be required to retire on a fixed day because it is better for both the individual and the company. However, we are beginning to realize that if it ever was a good idea, it is no longer. People should have the option of retiring from active work when they feel it is good for them and their employer. I do not mean that a person should be able to retire at age 35 or 40, but we should be aiming for a situation where a person can choose when to retire from age 60 on.
If we believe that some people should retire at age 60, and it is better for others to work until they are 66, 67 or 69, we should make our system as flexible as possible. People ought not to be told that if they work past age 65 they will not be entitled to receive the benefits of the unemployment insurance plan to which they contributed for so many years.
I began my speech by pointing out how different the approach of this minister was in introducing this bill from the approach of the former minister of manpower when introducing the bill dealing with unemployment insurance benefits in 1971. The former minister was hopeful, optimistic and cheerful. We went along with him. We did not think the 1971 bill was perfect, that it was another commandment which would last for all time; however, we thought it was a good move in the right direction. We had some criticisms and we made some suggestions for improvements, some of which were accepted and many of which were rejected. On the whole, the bill was an improvement and we supported it.
If there are any improvements in this bill, they are almost accidental. On the whole, it is a disaster from the first word to the last. The four provisions which I have outlined are bad. There are others that I have not dealt with which are equally bad. These will be dealt with by other members of the New Democratic Party. The bill in its present form leaves us no alternative but to oppose it on second reading. We will try to amend it in committee.
October 29, 1975

Unemployment Insurance Act
Unless there is a substantial change of heart on the part of the government, we will oppose it on third reading.
What the minister is saying is that the government, having promoted measures which, as was predicted by many both inside and outside the House, have increased the rate of unemployment to the highest it has been in 15 years and the second highest since 1940, now expects the people of Canada to pay for its mistakes by higher taxes in the form of higher contributions by employers and employees to the unemployment insurance fund. We cannot support such a proposal and we will oppose it as much as we can.
f Translation]


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to rise at this time in the debate on second reading of the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971. I was really anxious to speak on this bill because of the personal experiences of my fellow citizens in the riding I have the honour of representing who may have had problems with the Unemployment Insurance Commission since 1971.
First of all, I want to say to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), who is now present in the House that all is not rotten with the commission, and that it is with a positive attitude that I want to approach the bill now before the House.
Madam Speaker, I should like to synthesize my remarks, though I may come back to some at a later stage in the processing of the bill. I should first of all stress the fact, to the minister, that there is much criticism, much abuse, not in the act itself but in its practical application where benefits are concerned. This in turn involves human relations, within the system of structures of the unemployment insurance offices, between the employee who receives the claims and the claimant.
Everyone will admit with me that this legislation is very complicated. Its characteristic before being satisfactory is to be complicated. It is so complicated that the employees of various unemployment insurance offices do not agree on its interpretation and most of the problems experienced by my own claimants are specifically due to the fact that communications between a given unemployment insurance office and the claimant are difficult and generally badly organized. And then the Unemployment Insurance Act has never been popularized-or simplified in every day words that the claimant can understand. I will give you only one example to show how the legislation is complicated.
I have seen a number of cases, Madam Speaker, where a mother on the labour market was advised by her physician to quit work because she was pregnant. However this woman cannot draw any benefit because she is in the re-established portion of her benefit period. That is why she cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits throughout her pregnancy.
Now what is that re-establishment period? Madam Speaker, I have taken a count during four months and the figures were checked by the local Drummondville office. The figures which I will quote are accurate. I received at my Victoriaville office 1095 complaints concerning unem-

ployment insurance, that is only for half of my constituency. And of those 1095 complaints referred to the minister, most were the victims of a misunderstanding or a wrong interpretation of the legislation.
In either case, Madam Speaker, I do not care who is at fault. The important thing to note at this point in the debate is that it is always best for legislators to simplify, give a thorough explanation of measures passed if they are to achieve their purpose.
Madam Speaker, the first problem that cannot escape my notice is the centralization of payments. I know very well that the matter is not included in amendments to the act before us and it is unfortunate. It concerns the internal organization of the commission and is related so closely to the effectiveness of the implementation of the legislation introduced by the minister that I cannot help bringing it up.
Such a centralized payment system has been established that each province has only one distributing office. In the province of Quebec, for instance, the only office authorized to pay benefits to any unemployed person is located in Montreal.
If a problem arises, for example delays in the payment of benefits, an error in the punched cards which makes the computer in Montreal unable to digest them, it will result in the claimant having to wait for two, three, four, five, eight and sometimes ten weeks or more before getting his first cheque.
Madam Speaker, I think this is now the main problem with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The delays regarding payments. Let us forget for a moment the two-week waiting period in the case of ordinary unemployment or the three-week waiting period, according to the former legislation, in the case of a worker who has voluntarily quit his job. This period would be doubled under the amendments now proposed. It remains, Madam Speaker, that given our experience of this legislation since 1971, because of this bad centralization, the average claimant will have to suffer a two-week waiting period. He will get paid only at the end of the fourth week or after a four-week unemployment period. Now, the computer in Montreal, the payment centre for the whole province, does not issue cheques at the end of the fourth week. This will take in general one or two weeks, in addition to the waiting period and to the two weeks of unemployment before the person receives the first benefit cheque.
It then no longer is a good organization. This has terrible consequences on the situation of the family, on the income of the family and the worker. Not all Canadian workers can afford to wait for six or seven weeks before they receive the first benefits.
The main problem is that these payments are unduly delayed because of centralization. Madam Speaker, I take advantage of the minister's presence to bring this problem to his attention. I wish the commission would revise its position in that respect and accept to divide the province of Quebec into two or three payment regions, in order to speed up things.
At the present time, we unfortunately have a postal strike. We can imagine the vast organization the department has had to set up in Montreal to deliver benefits
October 29, 1975

across Quebec. It is absolutely unbelievable what efforts have to be made to reach an unemployed in Baie-Comeau, Sainte-Croix of Lotbiniere, Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke, or Sainte-Marie of Beauce, by bus or otherwise, and see to it that he gets his unemployment insurance.
When there is a strike, the minister has to set up emergency offices here and there throughout the province because of the communications problem. I want to say to the minister that even when the situation is normal, when there is no strike, undue delays are still blamed on this payment centre.
Doubtless several hon. members know that it takes only one claimant's card to block the whole system in the province of Quebec.
Madam Speaker, the day the problem will be dealt with, there will be a delay of two to three weeks to recover the punched card of the claimant and to pay him. So, when we communicate with them they answer: give us two weeks to be able to issue the first allowance cheque. Then the machine is so peeved by the intervention of a third party that it churns out order payments for 3,4,5,8, or 10 cheques, supposedly for the arrears for the claimant which very often do not correspond to the real weeks of unemployment.
Thus, there is overpayment. Hence, Madam Speaker, there is a second problem stemming from the centralization of payments, namely that overpayments-and I am anxious to see the statistical analysis of the minister in this regard-are generally due to the fact that two or three extra weeks are paid with the arrears. So, later not only will this man have to wait for two or even three weeks when he is again unemployed. He will also have to make without the allowances for 2,3 or 4 weeks, namely the equivalent of the overpayment received during the previous period of unemployment.
One may say it is very complicated. Yet it is very simple. All that need be done, technically, is to divide in a logical way the present regional unemployment insurance offices into decentralized pay centres, regionalized for the whole province. Thus, delays could be prevented.
It must be remembered that this legislation covers workers with lower income in general and that when they are on unemployment for the first waiting weeks that is a two-week waiting period and two weeks payable at the end, they use up their savings if they happen to have some. Unemployment is a dramatic situation for a family. Those unemployed must not be the victims of a machine which decides who gets what. Concluding on this first point, I urge the minister to accept at least investigation, a study on the speed at which payments are made, on the profitability and efficiency of the centralized system in operation since 1971. This would be a definite improvement which will be reflected in the opinion people have of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I would say that 80 per cent of the criticisms directed at the commission involve delays in receiving benefits. The remaining 20 per cent is due to either the overcomplexity or the underpopularization of the act. But, if the former shortcomings, involving 80 per cent of the complaints,
Unemployment Insurance Act
could be corrected, Madam Speaker, I am sure many hon. members of this House, at any rate those from Quebec would be very pleased to have that much less office work. I have experienced that I can receive as many as 25 or 30 calls in a single day in my office in Victoriaville, and upon examination of the complaints I invariably realize they concern overdue benefits. All this because of the Montreal computer.
Madam Speaker, the other problem that I wanted to bring forward from the beginning concerns civil servants. There are some unemployment insurance officers-I suppose in every local office has a few-who assume a haughty and domineering attitude in their dealings with the applicants. I wish to congratulate the minister for accepting to alter the inquiry procedure. It is a well known fact that, until now, a claim officer had the authority to call unexpectedly on an applicant and simply start the process of investigation. We all know how easy it is to have somebody tell anything to anyone, it all depends on the way to put the question. Consequently, some people, by their statements during a friendly discussion with the officer, would virtually hang themselves just because they were being too friendly with the person taking the statement.
The minister recently said that this method would be abolished, that the individual making the statement would be entitled to have a witness and that he will not have to sign the statement as it could turn against him later because he ignores the law.
Madam Speaker, I think that, at that time the minister was courageous, that he actually broke this system of provocation, of police and inquests and that, on that point, he deserves congratulations. Let us hope that the system will work well.
The third point that I wanted to make concerns illness. Madam Speaker, I believe that there are three possibilities: ordinary unemployment, unemployment because of pregnancy and unemployment because of illness. For my part, I believe that the most dramatic and the most serious type of unemployment is the one which occurs when the claimant loses or quits his job because of illness.
In that case, Madam Speaker, even the new legislation introduced today by the minister changes practically nothing in the situation except to extend the admissibility period from 29 to 39 weeks. But the problem is that the UIC officer always has authority to determine the length of the claimant's illness. The officer, who is not a physician, is given this authority in the present legislation, and I am sorry that the minister is not amending this provision. The officer, and the physician designated by the commission have the authority to determine the length of the illness, regardless of the report of the claimant's personal physician.
Madam Speaker, I believe that we should have some confidence in the physicians and their professional ethics. When the claimant has a liver attack on the job and his physician states that he is unable to work and that he must be hospitalised to have an operation and tells him that he will have to remain at home in convalescence during a fixed period, such as 20 weeks, the commission has the authority after two, three, five, seven or ten weeks, in spite of the report of the claimant's personal physician,

October 29, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
to say that claims are not paid for more than eight, ten or twelve weeks in the case of liver trouble.
It is completely ridiculous to have given such excessive discretionary powers to the officer to allow him to determine the length of an illness when the person involved is unable to defend himself. He is sick and cannot go to the regional office to state his case to the officer. He cannot complete a statement since he is in hospital or on the operating table, and it is precisely this part of the legislation which is the most rigorous. There is no leniency in a case of illness at the UIC.
People who have a heart attack are entitled to be sick for 15 weeks, people who have a liver attack are entitled to so many weeks, those who have the flu are entitled to so many weeks, regardless of the fact that it is broncho-pneumonia, or that the flu was followed by laryngitis or that there were other sequelae.
The official does not care about that. Neither does the act. Under the act, if you have a slight cough, you are entitled to two weeks, whether or not your sore throat turns into a lung disease or if you lose one or both lungs.
Madam Speaker, this is a ridiculous situation. And when the claimant wants to speak in his own defence and appeals to the arbitration board to try and get more, supposing of course he is physically able to appear in court, the doctor in attendance very seldom has time to go and explain himself his decision.
Let me also add, Madam Speaker, that generally, doctors appointed by the Commission to complete a medical certificate in the name of the Commission very frequently do so, and I know this is very serious, without even examining the patient, without having ever seen him. How can the doctor appointed by the Commission, who has never seen the claimant, who does not sound his chest either, who examines him only superficially, say that a person will need a two, three or five week convalescence?
Madam Speaker, such situations occur every day in Lotbiniere, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, in the Beauce area, and throughout the country. I know from numerous cases that it is a human problem that people find revolting and which I submit to the minister through you, Madam Speaker. As I said earlier, claimants who are ill are not in a position where they can take their own defence by the very reason of their illness.
Madam Speaker, the minister has taken a small step forward by extending the qualifying period in the case of illness from 29 to 39 weeks. However, this is almost meaningless. In the past, an individual who received standard unemployment benefits and who after weeks had a relapse and was unemployed, was entitled to benefits for that incomplete qualifying period.
The minister has taken a very small and not very courageous step by extending that period to 39 weeks and thus, Madam Speaker, it will still be possible in that case, in spite of that supposedly tremendous legislation, to find pregnant women who are unable to work on the advice of their physician and who having received standard unemployment benefits for one, two, three or five weeks will be denied any before their confinement, because the qualify-

ing period is not long enough and because the condition of that individual will not have been taken into consideration.
Madam Speaker, there are only two answers: either we encourage birth either we encourage abortion. And if the minister does not change that part of the legislation concerning pregnancy I think it will encourage abortion as, in most cases, pregnant women who received benefits during winter cannot receive them anymore.
I believe and I sincerely hope that the minister will entirely revise the part of the legislation concerning sickness and that during each stage of the debate and particularly the committee stage we will try to improve that part of the legislation. Thus we respect sick people, we help them when they most need help and, in case of pregnancy, we stop pussyfooting around and say once for all that we believe in the family and encourage mothers to have their child by paying them their 15 weeks of unemployment benefits for the period of confinement without bothering them and taking into account the other periods in the 104-week qualifying period mentioned by the minister in the bill.
I do not wish to say anything more on the subject. I think I clearly expressed what I had to say to the minister and I sincerely hope he will take it into account.
The third point that troubles me before I come to the positive aspects of the legislation in pension at 65. Through this act, the minister unacknowledgedly imposes pension at 65. He does it in the way retirement was imposed at 70. He does not say so, of course, as it would be unpopular. But when you deprive workers 65 years old or more from all their rights under the pretext that they receive retirement benefits plus a supplement, the minister misleads us and does not take the actual situation into account. He says that does not affect many people. I got in touch with Statistics Canada in that respect; I wanted to know just how many workers between the ages of 65 and 69 were still on the labour market. And the answer is 619,940 workers between the ages of 65 and 69, a figure I got yesterday afternoon from Statistics Canada. Between 65 and 70, in all that is including everyone up to 75, 1,124,000 workers will be in that situation, meaning they will lose entirely their rights to unemployment insurance although they worked for 25, 30, 40 and 50 years and conformed to all government legislation, good or bad, during all their lives.
Madam Speaker, the minister is too intelligent not to be aware of the consequences of his legislation and not to have foreseen them. In short, he imposes mandatory retirement at 65. He says under the same legislation, if you want to continue to work, you are free to do so, but do not count on us to protect you. As far as we are concerned, you no longer have any rights, you are a worker and you are such a nuisance to us, we want you out of the labour market so much that we are taking your rights away from you. That is the situation in which we are going to place people aged 65 or more.
The minister simply wants to push out of the labour market anyone aged 65 or more. When he introduced his bill on second reading, the minister said this was because those people received OAS and guaranteed income supplement increases. As I understand OAS schedules, a worker
October 29, 1975

is not entitled to the supplement because of his earnings. He generally gets the maximum amount of pension and a few dollars of supplement. Therefore, the minister's suggestion that a person in the labour force can get a pension over $200 is misleading. The Quebec offices of the official, Mr. Gerard Turbide, can confirm that. The supplement is granted according to revenues. The basic pension is paid equally to every citizen. The minister wants to persuade workers over 65 to retire, because OAS pensions are based not on the current year's revenues but on those of the previous year. This tends to show how unfair the minister's proposal is. The income supplement given a worker in 1975 is based on his 1974 revenues. Assuming a worker aged 65 retired on January 1, 1976, he would be without revenues other than the basic old age security pension. He would then get a supplement application form in which he would have to declare his 1974 revenues. Therefore, he would not be entitled to supplement for that year as of 1976, so long as a new computation was not made. Such is the current situation. I hear some members opposite say this is not true. Well, I will not debate this. Tomorrow, I shall try to meet them and show them examples I have of this. It would be astounding if they wished to remedy this, because it is schedules.


An hon. Member:: That is optional.


André-Gilles Fortin: That may be optional, however, that is compulsory retirement. I wonder if the minister checked in the labour market to get employers' opinion. A number of employers will regret that. People of 65 who still want to work and still have the courage to do so are generally excellent workers who give great satisfaction to their employers. This is a recognized fact. Most of them work not for the fun of it, but only because they have insufficient means.
Madam Speaker, I hope that the minister will take it upon himself to withdraw completely this proposal and leave things as they are. We should respect the worker who has worked all his life and leave the age at 70. Of course, if the minister does not want to do it himself, I shall be forced to oppose the bill completely in view of the enormous social repercussions that it will have on those who are 65.
As the previous speaker said, we have been using ringing phrases like "just society". Can a single member of the government tell me that it is just, after 50 or 40 years of work, to take away all the rights of a worker only because to his age even if he still wants to work for the good of his country? If they can justify this bill from the point of view of justice and fairness, Madam Speaker, I shall have to accept it since they have the majority, and this would be regrettable. But I do not believe that the government members can defend this bill.
The last point I wanted to make is as follows: in 1974, at least 265,831 workers were penalized for having voluntarily quit their job. In the legislation proposed by the minister, the waiting period is doubled, which means that any one quitting his job will, in principle, have to wait eight weeks before receiving his first cheque. Madam Speaker, I have myself very often been before the arbitration board with my fellow citizens to defend their rights.
Unemployment Insurance Act
In almost 99.9 per cent of all cases where my people were accused of quitting voluntarily, we won our case and the commission ruled in our favour. But in all cases, never did an employer come himself to give his own version. Two weeks ago, I went before the board of referees in Drummondville. A certain employer maintained that a young lady had quit her job in a beauty parlor. That employer had sent a letter to downgrade completely the young hairdresser. When we showed up before the board of referees, there were the members of the board, the claimant, the secretary of the board and myself. The employer was not there. Even though he had condemned the young lady and had put her in a defensive position before the board, under an unduly complicated law, that man was absent. He had not even been invited or summoned. To have his revenge because he was losing a good employee and I suppose because he had not accepted the wage demands of the employee-another possible reason- the employer had written a letter which was against the interest of a young lady who had worked for him for three years.
In any case, Madam Speaker, that proves that if the minister really wants to have a truly effective legislation, which will prompt workers to keep their job, he must give claimants better protection against those who could abuse.
If we are going to adopt that part of the legislation against which I have nothing in principle, it remains that employers now wield an extraordinary weapon. They will be able to provoke their employees particularly where there is no union and we know that in my riding in Quebec many workers are not organized. Employers will be able to provoke their employees for any kind of reason knowing full well that no employee will dare quit his job lest he lose his income for eight weeks. And as the claimant has the onus of proving that he did not leave his job voluntarily and without cause, inevitably any fault is considered his but never the employer's.
I deplore, I must admit, such coercive measures which are very harsh and in which the employer has no role to play. When an employee is hired there are always two persons involved, he and the employer. When people work in factories, there are always two groups, the employers and the employees. But when somebody is laid off, the decision rests on one, the employer while the employee depends on this decision.
If an employee leaves his job, here again we find two parties-the employer and the employee. Who decided the employee should leave? To be fair in applying such a rigorous legislation, one should instruct each employer that every time an employee voluntarily leaves his job he should produce his version of the facts and even appear before the board of referees and justify the reasons why the employee left and why he was put by the employer in a situation where he was forced to leave his job.
With this eight-week system, we are going to see a number of abuses, particularly among the workers, if we fail to give them the protection they require. Madam Speaker, I was reading, I cannot remember exactly where, that last year 144,000 unemployment insurance claimants had been declared ineligible by the CMC because they had
8682

October 29, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
not looked for a job, a decision which was taken on the strength of a single report. A number of members of this House have certainly heard of similar cases. After a certain unemployment period, the Commission communicates with the CMC officers and ask them to look for a job to propose one to the unemployed or to check if the claimants are actually looking for one.
One unilateral report from an anonymous manpower centre is enough to disentitle a claimant. All of a sudden the claimant sees himself deprived of all his rights. And the appeal procedure starts all over again. When the claimant appears before the board of referees to prove he made efforts to find a job, the manpower centre does not attend the board of referees' hearing either.
Madam Speaker, everything is set in a complex legislation so that the claimant is always the one who has the onus of proving his innocence, so to speak. In the board of referees procedure mentioned in the legislation, the minister will have to add provisions about employers who make all kinds of reports. I learned that in 1974, as many as 32,382 workers lost their jobs on account of misconduct. Alcohol or the irresponsibility of the employee may be the causes of misconduct, but it could also be due to an employer who exploits his employee. And yet, I think that there is not even 2 per cent of those cases of misconduct where the employer is required to give evidence before the board of referees.
Thus the claimant, and only the claimant, has to face the three members of the board of referees and has to put up his own defence against the Unemployment Insurance Commission, its act and regulations, and God knows how involved some of them are, and against an employer who has charged him with misconduct when he entered the word "misconduct" on his separation certificate. The employer is merely required to put down his firm name, the number of weeks worked and the word "misconduct". That is the employer's sole obligation. This means that any employer could put down the word "misconduct" on any employee's separation certificate and thus create a social tragedy, a human tragedy for a claimant when actually there may have been no misconduct at all. There again, the claimant has the onus of proving it while there is none for the employer.	_
I think that this is one of the act's serious shortcomings. I will conclude my remarks on this, Madam Speaker. I would still have many more to make, but I will limit myself to these on second reading, and I will perhaps hark back to it before the committee, at the report and third reading stages. I would like to summarize and say that the part dealing with 65 is-year-olds is, to us, absolutely inacceptable, unfair, and is even provocative for workers of 65 or over. It does not recognize their rights. It systematically withdraws them.
Madam Speaker, the second point is the decentralization of unemployment insurance benefit payments. I think that the minister cannot justify, defend or continue to defend such centralization in payments. The third point is the review process, that is the appeal process provided in the act. Provisions should be added so that employers and manpower centres that make reports on workers be also required by law to give their own views on the facts to ensure that the act is not a cause of inequity but a source of satisfaction and justice for workers.

I think the appeal procedure, the arbitration at the board of referees or before an umpire is an important means of checking whether there has been an error of judgment. As far as I know, before any court, there are always two parties. I think that before the board of referees, which is not a court but a place where people try to understand each other as well as possible, there should be as many statements of facts as possible.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, those of my colleagues who preceded me this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-69 pointed out, some of them with great eloquence I felt, the weaknesses in present operation of UIC offices. They also highlighted, rather spectacularly, I thought, and here I am thinking of the hon. members for St. John East (Mr. McGrath) and Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the effects some of the provisions of the bill will have, in their opinion, on Canadians.
I should like to take the next few minutes to introduce also into this debate a note which, I think, will make the statements more consistent with everyday occurrences in Canada. Before doing so, I wish to remind you, Madam Speaker, that the unemployment insurance plan has been in effect for 35 years in Canada.
Canada did not break new ground in the field of unemployment insurance. Several European countries have had unemployment insurance for more than five centuries. Several even brought it in early in the 20th century. In Canada, the legislator became conscious of his role and of his responsibility to adopt income support measures only after the great economic depression of the thirties.
The first legislation on investments and social insurance passed in 1935 gave rise to many debates and even to conflicts of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, some provinces had questioned the authority of the federal government to legislate in the field of unemployment insurance. A decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council was required to define whether the Canadian government had full jurisdiction in the field of insurance.
But this legislation of 1935, the Investment and Social Insurance Act, was an act which sanctioned inequality to some extent. First, inequality concerning the age and also concerning facts. For instance, a young woman aged 16 or 17 could not receive weekly benefits exceeding $1.50 while a man 21 or over could receive more than $6 a week. Those figures, Madam Speaker, may seem a little ridiculous in the context of today's income scale, but they do shed light on the evolution of mentalities, priorities and, mostly, responsibilities of the Canadian government. No need to recall that current weekly benefits can amount to $123 and that they are based in the insurable income of the claimant during the qualifying period.
Madam Speaker, the role of unemployment insurance in Canada, is essential to maintain a certain economic stability. There are many factors in favour of maintaining unemployment insurance. One only has to bear in mind that the level of relative wealth in the various regions of Canada varies throughout the country, that social, geographical and even climatic conditions play a prominent part in the income scale of Canadians.
October 29, 1975

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to bear in mind that over 2.1 per cent of the gross national product in Canada is made up of unemployment insurance benefits. You will agree with me to what extent unemployment insurance benefits have a stabilizing effect on the income level and growth of the Canadian people in the Maritimes, in the North, in all areas of this country with different climatic conditions from one season to another.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, it must be known and kept in mind that unemployment benefits are not intended only as income support for claimants, they are also designed to maintain a decent income level within a community, to maintain, for example, within a particular community the level of public expenditures, the level of consumer expenditures, the level of rents, the level of owner expenditures at an acceptable rate.
And that is why, Madam Speaker, in the present situation, even with an excessively high rate of unemployment exceeding 7 per cent, and my colleagues referred to it this afternoon, that is why, Madam Speaker, in countries as important as the United States where there are more than eight million jobless, that is why also in countries like Japan, western countries like Great Britain, France, where the total number of unemployed now exceeds 14 million, in those countries there is no social unrest similar to that we experienced during the thirties or even similar to that Germany experienced, for example, during the twenties.
Unemployment benefits and unemployment insurance indeed play a significant stabilizing part in every industrialised nation, a stabilizing part which affects not only the economy but social life as well. And I believe that in discussing amendments to unemployment insurance it is essential to bear in mind their possible impact on the social atmosphere.
Of course, Madam Speaker, the plan in force since 1935 has been extensively overhauled. The law enacted in 1971, in particular, provided for automatic and annual equalization between premium rates and amounts of insurable earnings. Each year, therefore, the amount of insurable earnings of each Canadian worker and the premium he must contribute to the plan and to the unemployment insurance account are continually readjusted.
Madam Speaker, looking at those amendments which are before us today, I think we should be pleased to see that to a certain extent the minister and the government are conscious of their responsibility in continuously improving the unemployment insurance scheme. And before I comment on some of the proposed amendments which raise more questions than others, I think it is essential that I should repeat that at least three of them tend to achieve a balance which will prove beneficial to the entire system.
The first of these wise and desirable amendments, in my opinion, concerns the payment of travelling expenses incurred by a claimant or his representative when they have to appear before the board of referees. My honorable colleagues have mentioned and shown most convincingly how difficult it is in many instances for a worker to appear before a board of referees. If, on top of having to prove his case, the claimant has to pay for expenses incurred by his representative, I think there is an anomaly which should be corrected. As a matter of fact, in civil as well as criminal cases, somte of the expenses of the parties
Unemployment Insurance Act
who manage to prove their case are assumed by the court and by the departments of Justice.
Madam Speaker, I think in this instance, it is quite logical for the Unemployment Insurance Commission to pay for the expenses of the claimant or his representative, whether he be a lawyer, a union representative or even a member of parliament as in the case of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. And I think it should be stressed that this amendment brings into the system an element of fairness which we all welcome.
The second amendment which, in our opinion, also relates to the desire for a balanced income, is the one which deals with qualification for benefits for a supplementary period of 104 weeks. Many Canadian workers find themselves in situations which disqualify or would disqualify them because they cannot complete that 104-week period. For instance, someone who must serve a jail sentence, who is temporarily disabled or who for various reasons, sickness or quarantine, must stay away from his job. I think that the amendment designed to complete that 104-week period restores the balance and the justice we wish to see in the system.
There are also more specific details in the definition of some terms that will also restore the balance. For instance, the definition and the details of the expression "suitable employment", the extension of benefit period in case of sickness and the authorization for the claimant to withdraw a claim will certainly contribute to restore that basic justice, the natural justice that was lacking during the trial periods of the system since 1971. Obviously, we have not heard the last of it and all the reforms needed are not contained in Bill C-69. It is easy to see for instance that one of the main defects which is not corrected in the bill concerns the consolidation of arbitration awards.
Having completed law studies, you know as well as I do, Madam Speaker, that one of the judicial guarantees is the knowledge by law officers of decisions rendered by the courts in earlier cases. It is important that workers and insured persons may eventually have access to an office consolidation of arbitration awards. I believe this would bring some uniformity into the plan, because it is realized that counsel, judges and arbitrators may have a different perception, different practices and various degrees of knowledge of the law from one area to the other. I believe it is important to standardize the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I will not insist on the complexity of the act. Every member in this House knows how many interpretation "unexpectabilities" must be faced when advising a voter or a citizen that consults us on the act. I believe the first guarantee we should seek to add to this legislation is precisely that of an administrative consolidation of arbitration awards, or at least a data centre on decisions awarded on the most stupid points, the most questioned ones or those that give rise to the largest number of problems with the insured.
A second amendment that should be introduced involves the number of days during which an employee, a worker has not worked at his job but may have returned to some part-time employment. It is realized that these periods of
29669-66%

October 29, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
disqualification, these loss of benefit periods very often induce claimants not to apply for employment or make any effort to accept temporary work. I believe the regulations should be reviewed at that level. This would bring some measure of justice that would better account for the desire of Canadians to work, as evidenced by the extra 104-week period applying to Canadian workers who had to momentarily leave the labour market.
Madam Speaker, this legislation aimed at giving the Unemployment Insurance Commission some credibility in the eyes of the Canadian people was not the only one passed since 1971. Previous speakers in this debate have shown to what extent the government's estimates of unemployment insurance administration costs have been wrong or low during the years which followed the amendment of the plan in 1971. I refer my colleagues to the estimates for 1973-74 where they will find that there was only a difference of 0.3 per cent between the costs anticipated in 1972 and the costs incurred in 1973. I believe, Madam Speaker, that in the case of a plan as complex as unemployment insurance, there is now some misunderstanding and a certain administration control which can lead us to think that we are on the right track.
Moreover, Madam Speaker, especially in 1972, bitter criticism has been heaped on the workers about the rip-off artists, about the people who collected benefits without trying hard enough to find employment. An article published in the Globe and Mail in April 1975 reported that more than 50,000 claimants would be prosecuted or have to return money within the next months. Madam Speaker, I think that if Canadians are to maintain their confidence in the system, not only must they be assured that justice is done within the system but also that justice appears to be done. In that sense, Madam Speaker, there is also room for important amendments. My colleagues have noted how employers seldom appear before boards of referees and how very little they have to do with the application procedures of the system.
I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that many employers fail or refuse to send their employment statement formula in the time prescribed under the program. If the program must be tightened, or if it must show fairness to those who do get undeserved benefits, I think it must also be severe and just as inflexible against those employers who do not comply with conditions and provisions of the law.
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, if this system is to be balanced, this also applies to employers, and I am sure that the amendments under consideration will not remain a dead letter in the minister's ear.
In fact, the minister has showed such availability and openmindedness in recent years that we are sympathetic to any amendment that could be proposed in this system.
Of course Bill C-69 still features three amendments that give rise to questions. These amendments, Madam Speaker, concern the disqualification of people aged 65. I do not support my colleagues's opinion that disqualifying people who reach age 65 deprives them of the right to work.
True, Madam Speaker, such disqualification prevents them from getting unemployment insurance benefits. In my opinion, Madam Speaker, if we want to have a true
(Mr. Joyal.]
picture of the situation, we must pay more heed to the statistics referred to by my colleague. Madam Speaker, I am eager to acquaint you with Statistics Canada figures concerning people over 65. The persons who took part in the survey conducted by Statistics Canada stated unanimously that there are fewer workers who report as unemployed than there are claimants.
This seems to indicate that those people tell the investigators that they are not seeking employment and are not interested in working, while at the same time collecting benefits and telling the Commission they are actively looking for a job.
Therefore, it is becoming more and more difficult from an administrative point of view to ascertain whether or not unemployed over 65 really wish to find a job. The situation is as follows, Madam Speaker. In Quebec, for instance, some 16,000 claimants aged 65 or over now get unemployment insurance benefits. According to a survey made by Statistics Canada, about 8,000 of them, that is 50 per cent are in fact looking for work, and are actually interested in getting a job.
Consequently, we have this imbalance in the very objectives of the program which, of course, are to support income while also encouraging the unemployed to seek out work, and the will of the claimants who have reached the age of 65 to look for work and get a job.
The bill as proposed by the minister is a drastic one. It automatically excludes all persons who have reached the age of 65 and who get a pension from either the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. Madam Speaker, I think there is a happy medium which would probably allow us to solve the problem where the average claimant, of over 65 wants to withdraw from the working force while, on the other hand, wanting to get the maximum benefits to which he is entitled; and considering current contributions, that could amount to $6,373. I believe there must be a middle course to answer the purpose of the system. The bill, as proposed by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, provides that any worker who is 65 and receives the pension benefits be given compensation equivalent to three weeks' unemployment insurance benefits.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that a worker who is 65 should be able to choose whether he wants to receive at 65 these three weeks of benefits proposed in the bill of the minister or to carry on within the system. In that latter case, he should be subject to all the controls and conditions of the bill. It has been found out, Madam Speaker, under the administration in recent months, that since 1971 half the claimants were not actually looking for jobs but that the commission officials, responsible for controls and investigation, hesitated to sue a 66-year-old employee because he had not taken the trouble to fill the necessary forms or to actually look for a job. Obviously, to harass someone who is 68 years old and who depends for his living on the unemployment insurance payments seems particularly odious and unbearable. But Madam Speaker, I believe that in this situation, there must be a middle course to be found and I believe it should be considered if we want this legislation to pass bringing more equity, the necessary support and incentives to work. I believe, Madam Speaker, that it is 6 o'clock.
October 29, 1975


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Faulkner:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I should like to confirm to the House that tomorrow will be an allotted day pursuant to Standing Order 58.
Business of the House


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 30, 1975