1975-11-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The intention of the Greenpeace organization to interfere with the Newfoundland seal hunt and so cause wilful destruction to the pelts promotes the need for action by the government of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon- member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House recommends that the government initiate preventative measures against harmful action to the species and particularly to deny the organization such aircraft licences as they apply for.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Having received complaints from Halifax, Nova Scotia, that the federal government is in the process of using the antiinflation program as a means of reducing civilian positions in the Atlantic region's defence industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the House deplores the action of government in seeming to use the Atlantic region as an example to the Canadian public on how to initiate wage controls by reducing staff and restraining any meaningful collective bargaining in the public service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
2995 6- lO'/z


HOUSING
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to introduce a motion on a question of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Assisted Home Ownership Program announced by the Minister of Urban Affairs grants substantial subsidies to builders of rental housing and that low income people are by this very fact at the mercy of builders and owners of such accommodation who are really the ones that benefit from such a program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House recommend to the minister to amend the Assisted Home Ownership Program by providing the payment of subsidies for low rents to tenants with a modest income so that they may be able to rent in the building of their choice thanks to the additional income this subsidy will represent. This measure will make low income people the true beneficiaries of the assisted rental program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION MEASURES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Canada has been condemned internationally for our failure to implement an effective program of energy conservation in a report of the International Energy Agency which states: "there appears to be a substantial gap between principle and practice .. . that the Cabinet appears to have accepted the goal of conservation without recognizing the need to implement the goal with specific actions", and considering that in 1974 the industrial nations reduced their energy consumption over the previous year by 1.7 per cent while Canada actually increased its consumption by

November 5, 1975
Airports
7.8 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to (1) report to this House on the progress made by the Office of Energy Conservation in setting and implementing sectoral goals for energy conservation in Canada, and (2) establish an energy conservation review agency to monitor and report on the success of energy consumption cutback measures across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move under Standing Order 43 a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It has reference to plans by the Ministry of Transport to close all air traffic in and out of the settlements of Arctic Bay and Grise Fiord. The population of these settlements, totalling some 500 people, depends almost exclusively on air freight for all its supplies and any closure would destroy the settlements. The pending decision by the Ministry of Transport appears to be a bureaucratic misunderstanding of the worst order. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski):
That any decision by the Ministry of Transport on northern airport closures be cancelled and a little common sense prevail in the above-mentioned department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ESTABLISH FAIR SYSTEM OF LICENSING TAXIS SERVING MALTON-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the continuing problem of licensing taxis at the Toronto International Airport, Malton, which over the years has resulted in incidents of violence at the airport among the drivers, and in view of the recent negotiations among the federal, provincial and municipal governments involved to establish an effective system of licensing the taxis to and from the airport and thereby bring order to the industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of Transport take immediate steps to enter into co-operative arrangements with the government of the province of Ontario and the various municipalities in the area who are concerned to establish a fair and equitable system of licensing taxi cab service to and from Malton Airport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent in respect of that motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recognizing that the government of Canada has already indicated its attempt to renegotiate the safeguards aspect of the CANDU contract with Argentina, is the AECL renegotiating the commercial or the pricing aspects of this contract in view of the indications that its cost estimates may have been low to the extent of 100 per cent or $160 million?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, both parties to the contract, Ita-limpianti and AECL, have become concerned about the impact of inflation in Argentina and in our two countries with regard to the cost of that particular contract and have served notice officially to the Argentinian agency to renegotiate the commercial terms.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House whether there were any adequate provisions in the original commercial contract covering the possibility of inflation and in general terms what those provisions were.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there were provisions providing for escalation of inflation. With the benefit of hindsight it can be seen that those provisions were less than adequate in respect of the rate of inflation the three countries involved have experienced. For that reason, we have gone back to the Argentinian authorities and have said we wish to renegotiate the contract in the light of quite changed circumstances.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-AMOUNT OF LOSS UNDER ORIGINAL CONTRACT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how seriously the Government of Canada expects to be taken with regard to attempted sales of CANDU reactors when one year it tries to reopen the contract with regard to safeguards and the following year with regard to pricing or the commercial aspects of the contract. Can the minister tell the House whether, if the contract were carried out on its present basis, AECL would lose between $100 million and $160 million on the deal?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the point that I referred to, namely changed circumstances. The commercial terms of the agreement were negotiated be-
November 5, 1975

tween 1972 and 1973 significantly before the major impact of oil prices and the inflationary pressures throughout the world. Second, I should like to make the point that notice was served on the Argentinian agency that we wished to renegotiate the contract some months ago during the period in which we were in fact renegotiating the safeguards agreement.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS-ROLE OF CANADIAN INSPECTORS UNDER SAFEGUARD AGREEMENTS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary on the general question of nuclear safeguards is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because the International Atomic Energy Agency will have a staff even next year of only 145 people, which is obviously insufficient to do a proper safeguard inspection job around the world, is the minister reconsidering the policy he enunciated yesterday that our own Canadian inspectors will be utilized only after the IAEA inspectors uncover some infractions of the Canadian guidelines. Am I misinterpreting what the minister said yesterday?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to clarify my comment of yesterday to the effect that it would be the intention of the Canadian inspectors to ensure that the bilateral aspects of the safeguards agreement were inspected. It was not our intention to go over the same ground or to report upon inspections, or possible violations which had been uncovered, by the international inspectors. Our inspectors would be working to supplement the international team.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS-SUGGESTED STRENGTHENING OF INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY INSPECTION TEAM
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I think two points certainly deserve clarification because yesterday the minister clearly indicated that Canadian inspectors would be utilized only if IAEA inspectors uncovered infractions in another country. I gather he is backtracking on that. If so, that is quite welcome.
May I then ask him whether this government has made any representations or specific proposals to the other nations of the world, either in the conference of suppliers that is now taking place in London or in any other way through the United Nations or perhaps directly to the IAEA, that the IAEA inspection staff be strengthened immeasurably over the very insufficient personnel they now have?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to create the impression which my hon. friend inferred from my comment yesterday and I am thankful for the opportu-
Oral Questions
nity to clarify this situation for him and other members of the House. It is my recollection, and I want to check this, that we have not made any specific representations to increase the international staff, but I am sure that the Canadian position is to support the international inspection agency to the point that it is able to do its work effectively. I will look into whether we will make representations on this point.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING OF COUNTRIES SUPPLYING NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Allan Frederick Lawrence: My
other question to the minister really boils down to whether he has any report to make to the House or to the Canadian public on the meetings now taking place in London.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. At the moment the discussions are under way and there are proposals still under consideration. Until the conclusions have been reached I think it would be better not to go into the details.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which arises out of the very serious report that Canada's largest general insurance company, the Royal Insurance Group, which deals in automobile, property and casualty insurance has decided to cut back on its present service and planned expansion of service in the insurance field to Canadians as a result of its disapproval of the government guidelines in terms of profits. I should like to ask the minister if the government is looking into this specific case, and beyond that, what plans does the government have in mind to cope with the possible situation of other corporations providing goods and services which do not like the corporate guidelines and decide to cut back on those services to the people of Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to investigate the accuracy of the statement with regard to Royal Insurance. In general terms, I think it can be said that while the guidelines provide measures to restrain prices and profits, we are not proposing anything to compel anybody to stay in business. We assume that even within the guidelines they will do so, but, as I say, I have to see whether the anticipation that the hon. member has is founded on facts.


John Edward Broadbent: To be perfectly clear, is it the government's view that corporations which go on what could appropriately be called a strike against the public or against the government because of their rejection of the profit guidelines will not meet with any action on the part of the government to get them to provide at least the equivalent of the service they have been providing up to this point?
November 5, 1975

Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I assume from the hon. gentleman's question that he is now concerned that the corporate sector is taking the restrictions very seriously and that the guidelines are putting pressure on that sector.


John Edward Broadbent: There is a loophole right there.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I have said to the hon. member and to his colleagues previously, of course the guidelines themselves do not provide for withdrawal of services either by the employee group or by the employer.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBLE EFFECT ON UNEMPLOYMENT IF CORPORATIONS CURTAIL SERVICES BECAUSE OF DISSATISFACTION WITH PROFIT GUIDELINES
John Edward Broadbent: It confirms the point that this is simply another loophole in the whole mish-mash of the plan which the minister has brought forward. I should like to ask him a related question because we are talking about a financial institution here. Given the fact that the curtailment of service from the largest insurance company of this kind will mean a curtailment of revenue, which in turn means a decline in the level of investment for the coming months which will lead to the creation of more unemployment, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance in particular whether he is not concerned that the declining rate of investment, which will be inevitable if other companies duplicate this, will lead to further unemployment which is already at the highest level in Canada in numerical terms since 1940.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have to say, as I said at the start, that I would want to find out whether the leader of the NDP is in fact stating accurately the situation of Royal Insurance. If the hon. member is stating it accurately, of course any substantial withdrawal of participation in the Canadian economy on the part of either the employee or management side would not be in the interests of the economy as a whole. Our view is that all Canadians, either corporate organizations or individual employees, should co-operate with the government's program.
* *
*


DIFFICULTIES POSED BY CANDU PROGRAM-PROPOSED INQUIRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Before directing my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him for the straightforwardness he demonstrated last night on the state-owned network.
The November 4-11 week has just been officially opened as the Nuclear Responsibility Week by the Canadian nuclear monitoring group to obtain answers raised within the framework of the CANDU program concerning radioactive residue disposal, the difficult enforcement of safeguards, and the possible use of reactors by our customers for building atomic weapons. Could the Prime Minister indicate to the House how things stand now? Could he also

indicate whether the government will respond positively to the suggestion that a board of inquiry be set up to study this matter and report its findings to the public?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: If the hon. member refers to a Canadian board of inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not see the need for it. The government policy is well known. As recently as yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated again in the House that at a meeting of nuclear technology suppliers which was held hardly a few months ago, Canada had adopted an extreme position in favour of a full scope of safeguards. Unfortunately, we do not know yet whether Canada's example and views will be followed and adopted by other countries. On this point, however, we are willing to initiate a debate and provide more information concerning our policy.
As to the first part of the hon. member's question, I am grateful to him for supporting, whenever he can, government policies aimed at helping the Canadian economy as a whole.
*
* *


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wish to ask him if he has now had the opportunity to review the information in respect of the lease held by Sky Shops Export Limited as set forth in the petition I tabled earlier and the documentation I sent to him yesterday, and can he tell us what action, if any, he has initiated?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that I had discovered certain facts in relation to the Dorval lease, and I put them on the record. I have since examined the case in relation to the lease at Mirabel, at least in a preliminary way. I find that among the tenders which were received three appeared for final consideration, and those three varied from one level of guarantee to another level of rate. In the case of Sky Shops, it was the second best guarantee and the second best rate. With regard to the other two, one was best in guarantee and lowest in rate. The other one was lowest in guarantee and best in rate. An interdepartmental committee representing several departments of government, together with airport officials and the provincial government, analysed the bids and decided that the Sky Shops bid was in fact the best, and accordingly the contract was awarded.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will have another look at this, but on a related matter I should like to ask him if the government is taking the position that the statement by Senator Giguere is the official position and nothing further will be done on this aspect.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which point the government takes any position on or what the hon. member is referring to. The part I have been looking at has
November 5, 1975

been the nature of the bids which were received at Mirabel and the logic behind the awarding of the extension to Sky Shops in Dorval at the time in 1972 when it was done. I indicated yesterday to hon. members that at that point in time Sky Shops held a lease at a fairly low return on gross revenues, 5 per cent, I believe, and had three years and seven months left to run at that rate.
In connection with obtaining a further five-year extension they went to much higher rates immediately for the remaining three year seven month period, as well as to a higher rate for the remaining five year period with, of course, the impending problem of a switch to Mirabel of international traffic, which is the only relevant traffic to the duty free shop operation. It was to be transferred over a period of time in the late seventies from Dorval to Mirabel. What I think was in error in the suggestions from the hon. member and the petition was that the rates thus resulting in Dorval were out of line with rates elsewhere. In fact, they compare very directly with rates in effect in Toronto international airport.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I wonder if he has had a chance to discuss the matter with the Minister of Transport in light of the terms of reference which he laid down so carefully not long ago regarding conflict of interest. As I understand the situation, members of the other place are members of parliament although they are elected for life, the same as we are members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Elected?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Appointed for life, although we are elected. Regarding the terms of reference on conflict of interest does the Prime Minister feel there has been a violation of the guidelines laid down on conflicts of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had time to read the statement made by Senator Giguere in the other place. Listening to the answers given by the Minister of Transport to the questions asked, however, it is not apparent to me that there has been a conflict of interest. I would be happy to entertain argument on that subject from the hon. member. I believe that the senator has offered to submit to any inquiry that the Senate wanted to have into his conduct. Of course, the guidelines proposed by the government apply to both houses. The hon. member knows the state of debate on that. The guidelines have been looked at by a committee of the House and I believe are now being looked at by a committee of the Senate. We have had no final report from parliament on the government's guidelines.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary. May I put this question to the Prime Minister? In light of the facts now
Oral Questions
known to him, if an elected member of this institution had the same kind of business involvement in a matter of this nature-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will come to the question and it is a serious question, if hon. members opposite will only hold their fire. I can understand their problem. They got a little upset. But I will come to my question. Reviewing the facts on that basis, would the Prime Minister say there had been a breach of the guidelines laid down in connection with conflict of interest?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is hypothetical. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. Between now and the time when hopefully inflation may be reduced to a far more acceptable level, is it the intention of the government to maintain a policy of neither stimulating nor deflating the economy so that the economic recovery and reduction of inflation may have a reasonable chance of success?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that would be the policy in general terms, although I would have to say there is some anticipation that the export sector of the economy would recover in the early part of 1976. At that time we would have to be concerned that the government policies were not over stimulative in the light of the inflation objective. Subject to that, we would not be proposing any change to the present policy.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Regarding the country's export business which we are so dependent upon, could the minister explain why the government proposes to introduce legislation in the near future imposing a tax on exports which will make it much more difficult for our hard pressed export industry to survive?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the reasons are as set out in the white paper. Basically, it is because at a time when export profits may well be increasing it would be as unfair to firms selling to Canadians as it would be unfair to labour groups to permit one corporate group to recover profits beyond the guidelines. This is a measure, as I indicated to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, we would be introducing to parliament to impose an export levy to level off such additional profits with the condition of making them refundable, principally for capital reinvestment in Canada.

November5, 1975
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF NEW MONETARY POLICY AND NEW BUDGET
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that there is general agreement that wage and price controls cannot succeed without profound monetary and fiscal reforms, will the minister be announcing a definitive monetary policy in the near future, and will a new budget be brought down soon indicating that the government is serious about giving leadership in the whole area of restraints and fiscal responsibility?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I responded on a number of questions, the monetary policy as set out by the governor of the Bank of Canada is the policy we would intend to follow for the future. I would not anticipate making a budgetary statement before Christmas and indeed, perhaps not for some time after that.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO REDUCING EXPENDITURES
William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. If the government will not soon bring down a definitive budget announcing restraint and fiscal responsibility, will the Minister of Finance be making specific announcements in the near future indicating how the federal government will show leadership in the whole area of restraints by cutting and controlling government expenditure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed the government's intention to review the expenditure proposal for 1976-77. I am confident that my colleague the President of the Treasury Board will be announcing to parliament at the time the estimates for that period are produced if not before, a number of changes we would propose in our spending proposal. I would hope at that time that, while these may involve some considerable political impact, the hon. gentleman and other hon. members will support us in the cuts.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of a recent report from the department of transport for Ontario which shows that more automobile drivers were killed last year while not wearing seat belts, 61.2 per cent, than the year before, 56.9 per cent, can the minister now prevail upon the Ontario and other provincial governments to introduce compulsory seat belt legislation along with reduced speed limits?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to bring up that matter with my provincial colleagues when I visited the provinces last September. We had the opportunity of look-

ing into it together; generally speaking, the health ministers are very favourable to such legislation. Of course, the decision would have to be taken by the provincial governments, but we figured that if it were passed as early as next year, we could save, in health costs, a minimum of roughly $75 million a year based on the experience in Australia, New Zealand, France and other countries.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I gave him notice of it. Will the minister inquire into an incident in the course of which it is alleged that one Charles Apaquash, a Canadian citizen was chased by the Detroit police from the Detroit end of the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor and was arrested by the Detroit police when he was one third of a mile into Canadian territory and was then handcuffed and taken back to Detroit by the Detroit police? If he finds that the facts are as alleged, will he make the appropriate protest to the authorities of the United States against this high handed invasion of Canadian territory and the rights of Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly inquire into the situation mentioned by the hon. member. As the hon. member and other hon. members of the House know, there have been some incidents of a like character in the recent past. We have expressed to the government of the United States the serious concern we feel at incursions into Canada by police authorities in border communities. After I have examined this particular case, it may be necessary to follow up with further representations to the authorities of the United States.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I gave him notice of the question. I understand that the government of Quebec will make public today, in Quebec, the proposed agreement between the government of Canada, Quebec and the Cree and Inuit of northern Quebec, in the James Bay area, regarding native land claims. Does the minister plan to make this draft agreement available to the House today, as well?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the intended action of the government of Quebec, I intended to table the document today. Unfortunately, as the presses in Montreal are still clanking, it is not available in both official languages. Possibly if it is available later in the
November 5, 1975

day, the House will give permission to table it; or, if not today, tomorrow. I ought to mention that we expect the agreement to be signed early next week, and shortly thereafter it will become the business of the House, since the document requires legislative action by the parliament of Canada.


MANPOWER
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As Essex Packers of Hamilton were placed in receivership on Friday last, and hundreds of workers both there and at subsidiaries now face the threat of unemployment, can the minister advise if he has taken action to avert this situation which would cost these people their jobs and, eventually, the UIC an estimated $2 million in claims in the current year?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this situation has been made known to the government. The Minister of Labour and I have been consulting on the matter and we will take every possible step to alleviate whatever distress the situation may cause.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the recent offer by an American firm to purchase a controlling interest in a Canadian farm machinery manufacturing company, Versatile Manufacturing Company Limited. As Versatile has become one of the major competitors in the farm machinery business in Canada, even though 90 per cent of Canada's farm machinery supplies come from foreign sources, and knowing the minister's sympathy for Canadian farm machinery manufacturers, may I ask if the minister is concerned about the possibility of this transaction being concluded, and if he plans to ensure that this company remains in Canadian hands?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the matter must come before the Foreign Investment Review Board, which must decide if the transaction is in Canada's interest. I definitely am concerned, and have said so publicly. I have said that we import far too much farm machinery into Canada. We made this known to Secretary of State Kissinger, when he was here, and I have discussed this, as well, with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Oral Questions FOREIGN INVESTMENT


POSSIBLE TAKEOVER OF VERSATILE MANUFACTURING BY UNITED STATES COMPANY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister did nothing more than express concern. I directed the question to him, in the interest of Canadian agriculture. May I now ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he is aware of the transaction, if it is before the Foreign Investment Review Board and if the government has specific recommendations to ensure that Versatile Manufacturing remains in Canadian hands?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the transaction is now before the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Given that fact, I think the hon. member will agree that further comment on my part would be premature until we have a report from the Foreign Investment Review Board. I have asked them to speed their consideration of this matter, so that it can be brought to me and, subsequently, to the government as a whole as quickly as possible.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister explain why operating rules applying to private carriers like Panarctic aircraft are different from those applying to commercial carriers? As well, will the minister consider the feasibility of introducing one set of regulations for both private and commercial carriers, in order to create uniformity of air safety regulations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have missed some of the exchanges in the House in recent days. The practice has been to develop particular rules of safety for commercial carriers, but to apply different standards to completely private carriers, in view of the different nature of the operations and the necessity for protecting the public. I indicated in earlier exchanges that we are looking at how regulations apply to commercial and private carriers and that we had drafted proposals for new certification and new qualification. These are in the hands of interested people for comment. We shall be proposing some new regulations in due course.


CRASH OF PANARCTIC AIRCRAFT-POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS RESULT OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST IN PANARCTIC
Peter Elzinga: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister admit the possibility of conflict of interest in the Panarctic crash investigation, since MOT owns 45 per cent of Panarctic?

November 5, 1975
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the fact of a government interest in Panarctic in no way impinged on the department in the investigation. Hon. members know that we have in hand a proposal for an independent investigating board. This matter has been raised in the House recently a number of times and, in due course, we will proceed with proposals in that regard. I have no hesitation in saying that the investigation of this particular case was very adequate indeed and in no way suffered by virtue of the government's involvement in the Panarctic operation.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the hon. member for Vegreville and arises from the ambiguous answer of the Minister of Agriculture. I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Apparently the federal government has not adopted any position on a foreign company's attempt to buy the remaining major Canadian manufacturer of farm implements, Versatile. My question is this: Is it possible for interested groups to make representations before the Foreign Investment Review Board, so that the views of those whoe manufacture and use farm machinery may be heard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, may I distinguish between the formal application before the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and the attitude of the government and my own attitude, given my present responsibilities. My view is similar to that of the Minister of Agriculture, namely, in general, that it is regrettable that more farm machinery manufacturing is not controlled and owned in Canada. To reply to that aspect of the question, I hope we can hear from all parties concerned as to how this situation can be improved and rectified, and we will give it all the support we can. As to the application before FIRA, I am sure the hon. member will understand that it would be inappropriate for me, in the absence of a report from FIRA, to comment specifically on that application. But that is the only distinction I make.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister missed the purport of my question. I asked if any interested groups can make representation to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, not merely to the minister. I know the minister's door is always open to worthwhile, worthy suggestions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can interested farm groups and other interested Canadians make direct representation to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, Mr. Speaker?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would only reserve my answer to the point that I am not a lawyer and therefore do 
not know if I am legally correct. However, since this is a matter of public interest, since this application is being considered, I assume that any person can make his views known to the agency. The law passed by this House clearly made it mandatory for the agency not to discuss applications before it, by way of public discussion, before a decision is made. Since the decision has become public knowledge through other routes, presumably there is nothing to stop any person from indicating directly to the Foreign Investment Review Board or to me his views on these things. Indeed, some people have already done so privately.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday, he made a statement on dairy policy. Considering this statement in which on the one side the minister said that producers will have to reduce their production and that, on the other side, he is favouring an increase in imports from 5 to 10 per cent of the needs, how can he explain to this House his position asking for a reduction in Canadian production while favouring imports? Can he also say whether the government intends to reduce subsidies of 26 cents a hundred weight paid annually on a period of ten years?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member's question, his explanation of it, is at fault. What the dairy farmers of Canada actually have done has been to increase their production more than the amount of money we have to pay them for subsidy. They can continue to produce if they wish, but they will not get the subsidy on it. They will not get any more money than I have. I told them last April that I had enough money for 100 million hundredweight of industrial milk. They have increased production to a point at which it appears they will have 111 million hundredweight of milk which is over the amount they had set and agreed upon. I met with them at noon today. The amount of cheese that is allowed to enter Canada from foreign countries is a matter of deep concern to them and we are discussing that question further. But that is according to the pattern which has developed over the last number of years concerning the historical right to that share of our domestic market.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I would ask him whether, in view of the government's concern about the plight of low income Canadians as a result of the sharp
November 5, 1975

increase in the cost of living, consideration is being given to increasing the federal minimum wage payable to this group of Canadians who are largely unorganized and who have virtually no bargaining power to ensure protection against increases in costs as most other Canadians will be getting.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member may have noted that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced last week that the government upped the lower limit of allowable increases irrespective of the guidelines-


An hon. Member:: That's not the question.


John Carr Munro: It is related to the minimum wage. Let me answer the question. It permits it to be $3.50. Below that, no guidelines apply. Guidelines would apply above $3.50 an hour which is a significant indication, I would think, of what we feel should happen in the economy at large as far as low income groups are concerned. As far as the minimum wage is concerned, making aspects of that mandatory, we are looking at the whole situation of minimum wages very closely now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Carr Munro: Let me finish. We have also had a meeting of labour ministers, federal and provincial, where this was discussed in terms of minimum wage and how the provinces will respond right across the country to any increase in the minimum wage. Certainly there was, I think, beneficial and constructive discussion with respect to the minimum wage. I hope to have something to announce in the short term future.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that the people who get less than $3.50 an hour are largely employed by small employers, there are no unions; they have no bargaining power, I ask the minister how these people will get the increase which is suggested by the Minister of Finance except through increases in minimum wages by both the federal and the provincial governments. Did the minister in his discussions with the provinces (a) suggest to them that the federal government was prepared to increase the minimum wage for those who come under federal jurisdiction, and (b) urge them to give a similar increase to workers who come under provincial jurisdiction?


John Carr Munro: Obviously, I wanted to discuss it with the provinces first. Whatever the federal government does affects only 10 per cent of the work force under federal jurisdiction so naturally if we want any change in the minimum rate to have any impact at all we want the provinces to come along. That was the purpose of the discussions. I have already told the hon. member that I shall have more to say about the minimum wage at a later stage. With reference to his remarks concerning the $3.50 an hour, he is quite right; there is nothing mandatory with respect to that, but for workers who are unorganized and receiving less, it seems to me it is an opportunity for the trade union movement to do something in terms of organization and otherwise to bring those workers up to that level.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Since advertising is a major factor in increasing the cost of living, as it urges people to live beyond their means, can the Prime Minister tell the House if the government is considering adopting any measures to restrict advertising which is responsible for over-spending?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is bringing up a very important point, Mr. Speaker. The government had in the past the opportunity to study certain aspects of this problem. I will tell the hon. member that, for the time being, we do not consider it helpful to approach the inflation problem the way the hon. members did, and this is for a very simple reason, namely that Canadian resources are at present under-used. There is more unemployment than we would like to see and, consequently, we do not wish to reduce the demand for Canadian products which effectively exists in our economy. My reply, however, is on a short term basis. The hon. member's suggestion remains very valid. I personally agree with the hon. member that on a long term basis we should try to decrease excessive demands for unnecessary products.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and it has to do with a comment she made recently with reference to land use policy. Would the hon. lady tell the House whether in fact the government has a land use policy and, if so, when such a policy might be made known to the House?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: made no promises that there was a land use policy forthcoming. What I did say was that I had been given the responsibility by the Prime Minister to discuss with the provincial ministers how we could get together in order to discuss the problems related to the elaboration of a land use policy. This, I am doing. While recognizing that such a policy will be implemented largely by the provinces, I do feel the federal government can and should take the lead in bringing the provinces together to identify the problems we face.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY

November 5, 1975


FAILURE OF MICROSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL-PROPOSED INQUIRY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, this being my first opportunity of congratulating him on his new portfolio. Has he now had an opportunity of reviewing the Microsystems International situation and can he advise the House whether or not, after observing that the federal government had $36.5 million invested in it, which was lost, he is in favour of having a public inquiry or a review by the appropriate committee of parliament into the matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the latter point, I would presume it is within the purview of parliament itself to review it. I have been given a briefing, which is, I believe, substantially the same as was provided to my predecessor and by and large to the House but I have not really had an opportunity as yet to go into the matter in detail.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the tremendous problems officials in Montreal appear to be facing in preparing the facilities for the Olympics, can the right hon. gentleman tell the House whether the COJO officials are still planning to hold the Games in Montreal as scheduled and, if not, what alternative plans there might be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have heard absolutely nothing to the contrary from any person in authority in Montreal or elsewhere.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise the same point that I raised yesterday. We ask questions of ministers and, properly so, ministers say that they would like to look into the matter. Under the new rules, I want to know whether a minister feels that he can remain silent unless he is recognized; otherwise we will never get the information. I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) a very serious question with reference to an investigation by a certain branch of the armed forces of Canada, and he should by now be able to supply a very simple answer to the question I raised on Monday.


Mr. Richardson:: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will check his mail he will find the answer is in his office right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know that under the guise of a point of order I can permit a dialogue to carry on back and forth with intervention from both sides. The hon. member has raised his point and put it on the record and

there has been some sort of response. I do not know whether we can get into a point of order on this matter, and I do not think I can recognize the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on such point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we put verbal questions to ministers opposite, and if they are trying to hide the facts I can see why they want to communicate with us indirectly or confidentially. I asked this question in open forum in this legislature. If these new rules are going to be used to silence the opposition and take away the tools we have to get prior information, then we had better take another look at them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the point raised by the hon. member, the fact is that the change of rules has nothing to do with the point he has made. The different procedures that are used during the question period are evident; they have to do with the time that the question period begins and ends and the elimination of points of order during the course of the question period.
The hon. member made the point that when he asked a question of a minister, the minister replied that he would have to take the matter under consideration. Does this mean that the following day or on some subsequent occasion the minister must be recognized independently to answer the question and so take up the time of the question period still further? Or would the hon. member who asked the question originally have to be recognized to ask it of the minister a second time? It would seem to me that this has nothing to do with the new procedures. I do not know whether the point can be resolved at this time, but if there is a disposition on the part of the House leaders to make representations in this regard, I would be only too pleased to hear them.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to the activities and reports of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration which began its hearings in the city of Ottawa on Monday. At the time the commission was set up, we in the New Democratic Party said that it was not necessary, that what was really required was government legislation on the question of corporate power. However, in good faith we made a submission on Monday to that commission.
As a result of the attitude taken by the commissioners, a good part of which horrified the members of our party in terms of the restrictive view that they had of their own task, we requested at the earliest possible instance a transcript of the proceedings of that day to form our own judgment as to what was said in precise detail, so we could
November 5, 1975

therefore take appropriate political action during the last couple of days in this House of Commons. However, we were informed by the commission that it was not possible to supply a transcript until Friday of this week.
At the same time, we were referred to Nethercut and Company, a private firm engaged in providing technical assistance in the production of transcripts, and they too said that such transcript could not be made available until Friday. We were prepared to accept that on the assumption that this ruling would hold for all members of parliament. However, I learned today that a transcript was provided to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or at least to the Prime Minister's office, this morning, some two days ahead of the time that it would be made available to other members of parliament.
As a member of this House, I submit that this infringes upon not only my rights and privileges as a member but also those of all members who may well have wanted to respond as we do in what we regard as a responsible and political way. I repeat that the transcript has been made available to the Prime Minister but has not been made available to other members of the House. Therefore, if Your Honour decides that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I will move that this matter be referred immediately to the House committee on privileges and elections.


MR. RODRIGUEZ-COST OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON CORPORATE CONCENTRATION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I believe affects all members of this House and is relevant to the issue raised by my leader. As we are all aware, earlier this year the government established a royal commission to investigate corporate concentration in Canada. This commission has begun its hearings and I telephoned the commission this morning to request the minutes of its hearings. I was told that the minutes would cost 25 cents per page and would only be available after a week. I also understand that the commission will not be making copies of the many briefs presented to it available to members of this House, and is instead suggesting that people presenting the briefs should spend the money to make them available.
These hearings are extremely important to members of parliament for many reasons, but primarily to enable us to evaluate whether the exercise is worth the expenditure by the government, and secondly to gain any information which might become available on Canada's power structure. It is vital that the members of this parliament have rapid access to this sort of information if we are to be able to determine the quality of the work done.
Since my leader has raised this question, I also wonder whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) paid 25 cents a page for his copy of the minutes. If I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In order to give careful consideration to the representations made by both hon. members on the point, I propose to reserve decision on this matter for a short time. It seems to me that while both hon. members
Divorce Act, 1976
have certainly put forward a worth-while suggestion regarding improvements that ought to be adopted in the procedures of the royal commission vis-a-vis its relationship with members of parliament. I do not know whether the converse is true, that the failure of the commission to serve well the request or requirement of members of parliament constitutes, to that extent, such an interference with the ability of a member to discharge his duties that it raises a prima facie question of privilege.
However, it is certainly worth while to put this representation on the record, and in order to be absolutely clear on the precedents, I would prefer to reserve the matter for 24 hours, if that is agreeable.


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr.	Loiselle
(Chambly).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-74 intituled "An Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act".


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

Francis Andrew Brewin: for leave to introduce Bill C-415, respecting divorce.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes a fundamental change and reform of our divorce law. The present grounds for divorce are a series of matrimonial offences. The bill proposes to substitute the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the ground for divorce. The bill provides the presumption of breakdown if the parties have remained separated for one year. It provides that no divorce shall be granted for two years after the date of marriage except by special order of the court.
It provides, further, that the children and spouses of the marriage shall be assured of adequate maintenance before

November 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
the divorce is granted. This bill is based upon a working paper of the Law Reform Commission of Canada and upon the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, of Great Britain.


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

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House are aware, there has been agreement that the House will not sit on Monday, November 10, the day before Armistice Day. I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the House shall not sit on November 10, 1975; and That on the first ten sitting days, commencing November 12, 1975, excepting Fridays and allotted days pursuant to Standing Order 58, the House shall not adjourn or commence its evening interruption, as the case may be, until 6:30 p.m. and, on any Thursday affected by this order, private members' business shall be taken up between 5.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposed motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly) moved: that the sixth report of the Standing Committe on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, presented to the House today, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can only be considered with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,604, 1,895, 3,180 and 3,193.


Mr. Beatty: Has the government any knowledge of the presence of any officials of the American Government stationed in this country, except for those people listed in the October 1974 Diplomatic Corps Directory published by the Department of External Affairs or members of the United States Armed Forces and, if so (a) what are their names (b) where are they stationed (c) what are their responsibilities (d) for what organization do they work (e) on what date were they first stationed in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: The government is aware of the presence in Canada of all foreign diplomatic and consular personnel in Canada, including those of the United States of America, whose presence is required to be notified by a sending state to a receiving state in accordance with international law and custom. The names of the diplomatic and consular representatives and of national representatives to ICAO appear in the departmental publication, "Diplomatic Corps and Consular and Other Representatives in Canada". The names of the members of the administrative and technical staff of the embassy do not appear in this publication, but are on record in the department. The Government would agree that the names and job titles of these support personnel could be made available to those members of the House who wish to inspect them, although it is not routine for the Government to publish them.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: While this Department does not maintain any official record of United States officials stationed in Canada, we are aware that there are 93 United States Customs employees and 46 United States Immigration employees located at various points in Canada at the present time, (a) We do not have information concerning the names of these employees.
Airports U. S. Customs		U.S. Immigration
Vancouver	8	6Winnipeg	1	1Toronto	51	21Montreal	33	15Ferry Docks	Victoria	-	2Prince Rupert	-	1 (part time)
(c) They are engaged in Customs and Immigration preclearance of people and baggage moving from points in Canada to destinations in the United States, (d) We have no information as to the date on which they commenced their tour of duty in Canada.
November 5, 1975


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	In each year 1960 to date, how many applications lor certificates of Canadian identity were (a) received by the Passport Office (b) refused on security grounds or for reasons not disclosed to the applicant "for reasons of public interest"?
2.	For the same years, how many such certificates were granted?
3.	For the same years, how many applications for Canadian citizenship were (a) granted (b) rejected on security grounds or for reasons that were not disclosed to the applicant "for reasons of public interest"?
4.	For the same years, how many individuals were (a) refused entry to Canada (b) deported on grounds for reasons of national security?
5.	For the same years, how many individuals were served certificates designating them as risks to national security?
6.	For the same years, how many applications for landed immigrant status were refused for reasons of national security?
7.	For the same years, how many individuals seeking to enter Canada as refugees were refused entry for reasons of national security?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs and Secretary of State as follows: 1. (a) Information not available. (b) See table below: Certificates of Identity Refused. 1960, not available; 1961, not available; 1962, not available; 1963, not available; 1964, 1; 1965, 4; 1966, 5; 1967, 4; 1968, 1; 1969, 1; 1970, 1; 1971, 2; 1972, 2; 1973, 2; 1974, Nil.
2. See table below: Certificates of Identity Issued;-1960, 6004; 1961, 4237; 1962, 2807; 1963, 2133; 1964, 1854; 1965, 1190; 1966, 1699; 1967, 1509; 1968, 1446; 1969, 1053; 1970, 1155; 1971, 1440; 1972, 1464; 1973, 1760; 1974, 1757.
3.	(a)	(b)
	Total	Refused for Reasons
	Granted	of Public Interest
1960	62,375	821961	56,474	1071962	72,080	1191963	69,468	701964	64,334	851965	63,843	871966	60,846	351967	59,968	601968	60,055	481969	59,900	1970	57,556	331971	63,669	81972	80,866	221973	104,697	111974	(Not available)	
The information from the Department of Manpower and Immigration will be forwarded to the honourable Member at a later date.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many appeals were made by claimants in the jurisdiction of UIC offices in Corner Brook, Stephenville and St. Anthony in the years 1974 and 1975?
2.	How many were judged (a) in favour of (b) against the claimant?
3.	How many benefit control investigations were carried out by UIC offices in Corner Brook, Stephenville and St. Anthony and what was the percentage as related to claims made in the year 1974?


Robert Knight Andras: The Unemployment Insurance Commission does not maintain separate statistics for Stephenville or St. Anthony. Geographically they are included in the Corner Brook District Office statistics. 1. Appeals to Boards of Referees-Corner Brook District Office: Calendar year 1974-total cases heard, 163; 1 Jan. to 30 June 1975-Total cases heard, 85.
2.	(a) Calendar year 1974-Judged in favour of claimant, 5; 1 Jan. to 30 June 1975-Judged in favour of claimant, 3. (b) Calendar year 1974-Judged against claimant, 158; 1 Jan. to 30 June 1975-Judged against claimant, 82.
3.	Claims Intake and Benefit Control Investigations: Claims Intake-Corner Brook-1974, Initial, 19,913; Renewals, 1,604; Total, 21,517. Benefit Control Investigations Finalized-1974, 1,793; Percentage of Investigations Finalized to Total Intake, 8.3%.


Mr. Howie: What was the total amount of money expended to October 15, 1975 for legal fees and expenses for the prosecution of the Irving interests under the Combines Investigation Act and to whom was it paid?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Cost of New Brunswick Newspapers
Prosecution11': William L. Hoyt, Q.C., Hoyt, Mockler, Allen Dixon & Godin, Fredericton, N.B., (Crown Counsel), Legal Fees, $115,526; Disbursements, $28,636. T. Joseph Scanlon, Dean of the School of Journalism, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, (Special Assistant to Crown Counsel- Consultant), Fees, $9,100; Disbursements, $3,367. Winnifred Johnston, Saint John, N.B., (Witness), $630. Total $157,259. [DOT]
Does not include travelling expenses and time of Department of Justice personnel and of officers on the staff of the Director of Investigation and Research. [English]
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council) Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for
[Stage Direction]
November 5, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
the production of papers Nos. 55 and 57 are acceptable to the government.
Would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 53?
COPY OF REPORT BY MR. R. J. MEILER TO TREASURY BOARD Motion No. 53-Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by Mr. R. J. Meiler to the Treasury Board on matters pertaining to federal decentralization as a result of a contract with the government from June 1,1974 to December 31,1974.
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The terms of the contract of the Treasury Board Secretariat with Mr. R. J. Meiler called for the provision of advice on matters pertaining to federal decentralization. No written report was expected of Mr. Meiler. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 4, 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. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I was waxing along last night about the minor attachment period.


An hon. Member:: And you are waning today.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I hope to wane shortly. I was trying to bring to the minister's attention a problem in respect of the minor attachment period and the reason we should be thinking in terms of eliminating this period, making one attachment period which a claimant could understand without the assistance of a bureaucracy of lawyers, accountants and union officials.


An hon. Member:: Don't include lawyers.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In any event, I think the minister misunderstood in that he thought I was seeking to reduce the minor attachment period to the existing attachment period. I am suggesting somewhere between the two, at a cost that would not be too significant in terms of the fund but would be worthy of looking at in terms of simplifying the whole program dealing with minor and major attachments to the working force.
This is an area that certainly should be investigated, because the eight-week attachment period and the time it

takes for one to re-establish his major attachment to the work force is a disincentive to re-employment. I do not think anyone, no matter where he stands in respect of the principle of unemployment insurance, is in favour of provisions which are in fact disincentives to those seeking employment from actually going out and looking for work.
I was dealing with matters I felt had not been canvassed in this legislation but that I think should be dealt with if we are going to clean up and improve the act. One of the difficulties for a long time-other members have mentioned this-is in relation to the question of entrapment by the operation of the benefit control system. There is no doubt that any claimant who has had explained to him carefully what he must do to qualify would never be disqualified, particularly if he knows the rules, because he would then know the kind of answers to give the benefit control officer. What has happened in the past is that those who have not had jobs, and were perhaps not as bright as some others, were being disqualified, while the sharpies were being allowed to continue to receive benefits. That is a system we do not want to see prevail.
What is needed is a whole new approach in respect of benefit control officers. I am talking about a human approach and not an approach by an RCMP officer attempting to get a confession from a criminal, which is much like what has happened in the past. The change would require a humanistic approach to the claimant, because the weak are now suffering and the strong are getting away. I think that no one in this House wants that situation to continue. We need clear legislative guidelines in respect of benefit control officers, and I think a careful look should be taken in respect of previous occupations.
In terms of the question of suitability of employment under this act we have not had any change. There are guidelines which are exercised when someone who is unemployed has a special skill. They do not have to drop the skill level immediately but are held at that level for a time. I am not sure of the formula, but as a result of discussions with certain individuals I understand that in fact the formula varies to some extent.
In any event, there is a formula, for example, whereby an unemployed teacher does not have to accept a job for a period of time if there is no teaching position available. This may apply also to an accountant, a welder or someone else. It is my view that where work is available, people should accept the work. I do not think we need an unemployment system which perpetuates a class system. I see no reason, if I should be unemployed, why I should not be required to take work that is available.
There is dignity involved in work: some of it may not be something a person would want to do for the rest of his or her life, but I do not think there is anything against moving up and down in the skilled levels when people are unemployed. I do not see why, after a period of time at a skilled level, they should not be required to take available work. In other words, I do not see why the chief chef of a hotel should not be required to flip hamburgers at Macdonald's if he is unemployed. I do not see anything wrong with that. I think the minister should pay attention to these points in respect of the amendments.
November 5, 1975

Too much attention has been paid by this House and the media to alleged abuses of the fund. The facts are clear: the cost to the fund as a result of abuses is minimal. I listened carefully last night to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) who said that because of the deficit there must be something rotten in respect of the fund. The reason we have a deficit is clear: there is too much unemployment. There is nothing very complicated about that.
I defy the hon. member to cost the abuses and to tell me what percentage of the deficit is a direct result thereof. It is almost nil. I am not condoning this, because of course we should be as vigilant as we can in getting rid of any cheaters in view of the fact it destroys the fund and its credibility in the minds particularly of workers who are unhappy to pay for the cheaters. We in this party are just as unhappy as anybody else that there are abuses of the fund. The workers in the mill in my riding are not particularly happy to be paying for the guys the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary suggests cheat. There is no reason why they should. So certainly we want to see enacted any kind of enforcement that will improve the operation of the fund.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary put forward some views which probably are widely believed, but I think there is a misconception in this regard. He started off by saying:
I think we must decide whether this should be a welfare scheme or an insurance scheme, Mr. Speaker. I submit it is really a welfare scheme. It has taught people not to work and, as a result, we are losing the work ethic in Canada.
That was the theme of his speech, yet he concluded with these words:
I received a telephone call today from one of my constituents who is approaching the age of 65. He has paid into the unemployment insurance plan all his life. Now that he is about to retire, he will not receive any benefit.
He cannot have it both ways. There happens to be a welfare provision within the fund. He wants to retain that but does not want to call it a welfare fund. There is a clear inconsistency here. In terms of the sort of philosophical approach the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary takes, there has to be some welfare provision within the fund; it simply cannot be a bald fund dealing only with common aspects.
I should like to deal briefly with the amendments the minister is proposing. One of the more contentious is the question of the additional time one must wait when a quit occurs. Initially I was sympathetic to that view, and still am. In respect of those persons who quit, as opposed to those who are laid off as a result of lack of work, there should be a significant distinction in the length of time they wait before they are paid their cheque. Quite frankly, I think that if you have two people working on the same job and one is fired because of misconduct, or possibly because of a drinking or some other problem, and the other person is laid off because there is lack of work, it is inequitable that both should have approximately the same length of time to wait before they receive their benefits.
The difficulty in respect of such a provision is that a tremendous number of people are not legitimately fired for misconduct. There is great potential for abuse. There is
Unemployment Insurance Act
difficulty involved in extending the time for those who quit and thereby encouraging people to try to hold a job and at least to try to find another one while they are employed, rather than collect from the fund. I think this is a worth-while objective, but the difficulty is that no one has properly defined "misconduct", "just case" or the other qualification "refused suitable employment".
Even though there is a body of jurisprudence under the Unemployment Insurance Act, it is a vague generalization and there is still a bias in favour of the employer. In fact, the additional waiting period the minister seeks in the bill could work great hardship on some people. I have a tendency to favour the additional disqualification in the hope that we might have some tightening up, but I am not sure the minister is ready to tighten up the bias which naturally flows in favour of the employer. The reason for the bias in favour of the employer, first of all, is the attack by the media on the fund and the principle of unemployment insurance. This attack has been quite overwhelming. If one puts oneself in the position of either a benefit control officer, a board referee or even an umpire, one finds that the pressures by the press media and what one might see as the prevailing public climate create a tendency to see dishonesty where it does not exist, and a tendency to move against the person seeking the benefit because of the rumours heard about people skiing on Whistler Mountain wearing a "UIC Ski Bum" shirt. Therefore, there is a built-in bias in favour of the employer. So simply by extending the period of disqualification for benefits in respect of a quit, we do not cure the other half of the problem.
I submit the problem is that while there should be a distinction between those laid off and those who quit, we must take into account the other part, which is the question of defining fairly what is misconduct and what is just cause, and also correct the inbred bias in respect of the operation of the fund by the various officials within it. If that could be done, I would certainly support the principle the minister is attempting to place in the fund.
An incredible clause is the amendment to section 24(1) which deals with the reduction from 75 per cent of insurable earnings to 662/3 per cent. The minister has not attempted to make any distinction between those with dependants and those with none. I cannot imagine a more regressive step under the bill. I submit that the financial savings probably are not large. I do not have the figures and I do not know if it is the hard-heartedness of the minister or whether there is a real financial reason for the change, but considering that we are in an era when we have adopted, I think, a pretty firm philosophy that those with dependants should receive more benefits than those without-and the minister must surely have supported the family allowance provisions which this government instituted some time ago-it is difficult to understand why we take this regressive and retrograde step of denying dependants proper and adequate support under the unemployment insurance fund. It is clearly a conservative, retrogressive step.
If we continue to say that because we increased family allowances some years ago, therefore they do not need it- and that was the logic that allowed this government to

November 5, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
take away the milk and bread subsidies-we will wipe out all the social benefits that we have been successful in achieving over the past 15 or 20 years. You cannot keep saying: We have this program, therefore we will cut the other program. It is very clear that in this country the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer, and every time this kind of legislation comes before the House it displays the kind of hard-heartedness that I did not really expect from this minister, although I might have expected it from some of his colleagues.
The other amendment with which I wanted to deal briefly concerns coverage to the age of 65. Without going into it in detail, the justification is the improvements that have occurred in terms of retirement benefits, and therefore this provision is unnecessary. If ever there is still a group in our society which needs the help of all of us, which needs continuing benefits, which needs additional health care, housing and all the other things we should be providing, it is those who are 65 and over-and to take away this benefit is a callous approach. The savings to the fund are minuscule and the benefits are significant to those who have spent their whole lives working. So I believe this to be an unfortunate move. The decision not to grant advance pay under section 28 is, again, clearly a retrogressive step. It is no skin off the government's nose to advance pay so someone does not have to get emergency food vouchers to keep himself going. Again, it is a hardhearted and callous approach to the act and certainly does not improve it in any way.
I think the coverage of LIP and LEAP sponsors is progressive. I think this is a mixed bag. There are amendments that certainly weaken the support. I think the changes in terms of maternity provisions are desirable, but of course the key problem in the bill and the key reason that I cannot support it is the change in the financial formula. If ever there was an abdication of the government's responsibility in terms of creating a society with full employment, here it is. To suggest that no longer do we rely on a 4 per cent unemployment rate, and to admit tacitly that in fact 7 per cent is a normal unemployment rate for this society, is a tragedy for Canada. It is a tragedy because before we know it, not only will governments but people will accept it; and that is where the permissive rot is starting.
We have heard a lot of talk here about the work ethic. I happen to be one who believes in it. I think we should do what we can to encourage the work ethic, but you do not encourage it when you have a government which says, "We will now think about 7 per cent as being a normal rate of unemployment rather than 4 per cent". You do not do it by having a government which does not give you unemployment projections when it is asked, and you do not do it by having a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who a year and a half ago said that maybe work is now becoming irrelevant and we are entering a new era, while shrugging his shoulders.
There is a certain consistency in that philosophy when you take that statement with the changes in the unemployment insurance fund and line up the two. That is where the abandonment of the work ethic is-it is on the government side. We are a party which believes in full employment. We believe in a guaranteed full employment act. We 
do not want unemployment. We have unemployment insurance because of the system we live under, but we still believe we can create a society where there is work for all. We want from each according to his ability, and to give to each according to his need.
When you say "from each according to his ability", that means everyone in our society has something to contribute to all of society. People tend to look at the NDP and say, "Oh well, you people are great as the welfare party. You have done fine on the social reform legislation and we recognize that". But they forget the second part of the socialist ethic which is absolutely key to our philosophy, and that is, from each according to his ability. This means full work for everyone, with everyone contributing and being a meaningful member of the society. It is that philosophy that has been abandoned, although I suppose it has never been accepted on the government side. That is why we oppose this legislation, because it still does not deal in any significant way with the question of unemployment.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Madam Speaker, I am indeed much interested in taking part in the debate on this legislation, more especially as it gives me the opportunity to make the necessary clarifications regarding the problem of unemployment insurance in general.
Let me first of all point out the speech made in the House by my colleague the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne). I think he has demonstrated in a very thoughtful and specific way the real problems raised by this legislation. As he was telling me, we have here a series of efforts on the part of public servants with a view to improving the legislation. But unfortunately, those public servants seem to know nothing about the actual problems faced by unemployment insurance claimants. Indeed, it would seem that the problem of unemployment per se is not understood as it should be. While we would all tend to expect a definite improvement following the amendments brought in by the minister, we must unfortunately realize that this is only attempted improvement and that finally nothing has been improved with the introduction of those amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Apparently, this stems from the fact that there is hesitation about the very concept of unemployment, that is whether we should really help those who for any reason cannot remain in employment or whether the purpose of that Act is to help them, or still whether it is rather a fight to prevent the largest number possible of unemployed from receiving benefits.
Madam Speaker, when day in and day out one has to refer a tremendous number of cases submitted by unemployment insurance claimants, one does realize that it is often the second way of thinking which prevails, meaning that UIC officials are involved in a fight against the unemployed in order to prevent them from receiving benefits. Of course, this warps the fundamental principle enshrined in the Unemployment Insurance Act which is aimed at helping those in need since, even though they are unemployed, they must continue to live.
November 5, 1975

I understand that one should try to prevent any abuse from those who avail themselves of unemployment insurance benefits more or less honestly and even fraudulently. Of course, we understand this. There is no doubt that we would need to have a completely different system in order to eliminate the existing phenomenon of people seeking unemployment. Why does this phenomenon exist? It would take too long to go over all the explanations to show that it is caused by the deficiency of the system itself. We could partly solve this problem by accepting, for instance, to implement in Canada, an annual guaranteed minimum income plan such as that favored by the Social Credit Party, but since we have not reached that point yet and since the government seems determined not to accept any such proposal, we can only criticize, as objectively as possible, the minister's proposals concerning improvements to the existing Unemployment Insurance Act.
I therefore say that under this policy of trying to prevent people from receiving unemployment insurance when they do not necessarily have the right to do so, we are being utterly unfair towards those who really need and are truly entitled to benefits. Bill C-69 contains nothing which could completely eliminate the problems that stems from the present legislation, and we deplore it. On the contrary, the government seems to add even further problems. For instance, it was already difficult enough for people aged 65 to support all the pressures placed on them to prevent them from being truly unemployed when they were dealing with the unemployment insurance office. The government think they can solve the problem by saying: Well, people aged 65 or over will no longer be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Madam Speaker, others have said so before me, but I would like to repeat that this is an outrageous case of discrimination.
And until it is proven that the individual who is 65 can no longer work it is discriminatory to suggest that at 65 someone is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and I think in addition that is a direct attack against the work of those people most of whom are now 65 and plain manual workers. Most of them started to work at the age of 15 which means that quite often they have been working for 50 years. So they paid unemployment insurance since the legislation came into effect. They cannot get it in their heads, no matter the explanations that could be given to them, that they are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits if they are still capable of working, even though they may be on compulsory retirement.
So we are against this amendment which reduces the possibility of benefits from 70 to 65.
Another aspect of the bill seems to spell improvement, but it is so shy that it cannot be termed real improvement. It is the extension apparently granted to those who leave their job because of illness. We should have made here a much clearer, a much more precise improvement as, once more, it is already distressing enough to have to leave a job because of employment shortage or because you become physically unable to work and we should not worsen the situation of a person unable to work because of illness. It is already distressing enough to be ill and it should not be worsened by all kinds of petty annoyances concerning the initial period or the additional period. Madam Speaker, this is certainly a reason that should be readily accepted at
Unemployment Insurance Act
the same level as regular unemployment insurance because any man obviously needs an income to live and when he is sick it is even worse and even more distressing. This is why I expected the minister to accept sickness as a valid motive-just as employment shortage is-and also to make it easier for pregnant women to draw unemployment insurance benefits. It would be a good way to recognize the contribution of women at a time when they encourage population growth in Canada.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, when we see that this bill tries without any results to improve the legislation and that we can feel an underlying desire to further restrict those who claim unemployment insurance benefits, we must conclude that this bill is not satisfying and does not meet the actual interests of the people. And in a period like the present one where an unemployment problem really exists, it is not the right time to complicate the situation even more. And I repeat, the unemployed has to live.
Madam Speaker, if we really wished to improve the unemployment insurance legislation we should change its principle. It should rather become employment insurance. If we had a commission deeply committed to find employment, and possibly create some so that a person would not have to be left without income by reason of shortage, then it would be another matter. But in spite of all the suggestions made, instead of paying unemployment insurance benefits, it would now be possible to promote local initiative projects for instance. We could even transfer part of the moneys paid the unemployment insurance fund to local initiative projects, because it is always more meaningful to pay people for providing a service, for producing something. But not only does it appear that the amounts allocated to those projects will not be increased but, in keeping with the last guidelines set forth by the Prime Minister himself, even those expenses are to be cut down.
In that case, I would urge the minister to make up for the lack of employment-and therefore the necessity of paying benefits to a far greater number of unemployed- by simply providing incentives for job creation, one of which might be local initiatives. This would be a first step towards employment insurance instead of unemployment insurance as we now experience.
Madam Speaker, in concluding my short remarks, I would stress the fact that whatever the situation in our country now, a legislation should never punish those who have no option but to apply for unemployment insurance benefits. In other words, I would even say interpretations of the act should be more in favour of claimants rather than systematically aim at opposing them. For one, two or three unemployed workers who might appear to have a stretchable conscience when it comes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, there may be one who will be punished although he has an absolute right to benefits. Even if it were only to avoid unfair treatment for that claimant, I think the act should always be interpreted in its widest meaning. I make this recommendation for I am sure that all my colleagues here in this House also have had many times to deal with unemployment problems submitted to them by their constituents.
We are well aware of all the difficulties experienced by some claimants. Now that we try to improve the legislation

November 5, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
on unemployment insurance, we should be careful and try to give those who unfortunately rely on such panacea the possibility of enjoying a decent life with unemployment insurance benefits. We should not force people to struggle constantly against the legislation and the civil servants. We should rather take the first alternative, namely to really help the taxpayer.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately I do not expect this bill to bring any necessary improvements and I hope that the committee will propose serious amendments to this act so that the Unemployment Insurance Commission be really upgraded.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, the amendments proposed by the minister are the result of a post mortem conducted after the 1972 election by the then nearly-defeated Liberal government. That took its toll and a minister was removed from responsibility at that time. I think they realized that the amendments they originally proposed and the hand-outs they thought the public was going to accept so gratefully were working against their interests as a political party. It took them several years to bring in the amendments. All the comments made during the election of 1972 have not stopped since, with constituents reminding members of parliament that something should be done to introduce amendments in the House of Commons to rectify things.
The public did not accept what it was told when the 1971 amendments were introduced, and it has not accepted it since. The public was looking for restraint at that time, and it is looking for it today. Unfortunately, the measures proposed by the minister will not bring about the changes the public wants and which it has pointed to on so many occasions. We have to bear in mind what the public has said and what it will say about these changes that have been introduced.
Unless the minister is prepared to accept some changes, the proposals he has made will not go far enough. They do not deal squarely with the problems. We are faced with the prospect of a $4 billion bill, whether it is paid by the federal government, the employer or the employee. That is a frightening amount. We often wonder what has brought about inflation. I think the public is aware that it is the measures we have introduced in this House. We do not restrain ourselves in many instances. Many of the measures introduced were simply vote-getters for the Liberals in 1972. The public is aware of the cost and it has had its share of socialism.
For years the New Democratic Party has been saying that what this country needs is socialism, but now we realize what socialism has done. It has brought us to our knees and given us the most stringent restrictions on labour and management to the point where they are feuding. We are told to tighten our belts, but the public has been telling us for years to tighten the unemployment insurance belt. It is not that they wish to deprive people who require it, because the public can be fair, but people are aware of what is going on in the community and in many instances know who is drawing unemployment insurance.

But what is the point of singling out one individual and cutting him or her off benefits? What the people want is a clean sweep of the entire unemployment insurance scheme. It does not do an employee who has been contributing for years any good to see a fellow worker collecting benefits and living on his back. The person who has been working and contributing thinks he might as well have the money as see it go down the drain. This is an attitude of many people.
It is time we faced reality, Madam Speaker. Canadians should be told how much individuals have been drawing in welfare benefits. It is not unemployment insurance any more; it is unemployment welfare. This is what the government intended by introducing these measures. The minister says that because you draw old age security at age 55 you cannot have another form of welfare. That is an admission that it has become a welfare scheme. The public does not want that; what it expects is an honest proposal. The public agrees to insurance against unemployment, but not to a welfare scheme.
If you drive a car and have a series of accidents, your insurance premiums are raised. If there are repeated fires in your factory, clearly there is something wrong with your management and sometimes you will be refused fire insurance. Why should it be any different with unemployment? The present program encourages people to draw unemployment insurance. Why not reward people who reach age 65 without drawing unemployment insurance. I say that if you have not drawn unemployment insurance, you should be rewarded. That would give one an incentive to work. Or if a man has been unlucky enough to be fired, laid off-even if he quits-the prospect of reward would encourage him to look for work. We could incorporate several weeks of forgiveness so that if a man is without work for a short period it will not be held against him. Certainly, if a man has not drawn money from the scheme he should be rewarded. Let us be consistent. Why should the steady worker's contribution be as large as that proposed?
We should take stock. Certainly, if an individual has constantly drawn on the fund, something is wrong. Perhaps he is in the wrong job. Perhaps his seasonal work leads to seasonal unemployment. Perhaps something is the matter with the individual himself. Perhaps that individual should be encouraged to look for a job in another area and get out of a rut. Sometimes a man knows what will happen year in and year out. That should be changed. The program should provide incentive for a man to look for work. Unfortunately, the present bill does nothing of the kind.
As I have said, we should reward those who work steadily. I am not suggesting any hard and fast rule. Surely the officials of the department can examine this idea. For instance, if someone has contributed steadily for 10, 15 or 20 years and has not drawn on the fund, he should be encouraged not to quit his job. We hear of people who are encouraged to keep their jobs after they are 65. Why should every employee quit at 65? I know what the regulations will say about the age of claimants, but I suggest you can circumvent regulations of that kind.
November 5, 1975

I say that we should once more make this an insurance scheme. The public would be grateful if the government once more were to make the unemployment insurance scheme a true insurance scheme. People do not like the present welfare scheme. In smaller communities of the kind which I and others in this House represent you could advertise jobs in the local post office. There is no point in going to the local Manpower office for workers. I have tried, and IV2 years after my inquiry help has been offered. Often the employers in small communities are looking for workers, but the local Manpower offices do not know about these workers.
I say it is a waste of time applying at local Manpower offices. Frankly, I do not know why people bother asking the offices for help. Why not put up on a notice board at the local post office the list of those persons drawing unemployment insurance, together with their qualifications? Then an employer who wants a worker can go to the post office and see what kind of help is available. This would be a simple procedure. In rural areas particularly, employers might want to hire workers on a short-time basis. At least those workers would be off the welfare rolls.
Perhaps we could provide a lump sum payment as a reward to those who have not drawn unemployment insurance over the years. I agree that some cannot carry on without resorting to unemployment insurance. Why not set up an unemployment insurance loan fund from which the unemployed could borrow and avoid the stigma of being an unemployment insurance recipient? They could borrow from the fund to tide them over until the next job. There could be a payback scheme. We could use many methods.
The trouble is that the minister and the department will not listen when we say the program should be an insurance scheme and not a welfare scheme. The government says that we cannot manage without unemployment insurance, that we have on our hands a revolution of sorts, that the people are rebellious and to stop complaints we must provide them with huge unemployment insurance payments. Somebody must pay-that is my complaint-and the people doing the paying are not those doing the drawing. I know that many would not complain aloud, even if so inclined. They think: I am helping somebody else. But since the government is asking the public to restrain its wage demands, I say it must cut spending somewhere.
The present bill merely increases a tax. The government is doing this for its own political benefit. It is up to the government to relieve the pressure on the taxpayer, to relieve the pressure on those who work hard and owe everything to the honest sweat of their brow. The government must show leadership. Instead of asking the House of Commons to increase both the employer and employee contributions, the government should consider ways to reduce contributions and save some of this money. Why does it distinguish between employer and employee contributions? Apparently, when government supporters mention employers they automatically think of huge employers who own factories, hide assets and rig books. Apparently, if you are an employer you are rich automatically. The minister appears to single out employers. Why add to their burdens? I cannot understand why the small employer who is willing to hire a few workers should pay a premium 1.4 times greater than that paid by the employee.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Why the discrimination? After all, the employer is doing his share by employing that individual. He had to keep the books. Try to submit a late deduction and you are penalized. This was a political gimmick, nothing more, to make it appear that the government is on the side of labour. Who is the employer? In many instances, a simple businessman who himself is struggling for survival. If he closes down his shop, both he and his employee are without a job. I employ people on a little farm I operate. My worker has Saturday or Sunday off and I have to sit there on a Sunday afternoon while the sun is shining, keeping the books and making sure everything is figured out. If I do not, someone in the department will send me a nice letter threatening me with a penalty. Small businessmen have appealed to me from time to time to get this aspect cleared up if ever an opportunity presented itself.
I suppose there are cases of individuals taking advantage of the scheme. On the other hand, there are plenty of individuals who do not draw benefits to which they are entitled. I have received complaints from people who honestly answered the questions directed to them, but the commission comes along with trick questions designed not to get information but to fix things up so that claims need not be paid. I am all for action being taken in cases where there is an attempt to deceive, but I want the commission to be honest when it comes to the type of questions asked. After all, if a person has been getting $4 an hour and he is asked what he expects to receive, he is going to say $4 an hour; he does not tell the commission he expects to receive $2 an hour. If they asked whether he would be prepared to work for less, the answer might be different. Instead, they say afterwards that the applicant is restricting himself because nobody is prepared to pay $4 an hour in his area.
It is often difficult to get employment in rural areas because there are so few employers. The commission seeks to avoid payment of claims by telling applicants that they are restricting themselves because they want to work in their own areas. But, Madam Speaker, that is where their families are living. I know cases where the commission tried to send applicants from Saskatchewan to look for work in the heart of Ontario, leaving their families with no certainty they would find permanent employment. It was just a way of disentitling the claimant, and this is not what the insurance scheme was set up to do. It was not set up to make things difficult; it was put there to help in time of need.
A great many applicants, especially those who for various reasons lack sufficient education, do not know where these comparatively simple questions are leading. They give the answers which they think are correct, and then, bingo, there is confusion for three or four weeks, after which a demand is made for repayment of benefits. No doubt it occurred to someone that it would look good to check over a few of the claims. I am sure no member wants that kind of complaint to be referred to him. It is true that upon reviewing the situation the commission often agrees to reconsider the decision, but I say we should not find ourselves in such a situation.
First, we should provide an incentive not to use the fund except in cases of real emergency. This might be done through requiring a lower premium in certain circum-

November 5, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
stances. Or it might be possible to make limited sums available as loans in appropriate cases to bridge temporary unemployment. Then, again, an arrangement might be made for workers to receive a credit from the fund on their retirement in acknowledgment of the fact that they had never become a burden to society. Such a plan might lead to a net benefit since, as things are, there are many who say to themselves, "If I am going to pay for the rest of my life and get nothing, I had better find a way of getting some of the money back before I retire." Such an attitude might well be the result of the amendments in the bill before us concerning workers who reach the age of 65.
I express the hope that the minister will be receptive to these ideas. I have known a lot of politicians in my day and many of them find it difficult to talk about unemployment insurance because, of course, there are voters back home who will be paying attention. Also, there is always another political party ready to accuse them of being against the interests of the workers.
I say to the minister that every worker wants amendments which are sensible and fair. They want the government to show restraint. Above all, they want guidance from the minister. Hopefully, the hon. gentleman can find time to consider the suggestions which have been made to him, and I hope that in committee some of the complaints which have been conveyed to us and expressed in this House will be taken seriously. I trust he will not view any concession he may make as an expression of surrender to another political party. We in this party have put forward our ideas in such a way that their adoption may even be helpful to him politically, and if that is the case, fine.
We want to see the fund back into such a good position that there will no longer be any question of increasing the premiums to be paid either by the employees, the employers or the federal government. Instead, we want the fund and the economy to be placed on such a firm footing that the hon. gentleman is able to say; "We are reducing the premiums because we have got the problem licked."


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, thus far about the only agreement reached in this debate is that the Unemployment Insurance Act is a mess. Where the difficulty arises is over the question whether it is an insurance scheme or a welfare scheme. This is an important question because the issue of an increase in premiums really hinges upon the answer. Then one must ask oneself another question: Who is responsible for unemployment? Is it the government, or is it society collectively as represented by the government? If it is an insurance scheme, then obviously it is right to raise premiums. If it is a welfare scheme, not only should premiums not be raised but premiums should be abandoned altogether. If unemployment is the responsibility of the government it makes no sense to suggest that premiums should be raised. If unemployment is something that you cannot do anything about, then it is a social problem that must be borne by society in general.
Let me make my own position quite clear, Madam Speaker. It seems to me that the Unemployment Insurance Act has in fact become a welfare scheme. Since unemployment is a social problem, it should be the responsibility of

the government. In either case, those responsibilities are not individual responsibilities but social responsibilities and as such should be borne out of some form of general taxation rather than financed by premiums. This is the argument I wish to make.
It seems to me that we are going absolutely in the wrong direction. The government is trying to shuffle off its responsibility in both these areas by putting the load on the individual instead of accepting responsibility both for the rate of unemployment and the fact that unemployment insurance is a cross-subsidization scheme. It is true that when unemployment insurance was first introduced into this country it was a reasonable insurance program, but over the years governments in Canada have moved it from an insurance program to a welfare program. They have brought various people into the scheme. There may have been good reasons for doing this, but nevertheless by bringing in groups like fishermen, seasonal workers and farm labourers, the government has destroyed any credibility that the scheme had for being called an insurance scheme.
An insurance plan depends on unpredictability. That is what insurance is all about, whether it be car insurance or fire insurance. It depends upon not knowing who is going to have an accident or a fire, and under what circumstances. Fishermen have been brought into the scheme, and we know fishermen will be unemployed every year for a certain number of months. We also know that farm labourers of certain kinds will be unemployed. These events are predictable. This is why it is not an insurance scheme but a subsidy program.
As I say, if it is a subsidy or welfare program-and a good argument can probably be made for having a subsidy or welfare program in this area-then it should be accepted as a total social responsibility instead of calling it an insurance scheme. Whatever credibility the plan may have had initially for being called an insurance program has been destroyed by government after government. I think we must recognize the scheme for what it is.
There is nothing wrong with calling it a welfare program, but if it is a welfare program let us treat it as such and not perpetuate the fraud of calling it an insurance scheme, asking people to pay a premium and telling them that the premium is somehow related to the risk involved. It is a cross-subsidization program, which means that one province is subsidizing another province, that one industry is subsidizing another industry, that one group of workers is subsidizing another group of workers. In the social context there is nothing wrong with that; this is done through redistribution programs of various kinds. But that is not insurance and it does not call for premium payments but for the application of a general taxation policy.
Since government either cannot or will not do anything about unemployment, it must assume responsibility for funding this scheme instead of throwing this burden on the shoulders of the individual. In proposing amendments to increase premiums, the government is saying, "We cannot do anything very much about unemployment but we are going to make you pay for it. We are going to make you pay for the failure of government policy and planning. We will take ourselves off the hook and make you pay for it". That is grossly unfair. No government is entitled to
November 5, 1975

absolve itself from that kind of responsibility at the expense of the individual workers of this country.
Everyone rattles the Unemployment Insurance Act, yet everyone is guilty of abusing it. I do not think you could point the finger at any one group of our society or at any one province; everyone is guilty. I have listened with considerable interest to my hon. friends in the Conservative party denouncing the Unemployment Insurance Act. Yet whenever I ask them what they would do, I do not hear very many constructive proposals. They do not tell me which groups they would remove from the plan. In criticizing the Unemployment Insurance Act, denouncing its inequities and telling horror stories about the act, in saying that the act is not generous enough to certain groups, not one member has made a speech critical of the Unemployment Insurance Act without saying, "I know all kinds of cases of individual injustice". But hon. members cannot talk out of both sides of their mouths. They almost won the 1972 election by their attacks on the Unemployment Insurance Act, yet at no time did I hear any constructive proposals for improving the act.
The truth of the matter is that very few of us can be totally critical of the Unemployment Insurance Act for fear of offending our constituents. Of all the political parties in this House, the Conservatives have the most fear of offending their constituents because so many of them are living off unemployment insurance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: I am being a little rough, Madam Speaker, but I am being rough intentionally. I get fed up with the cant on this whole subject. Everyone is for motherhood, truth and justice until it comes to doing something to improve matters. They say $4 billion is too much to spend. But which groups would they eliminate from the plan? Would they eliminate farm labourers, fishermen, loggers, or maternity benefits? Where would they make cuts? I have yet to hear their program on that.
It reminds me of the sort of arguments made during the election campaign about cutting government expenditure. The only cut that they suggested really was Information Canada. When they were asked what government expenditure they would cut, whether they would get rid of old age pensions, or family allowances, they would not answer. The same can be said of all these critics of the Unemployment Insurance Act. When you ask these people what benefits they would remove, they do not reply. They do not reply because they are afraid of their own constituents. They are afraid of offending them. They try to please both sides-those who do not like the plan and those who live off it. That is the great dilemma we are facing. We have created a Frankenstein for ourselves. We cannot live with it yet we cannot live without it.
The present system of premiums should be abolished and replaced by a general tax, perhaps not by an income tax because that is high enough already, but some kind of payroll tax. This would make more sense than employer and employee paying individual premiums. For example, we might use a system similar to workmen's compensation. In that event, if we wanted an insurance scheme we could risk-relate it to the industry involved. Every industry has a pattern. The way in which workmen's compensation is
Unemployment Insurance Act
risk-related has had a marked effect on the attitude of industry toward safety. When their premium goes up they do something about safety in their plant. Not as much as they should, but there is some improvement. It seems to me we should do the same thing with unemployment insurance.
Many industries in this country could not survive without the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The biggest abusers, while having the loudest mouths, are the inefficient industries of this country that live off the Unemployment Insurance Act and do more to abuse the act than any individual in our society. For example, the fruit growers have criticized the act and said how much they suffer under it, how terrible it is for them. I came back to Ottawa on a plane one day with a gentleman from the Okanagan Valley who ran a fruit farm. He was very critical of the Unemployment Insurance Act and then went on to tell me how he hired married women for eight weeks and promised them at least eight weeks' work so they could qualify for unemployment insurance and he could pay them the minimum wage. He could not run his farm without the Unemployment Insurance Act. He depends on unemployment insurance in order to get his labourers, and he is not the only one; there are all kinds of industries like that in our society.
This system is very convenient for them. They take on labourers like a commodity and they let them go like a commodity, at which time the labourers go back on unemployment insurance and society pays for it. If they did not have this scheme to fall back on, these people might be a little more responsible in the way they treat their employees. They would have to be a little more efficient in the way they run their industries; they could not run them from the seat of their pants, hiring and firing at will.
Let me give an interesting illustration of that in respect of the automobile industry. There was a time when that industry had extensive lay-offs in good years and in bad years. They always said that the models changed, so that everyone had to be laid off for six weeks or two months. This was the case until the unions said that if the industry continued to lay them off in this way, they would have to pay the employees during those lay-offs. They brought in an agreement under which, if the employees were laid off, the companies had to pay them.
The automobile industry suddenly found that the work was not as seasonal as they once thought it to be. They began to keep everyone on all year long. They evened out their level of production, instead of hiring thousands of employees and working the hell out of them for part of the time and laying them off for two months. They levelled out the work in the industry. This has been the case, generally speaking, for the last five or six years since the unions negotiated that kind of agreement. There has been steady employment, as there should be, in the automobile industry since then. But at one time they dragged in thousands of people when they were required and laid them off when they were not, giving the industry this yo-yo effect.
Unemployment insurance permits this kind of thing to take place. It is important to note that in this kind of society which is disorganized and free-wheeling, a back-

November 5, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
ward society, we have no alternative to unemployment insurance; we could not exist without unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance is required by this Liberal government which cannot manage its affairs, cannot provide full employment and has no plan for the economy. The government uses this means of preventing a revolution taking place. If the government did not have that kind of support, the people would not be able to live in this kind of society.
People have many needs, whether they be housing, transportation or other things which are required. There are many needs in the world today. How can there be unemployment with this system that treats labour as a commodity? This liberal society does not have an answer, so the government brings in unemployment insurance. It is much like LIP, which is a sort of middle-class welfare scheme. This government cannot solve the problems, so it pays the people off. Unfortunately, it is not the government that foots the bill for this type of welfare scheme. The individuals who pay are those who are industrious and work. Those are the individuals who pay for this scheme. Those are the individuals this government wants to pay even more.
In some ways, unemployment insurance would not bother me. It would not be of great concern to me whether unemployment insurance were an insurance scheme or a welfare plan, if in fact it helped the poor. If the people needed help so badly, I would not quarrel about how they got that help. The problem with this unemployment insurance scheme is that, generally speaking, the money does not go to the poor. All of us know from experience in our ridings that the poor are the first ones to be knocked off benefits. They are not clever enough, in most cases, to know how to work the Unemployment Insurance Act. The ones who know how to and do work the Unemployment Insurance Act are the middle-class people.
There was an interesting story that appeared in the Globe and Mail on April 4 this year, from which I should like to quote. It appeared at page 7 and reads as follows:
In the 1973 figures, $686,000 in unemployment insurance went to Canadians with declared incomes of $25,000 a year and above; $20,000 of that going to persons with incomes in excess of $50,000 a year.
This is the fine scheme we have in this country! Of course, if you ask anyone about this they are likely to tell you the scheme should not differentiate in this way. That is how badly this whole thing is screwed up. We all know that the people who benefit most from unemployment insurance are seasonal workers who make more in a short season than many people who work all year long. West coast fishermen work four months a year and earn an average of $20,000. They then collect unemployment insurance for the rest of the time. What they do with that time, I do not know. Fishing in this country, with few exceptions, is not an occupation but a hobby. We are paying those people for engaging in that hobby.
I could give other examples of that where people around the country are engaged in fun activities. I once had a fellow from Newfoundland in my riding. He worked at a job but got into a few little brawls in the shop. If he did not like the foreman, he felt that he should punch him on the nose. After all, he is a bad guy and one should hit him.

There are many people who are not very understanding about these things, and he lost his job.


An hon. Member:: Like the guy who gets it on the nose.


Max Saltsman: That fellow lost his job and found it very difficult to understand. He had said some terrible things and hit the foreman, but had then forgiven him. He could not understand what the trouble was and why he should have lost his job. He looked for another job but found it very difficult to find one. After some difficulty, I thought we had him all calmed down and he found another job. I heard afterwards that he was doing very well and was to be made a foreman. This kid was only 22 years of age and had it made.
I thought we had accomplished something, and I suppose society would think he had been ground down into the dust and would conform. Then one day when I was on the train coming back to Ottawa I met this young lad and asked him where he was going. He said he was going home. I said, "Are you going home to visit your parents?" He said, "No; I am going home to stay. I have quit the job". I said, "I thought you were doing very well". He said, "Mr. Saltsman, that is not the way to live, getting up every morning at six o'clock, going to work, punching the time-clock. When the fishing season is here, they want you to work; when the hunting season is here, they want you to go to work."
He said, "They want you to work all year round. I am going home to do some fishing. When the fishing is not good, I will go on unemployment insurance. That's the way to live, Mr. Saltsman". You know, I think he is right. If your have a choice between living as a free soul or being chained to a machine, you should live as a free soul. Not everyone has that choice.
That is an exaggeration in order to make a point. However, the truth of the matter is that the people who pay for everything in this society are those who get up at six o'clock in the morning, whether it is raining, cold or hot, and go to work day after day, week after week, month after month. They do not have the opportunity to opt out. They usually are not unemployed and are not looking around for meaningful work. They do not say they want to stretch their horizons, but they pay for everything. They pay for unemployment insurance and they pay the taxes in this country-and they have no way out. This is the man the government is now saying must pay even more than he has paid, because the government cannot handle the problems of this society. The government is not assuming what should be its responsibility as the government and, therefore, these people have to pay more taxes. It is very difficult


Stanley James Korchinski: I am glad you agree with me.


Max Saltsman: Occasionally when I am talking, I get the feeling that I may be wrong. This just confirms it. There is great difficulty in discussing unemployment insurance because so little is known about the workings of the act and about who benefits and who pays. As I am saying this, I look across at the minister and see that he is there with a knowing smile on his face as if he knows. If he does know, he is not telling us. I sometimes suspect that the government does know all about cross-subsidization. I suspect it
November 5, 1975

knows who is bearing the cost of unemployment insurance and who is getting the benefits. This suits the purposes of the government and it suits its purpose not to discuss it or talk about it because too many horror stories may come out.
My quarrel is not about unemployment insurance, which I think is a very necessary and important program in the society in which we live; my quarrel arises because this program has been so distorted and twisted that it is now an open invitation to cheat. I know of very few cases where individuals have really defrauded the Unemployment Insurance Act in the sense that they have done something dishonest or something they were not allowed to do under the act.
What happens is that frequently people spend a great deal of time examining the loopholes in the act and figuring out ways to circumvent having to work and still be paid, rather than search for work. That is a serious problem in our society. It is not so bad in our society that we think chaos will ensue tomorrow. That is not so; there is still a strong work ethic in society. What happens, however, is that the man who works hard, who feels he has a responsibility to work, and who rather than accept benefits really tries hard, becomes very downhearted. It is not only that those who take advantage do so, but many of them make a point of going back to the job and telling him he is a fool to work. They usually exaggerate the situation. Then the steady workers feel like fools for working and sometimes ask themselves why they should continue to work. That is a serious problem for society.
Although unemployment insurance is costing our society $4 billion, it seems to me it is a good thing that money is being spent, whether or not it is being spent fairly. I hate to think of the state our society would be in now if that purchasing power were not being pumped back into society.
While I do not like the operation of the act, I will not quarrel with it at this time for the reasons I have given. We will not always be in a state of unemployment. We will have to get out of it some time. It is important to devise an act that appears to be fair to the people who must pay for the benefits. We must do that because society is held together when people are willing to work and share some of the rewards of that work with others. If they are not willing to share, then it does not matter whether we are talking about a capitalist society or a socialist society, because any society is based on the willingness of people to work and if that willingness is denied we are in serious trouble.
I suggest that the Unemployment Insurance Act does exactly that and is badly in need of change and correction. In some ways the act should be liberalized. I do not see any reason for there being a qualifying period of eight weeks or 20 weeks. If a person is willing to work, and if the job is not too restrictive, he should be entitled to collect unemployment insurance if society does not provide a job for him. There is no justification at all for the eight-week qualifying period. Most of these eight-week periods are phony, in any event. They are manufactured. I think of pregnancy and sickness claims, although I do not know
Unemployment Insurance Act how one could call pregnancy a sickness or an accident. I suppose in some cases it could be an accident. Generally speaking, it should not be either. What is the justification for saying a woman who puts in a 20-hour week in a shop, which may be the only 20-hour week she has put in in her life working in a shop, is entitled to a pay-out, while another woman who remains at home with a sick child is not entitled to anything?
If we come to the conclusion that this kind of payment should be made, surely every woman with a child is entitled to it, rather than just someone who can manoeuvre the Unemployment Insurance Act. There is no justification for this. At some point the minister will have to make up his mind concerning what he really wants. One day, depending on how the wind blows, he states that he will close all the loopholes in the act, and another day he makes statements such as the one I am about to quote. I refer to a statement he made before the Senate Committee on National Finance, on June 18, 1975. He said:
I must reaffirm that workers will not be forced to accept jobs that they do not want.
I presume he would also say, "or stay on jobs they do not want". Yet he will take the three-week disqualification period and change it to six weeks. What sense does that make? If the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to give people a greater opportunity to prove that they want to work, then obviously it makes no sense to increase or decrease the qualification period. That is not where the problem lies. Someone who wishes to quit a job does not go to the foreman and hit him. He finds a better way of getting fired.
Most employers are very guilty in the sense that they will seldom put down the real reason for a person leaving employment, because they want that person back. Very often these lay-offs take place in collusion with the employer. Most people who leave jobs would not be collecting unemployment insurance at all if the employer did not collude with them. Yet the employer is not investigated to the same extent as the employee.
I feel strongly about this bill in the sense that, despite everything the minister has said and despite all the trumpeting about the great changes taking place, we will not see the unemployment insurance pay-off come down a cent, despite these extra disqualification periods, because this is not where the problem really is: the problem is with the entire philosophy and approach to the act. This government is not prepared to bring in changes to manage the economy in the way in which it should be managed.
So long as that situation exists, we will always have abuses in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act, because businessmen who harp about the abuses in respect of the Act will always look to themselves before looking to anyone else-they are the great abusers of the act, and those who support this system make such an unemployment insurance act necessary.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House is anxious to get to a vote on the second reading of this bill this afternoon. Therefore, I shall make my remarks at this point briefer than otherwise would have been the case. I want to make as clear as I can and in the simplest way possible that we will vote against
8894

November 5, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
this bill because it imposes additional burdens on the little people in this country. It is just as simple as that.
The minister and his colleagues can point to some improvements in Bill C-69 over the Unemployment Insurance Act as it now stands, but the effect of its major proposals is to place more of the burden of unemployment insurance on the little people and to add to the abuses which the little and ordinary people will suffer.
I want to say we in this party are glad we have unemployment insurance as part of our social structure. We are glad the trade union movement in the early years of this century campaigned for an unemployment insurance program such as already existed in other industrial and democratic countries. I will even say I welcome the fact that in 1919 the Liberal party at its great convention of that year pledged itself to bring in unemployment insurance along with old age pensions and health insurance.
I was proud of the fact that in 1925 and 1926 my predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth, in a minority parliament used his strength to put pressure on the government of that day in this field. In the main he tried to get both unemployment insurance and old age pensions. He got old age pensions from Mr. King, but so far as unemployment insurance was concerned, he only got a promise that that would come in later. Well, it finally came before parliament in 1940 and into effect in 1941.
I join the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) in saying that our economy today, apart from the fact that there would be great suffering on the part of individuals, would be in a great deal worse condition than it is if it were not for unemployment insurance. Therefore, we are supporters of the whole idea of unemployment insurance and we want to see it continued as part of our economic and social structure. But we want it to be a scheme that is fair. We want the burden of unemployment, which is a social responsibility, to be borne by society as a whole, not just by those who suffer most from unemployment or the fear of unemployment. We want the cost to be distributed on a basis that is fair. That is not the case at the present time and, what is even worse, this bill will take us still further in the direction of unfairness.
Let me list four or five ways in which, in our view, the bill does what I have said it does, that is, puts heavier burdens on the little people, and for these reasons we shall vote no on the motion for second reading. First, may I refer to the fact that the bill does nothing to resolve the abuses that are perpetrated on claimants. There has been a good deal of talk in this debate about abuse, although most of it has been the other way, but from all sides of the House there have been examples of abuse that individuals suffer, mainly because of the activities of benefit control officers, mainly because of the fact that there is no satisfactory definition of suitable employment. The provision cutting off thousands of claimants from benefits altogether or of cutting them back substantially because they are restricting their availability is not in keeping with the purpose and the principles of unemployment insurance. That is something that is not in this amending bill and it is one of the reasons we are opposed to it.

Another way in which this bill is hard on little people, and this has been put forward by my colleagues and by members in other parties, is the decision to reduce from 75 per cent to 66% per cent the amount of benefit available to those who are in special need and who have dependants. No matter what kind of case the minister might try to make for treating all alike, he cannot get around the fact that that is increasing the burden that is placed on little people, and that is what is wrong with this measure.
Another thing that is wrong with it is the proposal to double the period of disqualification to which certain claimants can be subjected from a maximum of three weeks to a maximum of six weeks on top of the waiting period. This will simply add to the economic difficulties, the deprivation and suffering of many of our people. Who are the people who will suffer because of this? It may include some of the people who have been talked about here who abuse the system, but the tragedy is that it will include a great many honest people who have rights under this act but will have those rights curtailed by this provision.
Then there is the provision about the level at which the government picks up the cost. This, of course, is a matter that has been referred to by many hon. members because it is one of the main provisions of the bill. At the present time, as everyone knows, the premiums going into unemployment insurance are expected to pay the total cost of its benefits so long as unemployment does not exceed 4 per cent. Above that point, the government is supposed to pick up the tab, which in fact it does.
This means that at present the cost of unemployment insurance is borne partly on the basis of a regressive form of taxation on all people at a firm percentage, despite the fact that they are the little people, but part of it, the cost of unemployment over 4 per cent, comes out of general revenue which, to a more reasonable extent, is achieved through the practice of the principle of the ability to pay. But the new proposal is that that threshold is to be raised so that it will be a sliding average of the actual unemployment in the country over the immediately preceding eight-year period. This means that in the years that lie ahead, the threshold at which the government will come in will get closer and closer to the actual level of unemployment in that year. In other words, the cost of unemployment insurance is being put more and more on the shoulders of those who are actually working, those in low-income and middle-income brackets.
This is a departure still furtner from the principle of paying for social benefits according to ability to pay. The government does this in so many ways. We have it in our income tax structure, we have it in Bill C-73, we have it across the board. It is a constant battle to try to get our society to recognize the principle of the ability to pay, and we are sorry to see this minister go in the other direction in this piece of legislation.
The other item I wish to mention again-one that has been mentioned several times, but I am simply putting them all together in one package-is an illustration of the additional burden being put on the little people in the decision to cut people off from either contributing to or drawing from unemployment insurance after the age of 65. I regard as most specious the argument that we have heard
November 5, 1975

from the minister-a good many Liberals have trotted it out as well-that the rationale for this is that the government is now doing very well for our older people. We have had the list of things that are available, such as old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan, and so on.
Whenever we talk about the fact that there are no opportunities in these programs to enable people to keep up with the rising cost and rising standard of living, when we insist on substantial increases in these pensions, we are told from the other side that all these benefits are indexed, that they are escalated either quarterly or annually. That is a snare and a delusion if I have ever heard one. Ordinarily, in society the workers in trade union groups who are seeking collective agreements and those who are unorganized. do not seek just a COLA arrangement, just an increase equal to the rise in the cost of living. They seek, and rightly so, a greater share of the gross national product and of the standard of living that their labour makes possible. To say to our people who are over 65 that they must be satisfied with just the same basket of goods and services that they were able to buy at the age of 65 is putting them in a category that is inferior to other people in our society.
The cost of living increases are always behind anyway, but even if they were kept up to date it is putting these people in an inferior position, and to say to them that this additional opportunity to draw unemployment insurance, if they are still working after 65 and meet the conditions of the act, is cut off is I say, grossly unfair. My feeling about the whole matter is that these arguments that are being put forward are not the real arguments. What the government has looked at is the figures and it sees that here is a chance to save more than $100 million a year by cutting off people between the ages of 65 and 70.
In other words, the same thing I have complained about with respect to the other points I mentioned applies here. The government sees itself in trouble about unemployment insurance. It has been under some pressure from its own people, heavily from the Conservatives and to some extent from the public. It sees this program only in terms of trying to save dollars, so it is going to save dollars by doubling the period of disqualification, by lowering to 66 % per cent the benefits to persons with dependants, by making workers pay more by going up from 4 per cent to the actual rate of unemployment before it pays the cost out of general revenue, and then, if that is not enough, by making old people between 65 and 70 literally kick in over $100 million a year by being denied their benefits under this legislation.
That is what we dislike about this legislation. We are concerned. As I said in the bit of history I indulged in a few moments ago, we have been interested in unemployment insurance for a long, long time and we regard it as an important part of our economic and social structure. We do not like seeing it abused by the kinds of things which are being done to it in this amending bill which is now before the House.
The effort to save money by taking it out of the pockets of old people or by taking it out of the pockets of depend-
29956-1 lVi
Unemployment Insurance Act
ants by cutting down what workers with dependants will get is, of course, all based on the notion that somehow the government is being efficient and doing the right thing if it just saves money. To hear some of the speeches in this House one would think that for governments to spend money is a sin. I suggest that if it were not for the collecting and spending of money in the provision of services, pensions and health care, and contributions to housing and unemployment insurance, we would not have a society. There can be no civilization unless we find ways of redistributing the wealth we are able to create so that our people share in the benefits of that society.
That is what a program like unemployment insurance is all about. It needs to be policed; it needs to be administered efficiently and carefully. Above all, it needs to be administered on the basis of fairness. But I resent the way in which the minister and his colleagues seem to have felt that they had to respond to this "save money" syndrome which we get mainly from those on my right. What is important is that the money which is collected and spent in our society results in meeting the needs of our people. That is not done by debasing the unemployment insurance scheme or by making the little people suffer, as is the case under Bill C-69. That is why when the vote on second reading is called, we shall be voting no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: should like to point out to hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise when I express some relief at having reached this stage in the debate after six days of speeches and 55 speakers to this point. Sitting here listening with the most complete attention I could give, subject to natural demands on oneself from other sources, has really been like watching the swinging of a pendulum back and forth, back and forth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On your side, too.


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, I will do a more circular motion on that one. As noted by the honorable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that is quite true. We have heard a parade of suggestion that this is a most colossal boondoggle, a fraud, it is permissive and unnecessary; but in the same speeches, as noted by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), I did not hear one hon. member-usually from the Conservative side-complete his speech without really swinging that pendulum right back again and saying that we should tighten up, cut something out, do this and do that, but that we should not touch this or that, and that incidentally there are some cases reprehensibly handled, and so on.
Before we put the question this afternoon and, hopefully, proceed from here to committee with this bill, I will not attempt to deal with all the points raised but I do wish to say very sincerely that almost every individual case has been noted. In many instances it was not a thousand cases but the same one cited a thousand times. The UIC ski team

November 5, 19V5
Unemployment Insurance Act
was three years ago and was an embarrassingly amusing story to me because I was not the minister at the time. That story was probably done to death in the 1972 election campaign, but it seems to be popular with some hon. members still. It rather suggests that there have been some improvements and changes if we have to reach back for that kind of anecdote.
As I have said, I will not attempt to refer to every speaker. I appreciate every contribution which has been made, in a general sense, and some of them in a very specific sense. I must deal for a moment with the opening speech made by the opposition critic, the hon. member for Halmilton West (Mr. Alexander). He put on quite a performance, which covered seven pages of Hansard, unfettered by fact and certainly uninhibited by very much substance. As is the joy of this House, he and I are becoming great personal friends, but as I have said to him many times, I must say publicly that even for a man as tall as he is it can be very painful to come down heavily on both sides of the fence. I hope he protects his anatomy if he continues to take that position.
He paraded the past to us. He rubbed our noses in some of the forecasting problems we had back in the days of 1968, 1969 and 1970. It would have been rather decent of him to go on and indicate that since those times our forecasts, or our estimates of expenditures and the like, before committee have been very accurate. But he did not do that. Then he went on to lay before the House certain facts and figures a la Hamilton West, from the research team of the Conservative Party. I cannot help but think of the old story about the big bad wolf. Our friend huffed and puffed and blew his own house down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: I wish to lay before the House, not in any sense of winning debating points but so that we can clear some of the underbrush of error which the hon. member for Hamilton West made-and many of the Conservative party members fell into the trap of taking his figures or suggested figures as gospel-so that we can then join together from here on, and through committee, at least on some basis of fact. In his opening comments, the hon. member for Hamilton West said that I did not tell the House in my speech that this program would cost $4 billion this year. I did not tell that to the House because it will not cost $4 billion. He knows very well that it will not cost $4 billion this year because he was at the committee when we laid before it the outside estimate, including administrative costs, of about $3.7 billion.
I hope the Conservatives will not become raucous about that and fall into the additional trap of saying, "What's $300 million?" They used to enjoy that kind of comment years ago but I think they will avoid it now. I am afraid it was a knowing error because about four pages later he went on to put the correct figure of $3.75 billion on the record. I do not know why that accident happened. He said I indicated that the premium increase would be 35 per cent. There is no record anywhere of any comment, formal or informal, public or private, where I have said any such thing.
[Mr. Andras.)
He quoted some noted journalists-cum-economists who said that the premium increase would be from $800 million to $1 billion in 1976. I will lay my reputation on it that it will be in the neighbourhood of $490 million. I suppose someone will say, "What's $300 million?" or "What's half a billion?" Curiously, all the errors are on the side of his argument; never the other way. He said that the length of the benefit period for recipients increased some 51 per cent between April, 1974, and April, 1975. I can tell him that that is very inaccurate. The fact of the matter is that even in face of the higher unemployment we are experiencing today, during 1974 the average claimant received benefits for something like 17 weeks. That has come down to 16 weeks-and it is not an increase of 51 per cent, it is a reduction.
He indicated gleefully that the United States expenditure in 1973 was only $4 billion and that we would be spending, he went back up again to $4 billion as an illustration for 1976 in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I question whether any member of this House would have tolerated the United States unemployment insurance plan as it has existed until now. I do not think Canadians would have tolerated it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Certainly, I would not be very happy to see that continue. Let us get it on the record that as incomplete protection as the United States unemployment insurance plan provides in that country, their expenditures this year are going to be $20 billion. I just wanted to clear up some of these errors so that we can begin to deal with the matter properly. The hon. member also said that I had claimed that the act was riddled with disincentives. I never said any such thing, and I refute that.
I cannot touch on every speech, but I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). He regaled us with a story about robins and horse manure. I think he confirmed what we all know, his expertise on the subject of horse manure. In that sense he was a little more down to earth, perhaps, than the preceding speaker.


Mr. Gilbert:: Would you say he was a flop?


Robert Knight Andras: Until the day we reach the Valhalla that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge and some others have described, and resolve the rationalization of all income support systems and social security systems in this country, until we devise a system of moving on to a pension plan and integrating all these things, I tell you as a minister who has had lots of scars on his back over the last three years, also having had the opportunity to meet with people in Britain, Germany, France, the United States and Sweden, that we have one of the best unemployment insurance plans in the world. It has provided direct cash in almost every instance. It has given very much needed income to people who through no fault of their own suffered an interruption in their earnings at a rate in excess of 2 million people a year since the changes in 1971.
I have heard accusations and criticisms to the effect that I referred to one of the beneficial effects of our plan by saying that it does have a redistributive effect. I make no apology for having said that. If you think it out, it is
November 5, 1975

ridiculous to expect, if it is any good at all, that it would have any other effect. A person who has lost his or her job and therefore their income is, in the main, on the way to becoming very poor. If, through whatever method, you place income in his or her hands, then of course you are redistributing income. What is wrong with that? I think it is unthought-out rhetoric to make accusations that that is a logical or acceptable criticism of the plan that we enjoy in this country.
I would not be a party to emasculation of the unemployment insurance plan as we now have it, at least until that great day comes when we find a much more comprehensive, all-embracing program about which some suggestions have been made in the debate thus far. They are so embryonic, however, that we have a lot of work to do, perhaps together, to perfect the ideas over the years.
I think it is a great plan, but I think the pendulum has perhaps swung a little too far. I cannot stand before you and say it is perfect; there are problems. It is a costly allocation of resources, and even in this still very fortunate country there is not a bottomless pit of money. We have to decide whether this investment in people, as compared to that one, is producing the better or the worse result. There are rigidities in this act that have to be removed. We are trying to do that. I have indicated to the House that I hope to bring forward further improvements and amendments because it is a very significant plan in our society, our economy, and in the allocation of resources required to support it.
I am afraid there are some disincentives in the act and I think they should be attended to. In some of the amendments before the House today we are attempting to deal with these matters. I think we should be extremely careful, though, about using words like "cheater" or "abuse". I am not just playing semantic games. I spent many hours searching my soul about this so that we could understand each other and what really takes place. The person who voluntarily quits with or without cause-and we are addressing ourselves quite heavily to him in this bill-is not in any . legal sense violating the terms of the act. He is making a personal choice which is his right. Having made it, however, that does not automatically entitle him to assume an income paid for by other people.
In regard to disentitlements, people often ask what the percentage is of cheaters or people who misuse the plan. I prefer the term "misuse" because in the main it is applicable to most of the failures to meet the obligations under the act. I think most of it is misuse and a lot of it is misunderstanding because it is a far too complex legal document. It is very difficult to get the basis for assessment of that percentage. A disentitlement could be for one day-it could be for one hour. Well, that is a little tough. The computer would blow a gasket figuring out the deductions in that case. But it can be one day, one week, one month. Disqualifications are precise-they are for a period of time and are usually for reasons that you all know- anyone who voluntarily quits without cause, refusal of suitable work and so on. Indeed the same claimant can be disqualified in the first place and then disentitled later but I defy anyone to tell me precisely what the percentage is.
Having said all that, the incidence of misuse of the plan and even in some cases abuse of the plan, is too high for my
Unemployment Insurance Act
liking. We want to protect the integrity of the program in the eyes of the public of Canada who, after all, is paying for it. I say this because even at present levels of unemployment most Canadians who are capable of working, thank goodness, are enjoying a job. We are, in all conscience, maintaining a vigilant attitude and constantly reviewing that aspect as vigorously as we continue to review our ability to provide services to claimants who need them.
Let me talk more specifically about some of the amendments and controversial provisions contained in Bill C-69. The question arises, how is the program to be paid for? In all probability we are heading for expenditures of about $3.4 billion this year because, thank goodness, unemployment in the last quarter is not climbing. Unquestionably, that is a large amount of money, a large amount of federal government and therefore public expenditure, and a sizable percentage of the gross national product.
The facts are as many hon. members have said, and I do not deny them. In the main, the reason for that figure is that unemployment is at present levels. That is the main reason for the increase in cost. Another reason is that built into the plan is the escalator of the average wage, which determines insurable earnings and, therefore, maximum benefits. The maximum insurable earnings will be $200 per week in 1976, up from the present $185 per week. So there are many built-in cost escalations; in many ways I say thank goodness. But this poses a question which really needs simple arithmetic for its solution.
If you are paying out more money, you have to take in more money. We had to raise more money to fund this plan for 1976 and, perhaps, the future. So it became a question- and I heard some most interesting comments on it-of whether this should be paid completely out of general taxes or whether the program should be maintained by tripartite payments. We chose the route of continuing with the premiums of the employee and employer, with the government sharing the cost. We altered the threshold to allow us to assess more realistically the unemployment situation of the last eight years. The threshold figure for 1976 is to be 5.6 per cent which is based on the eight-year moving average ending last June.
Much has been made of this being a regressive tax, Mr. Speaker, of this being another horrible burden brutally perpetrated on the working people of this country by the Liberal government. Let us get this in perspective. The premium will be paid by nine million employees, by working people whose incomes range from the very modest to the maximum insurable earnings of $200 per week in 1976, and by employers who will pay 1.4 times the employee premium. That means that 58 per cent of the additional $490 million to which I referred, that being the premium revenue increase for 1976, or $280-odd million, will be borne by employers, not employees.
Let me explain to hon. members exactly what this means. The present unemployment insurance premium, at $1.40 per $100 a week income based on a 40-hour week, cost the employee 3.5 cents an hour. Under the new threshold, the increase for that employee, once this bill receives passage, in 1976 will be 25 cents per week on $100 of

November 5, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
earnings. For that same employee the additional cost will be six-tenths of one cent per hour. That is the increase in premium we are talking about. It will be 25 cents a week, or $13 a year. The employer of that same employee who is earning $100 per week in a 40-hour week will pay an increased premium of nine-tenths of one cent per hour for that employee.
Let us consider how this will affect the employee earning the maximum insurable earnings of $200 per week which, as I have just indicated, will be the figure for 1976. The $200 per week, 40-hour week employee will see an increase of a little over one cent per hour in the premium he must pay, and his employer will see an increase of 1.7 cents per hour in the premium that he must pay. So although the principle may be arguable, let us not exaggerate that this is deliberately loading an unconscionable burden on the backs of employees and employers.
For years in this country we have funded unemployment insurance on a tripartite basis, whereby the cost was shared by the three main participants, the employer, employee and the government. Before 1971, the portions of the burden were 41.5 per cent each for the employee and the employer and only 17 per cent for the government, with the government paying the cost of administration. Had we continued at the 4 per cent threshold level, at an unemployment rate similar to that which we experienced in 1975, the shares borne by the government, employer and employee would be, in 1976, 53 per cent for the government, 27 per cent for employer and 20 per cent for employee. The threshold changed, but this does not take the government off the hook financially. It merely restores the balance and, at the new eight-year moving average threshold, the respective shares of the burden would be 38 per cent, 36 per cent and 26 per cent.
Insurable earnings, as I indicated earlier, are indexed to the average industrial wage as collated from T-4 slips. They rise with the increase in earnings, and they also are affected by a moving average. So, Mr. Speaker, I really cannot buy the idea that the government is to be relieved of any concern and that the bureaucrats will say, "To hell with unemployment; we don't have to worry about it any more." How realistic is the suggestion that the government will not remain totally conscious of the burden of unemployment and will not do its best to fight it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Concern has been expressed about the increased disincentives which we are proposing to apply to those who voluntarily quit their jobs without just cause, who are fired for misconduct or who refuse suitable work. I am concerned about an anomaly, a paradox to do with the present unemployment situation. Despite present levels of unemployment, leaving aside the numbers of existing job openings, there is a continued increase in the numbers of people who leave their jobs without just cause. That number exceeds 250,000 a year. When you consider that number as a percentage of the total claim load-which is a sensible relationship-you will see that it is in excess of 10 per cent. Somebody said that it is only 2 per cent of the work force. Mr. Speaker, 41 per cent of Canadian workers change jobs every year. We are not talking about the right to change jobs. I am talking in terms of 250,000, plus,

people who have attracted disqualifications under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and in those cases no appeals were rescinded.


John R. Rodriguez: Give us a breakdown of that figure.


Robert Knight Andras: I will give the hon. member a breakdown in committee. I want to put these figures on the table. I am not being provocative; I want to get these figures on the table and I am sure hon. members will want to look at them, too.
On the question of jurisprudence, I worry too, from time to time, as to how well our appeal system is working. The jurisprudence has been established for 30 years, though, and if there is valid criticism of this kind of change it should more properly be addressed to an examination of the appeal system itself. I have asked the Unemployment Advisory Committee to conduct a review of the appeal system over the summer months. It really has not been touched for 30 years. It is the subject of an examination, also, by the Law Reform Commission and I hope that before too long we shall either validate it or make necessary corrections. I think we shall find that there is a little rust in it; it needs to be brought up to date; it needs a better balance, particularly for the unorganized worker who faces a negative decision.
I turn now to the position of those over 65. This is the most difficult problem I had to wrestle with and place before members. I want to begin by asking hon. members by what stretch of the imagination can one visualize that this change is suggesting that people aged 65 and over be barred from work? There is nothing whatsoever in this change in entitlement which will affect a person's right to work, or access to work. It simply means that unemployment insurance, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, is not a program designed to provide even a shortterm pension plan. I admire the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for his unrelenting effort to assist senior citizens. I question the route he takes very often, because I think it would lead to very severe distortions, crippling one plan by requiring resources which should more properly be allocated to another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You may disagree, but you always come around sooner or later.


Robert Knight Andras: Let me put my problem squarely before hon. members, Mr. Speaker. The 1971 act established that at the age of 70 there would be no payment of premiums and no more entitlement to unemployment insurance. I have indicated that there have been changes to other, and I think more appropriate programs-[DOT]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his time has expired. The special order allowed 30 minutes to each speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give him five more minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
minister could carry on with unanimous consent.
November 5, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: Another control factor was accessibility to the Canada Pension Plan and, of course, there was a three weeks return of benefits available. They had the choice of taking three weeks' benefits or the Canada Pension Plan. Obviously, they decided not to go that silly route under the act because it wasn't very profitable for them. But here is one of the major errors in the research by the Conservative party. They said, "There's no dough in it, anyway; it affects only 5,000 people." But the question is not that simple. We are dealing here with $120 million a year.
There is a matter here which I am bound to take into consideration. It is this. We have extrapolated from the labour force survey the people aged 65 and over who tell the survey that they are unemployed. We have compared that figure with the number of unemployment insurance claimants at any given time, and the comparison is startling, I am sad to say. The labour force survey indicated that the average monthly number of those aged 65 or over, unemployed in 1974, was 7,000. The average number of claimants aged 65 and over was 17,500. It ranged to a ratio of 5,000 unemployed but 18,000 drawing unemployment insurance benefits, to that average. I will give hon. members who are interested more details when we reach committee stage, but that is the problem.


Mr. Benjamin:: It should tell you something about the pension plan.


Robert Knight Andras: When one tries to apply the criterion of availability for work-which I think is a fundamental pillar of unemployment insurance integrity-to this gap and to identify those involved, it becomes a brutal exercise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And that is a brutal way to cure it.


Robert Knight Andras: Now I want to touch for just a minute on the reduction from 75 per cent to 66% per cent affecting people on extended benefit periods and claimants with dependants. It is my view that this plan should be wage-related. I do not deny the need for more income for people with larger families, but I think this has to come through other programs, not through this. To those who disagree, I want to pose this question: If you disagree with this reduction from 75 per cent to 66% per cent in respect of wage-earners who have families, and who therefore attract this additional benefit rate, would you agree to a reduction from 66% per cent, as it is now, to 45 per cent, or 50 per cent or 55 per cent in the case of people who have no dependants?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where is your logic?


Robert Knight Andras: We shall pursue the matter further when we reach the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the best use you can make of your extended time?


Robert Knight Andras: There are those who argue that to approach this question with any sense of saving money is not a proper thing to do. I do not agree. I think we must all look carefully at expenditures and keep them in the right place.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Before we get into committee I want to give hon. members our forecast of the financial implications of these amendments in terms of the benefits paid. The disqualification change we rate at a savings of $80 million. I am basing this on a 7 per cent unemployment rate, somewhat comparable to the rate this year. It would fluctuate in accordance with whatever unemployment rate we experience. The sickness benefit, increased flexibility, represents an additional cost of $15 million. The change in the qualifying and benefit period will mean an additional $15 million-that is a cost increase-and the change in the dependency rate represents a reduction of $30 million. The change in the provision respecting those 65 years of age and over represents a saving of $120 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Robert Knight Andras: The advance pay change represents a $5 million savings. The total is $235 million, but for the sake of caution we have reduced it by some $35 million because there are overlaps between these programs. Hon. members know, of course, the figure that I have placed on the premium increase, so the total effect is the combination of those two.
I should like to be able to talk to the House more about the appeal system and about the administration which I think is vastly improved and worthy of great commendation to the people running the UIC. I should like to talk before committee about experience rating. I would also draw attention to the publication and circulation of the study a month or two ago on advance unemployment insurance statistics, for which we have all been waiting. The figures to which I have been referring, on an actual basis as they occur, will be available for examination and discussion in the public eye, so no longer can it be said that some information is not available. I will follow up the case problems put on Hansard and try to get back to each member who has indicated that a particular case is still outstanding.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a spirited discussion and debate before the standing committee when we reach that stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the seventh report of the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills, praying for the passing of an act incorporating Northland Bank and, in French, Norbanque.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

November 5, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 6.14 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 6, 1975