1975-12-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, as a result of reliable reports of continuing and rather extraordinary ineptitude in labour relations on the part of officials acting on behalf of our country's national airline which resulted in a strong protest in the form of a telegram being forwarded on behalf of CALEA to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), Mr. Joe Morris of the CLC and assorted members of parliament. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Transport investigate immediately the role of Mr. Dale Atkinson, General Manager of finance, Air Canada, who, according to the President of the Canadian Airline Employees Association, took it upon himself to circumvent the union's negotiating committee when he initiated direct bargaining with the Air Canada finance branch employees in Winnipeg for whom the union is certified as the sole bargaining agent and that the minister report his findings to this House, since this type of action may be contrary to the Canada Labour Code.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST THAT COMPANY RESPECT PRINCIPLES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHEN DEALING WITH FINANCE BRANCH EMPLOYEES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgency, as has already been indicated, is the action of the general manager of the finance branch of Air Canada in circumventing the certified union of the employees of that branch. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the Minister of Transport to call upon the general manager of Air Canada's finance branch to respect the principles of collective bargaining by dealing with the employees of the branch through their certified bargaining agent, the Canadian Airline Employees Association, so that negotiations may be conducted in accordance with appropriate employer-employee relations.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the considerable reaction among federal civil servants in Quebec as a result of the government delay in adopting a specific policy on a fair indemnity for bilingualism, considering the undertaking of the government in August last to abide by the date of December 31, 1975, that is in a few days, as the limit for the application of the bilingualism bonus, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House consider immediately the problem concerning the effective non-acknowledgement of bilingualism among civil servants and that it indicate to the government the policy to be followed for the application and granting of bilingualism bonuses.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the statements made yesterday by the minister without portfolio that he still was not convinced that the RCMP had not
llXiO-llVi

December 17, 1975
External Affairs
leaked information to the news media about their intention to visit him and if they wanted to go fishing in his office they would have to use their guns. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the House requests the Minister without Portfolio to either furnish evidence that the RCMP was indeed responsible for the leak in question to the news media or that he withdraw his additional accusation of yesterday and, finally, that the minister's further statement that he will contest any search warrant obtained by the RCMP and that in effect he will permit them to only make a limited form of examination of his office files, raises the perhaps totally unjustified implication that the minister has something to hide and therefore the House requests an immediate statement from the minister clarifying this situation.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 for a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion is based on the statements made yesterday by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the President of Dominion Stores and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture referring to the need for a national food policy in this country because of indications that food prices will continue to rise notwithstanding the fact that prices to primary producers and farmers are declining. In view of the fact that the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices in its final report concurred in by this House on January 11, 1974 recommended that the government give consideration to the advisability of establishing a comprehensive and realistic long-term food policy for Canada and that further the Food Prices Review Board in its report of June 1975 recommended such a policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard):
That this House direct the government to take immediate steps to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices as concurred in by the House on January 11, 1974.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the announcement of construction recently of the Trident Nuclear submarine and missile base in Bangor, Washington, some 60 miles from the city of Victoria and the lower

mainland of British Columbia, without consultation with the Canadian authorities, and in view of the recent declaration by the city of Vancouver of Trident concern week, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make immediate representation to his United States counterpart and the President of the United States protesting this unnecessary escalation of the arms race and protesting increased risk inherent in this construction to Canadians in British Columbia.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Why have the regulations under the government's so-called anti-inflation act not been tabled in the House, why are they not before the House, and why are they being held up until tomorrow in view of the fact the legislation was passed last week by both Houses and apparently the government has had time to prepare the regulations in pamphlet form so that they could fall into the hands of a journalist in Toronto? Why are these being delayed particularly in view of the obvious desire of the citizens to have the information in these regulations.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is so obviously in the public interest that we felt the regulations once promulgated should be printed and made available in sufficient quantities right across the country so that the people could have immediate access to them. Hence, while the regulations have been prepared, we are now taking steps to put them into place across the country so that after they are tabled in the House tomorrow they can be made available to the general public.
With regard to the journalist in Toronto, I do not know the specific basis for the reference, but my only comment is, if the hon. gentleman is referring to the CBC report this morning, it strikes me that the CBC may have read the white paper for the first time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: How about you reading it for a change?
December 17, 1975


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF REGULATIONS TO PROVINCES-POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER MEETINGS WITH PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: am sure the minister will be disappointed to know that he has not satisfied me as to why there is all this delay. I should like to ask him whether the regulations have been made available to the provinces which are, of coure, slightly concerned with this whole operation and have indicated they would not make any definite commitment with regard to the program until they have seen the regulations. Have the regulations been made available to the provinces and when?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have concluded that the members of this House would have felt that the regulations made under a federal law should first be made available to the House and to parliament before they are made available outside.


An hon. Member:: You are finally getting the point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder how many times the Minister of Finance will keep going around that barrel before he stops.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He is keeping the information away from the public and using that as an excuse for keeping it away from the provinces. Some of us have some interest in seeing this program succeed despite all the bungling that is taking place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether he has made arrangements for the Ministers of Finance or whether the Prime Minister has made arrangements for the premiers-once the minister is gracious enough to make the regulations available to the provinces-to have a further meeting so that the people in Canada could know whether the provinces are in on this plan, whether they are part of this plan, and, if so, to what extent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am delighted to learn from the hon. gentleman that he is indeed in support of the program. We have had discussions at the official level about further meetings of officials on the regulations. Obviously, they will be made available to the provincial governments and we will be following up with them appropriate means of bringing to finality their participation in the program.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-CONSENSUS OF PROVINCES ON DURATION OF PROGRAM AND UNIFORMITY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, concerning discussions with provincial officials, can the minister advise the House specifically whether there has been a consensus or an agreement with the provinces in respect of, first, the duration of the program, and second, the uniformity of regulations across the country so that at least, if the federal people are unable to do so, the provinces will come up with some consistency and evenness in respect of the administration?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer the hon. gentleman to previous responses in this regard. The different provinces have taken different viewpoints, so there is obviously no consensus upon this point. We hope that with the promulgation and publication of the regulations provincial governments will be able to make a final judgment as to what their position is. Obviously, our advocacy would be to have their full support for the program we have laid before the country and parliament, the kind of support that they promised at the premier's meeting in Saint John earlier this year.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Presumably the minister and the government have received no assurance that there will even be a uniformity of regulations across the country. Can the minister tell us whether he has obtained the assurance of at least a uniform level of participation by the provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is raising questions to which I have responded on a number of occasions referring to the different participation by, for example, Quebec and Ontario and the position taken by the government of Alberta. I think probably in the interest of saving time in the question period I should only refer the hon. gentleman to Hansard and the answers I have given.


U420) ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-SUGGESTION THAT PROVISION FOR EQUALITY OF SEXES WITH REGARD TO INCOME BE MADE MANDATORY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance with regard to the fact that women in Canada earn on the average 60 per cent of the amount earned by employed males. Last March, in response to a question on this matter, it was suggested by the Minister of Labour that largely this fell within provincial jurisdiction. Since the anti-inflation legislation now clearly involves the federal government with regard to wage and salary matters at all levels, will the government be insisting that the provision in the white paper for an exemption from the general guidelines to ensure the achievement of equality of the sexes with regard to income, be made mandatory instead of optional?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, within our jurisdiction we certainly would do so, and indeed, the other measures which are now before parliament with regard to equality of treatment within the work force will have this effect within the federal jurisdiction. We will, of course, advocate the same course of action to the provinces within their areas of jurisdiction.


John Edward Broadbent: With respect, and I do not say this critically, I think the minister missed part of the question. Considering that the white paper uses the word "may" with regard to the exemption for women, will the government either clarify or, if required, change its policy, and instead of making that an optional choice for exemption, make it mandatory so that women in Canada who do the same job as men will be paid at the same rate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is the intention of Bill C-72, which is now before parliament, not just within the
December 17, 1975

Oral Questions
context of the prices and incomes program, but indeed continuing for all time in Canada. As we have said with regard to other aspects of the program, this is to make certain that there is no restraint upon women under the program with regard to increases to bring them on to a basis of equality. As I have said, Bill C-72, which is on the order paper, introduces the tense of the verb the hon. gentleman referred to: that this shall happen within federal jurisdiction.


SOCIAL SERVICES
John Edward Broadbent: My supplementary question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if I can get his attention. He is the minister responsible for women in this particularly important year. Does the government at long last plan to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women that the federal government contribute on a cost sharing basis with the provinces in the capital costs for the establishment of day care facilities and not simply contribute to maintenance costs once they are established?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy the hon. member raised the question. I will send him a copy of the guidelines which were published last year which indicate quite clearly the federal government's sharing in the cost of the rent of the day care centres, and second, in the cost of the depreciation on the capital cost of the day care centres. This shows that the federal government is sharing in the cost of day care services more generously than in any other social service in which it shares. I think this shows the determination of this government to bring its attention to problems regarding women in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTION BOARD INVESTIGATE ALL PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL TAX INCREASES
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Considering that the Anti-Inflation Board has the power to control prices and wages and to review them at any time, does it also have any power to control provincial taxes, taxation rates, and municipal levies? For instance, Hull has announced a rate increase of 28 per cent; Mr. Bourassa also announced higher provincial taxes for next spring. Will these levels of government be subjected to laws or to the Anti-Inflation Board review?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, following provincial conferences on this program, the provinces have emphasized that their right to taxation be kept outside the control of the Anti-Inflation Board.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask if the government is planning a reduction of rail passenger service in its new policy to be announced early in 1976?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when the policy is announced it will indicate the variety of plans. Needless to say in the rationalization there will be changes in service and in certain areas there may well be a reduction. There is also an important aspect and that is that where service is provided it should be provided efficiently.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question. Can the minister assure the House that officials of both national railways as well as those of the CTC are being and will be consulted on any proposed changes in rail passenger service that are under consideration by the government?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the CTC will play a very important role as well.


Jack Burnett Murta: A final supplementary question. In view of what the minister said, and since there is still apprehension in western Canada regarding the proposed policy, can the minister now assure the House that service in that part of the country will not be reduced to one transcontinental line going west from Montreal and Toronto through Winnipeg to Vancouver?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should try to forecast that part of the policy or the implications of it. As I said earlier, it is very important to consider the cost of the service now being provided and the implications for people travelling on services that are heavily subsidized and the availability of alternative services which may be cheaper without a cost to taxpayers. All of those things will be put together in determining the extent of the service offered in any particular area and that will be developed progressively with a role being played by the CTC.


STUDY OF ORTHO-MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. About a year ago we asked a question about orthomolecular psychiatry and he told us an evaluation was being undertaken. I wonder if the minister could tell us if that evaluation of megavitamin therapy has been completed for cases of schizophrenia in Canada, and if it is used as a drug in this country?
December 17, 1975


Marc Lalonde: That investigation has not been completed, Mr. Speaker.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister at what stage the evaluation is, and when we might expect it will be completed so that physicians across Canada may know whether they can use megavitamin therapy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a firm date to the hon. member but I can tell him that the health protection branch of my department has not yet received sufficient evidence from properly constituted and controlled clinical investigations which would substantiate any conclusions for the efficacy of high doses of vitamins in the treatment of psychiatric conditions or the common cold.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Now that Bill C-72 has been mentioned by the Minister of Finance in dealing with the federal human rights legislation and seeing that the minister has now met with his provincial counterparts regarding this very important matter, can he give us any reasons why he cannot proceed with the early introduction of this bill for second reading after the Christmas recess?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we had a very useful meeting, and as a result of that discussion, I shall be making some recommendations to my colleagues in cabinet with regard to the bill. I would hope it could be proceeded with in the session following Christmas.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Another matter of some sensitivity involves Bell Canada and hate messages. Has the minister directed his attention to this particular matter and was it discussed with his provincial counterpart? Is he going to move in this particular area to outlaw these messages and will there be room for censorship by Bell Canada? Is this the type of thing he is recommending to his colleagues to be brought within the human rights legislation or will there be separate legislation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it was raised by the delegation from Ontario and I have also had correspondence and discussion on the subject with my counterpart, Mr. McMurtry. I am not proposing that we should introduce in that bill, or any other, some form of censorship, but I am conscious of the problem and issue raised by the government of Ontario and have undertaken to examine both their specific proposal and other proposals, to see if the problem can be dealt with either under the Human Rights Act or some other appropriate piece of legislation. That is one matter on which I am reflecting following our meet-
Oral Questions
ings and on which I hope to make recommendations to my colleagues before the bill comes back to the House.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As, later this week, important government announcements will be made covering spending cuts in the order of $1.5 billion; as, on October 9, the Prime Minister, answering a question put by the hon. member for Calgary North, repeated that it is the intention of the government to keep its election promises during the course of this parliament, will the Prime Minister say, in view of his complete about face on wage and price controls, if he will now make a similar about face with respect to the $3 billion worth of election promises he made in his desperate bid for re-election just one year ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of Transport is put on behalf of the thousands of beleaguered passengers who now travel on that once great airline, Air Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: In so far as Air Canada has managed to lose my bags on six occasions-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, again, I ask this question on behalf of thousands of beleaguered passengers. Since my own bags have been lost on six occasions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Brome-Missisqupi would contribute to order if he would put his question.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, would the minister investigate the baggage handling procedures of Air Canada? I largely suspect that the problem takes place in the now famous terminals in Toronto. In my case this has happened six times since I embarked on a certain campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I regret to see the hon. member reach for the support of those members of his party who go on attacking Air Canada and try to follow that course of action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Air Canada is a great airline, the great Canadian airline, and will continue to remain so. Would the hon. member inform me if the suitcases he lost are wee, little suitcases-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: -or medium sized suitcases? I assure the hon. member that Air Canada is much concerned about lost luggage, has been watching the figures and improving them regularly. I have been much impressed with the improvement in the figures-


Mr. Crouse:: But you don't go by Air Canada. You use the Jetstar.


Otto Emil Lang: In one sense, considering the few bags now being lost, I am glad that so much of the loss is concentrated with the hon. member.


MANPOWER
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I would like to come back to the question asked yesterday of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) concerning the LIP program.
Would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration agree, against the recommendation of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, to transfer the remaining LIP funds in the prosperous, rich and affluent constituencies of the west coast to the constituencies of the Atlantic region, which have a very high unemployment rate this winter and where Canadians want to work if they are given the opportunity?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the funds allocated to this excellent program are, on occasions, not absorbed by individual constituencies. According to standard procedure, each year they are re-allocated in the final stages, to those constituencies with high rates of unemployment which are not concentrated, of course, in the east but are found throughout the country.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, may I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Labour. In view of the confusion surrounding the applicability of federal antiinflationary guidelines to labour agreements under provincial jurisdiction and in view of the manifestly national impact and importance of the ongoing strike in the pulp and paper industry, would the minister inform the House of any new developments in his attempts to co-ordinate a just and equitable resolution of the strike in this sector?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is absent, I take the excellent question of the hon. member as notice and I can assure him that we shall give him an answer as soon as possible.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Now that the government is asking Canadians to show restraint in order to restore the health of the economy, is the minister aware that the Department of Supply and Services is renting a store in the Gallerie des Boutiques, one of the most expensive and exclusive shopping malls in Ottawa, and employing two clerks to man the store which carries office supplies and has a large sign saying that the goods in the store are not for sale to the general public but will be sold only to government departments? If so, does the minister feel that the spending of government funds on the renting of a store in this expensive shopping centre, and staffing it with two clerks, is a good example to set when the government is asking the working people of Canada to show restraint?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I take good note of the representations of the hon. member, and I shall make an inquiry on that matter. If something irregular is found out, the situation will be corrected.


LASSA FEVER-POSSIBILITY OF INTERFERENCE WITH REGULATIONS BY WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION-EFFECTIVENESS OF QUARANTINE MEASURES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and is a further follow-up question on Lassa

fever, mentioned on page 9891 of Hansard. The question deals with the distinct possibilities of the fever being transmitted to Canadian Olympic personnel by athletes coming from areas where the disease is endemic. Does the minister anticipate any interference from the World Health Organization on which there are athlete representatives from affected countries? Also, will the minister's quarantine bill effectively eliminate any risk of this disease hitting Canada, with disastrous results?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week in the House, I intend to propose during the forthcoming session a number of changes to the Quarantine Act. Under these changes, a quarantine officer would be authorized, with the minister's approval, to detain any person who is really suffering from a contagious disease. This would include both the incubation and contagious periods. There is no such provision in the current act, and we feel that such an addition would provide quarantine officers with the necessary powers to prevent any individual suffering from a disease similar to that mentioned by the hon. member from entering Canada. As to the first part of the question concerning the World Health Organization, I do not foresee any interference from this organization in this area.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Following the meeting yesterday between the minister and Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick, which resulted in seven news releases today disclosing among other things some helpful and badly needed assistance with highway construction in northeastern New Brunswick and the phaseout of New Start and Multiplex, did the minister discuss with the premier apparent differences over the highway and bridge building proposals by the province which the premier referred to in his legislature and, in particular, is the minister considering a comprehensive five-year program of assistance with highways and bridges in all parts of the province?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly draw the minister's attention to this when he returns. He can undoubtedly give a reply in detail.



ALLEGED SLOWNESS IN IMPLEMENTING POLICY IN NOVA SCOTIA

J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce back to his old job. I have a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the comments made by the Nova Scotia minister of finance about the apparent slowness of DREE
Oral Questions
policy implementation in that province, and is the minister prepared to take some new initiatives to move the program forward?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can only respond in the same way. I will make sure this is drawn to the minister's attention.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Has the minister discussed with the Minister without Portfolio the restrictions which that minister is reported to have placed on his cooperation with the RCMP and does the Solicitor General consider these restrictions in keeping with the kind of cooperation the force might rightfully expect from a Privy Councillor?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not make public my discussions with cabinet ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary. Since the Minister without Portfolio saw fit in an interview published today to again state his feelings with regard to an alleged press leak by the RCMP, can the Solicitor General tell us whether his colleague has turned over to him any evidence whatsoever to support those feelings? Has the situation changed from the last time?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the police investigation is proceeding as scheduled.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the government seems to have got its anti-inflation program into sufficient difficulty with conflicting decisions and rather complicated regulations, does the government now intend to appoint an administrator? If so, do they have the name of the administrator and when will the appointment be made? Also, can the Prime Minister undertake that it will not be a civil servant who will be subject to possible influence by the government in light of the very difficult position the administrator will have?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate these representations. Perhaps the hon. member could give me a list of the people who he thinks
10096

December 17, 1975
Oral Questions
would be subject to influence and I will know who not to name.



POSSIBILITY OF LIMITATION ON CHEESE IMPORTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to Canada's import quota on cheese. In light of the indication which the Minister of Agriculture made at the Agriculture Outlook Conference yesterday that he would not allow foreign cheese imports to harm Canadian cheese production, is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in a position today or will he be in a position in the near future to make an announcement on this very important and pressing matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give an actual date because, as the hon. member will know, the discussions are quite complex and are still going on, merely interdepartmentally but in terms of the GATT provision and related international questions. I can assure the hon. member it is being given urgent consideration at the present time. An announcement will be made as quickly as possible with regard to the quota for 1976.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he supports the tightening of a quota on foreign cheese imports which is apparently supported by the Minister of Agriculture?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my views on the matter will become known at the time the quota is announced.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Statistics report that nine-tenths of the young Quebecers who joined the work force last year are bound to become unemployed; one might as well say that they joined the unemployed force. Taking into account the fact the Minister of Transport has been studying, for a long time now, the possibility of creating a Canadian high seas merchant marine and the fact that said project is finally only sailing on a sea of studies, while Canadian shipowners are forced to fly foreign flags, can the minister tell the House whether that great Canadian dream is about to become reality?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the maritime code bill, which is now before a House committee, makes a first step in the direction of ensuring more use of Canadian vessels. The whole question of a Canadian merchant marine and greater use of Canadian

ships and Canadian labour on those ships is the subject of an ongoing interdepartmental committee study. It will be some time before the results of that emerge in the form of policy.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General and follows one I asked several days ago about postal service at Rankin Inlet, Northwest Territories. It has come to my attention that incoming mail is being distributed by a volunteer but this person cannot send mail out or provide any other services such as money orders, COD's and so on. In light of this information, will the minister send a postmaster to Rankin Inlet to provide adequate service to this community before the Christmas rush is over? Also, will he undertake to reclassify the Rankin Inlet post office so that adequate money will be provided to pay for the space and salaries required?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am unavailable for the trip, but I will certainly send the unimaginative civil servant who is responsible for the foul-up to there very shortly, preferably between Christmas and New Year's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to the regulations under the antiinflation act. He has not given them to the House or the provinces. Has he made a copy available to the Anti-Inflation Board? If so, is this what made it necessary for the chairman to leave the country for awhile?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the regulations were of course discussed during preparation with various officials of the government, including the Anti-Inflation Board.
December 17, 1975



COMBINES


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Yesterday, as reported by Hansard at page 10,044, I put a question to his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, concerning the skyrocketing prices of secondary cattle feed, brewery grain in particular. As these unexpected increases may be caused by the advent of monopolies in the brewery grain business, would he be willing to order the required inquiry or, if need be, to put the matter to the Bryce Commission, and make sure that a monopoly is not now in the process of being created or, if one already exists, that it be dissolved?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that the Bryce Commission was not set up to deal with such problems. On the other hand, the director of combines investigations will certainly be advised of the comments of the hon. member. In addition, I should like to remind the hon. member that every time the director deems an investigation necessary, he orders one, but the matter is kept confidential.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
We saw yesterday in the Montreal daily Le Jour excellent publicity for and an excellent photo of the Postmaster General who was handing over a commemorative plaque to the editor for his achievement in journalism. Since the minister has also outlined Mr. Michaud's outstanding achievement in establishing and maintaining a new newspaper in North America, I would like to ask the minister whether after having himself benefitted from this publicity he intends to recommend that his department pay for publicity in this newspaper?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did participate in the awards given by the Montreal press club, and I did congratulate Mr. Michaud on his ability to create a new newspaper. I happen to believe that our system of federalism permits the ultimate freedom of speech and permits the creation of newspapers like Le Jour. I also made the point, however, that as a federalist I did not intend to finance the movement of the separatists through advertising by our department. If the hon. gentleman finds himself more compatible reading that newspaper than others, that is up to him. It is a very free country.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT



ALLEGED EXCESSIVE CHARGES BY AIR CANADA AND EASTERN PROVINCIAL IN NEW BRUNSWICK-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the excessive passenger fares being charged by Eastern Provincial Airways and Air Canada compared to other airlines in New Brunswick, would the minister kindly investigate the reason for the overcharge to passengers using the airport facilities at Charlo airport in New Brunswick serving northern New Brunswick and the Gaspe coast? Would the minister also ask the Canadian Transport Commission to investigate these unfair rates charged out of Charlo, New Brunswick?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for bringing this problem to my attention. It does seem peculiar to see these differences in rates between the single airline total fare and the combination of two airlines, but I will be glad to investigate the matter and report again in due course.



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-APPLICATION TO PARTS

Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. After the minister's astute remarks in this House yesterday, I am convinced that he must be aware that the Auto Parts Manufacturers Association feels that the auto pact offers them insufficient coverage and has said that "the safeguards incorporated into the auto pact, such as Canadian value added and production to sales ratio have failed", would the minister please explain how he could say that the auto pact covers parts for all practical purposes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the kind of answer that I can give in a few words. I have said that so far as the auto pact is concerned there was, of course, inclusion of auto parts, but I am aware, as the hon. member is, that the Auto Parts Manufacturers Association has been making representations. I have listened to them and I will continue my discussions with them, and if there are to be changes in the auto pact we will try to accommodate them as best we can. Obviously, at the moment I cannot go beyond that.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the minister has now shot down Skywest and the Manitoba and Saskatche-
21 130-18'/2

December 17, 1975
Oral Questions
wan governments have decided to abandon the company, does the commitment of the Prime Minister that the federal government will assist in providing prairie air service still stand?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be clear to the hon. member that I did not shoot down Skywest but that rather Mr. Evans pulled the plug on the operation by withdrawing in the face of a request for further information. We have stood ready at all times to purchase two aircraft and make them available to a carrier. However, we insisted that it be a carrier with a licence, and I think that is a reasonable proposition. We are still in the position of trying to pursue with Manitoba and Saskatchewan the possibility of providing service. I have had some discussions with the premier of Manitoba about this and he has indicated some willingness to support financially a venture in which the carrier provides a service to the communities of Brandon, Dauphin, Yorkton, between Saskatoon and Winnipeg, and we will be pursuing that question.



AIK CANADA


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it has to do with lax security at Air Canada terminals in the United States and Canada. Is the minister aware of the complaint by the Gloucester police chief of lack of co-operation on the part of Air Canada to inform investigative authorities of valuable gold shipments passing through the terminal of Air Canada at Uplands and, if not, will he seek the reason from Air Canada and inform this House as soon as possible? Also, would the minister investigate the recent theft of a box of diamonds from Air Canada flight No. 745 from Kennedy airport to Montreal, as authorities are now questioning Air Canada employees in New York in regard to the missing diamonds?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the earlier complaint on the part of the chief of police. I have no doubt that that matter is being discussed. I have also full confidence that the second issue will be investigated in the ordinary course and that there will be no need for any additional investigation on my part.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering that the textile industry in Canada has really been in a difficult situation for several years and

that the footwear industry has now the same difficulties as many companies must dismiss more than 80 per cent of their staff, will the minister have the opportunity in the next Speech from the Throne to announce a policy which will rescue these industries which represent now thousands of jobs in the Eastern Townships?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much if there would be anything by way of, as the hon. member puts it, something to include in the throne speech on this subject. There is a comparatively new policy with regard to both textiles and the footwear industry which has been in place now for something like a couple of years and we are continuing to examine it. A number of initiatives have been taken under it, but I believe it is generally agreed that the strategy that has been adopted is the most appropriate one in the circumstances. We will continue to look at the situation as various new developments occur, but that policy is the one that I anticipate we will continue to follow.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister inform the House whether it has been the decision of the department to allow Roosevelt Douglas, a militant convicted and jailed for his part in the Sir George Williams University riot six years ago, to remain in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Douglas was ordered deported some time ago.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Robert Knight Andras: Roosevelt Douglas. He most certainly does not come from Nanaimo-Cowichan and those islands! His deportation order was appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board. The appeal was rejected. He is under a deportation order. He has made several appeals to the Federal Court and to the Supreme Court. There is now another appeal before a judicial body of this country, and until that appeal is disposed of we cannot move to implement the deportation order.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Several days ago I forwarded to the minister containers showing a change from pounds to grams, which were 1.2 pounds less in the conversion from pounds to grams. However, the same price was charged by the retail
December 17, 1975

outlet. I wonder whether the minister has investigated the matter and whether other cases have been brought to his attention where less product is available at the same price in the conversion from pounds to the metric system? I would also like to congratulate my constituency review board which brought this to my attention, a group composed of volunteers.


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who sent to my office these exhibits which have been submitted to the officials of my department for inquiry. I can assure him and the other hon. members, that I will inform him of the new developments in this matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on a question of privilege.


André Ouellet: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, when the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jeli-nek) raised a question of privilege, you told the House that you would give me the opportunity to express my views before making any decision on the matter.
I only wish to say that last Monday, when the hon. member asked his question, he denounced fraudulent practices used in the financing of Olympic coins. This severe denunciation is found at page 10,002 of Hansard. In answer to his question, I said, as recorded on page 10,000:
On the other hand, if the hon. member has elements of proof or other pertinent information to convey, I shall be pleased to transmit them to the director of inquiries.
But, two days after those remarks I checked with my office before coming to the House at two o'clock and the hon. member had not sent me those elements of proof nor had he sent them to my staff. This leads me to say that the hon. member seems more interested in his own question than in the answer given and the purpose of his questions has always puzzled me: they stem either from malice or from insignificance. The hon. member said yesterday that he was not trying to be malicious. Having no reason to doubt his word, I must therefore conclude that the second alternative is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As indicated yesterday, the role of the Chair in deciding on this difference between two members of the House has been made a great deal easier by virtue of the fact that the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), in raising the question
Business of the House
of privilege, originally did not add to it a motion which might seek any action on the part of the Chair. In many cases the chances are that the decision would have been the same, and that is that it is a matter of difference and debate between two members and cannot be classified as a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of the business of the House for tomorrow. I am not asking the usual Thursday question; I know that today is Wednesday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of reports we are getting from outside the House that an important statement may be made tomorrow, can we be told whether it will be on statements at two o'clock, or is it to be at eight o'clock; and in any case, do any special House arrangements have to be made for it?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, although it is Wednesday it might be useful if I were also, and in addition to answering the specific question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to give an indication of the government's program for the period before the adjournment. The government wishes to dispose of the final stages of the bill now under discussion at the report stage, Bill C-69, and then Bill C-77 and Bill C-52. I will also be putting down an adjournment motion which will recommend that we resume the session on January 26.
On resuming the session, the government will call the remainder of the sessional program, including Bill C-58. I mention that first because I want to emphasize that this bill continues to have the full commitment of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mitchell William Sharp: We will also be calling, specifically, among a number of bills, C-41, C-20, C-68, C-71 and C-61, and if the Minister of Justice decides he wants to proceed with Bill C-72, that might also be part of our program. It was not clear whether the bill was put down at this point for first reading and comment, to be then reintroduced, but I will be consulting the Minister of Justice to see whether he wishes to continue with Bill C-72 during the present session.
Mr. Speaker, to come to the specific question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, tomorrow I intend, on motions, -to seek the agreement of the House to revert to statements and the tabling of documents by ministers at eight o'clock for the purpose of a statement to be made by the President of the Treasury Board on economies in the government, and for the Minister of Finance to table the regulations under the anti-inflation act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why does that have to be done tomorrow night?

Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since the President of the Privy Council has answered more than I asked and had dealt with the business for the remainder of the session, may I ask, very seriously and very earnestly, whether the business between now and the end of the session will include a bill to implement the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs having to do with former prisoners of war?


An hon. Member:: Say yes.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if we did not adjourn for a very long time and sat during Christmas and New Year's, that would not be impossible. It was not my intention to call such a bill, if one were prepared, before we adjourned for Christmas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say that I asked whether we could be assured of having that bill before the end of the session.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader whether he can give us some explanation as to why we must be asked to give special leave for the tabling of these regulations tomorrow night. Why have they not been tabled already, and why do they have to be tabled in the evening? Is it because they can't stand the light of day?


Mitchell William Sharp: The reason is very simple, Mr. Speaker: these regulations could have an effect upon the stock market.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I should like to ask the government House leader a question in respect of Bill C-58. I do so on behalf of the people who are to be directly affected by this bill, since it was to become operative on January 1, which obviously cannot be the case now. May I ask whether for all intents and purposes the bill will be considered a tax bill and will become operative as of January 1 regardless of whether or not parliament has dealt with it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a tax bill and the same principles will apply to it as to any other bill brought forward in this way. The date January 1 is in the bill, and that is the intention of the government. That is why I made it very clear by saying we would continue with this bill and no one should be under any misapprehension about our intentions.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to seek your direction in respect of a matter that has occurred from time to time and to which I have alluded on previous occasions. This related

to the whole proposition during the question period of the obligation of ministers to answer questions, particularly when the obligation is by virtue of an undertaking by a minister to give an answer.
The point I raise is simply this. Your Honour has made it quite clear on previous occasions that a minister is not necessarily obliged to answer questions, and I suppose that is the prerogative of those on the treasury benches, under the rules; but when a minister undertakes to make an answer, it seems to me that he or she abuses the privileges of the House if in fact the answer is not forthcoming within a reasonable period of time, preferably on the floor of this House as opposed to some form of private communication. It has been pointed out to me very forcefully by colleagues that the idea of the question period is not to receive a written letter in response to a question; that is not the reason we raise these questions on the floor of the House. We expect, and deserve, an answer in the House.
I would ask Your Honour to indicate, by way of guidance, whether when a minister undertakes to give an answer there is a firm obligation, and whether if there is an obligation and a failure to so comply with the undertaking, it would constitute an abuse of the privileges of this House and a reflection on the rights of individual members, particularly those of us in the opposition who attempt in our own way to keep the government within bounds of reasonable action.


Otto Emil Lang: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to observe, since it implicates ministers, that there is some difficulty in ministers rising during the question period to give answers to previous questions, because of disorder that is created in the question period. Furthermore, I should like to observe, in relation to the very interesting comment by the hon. member, my friend from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that the question period is designed to get these kind of answers on the floor of the House. I would suggest to him that if he would adapt the practice, that is shared by only a few of his colleagues, of giving notice to ministers about questions, he would find that answers could be given much more often on the floor of the House without a delay, therefore, causing confusion at a later date. That kind of habit and practice would be very much welcomed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has raised a point of order that has been raised previously. It touches on a difficulty with our oral question period. Often a question is asked to which the minister really is not expected to have the answer in detail on the day in question, and the minister quite frequently makes the answer that not having the information available to him, he will seek the answer and bring it to the attention of the House at a later time. In that situation I follow the practice of not allowing supple-mentaries on such occasions because, presumably, on a later occasion the matter will be followed up by a further answer and it is on that later occasion the hon. member will want to have the opportunity for supplementary questions.
However, it also raises the problem, when that undertaking has been given, that there does not seem to be a

convenient opportunity on subsequent question periods for ministers to rise and, perhaps, in the course of answering one question to one member, direct another answer to another member. That tends to pre-empt any priorities which I may have been trying to set in recognizing members. In any case, it is not a very satisfactory resolution of the problem. The fact of the matter is that there really is no easy resolution of this particular problem except perhaps to facilitate this kind of thing in the first instance by notice, as has been referred to by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), or in the alternative, after a period has elapsed for the hon. member who put the question originally to seek the floor a second time, to put the minister on the spot, as it were, and say, "having given the undertaking a few days ago to answer the question, does the minister have the information and would he bring it forward?" Up to this time there does not seem to have been any better resolution than that, and after reflection on occasions on which the point has been raised, frankly I cannot say I am aware of anything I could suggest. If hon. members have any suggestions for improving that procedure, I would be pleased to receive them.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to draw to the attention of the House an error in the proceedings as printed in yesterday's Hansard in respect of the vote of members on division No. 91. I am not shown as having voted on that division. I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that I voted for the motion. It seems that the Table has made an error between myself and my seatmate, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I should like the record to show that I voted yea on the division on motion No. 91.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to embarrass the hon. member, but I listened to his point of order with great care because it is so unusual. My attention was drawn to the location of the hon. member in the House. If the Chair made a mistake, it was because the hon. member was moving in his seat, or doing something, because I had the distinct impression that the hon. member was on his feet. Perhaps the hon. member was moving, but I did see him. He may have been squirming, or doing something. This was observed by some of my colleagues around me.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) has raised a legitimate point of order. I recall very distinctly that he not only was on his feet to cast his vote in favour of this particular motion but, furthermore, the vote was duly noted by the officials at the Table. If a mistake was made in Hansard, it was simply a technical error which I am sure will be corrected.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Eleventh and twelfth reports of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Comtois.
[Editor's note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,219, 3,220, 3,221, 3,222, 3,223, 3,224, 3,225, 3,226, 3,227, 3,228, 3,293, 3,329, 3,503, 3,601, 3,628, 3,630, 3,634 and 3,678.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Refugee Housing Project in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. A contract for consulting services was not awarded. The criterion used to select the company for the construction contract for this project was the ability to construct facilities for displaced Vietnamese on an emergency basis, at the best possible price. This was financed under grant, to the Government of South Vietnam. The selection of the company was made by the SSEA, on advice from CIDA who maintained a permanent engineering adviser in Vietnam at the time.
2.	a) (i) Not applicable as there was no consultant involved in this project and, therefore, no proposal call, (ii) The contract was awarded to Engbuild Builders International (later Victoria Builders International).
3.	To the best of our knowledge, the lowest bidder was successful. To confirm this would require searching many documents at inordinate cost and length of time.
4.	CIDA believes the costs were within the estimates. To confirm this would require searching many documents at inordinate cost and length of time.
5.	Mr. D. Veitch who was CIDA's engineering representative in Vietnam at the time, was concerned with this project among others. He was present at the job site on continuous inspection. Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.

December 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions
6.	Canadians were not employed at the construction site. As stated above, Mr. Veitch supervised the work of the contractors. Only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.
fiCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE THIES PROJECT IN SENEGAL


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Ecole Polytechnique de Thies Project in Senegal in 1973?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. There was no construction or consulting services contract awarded for this project in 1973. However, a technical assistance contract was awarded to la Corporation de l'Ecole polytechnique de Montreal to take over the educational responsibility and administration of the school. L'Ecole polytechnique de Montreal, as a technically-oriented university was particularly competent in this field. It also carried out the feasibility study on this project and was therefore the logical choice for the major contract. This is normal practice in selecting a university to fulfil a contract since we do not invite competitive bids in the case of universities.
2.	(a) (i) (ii) No proposals or bids were invited, (b) As mentioned, bids have not been called.
3.	As mentioned, bids have not been called.
4.	As mentioned, no contract for construction has been awarded.
5.	Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Field Training and Demonstration Centre Project in Vietnam in 1972?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No consultant contract was awarded for this project. The criterion used to award the contract for construction was the lowest bid received.
2.	(a) (i) No consultant contract was awarded; therefore, there was no proposal call for consulting services, (ii) Victoria Builders International AJN Construction Limited, (b) Victoria Builders International.
3.	Yes.
4.	Because additional work was required and carried out under CIDA financing, eventual costs of construction were $286,000 as versus an original contract amount of $250,140.
5.	Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Under normal circumstances only Canadian citizens, landed immigrants or nationals of the recipient country would be employed on CIDA projects. To the best of our knowledge the only Canadians employed directly on this project was the Site Manager, and two engineers who carried out site inspections. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Ecole Nationale de Peche Project in Algeria in 1973?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
December 17, 1975

5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. A list of companies was prepared on the basis of competence and normal professional standards from all those registered with CIDA. The criteria for selection were professional qualifications, relevant and related past experience, availability of expertise, ability to undertake the work, overseas experience and language requirements. The list of five companies was presented to the SSEA with CIDA's recommendations for his approval. The construction contract was not awarded by CIDA; the criteria for selection are, therefore, not on record.
2.	(a) (i) Within the financial limits of the project, no proposal call was required. The firm of Demontigny, Dion, Metivier, Gagnon was selected, (ii) Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA. (b) Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA.
3.	Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA.
4.	Not applicable as the cost of construction was not paid from CIDA's funds; a comparison of actual versus contracted cost of construction is, therefore, not on record.
5.	Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Mona Library Project in UWI in 1972?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. As for consulting services, a list of companies was prepared on the basis of competence and normal professional standards from all those registered
Order Paper Questions
with CIDA. The criteria for selection were professional qualifications, relevant and related past experience, availability of expertise, ability to undertake the work, overseas experience and language requirements. The list of five companies was presented to the SSEA with CIDA's recommendations for his approval. The construction contract was awarded on the basis of the lowest qualified bid.
2.	(a)(i) Within the financial limits of the project, no proposal call was required. The firm of Leslie Fairn was selected, (ii) The contractors invited to bid on the construction contract were: Leonard L. Chang, W. V. Lynch, Abraham, Henriques & Joy, Marley & Plant, Framhill Construction Co. Ltd., Mais & Sant, McGregor & Levy, Paul Johnson Construction; (b) The successful bidder was Marley & Plant.
3.	Yes.
4.	The construction cost were below the budget.
5.	Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Only Canadian citizens or landed- immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record or the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.
SHASHE/SELEBI-PIKWE POWER STATION PROJECT IN BOTSWANA


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Shashe/Selebi-Pikwe Power Station Project in Botswana in 1972?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. All consulting services were financed by the IBRD; CIDA financed the construction contract and the equipment. The consulting services were provided by the British firm of Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners, who sub-contracted electrical and mechanical systems to the British firm of Merz & McLellan. The IBRD also financed the services of Shawinigan Engineering who were selected by the British firms to interpret the specifications, and expedite and purchase the Canadian equipment. CIDA was not directly involved in the selection process for the con-

December 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions
suiting services and did not establish the criteria for selection. The selection criterion for the construction contract was the lowest qualified bidder.
2.	(a) (i) As mentioned consulting services were financed by the IBRD. CIDA was not involved in the issue or evaluation of the proposals for consulting services and as a result has not maintained a record of those asked to propose. (ii) The contractors invited to bid on the major construction and installation contract were as follows: 1. Canadian Comstock; 2. Foundation Company of Canada; 3. CANA Construction Limited; 4. Commonwealth Construction Limited; 5. CANRON Limited. Many suppliers were invited to bid on the remaining 16 supply contracts. The lists of those eligible were prepared by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and CIDA and submitted to Merz and McLellan. (b) Canadian Comstock was the successful bidder on the major installation contract. The following firms were successful bidders on the remaining 16 supply contracts: 1. Canadian General Electric; 2. CANRON Limited; 3. Babcock Wilcox Limited; 4. F.P.E. Pioneer Electric; 5. Jeffrey Manufacturing Company Limited; 6. Canadian Overhead Handling; 7. Canadian International Comstock; 8. Wallace Tiernan Limited; 9. Bedard Girard Limited; 10. Canadian Westinghouse International; 11. Bingham Pump Limited; 12. CHECO Engineering; 13. Ruston Diesel Limited; 14. Bedard Girard Limited; 15. Degremont Canada Limited; 16. Marley Canadian Limited.
3.	Two bids were received for the major construction and installation contract. They were not comparable as to price because the conditions laid down by one of the bidders differed significantly from the other. In view of the fact that this bidder was not prepared to modify these conditions it was ruled unresponsive and negotiations proceeded with the remaining bidder, Canadian Comstock, and the amount of the bid reduced significantly. The contract was awarded to Canadian Comstock. For the remaining 16 supply contracts only one was not awarded to the lowest bidder, because the materials were not up to the standard required for the project.
4.	The final cost of the work will exceed the forecast estimate which was based on the assumption that there would be no changes in the specifications or time frame. The extra costs over the original estimates were a result of modifications and extensions to the work over the life of the contract, and the interpretation and changes which resulted from the use of British design.
5.	Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Zambia Institute of Technology Project in Zambia in 1971?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. A list of companies was prepared on the basis of competence and normal professional standards from all those registered with CIDA. The criteria for selection were professional qualifications, relevant and related past experience, availability of expertise, ability to undertake the work, overseas experience and language requirements. The list of five companies was presented to the SSEA with CIDA's recommendations for his approval. The construction contract was not awarded by CIDA, the criteria for selection are therefore not on record.
2.	(a) (i) Within the financial limits of the project, no proposal call was required. The firm of "No. 10 Architectural Group" was selected, (ii) Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA. (b) Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA.
3.	Not applicable to this project as the contruction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA.
4.	Not applicable as the cost of construction was not paid from CIDA's funds, a comparison of actual versus contracted cost of construction is, therefore, not on record.
5.	Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Tunis-Korba Transmission Project in Tunisia in 1970?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
December 17, 1975

3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. A list of companies was prepared on the basis of competence and normal professional standards from all those registered with CIDA. The criteria for selection were professional qualifications, relevant and related past experience, availability of expertise, ability to undertake the work, overseas experience and language requirements. The list of five companies was presented to the SSEA with CIDA's recommendations for his approval. The construction contract was not awarded by CIDA, the criteria from selection are therefore not on record.
2.	(a) (i) Within the financial limits of the project, no proposal call was required. The firm of Tecsult International was selected, (ii) Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA. (b) Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA.
3.	Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded or financed by CIDA.
4.	Not applicable as the cost of construction was not paid from CIDA's funds, a comparison of actual versus contracted cost of construction is therefore not on record.
5.	Records of visits or travel of CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Electric Power Electrobras Northeast Distribution Project in Brazil 1969?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?
Order Paper Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The evaluation of proposals for consulting services was made by the Government of Brazil and monitored by CIDA, as this project was financed under a development loan agreement through the Inter American Development Bank (IADB). A list of companies was prepared on the basis of competence and normal professional standards from all those registered with CIDA. The criteria for selection were professional qualifications, relevant and related past experience, availability of expertise, ability to undertake the work, overseas experience and language requirements. The list of five companies was presented to the SSEA with CIDA's recommendations for his approval. The construction contract was not awarded by CIDA, the criteria for selection are therefore not on record.
2.	(a) (i) Montreal Engineering Co. Ltd., Montreal; Acres International Ltd., Toronto; Surveyer, Nenniger and Chen-evert, Montreal; Shawinigan Engineering Co. Ltd. The contract was awarded to Montreal Eng. on the basis of the best proposal, (ii) Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded by CIDA. (b) Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded by CIDA.
3.	Not applicable to this project as the construction contract was not awarded by CIDA.
4.	CIDA has no requirement to maintain records of cost of construction as this was financed through the Inter American Development Bank (IADB).
5.	Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What criteria were used to award the contracts for consulting services and construction for the Akonolinga Bridge Project in Cameroon in 1969?
2.	(a) Who were the (i) consultants invited to submit a proposal (ii) contractors invited to submit a bid (b) who was the successful bidder?
3.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract for the project and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the cost of construction exceed the contracted amount and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Which members from CIDA and/or the Department of External Affairs visited the job site and were their trips charged to the project?
6.	How many Canadians were employed on the project?

December 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. A list of companies was prepared on the basis of competence and normal professional standards from all those registered with CIDA. The criteria for selection were professional qualifications, relevant and related past experience, availability of expertise, ability to undertake the work, overseas experience and language requirements. The list of five companies was presented to the SSEA with CIDA's recommendations for his approval. The contractor was selected on the basis of best price and ability to meet the tender requirements.
2.	(a) (i) Within the financial limits of the project, no proposal call is required. The firm of Beauchemin, Beaton, Lapointe was selected, (ii) Canadian Comstock, Dominion Bridge, (b) Canadian Comstock was the successful bidder.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	Records of visits or travel by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not maintained by project as travel is related to overall programs involving several specific areas of interest, and records are normally kept on this basis. Travel costs by CIDA and/or Department of External Affairs members are not charged to project funds.
6.	Only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants may be employed on CIDA projects under normal circumstances. There is, however, no record of the number employed, as this information is not required for purposes of payment. Payments are made relative to the specific performance within the scope of work and the payment budget or, according to approved rates by discipline and total time worked, depending on the contract. The actual number of individuals employed is the prerogative of the consultant or contractor.


Mr. Murta: Are there any exceptional circumstances to explain the reason that, in the last year of existence of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act (crop year 1973-1974), benefits paid totaled $524,880.50 and administration expenses totaled $486,741.97 and, if so, what are they?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: There were exceptional circumstances involved relative to the benefits paid and the administrative expenses incurred by the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration for the crop year 1973-74 as indicated in the 1973-74 Report of Activities under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The costs of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration of $486,741.97 in 1973 include the cost of salaries of all permanent employees of the administration, amounting to $372,049.32. These permanent employees of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration were responsible for the operation of the Grassland Incentive Program involving payments to producers amounting to $16.8 million, as well as the operation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Program.


Mr. Howie: Did the government grant funds to the International Cup World Amateur Baseball Tournament held in New Brunswick and Quebec in August 1975 and, if so, have any more funds been requested or offered?


Marc Lalonde: A contribution of $50,000 was made to the 1975 Intercontinental Cup Amateur Baseball Corporation to assist in defraying the costs of accommodation for participants in the August tournament held in Fredericton, New Brunswick and Montreal, Quebec. A request for a further contribution has been received. This request is currently under consideration by the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Fortin: Did CNR and the government hold talks in order to review the financial structure of CNR and, if so, with what results?


Otto Emil Lang: Informal discussions have been held frequently over the last number of years, but to date no conclusions or decisions have been reached.


Mr. Brisco: Is the RCMP investigating the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada and, if so, what progress has been made towards determining if there were any legal irregularities involved in the Society's operation?


William Warren Allmand: An investigation is currently underway; however, it would be premature to comment on any legal irregularities at this time.


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


Robert Knight Andras: (Reply pertains to all lawyers and law firms not performing services to Manpower and Immigration through Justice Department.) 1 and 2. Nil.
December 17, 1975


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


William Warren Allmand: 1 and 2. Nil.


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


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Fairweather: Does the government support the proposal of Heritage Canada for a Canadian Register of Heritage Property through collaboration of the federal and provincial governments and, if so, what specific steps have been taken to advance this proposal?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes. The concept is being actively pursued through consultation with provincial and territorial officials.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, irregularly, have the permission of the House to table some documents.


Mr. Speaker:: It would suit the Chair to revert to the tabling of documents in order to permit the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to table a document, and so I can revert to motions in order to permit the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) to table a petition.



AIR TRANSPORT


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41 (2), copies, in both official languages, of letters received by the Deputy Minister of Transport from Mr. Keith Spicer on the subject of the suspension of two French-speaking air traffic controllers. There are two letters being tabled, one dated December 11 and the other dated December 12.
Motion for Papers EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



PETITION PROTESTING CONSTRUCTION OF U.S. NUCLEAR BASE NEAR VANCOUVER, B.C.

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this afternoon to present a petition to the House representing one signed by some 10,500 Canadian citizens, protesting the construction of the Trident nuclear base some 60 miles south of the city of Vancouver. In essence, the petition seeks action from this House to protest the lack of consultation by the United States in respect of the construction of the base, and also to protest the dangerous escalation of the arms race this base represents in having a first-strike capacity. Further, it follows the decision of the city of Vancouver to declare November 23-29 as Trident Concern Week in that area.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of the letters the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has just tabled, I wonder if the government House leader would agree that these be printed today as an appendix to today's Hansard, because of the importance of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been a request that the documents tabled by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) be printed as part of Hansard. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: This can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. There is not unanimous consent.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 64?



COPIES OF REPORTS ON GROUNDFISH IN THE LABRADOR-NORTHERN GRAND BANKS AREA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports submitted to the government as a result of experimental and exploratory voyages for groundfish in the Labrador-Northern Grand Banks area by the British fishing vessel Boston York chartered by Fishery Products of St. John's, Newfoundland and which was supported by the government.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, there were no reports submitted to the government as requested by the hon. member. I would, therefore, request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.

December 17, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 16, 1975, consideration of Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and of motions Nos. 11 and 12 of the hon. members for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, this is to supplement some of my comments I made last night. I know that we are about to adopt this bill, which appears most important to us on this side of the House.
Last night I took the opportunity to make a last appeal to all my colleagues of this House, considering the refusal by the government to make any change to its original proposition. I still think it is my duty to reiterate this representation today and to urge the majority of hon. members to prevail upon the minister to consider the suggestions which have already been made in this House. I know that many statistical and evaluation data have been given. We are also aware of the fact that, in order to bring about the necessary cuts in the federal government budget, we are presenting legislation which seems unfair to us. I contend that the injustices which we spotted in this bill have also been recognized not only by hon. members of the opposition parties but also by some government members as well.
Therefore, for the sake of curtailing expenditures, the government is bringing forward legislation which provides for increased contributions, for decreased benefits and, what affects us most, for the disentitlement to unemployment benefits of people aged 65. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is one hon. member in this House who would not acknowledge the applications which are made in our constituencies by those senior citizens who wish to withdraw from the labour market but would like to keep receiving the benefits the Canadian Parliament had granted them. To the risk of repeating myself, Mr. Speaker, I would like, before the bill is adopted, to appeal to the compassion of the government which has been, hitherto, insensitive. Last night I mentioned how cruel it was of the government to deny those people the benefits they are entitled to. I would not like to have to infer that this government is heartless, Mr. Speaker, when it refuses to heed the pleas and representations made in the House by several hon. members and not only by my colleagues of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, we are still hoping that at the last moment the minister will consider improving this bill to make it acceptable not only to one party, but to Parliament as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that many representations have been made to all hon. members. I am also convinced that the government members would have liked the minister to be more attentive to representations made in committee at second reading or now in the House. I hope that

we shall be able to take a few more minutes to make the minister understand our representations and the need to improve this bill so that it may meet the needs of the people involved. If it is a question of appealing to common sense, Mr. Speaker, I would like to do so. I truly wonder what has been happening since the last election, for instance, since all the legislation that has been introduced has only increased the difficulties facing Canadians.
We know very well, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow new cuts will be announced and we can already guess that the less favoured people will have to suffer the burden of this legislation. Proposals are now before the House which will cause hardship for certain people who do not deserve it. As concerns the people aged 65 and over, who deserve the respect of parliamentarians, who have worked for 40 or 45 years, who have paid unemployment insurance for 30 years or more, the bill now before the House is the gift that the government wants to give them just before the Holiday Season to thank them.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would like my comments to be brief. I hope that the minister will realize the importance of this legislation, the hardship that it brings to this group of people, the difficulties that it will cause. We therefore hope that he will amend the legislation and act like someone who seems to understand the difficulties facing Canadians today.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we shall have good news for these people. There could not be any greater gift for these unfortunate people before the Holiday Season than to see the government act in their favour. It seems to me that the minister cannot be unmoved by the appeal I am making on their behalf.
[E nglish]


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this matter with my colleagues who, as I indicated, can speak on this subject with impartiality. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are not too many people who can discuss this clause in the abstract, with disinterest, because most of us will eventually reach the age when this law will apply to us.
I was interested to hear the arguments put forward by UIC regarding this clause, and I was particularly interested in the difficulties which the UIC indicated had been apparent to them in the operation of that provision which affected people between the age of 65 and 70, a category of people between the ages 65 and 69 under this bill. Before this bill was put before the House there was a choice, when you reached the age of 70, whether or not one applied for the Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan benefits. In my experience, this affected two classes of people: first, those who were being retired compulsorily, which included civil servants, railway people and some of the highly organized sectors of our labour force who in many instances were going to receive a pension. So with respect to those people, the provision applied in a totally different manner to the way it applied to others in the same category. Those who had to retire on a certain date had to decide whether they would retire or take work in another field.
December 17, 1975

Many of the people in this category had spent their lifetime in that occupation, and this meant a total change in their field of work. In many cases, in the community in which they had previously worked there was very little opportunity to change their work, so it meant they had to retire somewhere else. If that was the case, they undertook a totally different kind of work. If began with railroaders who had to retire at 65 years of age. They had worked hard all their lives. They were used to working. Many of them were highly skilled. Many of them had steam licences, and this was useful in other fields totally unrelated to the jobs they had been in, so quite often they took different work, for example, the maintenance of boilers. They used their steam certificates for employment in new jobs. If they did not, hon. members are well aware of the fact that they did not live very long. Within a year or two they would be dead anyway, so they either made a total transition to a new job or they were not around to be worried about any of the problems of retirement.
These people were totally unprepared for retirement. They had been working all kinds of hours, under all kinds of weather conditions, on a call-out basis. There was no opportunity to develop friendships or hobbies, so that when they retired they either had to find a totally new occupation where they could use their skills, or leave the work force. In many cases they did leave their particular areas and their occupations entirely, went to new occupations and continued to work, which was both a desire and a need. It was not necessarily a financial need, but it was a need.
In other fields where an automatic retirement was made mandatory-this affects the civil service-most people have been able to make that transition fairly easily. They have been in associations and involved in all kinds of outside activities. The nature of their work allowed them to have hobbies, and therefore they made the transition. Their pensions were sufficient to allow them to retire. In fact, many of them retired around this time of year because it gave them a considerable advantage which could not be had at any other time of year. This category of persons counted on retirement and were prepared to retire. This was the difference. Many methods were used to solve the problem of retirement of a compulsory nature, and certainly the establishment of the Canada Pension Plan and old age security was a very worth-while asset for them; but retirement could have been possible for many of them in any case.
There is another group of people retiring. However, before I leave the first category I should like to say that I disagree entirely with the officials of UIC, and particularly the chairman when he says that in this category 29 per cent wished to participate in the rate. I presume that is 29 per cent of that group, not of the whole number. I do not think there are that many in this group, but if 29 per cent had to continue in the labour force, that to quite an extent includes the group we are discussing. They are being taken in because the chairman goes on to say that the average rate for recipients in that category between age 65 and 69 amounted to $2,800 as the benefit which they would draw as opposed to other recipients. I presume that refers to the
Unemployment Insurance Act
other categories, the other recipients who would draw $1,300.
That indicates that these people were able to obtain a very different kind of employment from those in the second category, and because of the pay-out I imagine this also indicates that they are receiving a higher rate of return. Let us consider civil servants who retired recently. The deputy minister of finance took an early retirement. Why? Because the job he was going to was to pay him much more than the government did. I understand that he left a $60,000 job for a $100,000 job.


Jack Burnett Murta: Where did you hear that?


William Arnold Peters: That was Sam Reisman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Simon.


Jack Burnett Murta: Where did you hear that?


William Arnold Peters: Those are the figures I heard. Others may feel that they are incorrect. I have known Mr. Reisman for a long time.


An hon. Member:: If you know him so well, his name is Simon.


William Arnold Peters: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not intimate with him.


An hon. Member:: I hope not.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps some of my colleagues have been, or are. For the edification of the hon. member, I am not really connected with the George Weston chain, either. I would bow to his judgment in that respect because my understanding is only through hearsay. The understanding of the hon. member is probably factual because of his connection. However, I believe Mr. Reisman was a very valuable civil servant and that whatever job he now has he will do to the best of his ability. He is probably worth all the money he is being paid. The point I am making is that, while he may have reached the age of retirement, he will certainly be in a higher income bracket because of his knowledge, experience and ability. This is true of many people retiring from government service. I know many RCMP officers and many officers in the armed forces who went to other jobs paying considerably more than they were able to earn prior to age 65.
The chairman of the commission may be quite right in indicating that this group will be in a higher category than average. It may be that we should be able to provide a segregration in this group which would help the second group I wish to talk about. The second group is that between the age of 65 and 69-and in many cases over 70- who have worked all their lives at the bottom of the labour ladder. They have never made a great deal of money. They have never made much more than enough to get by on. Many of them reach this age and do not own a house and do not have any of the amenities of life, although they have raised their families and spent the money they earned to that end. This group will have to continue working, not for the mental or physical reasons I mentioned but because there is no alternative for them. They cannot live on the old age pension and the very small CPP they will receive,

December 17, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
because their contributions were based on small wages which did not provide a reasonable pension.
In this category we find people who have difficulty finding employment. For the most part, we are not talking about people who are in good health. Almost everyone in this category who has worked hard for a long period of time has a physical disability of one kind or another. I agree with the chairman when he says that the jobs many of them are capable of performing in the community-are limited to night watchmen, flagmen on a highway, janitor in a public building. These are minimum wage jobs, available to people not in the best of health. They have difficulty in keeping jobs, however.
It is a fact that these jobs are of short duration, as are many of the menial tasks performed by our senior citizens who should, therefore, be offered the benefits of unemployment insurance. Many of these people desperately need employment; they need a guarantee against unemployment. The minister says we have increased the old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement, and we have added medical care and, under certain circumstances, have added the spouse who is under 65. All these things do not add up to very much money, and unless people are able to find continuous employment they will be dependent on the social security structure most of the time.
There was considerable difficulty last time when we integrated the two sections covering the same subject, but if the claimant were aware of all the facts he could decide whether to apply for the Canada pension and take the pay-out, or continue making contributions and forgo the payment of the Canada pension. I suggest it would be a mistake to change the act to make it mandatory for everyone over age 65 to apply for the Canada pension. That means that the person who has retired and gets into the three weeks' pay-out is finished as far as unemployment insurance coverage is concerned. That seems to me to be rather unfair.
Many people have made that kind of decision in relation to the Canada pension, and indeed many members of this House made that kind of decision in regard to their own pension plan, whether they wished to take advantage of the benefits that may accrue under one section or another. It is an individual decision. It should also apply to applicants for unemployment insurance if there has been a major attachment to the labour force. Of course, there will be many people who have never had an attachment to the labour force and at age 65 are faced with entering the labour force. I presume these people would not be entitled to start contributing because there will actually be nothing for them to fall back on. It would really be using the pyramid system: those who are paying would be supporting those who are drawing. The unemployment rate under this government is too high to make that possible or desirable.
Long before a pension plan was introduced in this House-which later became the Canada Pension Plan-I had asked for years for the establishment of a contributory pension plan that would be portable. We were in favour of a plan that would pay 50 per cent of wages upon retirement. With the rampant inflation there is in the country

today, 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the best five years' earnings would be necessary. It just is not possible for the social security system to be used as a retirement plan.
It has been pointed out that some of our senior citizens still have families to support, so I should like the minister to reconsider this whole question of the mandatory cut-off at age 65. Some people are not in any difficulty when they reach age 65, but there is another group of people who are, and after a lifetime of struggle in the labour force-many of them started work at 14 years of age-it seems to me we could be a little more generous without abusing the principle of insurance for people in this age category.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the motions proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I think the Unemployment Insurance Commission is making a mistake in trying to cut back on the cost of the plan by eliminating senior citizens. They say that these older people have a better pension plan than in the past, that the Canada pension is indexed, there is old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, and all these plans are new and better than they were years ago. I hope to persuade the more progressive members on the other side of the House, and some who are not so progressive-like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee)-that even someone who is getting the maximum benefits of the CPP, the OAS and GIS is getting only approximately $3,000 a year. This means that many people over 65 have to work whether they want to or not. The pension plan is not sufficient to provide them with the necessities of life.
I know many old age pensioners, my own family amongst them, where one spouse is a lot older than the other and therefore the pensioner has to work to make an income for his family. He cannot possibly retire on the basic OAS, GIS or CPP with a spouse under age 65. If he has to work, why should he not participate in the unemployment insurance scheme? He is more likely to be unemployed, if an industry is cutting back, than someone over 65, so why should he not be able to draw benefits from the unemployment insurance plan?
Some members have already pointed out that many old age pensioners have dependent children. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) mentioned that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) becomes an old age pensioner he will still have dependants, but obviously he is not going to live in poverty. The Prime Minister will not need to work to support his family once he reaches the old age pension age. But there are many people in my riding and across the country who are over 65 and still supporting kids in elementary school and high school. Their children are not even in university. Why should not such people, in a free, democratic society, be given the right to participate in the unemployment insurance plan like other workers? Once they reach the age of 65 they may need the protection of the plan much more than many younger workers.
In my riding an immigrant came from Czechoslovakia. He came to see me a couple of times to explain that he cannot draw the old age pension in this country until he
December 17, 1975

has lived here for ten years. He told me that he does not possess many skills, that the kinds of jobs he finds lead to frequent periods of unemployment lasting two, three or even four months. He explained that he is not lazy, not trying to abuse anyone, not trying to rip off the system. He is in good health and willing to work beyond age 65 or 70 at a labouring job. He does not want hand-outs. He said that he will not qualify for a pension in this country until he reaches the age of 70 or has been here ten years. He thinks this is unfair. Since he is forced to work, he thinks it is only democratic, fair and liberal-in the small "1" sense- that he should qualify for unemployment insurance. Otherwise, what will he do? He must go to the welfare office to collect welfare, which he does not want to do because it offends his philosophy, sense of decency and pride. People like this will be left unprotected. In 1974, I believe, 170,000 members of the work force were between the age of 65 and 69. They did not take advantage of the unemployment insurance fund. I understand that only a representative number of those people collected UIC benefits last year. Why should we discriminate against those people on the ground that we want to save money for the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
Hon. members fail to realize something else. Many of them say that we have in this country so many good, private contributory insurance plans with generous payout provisions that we can tighten the belt in other areas. Mr. Speaker, under 40 per cent of our people are covered by contributory pension plans. Many who do not have the advantage of such pension plans cannot afford to live on the old age pension or on the small pay-outs from the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, they must work. If they must work, why cannot they be given the right available to all other Canadian workers to make contributions to the unemployment insurance plan and guard against the possibility of some day being laid off or losing their jobs?
The measure before the House discriminates against senior citizens, against those who laid the very foundations of this country and made it what it is. It will not bankrupt the government if it accepts the motion supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the genial hon. member for Hamilton West. If there is any meaning to those great Liberal phrases, "participatory democracy," the "just society" and involving all the people, I think hon. members opposite should be prepared to stand in this House and demonstrate their individuality and liberalism by voting in favour of the motion before us which seeks to remove the discrimination against the elderly.
I look across the way and note the presence of the hon. member from Toronto, a great Liberal, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), and several others. I know if the whips did not crack their whips so hard, those hon. members opposite would be disposed to vote in favour of the motion brought forward by the two hon. members alluded to. Hon. members opposite know that the Unemployment Insurance Act as proposed by the government will discriminate against many of their constituents. I see the hon. member for Vancouver East scratching his head. I suggest hon. members opposite can show Canadians they are Liberals with guts if they support our motion calling for the amending of these clauses being proposed by the minister. Since I am confident that this will happen, I shall resume my seat and
Unemployment Insurance Act
expect hon. members to rise to indicate support for this sensible motion.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I assured the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) privately that I would rise in this part of the debate on this motion. He publicly tried to goad me into rising, but I assure him that I wanted to rise. However, I intend to be brief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because there is so little to say.


Robert Knight Andras: I do not in any way deny the sensitivity, concern and emotionalism surrounding this issue. It was evident particularly, too, with one other amendment introduced concerning the dependency rate. Many speeches were made on the subject in the six-day debate on second reading and, indeed, in the many sittings of the committee, as well as on motions 1 and 2 and on the one now before us.
I cannot produce for hon. members new versions of my thinking on the subject, but I think it important to put my views on record in this part of the debate.
I say, frankly, that this motion, and the necessity for the present adjustment and rationalization of an insurance plan and the dependency rate amendment gives me and my colleagues no joy. We believe it is our responsibility to do this, but it falls heavily on us and we take no joy in it. We think it is necessary, particularly in these days when we note that even in this fortunate country our resources are not infinite, are not totally unlimited, and that there is always the necessity to allocate properly, through proper channels.
The principle was established some time ago that there would be an age at which unemployment premiums would no longer be payable, nor benefits payable when there was an interruption of earnings on the part of an individual. In 1971 we established that age as 70, and the arguments made against any arbitrary-if you wish to call it that-limitation or threshold of age in the present debate could probably have been made against the decision reached in 1971. I note, from examining the record of debates at that time, that there was some discussion about making that age 65 years rather than 70. There was, however, concern that the Canada Pension Plan would not mature until 1976. I think it takes no great stretching of the imagination to suggest that the implication of those discussions was that this issue should be reviewed and discussed again, which is what is happening now.
We are proposing that 65 years should be the age at which some measures which now come into effect at age 70 should come into effect under Bill C-69. Indeed, for whatever reason, 65 years has now become the age at which programs provided by public institutions in Canada, provincial governments and other bodies, become effective. At that age there is, so to speak, a converging of support measures specially provided for people reaching the later stage of their lives.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come, come.


Robert Knight Andras: We find, for example, that the Canada Pension Plan was designed for people in that age group-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come, come.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Robert Knight Andras: I do not say that all these people have lost their energy, ability or competence. That is not the issue which I am arguing.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And they are not all in the Senate.


Robert Knight Andras: However, 65 years is the age at which we find a convergence of some programs specifically designed for the benefit of those whose desire to continue in active work is tapering off. We recognize that that is the age with respect to which society is prepared to make special efforts, particularly in terms of financial support. For example, we have the Canada Pension Plan, revised this year. It is available now, without a means test, at age 65. We have old age security, which is basic support for all and a universal plan. We have the guaranteed income supplement. We have, of course, moved to assist in terms of some support, recognizing spouses of people aged 65 provided those spouses are 60 or over. There are tax exemptions, too, that have been made available especially at that age. Indeed, some of our housing programs also recognize that that is the age at which special housing assistance should become available.
One can argue that there needs to be more basic support programs in terms of amounts made available to what we call, for want of a better expression, perhaps, senior citizens. However, it is not inconsequential, the totality of the funding that has been invested to provide for this group of people and the tremendous increase in that funding over the years, particularly since 1971. Many members have put on the record the individual monthly incomes available through the Canadian Pension Plan, old age security, guaranteed income supplement and the like. However, in this sense of responsibility of allocation of what are, even in this country, limited resources requiring proper allocation, it is important to put on the record the magnitude of that assistance. In 1971 the expenditures under the old age security, guaranteed income supplement and Canada Pension Plan retirement programs totalled $2,267 billion. In 1975, those expenditures are expected to reach $4,315 billion, including the cost of benefits under the new spouses allowance program. That is an increase in expenditures, over four years, of over $2 billion a year, an increase in current dollars of some 90 per cent.
It can be argued that on the basis of the maximum combined old age security, guaranteed income supplement and Canada Pension Plan being $150 monthly in 1971, this has gone to something like $285 or $286 a month in 1975 with a further increase due in January. You can look at the individual payment and say it still requires bolstering. I would not say nay to that, but $2 billion or a 90 per cent increase in those government pension plans triggered at age 65 should cause us to ask whether the unemployment insurance program, which is not designed to supplement retirement, is the place to be further bolstering such a supplementation. We do have, as I indicated on other occasions, some other difficulties in this particular category.
My honourable and very respected friend, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), indicated-and this view is shared by others-that perhaps we should get at

this problem administratively. The question of administrative difficulties is not the only reason we made the decision to place this amendment before the House. That is not to say that this is not an area of very great difficulty. Labour force surveys by Statistics Canada calculate the number of unemployed. By extrapolation, we see that the average number of unemployed persons 65 years of age and over at the end of every month of 1974 was a little in excess of 7,000. We also note that the average number of claimants drawing unemployment insurance at the end of those months in 1974 was in fact 17,500.
Hon. members can say that the administration should be tightened up. There is a bit of ambivalence, an almost schizophrenic reaction on this point from some parts of the House. They say we are already being discriminatory in the benefit control operation but they are now also saying to the commission that they really should get tougher. People of this age already attract one of the highest disen-titlement rates. That indicates there has been a firm approach to it. The suggestion that we do this adminstra-tively and separate the 7,000 from the 17,500 can certainly only imply that we have to get a good deal tougher. But that is not the only reason for amendment. It is the combination of several considerations and the need for rationalization of our programs-a word I sometimes deplore but it gives the meaning I have to convey-that is the rationalization, not in any insensitive way but I firmly believe that we must preserve resources so that we can allocate them through the proper programs and in the proper manner.
At this stage, for whatever reason, we have collectively, as a society, decided that 65 is the significant age at which the special assistance programs are triggered. That, then, is the age that we should look at when switching allocations from one program to the other. I might say that a $2 billion increase in government pensions over the last four years is not insignificant.
I respect the arguments presented, which stem to a great extent, from an emotional response to this age group which we all share. We know that $2,800 or $3,000 pension per year is not a great deal. It is argued that people of this age should be allowed to continue in addition to take the average $2,800 of unemployment insurance after age 65 when the interruption in earnings occurs, over and above these pensions. If you want to use that argument, you must remember that at age 65 they have the Canada Pension Plan, OAS, available to them. If a man aged 64 has an interruption of earnings, he does not have that extra assistance available to him. In fact, he is totally dependent on unemployment insurance. I really think there is a slight gap in that argument.
I also think it is stretching the argument to imply that by this amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act we are in fact having an influence or effect upon the access of people 65 years of age and older to work. It does not have anything to do with their ability or access to work if work is available to them and they want to continue to work. Nothing in this amendment prevents them from continuing to work. We have been over this ground many times. I say, again, this is a rather joyless necessity and responsibility. Nevertheless, I believe at this stage it is a proper step to take.
December 17, 1975


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House, but I do want to register my support of this motion and to say that I think clause 10 of the bill, which excludes persons 65 years of age and over from the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act, is both a reprehensible and retrograde step. I could not help but feel, while the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) was speaking, that for one who is usually so cogent in his presentation of an argument, he was today half-hearted. I thought his heart really was not in the arguments he was putting forth.
I listened with great interest and I know the minister is a man of great human sympathy; however, I felt it was almost an apology rather than an advocacy of a position which the government has taken.
It seems to me that there can be only two reasons for excluding persons 65 years of age and over from the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The first is to save money. The minister hinted as much when he said that, after all, this country had limited financial resources, we could not do everything and somewhere we had to draw the line. I am not sure this will save the government any money. If a person can keep on working in the knowledge that unemployment insurance is available to him or her, the government are not called upon to pay that individual the guaranteed income supplement or to pay any welfare under the Canada assistance plan, so I am not sure that on the trade-off the government will save any money. But even if this provision does save money, I question that we want to save money by discriminating against a group of people who have spent a good part of their lives working and paying into the unemployment insurance fund and who at 65 find that, if they continue to work, the benefits of the plan will not be available to them.
The other reason for the legislation is that the government has decided to use the unemployment insurance program as a means of requiring or virtually compelling people to retire from work at 65 or face the penalty of being excluded from the unemployment insurance program. I am one person who has always wanted to see Canada have the kind of social security program that will enable people to retire at 65 if they want to. I agree with the minister that in the last number of years we have built up a fair measure of public support to make it easier for people to retire at 65. But the fact is that, while we want people to retire at 65, I would strongly object to our using measures that compel them to retire at 65. The hon. member across the way seems to be disturbed about something.


Mr. Duquet:: I was talking to another hon. member. I would not dare talk to you.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member was not talking at all, but gesticulating, and I was not sure whether he wanted to leave the room. I will give him permission, but he should ask the Speaker if he wants to leave the room. The point I was making was that, while it is desirable to make it possible for people to retire at 65 so they can follow hobbies and other avocations they enjoy in their retirement years, it is a totally different
Unemployment Insurance Act
thing to say that if they do not withdraw from the labour force they will be penalized.
It seems to me there are two classes of people that will be hit by this provision. First of all, there are those who cannot afford to retire at 65 from the labour force. It is true, as the minister has said, that they can get the Canada pension and old age security. If the spouse is over 60, then under the new provisions she will get financial assistance. But there are a great many people in the labour force today earning low wages, who have fairly large families, who have not been able to buy a house and who still have to pay high rent. These people cannot afford to drop out of the labour force. We will be saying to these people that if they continue to work they will not have any of the security, in times of periodic unemployment, that persons under 65 are able to enjoy.
I point out to the minister that in my constituency, for instance, men working in the lumber industry and in the forestry industries do seasonal work. They may be out of work for six or eight weeks when the snow closes up the logging camps. For this period of time this legislation will mean for them that they have no revenue at all from the unemployment insurance fund, despite the fact that they have paid into it for years. On the other hand, another individual who is two years younger will receive unemployment insurance. Both these people will go back to work when the logging camps reopen, one having had the benefit of unemployment insurance, the other not. I think this is a reprehensible discrimination against one group of individuals compared to another.
The second group of people that will be affected are those who do not want to retire because they have no particular hobby they want to follow and they are anxious to keep on working. Clause 10 of the bill will penalize these people. In a good many countries elderly people are encouraged to work. For instance, in Great Britain some of the factories now are hiring retired people for four hours a day. They have one shift in the forenoon and another in the afternoon. Their productivity has been comparable to that of workers of a younger age, and they have found that the psychotherapy that results has been excellent. Many of these people, Mr. Speaker, have worked all their lives: they have not learned how to play golf or to do any of the things people usually do when they retire. The fact that they have four hours of work a day and a little extra pay coming in means a great deal to them.
I took a group of people to Sweden some years ago and we spent a long time studying the labour market system in that country. They are training workers of 63, 64 and 65 years of age in new skills and encouraging them to stay at work because of the value not only to the economy but to themselves. As I have said, I am all for making it possible for people to retire early if they want to do so, so they can play and enjoy some of the leisure they have not had in their working years. But if people want to work or, more importantly, need to work in order to get sufficient income to maintain a decent standard of living, surely we ought not to penalize them.
The minister says there is nothing in this legislation that prevents them from continuing to work. No, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to prevent them from continuing to work, but they continue to work knowing perfectly well that if

December 17, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
they, like many other Canadians, are doing seasonal work, so that periodically they are out of work for a month or two during the winter, they are not going to get any unemployment insurance benefits during such period.
I think the government is making a very serious mistake in putting this provision in the bill. I hope that even at this late date the minister can persuade his colleagues-I have the feeling I do not need to persuade the minister-to agree to withdraw clause 10 from the bill so that we may continue, as we have in the past, to allow people over 65, if they wish, to carry on working and to enjoy the benefits of the unemployment insurance program. If they do not want to work and if the social security measures we have provided are adequate for them to retire, then I would be very happy to see them retire. But I do not think that in a free society we should do everything we can to encourage people who want to continue in the labour force and earn an income, at the same time enjoying the benefits of the unemployment insurance program to which many of them have contributed for a great many years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
question is on motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and motion No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour 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.


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


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


William Arnold Peters: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting clause 16.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), it seemed to me that the minister did not really give any leadership to his colleagues who went along with this usual practice. This makes one wonder if there is really any point in discussing anything about this bill, because members do not have to listen or pay attention- all they have to do is vote. It makes me wonder if we all come from the same country.

I have one extra person in my office for the simple reason that I have to handle all unemployment insurance matters in my area. If I did not have these problems I would not need that extra person. I am sure there are other members in this House who have the same situation, and if they intend to be around here again they had better pay attention to these problems. There are many areas in this country with as much unemployment as in my area, yet the representatives sit here complacently, dispassionately following this usual practice. I am becoming convinced that I should be making this argument to those nabobs in the gallery, because obviously the minister did not contribute much input in respect of the last motion. He expressed his sympathy and realized that the arguments he was putting up were not very good.


Robert Knight Andras: Not at all.


William Arnold Peters: He indicated there was not really much money going to old age pensioners; and particularly in the northern climate where the people have to pay higher heating bills during the wintertime it is not much money. There is not much left over if they are living only on old age pensions and do not hold down part-time jobs. This is one of the serious complaints we receive.
It may be that we should not waste time passing bills here in this House, but putting the Unemployment Insurance Commission in a position to make its own regulations. Then if those people found anything developing which they did not like, they could make another regulation to cover the situation. This would solve a lot of problem. It would certainly solve a lot of my problems, as a member from an area where there is considerable unemployment. Apparently that is not true of many other people here, because nobody seems to pay much attention or to take much interest in this measure we are now discussing.
Many people have been disqualified on the basis that they have quit their jobs. Very often when they have written to me explaining why they quit, and I related that reason to officials of the district office, followed by an investigation, they have been reinstated. This is not the exception; it is becoming, in the main, the rule. When they write in and give me an explanation of why they left their employment and I pass that explanation on, they are, more often than not, reinstated.
One thing being said by many ordinary people not involved with unemployment insurance is that an individual can work for a certain length of time, then quit, sit back for the three-weeks' disqualification period and the two-weeks' waiting period, and then draw benefits indefinitely. That is not true. If the conditions I have outlined do exist, these people are on a limited benefit period and do not draw benefits indefinitely. It is not possible to work for eight weeks, then quit and draw benefits indefinitely. Those hon. members here who represent people who believe this is the situation are also those members who supported and voted for the idea that it was possible to bring these people back into the labour force by imposing a disqualification period. I suggest it is to their advantage to draw the eight weeks' benefits, suffering the small disqualification penalty which amounts to no more than a small fine.
December 17, 1975

Those who will support this recommendation are also those who supported the suggestion that a sponsor of a LIP program who designates his own work project should be entitled to qualify. In my opinion, these are the people who are able to set themselves up for a benefit period because they can initiate a program for a certain length of time by manipulating the size of the program, the number of people involved and thereby the duration. They are going to be entitled to benefits and nobody seems to worry a bit about that. In this case, the people can dictate the circumstances and set the duration of the project and even, in some cases, the amount of benefit to be paid.
Many of the people sponsoring these LIP programs will only be in the labour force for a short period of time. Many of the other people who are disqualified have good reason for quitting their jobs. Let me tell you about one case that came to my attention not long ago. A young fellow had what I thought was a fairly good construction job. I did not have much sympathy for him when he told me he had quit his employment. He was working out of town, making pretty good money, but he quit and returned home where there was no employment available. As I am sure most hon. members would do, I asked him why he quit his job. I was quite surprised by the reason he gave. He was working as a helper to a rigger on a high steel construction job and the rigger kept telling him that if he did not speed up and do this thing or that thing, he was going to throw him off.
He put up with this for two or three days until his nerves got the better of him to the point that he could not sleep at night. He started to feel that if the rigger did not throw him off, he was going to fall off. I asked him why he did not report this to the boss and he told me that he would have been fired anyway. He said it was that man's word against his and the rigger would be believed. I do not know whether he was honest, and I do not know whether the UIC officers might have felt he was honest. I felt this man should have appealed to someone on the job site to justify leaving his employment. However, he did not do so. Perhaps he could not. Construction jobs being what they are, the people involved are fairly tough when it comes to someone reporting on someone else. It is the kind of a job where, for one's own safety, one must get on with the people with whom one works because an accident might happen and no one would know whether or not it was an accident.
This person actually indicated he was afraid he would fall off or be pushed off. But he liked the job. He was willing to do that work or any other kind of work because he needed a job and his parents would not keep him. I do not know how one would assess this any more than one would assess the situation in respect of the waitress who keeps getting propositioned. Before she completes her probation period in the restaurant, she either goes out with the boss or is not accepted as a permanent employee. She may quit, and if so, how does she prove the situation that existed? I always believe what women tell us, so I would believe her.
The hon. lady opposite says that we need more female restaurant entrepreneurs. I agree. We continually hear about such cases. I might give another example. A man reported to me that he quit his job driving a truck because
Unemployment Insurance Act
the truck he was driving had defective brakes and his boss did not want to have them repaired. He said he reported this to the boss, who told him to either drive the truck or quit. He reported it to the office of the Department of Transport but nothing was done about it. I did not believe him because I do not think a person owning a $10,000 or $12,000 truck would operate it with defective brakes if he knew this to be the case.


An hon. Member:: He must have been a Liberal.


William Arnold Peters: Under those circumstances, an NDP'" would fix the brakes before he sent the driver out with the truck. I made inquiries throughout the community. One thing that impressed me was the turnover of workers at that company. I spoke to people who said that the brakes may not have been completely gone, but that they were substandard and that all the equipment of this company was substandard.
I have given three examples of a person being fired who had difficulty proving the reason. I think these are legitimate cases. The minister will talk about the appeal procedure, and so on. It is not worth a damn. Everybody knowns that. I do not think there is much difference, in respect of the tribunal, between the employer representative, the union representative or the labour representative. I do not know where these people are found. They are carried away with their own importance.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is a little closer to these people than I am. Sometime ago I learned more about the appeal procedure than I had known previously. The hon. member for Nickel Belt spoke in very strong language to the members of the tribunal, It was interesting to note that of the 13 cases being considered at that time, the district director examined 12 of them and reinstated them after they had been turned down by the tribunal. I may be unfair to some people. I am speaking very generally. I am not referring to the particular representative of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, because quite often my representative is the same one.
When the hon. member for Nickel Belt raises hell, they start putting a "no" on it and it is not necessary to go to the umpire. A reference to the umpire should not be undertaken in respect of anything except an interpretation of the act. In my opinion, this should not be undertaken unless it is a matter of an appeal in substance rather than in respect of a specific case. What does this section say? It says that instead of penalizing the person, often wrongly, for three weeks, he will now be penalized for up to six weeks. There is mention of one week and up to three weeks, or from one week to six weeks. I shall bow to the superior knowledge in this field of the hon. member for Nickel Belt because I have not played around with that tribunal.


An hon. Member:: What do you play around with?


William Arnold Peters: I play around with the operations within the offices. Let me say to the minister, and to the hon. member who probably knows nothing about the subject at all, that my experience is that if the information is provided to the officials at the local offices, almost inevitably the correct decision will be made on the information given. If the information is not complete or is incorrect, then when it goes to the tribunal there is no new information. The hon.

December 17, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
member may not be involved in this in his area because his constituents in Mississauga have cars and can drive a short distance down to the unemployment insurance office and make the appeal themselves. They can speak to the people in the office.
In my area, or in the minister's area, sometimes these people must drive 300 or 400 miles. Then when they get there, quite often they do not know what to say because the hearing is similar to a court hearing and they have not had any experience with courts. They do not know how to present their case. I deal mainly with the officials. I find that if they are given the information, they check it out and then make the decision. There is no need to go to the tribunal. My experience is that if they do not make the change on the information I have given them, then the tribunal will not make the change either, because it would be making the decision on the same information the officials had. I am pleased to give that explanation to the hon. member for Mississauga.


An hon. Member:: "Mississauga."


William Arnold Peters: I come from an area where we pronounce Indian names in the Indian fashion. We have not totally Canadianized them. It seems to me that the penalty being paid is a sizeable penalty with the three weeks. The point I started out to make is that I have not had any experience that would indicate to me there is a discretionary power in respect of the one week and the three weeks. Perhaps there is. Perhaps sometimes that is a fact, but I do not know of any case of disqualification where the person was told that for such and such an infraction he was disqualified under such and such a section of the act. I do not remember ever seeing two weeks or one week mentioned. Perhaps the hon. member for Nickel Belt, who has seen all the documentation on adjudications, may have seen such cases, but I have not. We are really talking about three weeks and six weeks, not about a period between one week and three weeks or one week and six weeks. We are talking about the maximum disqualification which to my knowledge has always applied. I have not seen any discretionary powers used in these cases.


Robert Knight Andras: The average has been 1.7 weeks.


William Arnold Peters: I have never yet seen a letter stating that a disqualification was for less than three weeks. In most cases the two sections were included so that the total amount applied. Perhaps more problems occur in my area than in any other area, but I do not think so. I think the information with which the minister has been provided could be separated into two parts: the urban operation of UIC and the pseudo-rural operation which occurs in both our areas.


Robert Knight Andras: I thought you would say the information was either right or wrong.


William Arnold Peters: Honestly, I have never seen a disqualification for less than the maximum time, and it comes in a form letter typed on an electric typewriter on which perhaps you can push a key telling you the disqualification time. I think these disqualifications are unfair and that in

the case of a person moving from one job to another reasons can be given for disqualifying him. It has been my experience with one of the UIC offices that if a person is moved to another location, say a husband is transferred from one region to another in his job and his wife has to follow him, she has to terminate her employment, a move which is considered as quitting for no just cause and the three-week disqualification is applied in her case.
We have argued these cases on a number of occasions and we won them but, as I have said, almost automatically the three-week disqualification is applied, which is then questioned, under some circumstances with successful results. Usually, officials at UIC are shocked when they are told they are helping to break up families and that their decisions lead to social disruption in the community when wife and husband are separated. Normally they agree that the husband has precedence-I suppose this does not fit in with women's lib-and if the wife follows the husband for the sake of maintaining the family as a unit, she should not be disqualified for having left her job without just reason. In almost every case I have had coming from one UIC office they are automatically disqualified for three weeks every time that type of circumstance arises.
We are not really facing the major problem. There are people who move into areas where there is no work for them, work for which they are trained. In my opinion, they do so to get out of the labour force and be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits in the new location. In my opinion, such people should be prosecuted because somewhere along the line they must have made dishonest statements as to whether or not they were looking for work which would normally be available in the area to which they were going. These are the cases which benefit control almost always picks out. Most people who are involved in the UIC day to day operations would agree that the abuses which are taking place should be stopped and that certainly something should be done to stop the fraud that sometimes takes place.
I should like to say a few words about the provision which would make the sponsors of LIP and LEAP projects eligible for benefits. I am reminded of one of the municipalities in my riding which decided to provide eight weeks work for all the unemployables in the area. If they got the work, they would not be drawing welfare from the municipality, and at the end of the work they would be eligible for unemployment insurance, which would take care of probably half the welfare they were getting previously. I consider that to be fraud also. It is dishonest and surely those people know it. That practice should be discontinued.
I may be wrong, but perhaps these cases in my area are treated differently from similar cases in other areas. But I doubt it, because if they move me any farther after the next election I will be dealing with some people who are now in the minister's area. My friend suggests that I should discuss this with the UIC officials. We have had considerable success in dealing with them. I have found them to be very reasonable, but they must operate within the act, and what we are doing now is changing the act. In changing the act we are not allowing them to use their judgment; we are making certain things mandatory.
December 17, 1975

I am quite sure that good judgment is not always used in certain cases of disqualifications-and I think other hon. members will agree with me-such as when there is some doubt about the reason for a person having left his job. For example, a person may find it too hard to do the work. This happens in mines, in bush operations and even in restaurants. The day comes when one's feet are too flat, the floors are too hard, or the dishes too heavy and work becomes unbearable, so one leaves. Then there is the question of whether you had a sufficiently good reason for leaving the job, if you were not sick or incapacitated in some manner.
If you argue that case, the disqualification period should run from one week to six weeks, depending on the case the claimant made. There should be some leeway. In my opinion, the decision should not be the length of time the claimant should be disqualified, but whether his claim should be accepted or rejected. It should be either the maximum penalty or no penalty. It is black or white; there is no grey. You either win the case, or you lose it. Quite often, because of his inability to fight the case, the claimant loses it. I have made many statements about the number of people who were fully disqualified in my area. I have also said that the period of their disqualification has always been the maximum period, which does not coincide with the information reported to the minister by his officials. I should like to make it very clear that these are the 8 per cent or 10 per cent of the cases which are handled by those offices. We only hear about the bad ones. We do not hear about them before the end of six weeks. If I hear about them they have gone beyond the end of six weeks. If there is a case of disqualification, it is the three-week disqualification.
If people are able to go into the office, argue and get half of that-a week and a half, which the minister says is the average-they would probably feel quite satisfied and would not write to me saying they were disqualified, abused and should not have been disqualified. I can only go by my experience because I have no way of checking the actual figures. I would not believe them if they were given to me, because they totally disagree with my experience. I do not trust figures very much, in any event. I am told that the rate of unemployment is only 7 per cent. The rate is 100 per cent for the person who is unemployed.
My understanding of the act is very limited. My experience is with appeals only. I never have anything to do with the initial presentation of a case. When disqualification occurs, I deal with the person who is not satisfied. He feels he has not received justice and appeals to me. It may well be that there are more lenient people in some of the other offices, and it may be that they give people a week and a half or a week instead of three weeks. I am sure I am right, because I was more often here when we changed the Unemployment Insurance Act than most members. I think I have probably participated five times in major changes in the act, and in every case the fears I had about the changes came to pass. I foresee not a three-week disqualification from now on, but always a six-week disqualification. It may well be that it is only because I am part of the appeal structure, but surely some hon. members have had the same experience as I have.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Those who win do not come to us telling us how successful they were and that they only had to have a one-week disqualification when originally they had to have a three-week disqualification. The only time they come to us is when they are not satisfied, or when they have been badly treated. I suggest that from now on it will be six weeks instead of three weeks, and if any hon. member is that remote from his constituents, he should not bother wasting his time sitting here, because he will not be re-elected. If he does not handle his appeals where there is no other appeal procedure, he can only hope that this parliament goes on until he has been here six years, because then he can qualify for retirement pension.
All hon. members, I am sure, are faced with bad UIC cases-and there are some. However, I do not agree with hon. members who feel that there has been unfair treatment by senior officials of UIC or officials of their district offices. There are many complaints and many problems. We have had problems with regard to disqualification. But there must be two sides to everything, and I am certainly not one who always agrees that the worker should have the final word or that his case is always right. The worker's interpretation is what he wants it to be, and often employers have their interpretation as well. An employer will not admit that he fired a girl because every time he tried to pinch her, she said no. He will say that she was not suitable. The employer is going to show himself in the best light. If he says that he fired the employee because of her incompetence, or for unsafe practices, that is a justifiable dismissal. However, the employee may have a totally different viewpoint. The commission, of course, must consider both sides. There are occasions when the stories are in agreement because of collusion. These are cases which the system is really not capable of handling, and our structure is not able to deal with them.
I urge that hon. members consider their own experience and decide for themselves, regardless of party. I urge them to look honestly at the problems which have developed and which come to them through their constituency offices or their offices here, and ascertain whether abuses which have occurred or whether the penalties which have been applied under the three weeks' disqualification have been marginal. Some of these hon. members have been able to argue successfully. The fault has not always been with the claimant or with the employer. It this penalty must be applied to prevent abuses by people quitting their jobs without just cause, I wonder what advantage there would be in applying double the penalty without being able to solve the problem itself.
I know there are abuses; I know there have been abuses. But by doubling the penalty in this case the minister is attempting to satisfy those hon. members who profess to be for law and order and is using opportunity to penalize someone who may not meet their criteria. I suggest that doubling the penalty in this case will not do much good. I see no justification for increasing this from three weeks to six weeks. I have not been in the committee to follow the discussions there. The discussions are very hard to follow because they flit from sections of the act to clauses of the bill, back and forth. I have not been able to ascertain any justification for the increase in penalty, other than to reduce the cost of the plan.

December 17, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
In my opinion, there is an easy way to get rid of the abuses and the cost of the unemployment insurance program, and that is for this government to quit playing games with our unemployed and to bring in employment measures which will provide full employment. This act was designed to operate at a maximum rate of 4 per cent unemployment. In its generosity, the government agreed to pick up the premiums beyond that; but only for two months, I think, since 1971 has this plan ever operated at what was considered to be the maximum level of unemployment anticipated. Rather than increasing the penalties for those unfortunate persons who are out of work, this government should be instituting employment programs.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few moments to say that we reject this motion. My friend indicates this time, as he did last time, that he does not understand the decision. I would refer him once again to the paper that was supplied to hon. members to assist them in determining whether to accept the minister's position with respect to another amendment. For the hon. member's edification, I refer to the paper that I quoted from yesterday which gave the information that the minister and his officials have accumulated since 1971. The last paragraph on page 2 reads:
Evidence accumulated since 1971 indicates that the three-week disqualification has not been achieving its objective of minimizing the extent to which claimants voluntarily terminate their employment without just cause, are discharged for misconduct, or refuse suitable employment.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on, that is not complete.


William Arnold Peters: That is like hanging everybody because somebody got their purse snatched in the park.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I sat here listening to my hon. friend and never said a word while he went on for 20 minutes and said zilch. I have been up for a minute and a half. But I will not be distracted. I do not want to take the time of this House; I want to get the bill passed. I want to make a couple of points, however. We on this side of the House, and particularly members to the immediate left, are always looking for disincentives. The socialists dislike that word. Now we have found another disincentive, the three-week disqualification period.
If the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) had had the opportunity-notice how kind I am-of attending the hearings of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, he would have had the benefit of the advice of Mr. Chafe who is a member of the Canadian Labour Congress. In issue No. 23 of the proceedings for November 20, at page 23:10 Mr. Chafe said:
I do not think we would argue very strongly about whether it was one to six weeks or one to two weeks. The problem lies in the fact that, before that disqualification is attached to a claim and before it ensues, the claimant should be given a better opportunity to make his case to the insurance officer or to some agency in the commission.
At page 23:11 he said:
Mr. Alexander, we may have a question of a technical draft or something, but the suggestion I would put forward immediately is that the committee might recommend a change in that amendment that will build into it the feature that claimants, faced with disqualification under these sections, would first be given the opportunity to put their

case before the commission, before the insurance officer actually applies the disqualification.
In other words, he was not too worried. He was worried about the appeal procedure, however, and this is where I would ask the minister to focus his attention. I should like to refer to issue No. 27 of the proceedings of the same committee. I respect the minister and I know that he has a lot of information that I do not have, so I ask questions in order to find out what he has. I was concerned about this sort of thing, about whether we were dealing with a disincentive or not. In the proceedings for December 2, at page 27:111 asked the minister:
In other words, the section as it was, is a disincentive. You have accepted that, therefore you are attempting to tighten it up. Do you agree with all that, sir?


Robert Knight Andras: That is correct.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you.


The Chairman:: Mrs. Appolloni.


Robert Knight Andras: There is only one comment, Mr. Alexander. I would not want to accept the broad condemnation, or the implied condemnation of the UIC as the general disincentive. I said there were some disincentives in the act, this being one of them.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: At least I am more responsible than some of the people to my left and all the nonsense they come up with. Let me end without getting caught up in that nonsense. We have said that the Canadian people are looking for the removal of disincentives. They found one in the three-week advance, and we removed that. We hope that will satisfy some of us who are extremely concerned about the direction the act is going. We found another disincentive, and we are removing it. As a result, I have no hesitation in saying that we do not intend to support the hon. member's motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon.
member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) spoke about disincentives, Mr. Speaker. I wonder why it is always a disincentive when some poor person is getting hit. Why is it not a disincentive when wealthy people are getting hand-outs or subsidies? Rich people can write off a tax burden because of capital gains, and that is called an incentive; but if it is a poor person, it is no longer called an incentive.
I should like the hon. member for Hamilton West to visit my riding or my office. I will show him some of the disincentives on file where rural people have been disqualified because they cannot afford to drive 100 miles a day for the minimum wage or below. Is that not a disincentive? Would many wealthy people working for high salaries go to that expense? It is like Conservatives saying that free enterprise must get a contract-but free enterprise has to get a subsidy to keep going.


Mr. Epp:: Like Skywest.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Like Skywest. I am glad the hon. member mentioned that. He wants that contract to go to a private airline. That is free enterprise on the backs of the taxpayers. No wonder those Neanderthals went in droves to
December 17, 1975

Bennett in British Columbia to support the new type of Social Credit.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Tell us about Barrett.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He had 40 per cent of the vote in British Columbia, and you had 4 per cent. Mr. Speaker, if you could get those Social Crediters to quieten down, I would like to come to my point. This motion deals with something that the hon. member for Hamilton West has made me rather angry about. It is about people who might refuse employment without just cause. I have some grievance with the UIC office, and I am glad the minister is here because I have written him many times about the way UIC discriminates against rural people in. The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) and members from many other rural areas know what I mean. I know of many cases where someone has been turned down because the UIC did not think they were searching for a job or because they were rural people, and I can give examples.
There is the case of a lady in Balcarres, 50 miles from Regina. She used to live in Regina but went to Balcarres because of her husband's employment. She was unemployed, and applied for UIC while looking for a job. She said, "I am willing to look for a job in Balcarres. I am willing to work at almost anything." But they turned her down. They said that she was limiting herself in terms of where she would go for a job. She could not afford to go to Regina, which would have meant driving 50 miles each way, or 100 miles a day on the round trip. The couple had one car, kids and babysitting expenses. She was willing to look for work in Balcarres or in the immediate, surrounding area. There are towns and villages in that area. But she was disqualified because she was living in a rural area.
I do not think that is fair. A person who lives in Hamilton-for example, the hon. member for Hamilton West- can get on the bus or walk the streets looking for a job. In the big city, one can go by subway. You cannot do that in a rural community. It is not economically worth your while to take a job if it means driving the 100-mile round trip to Regina each day merely to earn the minimum wage or slightly more. The person in that position is discriminated against vis-a-vis the person who lives in the urban centre.
Let me mention another case in my riding. It involves a guy who lives in the little community of Langenburg, 55 miles from Yorkton. He is a labourer who works in a garage and makes little more than the minimum wage. He was laid off and willing to work at any job within a reasonable distance of his town. But the commission said, "Look, you are not willing to drive to Yorkton, which is 55 miles away, each day; therefore, you are cut off." I do not think that was fair. One can see how our present system discriminates against people in rural areas. Case after case of this type has come to my attention. I have written to the minister. I think the UIC act should make some allowance for these people. It should take into account the economic factors involved and define more clearly what is and what is not a just search for a job. It should specify circumstances in which an applicant is not limiting his ability to search for a job because of the special circumstances
Unemployment Insurance Act
involved. As it is, the act discriminates against rural people.
In my riding-and I have heard many other rural members talk about this-if a person is honest when he applies to the UIC and says he cannot afford to travel 100 miles a day to and from work merely to earn $3 or $5 an hour, he is cut off in many cases from benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It says to these applicants in rural areas, "You are limiting yourself, and not really searching for a job." But if that person lies to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and says, "Yes, I am willing to look for work anywhere and work at anything, at any wage," he will obtain UIC benefits. I do not advise my constituents to lie to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if some of them do lie they will get benefits, and if they are honest, they will not. This sort of thing spoils a good plan. It whips up the sort of backlash that we see on the part of the more right wing Neanderthals in the House. It makes them think that the poor people are ripping off the system.
The present unemployment insurance plan discriminates against the people. Its effect is that if people lie to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, say they are willing to go anywhere for a job, to the moon, if necessary, and work for any pay, they will obtain benefits; but if they tell the truth, the commission will cut them off. It says to such people they are limiting their search for a job. I have seen this happen time and again. If any hon. member does not believe me, I invite him to my office where I can show him countless letters documenting the sort of cases I have just mentioned. Every time I go to my riding for office hours I run into people who have been cut off UIC benefits because they limited their search for a job. Possibly the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has encountered similar situations in his riding, which is smaller than mine and much more urban.
People of any rural community encounter these difficulties. Why must we operate under a system which encourages people to be dishonest? Why can we not design a plan which will make allowances for those living in rural areas? The lack of such provision irks me. I do not want to advise my constituents to lie or cheat in order to get around the guidelines. That, often, is precisely what they must do if they want to draw unemployment insurance. This could be corrected by changing the act to take account of those special factors affecting people in rural communities. As I have said, I referred many of these cases to the minister's office. The majority-some came from my riding-concern people who had been disqualified because of improper job search or unwillingness to travel great distances to look for a job. These factors make the plan unacceptable to many members of the general public, and this must be changed.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) mentioned the case of the spouse, either male or female, who quit employment because the other partner moved to another town or city to find employment. Cases like this have arisen in my rural riding. It is not uncommon for people to move from one town in my riding to another, say from Yorkton to a small town like Ram sack or another town 30, 40 or 50 miles away. If the spouse is a housewife, say, she must quit her job and follow her husband when
10120

December 17, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
her husband becomes employed elsewhere. Such spouses are cut off from benefits and may find it difficult to find another job in a small rural community. The commission expects them, in many cases, to drive 50 or 60 miles each way a day to another job.
If the minister were to curb these discriminatory aspects of the plan which work against the interests of people in rural areas, we might end much of the public backlash against this plan and not hear so many speeches on the subject by some of the more conservative members of this House. I hope the minister will comment on some of the problems rural people face. I have been aware of these difficulties in my riding for many years. I think every other rural member encounters similar difficulties. The last time I went out to my riding-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What year was that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I went out a couple of weeks ago. I am not like the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who, I am told, goes to his riding about every year.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Every week.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I recall that when I was last in my riding I learned of a case involving a person who had paid into the unemployment insurance plan for many years. He was a hardworking person who had worked at an unskilled job for a low salary. He lost his job through no fault of his own. Because he could not afford to drive 100 miles a day he was cut off. It was alleged he was not looking for a job seriously, that he was not really serious about driving 100 miles a day for the sake of a job. He could not afford to drive those distances. He earned little more than the minimum wage and had kids to feed and a family to look after. He could not afford to drive 100 miles a day, and was disqualified. But if he had said to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, "I am willing to go anywhere and accept any salary," he probably would have received UIC benefits. That illustrates an anomaly which ought not to exist in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope the minister will consider, if he replies later this afternoon, some of our representations on this subject.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, there are times when I wonder why some of those on my extreme left do not buy a one-way ticket to another jurisdiction. The system under which we live seems to suit them so badly that their only hope lies in that solution. One of those hon. members made some rare remarks with which I agree. The hon. member who spoke previously mentioned the position of rural claimants for unemployment insurance who are in a most difficult situation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: First you chastise me, then you agree with me.


Fred Alward McCain: Our present system may need a multitude of change, but it has evolved over a long period and has created a pretty good society which you, to judge by your speeches would destroy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: The occasional appearance of sanity in the remarks you make relating to our system suggest paranoia or schizophrenia-certainly no solid groundwork for the political career you espouse.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member referring to you, Mr. Speaker?


Fred Alward McCain: People in rural communities must pool their transportation requirements. Many who work must arrange for babysitters. In some cases when they are asked to go to work they are not given enough time to arrange for a babysitter or transportation. As I say, many use transport pools. I drew the minister's attention by letter, today, to a lady whose job came to a halt but who wanted to work more. She happened to be pregnant at the time of her dismissal but needed to continue working primarily because she was pregnant. An investigator from an office arrived and discovered that she was receiving unemployment insurance while pregnant: She had, therefore, not been eligible for benefits from the beginning, and should return the entire amount received and would not be eligible for pregnancy benefits thereafter.
This is the imposition of a hardship which I am sure the minister does not support. It was brought about by virtue of the fact that on the date of her application she lived 100 miles from the decision-making office. I submit the individual who investigated could have used some judgment in respect of her need and position. Instead, he respected only the ruling which was made in head office.
When somebody appeals a case from 100 miles away it is extremely difficult. The unemployed person does not have the means to get to the point where he or she can appeal. My particular appeal to the minister at this moment, as we are discussing unemployment insurance, is that there be some realism injected into the administration of the act and the decision-making process of who is eligible and who is not. They should quit nitpicking and look at the realities of those located in the rural communities. These people do not have public transportation at their disposal such as is available within quite a number of miles of this House or many miles of Toronto, public transportation provided by public funds from this government and governments of other jurisdictions.
These people in rural communities must have time. They cannot be expected to go to work the moment they receive a call. They should not be asked to go to work until they have had a reasonable period of time to obtain pooled transportation and a babysitter. I beseech the minister to ask his rural, decision-making people to use judgment and to extend mercy or, if necessary, alter some of the regulations under which aid is granted under this act.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to note how hon. members to my right, notably the previous speaker, castigate this party for putting forward a motion. They say they cannot support it and then turn around and raise the same kind of problem that is covered in clause 16 of the minister's amendment. They recognize the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 17, 1975


John R. Rodriguez: There is a disincentive. Why should you stand up and argue for disincentives? Surely you think the act is good. They are phony and hypocritical: they want to suck and blow at the same time, coming out on both sides of the issue.
Clause 16 of this bill proposes to extend the period of disqualification from three to six weeks. It will, in effect, shorten a claim by six weeks. When we discussed this clause in committee I asked the minister a question. From my experience in handling unemployment insurance problems it is the appeal procedure and administration of the act which falls very heavily on the shoulders of the claimants. On Tuesday, December 2, I asked the minister the following question:
I want to know from the minister, Mr. Chairman, what provision he has in the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices to help claimants who have been hit with a three-week disqualification, and what machinery he has to help them in preparing an appeal to come before the referees.
The minister replied:
First I will make a general comment, Mr. Rodriguez. I have asked for the whole appeal system to be reviewed. Mr. Chafe and Mr. Wightman, representatives of the employee and the employer groups, are involved in that examination now, with whatever assistance they are asking for, and I think they will be able to give us a report early in the new year. And I am eager that people, particularly non-union, have a better opportunity for some form of advocacy. That is the general policy appeal system.
There it is in a nutshell. That is the reason we on this side of the House say "No" to the six-week disqualification. We do not have any objection to those who quit their jobs, refuse to look for work, or refuse to accept jobs under the same conditions, being penalized. The problem lies in the administration of the appeal procedure. In our motion we say to the minister that he should do what needs to be done first. There should be an examination of the appeal procedure and a proper advocacy system. There must first be a proper administration of the act in a wise and fair manner so that claimants get the benefit from that kind of enlightened thinking.
The minister is putting the cart before the horse. He is increasing the punishment and then, after the fact, will look at the administration of the appeal procedure and bring in changes. We in this party say that is doing it backwards. If the minister will come in with proper procedures for the administration of the act with regard to the disqualification section and proper appeal procedures, we on this side will support any increase in punishment in terms of increasing the disqualification to six weeks. This argument was made by the Canadian Labour Congress. They argued that it is the appeal procedure that creates the problem. They stated this very clearly in the brief which they presented to the committee studying this bill. I quote from the brief:
The real problem behind this amendment lies in the administrative area. Investigation officers are merely, it seems to us at least, accepting the word of the employer that a claimant voluntarily quit without cause or was fired for just cause. These cases are being inadequately investigated and the claimant is not being given the right to be heard. In a number of instances grievances have been processed and won by trade unions on dismissals, but the unfortunate claimants were denied unemployment insurance under the disqualification period.
That shows the unfairness of the present system. The minister admits there are problems with the administra-
Unemployment Insurance Act
tion of this section. He admits there is lack of proper advocacy procedures in the bill. The minister also knows that those being discriminated against do not belong to a collective bargaining unit. They are non-union people. I am not as concerned about the union people with respect to this clause, because they have a form of grievance. They have the support of union officials who are well versed in the act and have connections with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Their case is not as serious as the vast majority of Canadian workers. Only 29 per cent of the Canadian work force is organized into unions; 71 per cent are unorganized. This large group does not have the benefit of support programs and the grievance procedure with qualified union personnel to help them with their appeals. It is that group that concerns the members of this party.
I can give you legions of examples, Mr. Speaker. I have presented them to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and to the minister himself and related the problems they face. For example, there are many people in my constituency-and the same is true in other constituencies-who are in a service operation. If they are fired by their employer, he claims for misconduct, it is very difficult to defend yourself against that kind of dismissal. What is misconduct? In my experience, a person who does not have the support of a union official or any help from the Unemployment Insurance Commission usually decides there is no point in fighting it. They do not understand their rights or how to proceed. Indeed, they are threatened by the very office that the minister has said is there to help them. The appeal procedure before the board of referees is indeed a threatening procedure. If they do not turn to their MP, usually they do not appeal their case. Some of them appeal because it says on their notice of disentitlement that they have a right of appeal. They write a letter saying they are appealing the case, but many of them never appear before the board of referees. In effect, the system has broken down. Justice must not only be seen to be done, but must indeed be done.
Let me give some specific examples of what I mean. I am not talking pie in the sky; these are concrete cases. If this sort of thing happens in one case that comes to light, the House can imagine the legion of cases that do not come to light. I had a case of a young woman who was working as a bookkeeper for Electrolux in Sudbury. She was fired by that company, and on her letter of dismissal it said she was fired. She went to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, lo and behold, they came in with a three-week disqualification. In most cases disqualification is automatic. I always thought that a person was innocent until proven guilty, but in this case they deemed her guilty of misconduct and gave her this three-week disqualification. This young woman called me, and what did she reveal? She revealed that the manager of the Electrolux company in Sudbury had told her that she was to make certain bookkeeping entries. In her opinion those entries that were demanded of her were illegal entries. Indeed, Electrolux was up in the courts in Sudbury charged with a similar kind of abuse. She refused to make the entries that she was told to make, so they fired her.
It so happens that this young woman has a little more education than many others who get laid off or fired, and
2 11 30-1914
December 17, 1975

Unemployment Insurance Act
she came to her MP. It turns out that the UIC was prepared to back up the three-week disqualification. By the time we got to the hearing, following several telephone calls, something like four weeks or a month and a half had elapsed and finally the UIC backed off its three-week disqualification.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, is this the kind of justice that is handed out by the commission and the department? The UIC is supposed to be the agency that helps workers who have lost their job or who have refused their job or quit it for good reason. In this case we were successful and won. I know of several other instances where the three-week disqualification was applied, and it took a long period of time, going all the way from Belleville to Ottawa, back to Belleville to the local office, before we got any action at all.
I point out that 70 per cent of those on unemployment insurance earn less than $6,000 a year, so that all during that period of time while this process is gone through, these people have to keep looking for work to support themselves. They get no benefit from unemployment insurance for which they have contributed.
The minister has made much of the fact that 250,000 quit their jobs in 1974. Taken out of context, that seems like lot of people, but we must keep in mind the total work force. With a total work force of nine million people, 250,000 is about 2.5 per cent. The minister has also made a great deal of fuss about the 21,000 people who refused jobs. That is less than 1 per cent of all unemployment insurance claimants and less than 0.25 per cent of the total work force. This gives us a proper perspective of the extent of this problem.
What is even more important about the people who have refused jobs or quit jobs is this. The minister has not said much about this and his nabobs in the bureaucracy have not shed much light on the matter. What is the reason that the bulk of the persons quit their jobs? Did they do so without just cause? The Canada Manpower centre in Sudbury referred workers to Denison Mines at Elliot Lake where it has been proven safety conditions are not up to the standards demanded by Atomic Energy of Canada. There we have working conditions that no worker would be anxious to experience. Conditions in the mines are such that the very lives of the workers are threatened. As a result, the workers referred to Denison Mines by the Canada Manpower centre refused the job, and they are reflected in the figure of 21,000. I do not blame them for that, Mr. Speaker. Workers who refuse to work in such conditions, or in asbestos mines where safety conditions are not up to scratch, are reflected in the 21,000 and are cut off from unemployment insurance. We have appealed such cases and lost, because the commission said, in effect, that since other workers are working in the mines these people should take the job.
The minister has not given us any breakdown of these figures showing why people quit or refuse jobs. Who are they, how many are women, how many are men, how many are in the low income brackets without skills? When throwing around a figure like 250,000 or 21,000 we have to see what kind of people the minister is talking about. Instead, the minister assumes in his sweeping statement that these people are lazy, good for nothings, that they are not interested in working at all. That is what he is infer-

ring and it is why he has brought in clause 16. This si also why we cannot support it. We think the government has to give us additional information.
In this economy of ours there is much mobility. When workers in a low paying job want to try and improve themselves, it seems to me this is a pretty good reason for quitting. One would think that if the government really wanted to improve working conditions and pay, they would raise the federal minimum wage. It is sadly lagging behind the industrial wage. What do they do? They bring in this kind of clause, so how is the worker to defend himself against disqualification for quitting without just cause? That is a pretty difficult defence. How does he defend himself against disqualification for being fired for misconduct? In these days the discriminations are not obvious.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out some of the problems. From my experience with unemployment insurance problems I have found that when it comes to a question of believing the employer or the employee, invariably the weight of the argument is always in favour of the employer. This is especially so if the employee is a young person, has a beard, has dishevelled hair and is not dressed in a suit and tie. The weight of the argument is also always slanted against the claimant if she happens to be a woman, and particularly if she happens to have two children at home. Right away, a certain concept flashes through the mind of the benefit control officer. I have had this experience at first-hand. I have knowledge of this and have seen it happen up close.
What the minister is doing by putting in this kind of clause is making those who work in very poor conditions for low wages think twice about quitting and trying to move to something better. It seems to me they will lack that mobility we have been able to give them. What we are doing for some of the worst employers in this country is guaranteeing them a pool of low-paid workers who will be stuck with poor working conditions.
Let me remind the minister that those in this country who work for less than $6,000 a year now make up 70 per cent of the unemployed. We cannot support the minister's clause, and that is why we have brought forward this amendment.
Let me say to the minister that he should first investigate his appeal procedure and the administration of this part of the act. If he can then assure us that the claimants will be dealt with in a just and fair manner, he can come back to this House and ask for a ten-week disqualification period for quitting the job and we might support him. We will support the minister to the hilt, but he should not sell us a pig-in-a-poke, telling us to do this, until he does what I suggest.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I often had the opportunity to see the difficulties of the unemployed, mostly because of disqualification and I will express some views concerning the usual method of the UIC officers.
As I said, we should change the legislation to give to well intentioned civil servants the possibility to better under-
December 17, 1975

stand and help the unemployed. Unfortunately, it is not the case because of Bill C-69. We still have too many articles that will do nothing but complicate things for the unemployed.
It is already complicated enough so why should we not improve the legislation, make it more flexible, more acceptable, better adapted to needs? It is not the responsibility of the unemployed if the general economic system supported by the majority of the government does not create enough jobs for all Canadians willing to work. They should not suffer from a bad legislation which is not even adapted to their needs.
Bill C-69 includes amendments concerning the period of disqualification that goes up to six weeks for claimants who voluntarily leave their employment without just cause or who lose their job for misconduct or refuse suitable employment or have failed to apply for suitable employment that is vacant. Who decides if it is suitable employment? Commission officers or Manpower Centre officials should not be left to decide by themselves. However, it happens very often and they neglect to avail themselves of an opportunity to get suitable employment. If the man is broke he can hardly be expected to travel 25 miles to see if the job suits him. Apparently it is something that the civil servants or technocrats who draft the legislation do not understand. I guess they do not understand anything about it since they turn out legislation that is irrelevant or hardly applies at all. But in any case, it brings a lot of trouble to the unemployed.
In that respect, may I remark that it is not up to the Unemployment Insurance Commission to determine all by itself whether a job is suitable or not, and that it is not normal either for the commission to force a claimant to accept any kind of employment with any employer.
It is not normal, and it all depends on the officer the unemployed person will meet. I am not criticizing civil servants as a whole. There are some good ones among them. I usually say a number of them perform their task well, others are not as good, and others still are definitely third rate.
If the unemployed worker meets an officer who is unwilling to cooperate, imagine how difficult it will be for him to explain himself. The worker should have the right to know whether he is replacing somebody or if he will be in a new position. If he is taking someone else's place, he should be given the opportunity to know since when and why the job has been vacant.
Such matters do not seem to overly concern Manpower Centre officers. It would be normal for the worker to know also if there is an association of employees or a union in the corporation, and to be given the name of an officer with whom he could have an interview. He has to get organized. He cannot leave just like that to take an employment without knowing whether it will be interesting or not. He should also be told about the policy of the corporation with respect to working hours, and about overtime pay.
Surprisingly enough, when it comes to searching for employment, the Unemployment Insurance Commission does not seem to be satisfied that Manpower Cantres are qualified enough, as it does not recognize the fact for a
Unemployment Insurance Act
claimant to have registered with a Manpower Centre and regularly renewed his job request as a job search proof.
Why do we have those fellows in Manpower Centres? They cost a lot to the Canadian taxpayers. I am not too critical of the organization as a whole but why? They should also be able to operate. Their only purpose is to take the names of the local people and say that in such an area there is no work, or to record names and maintain a file of what they call a "job bank" set up with posters that can be checked on the way in. These banks contain a list of jobs available in the area and outside but these people cannot indicate them themselves.
Last spring, there was a boy in my constituency who was very willing. To wit, he went to Alberta. Two of his friends were completing school at 17 and wanted to go to Alberta. I contacted the Riviere-du-Loup Manpower Centre to know whether there were accommodation for young people willing to work in an English-speaking province. They wanted to learn English at the same time. No there were no opportunities, no facilities, nothing doing. Well the boy, to show he was willing, came with me to Ottawa and I took him to the train at 9:59 p.m. one evening and he spent the summer in Alberta. He found work through his own research.
But the people in Riviere-du-Loup Manpower Centre get paid with taxes collected from every Canadian, and I am not referring only to those in Riviere-du-Loup. Unfortunately those are the facts. They did nothing to direct that boy to a job, although he was willing. He wanted to go, he did so, he came back and he earned a certain amount of money, all that on his own steam, without the help of government bodies supported by the taxpayer to guide workers to areas where they have a chance to find a job.
Secondly, I appreciate the reasons why the Unemployment Insurance Commission does not rely on facts supplied by the claimant who made regular applications to the Manpower Centre. The UIC say this is not enough. They must go to Michel Brochu and Diane Chevalier, they have to look on the spot, in actual areas where the unemployment rate now exceeds 20 per cent. People are having all kinds of difficulties with the present freight transportation system, for instance in the furniture industry, as concerns custom duties, in the leather industry, and therefore these people are not ready to hire new employees because they do not need them for the moment. They can only make reasonable profits to keep their present employees.
In these circumstances, why are the Unemployment Insurance Commission employees not trained and not given instructions to better understand the unemployed. Each time I go home during the weekend, I go to the arbitration board of Riviere-du-Loup. Why? To defend the unemployed of the area who have difficulties, and I hasten to say that the Riviere-du-Loup office is not any worse than the others because it is staffed with understanding people, but they have to act on bad legislation and no effort is made to change it, and it is regrettable to note that a group of members, who seem in a hurry to leave, are passing such badly written legislation and are leaving the unemployed to face all the hardships and consequences that follow a period of unemployment.

Unemployment Insurance Act
If Manpower Centres are not sufficiently efficient, they are very quick to report to the Unemployment Insurance Commission any job refusal on the part of a claimant. And not much care is taken to find out why he refused the job.
There is another way for the officials of the commission to disqualify a claimant, and that is on the basis of a presumption. And the definition given by the dictionary of the word "presumption" is as follows:
PRESUMPTION: The taking of something for granted; the inference that a fact exists, based on the proved existence of other facts.
It is therefore urgent to curb the habit of the commission to send disqualification notices to claimants based on insufficient evidence, including presumptions.
The following situation is not uncommon: A claimant receives two notices from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the first one disqualifying him under section 41 (1) because he voluntarily quit his job. The second notice is one of disentitlement under section 25A, namely that because the claimant voluntarily left his job it is an indication that he no longer wishes to be on the labour market. Consequently, he does not meet the requirements of section 25A. That is the deduction that is made. He may have had several reasons for leaving his job but they do not try to find out why. As soon as he leaves his job, conclusions are drawn. The same phenomenon of presumption will be found in several situations, especially as regards disentitlement under section 25A of the act, and section 145 of the regulations.
Here are two other frequent examples: a claimant is found disentitled because he was absent for two days. Anyone who is somewhat involved in getting guys out of that ridiculous social condition of distress must have witnessed similar situations. That happens regularly. My area is no different from others. So, because a claimant was absent for two days, no matter what the reasons for his absence are, in several cases the UIC officer will serve notice of indefinite disentitlement because his absence tends to prove that he is not on the labour market. Let us consider a bit the notion of sadism in that. The other case will be that of the claimant who did not prove his availability because he did not actively look for work during the period going from x to z. Quite frequently, the officer at the unemployment insurance office will serve notice of indefinite disentitlement under section 25A and 145(9) of the regulations. In the three cases I just quoted, quite often the officer bases himself on indications and sometimes on
actual facts which would have no incidence if before making a decision the insurance officer had pushed his investigation further.
Let us take the case of the claimant absent from his area for two days. Often we found that unemployed persons returned to areas where they had worked for a long time to look for a job when they had recently moved there. In that case if the officer had inquired about the reasons for his absence not only would he not have disqualified him indefinitely but quite likely he would simply not have disqualified him. But he did not try to find that out. It is a lot less tiresome to handle a file like that and say, we are not paying anymore. It is clear that he would receive reports, that he would write what he would want on it, but we are not sending cheques.
In any event, to our mind, in the three cases described here, an honest summary is made of the thousands of decisions taken by the civil servants of the commission. Let us have a look at what Superior Court Justice Andre Nadeau had to say about presumption.
Excerpt from the Traite de Droit civil du Quebec, Chapter lx, and I quote:
A presumption is a consequence drawn from a known fact and applied to an unknown fact. The unknown fact must be the true object of the proof, but to demonstrate it, recourse is had to another fact which is more easily proved. There is displacement of the object of the proof since the proof, instead of bearing directly on the law generating fact, bears on another related fact.
That the principles of logic should intervene here, nothing is more obvious. But what is less so, is the fact that prudence demands, in some cases, that the judge keep out of a judicial debate some facts proposed as basis for presumption even though they may be logically pertinent.
So, the practice I alluded to earlier, to which the employees of the commission resort because they have on their hands a poorly drafted act, is clearly contrary to the legal tradition whereby no one is considered guilty until proven so.
It often happens that the arguments of the officials are solely based on the intentions of the claimants. It nevertheless remains that the umpires, in spite of their shrewd and wise impulses, too readily judge on intentions. May I call it six o'clock?


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

Thursday, December 18, 1975