1977-06-23

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 21, consideration of Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Rodriguez:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Your Honour outlined the groupings of motions for debate, it was indicated that members could review the arrangement. Your Honour had indicated that motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 15, 29, 30 and 32 would be debated together. Upon review, I note that motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22 deal with the subject of the minor attachment period going from the present eight weeks to a range of ten to 14 weeks, while motions Nos. 15, 29, 30 and 32 deal with the length of the benefit period.
I would suggest that motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22 deal with a topic that is separate and apart from the length of the benefit period dealt with in motions Nos. 15, 29, 30 and 32. I would draw to Your Honour's attention the possibility of splitting that grouping and putting motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22 together in one group, and Nos. 15, 29, 30 and 32, and No. 11 which you had indicated to be separate, could be put with the latter group for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are in some difficulty because we are in the midst of debating motion No. 7 under that proposed grouping, and I would not want to do anything that might prejudice the contributions that have already been made to the debate. 1 do not think, either, that it would be appropriate to give those who have already spoken on motion No. 7 under that grouping a chance to speak again on the second grouping.
On the other hand, it is never the intention of the Chair to attempt to compel members unduly to speak on a subject that might not be convenient to them. Since we are continuing consideration of that motion, I think I would have to give this suggestion some thought. Had we not already launched upon this discussion, my basic inclination would be, of course, to accede to the request of the hon. member. The whole purpose of this is to try to make debate more meaningful for members, certainly not to cut short any contributions to be made by members.
I would want to reflect on whether we might create some difficulty by giving members who have already spoken a chance to speak again and in some way prejudice the contributions that have already been made.


Mr. Symes:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I recall, when we last debated this matter the two or three speeches made at that time only dealt with motion No. 7 and not the topics covered in the other motions. I do not think we would have a problem of repetition or prejudicing what has already been said.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that only two members have spoken thus far, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), although the member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) had just started. Since the hon. member for Nickel Belt proposes including motion No. 11 in one of the groups, I think the problem of members speaking again is not a very serious one.


Mr. Speaker:: My inclination would always be to accede to the request of hon. members that the grouping proposed by the Chair be adjusted as we go along in order to give effect to the desire of members to debate these motions intelligently. In view of the fact that I had indicated initially that while this rather broad grouping might be taken together for purposes of discussion, even under that arrangement the question would first be put on motion No. 7 and that would dispose of the grouping except for motions Nos. 8 and 10. I have already indicated something close to the division, at least for the purposes of voting, envisaged by the hon. member.
I would think we ought to be able to accede to the hon. member's request, and if there is no objection I propose to go ahead with that grouping and therefore consider that the discussion now continuing on motion No. 7 be considered as discussion on motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22. I did not understand the hon. member for Nickel Belt to include motion No. 11 in that grouping.


John R. Rodriguez: No.

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration


Mr. Speaker:: The second grouping would then be motions Nos. 11, 15, 29, 30 and 32. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us extends the minimum attachment period from eight weeks to ten weeks and as far as 14 weeks, depending upon the region in which the applicant lives. After three years, the minimum attachment period is extended to 14 weeks for all regions. This concerns me despite the fact that I come from the relatively low unemployment area of Saskatchewan, although Manitoba and Alberta are also low.
As the law stands, a worker can qualify for unemployment insurance benefits if he loses his job, or if a job is not available, after being in the labour market for eight weeks, but if this motion is adopted it will mean he would have to be in the labour force for ten to 14 weeks, based on the unemployment rate. I would assume that in a low unemployment area like the prairies it would be at least 14 weeks. Some people may say it is fair to treat high unemployment areas in a more liberal fashion than low unemployment areas, but I suggest that is not necessarily the case. In an area like mine, where the official unemployment rate is only about 4 per cent, there are many people with problems similar to those of people in northern Ontario, northern British Columbia, eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and they should be able to qualify for UIC benefits in the same way. There are people in my area who do not have the training, job skills or education required and are put into jobs which do not last very long.
It seems to me that this type of bill balkanizes the country and different areas will be treated differently. I do not think this is a very good precedent to set. All Canadians make the same contributions and should be able to draw the same benefits. A worker in my area makes the same contribution as a worker in Sault Ste. Marie, in Cape Breton or in Matane, but in order to draw benefits he has to meet different criteria and that is not really fair. To me, this discriminates against people working in my riding. They make the same contributions as other workers and often do the same job.
For example, in my riding there is large potash mine and a large CNR terminal. There are also large mines and large terminals in the maritimes. Workers in my riding, as in the maritimes, make the same contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, but under the new regulations, if a worker in my riding loses his job after he has worked 12 weeks, he will not qualify for unemployment insurance, whereas workers in the maritimes who have done the same job for the same time and lose their job will qualify for benefits. Clearly, the minister is establishing a bad principle. I point out that both workers pay the same premiums but they will not be treated equally. That shows, I suggest, how unfair is this part of the bill which the minister asks us to support.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: It does little for the cause of national unity.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As the hon. member sitting in front of me says, it will do little for the cause of national unity. It will make this country's working people cynical. Certainly, if people in my riding lose their jobs, they will look cynically upon how people in other parts of the country are treated. The minister should not do this. The bill should treat the entire country uniformly, instead of attempting to balkanize it. The minister's proposal will do just that.
Apparently, the minister is more concerned about stopping the few people who abuse the plan than about solving the problem of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, this country's problem is not that a few people abuse the unemployment insurance fund; the problem is unemployment, finding jobs for people who want to work. If we had jobs for all Canadians, the vast majority would prefer working to drawing unemployment insurance. The minister seems to be more concerned about stopping a few abuses than solving unemployment, more interested in pumping billions of dollars into the unemployment insurance fund than in using imagination and encouraging the government to promote new policies which would create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, we could do much to create jobs for Canadians. For instance, we could embark upon a national insulation program of the kind my party has advocated since last October, or a housebuilding program which would put people to work quickly, or national winter works programs which could be used to constructive benefit in our communities. Above all, we must bring about long-term economic changes in this country. We must encourage manufacturing and the processing of raw materials in Canada before they are exported. Mr. Speaker, Canada imports more manufactured goods per capita than any other industrialized country, which is a crime. Manufacturing is labour-intensive; resource development is capitalintensive. Therefore, we are exporting our jobs to the United States, Europe, Japan and elsewhere, and importing unemployment from those same areas of the world.
We must change this policy if we want full employment in this country. Instead of embarking upon such imaginative policies, the government should crack down on the few who abuse the unemployment insurance plan, to sue them, as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) says, as scapegoats. The government is not grappling with the fundamental problem, that of providing jobs for Canadians from coast to coast. The minister bases his proposal strictly on the bureaucracy's nationwide unemployment figures. But in my riding many of the unemployed are not included in official unemployment figures. There are seven Indian reserves in my riding, on some of which unemployment is running at 90 per cent. On the best of them, about half the Indian people are unemployed. So that you can safely say between 60 per cent and 80 per cent of the people on the reserves are unemployed. They are not included in the Statistics Canada figures because they are treaty Indians. If you included them, you would find that the unemployment rate in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is higher than the official figures show.
Under the new regulations our native and Indian people living in the prairie provinces will not be treated as generously
June 23, 1977

as native peoples living in Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. They will be penalized, which is not fair. It is difficult enough for Indians and Metis to find jobs in Saskatchewan. At present, between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of the population of Regina consists of Indian and native people. Many of them are unemployed, many of them are on welfare, and many of them are young, without jobs, skills or trades. This bill will discriminate against them, making it difficult for them to enter the labour force and learn a trade or skill. That shortcoming of the act could lead to all kinds of social problems and crime.
The unemployed want to work; they want to occupy their time. As it is, crime rates per capita in Regina are among the highest in this country, which shows you how serious this problem is. The people of the area want jobs. They do not want hand-outs, welfare or unemployment insurance benefits. They want jobs and opportunities, but they will not get them unless this government changes its policies and makes it possible for all people to work. I wish the minister would reconsider some regulations which discriminate against people living in rural and outlying parts. Ever since I was first elected to this House I have been concerned about people who live in rural or outlying regions and are cut off from unemployment insurance because, according to the government's computer, or in the opinion of bureaucrats, they have not been searching for a job as vigorously as they should.
Our bureaucrats apparently penalize the man who says, "I cannot drive 30 or 40 miles each way to work," and the housewife who says, "I don't drive. Anyway, we do not have a second car and I cannot go to work in the city 30 or 40 miles away." I remember one specific case. A person in Langenburg was cut off because she said she could not drive 50 miles every day to a job in Yorkton. Surely, cutting people off for such reasons is entirely unreasonable. How can you say they abuse the system and therefore should not qualify for UIC.? These people want to work and will do everything reasonable in order to find a job. But because they live in some remote town or village, or on the farm, and because the nearest job may happen to be inaccessible in the city many miles away, they are cut off.
The person living in the city can hop on the bus, and search for a job much more easily. A man looking for work in Regina is looking for it in a community of about 165,000 people, and if he refuses a job perhaps there is a case for cutting him off UIC benefits. But it is not fair to apply the same standard to a person who lives in, say, in Esterhazy, Kamsack or Kenora and is told that the nearest job is in the big city many miles away. Because officials insist on applying the regulations so strictly they turn some of the unemployed into liars. People have come to me and said, "If I had told the truth I would have been cut off, so I lied." They say to me, "You are cut off UIC if you are honest. I got my UIC benefit because I lied." Such people take a chance, but they obtain UIC benefits. If they are honest and say no, they cannot do that, they are cut off. I have referred many cases of that sort to the minister's office year in and year out, where rural people have been put in the position of
Employment and Immigration
choosing between being honest and being a liar. They have to make that choice. Most people choose to be honest, tell the truth and lose UIC benefits that would rightfully be theirs if they were not living in a rural area, on a farm or in a small community.
This is the type of act the minister perpetuates. This is the type of act he refuses to amend in a positive sense so that rural people are not discriminated against. 1 have spoken to members of all parties in the House and they have expressed similar problems with people in rural areas trying to find a job. I almost dread some of my office hour tours. Two, three or four times a year I hold office hours in small towns and villages in my constituency. I go to places where there are only a few hundred people and set up an office in a town library or some other place to meet with the people. I advertise when I will be there.
I always dread it when someone comes to me with regard to an unemployment insurance problem. I know what it is. It is usually a rejection because the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the computer say that they are not available to work. They are told they are eliminating themselves in searching for a job and therefore do not qualify. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) knows what it is like to live in a place like Pelly or Church-bridge. There are not many jobs in small villages. If Joe Blow's wife is not able to go into Regina to look for a job, leaving her three or four little kids at home, she is cut off. However, if she lived in Regina, Toronto or Halifax she could qualify for a job or unemployment insurance.
Is the minister going to comment on that problem when he speaks? Is he going to move any amendments to make it more fair for the people who live in my constituency and in other parts of rural Canada? If not, he is going to perpetrate great unfairness and injustice in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is a real problem. I have seen many people agonize over whether they should be honest with the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Who said no?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I did.


John R. Rodriguez: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to motion No. 8 which includes clauses 29 and 30 of Bill C-27. Before doing so, I would like to make some general comments relevant to those two clauses. Bill C-27

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
symbolizes this government's total inability to deal with the country's most pressing problem, that of one million Canadians out of work. Instead of introducing measures to reduce the staggering number of unemployed persons, this government has turned its attention to cutting back the number now receiving unemployment insurance benefits. At a time when the government should be defending its legislation and protecting those who are jobless, we see measures which will place an added burden on those already out of work.
As the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said, most of us represent constituencies with a substantial number of rural people. They simply cannot accept a job, even if one is available, because of the problem of transportation. That is the major problem in the rural areas of Canada, not the other restrictive measures that were in the old bill. It is the distance and the cost of travelling back and forth to work. A physician, lawyer or other professional person can deduct the cost of transportation from his income tax. However, very seldom is there a working industrial agreement between a company and its employees whereby the employee who has to drive 25 or 30 miles to and from work every day receives a mileage expense. That is most unfair and only exacerbates the situation.
There are absolutely no logical arguments behind the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) introduced last December. The minister claims that the proposals in Bill C-27 were made as a result not only of his department's so-called comprehensive review of the program but also as a result of a wide variety of studies carried out by other organizations and individuals. The comprehensive review which the Unemployment Insurance Commission published contains, among other things, what is claimed to be a profile of UI claimants. One of the objects of the profile was to provide the basis for discussion of the amendments in Bill C-27. Let us for a moment examine just how comprehensive the study was.
The profile of UI claimants was based on a sample of 8,521 records of separations from employment during January to June, 1974. The profile starts with a table showing that only 27.7 per cent of these separations were due to lay-off, whereas 41.3 per cent were voluntary quits. As a basis for changes to the UI Act, the profile is nothing but a fraud. As the minister knows full well, Canada was, in the first half of 1974, at the height of an economic boom. This is very cogent to this whole discussion. Unemployment then was 5.2 per cent, compared to nearly 8 per cent now. Furthermore, as the latest unemployment statistics bear out, January to June is the time of year when employment rises, when lay-offs are at a minimum and jobs easier to find.
Between the dates the review was carried out, January to June, employment in Canada increased by over one million. Unemployment went down by 76,000 in those months, and over 900,000 people who had been outside the labour force were drawn in and able to find jobs. We are going back to that time span between January and June of 1974 when there was still a tremendous upswing in the economy and a growing

demand for jobs. Had the minister wanted a truly comprehensive report he should have ensured that the next six months be studied as well. During July to August, 1974, to January and February, 1975, employment fell by 833,000. Unemployment increased by 243,000, and 590,000 people who were in the labour force in July and August, 1974, had been forced out by the following January and February. So much for this comprehensive review study which makes no sense whatsoever. It is not at all relevant to the bill we are discussing. It is outdated and archaic.
The bill is based on a study done during a small time frame when the country was still in a reasonably good economic situation. Employment was high and the demand for jobs was high. To base it on that limited time-span with those limited numbers on the unemployment lists is somewhat of a fraud to perpetrate in this House and push down the throats of members on this side. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the authors of the study were either totally ignorant of how to compile an unbiased report, or they deliberately chose those months so that the minister could stand in the House last December and claim that the amendments to, the UI Act were warranted because of comprehensive studies which were undertaken by his department. He was out by about two years.
Probably the latter was in fact the case, from which I can conclude that the minister was misleading the House with erroneous and biased information. The review also dealt with what it calls the "post-claim behaviour of exhaustees observed from April to October 1973". This is based on a special survey of 2,649 individuals who exhausted their claims in April 1973. The survey found that 63 per cent of exhaustees were able to find work within an average period of six weeks. I loathe that word "exhaustees", Mr. Speaker. Are we not dealing with human beings? Here, again, April of 1973 was a convenient year to pick. Canada was then in the upswing cycle of the boom and unemployment was much lower than it is now. As Lukin Robinson, a Toronto economist, pointed out, the 1973 survey-
-is an irrelevant and wholly unjustified basis for the UI Commission's current punitive policy of disqualifying as many people as they can from benefits, and if the UI Commission and the government do not know this, they can hardly expect others to be blind to the drastic difference between conditions now and in 1973.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has yet to put forward any logical arguments for introducing certain amendments to the UI Act. The minister, in proposing a variable entrance requirement of ten to 14 weeks, has never made it clear why he felt this was necessary, aside from the fact that a minimum of 226,000 individuals would be disqualified if the amendment were to pass. I say minimum, Mr. Speaker, because the figure of 226,000 assumes that 50 per cent of those who would have worked only eight to 13 weeks will be able to get longer work. This assumption appears to be based on the "comprehensive" study to which I have already made reference. The only logical reason for this move, in my mind, is that the variable entrance requirement
June 23, 1977

will help pay for benefits in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment to Bill C-27 reflects the government's continuing policy of placing restrictive measures against the unemployed, instead of pursuing economic measures to create long-term jobs. The unemployed of this country are being used as scapegoats by a government that does not have the guts to deal with our economic problems. Increasing the entry requirement will do little, except to satisfy those in this country who feel that the eight to 11-week-ers are bums or cheaters looking for a free ride. Obviously, many of these people who complain about the unemployment insurance system have never experienced unemployment.


An hon. Member:: I don't like that phrase.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Which phrase is the hon. member referring to? I missed it.Most of the people who are searching for work are doing so sincerely. They are not lazy bums. I do not know which member complained about those words, but it has certainly been my experience in my constituency office, when adults come in and weep in front of me. I am not being dramatic when I say this; it is absolutely true. They tell me they keep going back to the same industry week after week until they are told by the personnel manager, "Look, we don't want to see you back here". But the UIC says they have to go back, they have to make a job search. And where are they? The first thing they know, they are cut off. I don't deny that some do abuse the system, but from my experience with countless hundreds of UI cases, the benefit control offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission do more than an adequate job of ensuring that no one draws benefits when not entitled. Those who are on legitimate claim must go to great lengths to prove their availability, capability, and desire to work. If this is not done, they are automatically subject to disentitlement. In short, Mr. Speaker, it is not nearly as easy to get paid from unemployment insurance as most people think, unless of course the UIC is doing a sloppy job.
I have no doubt that in some cases they are doing a sloppy job. If somebody is drawing unemployment insurance illegally, that person should be charged. I have no objection to that whatever. But there are some people who think there is an unemployed bum under every bed in the nation, to paraphrase an expression which was once used with regard to communists. So, who is going to be most affected by the proposals to increase the entry requirements? I suggest it will be the low income, seasonal or part-time workers who must rely on temporary jobs because there simply are no full-time jobs to be had in the areas where they live. Members from the Atlantic provinces have said in the past that seasonal, short-term and part-time work is a way of life for many. Yet even in our industrial heartland there are relatively few jobs to be had.
In my own constituency of Brant, the latest figure 1 have from Canada Manpower is that 5,911 persons were unemployed at the end of May, less than a month ago. At the same time, the local Manpower office has a total of 266 jobs available, including both part-time and full-time. So there are
Employment and Immigration
5,911 persons chasing 266 jobs in an area of Canada which is supposed to be highly industrialized, with a great demand for workers. I do not know how the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will sell his arguments in that area when he campaigns there in a few months.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Do you know something we don't know?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I will tell the hon. member later. Given that kind of ratio, it is obvious there are a lot of disgruntled people in an area which has a high standard of living and a high standard of job availability. The variable entrance requirement is another measure which erodes the original universal nature of the UIC program. There is no doubt that should this amendment pass, it will lead to instances where if two men employed in the same industry are hit by industry-wide layoffs, one may qualify for benefits while the other is denied any.
I am speaking now of the geographic problem to which the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville referred a few minutes ago.
The New Democratic Party strongly opposes, on behalf of the unemployed of this country-those who are legitimately unemployed; we have no brief for those who try to rip off the system-any increase whatever in the minimum number of weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. The qualifying period can be altered and probably should be altered from time to time. I am not saying that the minimum qualifying period should be a hard and fast requirement continuing decade after decade, but I am suggesting that during very bad economic times, when hundreds of thousands of Canadians are suffering, as they are today, the eight-week qualifying period should remain as it is. If, in three or four years' time, unemployment decreases considerably, we could take a second look at the qualifying period and extend it to 12 weeks or 14 weeks, whatever is reasonable having regard to the state of the economy.
As far as regional distinctions are concerned, I am not sure what the minister means by "regions". I do not know what the distinction is under the act. If you were to take Atlantic Canada as a region, it would be totally unfair because Cape Breton Island, for example, has a much higher unemployment rate than other parts of Nova Scotia or parts of New Brunswick. Even if you take Nova Scotia as a region, I would point out there is very little relationship between unemployment in the Halifax area and on Cape Breton Island. I wish the minister would explain just how he would set up regions in relation to the qualifying period. As a matter of fact, one could almost establish separate regions in the larger metropolitan cities. If a person lives in east Toronto and cannot get work there and has to go to west Toronto, he has to travel 17 to 20 miles. This regionalism is something which has to be more clearly defined before we vote for or against this bill. Those are my brief remarks about clauses 29 and 30 which are encompassed under my name in motion No. 8. They also include motion No. 10 which is related to the qualifying period of eight or more weeks.

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I should like to point out to hon. members the question is on motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), which will dispose of motions Nos. 7, 9 and 22. The question should be put separately on motion No. 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), and if required a division on motion No. 8 will also dispose of motion No. 10. A separate vote will be required on motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make one comment in respect of motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Further comments will have to be made with respect to the debate and the division of votes, but we are ready for the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
the Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question now is on motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The House will now move to motions Nos. 11 and 15.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 33 by striking out line 34 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) fifty-one weeks of benefit have been paid".


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved:: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this group of amendments which the minister has put forward is designed to vary the length of time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am starting to become a little confused, but of course hon. members will say there is nothing unusual about that.


An hon. Member:: Right on.
June 23, 1977


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I figured my socialist friends would jump in once I gave them the opportunity. I am prepared to go along with the debate as long as we arrive at a conclusion later on as to what will be the voting in terms of the package. That is somewhat tricky because motion No. 11 is in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), motion No. 15 is in the name of the hon. minister, motion No. 29 is in the name of the hon. minister, motion No. 30 is in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), and motion No. 32 is in the name of the hon. minister.
I am not asking for a ruling at this particular time, but a little later we should indicate that the vote on motion No. 11 would include motion No. 30, and the vote on motion No. 15 would include motions Nos. 29 and 32. In other words, my suggestion is that we must have two votes in order to clear this up. I am not asking for a ruling at this particular time; I am merely trying to get some indication of what is going on around here. The parliamentary secretary is smiling and nodding, so I think he understands, as he usually does.


An hon. Member:: The odd couple.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the hon. member say something but, as always, it was unintelligible. If he would care to stand up and help me out, I should appreciate it. I am not asking for a ruling at this time. That is the point I want to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: As was stated before, motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will require a separate vote. A separate vote will be held on motion No. 15, which will dispose of motions Nos. 15, 29, 30 and 32. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: It seems to me that is what we all understood when Your Honour made an announcement earlier this morning. I suppose some of us are sleepy after last night. As I was saying, the effect of the minister's amendments in motion No. 15 and the other motions standing in his name will be to vary the length of time which claimants will have to be in the work force in order to collect benefits.
At the outset, with respect to Bill C-27, we said the Unemployment Insurance Commission thrust upon the minister this idea of changing the entrance requirements to collect benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act and to vary the length of time in which a claimant would be able to collect benefits. It seems to us those are most inappropriate steps to take at this time when unemployment in this country has been running at 8 per cent. If one looks at the figures, one finds that we have had a consistently high rate of unemployment in Canada, compared with other technologically developed countries in the western world.
We have superimposed, at this time, changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which were based on a study entitled "The Comprehensive Review of the Unemployment Insurance
Employment and Immigration
Program in Canada". The minister's bureaucrats were quite proud of it and they insistently thrust upon the committee the fact that they had the basis for these decisions and recommendations, that they had the facts. Indeed, this replaced the Bible; it became the "word as revealed". But when we looked at it we found it was a review done by the department itself. I have been in education long enough, some 16 years-


Mr. Friesen:: Does it show?


John R. Rodriguez: I hope that the little bit of honesty which I learned in the classrooms and in administering a school comes through in the House, rather than the phony-baloney of hon. members to my right and those who sit across the aisle who really belong to the same club.


An hon. Member:: The Rideau Club?


John R. Rodriguez: No, the parliamentary club. One of the things I have learned, in terms of evaluating educational goals, is that one of the no-no's is never to ask educators to evaluate whether they have achieved their goals, because invariably they will tell you they always achieve their goals. Any evaluation should be done by an independent body, apart and aside from the very people who are given the responsibility for drafting legislation and making recommendations to the minister responsible with respect to the act which they will eventually administer. That seems to be the wrong way around.
I tell members of the House quite frankly that this comprehensive review was done in 1973-74, a period when the unemployment rate in Canada was much lower than it is now. We are experiencing approximately 8 per cent unemployment in this country. Do not forget that 8 per cent now is calculated according to the latest method that StatsCanada brought in some months ago. Back in January, StatsCanada changed its method of calculating the rate of unemployment and magnificently cut Newfoundland's rate in half overnight solely as a result of the way they calculated it. The period 1973-74 was prior to the StatsCanada changes.


An hon. Member:: You haven't got your facts right.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member comes from an area in New Brunswick where the unemployment rate is atrociously high, but he sits here making smart-assed remarks.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: All you do is
filibuster.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we did not hear the hon. member in committee. In the committee he was silent as the dodo, as silent and as extinct as the dodo. He had nothing to say about a piece of legislation that adversely affects his part of the country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Disgusting.


John R. Rodriguez: I wish he would get up in the House and make a speech with respect to this bill.

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You speak too much.


John R. Rodriguez: It is a shameful performance on the part of the hon. member, to sit in the back benches and make his snarky remarks. He is doing a disservice to his constituents.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Let my constituents decide that.


John R. Rodriguez: 1 will not, Mr. Speaker. I will not let the hon. member across the way make his snarky remarks without being identified. I think he deserves to be identified. The study was done in 1973-74 when the unemployment rate, comparatively speaking, was much much lower than it is today. Furthermore, when we asked in committee how the officials went about compiling their information, "Oh" said the deputy minister, "Oh, oh" said the deputy deputy minister, "Oh, oh, oh" said the deputy deputy deputy minister, and "Oh, oh, oh, oh" said the deputy deputy deputy deputy minister. They said, "Mr. Rodriguez, we have the in-house study, we have the outhouse study, we have the round-house study, we have the back-house study, we have the narrative reports, and we have the personal interviews".


An hon. Member:: You are a shame to the House.


John R. Rodriguez: We found out that some of those in-house studies and narrative reports came to some fascinating conclusions. For example, they told us there should be no trouble in Atlantic Canada for any person who wants to find eight weeks of work, no problem at all. Just listen to them say it. They say there are jobs that are scattered all the way from northern New Brunswick, the area of the hon. member across the way who has been throwing in his cheap little remarks-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You are the
expert on cheap remarks.


John R. Rodriguez: -up to Newfoundland. They say there are jobs floating around and that, with perhaps a few exceptions, there is no reason in the world why people could not find work. It was as if I were meeting with the St. John's board of trade all over again. So far as they were concerned, if you did away with the Unemployment Insurance Act they could get work for all those people in Newfoundland. For example, studies done by the Canada Manpower centres showed instances of potential claimants quitting their jobs at the peak of the season so as to qualify with the highest average insured earnings possible.
In addition, these Manpower centre studies said there are indications that a number of workers arrange to be laid off once qualified for UI benefits so that someone else may obtain eight weeks of insured employment. I made the comment the other day that these people discovered shared work long before the minister ever thought of putting it into effect. I suggest that members get hold of a copy of "Employment Patterns in the Atlantic Provinces". I intend to send a copy to every provincial member in the Atlantic region and in Newfoundland to show them what Manpower centres think is going on in

the maritime provinces. This is a shameful document, shameful in all the insinuations and innuendoes it makes about the work force in Atlantic Canada. I do not see the hon. member across the way standing on his hands and demanding clarification of these statements.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You are the
only one who stands on his hands when he wants to speak.


John R. Rodriguez: The one conclusion I come to is that the people who designed these studies and who spoke about them in committee have never been unemployed in their lives. They sit there with their $60,000 a year jobs and pontificate on the attitudes of the unfortunate Canadians who want to work and cannot find work in some parts of this country. We see a shameful display by the government when it uses the unemployed as scapegoats and as red herrings, as the former minister of manpower and immigration said. This is a red herring to try to distract people from realizing that this government has failed to deal decisively with unemployment. It is absolutely disgraceful that the minister can stand up in British Columbia and say to the Canadian people that they can look forward to high unemployment and high food prices for the next few years. Since when have admissions of failure become responses to the problems faced by this nation? This is the kind of travesty that is perpetrated by this government, and then it asks members of my party and parliament to participate in this hoax on the Canadian people.
Hon. colleagues to my right have fallen for this, stepped right in and broken their wrists patting themselves on the back, and taken credit for the stiffer requirements and the reduction of the benefit period. They say they have been pushing the government on this since 1971 and that if the government had listened, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Instead of tightening up the Unemployment Insurance Act, I think we should come up with more positive suggestions on creating employment so that every Canadian who wants to work can get a job. We cannot blame the official opposition for not creating jobs, because it has not been sitting on the government benches for years. The government which is proud to tell us that it has been the government for years has the divine power to rule, but I wish it would start using that power so we would not have one million people unemployed. That is the figure given to us by Statistics Canada, but that is not the hidden unemployment figure. When the task force of my party visited Atlantic Canada to discuss unemployment, we discovered that the real unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada is 15 per cent or 20 per cent higher than the figure given by Statistics Canada.
The government proposes to superimpose on the country some 54 regions. After many years, the government has suddenly discovered that there are regional differences in Canada. It took three weeks from the time it tabled Bill C-27 before government backbenchers started flapping and getting on the minister's back. Suddenly, the minister rushed in with a hastily contrived regional approach to unemployment insurance. If it
June 23, 1977

was a well thought-out and valid plan, why was it not introduced originally? According to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), he has always been telling the government to look for a regional approach. Suddenly, the government came into the committee hot and sweaty, and the minister made his big announcement. He rushed to the cameras saying that the government had discovered regional disparities and that it was implementing a program to take into account the differences in the regions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't take my name in vain.


John R. Rodriguez: I am not taking the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West in vain. If I did, I would expect thunder to clap and lightning to strike around this building, and I would be struck.


Mr. Paproski:: Stick to your script, Rodriguez.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member tells me to stick to my script. Well, what has the government done? It now says there will be 54 regions. In each region the unemployment rate, which is defined in this amendment, will determine the number of weeks a claimant will collect benefits.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: How stupid. The hon. member is flapping his wings. He thinks that is great stuff.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He was flapping his flippers.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, throw him a fish. Let me inform the minister and his nabobs, because obviously they did not think this thing through, that this is a very unbalanced program. It was just dashed together. The riding of Nickel Belt is about 150 miles north to south, and another 200 miles-


Benno Friesen: We will take it next time.


John R. Rodriguez: The Tories are deader than a dodo in Nickel Belt. Nickel Belt comes into region No. 21, but region No. 21 stretches all the way to Wawa. It includes Blind River, all of Nickel Belt and it goes over to Mattawa. The community of Killarney is 52 miles from the large industrial centre, Sudbury, where unemployment is low, but at certain times of the year the unemployment rate in Killarney is 60 per cent. However, when we consider the total over-all region, we find that we are brought down to the minimum number of weeks in terms of collecting benefits.
Because of the geographical nature of our country, we find that within regions there are pockets of unemployment which exceed national levels and which far exceed the regional levels which have been set by the minister for the number of weeks a person can collect benefits. I am sorry the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is not here with us today. Blind River suffers gravely and seriously because of unemployment. The rate of unemployment in Blind River is easily over 20 per cent. Also, one only has to consider the LIP grants and the Canada Works grants which have floated into that community, to
Employment and Immigration
realize the seriousness of the problem. The people there have been finagled by the Shouldices of Ontario and of this country. The shysters took every DREE grant and every Ontario Development Corporation grant they could get, and then pulled out and left the people without employment. They will be included in a particular region even though parts of that region may be suffering high unemployment. That is one of the fallacies of the amendments the minister has proposed. His amendments tamper with the present act which was incorporated in 1971.
I want to reiterate what the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) has said. We do not support unemployment insurance fund rip-offs. We have always supported a full employment approach in this country. We have always said that there ought to be jobs for those who want to work. Those who are incapable of working because of mental or physical disabilities should have programs which can look after them. The government is responsible for the economic health of the country, but we find that nothing positive or constructive is being done. We are told consistently by this government that we must wait for the cavalry bugles from south of the border before our economy will improve. The government must accept responsibility for the lack of action which has caused high unemployment in this country. Instead, all it does is tamper with the act.
As the hon. member for Brant said, we do not think the length of time a person can collect is carved in stone. We do not think the present period is appropriate. There are very few times that I find myself in agreement with the Canadian Mining Association, given the nature of my riding and our experience with that association. However, the Canadian Mining Association has said this is not the time to be tampering with the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to the number of weeks of attachment, nor with respect to the length of time a person can collect benefits. That association says the attention of the government ought to be focused on the creation of employment opportunities, and only then should the government make the changes to the act which it thinks are necessary.
The Economic Council of Canada had this to say about the unemployment insurance program:
We believe that most Canadians affected by unemployment are well served by the unemployment insurance system and use it honestly ... It would of course be possible to try to eliminate abuses by cutting certain categories of claimants or the duration of benefits or by extending the period of work before claimants could become eligible for benefits. But such recommendations could prove harmful to persons most exposed to periodic and genuinely by involuntary unemployment.
What did the bureaucrats at the Unemployment Insurance Commission do then? They waved them all aside, making them disappear with their in-house, outhouse, around the house, back-house studies. That is what they did with their own interviews and cheap counterfeit reports like the one called "Employment Patterns in the Atlantic Provinces." I suppose the information was obtained by telephone in the way benefit control officers obtain information on claimants by

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
telephone which results in a decision by an insurance officer to cut off benefits.
I see the hon. member for Parry Sound has come into the Elouse. He should join with me in this because for purposes of unemployment insurance benefits his riding will become part of region 21. I am sure he will have something to say.


An hon. Member:: Don't hold your breath.


John R. Rodriguez: Considering where he sits in the House, I will not. One of the facts we were able to obtain from the bureaucrats was that the average number of weeks of unemployment insurance benefits collected last year was 17. Looking at the provincial breakdown, we find a high correlation between those parts of Canada that are consistently plagued by high unemployment. In other words, that average tends to be exceeded in Newfoundland, Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec where we know already there are regional disparities and high unemployment. In effect, what the Economic Council of Canada said is backed up by statistical information based on those who collected benefits last year in the parts of Canada where records were kept. It seems to me the Economic Council of Canada has said that now is not the time to tamper with the Unemployment Insurance Act as it relates to participation time and the length of time benefits can be collected.
I have suggested a way in which the minister can properly administer the act to ensure that where people are ripping it off, proper controls can be imposed. We suggested that if certain groups were suspected of this, computers could be used to segregate them and subject them to benefit control. People could be referred to jobs. If a Manpower centre maintains that jobs are available in Atlantic Canada, then it should refer people to those jobs, and if they do not take them they should be cut off benefits. Surely, that is the message that comes out of this piece of garbage that was put before members of the committee. Surely, if jobs are available, people should be referred to them.
Now we are putting Humpty-Dumpty together again by putting UIC and Manpower together. It is claimed they had been working closely together before. But why did Manpower officers not refer the unemployed to jobs? If they refuse the jobs, then a report could be made, an investigation launched and a decision made with respect to benefits. But to say there are lots of jobs in Atlantic Canada, and that there is no reason why people cannot get eight weeks of work there, is irresponsible. I can see the picture-two groups of bureaucrats fighting for the minister's head and ear. If we were in Spain, they would get something else as well.
We have pointed out how these proposals will drastically affect parts of Canada where it is difficult to get employment. For example, at the moment, if a worker is on major attachment he must put in 20 weeks or more of work. Then after the twenty-first week there is a two-week waiting period before benefits start. This is to be changed and benefits will be paid after the twenty-sixth week and there will be one week of benefits for every week of work. Twenty weeks' work will produce 20 weeks of benefits. But if a worker qualifies in

terms of the national rate, he can draw benefits beyond that period, and after that may be transferred horizontally to the welfare program.
This is going to be discriminatory legislation, Mr. Speaker. I have had a great deal of experience with the unemployment insurance office in my riding and have discovered that those who honestly try to administer the act have difficulty because it is so complicated. Imagine what it will be like when 54 regions are imposed and the phasing-in period begins. I recall when the new act came into effect in 1971. By 1972 my office was handling 30 to 50 cases every day. We sent hundreds of cases to the central office for resolution of local administrative problems. The local officers were not at fault, because the act calls for many subjective decisions and there are no clear guidelines.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his allotted time has expired. Is there consent for him to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know whether the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) received an answer to his question, but there has been some discussion and I believe there is general agreement that a vote on motion No. 15 would deal with motions Nos. 15,
29	and 32, and a vote on motion No. 11 would deal with No.
30	as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is understood and accepted by all hon. members that a vote on motion No. 11 would also dispose of motion No. 30, and a vote on motion No. 15 would also dispose of motions Nos. 20 and 32. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express to the minister my dismay at the approach he is taking to reduce the number of benefits payable under the unemployment insurance scheme. I always find it difficult to understand why the department advances the theory that if we reduce payable benefits the unemployed somehow will be encouraged to seek work. Would it not be more logical, considering this country's high unemployment levels, levels which persist in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, parts of northern Ontario and elsewhere year after year, to determine first if the jobs are actually available? We should do this first before arguing that you need to tighten the unemployment insurance scheme, reduce benefits and thus give people greater incentive to look for work.
No matter how much you tighten the unemployment insurance plan, if the jobs are not there, people cannot work. I
June 23, 1977

cannot fathom the reasoning behind these amendments which on the face of it are based on the assumption that jobs are available but people are not looking for them. In this country today one million are unemployed. If you include those not included in our official statistics, the figure is closer to 1.5 million. And how many job vacancies do we have in this country? According to the last figures, about 58,000. Therefore, we have one million unemployed and not quite 60,000 job vacancies.
More often than not, existing job vacancies are not available in the areas of highest unemployment. Consequently, the man who lives in Newfoundland, say, is told that because no jobs are available in Newfoundland he should move to Toronto or some other area where jobs are available. The Department of Manpower provides a mobility grant for helping people to move. When you ask a man to move, you ask him to make an onerous decision. He must decide, if he cannot find a job in Newfoundland and does not want to be disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits, to uproot his family, sell his house, if he has one, and move to Toronto or some other large centre for a job for which he may be qualified.
Let us say he does that. What could happen to him? Sure, he can find a job in Toronto or some large centre where there are more opportunities for employment. It could last a few months. The ebb and flow of the economic cycle creates fluctuations in employment levels even in our major centres, and the man who moves may find that because he was the last to join the plant or firm, he is the first to be laid off. He has given up his house in Newfoundland, probably mortgaged himself to the hilt to acquire accommodation in Toronto, and after working a few months finds himself laid off. I say this by way of illustrating that it is totally impractical to suggest that because there are some 60,000 job vacancies in Canada people should move from one end of the country to the other to fill them. The risks are too great.
The majority of people on unemployment insurance do not have long job experience, job skills or a high level of education. Many of them do seasonal work or unskilled work. Their ability to compete on the labour market is severely restricted. Even if they have the wherewithal to move to areas with job vacancies, because they are inadequately educated and trained the cards are stacked against them when they try to compete for jobs. The minister's proposal for tightening the unemployment insurance scheme, his proposal for reducing the benefits paid, will not, I predict, lead in any measurable way to the filling of existing job vacancies in this country. If we could by some magic fill the 60,000-odd job vacancies, we would still be left with more than one million unemployed. Surely, the minister's approach is wrong.
No doubt the minister will argue that if we cut back the number who qualify for unemployment insurance, we will release money for job-creation programs and for training the unemployed in skills which will enable them to find jobs. There is no logic to that argument. The amendments we are considering will deprive at least 100,000 unemployed of between one and 12 weeks of benefits, and the minister calls this a saving.
Employment and Immigration
In other words, the money which will not be paid to the unemployed will be used to create jobs for those same unemployed and many hundred thousand other unemployed. That is muddled thinking. We cannot save money by taking it out of unemployment insurance and using it for some kind of job training program.
I suggest there will be little relationship between the amount of money saved and the job training programs the government will bring forward. Indeed, one wonders what will happen to those individuals who will no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. What would have happened if some of this bill's provisions had been implemented last year? If some 300,000 people had been cut off unemployment insurance benefits, the government would have saved probably between $150,000 and $250,000. In other words, it would have deprived the unemployed of around $200,000 in benefits and used the money paid to create jobs for other unemployed. It is like taking one step forward and two back.
It is nothing but a lot of administrative gobbledygook which will not solve the problem, but which makes it look as if the government is doing something constructive. In other words, the government is reacting to the arguments of editorial writers and others who perpetuate the myth that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs out there if only the people would take them, and that the unemployment insurance scheme stops people taking those jobs or discourages them from working. The reality is the opposite; cutting more people off unemployment insurance will be a false saving. It will not work. There is something else I have to keep repeating. The minister will not argue the point; I do not think he has an argument. However, it is important that it be on the record and that the public understand.
The minister has been advancing the phony argument that the reason behind these amendments is that those who will be disqualified will be mostly young people and women who are not serious job-seekers. They are only there to gain a supplemental income; they can still rely on the head of the family to keep body and soul together; their kind of work is not that essential to the economy, and therefore if they become unemployed they should not be allowed to collect unemployment insurance. Let us again look at the statistics. I use the government's own sources. In June last year, a month when many students were on the job market looking for jobs, and unemployed in large numbers, we find that only 12.5 per cent of unemployment insurance recipients were young people under 20 years of age.
The myth that somehow the large proportion of unemployment insurance benefits is going to youngsters who are not really serious about working for any length of time, merely wanting to work a bit to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and representing a huge percentage of the drain on the unemployment insurance fund, is false. The other argument the minister keeps making is that a great proportion of recipients are women who really do not need the second job

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
and, therefore, really should not qualify for benefits if they become unemployed. According to last year's figures, 41.7 per cent of recipients of unemployment insurance were adult women, and 45.8 per cent were adult men. When we look at the women who were receiving benefits, we see that the argument that they do not need these benefits is false.
In August of last year, Statistics Canada published a study of unemployment in 1973 and 1971. They found that in both years unemployed wives tended to come from families with low incomes. In other words, the wife had to go to work in order that the family could meet its mortgage or rent payments and pay for such items as fuel which has escalated in cost dramatically over the past few years. I understand that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) will today announce another $2 a barrel increase in the price of fuel oil to be phased-in on July 1 and January 1. This will mean anywhere from $25 to $50 will be added to fuel bills over the next few winters.
It is predicted that the cost of food will go up, and that general inflation will continue to rise. Is it any wonder that many wives have to go out and work in order to pay for the essentials of life such as food, shelter and clothing? They are not frivolous attachments to the work force. They are not there just to earn a few extra bucks in order to buy a coloured TV or a snow machine. They are earning essential income for the family. To say they can be disposed of, that it is all right to cut them off unemployment insurance if they become unemployed, is a cruel and callous attitude on the part of the minister and the government toward the hundreds of thousands of dependants of those women and their spouses.
When we look at the statistics compiled by the government's own agency, we find that in 1973 the unemployment rate for all wives was 13.5 per cent, for those from families with incomes between $4,000 and $6,999, 21.4 per cent, and for those from families with incomes over $15,000 a year the unemployment rate was 8.6 per cent. This proves that unemployed wives who are collecting unemployment insurance come from low income families. They are trying to get work. It usually winds up that they get seasonal employment. They are laid off first because they do not have professional training. I am not speaking of those who are nurses, legal secretaries, and so on. I am speaking of the cleaning women in hotels and other establishments, clerks in department stores, and similar jobs. That is a very insecure kind of employment. These are the ones who are laid off and become unemployed. They are the ones who need the income for their families. However, they are the ones this minister wants to disqualify from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for a few weeks, based on the time they have worked.
In light of a worsening employment situation which the minister and the government are predicting, and increasing costs which economists are predicting, to pursue this line of action will create all kinds of hardship. It will come back to haunt this government. The government thinks it can run the next election campaign solely on the issue of national unity. I say now that they are in for a rude shock. If this bill and these

amendments pass, it will disqualify more people and reduce their unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore, unemployment will hurt Canadians much more than it has over the past few years. This minister will be held responsible to all the Senator Daveys and others for contributing to a reduction in the number of Liberal members who come back to this House after the next election.
The government advances the argument that they need to bring in these various amendments and cut back the benefits because the unemployment insurance fund is breaking the government. They say it is becoming so costly that they cannot fund it any more. Therefore, they have to reduce the number of people on the roles. Let us look at the figures to see whether that kind of argument holds up. In 1975, when unemployment stood at 7.1 per cent, the unemployment insurance account produced a surplus of $321 million after pay-outs of $3.1 billion in benefits. This year, of course, the government has reduced its share of the cost of unemployment insurance from 54 per cent to 38 per cent, thanks to Bill C-69.
We find that the government really will not be suffering. It announced it was suspending the anticipated increase in employee-employer premiums that was set to go into effect on January 1, 1977, with a saving of $250 million to contributors. What was the reason given for the suspension? It was that the money will not be needed, even though unemployment will be as high as it has been in previous times. They know that when they pass this legislation the benefits will be reduced. The reasoning of the government just boggles the mind. It fails to get down to the business of creating jobs. It finds it easier to tinker with the unemployment insurance system and hurt those least able to defend themselves, the unemployed workers in this country. I consider that to be a backward and disastrous move.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I have only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make a few brief comments. I hope the minister is listening. It seems to me that some of the most desperate people in the country today are those who have been laid off and are in their fifties or early sixties and may be physically disabled to some extent. I have in mind people who have worked for small companies which do not have sickness or accident benefit schemes or pre-retirement security measures.
Would the minister care to comment on the feasibility of placing such persons, male or female, in a special category within the act so they would not be subjected to the same harsh rules that are applicable to younger workers? I am speaking, now, of men and women who are beyond retraining because of their age, people who are marginally skilled, or unskilled. They may, for example, be suffering from high blood pressure or heart trouble and consequently could not pass a health test or fit into a group insurance plan even if jobs were available to them. Many of them have become welfare cases, which is extremely downgrading for them as individuals.
June 23, 1977

They have largely given up looking for work. Some of them suffer, for instance, from epilepsy.
When they are laid off, possibly after working 15 or 20 years in a factory, they find it extremely difficult to get new employment. The moment they mention they are epileptic, no work is available to them. These people, like the others I have mentioned, are usually in their fifties or early sixties. I hope the minister will undertake some kind of study as soon as possible to determine whether they cannot be placed in a separate category with respect to the qualifying period or the benefit period. Their position gives rise to some of the saddest stories members hear in their constituency offices Saturday after Saturday. Of course, when people are totally disabled, other avenues of assistance are available to them.
I am hoping we can bring some humanity back into the act by adopting constructive measures of the kind I have suggested. I trust the minister will make a comment, a response or, if necessary from his point of view, a rebuttal of what I have said, because it is important that in bad economic times such as these the plight of these forgotten people should be considered by the department and by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. At the present time they are being badly pushed around. I blame the Unemployment Insurance Commission. 1 do not know whether they are acting deliberately or not. In any event, the people to whom I have referred are finding things extremely difficult. They are sloughed off from unemployment insurance benefits after 20 weeks and then find they must resort to welfare.
I emphasize that they are not receiving compensation or other benefits from retirement or pre-retirement plans. Changes in the act along the lines I have put forward would make these people feel they are still part of the community and are not being neglected after working so many years and contributing to the fund. I hope the minister will take my suggestion seriously when he replies. May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I want to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the revelation during parliamentary debate on the police break-in
Statutory Holidays
at L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec of a new and sinister concept of ministerial responsibility, which is in contradiction with most authorities on the subject of cabinet government and which may dangerously erode the operation of our parliamentary system as we know it. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House deplores the attempt by this government to dilute the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, and calls upon the Prime Minister, at the earliest opportunity, to reaffirm the principle that ministers are responsible to this parliament for the actions of their subordinates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation for debate of any such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SAINT-JEAN BAPTISTE DAY CONGRATULATIONS TO FRENCH CANADIANS-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43 which I genuinely believe will receive the unanimous support of the House.

Considering that a week before the festivities related to Confederation one of the founding cultures of the country celebrates its Saint-Jean Baptiste Day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House wish a happy celebration to all French Canadians of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43,
I already refused in the past to put such motions concerning congratulations or messages because I feel it is dangerous to encourage the presentation of such motions pursuant to Standing Order 43.


STATUTORY HOLIDAYS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In order to encourage the unity of our two founding cultures on this eve of the celebration of Saint-Jean Baptiste Day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia):

June 23, 1977
Montreal Break-In
That this House recognize the desirability that Bill C-30, an act respecting certain holidays, complete all stages in both Houses of parliament during the course of next week so that all Canadians can celebrate with pride and joy our country's July 1 birthday as Canada Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With regard to the message of congratulations or felicitation which was just proposed, this is a motion which relates to some legislative measure. On many occasions in the past, the attempts to use Standing Order 43 to congratulate or express good wishes to a particular group have been resisted by me, because it is not dangerous to encourage such motions or such messages but it is dangerous to encourage the use of Standing Order 43 for the expression of such messages. Therefore, frequently in the past I have failed to put those questions, whether they be in the form of congratulations to one particular community, one particular group in the country, a large group, an entire province or a very important segment of the population. I simply do not think we should follow the practice of making, by way of a motion under Standing Order 43, expressions of some sort of salutation. I do not think that is an urgent matter of pressing necessity as contained in the rules. In this instance the message goes on beyond that and it deals with legislative measures. Therefore, I will indicate that it can only be presented to the House with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the statement last night by the Minister of Supply and Services that he thinks there is a possibility that the Quebec inquiry by the Parti Quebecois government into the circumstances surrounding the break-in at L'Agence de Presse Libre might turn into a political endeavour. This statement appears to contrast with the Prime Minister's assurance to the House that the government of Quebec "would make very sure... that the facts are brought to light". In view of the obvious concern of the Minister of Supply and Services about which particular facts are brought to light, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick):
That this House supports the establishment of a federal independent judicial inquiry into the APLQ affair and further directs that there be full government co-operation with the inquiry and, in addition, insists that the Minister of Supply and Services appear before the inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
[Mr. Herbert.}


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DOMINION DAY
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I raise my question under Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. Considering the extreme haste with which preparations for the Dominion Day party must proceed because of the last minute decision to hold one at all, and because of the great expense of advertising necessary to resuscitate an event that only last year was allowed to lapse, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That this House go on record as favouring an annual celebration on July 1, but that at least 50 per cent of the total annual budget allotted the event in future be distributed to those communities across the country which are also celebrating the event, and that the percentage of the budget to be allotted to television advertising be not more than half of one per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation pursuant to Standing Order 43 of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral question period.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: 1 have a motion under Standing Order 43-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert rises to indicate that it was his intention to present a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. I learned that only at the conclusion of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay at which time it was 2.15. Our Standing Orders clearly indicate that at 2.15 p.m., regardless of outstanding applications under Standing Order 43, the question period shall commence. I have no choice.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the right hon. member at three o'clock.
June 23, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, without reflecting at all on the Chair, I would make a point that there would be a greater opportunity for more motions to be moved under Standing Order 43 before the expiry of time, if ministers were in their place at two o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is to the Acting Prime Minister, and it arises from statements made by the Prime Minister and other ministers this past week which indicate that this government does not accept the traditional concept of ministerial responsibility by which civil servants have a responsibility to execute cabinet policies and by which ministers have a responsibility in turn for the actions of their subordinates. Will the Acting Prime Minister give us an undertaking now that the Prime Minister will make a clear and comprehensive statement in this House in the very near future of the views of this government with respect to ministerial responsibility?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government policy concerning ministerial responsibility is well known. It was often demonstrated in the House during discussions like those we had this week, and in all circumstances, we admit that ministers are responsible for their administration and, as I said, the House of Commons knows perfectly well the procedure adopted in the past.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the concept of ministerial responsibility of this government is to blame its public servants for things that go wrong and to take every opportunity that is available to avoid knowing about matters which might cause embarrassment later on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to deal now with one of the questions on which there has been a clear indication of ministerial irresponsibility, and that relates to the actions of a former solicitor general, now the Minister of Supply and Services. This question is directed to his successor, the present Solicitor General. In view of revelations this morning in the press to the effect that the RCMP break-in to the offices of L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec was an anti-terrorist measure designed to
Oral Questions
avert a possible aircraft hijacking, can the Solicitor General tell the House if this was a reason for the raid, and can he also inform the House if this matter was brought to the attention of the former solicitor general, now the Minister of Supply and Services? The Minister of Supply and Services has claimed he had been briefed on several occasions prior to the break-in by the RCMP with respect to the activities of L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, and he stated also that his ministerial responsibilities included constant-and I emphasize constant-supervision of national security affairs.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I must tell him, naturally, just as the then solicitor general told the House, that he was not aware of the police raid before it took place. The first part of the question concerns whether or not he had authorized the raid. The second part of the question seeks to establish whether the then solicitor general was aware of the activities or rather the police information concerning the possibility of terrorist activities. I already told the House very clearly during the question period last Friday that it goes without saying that from time to time the then solicitor general received information on possible terrorist activities in the Montreal area and, I presume, other parts of the country as well. It is also obvious, Mr. Speaker, on reading the file on that period, that members of the RCMP, and possibly two other police forces were involved, because, as some hon. members seem to forget, there was at that time a joint anti-terrorist team; only two years had elapsed since the October 1970 events. The members of that team, Mr. Speaker, according to the reports I have been given, felt there were indications that perhaps to commemorate the death-I should say the murder-of Pierre Laporte in 1970, other acts of terrorism could take place.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to solicit from the Solicitor General-and he might have to consult with his colleague, unless his colleague makes another statement on a question of privilege-whether the former solicitor general of Canada had been briefed regarding the possibility of people associated with the office of L'Agence de Presse Libre being involved in an aircraft hijacking, and whether there had been any suggestion to the then solicitor general prior to the break-in that there would be potential involvement by people in that agency with that kind of terrorist activity or with other kinds of terrorist activities.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, of course I would have to go through each file with a fine tooth comb. Mr. Speaker, I think the only relevant question is not to know what the police said to the government at that time, but whether or not the minister or any members of the RCMP were aware of the raid and if they had authorized an investigation of an illegal nature. Mr. Speaker, we did answer repeatedly in the House that nobody at the ministerial

June 23, 1977
Oral Questions
level, or at police headquarters in Ottawa, including the commanding officer of Division "C", were aware before the raid that the proposed operation was of an illegal nature. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, as the then solicitor general pointed out, no authorization to proceed with an illegal investigation would have been granted. As for us, we believe that any police operations, whatever their purposes and whatever the reasons for them, should comply with the law. That is why, Mr. Speaker, in 1974 this government introduced in Parliament another bill on wiretapping which aimed precisely at obtaining additional control over police forces activities, on the criminal side where permission must now be secured to proceed with wiretapping, and also on the security service side where permission of the Solicitor General is now required under the law approved by Parliament.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question. The question here is what the then Solicitor General knew before the raid that should have led him to ask questions of officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that he did not ask. That is the question. Since the Minister of Supply arfd Services has affirmed in this House that he was briefed extensively on activities of groups relating to matters prior to the raid we want to know what he was briefed about. That speaks directly to the kind of questions a responsible minister would have asked of his officials. We want to know whether he was briefed prior to that raid and if it was suggested to him that there might have been terrorist activities including a possible hijacking or activities of that scope. Did he know of those things prior to the raid?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think that the relevant question is whether or not an illegal raid has taken place and who was aware of this raid. Mr. Speaker, the point the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants me to uphold and argue is that files concerning the security of the state should be disclosed to the public. I am not prepared to do that. The relevant question, Mr. Speaker, is to know whether or not the minister involved, the then solicitor general, had authorized in any way such an illegal raid, and I have already answered on this point, Mr. Speaker, throughout the statement I made in the House. As for the minister, he himself made a statement in the House, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members had the opportunity to question him during a long period, on Monday or Tuesday. If they did not take advantage of it, it was their right to do so.
Concerning the precise question of the Leader of the Opposition, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, it has been clearly established in the minister's statement as well as in his answers to the questions of opposition members in the House that he had never allowed any illegal raid; so, Mr. Speaker, the clear and strict rule of the government is never to allow any illegal practice by anybody.


BREAK-IN AT PRAXIS CORPORATION AND BLACKLISTING OF PUBLIC SERVANTS-REASON FOR FAILURE TO IDENTIFY S. H. SCHULTZ
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is one that does deserve an answer from the Solicitor General and it is directed to him. It refers to a question I asked yesterday regarding an official in the Solicitor General's office who allegedly may have been involved in the EPO affair of 1971. The Solicitor General answered that he could not identify a person by the name of S. H. Schultz who would have been in the Solicitor General's office at that time. I have here page 253 of the official government phone book and that name appears under the heading of the deputy minister's office-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question to put to the Solicitor General?


Frank Oberle: I should like to ask why it would have been so difficult for the minister to identify this person who was an executive assistant to the deputy minister in 1974? Why would it have been so difficult to identify this man, and why did he give me an evasive answer yesterday?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I object strenuously to the type of language the hon. member is using. I had a letter delivered to his office this morning which gives full information on that question. But the hon. member wishes again to raise names in the House of Commons, to cast aspersions and make allegations against certain people. I never mentioned a name in this House, but said I was willing to investigate and see exactly if that individual was in the office of the Solicitor General. I have ascertained the information which the hon. member has asked of me. I had delivered to him today-perhaps it has not arrived yet, but I understand it was delivered to his office before the question period-information of that nature and, as I indicated in the letter I sent the hon. member, all this information has now been made available to the Attorney General of Ontario for his consideration and necessary action.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the minister admitted in the secret letter he sent me just before the question period-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: -that he indeed can read the telephone book and read this man's name in there. The question is, has he asked the senior official in his department as to his previous career and what his involvement was in 1971 with the EPO affair?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, personally, I think it is extraordinary that we should now put people on trial in the House of Commons on those allegations.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: We need an inquiry.
June 23, 1977


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I went out of my way during the course of my answer yesterday not to divulge any names publicly, because accusations of this nature have a tendency to tarnish reputations.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Tell Goyer that. Don't lecture us, tell Goyer.


Mr. Basford:: Just listen to that party opposite which keeps yapping about the Bill of Rights.


Mr. Fairweather:: What about Rudnicki?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the opposition believes I should conduct an investigation in public on the floor of the House of Commons.


Mr. Hees:: We want you to tell the truth.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as you know, a number of allegations have been made by hon. members opposite in the past few months, many of which turned out to be completely unfounded. I am not going to bandy around the name of a dedicated Canadian who has spent a good part of his life in the service of his country, just to satisfy the prurient interest of the hon. member opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why don't you say that to Goyer?


Frank Oberle: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The person whose name I just mentioned was preceded in his position by Inspector Cobb and Lieutenant Colonel Bourne, all of whom are seriously implicated in this whole affair. The minister has had this name for four days and has not even investigated or questioned his own official in this regard. We have word now from the RCMP that they are seeking themselves-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: -that they are seeking themselves or looking into-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY SUPERINTENDENT NOLAN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. Following the revelation last year by Corporal Robert Samson that the RCMP had taken part in the illegal break-in, the then Solicitor General on March 31 said in the House that an investigation into the break-in was under way. That was followed, on June 15, by the assurance given in the House by the then
Oral Questions
parliamentary secretary, who reported that the investigation into the break-in had been completed. Last Friday outside the House the present Solicitor General said this investigation had been undertaken by Superintendent Nolan. Could the minister confirm in the House what he said outside last week?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said also in the House during the course of questions on Friday that the information I received from the force was that Superintendent Nolan was delegated by the Commissioner to conduct an investigation into the matter. Given the fact that Mr. Cobb was involved in the investigation, Superintendent Nolan saw him and asked him to prepare, as I understand it, a resume of the operation.


John Edward Broadbent: According to a report in today's Vancouver Sun based on an interview with Chief Superintendent Cobb, Chief Superintendent Cobb now denies that an investigation ever took place. He says specifically that no investigation was made by him, by Superintendent Nolan or apparently by anyone else. I quote from what he says in today's paper:
It was the press that indicated that an investigation was being made. In actual fact what I received was a request to report to the best of my knowledge what occurred.
The House has been left with the impression from the last year's statements made by a variety of Solicitors General and the Prime Minister that this matter was thoroughly investigated. We now have it from Mr. Cobb that there was no investigation. Indeed, we have his word that he, the person who authorized the raid in the first place, was asked to prepare a report on the raid. The person who authorized the raid has denied that there was an investigation. Will the minister clarify for the House whether an investigation was actually made at that time or simply a report prepared by the man who himself authorized the raid?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the individual who authorized the raid was subsequently brought before the court, along with the other two officers of the other two police forces, and was asked for all the information he had in his possession concerning the raid. My understanding is that this was done at the request of the force and Superintendent Nolan was charged with that operation. 1 do not know whether the House wishes to call that an investigation or a question of terminology. I would think it is a question of terminology. The hon. member is overlooking the important fact that from that point on there was continued and full co-operation between the force and the attorney general of the province of Quebec, that the Commissioner of the force indicated he was meeting with the investigator of the Quebec attorney general's department to give him any information requested by the attorney general of the province of Quebec. To my mind, that is complete and full co-operation. At no point during the subsequent hearings has there been any criticism by the attorney general of the province of Quebec, the prosecutor or the courts to the effect that any information did not come forward from the force as and when requested.

June 23, 1977
Oral Questions


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-DATE MINISTER KNEW FORCE WITHHELD INFORMATION
John Edward Broadbent: We have been left with the impression for the past couple of days that the investigation that was so described last year led to the government knowing at that time that the then Commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Higgitt, had withheld information from the then Solicitor General, the present Minister of Supply and Services. Therefore, the whole question of account ability of the RCMP to the political authority and the problem that existed was known last year. It appeared that the government was unaware of the problem last March. When did the present Solicitor General learn of the withholding of information? Considering the implications of a lot of the uncertainty that arises out of the particular case as to whether an investigation was done, does the Solicitor General now agree that we need a public inquiry into the whole affair?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is once again confusing two things. A public inquiry as he has suggested interfaced between the Department of the Solicitor General and the force could quite properly be within the jurisdiction of the federal government. As to the other part concerning coverups or criminal activities, either during the course of the break-in or following, we have indicated a number of times in the course of the past week it is a matter that ought to be looked at by the appropriate provincial attorney general.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: 
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister is also giving a conventional answer to the effect that this has never been done elsewhere. Why should it be done in Canada? However, as recently as yesterday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that Canada was introducing a new policy that had never been implemented elsewhere.
I would like the minister to answer my question and ask the advice of his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare to find a new and less burdensome formula for the provinces. I understand that those loans are for a 50-year period, but they become costly when the provinces are compelled to pay them five times over. Does the minister agree about that?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is working toward a noble purpose when he suggests a new formula. However, instead of encouraging the provinces it might be advisable to encourage the residents of the provinces and in that respect the hon. member could perhaps ask the Quebec government to sign an agreement under section 44(1 )b) of the National Housing Act which would allow the payment of a rent subsidy not intended for the province as such but rather for the poorer citizens who have lower incomes in Quebec, so that some accommodation at decent rents is made available to them through federal subsidy.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question in relation to the position of Senator Keith Davey, the chief Liberal organizer and confidant of the Prime Minister. It has been confirmed by Senator Davey in connection with his interest in Blue Water Racing Associates Ltd. that he provided assistance and licensing and that he involved himself in representations to government which consisted of setting up meetings with Department of Agriculture officials. More recently, Senator Davey has acknowledged his involvement as a director of Hydroculture Luwasa, a privately-owned company which does business with the federal government. May I ask the Minister of Justice whether he does not feel that these different activities of Senator Davey could result in a possible conflict of interest?
June 23, 1977


Stanley Ronald Basford: This matter has been raised in the House a number of times and I must admit 1 am not personally familiar with it. 1 understand the Senator has made a statement with regard to it in the other place and I should like to read that statement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I might point out that the statement bore striking resemblance to the statement made some time ago by Senator Giguere. I know the minister will read it and make his own interpretation. In a confidential letter dated October 18, 1976, written by the Prime Minister to the President of the Privy Council the Prime Minister included an appendix which laid out principles governing the activities of holders of public office. One of those principles, as stated in appendix one, reads as follows:
Current and former holders of public office must ensure by their actions that the objectivity and impartiality of government service are not cast in doubt and that the people of Canada are given no cause to believe that preferential treatment is being accorded or will be duly accorded to any person or organization.
Does the Minister of Justice not feel that the fact reported that Senator Davey had set up meetings with Mr. Syd Pratt, the director of parimutuel betting and the federal Department of Agriculture and had also set up other meetings in the department contradicts the principle laid down by the Prime Minister in his letter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I find the innuendo contained in the beginning of the hon. member's question totally reprehensible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: For a party which does so much prattling about the Bill of Rights, which provides for due process, they are the largest group in the country which consciously every day in this House disobeys and ignores the basic tenets of the Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: With regard to the latter part of the question, as 1 indicated earlier, 1 should like to read the Senator's statement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister of Justice need not lecture the House in view of the government's failure to provide any sort of inquiry and its ability to stonewall every important issue we have brought up. I think that as a member of parliament 1 have the right to ask these questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On two occasions ministers have stressed that the Senator made no money on the Blue Water Racing venture and, to date, the amount of Hydroculture Luwasa's business with the government has been relatively small. Without offending the minister's sensibility, might 1 ask him this question: Could he tell the House whether we can take it to be
Oral Questions
the policy of the government that failure to reap large rewards from potential conflict is somehow a defence against the charge of conflict of interest?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: In the absence of the Prime Minister I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of Justice, one which also concerns Senator Keith Davey, Liberal Party campaign director, advisor, and close confidant of the Prime Minister. Has the minister undertaken, or will he undertake, to investigate whether or not Senator Keith Davey has violated section 110 of the Criminal Code of Canada which provides a maximum jail sentence of five years for those who use influence for private benefit on behalf of themselves or of their associates in connection with commercial enterprises?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, and 1 will not do so until first reading the statement made in the other place to see whether such action is warranted.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Will the minister advise the House whether he has received from the RCMP or from the Solicitor General who from time to time seems to accept responsibility for the RCMP, any indication or recommendation that an investigation should be made of any of the activities of Senator Davey and, particularly, whether or not charges should be laid under section 110 or under any other section of the Criminal Code?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it has been clear in this House for many years that neither the Minister of Justice nor the Solicitor General ever indicated at any time who may or may not be under investigation. That is the essence of the protection of innocent persons. However, in this case, because of the innuendos which have been spread around, 1 will answer the question and say, no.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: 1 should like to direct a final supplementary to the Solicitor General. Would the hon. gentleman tell us whether he has had any communication of any kind on this subject with the RCMP, whether or not he has dealt with the Minister of Justice at any time on this same subject and, finally, whether as a result of any investigation which has been completed or which is in process he is considering recommending to the Minister of Justice that charges be laid against Senator Davey?


Francis Fox: The question is exactly the same as that addressed to the Minister of Justice and the answer is exactly the same as the Minister of Justice gave. The answer is, no.
7036

June 23, 1977
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. On several occasions in the last two months I attempted to get an answer in the House. Would the minister say whether the government has adopted or is considering adopting, as a new policy or practice, to re-examine or unduly delay the CRTC's decisions. I am referring more precisely to the CRTC's decision of last April to authorize the transfer of shares of CJBR-TV, of Rimouski, and CJBR-TVA of Edmundston to the CBC. My constituents would very much like to know what is happening and how much longer they will have to wait for the implementation of a French network in New Brunswick?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the government certainly has no intention of adopting a policy to reverse the CRTC's decisions. The one the hon. member is referring to has been taken a few months ago. It is an authorization to purchase the television station at Rimouski. The CBC is now called upon to take action in the light of this decision. In any event, this question should perhaps be addressed to the Secretary of State.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In the course of a statement on privilege made in the other place on Monday, Senator Davey indicated he was a director of Hydroculture Luwasa, a privately-owned Canadian company which grows plants without soil-I presume the rainmaker knows what he is doing-and that his company had done approximately $1,000 worth of business with the federal government. I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware that Senator Davey was a director of Hydroculture Luwasa at the time the contract was awarded.
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not even know if that contract has been granted by my department and anyway I was absolutely not aware that the senator was one of the directors of that company.


Robert Carman Coates: I should like, first of all, to ask the minister to bring himself up to date as to the activities of his department so that we might be aware of what is going on. Inasmuch as the statement of privilege was made earlier this week, the hon.

gentleman could have made himself aware of the situation. Since Hydroculture Luwasa has recently opened an Ottawa location in anticipation of securing a substantial contract from the hon. gentleman's department I should like to ask him whether he will determine whether such a contract has already been awarded to this company or whether negotiations are going on with officials of his department at the present time in connection with such a contract.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually condemn a company beforehand without knowing the facts, and in this case I shall certainly inquire. I am not aware of any negotiation in my department with this company, but I shall inquire.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct my question to the Solicitor General. Maclean's magazine of July, 1972 carried very extensive allegations by Corporal Jack Ramsay concerning illegal break-in at that particular time. Subsequently this House debated that question for almost a week and the right hon. member for Prince Albert called in 1972 for a royal commission to examine the allegations of Corporal Jack Ramsay. The minister indicated in his statement that illegal break-in is a rare and exceptional occurrence. Now that he has had a chance to study the matter, can he report to the House what was the investigation that his predecessor carried out in respect to those allegations made by Corporal Jack Ramsay in that Maclean's edition in 1972?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the Maclean's edition has just barely hit the streets, that it has just barely been published.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: This was back in 1972.


Francis Fox: I thought the hon. member was talking about a very recent issue. If the hon. member's question does indeed refer to a magazine article printed in 1972, surely he does not expect me today to have gone over the files for 1972. At the moment we on this side of the House are trying to help the RCMP provide the type of security service that this nation deserves, the type of protection against criminal activity that Canadians deserve. I will, of course, examine the question which has been raised by the hon. member, but I do not believe he should expect me to be able to give him an answer today on what happened in every case in 1972.
June 23, 1977


PLACING OF BOMB BY CONSTABLE SAMSON-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister well knows, the question directed to him was whether an investigation took place concerning those very serious charges by his predecessor, the present Minister of Supply and Services. That is very apropos of what we are dealing with in the House today in view of the minister's statement that these things are rare and almost never happen. My supplementary question is this. Officer Samson was convicted of illegally placing a bomb, a very serious charge. 1 am sure that the Solicitor General or his predecessor has now had ample opportunity to study that case because that is what initiated the investigation into the break-in. My question is this. Who was it in the RCMP, if anybody, who authorized that activity by Samson? Was he acting as an individual, and has the Solicitor General completed an inquiry into that particular terrorist act?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, what I indicated in my statement was that the government was assured by the commissioner of the RCMP that the incident with L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec was indeed an exceptional and isolated incident. As to the incident referred to by the hon. member concerning Samson, that matter was handled exclusively in the courts by the attorney general of the province of Quebec. The individual was brought to trial and 1 believe that the transcript of the trial would provide answers for the hon. member. It is quite possible that nobody has ever found out who authorized it. What is quite clear and certain is that the whole matter was investigated by the attorney general of the province of Quebec and the matter brought to trial. I am not too sure how many investigations hon. members would like to see carried out.


BILINGUALISM
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State of which notice has been given. On page 70 of the document "A National Understanding" there is the statement: "The federal government accepts that circumstances may make necessary deferment of the application of this important principle". 1 want to ask the minister what the principle is. Will he clarify the policy implications of the statement so that the objective of ensuring equal rights and dignity for the French and English communities in Canada can be realized? I think the minister will agree there is some unrest about the implications of this statement.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the hon. gentleman and I am therefore grateful to have the chance to answer the question. There has indeed been some confusion which appears to have been caused by this paragraph. Some have even interpreted the official language
Oral Questions
policy which 1 presented to the House as supporting or being capable of supporting bill No. 1 of the province of Quebec. That is entirely not true, for the very fact that bill No. 1 of the province of Quebec contemplates restrictions on freedom of choice as a permanent feature in the Quebec educational system. It is the essential principle of the language paper which the federal government has presented that there should not be restrictions on freedom of choice regarding access by Canadians to either French language education or English language education.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, to what does this possibility of deferment to be found on page 70 in the statement that "The federal government accepts that circumstances may make necessary deferment of the application of this important principle", refer?


An hon. Member:: No speech.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but this is a very important point and 1 will not take much longer. I am answering the hon. member's question specifically. That statement refers to the paragraph which precedes, that is, to the possibility of some deferment in relation to immigrants arriving within the province of Quebec. It does not refer to English speaking Quebecers. Nor does it refer to Canadians who might come into the province of Quebec from outside and wish access to English speaking education.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it also relates to the L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec incident. Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether he has interviewed former assistant commissioner L. R. Parent, who was the deputy director of security intelligence reporting to Mr. Starnes at the time of the break-in and who sent the letter to the former solicitor general requesting that no acknowledgement be made to the L'Agence de Presse Libre letter alleging RCMP involvement in the break-in, and who has since left the force, to determine whether or not he knew of the force's participation in the illegal break-in and, if so, why he did not give that information to the Solicitor General in his letter? If the minister has not interviewed Mr. Parent, why has he not done so?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's specific question why I have not interviewed Mr. Parent, it seems quite clear to me that since the matter was brought directly to the attention of the solicitor general at the time and that he, himself, during the course of meeting with the force, as indicated in my statement and as indicated in his statement, asked the force directly why no
80018-43'/2

June 23, 1977
Oral Questions
acknowledgement was necessary, the letter having been brought up to that level I am not interested in all intermediary levels.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister did not understand my question. I was not asking whether or not Mr. Parent had written to the Solicitor General to request that he not acknowledge the letter but rather whether or not the present Solicitor General had interviewed Mr. Parent at the time he wrote that letter to the minister's predecessor to inquire whether Mr. Parent knew of illegal activity by the RCMP, as is alleged in the letter; and if he did know of that, why he did not give that information to the Solicitor General, something which the former solicitor general says was not done by Mr. Parent or by Mr. Starnes or by Mr. Higgitt.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I answered that very categorically at the beginning of my reply.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING REPLY TO ALLEGATION OF L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE
Henry Perrin Beatty: The minister did not and he knows he did not. Is the minister at least prepared today to table the exchange of correspondence between the former solicitor general's former executive assistant and Mr. Parent, in which a request was made to the RCMP for advice on how to reply to the letter from L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec and in which Mr. Parent advised that no acknowledgement be made?


Francis Fox: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I answered the hon. member's first question in the negative. I indicated it had been answered in the negative because the matter had gone to the commissioner of the RCMP at that time, and that the solicitor general at that time had the opportunity during the course of the November 6 meeting-


Henry Perrin Beatty: That letter was written before November 6.


Francis Fox: Of course it was. How else could it be discussed on November 6 if it had not been written before November 6?


Walter David Baker: Table it.


Francis Fox: As to the hon. member's second question, I have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter of tabling the letter with my colleague the House leader; I want to discuss it with him to see whether it breaks any precedents of the House.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport which has to do with the request of the Canadian shipbuilding

industry. I pose the question in light of the very serious situation facing Canadian shipyards and shipbuilders over the next short term period. The request has to do with the seeking of a temporary moratorium on the importation of used foreign-built ships into the Canadian trade, and the request that this practice be halted for a period of time so as to assist in tiding over the Canadian industry during this period of difficulty. I wonder if the minister could indicate what his reaction to that request is. If he has not arrived at a decision, when does he think he will be in a position to indicate to the industry what his decision will be?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have not arrived at a conclusion yet with regard to this question. We are considering it in light of the whole question of the shipbuilding industry in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I should point out that the House was supposed to convene at two o'clock, at which time there were no ministers in the House. You did not call the House to order for eight minutes, awaiting the arrival of ministers. Under normal circumstances there was ample time available then. Standing Order 15.(2) reads as follows:
Not more than two minutes after the reading of prayers, the business of the House shall commence.
Then it continues:
Not later than 2.15 p.m., or 11.15 a.m., as the case may be, oral questions shall be taken up.
Instead of waiting for 15 minutes, you proceeded having waited a period of eight minutes beyond when the House would normally be called to order, and you refused to hear me. It might have been a fault of communication. Those things sometimes happen. I want to be frank about this: apparently you were not informed, as I thought you would be, that I had a question I wished to raise under Standing Order 43. However, having regard to the reaction of the members opposite, it was reminiscent to me of what happened in 1956 when an all-powerful government with vociferous members tried at all times to deny the opposition any expression of their views, whether within or without the rules. I do not want to see a repetition of that.
I should point out that had you asked for consent to permit me to proceed, this group of individuals who sit opposite would not have granted it, in the same way as they regularly deny any discussion of anything under Standing Order 43, simply by one or two saying "no". Parliament cannot live when members do not respect the rights of an opposition.
I was endeavouring to bring a motion before the House in connection with a matter which I raised yesterday, namely that on Dominion Day,-


An hon. Member:: Canada Day!


John George Diefenbaker: -in a national gathering on Parliament Hill, either Her Majesty the Queen or the Queen's representative in Canada, the Governor General, should speak. Accord-
June 23, 1977

ing to the arrangements made, and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) denied having any knowledge of, he alone would speak. He is not the head of state of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I simply ask that parliament be respected and that the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Clark), the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent) and the Leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Fortin) should have the right to speak. No prime minister has the right, by virtue of his position, to endeavour to convince Canadian people that he, and he alone, has a monopoly over freedom within this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: By way of the point of order raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I should indicate that we are operating under rather extraordinary conditions. Inevitably whenever we go into extra hours we distort the customary habits of the members of the House. Instead of coming in and beginning the session at two o'clock with prayers, as we usually do and as the Standing Order requires, and then giving the Chair some guidance as to how long after that time we might begin the session, we convened this morning at eleven o'clock. We said prayers at the commencement of the session, which we would normally say at two o'clock. Therefore, when that happens and when we come into the Chamber at two o'clock, we simply sit and wait for a quorum, and I wait for some indication from representatives of the House as to the appropriate time to begin. That is not our usual practice, and therefore things can become distorted.
However, there is no discretion in the Chair to extend the time for motions pursuant to Standing Order 43. In fairness the House ought to be cautioned. The failure of members on both sides of the House to respond promptly to the two o'clock bell works to the prejudice of the use of that time prior to 2.15. One point raised by the right hon. member to which we ought to pay attention is that it would serve all purposes of the House better if we could all get here closer to two o'clock every afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONGRATULATIONS TO MEMBER FOR S1MCOE NORTH ON EIGHTIETH BIRTHDAY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I realize Your Honour's concern, which is a proper concern, about the taking of time with regard to congratulations. As for birthdays, there are 264 members in this Chamber and most of us have a birthday every year; but when one of our number reaches the age of 80
Oral Questions
all of us would like to extend him our congratulations. According to the Parliamentary Guide, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) will be 80 on Saturday, and I believe the House would like to extend its congratulations to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I am overcome. I want to say it has been a great privilege and honour to sit in this House. It has been something I would not have missed for anything, because nature in its various moods is revealed here. It has taught me something about the physical aspect of medicine which I did not know before coming here, so I have had an education. It has indeed been a privilege to meet and sit with people like the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, an outstanding parliamentarian in his day, and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), another outstanding parliamentarian.
1 am grateful to the good Lord for my health, the position I am in today, the facilities and the faculties I have to carry on each year and extend myself a little. I hope to add to that wisdom over the years to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I must have my supplementary to say how sorry I am that I did not express my gratitude to my good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), with whom I have sat here for many years, for bringing this to the attention of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Knowing the respect with which this House holds the right hon. gentleman, and given the fact that it is not too often that he rises under Standing Order 43, and also the fact that I notice on a number of occasions the House has shown that it is master of its own destiny, and therefore, having given unanimous consent may circumvent the rules, I wonder whether the House would be disposed now to giving the necessary unanimous consent so that the right hon. gentleman, whom we all hold in the highest respect and who has without question lived among us in such a way that he will go down as one of Canada's leading statesmen, move the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), I know, makes his request in good faith, but it puts the House in a very awkward position. At the time the right hon. gentleman was seeking the floor under Standing Order 43 several of his colleagues were seeking the floor, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and several others. That happens every day. Surely, if we are to begin now to consider the importance of the subject matter or the importance of the hon. member involved who seeks the floor on one occasion, we will be asked to do it again. Although the best of faith is shown by the hon. member for Hamilton West, I really cannot find a procedure by which we

June 23, 1977
Oil and Gas Price Increases
could extend the period for presenting motions under Standing Order 43.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. MacGuigan.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestries-Mr. Anderson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages a statement setting forth the details of crude oil and natural gas price increases as agreed by the federal government and the two producing provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the letters exchanged between the minister of energy of Alberta and myself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I want to ask Your Honour about the propriety of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) tabling a statement and certain correspondence. No doubt under Standing Order 41(2) the minister is entitled to file copies of correspondence between himself and provincial ministers of energy, but to file also a statement is, in my opinion, not within the ambit of the provision under Standing Order 41(2).
If there is to be a statement-and that is what it is, a statement on oil and natural gas prices by the minister-that statement should be made on motions so that members can ask questions about it. The statement contains reference to a number of things and it is not clear whether they represent the government's intention to introduce measures or whether they are simply matters which were discussed between the minister and the provincial energy ministers. I think that to have a statement like this issued and going out to the press, giving the impression that these are programs which the government is about to institute without any opportunity for members to ask

questions and to ascertain what the statement means, is taking advantage of the provisions under Standing Order 41(2). I think Your Honour might take into consideration whether or not this is the proper use of that provision.


Walter David Baker: There is no doubt at all about the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). The procedure that we established under the revised rules with respect to statements, that is something labelled as a statement or something which by its nature is a statement, is that such a statement would be made in the House of Commons orally by a minister, and members of the House particularly interested in the subject matter of the statement would have the opportunity to ask questions about it. As the hon. member said, there is nothing wrong with tabling certain documents, but to adopt the practice of tabling a statement in the House is clearly contrary to the rules.
1 am sure that the minister does not want to run counter to the rules and in fact he should not be allowed to do so. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take that matter into consideration and have the minister withdraw his request. 1 do not wish to inconvenience the minister but I really think that before he attempted to table the statement he should have accepted some advice from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen) because this is in clear contravention of the standing orders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the benefit of the beginning of the hon. gentleman's remarks but, as 1 read Standing Order 41(2), the minister, as a minister of the Crown is completely entitled to table any documents he wishes to table and there is nothing to prevent him from doing that. Standing Order 41(2) expressly states so. The documents that are sought to be tabled are indicated as being documents and are so identified. That is the choice of the minister. If he wishes to table them, I see nothing to prevent him from doing so.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in support of the point of order and respectfully submit to Your Honour that you should look at this very carefully because otherwise we could be setting a very dangerous precedent. What the minister seeks to do by this flagrant misuse of Standing Order 41(2) is to circumvent the provisions of Standing Order 15 which specifically makes allowance for ministers to rise and make statements in the House, on which occasion opposition members and other members of the House, are entitled to make adequate responses and ask questions. If the minister is permitted, and if you in fact allow this wide interpretation of Standing Order 41(2) which refers clearly to documents to bootleg in statements to which members of the House will not be given an opportunity to make a response, we would be setting a very dangerous precedent which will considerably weaken the provisions of Standing Order 15 which clearly makes provision for oral statements.
June 23, 1977


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am rising mainly because of a remark made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais). He said that the minister is a minister of the Crown, and he can table anything he wants. I remind you, sir, and the Postmaster General, that there is at least one precedent that 1 recall when Mr. Speaker Lamoureux denied the Hon. E. J. Benson the right to table a document which, when looked at, turned out to be just a press release. I submit that this document is much the same. It starts off by saying "I am today anouncing such and such". Some of the things he says he is announcing are in this four-page statement which he has asked to table, and some of them are not there. As I recall the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, it was along the lines just mentioned by two or three speakers, namely, that this is an abuse of the right to table official documents under Standing Order 41(2).
We set up the Standing Order regarding the making of statements so that when statements were to be made, they could be responded to and ministers could be questioned. It is a line which is hard to draw, but 1 say to the Postmaster General that it is not true to say that because a minister is a minister of the Crown, he can table anything he wants. I think Your Honour ought to have a look at this document and compare it with the one Mr. Speaker Lamoureux refused to let Mr. Benson table.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of what the minister is seeking to table is that it is an agreement between the federal and provincial governments written out in letters which are among the tabled documents, that is to say, documents with a statement explaining those documents. If that is the case, it seems to me that the tabling falls within even the narrow construction being put upon it by hon. members opposite and ought not to raise objections even on that score. However, I think the point made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) is the valid one.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously we are hampered to a certain extent by guessing at this stage as to what the document really is. Certainly, the Chair is. I have a copy of the document here and I am perfectly able to read it, but I do not think it would be expected that for the purposes of this rule or this argument the Chair or anyone else would be able to absorb, digest and accurately describe the nature of the document and apply it against the precedents.
On the face of it I must say that the point is well taken. The document certainly seems to be in the nature of a statement by the minister and in fact seems to be more in the nature of perhaps a release, a statement or a speech. I would be terribly concerned, if the document were received pursuant to this Standing Order, about whether a minister could table speech notes. Obviously, this matter falls within the minister's administrative competence and falls very directly within his responsibilities, but I think it might be very dangerous to get into this without knowing exactly where we are going.
Divorce Act
On the other hand, it may be important at this moment that the documents be tabled, and I would like to reserve my decision as to whether there is any restriction on the right of a minister to table documents under Standing Order 41(2) with respect to that document which is headed "Statement on Oil and Natural Gas Prices by the Hon. Alastair Gillespie". While 1 reserve on that, it seems to me that there are other documents which do not fall under-in anyone's opinion-a restriction. I do not know whether the minister would prefer, while I reserve on this, to withhold all documents or to table those which are not objected to and simply withhold the statement.


Alastair William Gillespie: I suggest that it is very important that I table the two supporting letters which 1 placed before the House. One is a letter addressed to Mr. Getty, and the second is from Mr. Getty to me setting forth the essentials of a federal-provincial agreement with respect to oil prices.
I would like to make a further point, a point which was made by my colleague. The additional statement which I placed before the House entitled "Statement on Oil and Natural Gas Prices"-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could have read it.


Alastair William Gillespie: -was offered as an elaboration or as a clarification of the content of and the background to the negotiations themselves which took place over a period of time. They culminated in early May with a federal-provincial minister's conference and subsequent discussions between myself and provincial premiers and provincial ministers. I have tried to put these two letters which set forth a very important federal-provincial agreement in context.


Walter David Baker: A statement on motions should do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Be that as it may, I am sure that the document was proposed by the minister with the best of intentions. I do have to take seriously the point as to whether it is the kind of document envisaged by the rules and whether there is a restriction. Therefore, perhaps the minister could be deemed to have tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) the exchange of correspondence referred to, but for the moment withhold the statement until the Chair has had an opportunity to consider the arguments and review the precedents.


DIVORCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order-Introduction of Bills.
June 17, 1977-Mr. Robinson-Bill intituled: "An act to amend the Divorce Act (living separate and apart)"
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reduce to 18 months the three to five year waiting period required for a marriage that

June 23, 1977
Order Paper Questions
has broken down to be dissolved. It also eliminates the question of fault under this ground for divorce.


Walter David Baker: Is this a government bill? Are you doing this for the government or for yourself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The proposed seconder of the motion, as indicated to me by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), is not in the House. I took the liberty of naming another hon. member. In view of the rather controversial subject matter of the bill, that may have been a liberty the Chair ought not to have taken, and perhaps the bill should stand until the proposed seconder is in the House.


MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' SERVICES
Robert Carman Coates: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,776, 2,214, 2,414, 2,416 and 2,419.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: What procedures does the government use to ensure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation conforms to its objectives?


John (Moody) Roberts: On December 2, 1976, the Secretary of State appeared before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts where this matter was raised. At that time, the minister stated that parliament has imposed upon the Secretary of State a self-denying ordinance with respect to the CBC, which is to say that the day to day operations of the corporation are a matter for CBC management. However, Parliament has certain instruments of examination, the principal one of which is the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, before which the Corporation appears annually. More important, parliament, through the enactment of the Broadcasting Act in 1968, established an agency to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting

policy enunciated in Section 3 of the Act. As it is known, the Government has asked the CRTC to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the French and English networks of the corporation are fulfilling its mandate.


Mr. Woolliams: What was the total amount lent by the government to CBC over the past ten years?


John (Moody) Roberts: Fiscal Year	Amount
1967-68	$ 21,300,000
1968-69	22,200,000
1969-70	24,700,000
1970-71	5,300,000
1971-72	33,040,000
1972-73	22,000,000
1973-74	55,934,000
1974-75	0
1975-76	0
1976-77	0
1977-78	0
Total	$184,474,000
Commencing in the 1974-75 fiscal year, the CBC capital vote became a budgetary item not subject to repayment. The above does not include: (a) funds advanced to the CBC for the construction of broadcasting facilities at Toronto, for the Ontario Educational Communications Authority (OECA). These funds, authorized by Order in Council were in the amount of $630,000 in 1969-70, $310,000 in 1975, $700,000 in 1976 and $150,000 in 1977. These monies are fully repayable by the Ontario Educational Communications Authority; (b) the approved increase (1976-77 Supplementary (D) Estimate) in the working capital of the CBC by $10 million for a total working capital base of $25 million.


Mr. Firth: 1.	How many scientists from outside the Northwest Territories used the Igloolik Research Station in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?
2.	How many (a) government officials (b) Territorial government officials visited the Igloolik Research Station in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
3.	(a) Are such visits by Territorial and Federal officials subject to the approval of the Igloolik Settlement Council (b) are the activities of the Igloolik Research Station subject to the approval of the Igloolik Settlement Council?
4.	What is the number and type of research projects being conducted from the Igloolik Research Station?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Most projects usually last over a long period of time and several scientists may be involved in each of the projects. In addition there may be laboratory technicians and assistants who work with the scientists. The number of scientists using the Igloolik Research Station during 1975 and 1976 was between 20 to 30 for each year.
June 23, 1977

2.	(a), (b), (i) and (ii) Not known.
3.	(a) No. (b) The activities of the Igloolik Research Station are not subject to the approval of the Igloolik Settlement Council but the issuance of scientific licences by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories for research projects in the Igloolik area requires the approval of the Community Council. The community is also kept informed of laboratory activities through an Advisory Committee made up of representatives from the Igloolik community. Reports are issued regularly to inform the community at large of current laboratory activities.
4.	1975: Nine projects, (i) Oceanography, Defence Research Board (two projects); (ii) Earth Physics, Dept, of Energy, Mines & Resources (two projects); (iii) Tidal Measurement, Environment Canada; (iv) Soils Studies, Simon Fraser University; (v) Archeological Survey, University of Arkansas, U.S.A.; (vi) Anthropological Studies, Graduate Student, University of Toronto; (vii) Eskimo Artifact Studies, Royal Albert Memorial Museum, U.K.. 1976: height projects; (i) Study of Nutritive Content of Native Foods, University of Manitoba; (ii) Ecophysiology, York University (two projects): (iii) Study of Ground Vegetation, McGill University: (iv) Ecology of Arctic Soil Mites, McGill University:*(v) Oceanography, Defence Research Board (two projects): (vi) Physiological Cooling in Man, Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine at Downsview.
* Note: Continuation of 1975 project.


Mr. Howie: What steps are currently being taken to ensure a smooth transition from the present period of wage and price controls to the post-controls period?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: At the time the wage and price controls were introduced, it was made clear that they were to form only one part of the Anti-Inflation Programme. To evaluate what has been done to ease the transition to the post-controls period, it is necessary to look at the whole picture. In the March 31 Budget, the various policy initiatives that have been undertaken were described. As well as fiscal and monetary policies to encourage moderate growth and produce more jobs while winding down inflation, work is in progress to attack the structural problems at the root of the inflationary pressures. An announcement was made in the budget that a discussion paper would be issued which would explain the plans for decontrol and set out a proposal for a monitoring agency. In addition, suggestions would be made regarding structural reform and improved procedures for consultation. This paper was published May 27. Using the paper as a starting point, the government will consult with the objective of obtaining a broad understanding of what is required to hold down inflation. Following the consultations, a decontrol date will be announced.
Privilege-Ruling Mr. Speaker COST OF DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAMMES FOR STUDENTS


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What additional staff was hired and what was the cost to operate the Student Summer Employment Programme (a) Hostel Services (b) Open House (c) Student Community Services (d) Summer Language Bursary under the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	Are any other programmes available for students under the Department?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Fiscal Year 1976-77: (a) Hostel Services, eight persons hired; Operating Costs, $155,000; Grants, $772,497; Contributions, Nil. (b) Open House Canada does not come under the Student Summer Employment Programme, (c) Student Community Services, 37 persons hired; Operating Costs, $527,000; Grants, $5,179,565; Contributions, Nil. (d) The Summer Language Bursary Programme does not come under the Student Summer Employment Programme.
2. No other summer programme for students available in the department for 1976-77.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: There remain outstanding three questions of privilege on which I have indicated to the House my intention to rule during this week. However, the somewhat turbulent events of the earlier days of the week led me to withhold this decision until this moment. This concerns three outstanding motions under our privilege procedures. On May 6 the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) moved that the question of the publication of the in-camera proceedings of the sub-committee on penitentiaries of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which have not been reported to the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Second, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) moved:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections inquire into the statements alleged to have been made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, which appear in today's edition of the Globe and Mail, and into related or other incidents, which indicate that the rights of parliament on behalf of the people to have full and unabridged reporting of the actions of government are being threatened.
Third, the motion of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) on June 13:
That the matter of the reference in that CBC program last night as it pertained to me be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and
7044

June 23, 1977
Privilege-Ruling Mr. Speaker
Elections so that 1 may have an opportunity of clearing what I think is the very great stigma that attaches to my reputation and to my name.
These matters are related in some way to the relationship between the House of Commons and the press and to some extent they have certain basic principles in common. Each deserves to be dealt with on its own merits, however, and 1 shall endeavour to do so, taking them in reverse order.
First, the point raised by the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham. The CBC documentary on organized crime in Canada which was shown in two parts on Sunday, June 13 and Monday, June 14 made reference during the two segments to some hon. members of this House. On Monday, June 14 following the first segment, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham raised the matter of privilege and at that time made a brief explanatory statement.
On the following day the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) made a similar intervention, and the day after that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) did likewise, both interventions relating to the contents of the second segment scheduled and shown on Monday, June 14. Both the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe indicated the matter was being taken up in the courts on their instructions.
Of the four hon. members who raised a grievance in that respect in the House under our privilege procedures, only the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham proposed a motion. The practice resorted to by all four hon. members is not new, and while it does not in my opinion technically constitute a question of privilege, it is a practice that has been resorted to customarily in similar circumstances. This practice permits what is essentially a personal statement of an hon. member of this House under the umbrella of privilege in circumstances where the hon. member feels unduly attacked and gives the hon. member an opportunity to air that matter and to be heard by the House. A similar practice exists in Great Britain and is described in May's 19th Edition at page 343.
Precedents abound on the highly restrictive nature of privilege in our House. One of the most often quoted decisions relates to requiring for privilege an element of obstruction or interference of an hon. member in the exercise of his duty, of obstruction of hon. members, collectively or individually, in the discharge of their functions as members of this House.
Where the press is concerned, we also have the benefit of two earlier decisions in which on one occasion the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and on another occasion the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) raised questions of privilege in recent years. On both occasions they presented to the House, as did the hon. member in this particular case, well reasoned presentations. I therefore had the benefit of considerable preparation on both those occasions by hon. members, and in addition, of course, the usual excellent research assistance that was so thoroughly done. I think those precedents are of some assistance to us.

In respect of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria on May 20 I had this to say at page 13708 of Hansard'.
There has really never been an occasion on which an hon. member has been deprived of the opportunity, when there is a grievance of this sort, to air that grievance. Whether or not it constitutes strictly a question of privilege, there has never been a time when the hon. member concerned did not have the opportunity to raise the question, to air his grievance and to make it well known, as the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria has done today. Other members who might have wished to take part in the discussion could have done so.
However, it will remain my view that a fundamental right is involved here equal, at least, if not greater, than the special privileges which surround the rights of members, who really ought to claim privilege only if their opportunity to operate as members of the House of Commons is actually interfered with. Certainly, the right to comment and express to the public what takes place here is an aspect of the freedom of the press which is one of the fundamental rights of our society and one which ought not to be interfered with, in my view, unless it is in fact in contempt of this institution.
On a subsequent occasion on the point raised by the hon. member for Athabasca which concerned some unsavoury remarks, to say the least, in the press about the performance of members of this House who are physicians and were serving on one of the standing committees of the House at that time, I was able to refer with great gratitude to assistance provided by the excellent study done at that time by a committee of the United Kingdom parliament which put forward the following language on this point. The following excerpt from their proceedings appears in Hansard of April 9, 1976 at page 12668:
The proposal made in paragraph 42 is fully consistent with the principle which your committee believe to be right, that the House should be slow and reluctant to use its penal powers to stifle criticism or even abuse, whether of the machinery of the House, of a member or of an identifiable group of members, however strongly the criticism may be expressed and however unjustifiable it may appear. Your committee regard such criticism as the life blood of democracy. In their view the sensible politician expects and even welcomes criticism of this nature. Nonetheless, a point may be reached at which conduct ceases to be merely intemperate criticism and abuse and becomes or is liable to become an improper obstruction of the functions of parliament. For such cases, however rare, the penal powers must be preserved and the House must be prepared to exercise them.
I also quoted the following passage:
In your committee's opinion it would be an indefensible abuse of power if a member could evade such a defence by invoking the penal jurisdiction of the House. The citizen has prima facie a right to make fair comment upon such activity of a member as is a matter of public interest; his right is even stronger to speak and publish the truth of a member's conduct. These rights should not in the normal way be defeated by the use of the penal jurisdiction of the House.
I have said many times that the intent and clear purport of that language is that the protection of an elected person against unwarranted or intemperate publicity, even abuses or defamatory publicity, is precisely that which is enjoyed by every citizen before our courts. No more, no less. It is entirely consistent with that principle, I think, that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta indicated their intention to pursue this matter before the courts.
As elected people we can and do expect to be the targets of attack. When those attacks seem offensive I think it is appropriate that the hon. member is offered the courtesy of the House to extend to his hon. colleagues an explanation of the circumstances. I am sure any hon. member who wishes to so
June 23, 1977

state will always receive that courtesy. That is what was done here by the four hon. members. As has been held in the past, I hope that hon. members will understand that I am not on technical grounds able to find that a question of privilege does exist.
It would sometimes be tempting for the Chair to make a comment on the quality or lack of it of the particular reporting that is involved at any time. However, I ought not to do that, and I shall not. I have also said that remedies of this sort are the same for members as they are for every other citizen and that when these matters do take place, if they go beyond the point of being offensive to the point of being defamatory in a legal sense, certainly members ought to and will 1 am sure pursue matters through the courts.
On the motion of the hon. member for Peace River, the matter was inspired by a statement attributed to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). The more forceful and useful contributions in support of the motion were in respect of suggestions that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) a few days previously had demonstrated the truth of the fears expressed in the proposition by intervening to suppress publication in two newspapers at least of an unfavourable feature article about himself which appeared in a weekend supplement.
In his contribution to the argument the minister conceded that he considered the article to be offensive and that indeed the newspapers were advised a few days before the scheduled publication by his solicitors that if it was their intention to carry the article in the regular weekend supplement an injunction would be sought to restrain them. The newspapers did not carry the article.
I have consistently taken the position in respect of members' complaints about reporting, as I have just said, that the remedy is indeed in the courts. How can 1 then find that it would be a matter of privilege for an hon. member to indicate, as was the situation with the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), if it is his intention to pursue that remedy. It is a rather happy coincidence, I suppose, for our efforts to untangle this complex problem, that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta indicated that it was his intention now to pursue the matter in the courts, but that prior to publication he had attended with his solicitors upon the CBC, to indicate to them that if they confirmed their intention to carry the segment, he would be considering taking some action to restrain them. In fact, he says that he was informed it would not be carried, which I am sure will probably be the subject of some of his argument in the courts.
In any event he attended with his solicitors to make that indication, which is precisely what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) did. If I say that members must pursue these matters in the courts the same as any other citizen, should a member not do so, or should he not, having the right to do so, advise in advance of his intention to do it? However, he must do it in the proper manner.
Privilege-Ruling Mr. Speaker
In respect of the Minister of Transport it was suggested that because he is a minister of the Crown, his attempts to do this would carry with them the threat of pressure exerted by the government or influence exerted by the government. In the circumstances I am not able to agree. I cannot find in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) or in any other contributions on the subject that, in fact, there is even an allegation, indication or evidence of any undue influence exercised by the minister. If that were to be the suggestion or content of the motion, the matter might be subject to a different interpretation in future circumstances. But in these circumstances the minister interjected, and of course the House takes his word, that his approach to these newspapers was properly carried out through his solicitor, and the indication was that if the newspapers proceeded to or intended to carry the material, the minister would seek a legal remedy in the courts. I cannot find, surely, that the right to seek such remedies is different as between one member and another.
I do concede, of course, that the standard of conduct in exercising the remedy, which is the right of every member, is probably higher in a minister than it is in another member, for the obvious reason that the connotation of government pressure, as was argued extensively, is always present. Whether it is theoretical or real is not the point. The appearance of it is always there. I say, therefore, that there is no differentiation in the application of the basic principle as between the minister and any other member. The principle does not deprive the minister of the rights he enjoys or any other member or citizen enjoys, but it imposes on the minister in the exercise of his legal right a standard of conduct which is higher than that of members, and certainly higher than that of other citizens. However, on the information before me in this argument I have no indication showing that the minister did not adhere to that especially high standard of conduct, and I have not heard any member make any suggestion to that effect. Therefore, having said that other members ought to pursue their remedies in the courts, and having said that I find the minister must exercise great care in so doing, I say there is no indication that he did not do so in the case and I cannot see the point as making any contribution to the argument on privilege.
In any case, I think even the most enthusiastic supporters of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River realize that it envisages a general program or intention on the part of the government to somehow interfere in the relationship between this House and the freedom of the press. Although it envisages a general standard of conduct, I suggest that not even the most severe critics of the minister would ever suggest that this, in the circumstances, was anything but an isolated incident, and was connected in any way with any kind of general'program. Therefore I say the minister's action was not improper and in any case does not make a contribution to the argument on privilege, in these particular circumstances relating to this motion.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) was listened to carefully in respect of his statements which
8001 8-44l/2

June 23, 1977
Privilege-Ruling Mr. Speaker gave rise to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River. 1 heard him warn about the dangers inherent in certain legislative provisions before the House, in so far as they might somehow restrain the proper freedom or independence of the press in our country. I do not know I can do other than conclude that his remarks initially, and certainly as he explained them in this House, constitute a contribution to the debate in respect of these particular legislative measures.
If it is true, as he alleges, that there is some danger in the purport or intent of these legislative measures, surely the remedy is for the House to debate them, vote against them, expose them to public view, and use every other remedy available to members by way of amendments or otherwise, and so attack those particular legislative provisions. I cannot find that the matter goes beyond an attack on the legislative provisions themselves, and should be argued in the usual way in debate. I cannot find that it has about it that special aspect of privilege which, after all, differentiates a substantive motion, which has this one particular characteristic: If a matter raised by way of what is normally a substantive motion has inherent in it something which affects the privileges of members in the House, in the narrow sense I have defined, it takes priority over other business, can be put by the member without prior notice, and is given priority, because it touches on privilege.
In the circumstances the Chair must always decide this: Is this the substance of a substantive motion, in ordinary terms, or is it privilege? If it is privilege, it is given priority. If it is not it may be treated-if I may be permitted the observation-in the way this motion might very well have been treated, as an ideal one for an allotted day, or perhaps in other ways in which motions can be brought forward by private members. It is, in other words, a substantive motion and not, in my opinion, a motion which touches privilege.
The motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) contains, on the face of it, all, if not almost all, the elements of privilege, and is supported by clear precedent in the British House of Commons. It contains elements of interference with the work of members in their committee, because it relates to the publication prematurely of a subcommittee document in preparation for a committee report. It prejudices,
I think, the secure identity of witnesses and people who co-operated with the committee. It prejudiced in that way probably the work of future committees, with respect to the kind of co-operation we hope our House of Commons committees will secure. There is no doubt that in the United Kingdom the matter would be dealt with as privilege.
I point out to hon. members that it would be dealt with in the United Kingdom as privilege because of a specific resolution of that House which says that the premature publication of confidential committee reports before they have been tabled in the House will be treated as privilege. Our House has never taken that step. I think there are probably a number of good reasons why we have never done that, but we may want to and I think we ought to consider carefully some of the difficulties

which face us here. For instance, I am concerned because the motion in this case indicates an attack upon the press for the publication of a confidential document. Of course, it attacks the press because the press has published the document, and that publication is a fact which speaks for itself and needs no further argument to establish it.
It concerns me, however, that the motion appears to attack the press for publishing a confidential document but does not attack ourselves as members of the House for our own attitude in respect of our own confidential documents. Since it misses that point it misses something I think most important with respect to the privileges of the House. I do not accuse. I simply ask are we prepared to concede that we ought to go to a committee of this House and ask it to examine the conduct of outsiders without asking it to examine our own conduct in this regard? It may be accidental. It may be the result of negligence; it may be a deliberate release by one of the members, or by any member of the staff. How can we attempt to inquire into those who publish the document unless we are prepared to inquire into our own conduct? And if and when we inquire into our own conduct, would we not ask ourselves this: Does this committee have a mandate to inquire into the conduct of members, upon this kind of motion? I would say, no, but it certainly should. And if it does this, should there be specific allegations, as we have said in the past, about misconduct by a member, a staff person, or others? I do not know. However, I am concerned in case we would appear to embark upon one kind of inquiry without embarking on the other, and we could not undertake an inquiry into the conduct of members, I suggest, without a proper and specific mandate.
The result of this practice in the United Kingdom, where such matters have consistently been treated as privilege, is this: The committee reports back to the House that the publication has taken place, that the publication is premature, and that it therefore offends the privileges of the House, something we already know, I suggest. The House usually debates the matter and finds that no penalty should be exacted. I wonder, before we take one step in the direction of that procedure, if we want to be led in that direction. Perhaps we do. I suggest that, in the circumstances we should answer some of these questions before we attempt to deal with this matter as an absolute matter of privilege in every case.
While the hon. member's motion suggested that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, I hope that if she and the House will agree with me we will perhaps be well advised to refer this matter instead to the rather excellent work of the committee on rights and immunities of members which, as I have said many times in the past, was inspired in its creation by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who was the author of one of these motions.
I hope that committee will make specific reference to the circumstances of this case and, in reporting to the House, analyse some of these problems that I have referred to here,
June 23, 1977

making specific reference to this particular case in its report to the House with recommendations as to how the House ought to treat the question of premature publication of documents, including all of the difficulties about whether it ought to amount to an inquiry into the conduct of members, whether it should be treated automatically, whether the House should pass a resolution similar to that passed in the United Kingdom and the difficulties that the House might experience in that regard.
I would find technically that until those inquiries or problems are cleared up that I would not hold the matter to be a matter of privilege that would be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and therefore set that aside. However, I think I ought to ask the House now if it would give its consent to take that motion and refer it at this moment to the special committee of the House on rights and immunities with the express mandate that it clarify the problems that I have indicated and report back to the House on this one specific reference to this one problem which was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If 1 sense that 1 have the consent of the House to do so, it will be so ordered.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) yesterday raised by way of a point of order the question of tabling of documents. With respect, I think the point lacks some precision. I wonder if the hon. member might agree that I treat it as a notice of an intention to raise a point of order by him so that perhaps one day next week it can be argued in greater detail.
I have attempted to pull together the references. There is some lack of clarity as to whether or not reference is being made to documents referred to by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) or perhaps by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) on different days. In both cases the ministers treated the documents referred to somewhat differently and 1 think different precedents would apply.
I therefore ask the hon. member if he will examine the references that I have here, with which I will be glad to provide him, and perhaps give some indication to the government of an intention on an agreed upon date next week to argue the point so that 1 can have a little more precision on it. I would like to have a little more precise argument before making a decision on that matter, if that is agreeable.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-26, an act respecting the organization of certain scientific activities of
Speaker's Ruling
the government of Canada, with an amendment, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to our procedures for this month, I wish to inform the House that the questions to be raised at six o'clock p.m. are as follows: the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Darling)-Customs-effect on tourist trade of allegedly unreasonable taxing of United States citizens; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-investigation of operations of Bank of Montreal in Vancouver-request for report; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta)-Consumer Affairs-possibility of establishing food policy council to consider national food policy.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize I did not raise this earlier, but you were on your feet and it is not proper for us when you are on your feet to make a request.
As a point of clarification and elucidation for the House, possibly there should be an amendment of the order of the House on the point to which you alluded. In view of the fact that we are approaching the end of this session, possibly that committee should be empowered to continue on into the next session, notwithstanding that it would not have completed its work. The House has the power to give it that authority. If unfortunately this session prorogued, there would have to be a further reference to the committee. The House could dispense with that at the present time if the order of the House were amended to the extent that the committee shall continue on beyond the present session until it shall have reported.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, if that suggestion is in order, we have no objection. However, I was under the impression that a reference died with a session. We could give the undertaking to renew the same terms of reference in the new session which would have the same effect.


Mr. Speaker:: The undertaking of the minister, 1 am sure, is more than enough in the circumstances. I might say that committee has reported to the House on matters and suggestions sub judiee. It has now under review the very important matter of changes in the rights and immunities of members with respect to television and radio broadcasting of the House and will go on to consider many other problems relating to special rights and immunities. I express now the clear understanding that that committee will be carrying on its work for quite some time. I am sure it will be expected that when the session ends, as the minister has indicated, that its mandate will be renewed. Orders of the day.
Employment and Immigration



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1977

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I intended to make a very short comment, but if the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) wants me to speak for 20 minutes, I will try.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't provoke him.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is only when I get provoked. Before the lunch hour, I was speaking briefly on the last motion before the House. I was complaining about what I thought was a real discrimination against people coming from rural areas such as in my constituency where some people have been forced to lie to the Unemployment Insurance Commission in order to receive benefits. I was saying that I have had a lot of experience with that.
When I went to my office over the lunch hour, there was a telephone message waiting for me. The MLA in the Pelly constituency in my riding, Norman Lusney, who was elected on June 8 in a by-election victory by the NDP where he received nearly 50 per cent of the votes, had a particular case for me involving a man named Edward Wasylkowski. This gentleman had seen me during the by-election campaign about an unemployment insurance problem he was having. He had worked in a refinery in the town of Kamsack for 20 or more years. I use this as a specific example of what I was talking about. The refinery closed and obviously he lost his job. This is a very honest man, 58 years old. He has a house in the town of Kamsack. His family and friends live in and around Kamsack. He was honest with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He told them at his age, with his family conditions and so on that it would be very difficult for him to move out of the Kamsack area to get a job. He could not really pull up his roots and move to Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg or elsewhere.
This gentleman is willing to work at absolutely anything in the Kamsack area. He has been looking very hard for a job. He told me of some of the places he was at seeking employment. This man was cut off unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Commission said he was restricting his search for employment by not being willing to go outside the town in which he lives. I advised him to appeal the case. The appeal was heard a few days ago in Regina. He

lost the appeal because he was limited in search of a job. The call I received from Norm Lusney on his behalf at two o'clock this afternoon is a specific example of what happens in a rural constituency. If Mr. Wasylkowski lived in Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg or elsewhere, there would be no problem.
Kamsack has a population of 3,500 people. It is a huge farm service centre. There are many villages around it. It serves between 10,000 and 15,000 people in that part of the province. It will be seen that I am not talking about a little village with a couple of hundred people. This is a fairly major town in Saskatchewan. This man is being penalized because he lives in Kamsack instead of Regina or Toronto. He is not able to draw unemployment insurance benefits which he would be able to draw if he lived in one of those cities. He is being penalized for being honest. He is a very honest and decent man. If he had said to the Unemployment Insurance Commission a few weeks ago that he was willing to work anywhere, he would have received his unemployment insurance benefits. The chances are he would not have found a job anywhere. He could have stayed in Kamsack, anyway, and drawn benefits. Just because he would have been able to mislead someone, he would have received benefits.
That is a terrible position to put people in, to force them to be dishonest, to try to tear people's consciences apart. I could go back through my files and find example after example of this type of case. As I said, this one just happened to come to my attention at two o'clock this afternoon. Later on I shall send the minister details of this case and appeal to him personally to try to get Mr. Wasylkowski back on unemployment insurance benefits, because he is still trying to locate work. The MLA, who is doing his job very well; he is trying to find this man temporary employment in a park nearby. Sometimes the Liberal party wonders why Canadians in certain areas are very cynical about them. I think in particular of areas such as the north, western Canada, rural Canada. I would say this is one of the areas. In the recent by-election in the town of Kamsack the NDP received some 55 per cent of the votes. The Liberal party fell from second place to a bad third place, and I doubt it will do any better than that in the foreseeable future.
The motion before us today also perturbs me as I look at it from the rural point of view. There are to be various scales for determining the benefit period for people who are unemployed. The country is to be divided into 54 different regions with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the length of time a person will benefit from unemployment insurance will depend upon the unemployment rate within each of these areas. I come from an area which has a very low unemployment rate-roughly 4 per cent. Part of the reason for this figure is that treaty Indians living on reserves are not counted when calculating the figure. In the past, for a major attachment, persons could claim unemployment insurance benefits, if my understanding is correct, for some 51 weeks if they had worked for at least 20 weeks. This is to be changed under the terms of the legislation before us. It is to be brought down to
June 23, 1977

50 weeks from 51 weeks for the person who is qualified to claim the maximum, that is, a person who has worked for 26 weeks and who lives in a high unemployment area such as the province of Newfoundland.
However, how is someone who lives in my constituency to be affected, where the unemployment rate is very low? My understanding is that such a person would get a lot less from unemployment insurance than he received in the past. As I read the legislation, I see that with a regional unemployment rate of 6 per cent or less, the weeks of insurable employment in the qualifying period will be 14. That is all-fourteen weeks. 1 therefore assume that for someone in my constituency to get those 14 weeks he would probably have to work 14 weeks because he comes from a very low unemployment area. So you have to work for 14 weeks in order to qualify for 14 weeks' unemployment insurance benefits. If I am wrong, 1 hope the minister, in his reply, will comment on this matter, because I am led to believe that those unfortunate enough to be unemployed, such as Mr. Wasylkowski and his co-workers employed at the refinery, would only receive a few weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. I do not think that is very fair at all. It is something which I think will balkanize Canada instead of bringing it closer together.
The unemployment insurance program is one to which everyone who is employed contributes on an equal basis, and therefore should be entitled to receive benefits from it on an equal basis. The motion we are talking about today affects a lot of Canadians in a very negative sense. I wish to give a few illustrations of what I mean. Take the province of Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia the unemployment rate is, I believe, 13.2 per cent. It is very high. 1 wonder what the Liberals in Nova Scotia think about this amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I find that under the existing act, the one the government now wishes to amend, someone who worked for eight weeks could receive benefits for 44 weeks. Under Bill C-27, the bill before us today, and the amended version of Bill C-27 which the minister is talking about in the House, the same person would not receive benefits for 44 weeks; that person would receive benefits for no time at all. He would not receive any benefits; and this despite the fact that such a person could come from Nova Scotia, a province with a very high unemployment rate, and in spite of the fact that this measure is supposed to favour regions which have very high unemployment rates and discriminate against regions like my own which have a very low unemployment rate.
Again, in Nova Scotia, if a person works for ten weeks, under the present act he qualifies for 44 weeks of benefits. Under Bill C-27 he will be cut off entirely. But thanks to members like my hon. friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who decided to raise a lot of hell about this issue and who really fought hard on it, we have some minor amendments which will help some people in Nova Scotia.


John R. Rodriguez: Not enough.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know it is not enough. The hon. member for Nickel Belt is still very upset. But if the hon. member had
Employment and Immigration
some help from the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) then perhaps the act would be improved instead of becoming worse than it is. But the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, New Brunswick, with an unemployment rate of probably 20 per cent or 30 per cent, is defending these changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. He is not getting up and fighting for the unemployed in his constituency. I think that is an utter shame. People in his riding should know where he stands. They should know that he fails to stand by their side and stands instead on the side of bad policies and big corporations; that he will not get up here and fight for the unemployed in his region.
It is about time people in the constituencies realized where their members of parliament stand. If he had been standing up in the House like the hon. member for Nickel Belt, we would have had amendments to the act which would have preserved the rights which the unemployed in this country deserve. Because of a fight led by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, the minister has been forced to bring in amendments. Thus, a person who works for ten weeks in Nova Scotia, instead of receiving no benefits at all will get benefits for 42 weeks instead of 44. It is not as good as it was, but still it is better than it would have been under the original ideas of the minister from Sarnia, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).
Taking the same example of a person in Nova Scotia, if that person worked for 20 weeks and suddenly became unemployed, he would qualify for 51 weeks of benefit under the present act, the one which is being amended today. But under Bill C-27 that person would have had his benefit period cut back to 40 weeks. Because of the fight put up by the hon. member for Nickel Belt-the credit really has to go to him-that person will now qualify, under the amendment, for 50 weeks of benefits.
I keep bringing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt because I know that members of the Conservative party have long been in favour of tightening up the Unemployment Insurance Act. 1 remember the members of the Conservative party in the 1972 campaign chastising the government-the former minister, Bryce Mackasey-for running a loose show, for letting people take advantage of the Unemployment Insurance Act. They want to lengthen the qualifying period a person has to work before he can claim benefits. The Conservative party initiated the tightening up of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We now have some of them going into high unemployment regions like Atlantic Canada. I was in Verdun for the by-election campaign and heard them criticizing the government for tightening up the act. I suggest that the members of the Conservative party are real hypocrites.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt has brought forward decent amendments to this legislation and he, with the support of a few members in the committee, but under his leadership, forced the government to back down. I should like the Conservative members to stand up in this House and do some

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
fighting like the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Let me give the House another example.


John R. Rodriguez: Tell them about Vancouver.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, perhaps I should. I do not see any Vancouverites in the Conservative party in the House; they do not seem to be very concerned about this act. Vancouver has an unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent. If someone worked for eight weeks, he would be able to receive benefits for 26 weeks. However, under Bill C-27 he would receive no benefits at all. Even the hon. member for Nickel Belt could not persuade the minister to give such people any benefits. Probably no members of the Conservative party from Vancouver give a damn about the unemployed in Vancouver, because he had no support at all from government members from the maritimes. They just did not care about this bill; they left the fight to the hon. member for Nickel Belt on behalf of our party.
A worker in the city of Vancouver who is laid off after ten weeks of work will qualify for 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits under the present act. Under Bill C-27, or under the act as amended, that person would not get any benefits. Where does the Conservative party stand on this? They stand four square behind their friends in the Liberal party.


John R. Rodriguez: They are taking the credit for this bill.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are part of a little club. As the hon. member for Nickel Belt says, thay are probably taking credit for this type of amendment, as they do when they knock on some doors that I know of in the province of Saskatchewan.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The expert on Conservatives and Liberals.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have become an expert on the Liberals and the Conservatives because I have fought them for years in my riding. If the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar does not know what I mean, I invite him to think back to a few weeks ago when the two of us campaigned in the Pelly by-election. That was a by-election where the Conservative and Liberal parties threw in everything they had-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member get back to the motion under discussion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would love to, Mr. Speaker, but 1 was just responding to the very intelligent question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar who had forgotten that we received 50 per cent of the vote in the Pelly by-election. In any event, as a result of that by-election there are now probably some unemployed Liberal and Conservative party organizers, and if they move out to Vancouver they are going to have some problems. As I was saying, a person who works for 20 weeks in Vancouver and then becomes unemployed would receive benefits for 35 weeks under the act. When Bill C-27 goes through, he will receive benefits for 38 weeks. That is a minor improvement, but again it is probably due to the hard work of the members of our party at committee stage. It is certainly not due to the work of members of the Liberal party.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Just take a look at the amendments which have been presented by the government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi was only at one meeting. I find that unbelievable, but if it is true it is an absolute disgrace when he has 30 per cent of the people in his riding unemployed. Since I have been in the House the last few hours talking on this bill, he has been heckling our party, contending that the act is a darned good one as amended by the minister. He has been running interference for the minister in the House, suggesting that the unemployed should have their knuckles rapped, that they are abusing the system. It is a disgusting thing for a member who comes from an area where 30 per cent of the people are unemployed.
You can tell when the popularity of the Liberal party goes up in the public opinion polls; all of a sudden they become very smug and arrogant and start doing things to ordinary people. There are words I can use, but which I cannot use in parliament, to describe what they do to ordinary people when their party support rises in the public opinion polls. They have lost their sensitivity and are forgetting that the unemployed are people who need help and benefits. They do not care. I hear the hon. member from Toronto interjecting. He may not have any unemployed in his riding. He would not understand what an unemployed person looked like if he ran into one in a back alley. I am referring to the hon. member for-York Centre, is it?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes, York Centre.


John R. Rodriguez: He is over at the Rideau Club at all the time. There are no unemployed people over there.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is back from the Rideau Club now. 1 understand that members of the Liberal party from eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have received submissions and complaints from their constituents about how this bill which amends the Unemployment Insurance Act is hurting them. But they have not responded a\ all to the wishes of their constituents. If the Liberal party members had any sensitivity at all, they would be withdrawing the amendments they have made to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not intend to participate in this debate today, but the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) have been talking so fast and loose that a few facts have to be put on the record. It would serve them well to sit down and listen for a few minutes so
June 23, 1977

they could learn the difference between fact and fiction. We have had the two greatest fiction writers in this House talking here all day, Mr. Speaker. Not only do they take credit for amendments to this bill with which they had nothing to do, but they take it upon themselves to try to discredit other members of the House for not attending committees of which they are not members. That, Mr. Speaker, from a party whose members are almost always consistently absent from this chamber.
If it were not for their own House leader, on more days than not they would not even be represented in this chamber.
When Bill C-27 was introduced-and I admit without reservation that it was an attempt on the part of the minister to reduce the cases of abuse in our unemployment system-there were some members on this side of the House as well as the self-righteous socialists yonder who found the bill unacceptable. I must say that there were some members of the official opposition, too, who found the bill unacceptable. It was through the efforts, primarily of the members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus, that the substantive amendments to this bill were brought about. I say that because over a fairly lengthy period we met with the minister, who showed an extreme willingness to consult and co-operate with us, learning from us what the difficulties would be when this bill is passed.


John R. Rodriguez: Did you see it before it was introduced?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: What is the matter over there? Can't you take the truth? Just sit down and listen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The parliamentary secretary will please address the Chair. The parliamentary secretary has the floor for the purpose of making a speech, and I suggest we all listen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I hope the members of the NDP will take that advice; they may become more enlightened. It was my colleague, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), who brought about many of the amendments which are present in this bill today and which we now find acceptable in Atlantic Canada.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is correct when he says there is a high rate of unemployment in my constituency. There is also a concerted effort by this government to overcome that situation. Hon. members opposite consistently find it convenient to ignore the job-creation programs of this government, to ignore the vast increase there has been in the number of people entering the labour force in this country, and to forget that the number of jobs being created on an annual basis is increasing every year and has increased substantially in this decade over the previous decade. Facts do not mean that much to them; they are more interested in fiction.
Employment and Immigration There is an important principle enunciated in this bill. The principle was given some force in the budget. It is the principle that in this country not all regions experience the same kind of economic opportunity. The budget and this bill proceed to deal with that disparity in economic opportunity. That is why there has been a differentiation of the qualifying period for unemployment insurance benefits across the country. The New Democratic Party would like to treat unemployment insurance as insurance to remain unemployed. It should be insurance against loss of employment income, and that is what the minister is trying to make it. They profess to be the experts on Atlantic Canada, but they should look at the success of their party over the years in that part of the country. This morning the hon. member for Nickel Belt consistently referred to Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland. He knows so little about us that he does not even know Newfoundland is part of Atlantic Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: We know about golf courses in Newfoundland.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You probably know about golf courses everywhere, because that is where you spend your time. You certainly do not spend your time here. The ten week qualifying period can be lived with.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who has the floor made comments concerning me spending my time on golf courses. I have played golf once in my life. It was nine holes. I lost four balls and it took me 186 strokes to finish the course. He is not right when he says that I spend my time there. I spend my time in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immmigration trying to filibuster a bill on unemployment insurance which is rotten, terrible and atrocious for the unemployed people in this country. I should like to suggest that that is where he ought to be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I should suggest to the hon. member that that is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, we now know the hon. member for Nickel Belt has played at least one more game of golf than I have, and we also know what is wrong with him.
We can now live with the qualifying periods set out in Bill C-27. Through consultation with the minister and his officials, and primarily through the efforts of the minister, we have brought about sufficient changes in both the qualifying and the benefit structure periods of this bill in order that those of us who represent economically distressed areas of Atlantic Canada will have no difficulty living with it. It will go a long way toward bringing attention to the fact that in this country there are varying levels of economic opportunity. Those with lesser economic opportunity deserve special consideration from the government of Canada. It would also help if some of the provincial governments would turn some of their attention to the areas of economic distress in their own provinces.

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It should be brought to the attention of hon. members that this motion, No. 11, if passed, dispenses with motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. Members Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now move to motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It should be brought to the attention of hon. members that this motion, if passed, will carry with it motions Nos. 29 and 32. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The Chair has serious reservations about the procedural acceptability of motion No. 12 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). This motion does not seem to be relevant to clause 38 of the bill. It seems to go beyond the scope of the clause which it seeks to amend. I

refer to May's at page 521. Therefore, this motion is rejected on two points: one, it goes beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend and, two, it should have been brought in as a separate clause, but then it would not have been accepted because it puts a burden on the treasury. Therefore, the Chair rejects motion No. 12.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Chair indicated earlier that it would listen to argument on the procedural point. I think that should happen before the Chair rules.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if it will assist the Chair, we have no objection to the argument being put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I was under the impression that Mr. Speaker had listened to the discussion on the procedural point and to objections raised by hon. members. That is why I made my ruling. However, if hon. members wish to continue speaking on the procedural acceptability of the motion, I am willing to listen.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On June 21, Mr. Speaker said the following in respect of the motions on the order paper:
When we come to motion No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, I think we should have a discussion on its procedural acceptability, because I have some difficulty regarding the relevance of the motion to clause 38 of the bill which it seeks to amend.
I do not know how to proceed now that the decision has been made without the discussion having taken place, but 1 hope that my persuasive approach might convince you, Mr. Speaker, not to make the ruling that you said you will make. This particular motion amends clause 38 of Bill C-27. Clause 38 opens up section 25 of the act which deals with pregnancy benefits. Since Bill C-27 opens up section 25 of the act, all I did in the amendment was to amend the section.
One has to assume, with respect to the ruling which you will make after we have had the discussion on the motion, that we are involved in proposing an expenditure of money. I think that, biologically speaking, all women who work and who pay into the unemployment insurance fund should be able to take advantage of the provisions of the act, in particular the maternity benefits.


An hon. Member:: Why not the men?


John R. Rodriguez: That is a question we are not discussing here. The fact is that there is a provision for maternity benefits under the act. When a woman starts to work and pays into the unemployment insurance fund, one has to assume that at some point in time she might become eligible for benefits under the relevant section of the act. In line with that thinking, we are not urging any expenditure of money but are, in fact, ensuring that the discrimination which presently exists in the act with respect to women who are not fortunate enough to be able to bear children because they cannot become pregnant, or their spouses are unable to impregnate them, but who adopt chil-
June 23, 1977

dren, be eradicated and that these women be eligible for the eight-week benefit.
My motion is in response to many letters and appeals from women across the country who have adopted or wish to adopt children. The criterion for adoption, under the rules of various children's aid societies, as is the case in Ontario, is that in the period of time prior to the child coming into the home the mother must quit work and be in the home, as well as for the first two weeks after the child has arrived in the home. So, in effect, this is a similar situation to the confinement period of the mother who bears a child. 1 feel, as do the women who have written to me, that the same confinement period should be granted to women adopting children just as it is to women who bear a child.
We argue that there is no question of expending money under the motion. These people have paid the premiums and they should be able to draw the benefits. All we argue is that they be given the opportunity to draw them. 1 am sure that in the actuarial figures and in the projections which the Unemployment Insurance Commission makes with regard to premiums and the payment of benefits, the commission must make certain assumptions, such as that women-they know the percentage of the insured work force-who pay premiums might at some time wish to draw benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Basically, that is the argument we put forward before Your Honour, in the hope that the decision which was written for you before we had the discussion and put forward the argument will be withdrawn. How is that? I am not even a lawyer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I have listened very carefully to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, but my opinion is not changed, because the motion goes beyond the scope of the bill since it does not seek to amend any part of the bill, but section 30 of the act.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It was a weak argument, at that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would like to refer hon. members to the citation found in May's at page 521. It could be argued, also, that motion No. 12 would entail additional expenditures from the public treasury and, therefore, should be accompanied by a royal recommendation, which only a minister of the Crown can obtain. With regret, therefore, I must rule that motion No. 12 is not acceptable from a procedural point of view.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, while we are on this subject, and given your eloquence-I certainly agree most assuredly with your conclusions-let me remind you, sir, that Mr. Speaker had also suggested that motions Nos. 19, 27, 28 and 33 standing in my name went beyond the scope of the bill. One of those amendments arose as a result of a question raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) having to do with the minister, rather than the commission, deciding what confidential information might be made available. The reason I am rising at this time is that perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West will later be able to seek the unanimous
Employment and Immigration
consent of the House to move that motion, but in so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to drop motions Nos. 19, 27, 28 and 33.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my understanding that motions Nos. 19, 27, 28 and 33 standing in the name of the minister will be dropped. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Reluctantly, 1 must agree with what Your Honour has just ruled, but I would appreciate it if Your Honour would keep in mind the comments of the minister regarding motion No. 27. I will try to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move that motion when we arrive at that point. Let me explain this. It was left up to the commission to distribute any information, written or oral, to any person within the department. I found that satisfactory. The offensive words were "to any other persons as they deem necessary".
Perhaps this information should have gone to other persons. Perhaps it should have been under the guidance and counselling of the minister because there could have been abuses. 1 am not saying there were; I have no reason for saying so. But in order to see to it that there is some control, I think hon. members from both sides of the House would appreciate there being some ministerial accounting in this matter. Therefore, in due course I will move an amendment, having given hon. members the opportunity to think about this so they can stand up and support me later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I propose that motions Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 be grouped for the purpose of debate, but that the question should be put separately on motions Nos. 13, 14 and 18. Then I propose that the question be put on motion No. 17. An affirmative vote would dispose of motion No. 16. However, if motion No. 17 is negatived, then I propose that the question on motion No. 16 be put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: motion No. 13:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 41 by striking out line 14 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"sections 34 to 37 of the said act are repealed."


Reginald Cyril Symes: motion No. 14;
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 41 by striking out line 17 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"than twenty weeks of insurable".

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: motion No. 16:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 41, by striking out lines 35 to 43 at page 19 and lines 1 to 47 at page 20.


Stanley Howard Knowles: motion No. 17:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 41 by striking out lines 35 to 43 at page 19, lines 1 to 47 at page 20, lines 1 to 42 at page 21, lines I to 42 at page 22, lines 1 to 45 at page 23 and lines 1 to 6 at page 24.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: motion No. 18:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 41 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 22, the following new subclause:
"(12) provided that within one year from the proclamation of this act, the
minister shall cause to be laid before parliament by way of ministerial
statement, a definitive evaluation report on the said job creation proposal".


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Dispense.


John R. Rodriguez: 1 notice that there has been a shift in the seating arrangements across the floor. I think by now the minister and the House are well aware that we object to changing the extended benefit period, in line with the proposals of the minister with regard to establishing 54 regions across the country and setting the length of the benefit period and regional rates in line with that kind of national plan. We object to it because it discriminates against certain regions of the country. Atlantic Canada and especially Newfoundland have staggering rates of unemployment. It seems to me that it does not matter whether a person is unemployed in Toronto or in St. John's, Newfoundland. The effects are the same; they are just as deadly and debilitating. Studies on the unemployed have been carried out in the United States and it has been found that suicide, wife beating, child beating and other offences tend to be numerous among people who are unemployed or who may have a history of long unemployment.
In the debates on these various motions we have pointed out the effects this bill will have on the regions of the country. My riding is in region 21. While the region may have a 6.1 per cent or 6.4 per cent unemployment rate, there are pockets within that region which suffer from devastatingly high rates of unemployment. If the minister is interested in cracking down on people who abuse the unemployment insurance fund, the most effective way of doing that is to enforce the act more effectively than is being done at the moment.
[Mr. Symcs.J
If jobs are available in Atlantic Canada, as pointed out in the study of the Atlantic region carried out by Canada Manpower, in which it stated there are many jobs available, and just a few operations which could not provide at least eight weeks of work, why are the unemployed not being referred to those jobs which are supposed to be available? In January, when we were in St. John's to study unemployment, we went to the Manpower centres and discovered that there were very few jobs posted. We understood that when a job came to the attention of the Manpower office there, it was posted on a bulletin board. The unemployed could go to that board and pick a job in which they were interested or for which they felt they were qualified.
On the day we were there, two jobs were posted on that board. We found that the unemployed in St. John's were trained or retrained, as the case may be. We found that women were being trained to be hairdressers. The hairdressing course was a very popular one. Women were being put on that course, and we found that there were more hairdressers on the market than there were heads to be tended.
I discovered that the same thing was true in my own riding. In my riding, a favourite course is the stationary engineering course. Everybody was being trained to be a stationary engineer. Before we knew it, we had more third-class stationary engineers than we had engines and motors to be stationary engineered! Therefore, we have consistently said that one of the most effective ways to enforce the Unemployment Insurance Act and to eliminate abuses would be to direct unemployed people to the jobs that are available. We have long argued that that is one of the most effective roles in which the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Canada Manpower could cooperate.
Unfortunately, they have developed a system in my riding whereby the Manpower centre is downtown Sudbury and the unemployment insurance office is five miles away in the suburbs. There is no bus service, and it is isolated from any attempt to refer to jobs those who are registered for unemployment insurance and are collecting benefits. We have consistently argued that this is what the visit to the Canada Manpower centre ought to be for, to refer the claimant to a job. If the claimant refuses the job, then a decision is made based on that choice, and from there on there could be a decision on whether it was a justifiable refusal. But we are not doing that. This whole operation is designed to get people off the unemployment insurance rolls, no matter whether jobs are provided or anything is done to stimulate job opportunity.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) earlier talked about what a great job this government was doing in creating employment. But this is the same government that eliminated the Opportunities for Youth program and last year cut back on LIP. They claim to be saving $135 million through the changes to this act, but what are they doing with the money? I have grave doubts about whether replacing LIP with Canada Works is a step up the ladder.
June 23, 1977

One of the so-called progressive ideas offered in this bill is work-sharing. That was very prevalent in the days of the depression. It is not a creative approach to employment, and the government knows it. Then they said if a worker wanted to work on a community project, he would be paid unemployment insurance. No one could call the C.D. Howe Institute a left-wing organization, but it has commented that the only benefit from a training program comes if there is a job at the end. Unfortunately, the training programs available through Manpower produce hairdressers and stationary engineers. It seems to be just an attempt to take people off the unemployment rolls because if they are on a training program they are not counted in the unemployment statistics. Their chance of a job at the end of the course depends on the economic conditions which prevail at the time.
We have consistently pointed out that this is stupid and inhuman. It certainly is not correct to tamper with unemployment insurance through the adjustment of the extended benefit period, to conform to this new approach of regional unemployment across the country. We pointed out, as well, that it is silly to tamper with the minor attachment period because this is a time of very serious unemployment. How cutting people off unemployment insurance is going to help them find a job is beyond me. We know, for example, that there are about
58,000	jobs available at any given time. I think the latest figures show some 58,000 vacancies, but there are one million unemployed. It is fairly obvious that when you start tightening up this law, those people will spill over into community welfare programs. There are communities which can ill-afford to expand their welfare budgets so these people will end up costing the taxpayer a great deal of money.
There is the spectre of young people coming off the work force, and those who depend on working for the summer, not being able to return to school in the fall. These young people will find it difficult to get eight weeks of work, and if they live in a high unemployment area it will be difficult for them to get 14 weeks' work in order to qualify for benefits. The minister and his colleagues, and even hon. members to my right, have said that this is the most generous unemployment insurance program in the world. When we met in committee, the Construction Association and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association appeared there complaining about disincentives.


An hon. Member:: They were all Tories.


John R. Rodriguez: They were palsy-walsy with the Conservatives. Anybody would be friendly with them if the money for their campaign came from those organizations.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am supported by the little fellow.


John R. Rodriguez: They claim it is the most generous unemployment insurance scheme in the world. But when we ask for details of how it compares with others, we find they are lacking-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 know my hon. friend's remarks are important, but I think he inad-
Continental Bank of Canada
vertently misled the House. As we all know, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) and myself are supported by the little person and not by the large, international trade unions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please, it being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, pursuant to order made Wednesday, June 22, 1977, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: that Bill C-1001 to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now.
[ Translation]


John Mercer Reid: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is read the third time, I should like to make a number of remarks to justify our position which has not changed concerning the powers granted chartered banks under federal legislation. But it would be useful, however, to consider for a while the history of chartered banks in Canada, in order to understand better the points which were made by the movers of this bill, by IAC Limited, which wants to become a chartered bank under the provisions of Bill C-1001.
Mr. Speaker, at the time Canada became a confederation of provinces in 1867-that's quite a few years before our time- the jurisdiction over banks became an area reserved to the federal government. A legislation authorized banks to carry out their operations in all parts of the Canadian territory, and a first permanent legislation governing banking activities was adopted in 1871. Following this, only the Parliament of Canada could authorize the creation of a bank under a special act in line with the new banking legislation.

June 23, 1977
Continental Bank of Canada
That is why we continue to claim that anything to do with money is a jurisdiction of the central government, of the Parliament of Canada, and I feel it is normal that we should insist on this because it is becoming an ever more topical question-Canadians are increasingly interested in this-and because politicians sometimes infer that any province can legislate in this area and this must be accepted by all Canadians. This procedure to obtain a charter is always in force. It has not changed since the 1871 legislation was passed. However, the process of incorporation of a bank is long and complicated. That does not mean that it is a complicated, incomprehensible thing. It is people who complicate it to keep as many Canadians as possible away from knowing about bank operations.
The founding members of a commercial bank must introduce a petition to the Canadian Parliament to obtain a charter. This is the first step. The minimum required capital stock is $1 million. Each share must have a par value of $1 or a multiple of $1, up to $10. There must be at least five temporary directors, and each one must hold a given number of shares in his own name. The bill as it now stands contained a provision, amended later and agreed to by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
After the charter has been granted, which requires a special act of the federal government, the shares of the bank are issued. We are discussing the special act of Parliament, Parliament is exercising its power, its authority, and it is good to consider whether it is really to the advantage of Canada to have a new chartered bank. Is it true this will stimulate competition? Will Canadians be better served? Will interest rates go down? Will governments be able to get loans at better conditions and at lower interest rates than now? Parliament must give special attention to all those points. For me, if I judge by the information I have and the research I have done, when many years ago, in 1924, Canada had 13 banks and 8,081 branches, competition was not greater than it is now.
Chartered banks have an association called the Canadian Bankers Association and are subject to the same laws since there is no special law for the Canadian Bank of Commerce nor any special one for the Bank of Montreal. The same law applies to all banks, all of them must work the same way, just as the caisses populaires in the province of Quebec are subject to a particular law which is their own. Individually, each caisse works under that law, with the difference that each one is autonomous, and through its directors may set up its own regulation for its own place, but for their whole operations all of them must necessarily abide by some general legislation which applies to all credit unions. Therefore it is the same thing for chartered banks.
Mr. Speaker, section 72 of the Bank Act, which every Canadian should know, would make anyone understand that when we suggest that banks have the power to generate money, to create money, that is true. It should be understood that money is modern quite simply because it is a matter of accountancy.

Chartered banks which hold a legal reserve under section 72 have the authority, on the basis of a fractional reserve, to create a deposit to lend money to a customer, whether an individual, a company or a government, and when the borrower refunds the money borrowed, they simply cancel the creation of money. The credit which had been granted is based on the real value and is turned into money in a modern way I support because it is much faster. In this way, the possibility of a theft of banknotes is more remote because there are fewer banknotes in circulation. These are clerical entries. They both add and subtract to and from my account by way of entries writing and the payment transfer is made.
The whole difficulty lies in section 72. This is what prevents me from accepting the fact that with a new bank we will contribute to establish more competition and that Canadians will be better served at the level of this institution called the monetary system. I doubt it, I do not believe it at all!
If IAC was able to make good profits in the lending business during 50 years, and if it wants to become a chartered bank today, it is not to lose money but to make more. I gather that those people are serious. They are honest and competent and they know where they are going. If they want to get a charter to create a bank to invest their capital, it is with a view to making more profits, it is because they take into account the competition of chartered banks; but they do not work on equal terms because IAC is not entitled, under the legislation which applies to it, to create, monetize the country's credit, the citizens' credit as banks are entitled to do.
I am shocked when I hear people tell the public: this is a complicated thing, it is impossible to understand, endure it as it is and shut up! In short, this is what it means. As we were told this afternoon by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), whom I highly appreciate and who is a good friend of mine: What you propose has never been done elsewhere. That is the classical answer. Yesterday, his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) informed us about a new plan, a new service for Canadians. He took the trouble to specify that it is new, unique in Canada, that it has never been seen anywhere in the world. I commend him and the government for taking that action. It means that when you want you do not have to ape everybody else, ever waiting for others to act so you can imitate them.
Under these circumstances, I am glad when I see Canadians have enough initiative, enough courage to do something, to pass measures that are not taken in the rest of the world. That means we are really clever people who can do something on their own. We can do that. I think I told the House about the fact that it is a Canadian who invented the system we know now, the telephone system, and Graham Bell did not imitate anyone. He did not say to himself: Chinese did not do that, Russians did not do that, Americans did not do that. He did some research. He found out that it was possible with two pieces of wire-he even started with one piece of wire and the ground. It was called the ground telephone system because communication was established with only one length of wire while the other touched the ground. It has been improved ever
June 23, 1977

since and today his invention is spread throughout the world. We are grateful to him for that.
I would like us to do the same in other fields, even in the financial or monetary field. This coming year-and that is only a suggestion on my part-1 feel that while reviewing bank legislation, committees should take as much time as needed to scrutinize all financial operations to see if it would not be possible to improve the banking system. I am sure that bankers themselves would agree with Parliament to amend section 72 of the law so as to remove that power which reaches beyond Parliament and which makes it possible to establish and create a monetary system which runs parallel to that of the state, to that of the people of Canada, which falls under the jurisdiction of Parliament and which would be one of the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). Mr. Speaker, at the rate things are going we are bound to have a superpower type of system.
This is the power of finance over Parliament, over the judicial power, where we are dominated by four powers: finance, Parliament, the executive and the judiciary-and I would add a fourth one, the power of the press or of the media that gives people the information they want to give and this power is in the hands of the economic dictatorship.
Let us lift up the veil and try to find out who are the real owners of the big newspapers, of the privately owned radio and television stations. Let us try to find out and we will soon come upon all the same people we find in finance; because they have the monetary power, the financial power, they can also establish a press power which is serving their own interest. In spite of the willingness of reporters who are trying to give impartial information to the public, the owners of these big media employ people to censure the news they get and let through the news which will serve the interest of the economic and financial dictatorship, and people increasingly lose interest in public matters, because they cannot find anything in there that can truly and efficiently inform them.
Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday Parliament had the pleasure of being visited by a group of students, boys and girls of 16 to 18, from every province in Canada. Someone responsible, whom 1 thank, organized a meeting in Room 200 with those students and one representative of each of the political parties represented in the House. We went to meet them and they put the following question to us: Does Parliament control the administration of Canada? Those young people wanted to know that, unmindful of political considerations.
The four hon. members recognized that, unfortunately, the Canadian Parliament does not in fact control the administration of our country because it is asked to pass bills which are not, generally, initiated by Parliament. Cabinet introduces them at the request of advisers placed at its service. Then Parliament is asked to either pass or reject them. But, as the majority decides, usually the bills are accepted by the majority. Further down the line, the executive council has all it takes to implement the will of Parliament, to be answerable to it and
Continental Bank of Canada
to make it responsible. I say no to that. So, we agreed on that, since it is impossible. Let us put any minister, with the best of intentions in the world, at the head of a department such as transport, for instance, where he has to manage the fields of communications, air transport, water transport, etc. How can one man alone possibly supervise efficiently the administration of so vast a spectrum? It is impossible. That is why we say that Parliament does not control its administration. Answers which seemed relevant were given. My colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) will certainly corroborate this and the young people asked quite intelligent questions. They want to know what Parliament is, what the members and the ministers do. I was glad to spend two hours with those young people. I am sure of one thing, that is they left Ottawa convinced that they had learned something during their short stay. I therefore invite all my colleagues in the House to provide information to our youngsters. The truth should not be concealed even about money matters. They know where the dollar comes from, who creates it, what is its role in the world, how it ends and why it exists.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after all those considerations, of course l do not want to give the impression in Parliament that the fact that I systematically object to the passage of that bill will solve the problem in Canada. Absolutely not. I am not that naive, but I would like to establish quite clearly that 1 do not believe that even 20 members would considerably alter the system. They would merely divide the profit in 20 shares instead of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few remarks about this bill. I shall be brief. I am reminded of the comments which were made last Thursday when we were discussing a private members' bill concerning the Bell Telephone company. At that time an interjection was made on a point of order regretting, in effect, that there was no means of providing, in private members' hour, the application of Standing Order 75A or 75B-in other words, closure- on the ground that it was not fair to companies to put them through this process. But here, today, we see the results of what I believe to be one of the finest examinations of a bill to have taken place in private members' hour.
When this bill came before parliament the NDP took serious objection to it, first because it originated in the other place among the corporate retirees and then wound its way into the House through a private member, the hon. member for Keno-ra-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). We objected, also, to the manner in which interlocking directorships would continue the financial arrangements between the IAC and the Continental Bank. We felt it was certainly an exception to the Bank Act. The government promised revisions to the Bank Act, but that has all been forgotten now, thrown out of the window. We felt it was unfair to deal with corporations such as IAC outside the framework of the Bank Act, that we would shortly see

June 23, 1977
Continental Bank of Canada
Household Finance, Avco, and the whole gang trotting in here with their friends in the other place starting private bills and smuggling them into this chamber via a private member.


An hon. Member:: Here we go again.


John R. Rodriguez: Hon. members over there do not like debate.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is the fiction 1 object to, not debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Here again, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is missing the point. If we had gone along with the usual desultory examination at that point, we would now have before us legislation far inferior to this. Instead of making smart remarks, the hon. member would do well to start looking seriously at the bills which come before us during private members' hour.
We put forward our objections in the form of a number of amendments, and in these circumstances the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and his cohorts in the IAC saw the wisdom of the arguments advanced by members on this side who are concerned about the economic structures we put into place. As a result, the bill before us is a clear refutation of the comment made by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) who expressed a wish that closure might be possible during private members' hour. We intend to apply the same gentle consideration to the bill which he is sponsoring.
I assure hon. members that what we have here in Bill C-1001 is a direct result of the recommendations and amendments we have put forward. If we had raised those objections in a purely philosophic or argumentative way we would, no doubt, have been told it was not possible to make changes of the kind we had in mind; that they would put great stress upon the company, making it impossible to operate, and so on. But lo and behold, the Bronfman family found it could accommodate everything we proposed. As meek as mice scuttling over the kitchen in the middle of the night to steal cheese, by golly, they accepted every amendment.
Very shortly we shall be discussing another bill in private members' hour. This is not a threat, but a promise. We intend to examine it very closely, and we hope the proposals we intend to make with regard to it can be realized. However that maybe, we are prepared to accept the bill before us as amended, recognizing that the suggestions we have made are incorporated in it. We hope it will be possible to reach a similar successful conclusion with regard to other bills which come before us in the same way.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their courtesy and help. It has been a fascinating experience to be working with so many members on legislation of such importance. I appreciate the help and advice I have received in connection with certain changes which have been advisable. Most members will agree, I think, that we have been responsive to their wishes and that the bill is an improvement over the one first introduced.



BELL CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill S-2, respecting Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, last week I had just begun to make some remarks on the bill now before us. I will take up where the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) left off. It is our intention to do the same with this bill as we did with the bill on IAC. With a great deal of persistence our party was able to amend that measure to the extent that it became a decent bill. We propose to do this without the help of the Conservative party, I presume, because they are sitting on their hands.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is an intelligent member. Like myself, he comes from the province of Saskatchewan, the province which offers us the experience of seeing how a telephone system should be run, because it is publicly-owned. It is a public utility serving all people equally. This is what Bell Canada should be; it should be nationalized and publicly owned.
For that reason I am not at all interested in facilitating Beil Canada's wishes to expand their company operations, or to get around the regulations of the CRTC and fatten the pocket books of their private shareholders. I am interested in a publicly owned telephone system in Canada such as the one in the province of Saskatchewan. That is a system the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is proud of, one that I am proud of and which every other member of parliament from that province is proud of.
I want to see a system like the one in Manitoba which is also publicly owned. If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) were here, I am sure he would be on his feet extolling the virtues of public ownership, because he worked for the Manitoba telephone system before he came to the House of Commons. I know what a great socialist member he is, and he would agree it is a good system. He would be opposed to Bell Canada doing what they are to the ordinary folk of this country. He would be calling for the nationalization of a utility that takes advantage of the ordinary citizen.
I should not really be speaking for these two Conservative members because I shall not leave enough time to speak for myself. I want to prove the case for public ownership. The Saskatchewan Telephone Corporation has been in operation now for a number of years and it provides excellent service to the people of that province. It also returns a great deal of profit to the people of Saskatchewan year in and year out. I have before me the 1976 annual report of the Saskatchewan Telephone Corporation and I find that it has made tremendous profits. Let me go back to 1967, for example. We are only a small province with one million people, and one would think it would be difficult to set up an organization of this sort. I know
June 23, 1977

my Conservative friends will probably be flabbergasted at this, but the profit from Saskatchewan's telephone service in 1967 was $8,322,000. By 1970 the profits of Saskatchewan government telephones had grown to $11,718,000. By 1976 they had grown to $19,061,000.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know the hon. member would like to entertain a question from me. I am very interested in his most informative figures and if he would permit a question I would appreciate it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) entertain a question from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Sure.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is a great advocate of large profits for corporations, whether they be public or private. He seems to be extolling this view at great length here today. On the basis of logic and consistency I wonder if it is his view, having regard to the incredible profits made by this company in Saskatchewan, that the money should in fact be returned to the consumer across Saskatchewan in the form of lower rates and greater facilities, or does he feel that this money should go into the general treasury of the province of Saskatchewan?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am really happy that the hon. member asked that question, Mr. Speaker, because 1 might have forgotten to speak about that. 1 think those profits should be used for a number of things, and I shall probably spend the rest of my time telling the hon. member what they should be used for and what they have been used for in the past.
The annual report refers to all of the rural telephone services in Saskatchewan. It is a really good service which cannot be compared to any other in the country. They use a lot of that money for their rural telephone service. They use a lot more money for communication into northern Saskatchewan. I could in some detail tell the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar how my constituent, Neil Byers, as minister in charge of telephones, has improved things in northern Saskatchewan. They have also spent money on cable television in the province. They have made all kinds of renovations and repairs to the existing system. They have participated in the Trans-Canada service. They provide very good salaries and working conditions to their employees, and so on.
Most important of all, Mr. Speaker, they have returned most of their profits to the people of Saskatchewan through the lowest rates of any telephone system in Canada. 1 am sure that all members of the House would be very interested in knowing how public ownership can be so efficient. It can have the lowest rates in Canada and still make a profit, and it can invest those profits in Saskatchewan, not in the United States
Bell Canada
or Mexico or elsewhere. They pay their workers decent salaries.
I have before me an article comparing telephone rates in August of 1976, which is the most recent data I have been able to accumulate. 1 would ask all hon. members, particularly those on the other side of the House, to listen to some of these rates.
In the city of Regina residence phones cost $5 a month, business phones cost $11.85. In the city of Regina there are 72,400 phones. Let me compare those rates with those of private telephone companies in other cities and see how much more inefficient these private companies are and how much more they charge.
The city of Halifax has 96,000 phones; residence phones cost $8.95 and business phones $26. In Moncton where there are 52,000 telephones, private phones cost $7.65 and business phones $22.30. They are even trampling on their business friends. That is what private enterprise does. In the city of Montreal there are almost 1,400,000 phones; private phones cost $7.45 and business phones $22.10. In the city of Ottawa there are 338,000; private phones cost $6.55, business phones $18.70. In St. John's, Newfoundland, poor little Newfoundland with all their unemployed and below average incomes, there are 46,000 telephones; private phones cost $8 and business phones $23.
In Saint John, New Brunswick, there are 47,000 phones; private phones cost $7.65 and business phones $22.30. In Sherbrooke, Quebec, there are 82,000 telephones; private phones cost $6.20 and business phones $17. In Toronto with
1,400,000	telephones, private phones cost $7.45 and business phones $22.10. In Vancouver with 511,000 phones, private phones cost $8.05 and business phones $24.20. In every case that I have cited today the rates are much higher than those in Saskatchewan, which I remind the House are $5 for private phones and $11.85 for business phones.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the city of Edmonton?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Theirs is a publicly owned service as well, another plus for public ownership. Edmonton has 207,000 phones and a private phone costs $5.80. I am so happy to hear the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) arguing the case for public ownership and saying how great it is in the city of Edmonton.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not what I said. I just wanted to know what the cost was.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Telephones probably cost a few cents more in Alberta since the Conservative party is worse at running public institutions that we are. Winnipeg, Manitoba is the only place that has lower rates than Edmonton and Regina. There is a publicly owned telephone system in Winnipeg, which has a rate of $4.90 for a private telephone, and a business phone rate of $11.65. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the grandfather of the former premier Duff Roblin who instigated

June 23, 1977
Bell Canada
a publicly owned telephone system in the province of Manitoba.
In every single case where telephones are publicly owned the rates are substantially lower than cases where Bell Canada is providing service. The figures I have referred to are for cities of comparable size. In every case where the telephones are publicly owned the system is more efficient and is providing service at a much lower cost. I have referred only to the figures for the urban centres, but if I refer to rural areas the rates are significantly lower if service is provided by a publicly owned outlet.
The Conservative and Liberal parties tend to say public ownership does not work, is inefficient, and cannot be properly managed. I should like to point out to them that in the three prairie provinces where the telephone systems are publicly owned service is provided at 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 50 per cent lower cost to people than the service provided by Bell Canada. I do not have the rural rates with me, but in those areas the rates are even lower where the system is publicly owned.
I am not interested whatsoever in Bell Canada getting more money and more privileges in order to expand their facilities. Coming from Saskatchewan I have had a chance to experience publicly owned telephones. Then I came here and experienced privately owned telephones. There is no comparison whatsoever. I am not only referring to the price. I am also referring to the service. When I ordered a telephone for my new home here, it took nearly two months to get a private line. That would never happen in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. If you order a new telephone in those provinces, it is a matter of days before you get it. You do not have to wait for months and months on end. You have to wait with Bell Canada because they are not interested in providing a service. They are only interested in making a profit.
The first priority of publicly owned systems is to serve people. They do not take advantage of people by being pick pockets and taking money out of their wallets. It is nothing short of that in some instances with Bell Canada. 1 will not expedite this legislation through the Elouse and further line the pocketbooks of Bell Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You had better be careful or Bell Canada will cut your telephone off.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A week ago my telephone stopped working. Coincidentally that occurred the day after I spoke on the Bell Canada debate. I immediately called their office and they said it would take at least a week and a half to repair my telephone. In Saskatchewan employees would be fired if it took that long to repair a telephone. That is an indication of how efficient the publicly owned system is in Saskatchewan. It is not inefficient like the privately owned Bell Canada system. For reasons like that, I am not interested in filling the pocketbooks of Bell Canada or making the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) happy.

Bell Canada takes advantage of too many ordinary people. They should be publicly owned, and the telephone system should be publicly owned by all of the people in each and every province so that those people could enjoy the same privileges and rights as we enjoy in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta.
When the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) gets up, he will be talking about public ownership of the telephone system in the province of Manitoba because of the low rates he and his constituents pay, compared to the rates which are paid by people in ridings like those of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). That is only because the telephone systems in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are publicly owned.
It makes me passionate and somewhat angry when I compare the two systems of telephone service. I consistently hear that Bell Canada is poor and needs more money. In the question I answered just a few moments ago, I referred to the profits SASK TEL made despite all the service they provide. If SASK TEL can make such tremendous profits and provide service at such low rates, what is Bell Canada doing with the money they are swindling from the taxpayers of this country? They give various privileges to their executive people and they are involved in various types of investments. They do those things with the money they make from ordinary citizens.
I should like to refer to a list of Bell Canada's shareholders. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to refer to the 76 major shareholders of Bell Canada. I have heard Conservative and Liberal members get up and say that little old grannies own Bell Canada, and private citizens own Bell Canada. Well, very few of them own Bell Canada. Bell Canada is mostly owned by large companies.
In Saskatchewan the telephone system has 950,000 shareholders because every citizen of that province is a shareholder of SASK TEL. The same situation exists in the province of Manitoba, and that is the way it should be in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, as well as the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When hon. members of the Conservative and Liberal parties realize they are not winning their argument, they start shouting and heckling.
1 should like to return to the list of Bell Canada shareholders. There is Associated Investors Ltd. which has 2,400 common shares; Canada Life E-2 which has 6,100 common shares; Canada Life S-3 which has 22,325 common shares; Canada Life S-9 which has 12,000 common shares; Canada Permanent Investments which has 5,000 common shares; Canada Permanent Pooled which has 10,000 common shares; Canada Trust Investors Equity which has 15,000 common shares; and Canada Trust R.S.P. which has 62,000 common shares. Mr. Speaker, if I had a grandmother like that I would be a wealthy man.


Steve Eugene Paproski: How many shares do you have?
June 23, 1977


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have no shares in Bell Canada. I have one share in SASK TEL because I am a resident of that province. Just like every other resident of that province, I have one share, and I am very proud of that. We also own a lot of potash in Saskatchewan, and we are likely to be owning a lot more in the future.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The potash industry is another cartel.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Even if it is a cartel, it is a cartel on behalf of the people of that province. It returns all the profits to the people of that province and does not drain all of the profits out of the province and into other countries. I seem to be annoying hon. members by getting to some of the bare facts.
To return to the list, another Tory grandmother is Canadian General Life Equity which has 1,000 common shares. There is also Canadian International Investor Trust which has 12,000 common shares-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was cut off in mid flight while listing these "little people" who own Bell Canada, and I am positive he would want to make sure that a few other examples go on the record. He has a list of 76 various large shareholders of Bell Canada and he got down to No. 11. I too am somewhat limited by time; I only have 20 minutes. I imagine I could fill my 20 minutes reading the list of shareholders and still be able to pass it on to another member. I will not do that other than to point out a few examples from the list to puncture the myth that it is the little people who own Bell.
We have, for example, Eaton Commonwealth Investment Fund owning 50,000 common shares, or Confederation Life owning 63,400, and Investors Growth owning 320,000 preferred shares. It ranges from that figure of 320,000 shares down to around 300 shares. That is an example of the kind of ownership that exists in this company. It leads one to question whether the company really is serving the interests of the individual subscriber, the little person as he is called by Bell, or whether Bell is serving some important or powerful corporate companies.
I want to move on to discuss why we take particular exception to this bill on Bell Canada, a bill which originated in the Senate and which only had a very cursory examination. For that reason, and because we feel that Bell does affect hundreds of thousands of subscribers in various parts of Canada it is important that we give it a close scrutiny to see
Bell Canada
what the company is up to, and to ensure that the bill is amended so that the subscribers are protected.
What the bill tends to do is to allow Bell to be treated like any other corporation in the matter of raising capital. It wants to change some of the regulations by which Bell has been governed up to now. But we in the NDP argue that you cannot treat Bell Canada like any other company, that because it is a monopoly it has a unique position in the country, it is a very powerful company, it does not have a competitor in certain provinces, and therefore it has to come under government regulation.
What we object to is the way in which Bell Canada, since its incorporation, has attempted to circumvent government regulation, that is to say regulation by the elected representatives of the people or the agencies which they appoint.
I would like to zero in on just a couple of areas to show why we need more regulation of Bell Canada rather than less, as this bill attempts to do. We find that Bell, by having subsidiary companies, has attempted to circumvent some of the original legislation governing the operation of Bell Canada, legislation which limited Bell to operate in the field of telecommunications. What we find is that Bell, through its subsidiaries, the companies in which it owns controlling interest, has been trying to increase investment in areas not related to communications. Through the use of subsidiaries Bell has been trying to increase its investment and its other costs in order to inflate its rate base and justify increased costs to subscribers, while at the same time shifting their profitable operations to their subsidiaries which are not regulated by any government agency. In other words, I submit that Bell is trying to circumvent the intent of parliament. Therefore we object strenuously to this bill because it is just one more in a series of attempts by Bell to bypass regulations.
Let us look at the way Bell tries to circumvent regulations. Let us look, for example, at its largest subsidiary called Northern Telecom, formerly known as Northern Electric. This company manufactures telephone receivers and related equipment. We should note that Bell originally manufactured this equipment itself, but eventually it changed over to having Northern Telecom do it.
Northern Telecom is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bell. What it has been able to do is to capture the market on telephone manufacturing and to become a profitable branch of Bell Canada. But when the government agency, formerly the Canadian Transport Commission now the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission, goes about regulating Bell and determining whether subscribers' telephone rates should go up or not, the regulatory agency never takes into account the profitability of Bell's subsidiaries. This has always been a shortcoming in the past.
I have appeared before CTC hearings in the past and argued that you have to look at the total profitability of the company in determining rates. That has not been done in the past, and as a result Bell can argue that its costs have been going up and therefore subscribers have to pay higher telephone charges. But when we look at Bell's profitability through its subsidiar-

June 23, 1977
Adjournment Debate
ies, the question comes to mind that perhaps the rate increases in the past have not been justified. I think of Northern Telecom's profits in particular. That company reported record earnings in 1976 of $77.1 million, up to 14.2 per cent from a year earlier. That profitability is really a direct profit for Bell Canada. It is all part of the same conglomerate, the same large corporate structure. Therefore I submit that that should be taken into account when Bell goes before CRTC pleading poverty and asking for a rate increase.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I had occasion to ask questions in the House of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin).
We know that the deficit in the tourist trade is getting worse each year. The deficit for the first quarter of this year is $410 million, a quarterly deficit greater than any annual deficit prior to 1975. As I mentioned, I addressed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Revenue. The first minister seemed to think that the main problem was that all of a sudden too many Canadians were going abroad instead of touring their own country. It may be so, but facts have been brought to my attention which seem to indicate that the main problem might be quite a different one.
In my supplementary question I asked the Minister of National Revenue why her department's excise tax officers gave the impression that they were following a policy of harassment directed against American tourists, which can only be called a witch hunt, when they were assessing duties and taxes on, for example, American groceries purchased by U.S. citizens for use in Canada, or on U.S. manufactured boats used by Americans in Canada, and on U.S. registered automobiles while in use in Canada. The minister answered that she did not know which electors I represented, that she could not deal in generalities, and that she wanted specific details. I want her to know that I represent the electors of that paradise vacation land, Parry Sound-Muskoka.

I would also like to remind the minister that other regions of the country count greatly on the American tourist trade. I have received complaints in letters and in telephone calls. A constituent of mine who owns a fishing camp on Lake Nipis-sing sent me a letter telling me of a complaint she received from three American clients. They were coming to Canada with friends to go fishing for a week end. They had about $40 worth of groceries with them which they had purchased in the United States. They were humiliated and treated in an extremely rude fashion at the border, and they had to pay $6 duty on the $40 worth of groceries. The tourists were angry because they were treated somewhat like smugglers.
The law permits a person to bring with him duty-free food for two days. The customs officer is the final judge on what amounts to two days' food. It is hard for me to believe that $40 worth of groceries shared by three men could be much more than a two days' supply at today's costs. These people say they are not coming back. I do not think it was the idea of the $6; it was the principle of the thing.
The second case concerns an American who has been coming to Canada since 1961. He lives in Florida. Six years ago he purchased a lodge in Algonquin Park. It is a very successful operation. It turns over more than a quarter of a million dollars in business each year and is a great asset to the surrounding community. Every year the owner of this lodge brings his car into Canada for the summer while he is here. He also has two trucks. He leases one in Canada, insures it in Canada, and uses it in conjunction with his business. His other vehicle he purchased outright in Canada, insures it in Canada and so on. Both these vehicles are used in conjunction with his business.
He had to go to one of the customs offices to pick up some parcels which came from the United States. He paid duty on them. The customs official noted the American licence plate on his vehicle. Nothing was said at that time, but a few days later he received a telephone call. He was told in no uncertain terms that his American car could not be used for business, not even to pick up a few parcels from a customs office or to pick up mail. He was further cautioned that he was the only one who could drive his car. His wife could not even drive it. He was told that if he dared to do anything out of line his car would be impounded.
He was given strict orders to go back to that customs office by Friday of this week, which is tomorrow. Needless to say, he was in an awful quandary about this, and I was contacted. I just telephoned him half an hour ago. He went back to that customs office. He said he was amazed at the courtesy with which he was received. A permit was given to him, and he has no problems again this year. However, this case shows that there are officious officials in customs and excise who are creating bad feelings among tourists. I am sure hon. members are going to hear a great deal about this.
Many Americans owning boats have come to Canada over the years. They have brought them to their cottages or to their resorts, as the case may be, and they have left them here. In a
June 23, 1977

great many cases they store them at marinas. In some cases they may leave them at their own cottages, but they go back to their own country at the end of the tourist season. However, they use their boats each year.
There has been no change in regulations, but it seems that now people will have to adhere to the letter of the law. Every American who owns a boat is either going to pay duty or take his boat back to the United States by October 1. This is my information. It certainly seems to be a hardship. A great many people are up in arms. Marina operators who get a good deal of business are up in arms. This matter was brought to my attention by a marina operator.
I am aware that marina operators did put pressure on customs and excise to have this regulation enforced so that they could sell more boats to Americans. A great many Americans buy boats in my area and have them serviced and stored there. There is no problem with that, but it would take a battalion to search out all the American boats that have been in this country for years and years. Everyone is aware that boats carried on trailers are heavy and contribute to higher gasoline consumption, and this is what will happen if they have to be brought back and forth each year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I have to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, under customs regulations a non-resident may import an automobile, pleasure craft, and personal baggage for the length of his or her visit to Canada, but at the conclusion of the visit, goods imported in this manner must be exported. However, realizing the inconvenience that could be caused to non-resident visitors by insisting that their pleasure craft be exported at the conclusion of each visit, the department has, over the years, allowed pleasure craft to remain in Canada during the summer or vacation periods under permit. The foregoing concession has been granted to persons renting or owning seasonal residences in this country as well as to individuals who have yachts and secure storage at marinas.
Over the years repeated requests were received by the department to allow the off-season storage of pleasure craft in Canada. In recognition of the potential benefits of this storage to Canadian marina operators, a procedure was introduced in accordance with national legislation whereby a temporary admission permit would be issued in instances where a unit remained in Canada at a bona fide marina or recognized service depot for repairs or overhaul purposes. Although few problems were experienced with the introduction of this practice, some abuses were indentified where, for example, equipment of all kinds would be stored in Canada, often without any need of repairs and occasionally at locations other than marinas and service outlets.
Unfortunately, the situation has now reached the point where we must re-affirm the intent of the original regulation and limit winter storage permits only to those non-residents who are having their equipment repaired at bona fide marinas.
Adjournment Debate
With respect to the importation of food into Canada by tourists, the present regulations entitle the visitor to this country to import a two day supply of food free of duty. A visitor may, of course, import quantities in excess of this, provided, of course, he pays the duties and taxes. It should be pointed out that customs officers use some discretion to extend a certain degree of latitude.
The regulation which allows foreign visitors to import two days food for each visitor is extended to allow him or her time to locate local sources of supply. The predominant concept of tourism of course is the belief that the visitor will avail himself of the goods and services of the country in which he is visiting. The rationale behind the present regulations is to encourage the purchase of foodstuffs in Canada, foodstuffs which, in large measure, are produced, manufactured, and distributed by Canadians and Canadian enterprises.
Like the hon. member I represent a constituency where the tourist trade is important. The rationale to which 1 referred is one which 1 accept and applaud. Upon reflection I am sure the hon. member opposite will do likewise.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-INVESTIGATION OF OPERATIONS OF BANK OF MONTREAL IN VANCOUVER- REQUEST FOR REPORT
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on April 19 I raised a question with the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) regarding the activities of the commercial crime section of the RCMP in the Vancouver area investigating an alleged illegality involving the Bank of Montreal in Vancouver as it affected a constituent of mine, Mr. Larry MacHale. The reason I asked the question is that it seems that the commercial crime section investigates over and over again. I have to admire the members of the police force for their willingness to carry out investigations ad infinitum.
It seems that the Solicitor General becomes fidgity if we ask him in the House how the investigation is going. His attitude is that, because the investigation is under way, we should not talk about the matter. Mr. Speaker, those are the stonewalling, Nixon-like tactics the Solicitor General uses in this House. Instead of clearing the reputations of people, he says we should not talk about the matter. I agree that if it were before the courts we should not discuss it, but since it is only in the investigation stage I do not see why we should not raise it. I say it is time we gave some of the people involved a chance to clear their names.
I understand that some of these matters have been on the books of the force in Vancouver for three years. How long is the department supposed to investigate? Allegedly, every time the investigation proceeds to a certain point the troops are called off and told to look into the question no more.
Sooner or later we must know the answers to certain fundamental questions. For instance, is the RCMP in Vancouver so woefully understaffed in its commercial crime section, that it

June 23, 1977
Adjournment Debate
cannot investigate such offences, adequately, to the satisfaction of the attorney general's department in British Columbia? If the Solicitor General wants to crack down on commercial crime, let him provide the RCMP detachment in Vancouver with the staff it needs in order to clear up white collar crime in the area.
The second question I raise is this: is the administration of justice being stonewalled in the Vancouver area? Why does the Solicitor General always tell us the matter is under investigation, and why does nobody ever get around to laying specific charges?
I raised this matter in the House on April 19. Since then the Vancouver Province has published some material relating to this matter and the Bank of Montreal. If the reporters on the Vancouver Province can dig up information, submit it to their legal beagles and make sure it passes all the necessary tests before publication, why cannot the attorney general's department or the RCMP do at least as much and secure such information? It seems to me, as the newspaper has published some of this material, that in order to allow people to clear their names charges should be laid; and it seems to me the Solicitor General's department or the attorney general's department is stonewalling in this regard.
The third question is this: whom is the government protecting? Why is there no action? If the department is investigating, it should either clear the names of some now under suspicion, or lay charges against those involved in the operation in question. As I say, let us clear their names or let us see some charges laid, but let us not smear with innuendo citizens who have become the victims of a seemingly spurious operation. Let us not smear with innuendo the police force which is doing its best to provide evidence on which charges can be founded. Names on both sides of the matter ought to be cleared, because officials in Vancouver want to know where they stand.
Surely the Solicitor General cannot hide behind the old excuse that this matter is under investigation. If it is being investigated, let us get to the root of the problem and lay charges. Let us give people who are now the victims of innuendo a chance to clear their names. I look forward to the Solicitor General's answer.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, we do not accept the suggestion of innuendo implicit in the hon. member's question. Mr. Ross Hamilton Lawrence MacHale of Vancouver, B.C., is the owner of Argon Developments Ltd., which is a firm engaged in real estate development in the Vancouver area. During June, 1973, Argon purchased a 14-lot subdivision from Raymond Harold Lawrence and, to do so, arranged financing with various lenders in the amount of approximately $550,000. Argon also purchased another subdivision in Port Moody, B.C., from Percy Contracting Services for nearly $300,000 which was financed through a different lender.
The above financing arrangements caused a strain on Argon's financial position, and as a result it was petitioned into bankruptcy. To avoid a bankruptcy suit, Mr. Alvan G. Percy, of Percy Contracting Services, arranged financing to relieve Argon of some of its indebtedness and, as security, took a mortgage on the property belonging to Argon.
Mr. MacHale has complained that Mr. Percy and other interested parties, including the Bank of Montreal, entered into a conspiracy to defraud him of his interests in the properties bought by Argon Developments.
This matter is still, at present, under active investigation as auditors are currently examining books and records, and until such time as this examination is complete, we cannot say whether or not there has been any criminal offences committed.
You will surely understand, Mr. Speaker, that because this matter is still under an active investigation, it would not be in the public's interest to disclose any additional information until such time as the facts are known and it is determined whether or not there is a cause to lay criminal charges such as the hon. member quite correctly suggested.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING FOOD POLICY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER NATIONAL FOOD POLICY
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, on May 31 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question having to do with the setting up of a joint food policy council consisting of both private and government members to cover every segment of food production from transportation to tariffs in order to come up with a comprehensive national food policy. The Prime Minister replied that it was an interesting suggestion, that he would consider it most seriously.
Since that time we have seen the unveiling of what the government has termed a white paper or blue paper on a national food policy. It is to that I will address myself because it ties in with the question I asked the Prime Minister on May 31.
In the interim we have heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) talk about a national food policy. In doing so, they have totally confused the issue. The debate in Canada is now urgent in the context of moving toward a consensus on a national food policy.
I have called upon the government to set up a parliamentary committee to travel across Canada, giving it similar powers that the committee on penitentiaries had, to look in depth into the matter of a national food policy and report back early in 1978.
The Minister of Agriculture talks in terms of protectionism when he talks about a national food policy. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs talks about free trade when he talks about a national food policy. This was evident in the remarks of both ministers in the House as well as their press conference. The Canadian consumer and producer are in the

June 23, 1977

middle of this debate between the two ministers. I ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify the positions of these two ministers. I further ask whether the government has given consideration to setting up a committee to look into a national food policy.
In my opinion there are two things that must be done in this House. As I mentioned before, the first is to set a parliamentary committee. The second is to make major changes in the Department of Agriculture. I call upon the government to set up a department of agriculture and food. It would give greater power to the Department of Agriculture and would complement what would be left of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The department would then have greater power in all areas of government.
It is becoming abundantly clear that unless policy changes are made the food industry will find itself unable to cope with demands in both the domestic and export markets in the future. We are facing a mini-crisis in the area of food policy, and the government must make fundamental changes. The first should be to create a ministry of agriculture and food and then to send a parliamentary committee, properly staffed, across the country to sound out the feelings of Canadians in all walks of life as to what they would like to see in a national food policy. At present we have absolutely no co-ordinated approach to agriculture and food.
We must remember that agriculture is more than just the farm gate. It comprises wholesalers, retailers, distributors, and tariff policies, and all these areas at the present time are segmented. I urge the government to look seriously into this idea of sending out a parliamentary committee, to consider seriously making the major changes to which I have referred, and to examine carefully the advantages of setting up a department of food and agriculture.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his concern about a national food policy and for the representations he has made in this regard. 1 would point out that the representations he has made in the course of this adjournment debate are somewhat extended as compared with those he made on May 31. At that time he was talking about a joint food policy council. He now talks about a committee which would travel about the country, and suggests certain changes affecting the Department of Agriculture.
The response of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on June 23 might be repeated in this regard: these are serious representations and they will be well considered.
As the hon. member himself said, the question he posed has to a certain extent been overtaken by events in the past two weeks. The government has already announced a food strategy which provides a set of guidelines or principles to be followed in order to assure all Canadians of adequate supplies of safe and nutritious food at prices which are reasonable to both producers and consumers.
Employment and Immigration
The strategy provides an umbrella under which policies and initiatives will fit. As the strategy makes clear, consultations will be taking place on specific prospects as we flesh out each part of them. This is why the Prime Minister said earlier that he considers the question to be a representation and why it is a subject for serious consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.25 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and motions nos. 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when 1 left off this afternoon we were discussing the fiddling around by the government with the extended benefit period under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Also grouped within the set of motions to be debated was one in which the government foresaw using the unemployment insurance fund for job creation purposes. When the committee was hearing evidence on Bill C-27, witnesses representing employers and employees came before the committee. It is not very often that such groups agree on things, but in this particular instance all employee and employer groups which appeared before the committee did agree on one thing. The work sharing proposals put forward by the government were completely opposed by all groups representing employers and employees.

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Some of the Liberal members on the committee told me that the work sharing program was innovative, that the job creation proposals were innovative, and that the job training program was innovative. 1 say the work sharing programs are not innovative. Indeed they have been around since the pyramids were built. They were the first job creation program in history. I suppose in those days the Egyptians would have said that they were job creation programs. They were job creation programs, but at very high human cost.
We now have the new Pharaoh with his hair cut and his blue suit, telling us that he has some really creative job programs going forward into the past, into the 1930's.
I hear the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) braying. All he can do is count up to 20.
The government should get about the business of changing the federal Labour Code so that it does not remain a managerial right to order workers to work overtime.
The United Auto Workers made an excellent presentation before the committee. They urged the government to make changes in the federal Labour Code so that workers are not forced to work overtime by management. The Telecommunications Workers Union, which represents employees of Bell Canada, also urged the government to make changes in that code to determine emergency conditions under which management can call those workers out to lay cable. They were being called out on Saturdays to work overtime laying cable. Certainly that is something management might consider being an emergency, but in the eyes of anyone else that is not an emergency. There is the case of Griffin in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where workers are on strike. They are demanding a right to make optional whether a worker works overtime or not. There are a million people or more unemployed in this country, and yet there are companies standing on their managerial right to order workers to work overtime.
The minister is advocating work sharing. The unemployment insurance fund would supplement the work sharing program. If that is what the government wants to do, then it ought to come from general revenues and not from the unemployment insurance fund. The government continues to give the impression to the country that it is these workers who are costing the taxpayers $3.8 billion. It has the gall to tell us the unemployment insurance fund is going to cost $3.8 billion in 1977. Projected over next year it will cost $4 billion. The changes it is talking about will supposedly be a saving to the taxpayer, but next year taxpayers will find out the cost for unemployment insurance will be as high as ever. Do you know who will be blamed? The people participating in work sharing, the people participating in job creation and the people on training will be blamed. If the minister wants to implement his job creation program, then it must be done out of general revenues and not out of the unemployment insurance fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


An hon. Member:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will not be long in speaking to these amendments.


An hon. Member:: You have 20 minutes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not think I will require 20 minutes because we have already been through it all. There has been an exhaustive search in the standing committee. We heard a number of witnesses, and I am satisfied with those who appeared. I thank them for their attendance because it opened up a new avenue, as far as I was concerned. It was one of a few instances where labour and management were able to get together.
The motions in total deal with the departmental use of unemployment insurance funds. The minister hopes to realize a saving as a result of the change in the eight week period and other matters contained in the bill. Both labour and management registered their concern and disappointment at the fact that the minister appeared to use these funds in terms of job training, job creation, and work sharing. They believe UIC funds are accumulated, and because of employee-employer feelings should be directed to the financial benefit of employees. They did not take an extremely hard line on job training and job creation. They would like to know how it works. They are concerned about the fact that we have had a lot of job training schemes and we do not know who is being trained for what. They are a little suspicious about the job training proposition which the minister advocates. As my party's critic, I cannot say I am not going to give the minister a chance in this regard.
We on this side of the House, in the past few months particularly, have called on the government to create jobs, or to create a climate whereby the private sector can create jobs.
I am prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt with respect to job training. Training in needed skills is required in our contemporary society, rather than training for obsolete jobs. There is some concern about how this program is going to work, but hopefully it will realize jobs for the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec which have been hit with high unemployment.
I am surprised with my friends to the left, the socialists. The NDP have always cried about job creation. Here is an opportunity which may not be perfect, but those hon. members are saying that they do not want the government to create any jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: You do not do it with UIC funds.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is he not a loud mouth, Mr. Speaker? 1 have been listening to his bombastic, useless rhetoric. Of course he is famous for that. I have also listened to him repeating himself, but I did not say a word. Now I have stood
June 23, 1977

up for my 20 minutes, and that rascal stands up and refuses to give me an opportunity to speak. Now I see the hon, member getting up on a point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) taking us to task on debating the points at issue, but to misrepresent our position is not acceptable. We never opposed any job creation or training programs. The position we have taken in committee, and in this House, is that those programs should not be charged against the UIC fund. The hon. member is well aware of that. He is misrepresenting the position of hon. members on this side of the House. That is a very irresponsible position for the Conservative critic to take. Indeed he is the rascal.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. It takes a lot of nerve for the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to get up and do what he has just done. For hours this afternoon we sat through his wild charges. Surely he can let the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) finish his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's point of order was more a point of clarification. 1 do not see how the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) can clarify what has already been said.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) has just stated.
As I was saying about that rascal, and as I was saying about his party, they have now stated that they are not interested in job creation. 1 do not care whether or not he wants to split hairs with me. He says he does not want jobs created. We in this party say that we want to give the minister a chance to see whether this job creation proposal can work. We are prepared to be realistic, but the hypocrites on my left only say, "We are all for the poor. Create jobs for them".
I have watched the leader of the NDP stand in this chamber every day speaking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), and to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), telling them, "There are one million people out of work. Create jobs", but now that there is an opportunity to create a few jobs, those rascals-and in particular the biggest one who is the smallest one-stand up and tell me they are not interested in job creation. I listened to that nonsense all day and I am getting sick and tired of the hypocritical attitude that that party adopts for their own particular benefit. But nobody buys anything they say. The proof of the pudding is that the socialists only have 15 or 16 seats. Mark my words, come the next election they will have even less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Employment and Immigration


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is how much the people believe in the socialists. I do not want to get involved in partisanship. As 1 was saying, Mr. Speaker, we have here an amendment. I wish we could wipe out work sharing.


John R. Rodriguez: You are losing your seats to the Liberals.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish we could wipe out the socialists as well, but we will leave it to the people.
I find that labour and management in particular do not go along with work sharing. They are fundamentally opposed to it and I do not think 1 am exaggerating one bit, whether we talk about the CLC, the construction association, the manufacturers' association, or other representatives of labour and management. They all said, "No way, it does not work." Experiments were made with it in France, Italy, West Germany, and I will give the hon. member, the little rascal, credit, because he indicated that work sharing has been around for a long time and has not worked. There is no reason why we should be involved with it right now, and I will not pursue it any further.
While I am on my feet, let me say that while we appreciate what the government is trying to do with job training-


An hon. Member:: Here you go again.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will you shut up, Cyril? I did not bother you, Sir.
We appreciate what is going to happen with job creation, but we are a little skeptical about it.
In my motion 1 ask that the minister report back to the House within one year after the proclamation of this bill to give us an analysis of the pilot projects. Incidentally, we would like to know at the same time about job training and job creation. That is my amendment.
What does the minister want with work sharing? He wants to share with others what few jobs there are in existence. That is not right. What we should be doing is to create an atmosphere where jobs can be created. Let me say without any hesitation that people do want to work, but I am worried about the fact that the Minister of Finance ignored OECD back in October and November of 1976, ignored the Economic Council of Canada, and ignored the Conference Board of Canada- all of them respectable organizations which said, "Mr. Minister of Finance, please get on the ball and create an atmosphere whereby jobs can be created;" in other words, "bring in a budget". That was in October of 1976. The minister did not bring down a budget until March 31, 1977, and at that time we already had one million unemployed.
It is incumbent on the minister to start talking about a revised budget so as at least to show the Canadian people that he is aware of reality. We have called for tax cuts, we have called for cuts in the sales tax, we have called for some contractual enterprise with firms which would be prepared to go to the slow growth areas for which they would receive tax relief, and we have talked about the unproductive programs of the government involving the tax dollar and putting them into

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
the common pot to see whether we could use moneys that are not being used in terms of job creation to create jobs.
We have also said that wage and price controls have been a disaster. There are many ways of looking at this, depending on what conclusion you want to reach. The Minister of Finance would like to stop the controls but he does not know how or when to get out. We say we should get out by the end of June, as 1 think was indicated in our motion. Our recommendations as to what to do during the post-control period, monitoring, and all that sort of thing, are all on the record. We are not talking about sharing the work which is available. 1 do not like it because it would be a retrograde step. I want to progress, and the only way in which we can progess is by attempting to create jobs for those who are ready, willing, and able to work.
It is a shameful indictment of our society that in a country like ours, with our natural and human resources, we are unable to provide jobs for some one million people. It is a sorry state of affairs. It is all right for us to sit around here. We are gainfully employed for the time being, although some of us might not be back after the next election. You know how many letters we get, not only from high school students but from people with doctorates, B.Sc., B.A., and M.A., heads of families and others. We have a national crisis of significant proportion in terms of the high rate of unemployment. People do not want to be on the dole, they do not want to go to the welfare office, they do not want to stand in line for UI cheques-it is demeaning.
I do not want to be partisan and I have not been partisan as yet, but I must say that the government has created a nation of "gimmes" It has spent money as if it were going out of style. It spent some S10 billion in 1968, and $45 billion in 1977. Why? Because it said that people want that. I tell you, people are starting to say, "Listen, you are putting your dirty, greasy fingers into our pockets too long and too deeply". We had better start listening to the people. That will be the end of my partisan statement, although I could go on a little further than that to say how the government has destroyed the country. But I will not say it now, I will save it for another time. There is the scenario of the just society, another myth.


An hon. Member:: Let's hear about it.


An hon. Member:: Tell us more.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We have heard "I shall save the nation". We have heard about national unity. This government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has not only destroyed this country but has created a nation of "gimmes" and has brought into being a separatist government in the province of Quebec. That is the end of my partisan statement. That is the message I will take to the Canadian people. Never mind this nonsense, "I am the saviour, I am the only man who can save this country". The one man who did nothing for this country who will be remembered is the one man who destroyed it, and he is still sitting here.
Let me continue by saying that I will accept the minister's proposal for job training and job creation but I cannot accept

his work sharing concept. I hope he will appreciate the motion I place before the House to have this matter reviewed at the end of the year.
I notice that motion No. 13 is in the name of the NDP. We will vote against it, of course. We will also vote against motion No. 14 because that is.another socialist motion. Motion No. 16 is in the name of our party, and of course we will vote for it. Of course, we will vote for motion No. 16 because it is a meaningful motion. As to motion No. 17, we will vote against it because it is NDP. Motion No. 18 is another good motion coming from this side of the House, from the official opposition, and we will vote for it. I do not think I have anything more to say on this point. 1 want to thank hon. members for their patience and understanding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is quite a change in approach, doctrine and dogma to hear the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) after listening to the bombastic addresses from what we have come to call the little rascals around here. However, there have been many comments made yesterday and today in this debate, and I will probably have more to say at third reading because I think there is a little more leeway at that stage.
We found surprising support for the action we have taken on the variable entrance requirements from a member of the NDP this afternoon, and I would commend to him a reading of his own address. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in some areas saw fit to quote the Canadian Mining Association, but he forgot to read the paragraph in which that association supported the stand taken by the government on its variable entrance requirements.
Clause 41 of Bill C-27 contains three proposed new sections authorizing the developmental use of UI funds. New section 37 relates to work sharing, section 38 to job creation, and section 39 to training. The basic rationale underlying these proposals is to provide more productive alternatives to UI claimants while they are receiving income maintenance. To that extent I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West that people do not want to be on the dole and that, if there is an opportunity to take some training, I think we have an obligation to provide it to them.
The original purpose of UI was to provide income protection to unemployed workers while they searched for suitable employment. This undoubtedly remains a fundamentally important purpose of the program. At the same time we all know that there have been dramatic changes in the economy, the labour market, and society, with the result that, for certain workers, immediate job prospects are poor. In these cases the provision of income maintenance by itself is not the most effective approach to the solution of their problems nor, indeed, to the problems of the labour market.
June 23, 1977

We know from experience that suitably designed training courses can help significantly to enhance employment opportunities. We are now proposing in new section 39 in clause 41 a more systematic approach based on streamlined financial arrangements. The current cumbersome approach whereby UI tops up manpower training allowances would be replaced. Those eligible for UI referred to manpower training courses would receive their full income maintenance from the UI program. This would not only make administrative and financial arrangements more efficient, it would also open up the possibility of additional funds being made available for training purposes. I am confident that these proposed arrangements are sound and should merit the full support of hon. members of this House.
I recognize that the proposals for job creation and work sharing constitute new departures. We have, therefore, indicated that we would be undertaking pilot projects in both cases to assess the extent to which the undoubted difficulties could be overcome and positive results achieved.
In recommending the use of UI funds in support of job creation projects it was again our hope to provide a more productive alternative to those whose immediate job prospects were poor. The question, of course, immediately arises: why not simply refer them to job creation projects financed in the normal way through appropriation? The simple answer is that UI funds could be an important way of stretching scarce funds available for job creation.
I am fully sensitive to the opposition which has been expressed by the representatives of both labour and management to the use of UI funds in job creation. I hope, however, that this will not result in the prevention of a period of experimentation to see whether the problems can be resolved.
In these circumstances it is my view that section 38 in Clause 41 should be retained in the bill. I do, however, give my unequivocal assurance that I would not proceed with implementation until there have been further opportunities for discussion. Specifically, I would propose to refer the question to the newly established advisory council to permit a fuller exchange of views than we have yet been able to have. I would also give my assurance that, if it is clear that no labour or management support for experimentation is forthcoming, these provisions will not be implemented.
The work-sharing arrangements contained in new section 37 in Clause 41 have also been a source of considerable controversy and criticism. Nevertheless, they seem to me to have sufficient potential merit to warrant not only careful consideration but also a trial period in the Canadian context.
I fear there is a danger that work sharing may be dismissed without a fair hearing. My department has undertaken a fairly extensive examination of the experience with work sharing in a number of European countries. These studies do not support the allegation made in some representations that these arrangements in Europe have been a disaster. Quite the contrary, they have become an integral part of labour market policy and programs in Europe and, despite some admitted
80018-45 &
Employment and Immigration
concerns and criticisms, they have received widespread support from both labour and management.
I see no reason in principle why the advantages which have been obtained in Europe could not be achieved in Canada. Employees who would otherwise have been laid off would be helped to retain their skills and work habits. Employers would be helped to retain their skilled labour force. It is, of course, true that those workers who would otherwise have been retained in full time employment would have their incomes somewhat reduced. That is fully recognized in the title we have given to those arrangements, that is, work sharing. Such arrangements would not, of course, be designed to result in a long term reduction in the incomes of such workers. They would be limited arrangements designed to meet temporary problems.
Dealing with the hon. member for Hamilton West and his motion No. 18, I fully appreciate that in the final analysis whether work sharing arrangements produce positive results will depend on the willingness on the part of workers and employers to support our proposed pilot projects. My understanding is that a number of establishments in Canada have already begun to embark on various forms of work sharing arrangements. In these circumstances I think it is essential to pursue discussions more widely and fully with management and labour to determine whether there is a basis upon which to proceed before we jettison what may be potentially a very good idea.
I give my assurance to the House that, if this provision is retained, 1 will not authorize its implementation until I am satisfied that there is a willingness on the part of management and labour groups to participate. On this basis it is my recommendation that hon. members of this House support the provisions in Bill C-27 for work sharing.
With respect to motion No. 18 proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West and with respect to the evaluation of job creation, that motion would require an evaluation to be tabled within one year of proclamation of Bill C-27. Let me emphasize that it is our clear intention to undertake evaluations of all the developmental uses of unemployment insurance funds, including the job creation proposal. I would certainly be prepared to table in parliament the findings of such evaluations.
I find, however, that the provision in the motion would introduce an undesirable element of rigidity. As I have indicated, the job creation proposals would not be implemented until after we had undertaken thorough discussions with the advisory committee. A period of one year following proclamation of the act itself would undoubtedly provide too short a time to assess results. Having given my assurance that we will be undertaking evaluations and making the findings available, I hope motion No. 18 can be withdrawn or defeated.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister, and to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in his earlier comments about some of the stands we in the New Democratic Party

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
have taken on the various amendments before the House. I would like to say at the outset that unlike the actions of the hon. member for Hamilton West-who read through the various amendments and rejected those proposed by the NDP out of hand just for the very reason, it seemed, that they were NDP amendments-we are going to support his motion No. 18 because we looked at the motion and asked whether it contains any merit, and I think the idea of an annual review of this government's ineptitude is quite worth while.
I am rather disappointed in my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West. As an experienced member he should know by now that any program of job creation or the like proposed by the Liberals is no more than tokenism. 1 was surprised at his faith in the job creation and work training programs. He admitted these have not worked in other jurisdictions and he was skeptical about their effects, yet he was willing to give them a year to see how they worked.
This party rejects the idea of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) using unemployment insurance funds for these programs, not because we are against job creation per se but because we are against stealing funds from the unemployed for them. If the government is serious about creating jobs it should make a budgetary commitment to do so, and not tinker with money that should go to support people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
The minister and his colleagues will not come to grips with the fact of one million unemployed by challenging the existing structure of our economy and our reliance on the private sector to create jobs. That just does not work because of the way the economy is structured. Instead of making that fundamental kind of reorganization and commitment to new industry, and hence new jobs, it prefers to attack unemployment. This bill will apparently save money, but by throwing some 330,000 unemployed people off the unemployment rolls. The savings will be used on make-work projects and job training.
The first reason we objected to this approach is that those
330,000	people will be excluded from benefits under the job creation and work-sharing programs. The money saved by taking people off unemployment insurance will go toward creating jobs for others. Only those who are still receiving benefits will qualify under this make-work project.
The other reason we oppose the amendment to Clause 41 is that if people on unemployment insurance accept jobs on these federal government work projects they will be paid out of UIC funds. It should be remembered that work on such projects will not be considered as employment and will not make people eligible for future UIC benefits. It is tokenism. Anyone who joins in the scheme knows that it is a phony make-work scheme; it is not real employment. He knows it is not taken seriously by the government and that he will never qualify for benefits on such schemes. It is a very cheap way for the government to get work done.
Surely it is far better to have people sit idly by collecting unemployment insurance than to move into this phony kind of

busy work or job-creation scheme. The government should get going and create jobs instead of tinkering with the unemployment insurance scheme and making it look as if it was doing something creative. It is not fooling members of this House. It is not fooling the unemployed. A previous minister of manpower and immigration, Jean Marchand, who is now in the other place, in the course of a debate in this House in 1966 said:
The hon. member made a suggestion with which I basically disagree when he said we should try to find part-time work for those who draw unemployment insurance.
Unemployment insurance is a type of insurance. The people who get unemployment insurance are not living on public charity. If we give start to competition between workers and those who are on unemployment insurance, I fear we will create an unbearable situation. Those people start working for lower salaries and will finally end up competing with regular workers. To my mind we must instead find regular employment for the people on unemployment insurance, full-time jobs that will afford them a livelihood. We must not allow them to compete against the working class.
The former minister recognized the hazards of the slippery path upon which the present minister is about to embark. This kind of program will neither be productive for the unemployed, for those who are already employed nor, indeed, for employers. For these reasons we object to this scheme, not as the hon. member for Hamilton West implied, because we are against job creation per se.
The other thing I object to is that the money saved from throwing people off the unemployment insurance rolls will be available for on-the-job training of people eligible for UIC. When we look at the budgets for the department from 1970-71 to 1974-75 we see that it has spent up to 75 per cent of its budget on training. Where are those people who have been trained? Where are the jobs?
We retrain people, keep them off the streets, supposedly off the unemployment rolls, to what end? There are no jobs for them. People who know anything about the program concede that after the training is finished the trainees will not find jobs, because there are none. That is why we say the program is phony and the minister's proposed changes meaningless, for the jobs are not out there, in the first place. Taking money out of unemployment insurance and putting it into training is ridiculous. My colleague from Nickel Belt has told the House of the many hairdressers and clerks trained under the retraining program for non-existent jobs. I repeat, the minister's changes are meaningless, phony, will harm the work ethic in this country, and heap indignities on the unemployed.
In the few minutes remaining may I speak on motion No. 14, standing in my name? The government wants to pay extended benefits only to those who have worked 26 weeks or more, and the minimum requirements in this regard are being extended. Those lucky enough to work 20 weeks in areas of high unemployment will, under existing formulas, also be eligible for extended benefits. The government realizes how difficult it is to find work in high unemployment areas and, accordingly, will allow the unemployed to collect benefits for a longer period. But the government's new proposals for cutting back extended benefits will create hardships in Atlantic
June 23, 1977

Canada, Quebec, northern parts of Canada and elsewhere for people who need extended benefits and who, because of the slowdown in the economy, cannot find jobs right away after being laid off.
The extended qualifying period set out in clause 41 is another example of the government's regressive thinking, for it is trying to fight unemployment on the backs of the unemployed. Instead of creating jobs it will discriminate against those who suffer from the Liberal government's mismanagement of the economy. For all these reasons the NDP cannot support the minister's proposals. I hope Liberals and Conservatives representing economically depressed areas are aware of the hardship this bill will work on the unemployed, and will speak against those provisions of the bill to which 1 referred. To do otherwise is to turn one's back on one's constituents, which no member of parliament should do.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking in this debate, but since the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said some nasty things about my friend, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and called him a little rascal, I must point out who has been the big rascal for the past few years in our unemployment debates. I see that as soon as we go after him he walks out of the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, I am still here.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You would think that the Conservative party, including the hon. member for Hamilton West, has been defending the unemployed. The hon. member tries to make out that he has been attacking the big, bad government for how it has treated the unemployed. That big, bad rascal, the hon. member for Hamilton West, forgets what he told the government a few years ago, and I feel it appropriate to remind him, because his memory seems faulty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is an honourable rascal.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, he is an honourable rascal. On February 1, 1977, he said that back in 1971, when fewer were unemployed and the economy was healthier, he remembered telling the minister who was responsible for bringing in this monstrosity of a law to include in the program incentives to work. He suggested that 12 weeks of employment should be the minimum qualifying requirement, but the minister said, no. He said he had made that point six years ago. The hon. member for Hamilton West said in the House that the minister was going to be hard on the unemployed; but the rascal from Hamilton West suggested that the minimum attachment period should be extended from eight to 12 weeks.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) is quoted in the Montreal Star of January 13, 1977, as saying this:
It is my personal view that the 12 weeks should be increased to levels in the former UIC program of 20 weeks. It is evident the changes are necessary and the government should be commended for introducing these changes .. .
Employment and Immigration The hon. member for Provencher supported the great changes the minister wants to make to the unemployment insurance program; at the same time the hon. member for Hamilton West is attacking the hon. member for Nickel Belt, saying he is against job creation. He could not even quote him correctly. Really, the hon. member for Hamilton West and other members of the Conservative party talk out of both sides of their mouths.
My hon. friend from Nickel Belt tells me that when the hon. member for Hamilton West and his colleagues meet the trade unions they talk about the big, bad government across the way, and condemn it for trying to hurt the working people and short change them with unemployment insurance benefits. As soon as the trade union people leave, they talk out of the other side of their mouths, speak of all the abuses against the unemployment insurance fund and say the sorts of things I read into the record a moment ago. It seems that the hon. member for Hamilton West has a convenient memory. He and his colleagues remember what they want, depending on their audience and whom they are addressing.
Time and again the Conservative members have said they want the qualifying period extended, benefits to the unemployed cut, and so on. The big rascal from Hamilton West represents a working town. 1 was in Hamilton last Saturday night and Sunday, and noticed that it is a working class town, a steelworkers' town. Many in the town are worried about unemployment, and many have been laid off. I took a taxi with a guy who worked for Stelco for 20 years and was laid off. He had been getting UIC benefits, but was cut off.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What! You can still get a taxi?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He finally got a job driving a taxi part time. He was trying to make a few bucks. He had a family to raise and a home to keep. You would think the member for Hamilton West would be interested in helping people like that. But no. The hon. member wanted to extend the minimum attachment period.
I look forward to the day we televise this House, because then the people of this country will see how Conservative members speak out of both sides of their mouths.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: As you do.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if only the constituents of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) could see him in the House today! About 30 per cent of his constituents are unemployed, but he is arguing in this House that we should make the unemployment bill more restrictive and tighten it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I never did any such thing. Now who is talking out of both sides of his mouth?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member is doing precisely that. I, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), and the hon. member for Nickel Belt spent much time this afternoon trying to convince the House that the

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
bill will make the Unemployment Insurance Act more restrictive, more tight, and work hardships on ordinary citizens.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi supports the bill and is running interference in this House for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). He is out there in front, taking the flack for the minister, and in his riding 30 per cent of the people are unemployed.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You are talking nonsense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member often speaks while sitting on his brains. He likes to interject while sitting in his chair. If we had television in the House of Commons, his constituents would see what kind of a guy he really is, that he is not looking after their interests. In fact he would probably no longer be their member. That is why many members in the House oppose televising these proceedings.
If the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFar-lane) has a question, I will be pleased to answer it. He does not have a question. I wish the Liberals would get up and make some speeches in the House. They seem to get sensitive when we talk about the problems affecting the ordinary Joe. He comes from the same town as the hon. member for Hamilton West. Both those members are concerned about how strong the NDP is in that city.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know that in the case of Hamilton West the NDP stole a seat from his party in the election held two or three weeks ago.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Not my party.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is no difference, really. The Conservative party is the same as yours. You are birds of a feather. There is no difference in philosophy. You can see how sensitive the Liberals and Conservatives get when we in this party start talking about the real issues affecting ordinary people.
This bill, and this motion moved by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will tighten up the Unemployment Insurance Act. The hon. member for Hamilton West was misleading the House by saying that the hon. member for Nickel Belt is against job creation. The hon. member for Nickel Belt has talked about job creation time and time again, but not the type of job creation that is in this bill.
The job creation in this bill is another handout by the government to large corporations. It is the Santa Claus that we see so many times from Liberal and Conservative governments.
We have here what they call work sharing. What does work sharing mean? It means that if a company has to lay off one quarter, one third or one half of its workers, the company can get some help from the Unemployment Insurance Commission to keep the workers working. They can work half days or half

weeks and collect not only part of their salary from the company, but be subsidized by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't look at me when you talk about work sharing; look at him.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member for Hamilton West is becoming very sensitive. As soon as I start talking about an issue on which he agrees with the government, he gets very sensitive. That is why when he spoke he did not say anything concrete, but only called the hon. member for Nickel Belt a few names. When you start calling people names, you know you have lost the argument.
The work sharing program is not going to create any jobs. It would only be a subsidy program by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to some of the large corporations. That is all it will be. The hon. member for Hamilton West knows that. That is why he supports this motion. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration knows that, and that is why he has moved the motion before the House at the present time.
We know there is a real deficit in the unemployment insurance fund. In 1977 the plan is going to cost some $3.8 billion. The guess for next year is around $4 billion. However, we do not have any programs to create jobs in a concrete sense. We have Liberals and Conservatives supporting a program whereby the unemployment insurance fund will subsidize a few large companies.
The second part of the motion before us deals with what is called creative use of unemployment insurance benefits. What are creative uses? I would like more elaboration on what is meant by that. If there is an archaeological dig in the home city of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, Sudbury-


An hon. Member:: They won't find anything there. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clermont):: Order please. I recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) spoke a few minutes ago, so if he wants to speak later, he will have the opportunity, but for the moment, I recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, I understand quite well, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I think I still have four or five minutes to continue my speech on the motion of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).

I was talking about creative use of unemployment insurance benefits. 1 was saying that supposing there was an archaeological dig-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clermont):: Address yourself to the Chair, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 23, 1977


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I always respect the Chair, Mr. Speaker. The problem is the Conservatives are asking questions from behind the curtain. They are not even coming into the Chamber.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I rise on a point of order. It was the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) who was heckling from behind the curtain.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 was talking about archaeological studies in Sudbury. My understanding is that under the second part of the motion with regard to creative use of unemployment insurance benefits, unemployed people can participate in creative things such as an archaeological study in a place like Sudbury, and still draw unemployment insurance benefits. In principle that may sound very well, but I suggest there will be problems with that type of program.
If an archaeological dig is worth-while, why is it not supported by government funds with people hired on a fulltime basis for a full time job and with some kind of future? Programs of that sort, whereby people drawing unemployment insurance benefits can work a bit on the side, will probably create a backlash in the community and some resentment. Some people will become known as the type who are on unemployment insurance benefits a lot, like to work a little bit in programs of this sort, and go back on UIC benefits. That will create a backlash for the unemployment insurance program. It should be an unemployment insurance program and not a program to subsidize people who work part-time on certain programs.
The third point about the motion before us is the training program. Training programs are fine and well, providing there are jobs to go to once the person is trained. That is one ot the problems we have in Canada. We have a very high rate of unemployment. To train someone for a non-existent job is demoralizing.
I can speak from personal experiences in my area. A number of native, Indian and Metis people and lower income white people in my constituency have been trained for a specific job or a specific skill. When they got out of the training program they found there were no jobs for them to go to and, understandably, they were frustrated. The psychological effect is bad. The government has done a good thing by training them in a new skill, but when they cannot find employment to exercise it, the effect is negative and they have to fall back again on assistance from the state.
I could give other examples of make-work programs in my riding where people have been left without resources once the projects run out. Along with these programs it is imperative that the government create more jobs. There should be tax cuts introduced in favour of lower and middle income people- they would use the extra money to buy clothing, shoes and so on, goods which are labour-intensive and whose manufacture provides employment. There should be an extension of the housing program as one way of putting people to work, not only directly but indirecly, besides accomplishing a useful
Employment and Immigration
social purpose. If the government were to do these things, the training program itself would be more effective.
I know that members in our party have had considerable influence with the minister in terms of amendments to this bill. One of the reasons we are participating in this debate so forcefully is to ensure that the unemployed are treated more fairly and that they have jobs to go to. Canada is a country of great resources and technical ability. All we need is a government plan to put people to work through the creation of wider employment opportunities.
I hope the minister will reconsider his opinion, and I hope the official opposition, led by the amiable and affable member for Hamilton West-even though he is a big rascal sometimes-will oppose the motion as I do, in which case perhaps we shall see a constructive change in these proposals. I trust the official opposition will bear in mind the interests of the little man, the working man the Conservative party always talks about. I see the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is rising, no doubt to make a speech, so I will end my remarks at this point.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is consequential to motion No. 16. If motion No. 16 is negatived there would be no vote on No. 5 Similarly, motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is consequential to motion No. 17, so it seems to me it would be appropriate to place them in the group upon which we are voting now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There can be no doubt about what the minister has just said. We have been dealing with job training, job creation, and work sharing. If my memory serves correctly motion No. 5 is in my name and motion No. 6 is in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-he is a great Canadian but he is still a little rascal. We have talked about job training and work creation, so we might as well lock those motions in when we are voting in due time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to hear the views of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on this question.


John R. Rodriguez: We on this side have no objection to putting motion No. 6, which stands in my name, together with the other motions mentioned on this group. They are certainly related.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, when we get to put the question we will proceed in that way, but the Chair suggested that the question be put on motion No. 17 before motion No. 16. An affirmative vote on motion No. 17, would also dispose of motion No. 16. It is only if motion No. 17 is negatived we would have a vote on motion No. 16.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Motion No. 17 does dispose of motion No. 6 and motion No. 16 disposes of motion No. 5.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That was in my mind to say, anyway.
7074_________________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Employment and Immigration


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was going to put the motions but the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) rose. I do not want to prevent him from speaking because I do not know whether he wanted to contribute to the debate. Is the House ready for the question.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on motion No. 13 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly the recorded division on motion No. 13 stands deferred.
The question now is on motion No. 14 in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly the recorded division on motion No. 14 stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 18 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly the recorded division on motion No. 18 stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the division on motion No. 17, standing in the name of the hon. member for New West-

June 23, 1977
minster (Mr. Leggatt), which will also dispose of motion No. 6. All those in favour of motion No. 17 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly the recorded division on motion No. 17, which will also dispose of motion No. 6, stands deferred.
It is not possible at this time to put motion No. 16 until a decision has been rendered on motion No. 17. If motion No. 17 is negatived, the question will be put on motion No. 16. If it is adopted, then motion No. 16 is automatically disposed of. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motions Nos. 20 and 21 appearing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). These two motions have been grouped for debate but are to be voted on separately. Does the House agree that they be grouped together for debate?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, motion No. 20 seeks to do something entirely different from motion No. 21. Motion No. 20 seeks to delete clause 43; motion No. 21 seeks to delete part of clause 48. Those are two entirely different situations and I think they ought to be debated separately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is well taken. Mr. Speaker indicated that the two motions could be debated separately but left the door open. If the hon. member prefers that they be debated separately, he has made a very good point and so the House will take them one by one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: motion No. 20:
That Bill C-27, An Act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting Clause 43.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-27 was before committee we had an opportunity to examine one provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act which I have always had difficulty accepting. Clause 43 provides:
Section 47 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) Where the Commission becomes aware of facts that in its opinion establish that a claimant or any person on his behalf has, in relation to a claim for benefit, made a statement or representation that he knew to be false or
June 23, 1977

misleading or, being required under this Act or the regulations to furnish information, furnished any information or made any representation that he knew to be false or misleading, the Commission may impose a penalty on that claimant not greater than an amount equal to three times his weekly rate of benefit.
In other words the commission has now become judge and jury of its claimants who may or may not knowingly have given the commission false information. The commission will determine whether any claimant gave wrong or false information, and 1 suggest this is the type of provision we should be very careful about when we pass legislation. In other words the commission is substituting itself for the courts of this land; it will determine guilt or innocence and levy punishment by way of fine.
I am just a little school teacher from the backwoods of northern Ontario, but I had always thought that only the courts could levy fines following upon a judgment that had been made. This commission is now being given the power to substitute itself for the courts of the land to decide what is or is not deliberately false, in my opinion denying claimants the due process of law which every free Canadian has the right to expect. It seems to me that we have an opportunity here to eliminate this provision.
In committee I argued that if the commission has instances where it suspects, or it is alleged, that claimants have deliberately misled the commission and have collected benefits as a result thereof, it ought to take the necessary action by proceeding through the courts of the land. If a claimant feels that he should come clean and he admits that he has indeed misled the commission, then he may do so and repay whatever is owing to the commission. The commission would have the choice whether to take the claimant through the courts. That was the basic argument I made in committee.
I realize there are other acts of parliament that give certain bureaucrats in this country this kind of power; but I am very leery of this sort of thing because it seems to me that every time we do this we give up a bit of that due process of law for which many of us have stood and fought to maintain. In our amendment we try to eliminate this provision in the bill; and if we see this kind of provision in any other bill I am sure the members of this party will attempt to remove it.
The reply of the minister and his bureaucrats in the committee was that this gave them a little leeway. They said, "What do you want us to do, take every claimant who has deliberately misled the commission to court?" I could be very impressed with the concern that the bureaucrats in the Unemployment Insurance Commission have for poor people were it not for the fact that daily I see how these people are treated in UIC offices across the land. Very little concern is shown in regard to informing them of their rights.
There is an example of someone going into the unemployment insurance office and informing the officials there that she is going away. That person has been on claim and she goes into their office and says, "My sister in Winnipeg is in hospital. She has had a nervous breakdown. I am going to help
Employment and Immigration
take care of the kids." You have to notify the commission when you are not available for work. Well, she did that, and the person in the office said, "Go ahead and do that. That is fine." But that person failed to inform her that four weeks on nil pay means that the claim is at an end. The officer forgot to inform the claimant of this one fact. One would think the commission should be helpful to its claimants.
We on this side are very concerned. Everybody should not have to go through the courts. I will settle for a little sensitivity on the part of the commission in dealing with claimants. I see hon. members smiling, but they do not have this problem. They do not have to line up at the unemployment office.
I should like to return to my example of this woman. When she returned, she went into the unemployment insurance office and said, "I am looking for work again." They replied by saying, "You have had four weeks on nil pay. Good-bye." Claimants who come before commission employees should be informed of this fact.
I have had considerable experience in regard to the situation of the Journal workers. This is a saga which is worth telling- the whole question of the Journal workers' endeavours to get unemployment insurance. They were told offhandedly that their dispute was industrial and they had no right to claim.
The role of the UIC is to help a claimant process a claim, if there is one. As a matter of fact at one time the unemployment insurance office had a placard depicting someone in a maze. That placard was entitled; "Let us help through the maze". After five minutes with the UIC, a person realizes that they are the ones who need help to get through the maze. A claimant becomes more lost in the maze after going into one of their offices than he was before he went in there. A good example is the whole fiasco of the Journal workers trying to establish a claim. In that instance they went through the whole process to the board of referees. The exhibits which were presented in that hearing were mislaid. They got lost somewhere in the maze of the UIC. As I have said, I have had considerable experience with them.
There was a time when Mr. Cousineau, the former Commissioner of the UIC, spent more time in my office than he did at his own office. I am sure they have a foot thick file of letters from me. These letters indicate hundreds of cases where people were improperly dealt with, the decisions handed out indicated insensitivity and they also indicated a lack of humanity toward the claimants' concerns. In the committee I was told that this is what they were forced to do because we wanted all of the cases put through the courts.
Justice must be served, and the only place justice can be served is in the courts of the land. It cannot be served in the backrooms of the Unemployment Insurance Commission where somebody sits and decides if a claimant is willingly and knowingly misleading. These are the same people who say, "Look for obvious signs of pregnancy. Look at the woman's face." During the interview of a potential claimant, who is applying for maternity or pregnancy benefits, their officers are instructed to look for signs of pregnancy. One case which comes to mind is that of a young man who came to me-
8001 8-46

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
An hon. Mlember: About pregnancy?


John R. Rodriguez: No, he was not applying for pregnancy benefits. He had been down to the UIC office after being called in for an interview. He happened to have in his hand a Slazenger satchel, which is a little carrying bag. He was being interviewed, and the officer said, "Do you play sports?" He said, "Oh, yes. Usually after I finish looking for work in the afternoon when I am up town, I go to the YMCA and work out." They arrived at the decision that this man was obviously not available to work because he was prepared to go and play sports, and he was taken off unemployment benefits. This man was forced to come to a federal member of parliament. He had to go through the process of trying to get the decision revoked.
I have literally hundreds of incidents similar to that. One would assume that the situation is open, cut and dried. These are the same people who want the power and authority to decide if someone is deliberately misleading the UIC with their statements. They would not know a misleading statement if it came up and hit them in the face. Many of the statements they have deemed to be misleading arose from the imagination of the interviewing officers of the commission.


Mr. Young:: Misleading, like your speech.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) can make his own remarks, if that is what he wants to do. It is too bad he will not come out here and make his speech.
There was a time when I used to report 125 cases a month- names and social insurance numbers-to the former commissioner of the UIC, Mr. Cousineau. These were cases where decisions were based on suspicions about the behaviour of people. The commission is saying that parliament should give them the power to determine-be the judge and jury-whether information given to them was willingly and knowingly misleading. A person is entitled to an open hearing in a court to establish whether he has willingly misled or knowingly misled, or in fact gave information not knowing the information was incorrect. We have a court set-up in this country and there are also legal services available. We have legal aid in 99 per cent of the provinces of this country. Lawyers are there to assist persons who want justice in open courts.
I am leery, I am fearful of giving these bureaucrats power. We have seen the abuse of power by bureaucracies, and it is time we returned the decision-making regarding our people to the courts. The bureaucrats are not the people's masters, they are the servants of the people, and it is the courts which should decide whether or not a claimant has infracted the law and should suffer the penalties under the law. It should not be the decision of the bureaucrats, and least of all the bureaucrats of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Can you imagine the mess we will have when we put Manpower and UIC together? The idea of melding those two boggles the mind. That is why we in this party prefer to eliminate this clause from the bill.


The Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on motion No. 20 stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 21 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: motion No. 21:
That Bill C-27, An Act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 42 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"and to which he was entitled, regardless of any changes in the claimants
eligibility status since that time, the Commis-"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is one that I feel is extremely important. The reason that my party has put in this amendment has reference to a particular issue which came to light in the last few months.
As the house will recall, we passed a bill-historical perspective is important-Bill C-69, last session. It became effective on January 1, 1976. At that time there was a provision in the bill that anyone aged 65 or over would no longer be able to pay premiums to the Unemployment Insurance Commission nor receive benefits. There were thousands of Canadians who had established their claims prior to the coming into force of that law, but lo and behold, when the law came into effect on January 1, 1976, the bureaucrats in UIC-I am glad I just dealt with this matter to some extent a few minutes ago- promptly sent out letters to those people aged 65 and over who had established their claims saying, "now that we have passed this bill, because you are aged 65 you cannot collect unemployment benefits", and they were cut off.
You must realize that we are dealing here with people 65 years old and over, and some could have been up to 69 because 70 was the previous cut off age. Many of them having received this formal letter from the UIC said to themselves that obviously they could not fight city hall. Many of them received this letter as the official word on their claim, but 400 of them appealed the decision. That decision went all the way through to the courts of the land, and the courts ruled that these people were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and that the

June 23, 1977

government could not pass retroactive legislation. There were thousands, about 17,000 of them, who were cut off claims. These people felt that they should get the same benefits on their claims.
The hooker in this was that when people received the letter and accepted the decision of UIC, they promptly applied for Canada Pension or Quebec Pension. However, in the Unemployment Insurance Act it says that you cannot collect both unemployment insurance and Canada Pension or Quebec Pension, so the commission said, "We cannot pay you people because you disentitled yourself by applying for Canada Pension or Quebec Pension".
Having had that experience, when we came to this clause in Bill C-27 the opportunity arose for members on this side of the House to build in a protection against such future exigencies. We came up with this amendment which says that if a person established a claim and was entitled to it, but later it was found by the commission that it had made a mistake on the claim, they had goofed in whatever decision they made and the benefits were denied, the commission would pay the claimant back whatever it owed him or her, irrespective of whether or not the claimant received the Canada Pension or the Quebec Pension.
We put in this amendment because we argue that if the commission goofed, then a claimant is entitled to the benefits and his status cannot be used to say to him, "We goofed, but your status has changed so we cannot pay you what you are entitled to because we made the mistake." On the other hand the commission has the power under a clause in Bill C-27, which we are trying to amend, to claim money from a person who owes the commission money. They can collect from that person for that goof. If it can work one way-and it does not matter what the status of the person might be by then they might be collecting old age pension-why can it not work the other way?
Under a clause in Bill C-27 the commission has the right to collect from a person irrespective of what that person's status might be, but on the other hand the claimant does not have the right to collect from the commission when the commission goofed on the claimant's claim if his status is changed. This eliminates him from collecting unemployment insurance benefits. 1 do not think that is fair. From my experience with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, it is never the commission that loses but always the claimant-heads they win and tails they win.
There never comes a point when as a result of a mistake by the bureaucracy the claimant is reimbursed. That is why we took this opportunity to try to amend the clause. When we introduced it in the committee, the bureaucrats threw up their hands and indicated that we were opening it up too widely. When it was broad on the commission's side I did not hear them saying that that was not fair to the claimants and that it was too broad for the commission. We put this in specifically to protect claimants whose claims are goofed up by the
Employment and Immigration
commission. They have a right to that money on which the commission makes mistakes. These claimants should be able to go back and collect retroactively, regardless of their present status.
This is a simple case of justice and of making the bureaucracy accountable for the mistakes it makes. If a series of mistakes is made in a region, there must be something wrong in the way the program is being administered in that region. It seems to me that this is a good way to hold the commission accountable for the act it is administering. It is no wonder we are getting an offhand approach to the administration of the act down at the bottom. If mistakes are made, it seems that only the claimant suffers. If a mistake is discovered, the commission does not have to worry. It is not marked down somewhere that it made a goof on, perhaps, sixteen cases and that the cost to the taxpayer was "X" dollars. We have to be fair. If the commission has the right to go back to a person in whose claim a mistake was discovered, then a claimant should have the same right to collect, irrespective of his status at that later time.
A claimant should have the right to collect from the commission if it is discovered that the commission goofed, even if that claimant's status has changed. That is the argument being used with regard to the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan as a result of the law which came into effect on January 1, 1976. I do not see how any reasonable person can deny claimants that right.
I have been around here only a short period of time, but in this Chamber in situations such as this what is really lost is an opportunity to debate effectively. Once the bureaucracy sets up its legislation the minister seems to run on a track. He is not prepared to accept any of the suggestions which come from this side of the House, and we do not come close to reaching solutions to our problems. What we develop in this Chamber is just shrugged off in an offhand way. What we have is time consumption rather than a meaningful approach to legislation and trying to come up with solutions. This amendment has been brought before the House in the hope that the government might recognize that there is some legitimacy in some of the points we raise. I think it is important that if a mistake is made by the bureaucracy, claimants have the knowledge that there will be justice with respect to what is coming to them, irrespective of their status after the discovery of that mistake.
Surely the important thing is to discover goofs when they are made, and by doing that we are not opening things up too widely. The commission should want to correct errors. That should be one of the prime concerns of those responsible for administering the act. They should want to administer the act fairly and correctly. If mistakes are made-and they are going to be made; after all, there are over one million people who collect benefits at any one point during the year-it is very important that the people who are served by the commission are assured that if those mistakes are made they will be corrected, and they will receive the benefit which is due them.
To argue that we are opening things up too widely, as the bureaucrats do, gives me the impression that the bureaucrats
8001 8-46'/2

June 23, 1977
7078____________________________________________
Employment and Immigration wonder who 1 am to question them. They think they have the interests of claimants in their hearts, and they wonder who 1 am to question them. It is very important that bureaucrats realize that they are the servants of the people, not their masters, nor the masters of the political system. Deputy ministers go on and on. Ministers come and go. Top bureaucrats go on and on, and 1 think the government ought to take a very good look at that. The people of the country should know that those they have elected to govern are in control and that bureaucrats are not allowed to become our masters.
If I were a minister and someone proposed an amendment and I found a small point which needed correcting, I would want to find out how to correct it. If things are not broad enough, we must recognize that justice is not being served to those who, on the instructions of the commission, have changed their status. Surely a minister should not accept excuses from his bureaucrats. He should ask for ways to solve problems. He should ask for amendments, and he should talk to hon. members in an effort to solve problems raised by them. Perhaps that is a strange way of looking at it, but that is the only way the people can be assured that bureaucrats are not running things and that the people elected and who have political power are the ones responsible for the programs which are paid for by the people. That distinction should be driven home time and time again.
I have seen ministers come and go in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. Bureaucrats war among themselves in an effort to have the most influence with ministers. They struggle to see whose ideas are going to get through to ministers. Ministers should be leery of that. They have to be in control of their departments. The minister is aware of this, and he knows the problems that were caused with respect to those who were cut off under Bill C-69 on January 1, 1976. He knows the problems, and he knows the people feel resentment. They believed the letter under the letterhead of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, with the signature, which told them that now they had reached age 65 they were no longer eligible for unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to Bill C-69.
They bamboozled the people with that stuff and, thinking it must be right, the people did not attempt to take on such a powerful organization as the government. Since they could not afford to live on what they were getting and could not collect unemployment insurance they registered for the Canada Pension. That meant that immediately, according to the rules, they became ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. We discovered the mistake, but when we wanted to have it corrected we had a hard time convincing the minister and the bureaucracy. We got the run-around in this House; one story from the minister one day and another story the next day.
Unsigned letters were sent to me by the assistant deputy minister that contradicted everything. If that is the way decisions are made in the department, then God help us.

I appeal to the minister to recognize at least the argument calling for justice for these people. That is the purpose of the motion. In many cases in this country people have appealed to the board of referees and have been turned down on a two to one decision. Not being familiar with the process they never appealed further. Later, a similar case may have been decided differently by umpires. So it is possible for an appeal to be denied, not because the applicant does not have the legal right to benefits but because of ignorance of the law and the way the Unemployment Insurance Commission is administered.
There is a lot of merit in this particular amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I have tried to make members aware of it. The minister should recognize the problem and that it can be solved along the lines I have outlined in order to make things fair for everybody.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I just want to supplement what my colleague was saying but I will not belabour the point because I know the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) wants to speak on his motion.
I want to say something on behalf of people who come before the Unemployment Insurance Commission and have to deal with complicated regulations and with bureaucrats. As a member of parliament I have come across a number of people who have been treated badly either because of regulations affecting them when they have reached 65 years of age, or because they may not have understood the regulations and were penalized by arbitrary decisions on the part of the bureaucracy. Can we not define these things in the bill in a way which will make more human the workings of the Unemployment Insurance Act? Surely the minister could engage in ongoing discussions with his deputy who, in turn, could consult other officials down the line, and emphasize that they are civil servants who are there to help the public.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 21, in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the recorded division on this motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider motions No. 23 and 24. It has been suggested that they should be grouped for purposes of debate only but voted on separately. I will put motion No. 23, and thus will bring motion No. 24 before the House as well.
June 23, 1977


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: motion No.
23:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 50 by striking out line 17 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"the House of Commons, fix the rates of".


Walter David Baker: motion No. 24:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 50 by striking out lines 17 to 24 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"The Governor in Council and on notice to the House of Commons by way of ministerial statement within five days of such approval, fix the rates of premium that persons employed in insurable employment and the employers of such persons will be required to pay in that year to raise an amount equal to the adjusted basic cost of benefit under this Act in that year as that cost is determined under section 63."


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 23 is relatively straightforward. Since it concerns the principle of political accountability I hope all members will support it. It seeks to amend Clause 50, which has to do with premiums employers and employees pay into the unemployment insurance fund.
Clause 50 says that in respect of each year, "the Commission shall, subject to approval by the Governor in Council, fix the rates of premium . . ." My motion would remove the reference to the Governor in Council and in its place put "the House of Commons." The amendment would make us all more accountable politically for what happens to the unemployment insurance fund. Changes in premiums would need to be approved in this House where members can question the minister and either approve or not approve recommendations he makes on behalf of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In that way we should make democracy work in the real sense of the word. All too often our public servants make important decisions-in saying this I do not mean to criticize public servants. They act first, and the government follows, and by the time it knows what is happening-and 1 point to the example of the former Solicitor General and his position with respect to the break-in in Montreal-


John R. Rodriguez: A cover-up.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -it is too late. All too often the ministers come into the picture after the bureaucracy has made the important decisions. Accepting my motion would ensure that the House of Commons would consider all premium changes. In the past the commission has imposed higher premiums on employers and employees all too often without the approval of the Governor in Council. My motion would change these conditions and provide for political responsibility, and thus make democracy work better. After all, unemployment insurance premiums are another form of tax on the working people of this country, a tax which in total amounts to several billion
Employment and Immigration
dollars a year. Therefore we are not talking about small amounts of money; we are talking about billions of dollars. In many ways this is a tax bill. When we have a tax bill we, as members of parliament, should have some input.
I hope that members on all sides will realize that this is a totally non-political amendment and will support it. I see the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is laughing in a very positive way this time. He is not being negative now. He is about to leap to his feet and utter some words of support for this highly rational and sensible motion that we are moving. 1 am sure that the members of the Conservative party will do the same because they profess to be great democrats.
1 anticipate that we will have no problem getting this motion through the House and that we will have the co-operation of everyone concerned, including the House leader of the Conservative party.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) spoke about in connection with his amendment. While all of us in this House agree with the principle of accountability, we have to bear in mind the question of flexibility and the ability of the government to move on these things.
I do not want to plead the government's case, but motion No. 23, allowing the House of Commons to fix the rates does cause some danger in terms of flexibility. This is what concerns me about it.
The House of Commons traditionally rises at the end of June, the first of July or thereabouts. At least we always hope that will happen. It usually stays out for a long time, until the fall, when there might be some necessity for a change to be made. There is also the matter of the period of an election which could be called to add additional time to the time in which the government legitimately might wish to make changes. I would be very much concerned if it would make changes only for the sake of change during election time. I cannot believe any government, even this government, would do that.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member. He suggested this could perhaps be done by way of resolution. He said that would offer an opportunity to question. 1 do not think that would happen. There would be a resolution all right, but certainly not the questions about which he was talking. It is not a debate on a bill which, if we followed this suggestion, would eventually lead us to a motion on second reading and go to a committee where questioning could take place. Nor is it a statement upon motions in this House where questioning could occur. If it is the desire of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville to have questioning and examine as such, 1 say that the foundation for the approach by way of resolution that he proposes would cut out from under his suggestion.

June 23, 1977
Employment and Immigration
This brings me to the second matter I would like to speak to, namely, motion No. 24 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). That motion recognizes the responsibility of the government to fix the rates and thereby take the plaudits as well as the aspect of political accountability. It states that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration must make a statement in the House of Commons within five days of such approval. In fact it gives exactly what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville wants, namely, the opportunity to question. It even goes a little further in that respect than does the motion put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.
The other thing it does is this: it advances an argument which is inherent in the parliamentary system, namely, that the government of the day is responsible to the House of Commons. I suppose it would be best if we all agreed that the bill be amended each time, but that course could prove difficult, not only for the government but for the people who would benefit, because of the time involved. The hon. member for Hamilton West has hit on a middle ground. It has the advantage of flexibility but none of the difficulties the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville wishes to avoid, that is, the complete inability of members of the House of Commons to ask questions on the matter.
I hope the minister will take a close look at the proposal advanced by my hon. friend, one which gives the government the responsibility of fixing the premium rates to be paid by persons in insurable employment and by employers in any particular year, bearing in mind that this approach also allows members of parliament to question the government with respect to the subject and, in that way, provides some form of accountability to parliament.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has spelled out the problem we would have with motion No. 23 in the light of its inflexibility. I would think it would be inappropriate to ask the House to deal with such a highly technical issue, one which is spelled out in considerable detail in sections 62 and 63 of the act. Moreover, because of the very tight timing in making the necessary cost estimates in September and October for the following year, there could be serious problems in meeting deadlines for notification of Revenue Canada with respect to the issuance of the necessary deduction tables for employers. The commission was established to deal with these questions, and given the necessary powers. In any event, since estimates for the commission will be reviewed by parliament and the parliamentary committee, there will be ample opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
The motion by the official opposition would simply require the minister to notify the House of the fixing of premium rates within five days of approval by the governor in council. I might note that this provision would be unworkable if the House were not in session. A preferable approach would be to inform parliament of the approval of the premium rates as soon as possible after a decision had been taken. I think this would

better meet the requirement which the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for a while, when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was speaking, I thought he was confused about the matter before us because he seemed to be talking about fixing rates of benefits. But then something got through to him and he realized that it is the premium rate which is under discussion in this section. As the minister just indicated, the premium rate for the ensuing calendar year is fixed two or three months before that. So it seems to me that it is not the kind of thing which has to be determined overnight; there is some time in which to give consideration to the matter.
I thought the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had also failed to read the motion put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). The motion does not suggest that the power to fix the premium rate be taken away from the commission and given to the House of Commons. The wording is such that it would still be the commission that would fix the rate. The only difference is that instead of the rate as determined by the commission being subject to the approval of the governor in council, it would be subject to the approval of the House of Commons.
On the point as to which of these two methods, that proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville or that proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West, is the better, it strikes me that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would be the leader of the pack in complaining about the method proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West. Under that proposal all we would have would be a requirement that the minister stand up within five days after the making of the decision by the commission and make a statement on motions, to which there could be responses, following which there could be questions to the minister, and that would be it. I can just see my good friend from Grenville-Carleton saying that this is parliament at its worst, that we can say things and ask questions, but that we have no power or authority over the minister or the commission.
If we are to bring the matter before the House of Commons, then it should be within the authority of the House of Commons to say yes or no. The motion of my hon. friend does not give the House of Commons at that point the right to change the rate and to make it something else; but it would have the right to say yes or no. Therefore it strikes me that if we are to bring the matter before the House of Commons at all-and I think it is a good idea-the proposal in motion No. 23 is preferable to the proposal in motion No. 24.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief comments on this amendment. I spoke at some length about what I feel is happening here. Even the answers which the minister read off tonight were composed by the bureaucracy. He just went through the motions and read them.

June 23, 1977
I mentioned in my previous comments the question of accountability. There is a great deal of talk about the importance of parliament and about parliament being supreme. Parliament is elected by the people of the country and parliament ought to decide those things which are of absolute importance to the people. Sad to say, that is nothing but a charade around here.
When I came here in 1972 I recall that my colleagues to my right, and I, suspected there was a shortfall in the unemployment insurance fund of $800 million. We waited two or three years before getting the Unemployment Insurance Commission officials before a standing committee of the House. We kept asking questions in the question period of the then minister of manpower and immigration, the present President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), and I remember the great difficulty we had to pin him down about the way the Unemployment Insurance Commission was administered. There are professional hockey players in the UIC, when you consider the manner in which they stickhandled around parliament and avoided any kind of examination.
An hon. [Member: Guy Lafleur.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, the Guy Lafleurs of Ottawa. They avoided any kind of scrutiny. I do not know what they were hiding. It was only in 1974 that we finally got the UIC before a standing committee of this House. By that time the thing had become cold potatoes and was no longer of any interest in terms of getting to the bottom of what happened to that $800 million shortfall.
The purpose of our amendment is to have the House of Commons fix the rate of premiums to be paid by employers and employees who participate in the unemployment insurance fund. That is a very important principle in terms of accountability. Members of this House would then have an opportunity to question the minister and to question the commission with respect to its operations. It is very important that hon. members have an opportunity to take a look at this monolithic outfit. Every time we opt out of our responsibility with respect to these bureaucracies, such as the UIC, we are doing a disservice to the people of this country because, once the
Employment and Immigration
unemployment rate goes above 5.5 per cent nationally, the taxpayers of the country pick up the extended portion of the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund. The expectation is that the UIC fund will cost us $3.8 billion in 1977. "Them is not potatoes". Next year the projection is a $4 billion unemployment insurance fund. One must imagine that type of expenditure without some kind of deliberate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the permission of the House to ask the hon. member a very short question. I realize we will be adjourning in a few moments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have reached the hour of adjournment. The question can only be asked with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Albert Proud: Since it is 10.30 p.m. and we are going to adjourn, may I ask the hon. member to join with me in wishing French Canadians a happy feast day?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, best wishes to all my French Canadian friends.


George Albert Proud: All across Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, all across Canada. I should point out that 41 per cent of my constituents are French-speaking. I wish them a fine holiday tomorrow. I will be celebrating with them in Nickel Belt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 10.30 o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair. This House will resume on Monday, June 27, 1977, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(3) and the order made May 30, 1977.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, June 27, 1977