1977-02-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF PROFESSOR ANDRfi GUNDER-FRANK TO GIVE LECTURE AT QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Canada is a signatory to the Helsinki Accords which state in part that the signing countries will, and I quote, "facilitate the dissemination of oral information through the encouragement of lectures and lecture tours by specialists from other participating states", and in view of the fact that the Department of Manpower and Immigration has denied entry to the internationally known sociologist-economist, Professor Andre Gunder-Frank to speak at a symposium at Queen's University on, "Canada and the Third World", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House express its desire that Canada live up to all sections of the Helsinki Accords and allow Dr. Gunder-Frank to enter into the country for his lecture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency and that is why I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43.
Considering that the Olympic Games held in Montreal have been an achievement for all Canadians; considering also the repeated requests directed to the federal government by the Quebec government to obtain financial assistance to reduce the deficit of these games; considering that the reasons given
by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for non-participation are not in order now, and the fact that Loto Canada revenues fall far short of forecasts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House urge the government to take a substantial part in making up the deficit of the Olympic Games of 1976.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency, and that is why I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reconsider the spouse's allowance, as set out and confirmed in Bill C-35, which continues to discriminate against widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors between the ages of 60 and 65, and to substitute for the spouse's allowance the payment of old age security to all persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who leave or are out of the labour market, regardless of marital status.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
2632

February 2, 1977
Social Security


TRANSPORT
Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the depressing state of every form of transportation in the Gaspe area in eastern Quebec, but more specifically in my constituency of Bonaventure-fles-de-la-Madeleine, be it transportation of passengers, goods or mail by air or otherwise, a situation which is greatly hampering the economic development of this region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr):
That the government, and more specifically the Minister of Transport, establish as soon as possible a transport policy which is modern, consistent, efficient, which could meet the present and future needs of our area and which would satisfy the desires of our residents who are tired of begging and talking to deaf ears, a policy which would come into force the moment it is formulated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent and the silence of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of extreme urgency.
Given the alarming increase in the number of young unemployed, which deprives our country of a human potential which is necessary to its development and prosperity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House strongly urge that the government introduce without delay a bill lowering the voluntary retirement age to 60, so that young people can find jobs on the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the House when a decision will be announced specifying the date of the termination of the controls program?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that will be announced only after there has been much more extensive consultation with the provincial governments, and indeed with business-


Mr. Fairweather:: And with Keith Davey.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -and labour communities. The critical question is whether there is some general undertaking within the community that there will be an effort to restrain, expectations after the end of the control period.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sure the minister would agree that it is important, in establishing some degree of certainty in the Canadian community generally regarding the nature of the economic policy, to have as soon as possible an indication of the termination date and the nature of the post-control policy. I wonder if he would tell the House when he expects to be able to tell parliament and create that condition of certainty within the community regarding both the termination date and the nature of the post-control policy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is equally important in a community such as ours where you have a great degree of decentralization in economic decision-making between the private sector and the provinces as well as the federal government, that any major step such as this should be taken so far as possible in concert with the views of other elements. In that sense, that process of further discussion and consultation will continue. I hope that within a month or so we might be in a better position to find out if there is any possibility of the provinces agreeing on appropriate timing or, if there is not, whether we should go ahead and conclude ourselves on the length of the anti-inflation program.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me congratulate the Minister of Finance on the completeness of his conversion, and let me ask him whether the government is still committed to achieving a 6 per cent rate of inflation by the end of this year and a 4 per cent rate by the end of 1978.
February 2, 1977


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope we can do better than that, but my hope is tempered by some of the difficulties of the economic situation.


SIZE OF MONITORING AGENCY ENVISAGED FOLLOWING TERMINATION OF CONTROLS
Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has been speaking about a monitoring agency, leaving the impression that he wanted to turn the job of monitoring over to the Anti-Inflation Board which has grown to an excessive size. Is that in fact his intention, or does he intend to follow the recommendation made generally by the Senate committee which would establish, instead, a spotlighting agency which would be much smaller that the Anti-Inflation Board? Are we have to have a large monitor or a reasonable monitor?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear in this House and outside that we do not envisage the continuation of mandatory controls certainly beyond December, 1978 or, indeed, beyond an earlier period if we can, as I said in my previous answers, find some general agreement within the community on restraint of expectations. If there is to be an agency of that kind for the purpose of examining specific situations which could be inflationary, which would not be passing mandatory orders but making public comments on those situations, it could obviously be very much smaller than one which has specific responsibility for enforcing mandatory controls, as is the case with the AntiInflation Board.


POSSIBILITY OF COMMITTEE STUDY OF PROPOSALS FOR POST-CONTROL PERIOD
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is for the Minister of Finance. Since he has referred to a certain dialogue which is to take place between business and labour with respect to when the controls should end and what should happen in the decontrol period, since it appears that this House is being ignored, and since it is hoped that the ministry will allow a committee of this House to study policy options with regard to the decontrol period, options which the ministry may suggest, would the minister indicate when there may be a reference to the appropriate committee of this House, to study not only decontrol positions with respect to the government but to give us also a preliminary view of the economy in anticipation of the budget, bearing in mind that there may be decontrol and a new budget both before April.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter point I would only say that I would expect to put before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs some proposals with respect to a change in the manner in which we handle the annual budgetary statement. That being so, I would not contemplate bringing that matter to the same committee which would have the responsibility for examining questions involv-
Oral Questions
ing decontrol and post-control. If the hon. member and his colleagues are agreeable to this, I would be prepared to talk with the House leader about the terms of a joint committee of this House and the other place, to be set up for the specific purpose of studying the long-range questions which would be involved. I suggest that particularly because of the heavy legislative timetable which faces the finance committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the variety of procedures by which the economy may be decontrolled, particularly relating to extended wage controls on public servants and the methods by which a retroactive price and wage explosion may be avoided, would the minister go further and tell the House whether it is intended to allow a parliamentary debate on the government's specific proposals for the decontrol period, or whether the administration proposes to take unilateral action without a debate in this House on the administration's position?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the position with regard to further discussions has been made clear. To a great degree, the position we would take would be the result of the dialogue with other elements within the community, and I think it would be most appropriate at that time to have the discussions of that kind either in the joint committee which I mentioned or in the House as a whole, if the House leaders agree to that procedure.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said at his press conference last week that the people on what is now known as the former solicitor general's secret list had been told that their reliability had been called into question in some sense. Since it has been confirmed that since the Prime Minister spoke at his press conference last week such people were not told about this, I ask him to ensure that present ministers of those departments notify such people that their names are on such a list. Second, will he take steps to ensure that the ministers remove from the files any such references to those individuals, so that their personal records do not show that their names were ever on such a list?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware there is no reference on the personal records of these people that they were noted by the RCMP and that their names were transmitted to the Solicitor General for whatever action he believed necessary. Therefore, I cannot give an undertaking to remove their names. I repeat, insofar as I am aware, and I believe a search has been conducted, there has not been any entry upon the records of these people that in some way they were to be watched, fired, demoted or other-
2634

Oral Questions
wise have their careers placed in jeopardy. Therefore, I really cannot give the undertaking for which the hon. member asks.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister did not deal at all with the first part of the question which pertained to these people having the right which was laid down in the 1963 guidelines by then Prime Minister Pearson and subsequently endorsed by the present Prime Minister in 1969 to be informed that their reliability was in question. Yesterday the Acting Prime Minister asserted that this action had not been taken. He interpreted the guidelines not to pertain to these people. Since the guidelines pertain specifically to such actions which "may" lead to a dismissal, will the Prime Minister agree that it does apply to such people and that they should therefore be told that their reliability has been called into question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The point of my previous answer was that in no way did this information which was collected by the police adversely affect the careers of these people. Mr. Pearson's guidelines, my own and those of this government, state that if security information collected by police agencies in some way adversely affects the career of any person, that person should be entitled to refute the information, discuss it, contradict it and so on. I repeat that this circumstance did not arise. I believe that is the answer the Acting Prime Minister gave yesterday.
What in fact happened is a very simple sequence of events. The police select whatever information comes their way which might have to do with the security of this country. Their role is to take it in, collect it and, I suppose, sift it and verify it. However, their role is not to act on it. When they have this information, they hand it to the Solicitor General. I presume that if the Solicitor General had done nothing about it, he would be accused today of not doing anything about information which came his way from the police about possible security lists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He saw his duty and he alerted the ministers in charge of the particular departments and agencies that this information had come his way. I am sure that he personally knew none of the people on the lists. He was merely transmitting information the police gave to him. He transmitted it to the departments through their ministers. If they had decided some action should be taken, it would have been referred to their security official in the department who would have set a process in motion to examine these people.
I repeat my first answer. As far as we know, none of this happened. The ministers received the list. They made some judgment in their hearts that they would talk to, be careful with and so on, the people who were on that list, but no action was taken with regard to the files, the dossiers or security clearance let alone the dismissal of any of these people. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, and I said this last week, the matter is passed over. The only reason it is of concern now is that obviously some people within some depart-

ment or agency have leaked this list and the opposition and the media are doing what they hoped we would not do, adversely affect the careers of the people on the list.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FAILURE TO INFORM MR. RUDNICK1 HIS NAME ON BLACKLIST-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines use the words "may have to involve his dismissal". After their reliability or security has been questioned, it might lead to that action. Since the RCMP prepared information which they passed on to the then solicitor general and he in turn passed it on to other ministers, one must reasonably presume that someone, including the Solicitor General of Canada, has called their reliability into question. Therefore, if the guidelines mean anything at all, do they not mean that such people should be informed that their reliability was being questioned? In relation to this aspect, I want to ask the Prime Minister about the case of Mr. Rudnicki who was dismissed a few years ago and who claims that this clause protecting his rights has not been applied. Does this not constitute a dereliction of responsibility on the part of the government? Will the right hon. gentleman not take remedial action by providing for a review board, something which Mr. Rudnicki still desires?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Rudnick-i's dismissal had nothing to do with the letter which the solicitor general then circularized.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because I know. It was known why he was dismissed at the time. He was dismissed because of a particular case in relation to a cabinet document. That is the reason he was dismissed.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Read the judgment!


An hon. Member:: Phone the judge!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As the number of unemployed is very high among the young and as there is no indication that the situation will improve in the near future, can the minister tell the House whether, as minister responsible for the matter, he has suggested or will suggest to his colleagues in cabinet that voluntary retirement age be lowered to 60 to allow those who wish to withdraw from
February 2, 1977

the labour market to do so, thus creating openings for a number of young people?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I must reply to the hon. member that unfortunately the studies made to date do not seem to indicate that such a step would lead to job openings for a considerable number of young people.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we probably do not have the same information but, in any event, here is my supplementary: As, during the 1974 election campaign all political parties, including the Liberal Party, agreed unanimously to lower the retirement age to 60, can the minister tell the House when a bill to that effect will be introduced in the House so that it can be passed as soon as possible?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has once again been misinformed about the programs of the various political parties during the last campaign in 1974.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman said the extra parliamentary opposition list is now a thing of the past and it was an innocent event. Since the Solicitor General has taken it upon himself to illuminate all aspects of this embarrassing situation, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has had discussions with the new Solicitor General, in particular, with regard to the origins of the list? Did the RCMP, the secret service, or the security service of the RCMP provide the information, or was the information made available to the then solicitor general by his own internal security group?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not recall having discussed this with the new Solicitor General. I may have done so, because I discussed the general matter with him. But I think I can give the answer to that question. I know the names of the people on that list came through the RCMP security services in the normal course of their operation, that they were transferred to the minister and that he acted on them as I indicated earlier.


Frank Oberle: My supplementary, then, is this: does the Prime Minister consider it to be the normal course of an operation of a security service of the RCMP to illegally enter the offices of a legally constituted corporation during a fire and selectively burglarize such an office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE EVIDENCE FOR BLACKLIST OF EMPLOYEES NOT OBTAINED BY ILLEGAL MEANS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, might I try to approach the matter from a little different angle. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he could make a categorical statement to the House, from his knowledge of this subject matter, that some of the evidence from which this list was prepared was not obtained irregularly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am in some confusion here. The previous question apparently had to do with an illegal break-in. I missed the beginning of that question because there was so much noise in the House and I may have given a wrong answer to the question. I assumed that the previous question was a question about the list we have been discussing.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, it was.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says yes. Then I do not know what the question of a break-in and illegality has to do with this particular matter. Let me get back to the present question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to let the right hon. gentleman get back to the present question, which simply asked him whether he is prepared to make a categorical statement to this House that part of the evidence and facts upon which the list was prepared was not obtained through irregular means.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to make that statement. I presume that the RCMP obtains its information in legal fashion and that the people on this list came to their attention through the normal operation of the security services. I do not ask them where they get their information on security matters. I believe that the opposition would be rather incensed if I entered into the operation of the RCMP and tried to find out how their security information is gathered.


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH INQUIRY INTO BLACKLISTING OF EMPLOYEES
Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister again, and plead with him as I did with the Solicitor General when this whole matter came before the House, to set up an inquiry to give the House and the people of Canada an opportunity, since they are as much concerned with the security of this country as is the Prime Minister, to hear all that I know and all that these people connected with this affair know. Would he set up such a tribunal so that those involved in this matter can be vindicated?


Mr. Speaker:: That clearly is a representation, not a question.

February 2, 1977
Oral Questions RESOURCES


AGREEMENT WITH MARITIME PROVINCES ON ADMINISTRATION OF OFF-SHORE RESOURCES-IMPOSITION OF TAXES ON PERMIT HOLDERS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. An agreement was entered into yesterday between Canada and the three maritime provinces with regard to offshore minerals. This agreement leaves the Government of Canada in control of the administration of offshore minerals. Would the minister tell me whether it is the case that the three maritime provinces which have entered into that agreement are not to be permitted to impose any taxes on income, or any revenue taxation, but simply receive their share of the royalties? In addition, they are not allowed to impose any provincial corporation tax or other tax on income upon the permit holders in the areas in question. Is it also the case that any revenues that they receive are to be included in the equalization formula and be adopted under that formula?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are getting into a very complicated area when we start to talk about equalization formulas and revenue sharing of royalties from offshore resources. I think the hon. member knows that, after very considerable negotiation, agreement was reached with the provinces respecting the sharing of the royalty revenues from offshore resources, 75 per cent going to the provinces and 25 per cent to the federal government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker,, I addressed my question to income and to whether or not those provinces are forbidden to impose any provincial corporation tax or income taxes upon the permit holders in their offshore areas. In other words, their only source of revenue would be to share in the royalties and fees: they are not permitted to tax the permit holders. That is a very simple question and I would ask the hon. gentleman to answer it.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, again we are getting into the whole area of taxation with respect to the application of corporate taxes and equalization formulas. I am not prepared to give the hon. gentleman these specific undertakings for which he is looking, but I will be very pleased to refer this matter to my colleague the Minister of Finance.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the importance of safeguarding Canada's natural resources for future Canadian needs, has the minister considered bringing under the aegis of the National Energy Board control over the export of Canadian coal?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, from time to time I have given this matter some consideration. At the present time, as the hon. member knows, the National Energy Board does not have jurisdiction over our coal resources, and in order for it to do so an amendment to the National Energy Board Act would be necessary. I believe that we are well covered at the present time in the event of any emergency through the application of the Export and Import Permits Act.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who is responsible for PFRA. Recently it was announced that under PFRA there would be a 50 per cent increase in 1977 pasture rates at community pastures in western Canada. Because of the fact that we have a depressed cattle market value for beef producers and also increased production costs, would the minister reconsider these drastic fee increases and leave the rates the same as the 1976 schedule?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we had to accept the fact that we should increase the pasture rates in the community pastures under our jurisdiction in the prairies. But such an increase will not even cover the increased operation costs we have to face. Under the agreement that we concluded with the provinces several years ago, we must recover the costs we have incurred in the operation and maintenance of those community pastures, but not capitalization. Over the last two years, we came up with a deficit and we will still be in the red at the beginning of the next year. This is why we definitely had to increase those rates but the increase is below 50 per cent.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Donald Craig Stewart: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised at the minister's answer. However, I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As this government department does not want to adhere to AIB guidelines and this 50 per cent increase in pasture fees will only mean in the long term increased prices, will the minister have his department investigate these new fees and protect both the producer and consumer from this greedy government department?
February 2, 1977


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly examine the hon. member's question and look into the situation.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for multfculturalism. On January 1, 1977 the Canadian Magazine, purportedly the magazine with the largest circulation in the country, contained an article entitled "Saskatchewan Crude" which resulted in the publication of old prejudices against Ukrainian Canadians under the guise of humour. Since the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission has seen fit to criticize strongly publication of this article, could the minister indicate whether a branch of his department, the Canadian Consultative Council, is in a position, under the present legislation, and in view of his statement that the branch would be involved in communicating understanding, to counteract the incorrect impression left by this article, which was in questionable taste and so offensive to so many people in our country?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Council on Multiculturalism for the three prairie provinces and British Columbia met this past weekend in Edmonton and this matter came up. I can report to the House that the opinion of the council was that although many of the ethno-cultural groups represented are quite prepared to receive humorous puns with respect to traditions and so on and not be ultra sensitive about them, it was the general feeling of everyone there, including myself, that this transgressed any limits of humour. It was not humour at all; it was crude and stupid. We felt we should indicate that to the publication involved and see if they would be prepared to make amends for disseminating old prejudicial words which are insulting to the ethnic groups in Canada, in this case particularly Ukrainians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question affects the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but primarily the Minister of Transport. On November 8, I asked him about the restrictions imposed on in-transit passengers at Gander airport
Oral Questions
because of the customs regulations and immigration regulations. At that time he informed me that short-range steps were being taken. These have now resulted in a sort of holding pen almost like slave quarters, which do not answer passenger needs as it is without restaurant or toilet facilities. Can the minister tell the House what permanent and acceptable facilities will be constructed at Gander airport for in-transit passengers on international runs?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate informed me earlier today about the concern of people in his area with regard to this matter. I have been able to check the current status which is that the temporary facilities are moving ahead, and so are plans for the more permanent facilities which will be satisfactory. Everyone recognizes that temporary facilities by definition cannot be fully satisfactory. I understand the region has developed a plan which will likely meet its needs and I will be asking that the plan be brought forward as soon as possible so that we can act upon it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask the minister to put a time frame on this? This is important in the context that the public should not have to continue with substandard facilities which will result in a loss of transit traffic through that airport.


Otto Emil Lang: I can put the time frame this way, Mr. Speaker-as soon as possible. I include the kind of consultations that were very desirable which have taken place between my regional officials and the people involved in the area in order to have agreement about the kind of facilities required. I will immediately have a chance to look at these proposals and I shall try to move them forward as fast as possible. Obviously, until I have seen the proposal I cannot predict the exact length of time required.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Last night Mr. Gray, former president of AECL told the Canadian people on national television that he had no knowledge of who was the recipient of $214 million paid to an agent in connection with the sale of a reactor to Argentina. In view of the fact that only two persons can divulge this information, namely, Mr. Sicouri, president of Italimpianti, and the head of the Swiss bank which handled the transaction, is the minister prepared on behalf of the government to contact both these gentlemen? The Swiss banker, by the way, is reported to have said he is prepared to divulge the information if requested to do so by the Canadian authorities. Will the minister undertake to make these contacts

February 2, 1977
Oral Questions
and ask for the name of the recipient of the $2Vi million paid by AECL?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear that we have gone directly to the partner of AECL, the partner with which AECL made arrangements for the payment of an agent. I believe that their banker or someone on their behalf has supplied additional information to the committee. I very much regret it has not been possible to get that information from the Italimpianti partner. I have received no information from the RCMP or my colleague to whom the RCMP report that there has been anything improper as far as any Canadian is concerned. I believe I have done everything I can to get to the bottom of this.
Some bon. Members: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTION CANADA WITHDRAW FROM SALE OF REACTOR TO ARGENTINA IF ITALIMPIANTI REFUSES TO DIVULGE NAME OF AGENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister has done everything except ask the head of the Swiss bank to come through on his undertaking that he will provide the name if Canadian authorities request it. The minister has apparently not requested it. In view of the fact that Mr. Sicouri in his letter of December 17, 1976 hinted that any further pressures to divulge the name of the recipient might jeopardize agreement for the construction of the nuclear reactor in Argentina, may I ask the minister, if that agreement has not been signed, is the government prepared to make the condition that their partner, Italimpianti, divulge the name otherwise Canada will withdraw from the deal? If we do that it will save this country an additional $25 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to make two points, Mr. Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee-which is properly dealing with this matter-has written to the bank referred to by the hon. member, seeking that information. I believe that the Public Accounts Committee, having taken that step in their wisdom, should be supported.


An hon. Member:: Support them.


Alastair William Gillespie: That clearly is the responsibility and decision of the Public Accounts Committee itself. Let us deal with the second part of the hon. member's question. He asks if I could impose some kind of condition with respect to this contract with the Argentinians. I wonder if he realizes that at this time, after lengthy negotiations-indeed a series of renegotiations- we would be putting at risk in terms of over-all responsibility, jointly and severally, something in the order of $400 million.

We could be sued by the customer in Argentina for something like $400 million for non-performance. We would be putting at risk as well many thousands of Canadian jobs. Is that what the hon. member wants?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has not answered the question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the
agreement with the government of Argentina been signed? If it has not been signed then there is no risk. If the minister thinks, in order to create jobs and make CANDU reactors, we ought to lose $25 million, it seems to me we could spend that money making things in Canada which we could make without having to incur financial loss. Has an agreement been signed and, if not, why is the minister not prepared to tell Italimpianti we will only proceed with them if they divulge the name which ought to have been divulged in the first place and which the minister ought to have asked for two months ago?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that our Italian partner signed and we have signed. I have also been informed that the Argentinian agency has given its approval. That approval has not been formally transmitted to us. I believe there are one or two technical details with respect to some financing questions, but I believe that these can be sorted out and that the deal will stand with the Argentinians.


SUGGESTED SUPPORT OF REQUEST THAT SWISS BANKER NAME AGENT OF ITALIMPIANTI-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is a supplementary. In an earlier answer the minister indicated he felt that we would agree, and we do agree, that the request of the Public Accounts Committee to the Swiss banker ought to be supported by the government. If that is the case, and I believe it is, would the minister communicate with officers of that institution indicating the support he has just expressed for the request by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for the information? Would he also indicate that he feels it would be in the best interests of Canada, and the completion of this matter, if the Swiss banker lived up to the undertaking and that such action would have the complete support of the Canadian government?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sure that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee listened very carefully to the answer I gave a few moments ago. I would expect that being the sort of person he is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on.
February 2, 1977


Alastair William Gillespie: -he would not lose any time in sending a copy of today's Hansard as a follow-up to the letter that he has already written.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would ask the minister to stop clowning around on this question-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and to tell the House whether he will accept his responsibility and communicate directly, as the responsible minister of the government of Canada, with the Swiss bank involved to indicate that it is an official request of the government of Canada in support of the Public Accounts Committee of this House to have that information which this House requires and which the government, if it has any self-esteem, requires.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I can only wonder at the intelligence of the Leader of the Opposition when he puts a question of that kind to me. If he were really serious about having me support, as I have tried to do in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: -the Public Accounts Committee, he would not put a question like that to me because he must realize that the Canadian government would frown and would not in any way want to put a Canadian in a similar position vis-a-vis a foreign government, and that is what he is asking me to do right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: You cannot have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The government of Canada recently announced an additional $40 million to be allocated for increased search and rescue facilities in Canada for the period 1977-78. Doctor Robert Sommerville, a coastguard voluntary rescue agent from Campbell River, B.C., stated in a press release of January 1, 1977:
The first $1 million of the $40 million allocated for search and rescue has gone to a new office, a sauna and a gymnasium in Ottawa.
Oral Questions
Will the minister advise the House whether these allegations are correct and if in fact any of these funds have been allocated to Ottawa for recreational purposes?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the allegations are totally incorrect. No money has been identified in the new money for any accommodation in connection with search and rescue offices, and at no time has there been any mention of such things as a sauna and a gymnasium. I hope that in the future such people will obtain facts instead of making these accusations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Friday, in answer to my question, the Acting Prime Minister said he thought the Minister of Justice might have some information on the matter of charges under the Canada Corporations Act against executives of AECL for failure to keep proper minutes of proceedings of directors' meetings and that the government would inquire and advise. Can the Minister of Justice say whether, in view of the fact that the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee indicates that the former president, J. Lome Gray, acted in an autocratic fashion, committing the company to contracts on his own and seeking board approval months later, and that the minutes frequently contained no reference to large contracts, such as the partnership with Italimpianti entered into by the corporation, and generally failed to record the decisions of the board, what charges has the government decided will be laid in these instances?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the result of the hon. member's question, I reviewed the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is prepared to answer it.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the Corporations Act calls for a number of obligations and at this point the questions raised in the House may not have had any direct allegations that the minutes have not been kept. But I can only suggest that if charges should be laid, that they be laid in the proper fashion because the Corporations Act is not enforced by the department in this area.
2640
Oral Questions ENERGY


KITIMAT PIPELINE-CONSIDERATION BY ENERGY BOARD OF MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COSTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On Monday, my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, asked questions about the Kitimat pipeline. Can the minister advise the House whether the National Energy Board, before it makes a decision on this particular application, will have in front of it the costs of marine environmental protection so that those costs may be part of what is computed in the decision of the National Energy Board as to whether the pipeline is of benefit to Canada and in the public interest?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a specific answer to an environmental question, but if the question were to be directed to the Minister of the Environment, he might be able to provide this information. From the point of view of the National Energy Board, they would like to receive as much environmental input as possible, but their concern, as the hon. member must know, deals with the landward side of the application, not the seaward side. That is why this interdepartmental task force was created to deal with the pollution dangers, etc., that might be associated with this application.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister then advise the House how the National Energy Board can make the decision which it has to make under the statute if it does not have before it, not only the environmental consideration but the cost to the Canadian public of maintaining environmental protection of British Columbia's west coast?


Alastair William Gillespie: The information will undoubtedly be made available to NEB but whether the NEB will want to take that fully into consideration is something of which I cannot be sure. I can assure the hon. member that the government will be concerned. It will receive the report of the NEB and a report of this particular task force. So the answer is, one way or another, that the information will be taken into account.


WHEAT-REASON FOR LOW PRICE ON SALE TO CHINA
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. According to recent news reports, the Canadian Wheat Board has sold some 56 million bushels of wheat to China for approximately $170 million. A quick calculation shows that it was sold for about $3.04 per bushel at a time when the Canadian Wheat Board quotations on the Vancouver market range from approximately $3.57 for No.l to $2.99 for No.3. Can the minister indicate why the sale was for considerably less than the Vancouver wheat board asking price, and can he

assure the producer that he will realize not less than the initial price on the sale?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the pricing of wheat in such a contract is a matter for the Canadian Wheat Board. While estimates are given in rounded figures and these calculations are often used in the press, these are not meant to be accurate descriptions of the price. The Canadian Wheat Board ordinarily takes the position that it does not give this information because of its commercial significance and its position with regard to other buyers as well as to its competitors in the world. I could determine whether that remains the Canadian Wheat Board position in order to satisfy the hon. member, but I am quite sure it would be so.


Douglas Charles Neil: Could the minister advise us whether or not the figure of $170 million is the figure released by the Wheat Board or a guesstimate by the media?


Otto Emil Lang: In terms of the normal practice it is the latter, but I will check that.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it involves the general area of conflict of interest. Considering the strict rules made public by the Davis government of the province of Ontario and the Levesque government of the province of Quebec regarding conflict of interest both for the premiers involved and their ministers, and considering the example set by President Carter for the people of the United States by making a complete and open declaration of his own affairs and insisting that his ministers do the same thing, will the Prime Minister set the same example for the Canadian people as Mr. Carter has set for the American people by making a complete declaration of his own affairs and insisting that his ministers make the same disclosures as are required of cabinet officers in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as a government we do have to bring in the bill on this whole matter. The bill will be the result of the conflict of interest guidelines which the government referred a couple of years ago to both houses of parliament, which was commented on by them, and which we are now incorporating into a bill. I just remind the hon. member that the Senate and the House of Commons themselves were not pressing the government in the direction which the hon. members says President Carter and other people have gone.


William Heward Grafftey: Is it the view of the Prime Minister that it requires a bill for him simply to make the same declaration

Mr. Carter made and to insist that his cabinet do the very same thing? Does he feel that in view of the example set by the Levesque and Davis governments and Mr. Carter without bills, blind trusts and frozen trusts are satisfactory procedures in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I find the argument passing strange because when we made our statements on conflict of interest a couple of years ago, this very opposition pooh-poohed them saying that they were just guidelines of the government and why did the government not bring in a bill; that is what we are attempting to do now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table documents in relation to my remarks at the federal-provincial meeting on decontrol and post-control and a summary of the economic and fiscal outlook.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 858, 860, 861, 864, 868, 869, 870, 889, 970, 1,160, 1,196, 1,235, 1,236, 1,237 and 1,296.


Mr. Herbert: Does the Department of Veterans Affairs intend to utilize the space vacated by the Canadian Pension Commission, the Pension Review Board, the War Veterans Allowance Board and the Bureau of Pension Advocates as well as veterans services, treatment services and administration services after their relocation to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and, if so, in what manner?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Utilization of space vacated by the Department of Veterans Affairs through relocation to Charlottetown, P.E.I. will be a Department of Public Works responsibility and would be included in that Department's space utilization program for 1980-81. The Department of Veterans Affairs will continue to utilize some space in Ottawa for the office of the Deputy Minister, a small nucleus of staff, and for the Veterans Land
Order Paper Questions
Administration program which is not part of the relocation planning.


Mr. Herbert: In the Canadian Pension Commission, the Pension Review Board, the War Veterans Allowance Board and the Bureau of Pension Advocates as well as veterans services, treatment services and administration services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, how many positions are designated bilingual?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Canadian Pension Commission, 128; Pension Review Board, 11; War Veterans Allowance Board, 29; Bureau of Pensions Advocates, 26; Veterans Services, 181; Treatment Services, 777; Administrative Services, 178.


Mr. Herbert: Did the Department of Veterans Affairs question any employees who will be affected by the relocation to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island as to whether they wish to be relocated and, if so, with what results?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: No. Employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs will be questioned as to whether they wish to be relocated to Charlottetown, P.E.I. when they can be provided with full information on any revised Relocation Guidelines which may result from current study by the National Joint Council.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the current population of (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Charlottetown?
2.	In each case, how many persons list French as (a) their mother tongue (b) the language of the household?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The preliminary population1 according to the 1976 Census for: (a) Prince Edward Island is 116,251; (b) Charlottetown, 16,9082.
2.	(I) In 1976 only the question on mother tongue was asked, but the information will not be available before the last quarter of 1977. (II) However, according to the 1971 Census for: (a) Prince Edward Island: (i) 7,365 reported French as their mother tongue, (ii) 4,405 reported French as the language most often spoken at home, (b) Charlottetown: (i) 370 reported French as their mother tongue (ii) 60 reported French as the language most often spoken at home.
1 Preliminary population counts are subject to revision. For
example, they exclude people enumerated at a temporary address (hotels, general hospitals, construction camps, etc.) and people who temporarily live outside of Canada. These
80008-30'/2

Order Paper Questions
people will be added later to the population counts of their usual place of residence. In most cases, however, the figures shown here are very close to the final population counts.
2 Revised preliminary population figure.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Will there be hiring of new employees with the Department of Veterans Affairs move to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and, if so, will preference be given to veterans?
2.	Will it be necessary for these veterans to be residents of Prince Edward Island?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	Yes, there will be hiring of new employees. The Veterans' Preference will apply as prescribed in the Public Service Employment Act.
2.	The Public Service Employment Regulations give preference to residents of a locality when the positions to be filled are either in the Administrative Support or Operational Category. For the other occupational groups, the department will determine which geographic limitation will apply for recruiting purposes, taking into account the requirements of the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations and the labour market conditions. The Veterans' Preference would apply to all qualified candidates regardless of place of residence.


Mr. Herbert: What financial assistance will the Department of Veterans Affairs offer to employees who (a) have unexpired leases (b) own homes in the National Capital Region and are to be transferred to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Treasury Board Relocation Directive, Part 4, describes the financial assistance related to the disposal and/or acquisition of accommodation by federal employees who relocate. This Directive deals with disposal of both leased and owned accommodation. Any relocation of staff will take place some years hence by which time the current Directive could be changed.
employee assistance policy has been adopted, we are not in a position to answer this question at the moment.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the government assured itself that there will be sufficient openings in the public school system in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island for the children of public servants employed by the Canadian Pension Commission, the Pension Review Board, the War Veterans Allowance Board and the Bureau of Pension Advocates as well as veterans services, treatment services and administration services of the Department of Veterans Affairs who are to be relocated and who wish to continue their education in the French language?
2.	Will such facilities in the French language be available for all high school grades?
3.	What distance will the students be required to travel when entering a French language university?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1, 2 and 3. The requirement for education facilities in the French language for the staff who will be employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, P.E.I. in 1981 cannot yet be determined. Identification of any such need can only be made when employees are in a position to indicate their wishes concerning relocation. Their wishes will be obtained only when they can be advised of the provisions of the revised Relocation Guidelines currently under study by the National Joint Council.


Mr. Smith: 1.	How many persons have been hired by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from the Manpower Job Creation Branch since January 1976 and, in each case, what are their (a) positions and qualifications (b) salaries?
2.	Has the Department given support to individual members or groups known to be affiliated with the American Indian Movement and, if so, is this done in conjunction with or on specific instructions from provincial/territorial Indian organizations and/or chief of bands?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Seven.


Mr. Herbert: What plans have been made by the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist the unilingual French-speaking employees of the Canadian Pension Commission, the Pension Review Board, the War Veterans Allowance and the Bureau of Pension Advocates as well as veterans services, treatment services and administration services of the Department who will be relocated to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Since the analysis of the implications of the relocation on DVA personnel is not completed, and moreover, since no
[Mr. Poulin.l
Seven
(a)
(b)
1 Assistant Deputy Minister 1 Director, Management Review and Development Group 1 Director, Program Evaluation Division
1	Policy Analyst
2	Research Associates 1 Project Officer


[Stage Direction]
AS-5 (Part-time term)
PM-3 (term) PM-3 (term)
[Stage Direction]
These employees were hired in accordance with Public Service Commission Selection Standards.
February 2, 1977
[Stage Direction]
2. The Department has not given support to individual members or groups known to be affiliated with the American Indian Movement.
Mr. MacKay: 1.	Were tenders called for the bookstore concession at Mirabel Airport and, if so (a) which companies tendered and what was the bid in each case (b) which bid was accepted by the Department of Transport?
2.	Were there any conditional clauses attached to the winning tender and, if so, what was their substance?
3.	Have there been any revisions in the lease arrangements between the company with the winning tender and the Department and, if so, what are the details?
4.	What has been the monthly gross revenue of the bookstore concession since it first became operational up to October, 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Tenders were called for the bookstore concession at Mirabel.
(a)
Name of Tenderer	Amount Bid
Coles Book Stores Limited
Les Entreprises Cara (Quebec) Ltee
W. H. Smith & Son (Canada) Limited
10 per cent of annual gross sales or Minimum annual guarantee of: First year $50,000 Second year $55,000 Third year $60,000 Fourth year $66,000 Fifth year $73,000
13.1	per cent of annual gross revenue up to $350,000
14.1	per cent on the next $ 100,000
15.1	per cent on the next $ 100,000
16.1	per cent on the next $50,000
17.1	per cent on gross revenue exceeding $600,000
or Minimum annual guarantee of: First year	$37,000
Second year $48,000 Third year $59,000 Fourth year $72,000 Fifth year $87,000
14.2	per cent of annual gross revenue up to $500,000
18.0 per cent of annual gross revenue exceeding $500,000 or Minimum annual guarantee of: First year	$40,000
Second year $40,000 Third year $45,000 Fourth year $50,000 Fifth year $60,000
Order Paper Questions
Librairie Garneau 7 per cent of annual gross revenue Limitee
Limitee	provided that the revenue exceeds
$528,000 or Minimum annual guarantee of:
First year $36,960 Second year $36,960 Third year $36,960 Fourth year $36,960 Fifth year $36,960
7 per cent of annual gross revenue of the Incorporee sale of books and 3.5 per cent of annual gross revenue on the
sale of magazines/periodicals or Minimum annual guarantee of: First year $28,800 Second year $32,400 Third year $32,400 Fourth year $36,000 Fifth year $36,000
Librairie du Scorpion Incorporee
13 per cent of annual gross revenue up to $1,000,000
14.5 per cent of revenue on the next $400,000
16.125 per cent of revenue in excess of $1,400,000
or Minimum annual guarantee of: First year $20,000 Second year $25,000 Third year $30,000 Fourth year $36,000 Fifth year $50,000
(b) Coles Book Stores Limited were awarded the tender, the operation commencing on December 1, 1975.
2.	There were no conditional clauses attached to the winning tender.
3.	By mutual agreement between Transport Canada and the successful tenderer, the storage space was reduced from 270 square feet to 100 square feet. This action had no bearing on the revenues to Transport Canada. No other revisions in the lease arrangements took place.
4.	Monthly gross revenues from December 1, 1975 to October 31, 1976 are as follows: December, 1975, $26,300; January, 1976, $22,500; February, 1976, $21,000; March, 1976, $23,500; April, 1976, $22,000; May, 1976, $24,700; June, 1976, $23,500; July, 1976, $29,900; August, 1976, $33,200; September, 1976, $26,300; October, 1976, $22,100.
Librairie Classic Book Shops

February 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stanfield: By province, what was the total amount of grants or contributions made to groups, projects, agencies or individuals, under the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare for (a) 1971 (b) 1972
(c) 1973 (d) 1974 to support (i) information/education projects (ii) innovation projects (iii) research sociological and biomedical studies dealing with the non-medical use of drugs?


Marc Lalonde: (a), (b), (c), (d) (i) (ii) and (iii): see following statements.
(i) and (ii) Alcohol/Tobacco/Drug Resources Fund*
(a) 1971-72	(b) 1972-73	(c) 1973-74	(d) 1974-75Newfoundland	0	46,365.00	76,024.00	49,465.00Prince Edward Island	32,410.00	53,445.00	50,398.00	39,765.00Nova Scotia	66,253.17	272,095.00	266,255.00	311,730.00New Brunswick	75,205.46	181,917.00	137,114.00	545,737.97Quebec	558,577.43	1,240,374.00	1,062,879.00	1,165,022.00Ontario	215,121.62	611,760.00	764,469.00	504,170.00Manitoba	42,296.54	215,630.00	231,499.00	292,008.00Saskatchewan	68,862.30	267,121.00	242,092.00	249,173.00Alberta	11,404.60	151,367.00	457,045.00	320,971.00British Columbia	213,306.15	624,482.00	403,553.00	334,183.00Northwest Territories	0	0	12,375.00	58,500.00National Org. HQ in	Ontario	0	0	0	267,885.00Total	$1,283,437.27	$3,664,556.00	$3,703,703.00	$4,138,609.97* Formerly Innovative Services-also includes	education/information projects; there are no separate	contributions.	(iii) Research Studies	(a) 1971-72	(b) 1972-73	(c) 1973-74	(d) 1974-75Newfoundland	0	0	11,350.00	0Prince Edward Island	0	2,950.00	0	0Nova Scotia	0	3,648.00	0	5,531.00New Brunswick	1,500.00	0	17,306.00	0Quebec	96,800.00	104,769.00	178,722.00	291,801.00Ontario	39,982.00	96,621.00	360,020.00	656,740.00Manitoba	800.00	8,770.00	5,900.00	51,043.00Saskatchewan	0	28,288.00	26,364.00	66,502.00Alberta	57,150.00	59,212.00	30,885.00	70,928.00British Columbia	33,500.00	47,360.00	77,800.00	237,871.00Total	$229,732.00	$351,618.00	$708,347.00	$1,380,416.00


Mr. Herbert: Was payment made to Quebec for all or part of the total of $250,212,000 shown in Supplementary Estimates (B) as provided under the Established Programmes (Interim Arrangements) Act and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act. 1964 and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The amount of $250,212,000 for the statutory item-Established Programmes (Interim Arrangements) Act and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964, consists of $213,407,000 included in the Main Estimates and $36,805,000 which is the latest estimate of the additional amount required under the provisions of these acts. Payments to Quebec under this program are made in 12 approximately equal monthly instalments, with each instalment being paid on
February 2, 1977

the last calendar day of the month. To date, during 1976-77, nine such monthly payments have been made.


Mr. Herbert: Were payments made in the past year under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and, if so, by province, on what dates?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Payments are made under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in respect of several activities. During fiscal 1976-77 payments have been made to the'provinces in respect of these activities on the dates shown below:
Activity	Date of Payment	ProvinceRevenue Equalization	Two payments each	All provinces exceptPayments	month-on the First and third working day following the fifteenth calendar day of the month.	Ontario, Alberta and British ColumbiaTax Collection	Four payments each	All provinces exceptPayments	month-on the sixth working day of the month and on the first, second and fourth working day following the fifteenth calendar day of the month.	QuebecRevenue Guarantee Payments	Variable-in fiscal 1976-77 on May 12, 1976 and December 29, 1976.	Al! provincesPayments in respect of Provincial share of Federal Tax on 1971 Undistributed Income	One payment per year which is variable by month-in 1976-77 in August of 1976.	All provincesPost-Secondary Adjustment Payments	Twelve payments each year on the third Thursday of each month.	All provinces


Mr. Herbert: Were payments to provincial governments, which are indicated on page 36 of Supplementary Estimates (B) in an amount of $72,329,000 considered in the preparation and presentation of the Main Estimates and, if not, by province, for what reason?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The additional amount of $72,329,000 is required for statutory payments under the various activities listed on page 36 of the Supplementary Estimates (B). The legislation and regulations providing for these payments indicate in considerable detail the information to be used and the procedure to be followed in calculating the payments. The Main Estimates provisions were calculated, in accordance with the legis-
Order Paper Questions
lation, using the most up-to-date information then available. Since that time some of the information has been revised, in particular the revenues of the provincial and federal governments, thereby necessitating a revision in the amount of the statutory payments.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Did the Postmaster General have 1977 calendars printed and distributed compliments of the Post Office of Canada and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the cost of the calendars?
3.	Were the recipients classified in any special way prior to dispatch of the calendars?
4.	What is the approximate number of recipients?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Yes, 800,000. It has been established that the production of the annual Post Office calendar is the least expensive way of providing essential mailing information to the general public.
2.	Just under $117,000.
3.	The calendars are being made available to the general public at post office counters where counter cards encourage people to ask for your copy here. A small number of recipients such as Members of Parliament, Senators, and large volume mailers receive calendars through the mail.
4.	It is anticipated that all 800,000 calendars will be distributed or picked up.


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


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 856 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past ten years, in the Department of Veterans Affairs and for each level or category for which statistics are available, how many public servants were (a) unilingual English (b) bilingual with (i) English (ii) French (iii) another language as mother tongue (c) unilingual French?
Return tabled.

Employment and Immigration


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 37 is acceptable to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. MacKay:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all memoranda issued by the Chief Statistician of Canada or other officials of Statistics Canada, dealing with the implementation of the Public Servants Conflict of Interest Guidelines (Canada Gazette, January 9, 1974).
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that 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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when I began my speech yesterday I put on the record the fact that unemployment in December, 1976, jumped to 7.5 per cent. The number of unemployed was 754,000, up from 693,000 the year before. I also put on the record some provincial unemployment figures for December of 1976. 1 do not want to repeat those figures, but I was in the middle of saying-and I will complete the sentence-that the unemployment figure in

British Columbia for December of 1976 was 92,000, an increase from the figure of 82,000 in December of 1975.
There was a sharp increase in the jobless rate for young workers in the 15 to 24 year age group. In that group 14 per cent of the eligible workers were out of work in December, and as my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), has already indicated, this is the group which will be most adversely affected by the decision incorporated in this bill to increase the number of weeks during which a person has to work before qualifying for unemployment insurance, from eight weeks to twelve weeks.
The minister and some hon. members of the official opposition implied that there are jobs for many of the unemployed, both those who have been counted and the thousands who have not been counted. We know from the questions which were asked about a week ago by members of the New Democratic Party and by members of the Conservative party from the maritime provinces that the figures which I have quoted are not the real unemployment figures. Those figures do not take into account thousands of people, especially in slow growth areas like the Atlantic provinces and like the interlake area of Manitoba, where the rate is probably twice as high as the official rate because so many people have simply given up hope of finding work even if they look for it. I think it was the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who estimated that in Newfoundland the real rate of unemployment is probably not the 14.5 per cent Statistics Canada gives us but probably 30 per cent.
If we are going to start making things tougher, as a number of hon. members of the Conservative party suggested yesterday we should, if we are going to police the unemployment insurance system more actively, if we are going to put more restrictions on people qualifying, and if we are going to cut off people who do not meet certain standards, it seems obvious to me that we do that because we believe that there are many jobs which can be filled by people who are unemployed, people who are drawing unemployment insurance benefits, and people on welfare who simply do not want to look for those jobs.
Statistics Canada tells us not only the number of people who are unemployed but also the number of job vacancies in this country, and according to information Statistics Canada released just a few days ago, in the fourth quarter of 1976 the number of full time, part time or casual labour job vacancies decreased from 62,300 for the same period in 1975 to 41,700 in 1976. In other words, if every one of the almost 42,000 job vacancies was filled, there would still be over 710,000 people unemployed.
If we look at the provincial breakdown for job vacancies, we can get an understanding of what is happening in this country. In Alberta, where there is almost full employment and little unemployment, and people can afford to quit one job in order to look for another, there are 13 job vacancies for every 1,000 people. In Saskatchewan, where employment is at relatively high levels and where there is not much unemployment, there are eight job vacancies for every 1,000 people. But in Nova Scotia there are two job vacancies for every 1,000 people.
February 2, 1977

Therefore it is not surprising that people in Nova Scotia do not quit their jobs easily, do not leave their jobs unless they have other jobs waiting.
I am not surprised that many in Canada are under the mistaken impression that thousands of our unemployed could find jobs if only they wanted them badly enough. I am not surprised that some members of the official opposition think that, although I should expect members from the Atlantic provinces, where there is heavy unemployment, to know better. But I find it most disturbing that senior officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration do not agree with Statistics Canada figures relating to unemployment and job vacancies.
I want to put on record the views of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Manpower, Mr. Harry Hodder, as expressed in the Toronto Star on December 10, 1976. I do not often raise in this House the views of senior civil servants; but when a senior civil servant grants an interview or makes a speech which is reported in a newspaper, I think it is quite proper to comment and put his views, as expressed in the newspaper article, on record. I hope the minister is listening because the point is important. Mr. Hodder's views, as expressed in that newspaper article, part of which I shall quote in a moment, show an inexcusable contempt for people. The expression of such views on the part of a public servant is indefensible, and I question whether he should be employed as a public servant.
The headline over the story in the Toronto Star reads, "50,000 'vagrants' to be cut off unemployment." The article quotes Mr. Hodder, who deals with the 50,000 people who will be cut off from unemployment insurance under the new regulations which will require a person to work for 12 weeks instead of eight weeks before collecting unemployment insurance. The first part of the article is in quotation marks. Mr. Hodder is quoted as saying this;
'They are mostly young people, moving in and out of the labour force and using unemployment insurance to fatten their income'...
The next part of the article I shall quote paraphrases Mr. Hodder's views, as follows:
Government studies estimate the 50,000 claimants eliminated under the bill can easily find work if they want to.
The studies estimate that it is unlikely that more than 2 per cent or 3 per cent of them would be forced to seek welfare.
Part of the next paragraph is in direct quotation marks and reads:
'The fact is, a very small proportion of them really need unemployment insurance benefits. They've been getting money for jam'...
Later, the article goes on to say this:
Hodder, who estimates the experiment might cost $5 million in the first year, says: it's better than having them lying in bed drinking beer.'
I suggest that a deputy minister earning probably more than $40,000 a year-


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Employment and Immigration


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What's the matter? This is a point of debate.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has quoted a paraphrased version of Mr. Hodder's views, and he also read the headline of the article which mentions the word "vagrants," a word which I do not think my official used. Since officials cannot defend themselves in this House, surely it would be more appropriate if the hon. member were to write to the official, charge him with holding the views he is alleged to hold and allow him to make a response, before raising the matter in the House where the official has not got the opportunity to defend himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I think 1 read five or six paragraphs of that newspaper story and I said specifically, I think, that two of those paragraphs paraphrased what the assistant deputy minister apparently said. The other four paragraphs were in quotation marks.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Allegedly.


David Orlikow: Not allegedly; they are in quotation marks. I am sure the assistant deputy minister saw that story, and if he was misquoted he would have made his complaints to the newspaper. I have quoted an article which appeared more than six weeks ago. I think I have every right to quote it. If the assistant deputy minister was misquoted, as the minister suggests or alleges, it was his job, not mine, to take that question up with the newspaper. I merely say that what he is quoted as saying is in line with the minister's thinking, as expressed yesterday. The minister may shake his head, but I suggest that lam correct.
We face the prospect of more unemployment in this country than at any time since World War II. The projections of government organizations, academics, banks and insurance companies show that unemployment will be worse in 1977 than it was in 1976. I could spend a couple of hours reading such dismal reports into the record.
I shall quote one more newspaper story, written by Wayne Cheveldayoff in the Globe and Mail of January 11, 1977. Dealing with the statistics issued by various economic organizations, he said:
Economic forecasters expect real gross national product (excluding inflation) to advance by about 3.5 per cent this year-a rate of growth that is significantly below the long run potential rate and down from last year's gain of 5 per cent...
Despite the expected stimulus, 1977, as the second year of recovery from the 1974-75 recession, will show slower growth in all components of GNP (excluding housing construction and business capital investment) than the average for the past five economic recoveries ... The jobless number will exceed 850,000, while job vacancies remain under 100,000.
That is precisely what I said earlier. Mr. Cheveldayoff in his article estimated that the unemployment rate for all 1977 will fluctuate between 7.5 per cent and 8 per cent. We say that kind of unemployment is unnecessary. We do not think the country can afford that kind of unemployment. We do not think it is necessary to pay out as much in unemployment

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
insurance and welfare as we have paid out in recent years. My party is not alone in putting forth this opinion. That is also the opinion of the former head of the Economic Council, Arthur Smith.
A number of economists in governments, universities, and business have been calling on the government to stimulate the economy and follow the example set by President Carter. He has proposed a two-year program, to which Congress will undoubtedly agree, calling for the expenditure of $31 billion. Half that amount will be used for job creation; the other half will make its impact felt in the form of tax cuts, to stimulate the economy. We do not have anything like that being proposed for this country by this government.
I wish to give one example of what unemployment has caused us. An article by Don McGillivray appeared in the January 12 edition of the Montreal Gazette. He calculated what unemployment has done to this country. He stated that last year 9,572,000 Canadians who worked produced about $180 billion worth of goods and services, the gross national product. That works out to $18,800 for the average employed Canadian. However, 736,000 Canadians were unemployed. That is the number averaged over the whole year who were officially out of work and seeking jobs.
He pointed out that, until a few years ago, the Economic Council calculated that full employment would be reached when we had only 3 per cent unemployed. He does not agree. He said that in recent years the Economic Council increased the rate of unemployment which they believed would represent full employment to 4'/2 per cent. He stated that even if you take that figure there were 286,000 Canadians in 1976 who should have been working but were in fact unemployed.
Mr. McGillivray pointed out that if you assume that these are the least productive people, and if you cut in half the $18,000 average which was produced by each Canadian citizen who was employed, which would be about $9,000, you come to a figure of $2.5 billion in lost employment which we had in this country because of the existing unemployment.
The government has not taken the problem of unemployment at all seriously. It has paid little more than lip service with regard to the objective of achieving full employment. The LIP, LEAP and OFY programs have not been serious instruments in a broad, consistent attack on unemployment.
There is no iron law which states we cannot reduce unemployment to 3 per cent. Other countries have done it. France, Japan, Sweden and Germany had unemployment of less than 2 per cent in the ten year period 1962 to 1973 while our unemployment in that period averaged over 5 per cent. That level of unemployment is neither natural nor acceptable.
We have to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve full employment. The government is not doing that. Instead of aiming for full employment, as I said last night, there have been massive expenditures for manpower training for jobs which simply do not exist. They have not existed in the years we have had manpower training, they do not exist today, and

are not likely to exist unless the government takes a much more active role in producing jobs than it has in recent years.
As I said last night, the manpower programs we have had have been aimed in the wrong direction. I quoted a sentence or two from the study commissioned by the C. D. Howe Institute on manpower training programs by Barbara Goldman. She found that current manpower programs are heavily weighted toward training, even though the training does not match the labour job market requirements. She found the program started and stopped, not because of manpower or job needs, but because of political decisions on the part of the government. This department has consistently been wrong in the advice it has given to the government and in the kinds of programs it has offered to the public.
I want to spend a few minutes on the proposals in this bill, first with regard to job creation. The government is proposing that UIC recipients who accept work on federal government work projects will be paid out of UIC funds and will receive the greater of UIC rates or the prevailing wage rate for that job in that area. Refusal to join such a project, or quitting the job once employed, will not result in disqualification. However, working on such projects will not be considered "employment" and will not make one eligible for future UIC benefits. It sounds like a cheap way to get work done. It gets paid out of the UIC fund rather than departmental budgets, and it does not provide the worker with credits for future UIC benefits. That could create a very serious situation for people who participate in such programs.
It is interesting to compare the proposal made in 1977 with what a former minister of manpower and immigration said. That member tried to be elected to the Quebec National Assembly at the time of its recent election. This was in 1966 when the House was debating estimates for his then new department. In response to a proposal by an opposition member for job creation programs, he said and I quote:
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, 1 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.
In recent years I have usually disagreed with the then minister, but I must say that in 1966 he had a very sound, humanitarian, and realistic point of view, one with which I agreed completely.
In order to free up training funds, people eligible for UIC would be paid their training allowance, the greater of UIC or training rates, out of UIC funds, thus leaving more training money available for those who cannot qualify for UIC. Looking over Manpower's budgets from 1970-71 to 1974-75, we see that the department has spent up to 75 per cent of its annual budget on manpower training. For what purpose? To keep training the same people over and over again for jobs that do not exist. Very little is spent on job creation. This scheme is

another example of the kinds of things which should not be done.
I wish now to put on record a criticism by a provincial civil servant which I believe to be very valid. He is active and knowledgeable in the field of manpower training and education. He said, and I quote:
The manpower system in Canada has also witnessed considerable change in the past 20 years. This development has been primarily quantitative with scant attention to the interests and needs of the manpower trainees. Manpower decision makers have concentrated upon re-educating, retraining, and remolding the trainees without much attention to changing the requirements of the labour market.
My hon. friend from Nickel Belt talked about the large number of women being trained to become hairdressers in Newfoundland, probably enough to supply the entire need for hairdressers in all of Canada. I am not against hairdressers, but we can only use so many of them in this country.
The growth of the many manpower programs obscures the illogic of much of this direction. The absence of full employment often ensures training for more skilled unemployment. Differing levels of training allowances and attendance and varying recruitment systems for trainees, reinforce the standard educational systems under which universities are essentially for the children of middle and upper classes, community colleges are for the blue collar class, and adult basic education, with its related purposes courses, is for society's losers. I think that is a valid assessment of what we find in our manpower training program.
I want to talk now about one other proposal which is before us, that is, the developmental use of the unemployment insurance fund. One of the proposed sweeteners in this bill is the use of unemployment insurance funds to help create employment. These measures are supposed to be brought into play in the fall of 1977 as part of the government's push to reduce unemployment.
We have the work-sharing proposal, a scheme by which an employer who is forced to lay off part of his work force could make an agreement with the government whereby he would instead reduce the number of hours worked by everyone and the government would pay UIC benefits to everyone to make up for their drop in income. Participation in work-sharing would not affect eligibility for benefits later on. While it would be nice to prevent lay-offs, will the scheme not turn into another way to subsidize employers who claim they are forced into a lay-off? One remembers the Training in Industry program which had to be abandoned when the department found out it was simply subsidizing employers who were paying low wages. Work-sharing agreements will not be subject to appeal. The cost of this developmental use will be borne by employee-employer contributions.
When I saw that proposal, Mr. Speaker, it seemed inconceivable to me that it could have been approved by employer and employee groups which usually advise the Department of Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I took the trouble to inquire whether the matter had even been
Employment and Immigration
discussed with those people, and I was informed by a source which I believe to be reliable that this and other proposals were not even discussed with the advisory committee on unemployment insurance.
I have sometimes not agreed with all the views of my friends in the labour movement. I was not enthused, to put it mildly, by their reaction to the government's anti-inflation program, their manifesto and the call for tripartism. But how can the government expect to get the co-operation of labour or industry on basic matters such as this, in the light of present economic circumstances and the very large number of unemployed, if it does not deal in depth, if it does not deal honestly and frankly with the people who are so vitally concerned?
I am not saying that those people will necessarily agree with this or any other proposal. I am not saying that a government should not act in the absence of unanimous agreement. Governments may feel they are bound to act even if a particular group or vested interest disagrees with a program which has been proposed. But how can a government expect to get co-operation and bring in a successful program when, in a field where for 25 years or more there have been institutions such as advisory committees, questions of this kind are not even discussed?
The government is not interested, though, in what labour wants. It is not interested in what the employers want. After all, the government has experts of its own, bureaucrats.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating here one of the most difficult and complex social problems a government can face. It is not just a question of unemployment, important though that question may be, and it is not just a question of unemployment insurance, important though that program undoubtedly is. We are discussing the whole range of problems which go to create a dynamic, complex and fluid labour market, incorporating a huge annual addition of new workers and shifting with the pressures of international trade and commerce.
In such a situation no government can have a higher priority than to deal effectively with unemployment. I believe that the income earned from the dignity of work is preferable to the income which arrives in the form of an unemployment insurance cheque. And I believe that we must support and develop an employment strategy designed to create what unemployed Canadians most want and need-the dignity and personal satisfaction provided by real and worth-while jobs, not to mention an earned income higher than unemployment insurance benefits.
Although private sector employment is expected to keep growing, the number of jobs in the short term over the next year or two cannot realistically be expected to increase much faster than the number of Canadians seeking those jobs.

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Moreover, in the early 1980's, when the influx of young people seeking jobs will taper off, we may well face a situation in which the shortage becomes one of workers rather than jobs. Therefore, we must have a strategy which will provide jobs today but meet the need of tomorrow.
Our strategy must be one which will avoid massive inflation-stimulating deficits. It must not be a strategy of major monetary or fiscal stimulation, vast programs of public construction or public service expansion, or major tax cuts. These would not help to reduce inflationary forces. What we need, and what the government's employment strategy aims to achieve, is a progressive reduction of unemployment over the next five years without generating other major problems.
I believe the vast majority of Canadians want to work. And there is work to be done. But since there is no single cause underlying our rate of unemployment, there is no single solution either. There must, however, be a unified strategy, not to cure unemployment but to help keep it down, a strategy which allows us to reduce unemployment progressively over the next few years in a way consistent with the removal of wage and price controls.
Our labour market is too dynamic and the problems too complex and fluid to be able to afford a fragmented, inefficient approach to employment policy and to the organization of the labour market. That is why we are merging the UIC and the Department of Manpower and Immigration into the new commission and department of employment and immigration, and that is why the new organization must continue and strengthen the participation of business and labour in its work.
The activities of all levels of government in the labour market must also be better co-ordinated, as I think the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) was correct to point out yesterday in the course of his rambling remarks. But I might just point out in that connection that figures from the district UIC office in my own riding indicate that not more than two people would be added to the welfare rolls each week as a direct result of the increased entrance requirement. And the London district office serves not just one constituency, but three. I hope that the hon. member, therefore, was not suggesting that long consultations are necessary before the federal government should propose changes in unemployment insurance legislation which would effectively place two additional people per week on the assistance rolls in the area served by a centre as large as London, especially when the cost of that assistance is shared 50-50 with the federal government.
With a stronger institutional base, then, and with co-operation from the private sector and between governments, we can reduce our employment problems in Canada if we can plan an effective, flexible strategy. The government has such a strategy, Mr. Speaker, a strategy with three components. The first is a comprehensive job creation program squarely based on community priorities; the second consists of youth employment and employability measures, to ease the transition from school to work for young people, who make up half the unemployed;

the third is a group of selective preventive measures to reduce the loss of work and hasten a return to employment.
We all recognize that a permanent private sector job is what Canadians most want and that we must help them find it. But we must also recognize that when private sector jobs do not exist in sufficient numbers, we have an obligation, both to the unemployed themselves and to the Canadian community, to make sure that people can have work and the incomes that go with work.
From the point of view of both society and the individual concerned, work is far better than just giving people a cheque. The cost of unemployment is not just a loss of so many dollars or so much output. Much of the cost comes in failed career hopes, lost opportunities and eroded skills, in family stress, and in a growing dependency on the working members of the community.
Unemployment, therefore, is costly not only for our economy and our society, but most particularly for the worker who loses his job. Idleness brings loss of skills, loss of confidence, and erodes the worker's feeling that he participates in his community. While he may need, and has a right to income maintenance, we must be able to offer him something more. The government is now developing job creation models in which workers who are likely to be unemployed and on unemployment insurance for some months would be invited to participate in activities which have social betterment value for their communities.
We have in mind projects which would utilize many of the best features of earlier local initiatives programs, but which could be tailored more carefully to the needs of the individual-his need to spend some time in a continued job search, and his need for job counselling. The plan would allow participants to continue receiving UIC benefits, and they could receive additional support, for example, from cost of work allowances and for project overhead costs. These additional moneys would have to be voted for this purpose.
In 1977-78, the first full year of the government's five-year employment strategy, there will be an investment in the neighbourhood of $350 million over and above regular expenditures on manpower programs. And in that five-year period much of the incremental funding for the employment strategy will come from changes in the unemployment insurance legislation.
In the first full year, for instance, savings to the government from the legislative changes will be about $110 million. Future savings will be even greater. Because unemployment insurance savings will mount as unemployment declines, we can look at costs and resources averaged over five years. It is therefore expected that, if parliament approved the changes that have been proposed in the Unemployment Insurance Act, reduced government contributions to the unemployment insurance account will offset the incremental costs of this employment strategy.
Some people are repeatedly on unemployment insurance because they lack basic job skills and would benefit from occupational training or re-training. Although there is already
February 2, 1977

some integration of unemployment insurance and training allowances, the system is complex, and the training program which is entirely voluntary cannot accommodate all who need training.
Another potential developmental use of unemployment insurance is the short work week. In Europe some enterprises- enterprises which would otherwise have to lay off part of their work force-retain all workers on the job with shorter hours. Allowances are paid in respect of the difference between the hours worked and the normal work week. This sort of program requires the co-operation of company and union, but it has the great advantage of keeping people on the job and maintaining the skills of those workers during temporary business downturns.
Canada has one of the world's most efficient and comprehensive unemployment insurance programs, but it must be adapted continually in order to keep pace with changes in society and in the labour market. The proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act are designed, at the same time, to make that program more effective in protecting Canadian workers from the financial hardship of unemployment, without spending money which would be better allocated to employment programs.
The proposals put forward by the minister are designed to enhance motivation for work, to achieve simplicity, and to provide equity. There will be a more equitable relationship between the number of insured weeks and benefit entitlement in the initial benefit period. Greater equity will result, too, from eliminating the national unemployment rate as a trigger for extended benefits and from basing regional extended benefits entirely on regional unemployment rates. Regional rates are a better indicator of the difficulty of finding and holding employment. While the benefit entitlement of those with a shorter attachment to the labour force will normally be curtailed, adequate income protection will continue through benefits for those with a longer attachment to the labour force, and for those who reside in a region with a high rate of unemployment.
But the best way to fight unemployment is to prevent it. The federal government right now is investing well over half a billion dollars in the training and retraining of Canadians to increase their employability and income. Most of this very productive training is carried out in provincial institutions. I must say that very seldom does the federal government get any credit for this.
In the past five years government funding of industrial training has increased 500 per cent from $10 million to over the $51 million originally planned for next year. That will be increased by $19 million to a total of $70 million in 1977-78.
These training opportunities will particularly benefit young workers, women returning to new careers in the labour force, native people, and the many Canadians who each year find that they must acquire a new occupation to earn their living.
Employment and Immigration
No comprehensive employment strategy for Canada would be complete without providing more opportunities for Canadians who are, in one way or another, seriously disadvantaged in finding and keeping jobs. The Outreach Program, intensive counselling programs, the Local Employment Assistance Program, and the development community employment strategy-these are the programs that we can and should improve in order to do more for the Canadians who are hardest hit by unemployment, regardless of the state of the economy.
As these innovative measures develop and prove successful, we shall expand them as rapidly as possible. In this way we will enable yet more unemployed people to take advantage of skill development programs and job creation. The result will be a much more productive and more fully employed labour force.
Canadians are vigorous and active-although I think this is sometimes not shown on the other side of the House. They want to work, and they often need training. They deserve a decent chance to have both. The role of an employment strategy is to see that they have the fullest possible access to job opportunities. And the role of the government is to see that this strategy is developed and put into place.
In order for an over-all employment strategy to be effective, it must be administered by an efficient organization and backed by sound legislation. I urge members to support this measure as a solid contribution toward the achievement of both these aims. I am sure this government can do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. member on the government side who just read through his speech. To save time I thought he might have appended it to the proceedings of the day. It is good to see him participate in the debate, however.
I should like to concentrate on two matters, first, the reorganization of the department as it affects immigration procedures, which is my special interest; second, unemployment insurance, both as to local organization and the eight to 12 weeks extension for attachment to the job market.
We received an organizational chart of the proposed Canada employment and immigration commission from the deputy minister, dated January 20, 1977. The first impression is of a well defined department. The flow charts are all in place. But when you analyse it further you find that the problems raised so often at the special joint committee on immigration, and the bureaucratic nightmares, will be duplicated.
The names of the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister appear in little boxes at the top of the organizational chart. But then one finds another bureaucratic layer of people with the title of executive director-there is an executive director for immigration and demographic policy with special responsibilities relating to the Immigration Act, the selection of immigrants, the resettlement of immigrants and Canada's demographic policy. Yesterday I asked the minister if we would have a demographic policy before the House at second

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
reading of Bill C-24. The minister indicated we would-if it is possible. I should like to urge the minister to have the policy and the regulations before the House at that time.
The next executive director has the title executive director of labour market policy. I understand he will look after training programs, development, counselling, placement services, employment development programs and so on. That seem to parallel closely the program that exists within the department already. And not only will we have an executive director of labour market policy but he will have an assistant executive director in charge of training programs.
There is an executive director of benefit programs primarily relating to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The small print shows that this person will be responsible for immigrant adjustment assessment or resettlement programs. One of the major criticisms heard by the committee as it met with Canadians was that the resettlement programs break down after immigrants arrive in this country. The argument was made that the best resettlement programs were those run by local community organizations interested in immigrants. This seemed to make more sense than having large bureaucratic programs put into place and operated by the department.
Then there are executive directors of national systems and services, of personnel, of finance and administrative services; as well there is an executive director general in each province and one in charge of foreign operations.
When you look at the department the minister has envisaged, not only is it going to be top heavy but, more important, it is going to be a maze, especially for immigrants. They will simply be amalgamated into programs that have high manpower orientation. I am not convinced that the high priority of manpower objectives, good though they may be, is in the best interests of immigrants. None of us quibble with the idea that in order for immigrants to be successfully resettled in Canada and have opportunities using their full potential and earning power, they must have jobs. It makes no sense for these people to be allowed to come to Canada and then to join unemployment rolls. That is not the argument. The argument is that in the manpower side of the department, the manpower mentality will become so dominant in immigrant selection that I fear the minister might be creating something with which he himself in the future will have difficulty in coping.
There are various suggestions as to reorganization, and I want to place a few on the record today, if I may. As I have indicated, I am not saying that all those executive directors are needed. I simply want to say, let us not have an over-emphasis on manpower when looking at immigrants and their needs. The special joint committee on immigration looked at the reorganization of the department and made recommendations to the minister of that day regarding this. This is clearly spelled out in the report of the special joint committee to parliament which is included in the minutes of that committee. The committee recognized that the former minister of man-
[Mr. Epp.J
power and immigration had an unduly heavy burden with regard to the myriads of programs that had attached themselves to that department, not only in the area of manpower but also with regard to unemployment insurance, which then was a separate commission but reported to the minister and which will now be amalgamated, as well as immigration, resettlement and training programs.
So no matter who the minister is, the heavy burden was recognized by the committee and recommendations were made. It was a large portfolio and a number of committee members felt that immigration linked with manpower led to an exaggerated importance being attached to employment considerations. Much of the discussion centred around this thought. For instance, Dr. Andre Raynauld, chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, had similar views when we spoke to him about it, and so did Dr. Harvey Lithwick who was at that time attached to the Toronto Board of Education. All of them seemed to indicate that while employment had to be related to the immigration selection procedure, it should not be the dominant factor.
The special joint committee said the following about departmental reorganization. This recommendation had the majority support at that time. I am quoting from the minutes of the special joint committee which met on Thursday, November 6, 1975, issue 53, page 43. It reads:
Of the several proposals put to the committee, the one which attracted most support was that immigration be detached from manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission and instead be linked with citizenship, multicultur-alism and population to form a new portfolio.
It was felt this represented a rational grouping of federal responsibilities, and a minister with such a portfolio could expect to carry considerable weight in the cabinet. Also, there was a widespread feeling that serious efforts should be made to strengthen the settlement services within the immigration branch.
Having placed the caveat that of course manpower and employment factors have to be part of the selection process, I personally favour a linking of immigration with citizenship, multiculturalism and the demographic policy. That demographic policy not only will affect the future of Canada with regard to the numbers and distribution of the population and regional requirements, but will also include the large question in Canada today of land use, and the use of both renewable and non-renewable resources. I believe that this area is one to which, I submit, we have not given sufficient thought as Canadians because we have always projected Canada to be a large country with unlimited resources but with a limited population. The point of the matter is that if we do not start making some serious studies on the question of land use as well as on the distribution of population, and how our economic policies have contributed to the movement of people to places like Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, it is encumbent on a department of the government to look upon these human resources and twin them with Canada's natural resources. I believe it is simply too large a task to ask of one department. I favour the approach that a separate department of immigration and citizenship be formed in charge of multiculturalism and the question of the demographic policy, including land use and resource use.
February 2, 1977

There is another reason that one could give for that proposal, and that is the question of citizenship. I am sure each member of the House has been told by people who live in his or her riding, who have landed immigrant status, that when they get to the point of applying for citizenship they generally think of citizenship as a natural extension of the immigration experience. They have made contacts in the immigration department and suddenly they find that they must go to another department, in this case the Department of the Secretary of State. I think it makes more practical sense for immigration and citizenship to be a natural continuum of the experience of a person becoming an immigrant and finally a Canadian citizen. I fear that with this division between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of the Secretary of State a dichotomy exists and confusion results. I think that would be another reason why that union should take place.
Another point in favour of this approach is multiculturalism. Frankly, this concept has been the whipping boy. It has been used for political purposes by the government during elections. Surely multiculturalism, and the desire to retain one's culture which is experienced in new immigrant communities, would be better served by the Department of the Secretary of State if this were part of the immigration experience, than it is today by the Department of Labour. I see no association between multiculturalism and labour. Why is it not part of the Department of Finance or of any other department? I want to stress to the minister that I believe that the reorganization of the department has not been done in the right way. As I say, a very fine academic organizational chart has been created, but is it going to serve Canadians? That is the question to which we must address ourselves. I will speak at greater length on the question of a population study when Bill C-24 is before us.
One other aspect of the reorganization of the department is the concept of the one stop service for those applying not only for unemployment insurance benefits but also for those who want to register with the Canada Manpower Centres for job acquisition and corporate job changes. I think it is important that we look at the present procedure, and I can only relate my own experiences.
Experiences might vary slightly from region to region, but in my area it goes something like this: as members of parliament we come into contact with unemployed persons, those who are applying for unemployment insurance, only when they are in trouble. We do not hear much from them until their benefits are withdrawn by the Unemployment Insurance Commission or unless they are not awarded in the first place.


Andrew Hogan: That is not the maritime experience.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I said I was talking about my experience. You can speak for yours. You have a seat here.
These people call their member of parliament, they come to his constituency office, and they ask for help. I think most members of parliament now have an arrangement with provin-
Employment and Immigration
cial offices whereby they call specific people in those unemployment insurance offices in order to dispatch as quickly as possible the claim which has been presented to them.
I can say very frankly that the person the minister has in the Winnipeg office who helps members of parliament with these problems has gone far beyond the call of duty. She has worked overtime and been very prompt, and I think she is to be commended. However, reorganization has already started and is taking place in local areas. In my area, for example, it is taking place.
What happens now is that when people are in difficulties they go to the area Canada Manpower Office wondering what to do with their problems. We have seen what has happened in those offices. They get a Winnipeg telephone number. Many of these people are already sick and tired of bureaucratic red tape. They are in a maze, they want to get out of it, but this puts them in even further. These people are unemployed; they are given a Winnipeg telephone number; but are they told to call collect? No. They are expected to spend their own money to phone Winnipeg, without any assurance that they will contact the right person or that their files will be examined quickly. Where can they go? They come back to the constituency office of their member of parliament, but they are a little more frustrated than they were before.
If the minister wants to reorganize at the local level, that is fine, but he should put insurance officers in local offices who can make decisions as to eligibility. Those officers should have the authority to say to applicants when their claims will be valid, what the weekly benefits will be, and when they can expect their money. If that does not happen and if applicants have to go back to Winnipeg, the only thing which will have been established is another layer of bureaucracy. It is vitally important that not only do we have Canada Manpower people in place but also that unemployment officers are in place locally, and that those officers can make decisions so that claims can be handled very quickly.
All of us know that unemployment creates hardship for people, and nothing is more frustrating to claimants who make applications than not knowing what is happening with their claims. If the reorganization at the local level contributes in any way to giving these people the information they deserve and to which they have a right, and if decisions as to their eligibility for benefits or as to the amount of benefits can be made quickly, the reorganization will have been worth while.
There has already been some rhetoric with regard to the change from eight weeks to twelve weeks, and I expect there will be more. One thing which is borne out very quickly is that it is much easier to put something in place than to take it away. It should be the duty of all of us, before we legislate and put a program into place, to see that that program does not create a dependency, and to see that, when that program is removed, hardship is not the result. I think there is some awareness developing that government programs which initially look advantageous, in the long term very frequently are self-defeating.

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
I want to say at the outset that I welcome and favour the change from eight weeks to 12 weeks attachment to the labour market. I support that amendment. Why? The unemployment insurance claimants who come to my office-and somebody might say that it is easy for me to talk because there is relatively little unemployment in the area I represent-fall into three general categories.
The first category comprises people who have been attached to the labour market for some period of time, in some cases years and years. Those people have made a considerable contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. They generally look upon unemployment insurance as insurance against a period of time when they are between jobs or, if there is a downturn in the economy, when they are laid off. However, in their minds it is insurance, they have paid for that insurance policy, bargained with their employers, and their employers also have contributed to that insurance policy. These people who have had a long attachment to the employment market are some of the severest critics of the present Unemployment Insurance Act because they see the insurance policy they have been buying seriously jeopardized by those who have not had the same attachment to the labour market as they have. There is no question but that I want to protect those people and the insurance that they have rightfully earned.
The second group comprises those who are chronically unemployed due to lack of training or skills, but are we providing these people with any service by marginally attaching them to the labour force so that they can collect unemployment insurance and then, once that unemployment insurance has expired, attaching them marginally once again so that the cycle continues? Is that a service? I say no. The people to whom I am now referring have a right to be trained and to develop their skills. It is a worth-while social goal to develop fully our human resources. However, is the Unemployment Insurance Act the best vehicle by which to meet that goal? I say no. I believe that the minister is correct in attempting to categorize those people who have been chronically unemployed and to give them training which will increase their attachment to the labour force, rather than simply to attach them to the labour force for brief periods which qualify them for another round of benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Then there is a third group, and I find it interesting that members of parliament can speak against the abuses of unemployment insurance so frequently when they are in their ridings. I suppose all members have had constituents coming to their offices and complaining about the abuses of unemployment insurance. I do not say that all the unemployed abuse unemployment insurance, but some do. Some try to claim unemployment insurance after a minimum attachment to the labour force. Actually, they look on unemployment insurance benefits as added income to be derived after a minimal attachment to the labour force.
People have come into my riding office asking how many weeks they must work to qualify for unemployment insurance.

I am sure most other hon. members have had similar experiences. I say openly to NDP members from Manitoba that the Manitoba government introduced a program for giving people eight weeks of work in order to remove them from welfare rolls. Yes, that has happened in Manitoba. I say that that is an abuse of unemployment insurance, and people who do that are jeopardizing those who have bought insurance. I do not think the unemployment insurance fund should be used in that manner. Let me recite another example.
Once a person came to my office with a separation slip, signed by some official working for a department of the Manitoba government, indicating that the holder of the slip had worked for eight weeks. The period of employment was shown on the slip. Looking at the calendar, it became obvious to me that the person had worked less than eight weeks; it was about seven weeks. When I informed that gentleman that he could not qualify for unemployment insurance, he said, "If that is the case I shall ask my social worker to give me another week's work, and if he does not do that, I will be back on welfare."
In the past the minimal requirement for attachment to the labour force has been a disincentive to work. I commend the minister for bringing in the 12-week qualifying period of employment. Many of our social benefit programs which help the less fortunate are excellent. On the other hand, a certain percentage of our population looks on governments or government agencies as a means of getting something for nothing. Some who have been marginally employed have looked on the unemployment insurance fund as a source of income, as a method whereby they could continue earning money after only a minimal attachment to the labour force.
Let us consider the initial benefit phase, as proposed in this bill. The new bill would change the five phases of the present program to three phases. Under the initial benefit phase provisions a person could get up to 25 weeks of benefits. Some say, "What, will they get benefits for only 25 weeks!" Mr. Speaker, 25 weeks is six months. People in my region have come into my office, wanting to hire people to fill jobs because jobs were not being filled. That has happened in my region; I do not say that is the case in all regions, but in my region it is.
Let me tell hon. members of another experiment taking place in Manitoba, involving the Manitoba government and the Department of National Health and Welfare. The experiment concerns a program known as Mini-Income. The MiniIncome program is being tried out in Dauphin, Manitoba, both in the town itself and its environs. They are finding in Dauphin, Manitoba, that a certain percentage of people who were previously employed are willing to go on mini-income. It is debatable if the program is truly serving those it was supposed to serve. Are we improving their position by putting them on the welfare rolls? The experiment is costing Canadian taxpayers $17 million. If you try to get facts concerning the program from the mini-income people, you will find that those facts are not forthcoming. All local indications show that a minimum benefit has been derived from the spending of that $17 million.
February 2, 1977

The NDP, especially, does not like the change in the minimum working requirement to 12 weeks, from eight weeks. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) suggested that for bringing in this provision the government ought to be tried under a section of the Criminal Code. But the hon. member's party thinks that only one agency, government, can create jobs. Mr. Speaker, such reliance on government must be reduced. With all due respect, we already have in this country the LIP program, Canada Works, Young Canada Works, FLIP, LEAP and many other programs. The question is, are we helping Canadians to obtain long-term jobs?
Without doubt, benefits were flowing from the operations of citizen advisory group committees when local projects were undertaken. After all, it is better to have people working than to have them on unemployment insurance. But the essential point remains to be considered, and it is this: we must find a new climate in this country, Mr. Speaker, and that new climate can only be created by the private sector. I know that we shall see joint ventures involving governments at all levels and the private sector. The point is that all relevant figures show that private investment is down.
We know that investment has declined. People are holding back, not investing. Mr. Speaker, nothing reduces available jobs and creates a downturn in the economy more quickly than a loss of investor confidence. The minister can bring forward all sorts of make-work programs which will give temporary relief, it is true, but they are not the long-term solution for which we are looking.
We hear a lot these days about people being ripped off. The one being ripped off is the worker, the person who goes to his job day after day. When jobs are placed in jeopardy because of a lack of investment, it is the worker who suffers first. There is no question about it.
We must return to where employment is created in the private sector. This will mean a reduction in the demands of all governments at all levels on the production of all Canadians. We are now at a level where all levels of government demand 42 per cent of the gross national product. I say to the government, freeze it!
The fact that the economy would grow would not only increase revenues for governments at all levels, but would allow each individual and each corporation to start making more of its own decisions. They cannot make those decisions if 42 per cent is taken off the top. It is the other 58 per cent that they need simply to stay alive. However, that does not build confidence in investments.
The minister spoke at some length about a new employment strategy, the work-sharing experiments for example. To my way of thinking, work-sharing indicates partial defeat. It also indicates that large pools of labour will be asked to reduce their productivity. Rather, the reverse action should be taken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has
Employment and Immigration
expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if he has unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just be another minute or two.
Let us improve the productivity of workers and create investment confidence. A number of representations have been made to the minister regarding exactly this point. In most cases they have said that unemployment insurance as presently constituted has not only become a very costly way of doing business but has reduced investment confidence.
Our unemployment rate goes up possibly most dramatically when construction in Canada is faltering. There is no greater indicator of unemployment difficulties than when construction is faltering. The Canadian Construction Association stated very clearly that they are in favour of the increase from eight to 12 weeks and the development of confidence of which I have spoken. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a large organization of small business interests in Canada creating many thousands of jobs, are in favour of the eight to 12 week amendment. I could go on. There is the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. These are all private industries.
What about the Canadian Labour Congress? The Canadian Labour Congress also analysed it. The person to which they have first responsibility is the one who paid his dues for years and years to that congress. That person today is seriously questioning why he has to work day in and day out. Others who worked with him were able to leave the labour market and literally thumb their noses at him saying, "Why work? It is just as good on unemployment insurance". Let us bring back an intelligent policy for those who have earned it. I hope these amendments will go a long way in that direction.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the main points of this bill concern, first, the reorganization of UIC and Manpower offices into an integrated setup; two, increasing the entrance requirement for receiving UIC benefits from eight to 12 weeks; three, reducing the number of benefit weeks payable while simplifying the benefit structure; and, four, providing for the payment of UIC benefits to those on training, in work-sharing agreements and in job training projects.
The first thing I want to say about this act is that it, in itself, is a prime example of how the economic and social policies of the Liberal government under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had been marked by inconsistency, flip flops and excessive ad hocery. The following are some examples.
One, wage and price controls were considered as no good for the country, and then they were implemented.
Two, in 1973 we were told that there were plenty of Canadian oil reserves well into the future, but by 1975 we had become a net importer of oil.
Three, tax laws were reformed with the closing of loopholes for the rich, and then the effects of these reforms were thrown

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
out the window when recent budgets introduced new ones like RHOSP and RRSP, and taking the 10 per cent surtax off those who make more than $30,000 in Bill C-22.
Four, job creation programs, both for adults and students, were established, then cut back and abolished, and then restored again.
Five, in this bill the government is combining the UIC operations and manpower. It is doing another flip flop and admitting a costly mistake was made in separating them in 1966. Of course the public has to pay for the reintegration of these offices.
Six, unemployment insurance was substantially broadened in 1971, then significantly narrowed again last year, and made even more narrow in the bill that is before us today.
My major concern about this bill is not with the reorganization mentioned earlier, or even with the question of paying UIC benefits to those on training, in work-sharing agreements and job creation projects. My hon. colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), dealt with those in leading off the debate for our party yesterday. I want, instead, to put emphasis on the changing entrance requirements from eight to 12 weeks, and the reduction of the number of benefit weeks payable under the new streamlined benefit structure. Later, if I have time I may comment on some of the former.
Any MP from the Atlantic region, except perhaps those representing the few metropolitan areas in those provinces, knows that such changes can be a grave threat to seasonal workers in that region. This generalization will also hold for areas in Quebec and possibly others such as northern Ontario, and possibly remote northern areas of some of the western provinces.
When the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) first introduced notice of the changes on Thursday, December 9, the minister of labour for the province of Nova Scotia was quoted as saying on the front page of the Halifax Herald that such a move at this time could impose serious economic hardships in Nova Scotia, and I quote:
The timing is wrong, many people who want jobs can't get them-the real unemployment figures are soaring ... it's not just people who don't want to work.
Mr. Fitzgerald also said, and I quote:
The provincial social services department will have to pick up the slack for many jobless people left without UIC payments under the proposed changes.
I suggest that if the Liberal minister of labour for the province of Nova Scotia is right, then we can expect even more severe problems in New Brunswick, and, especially in the northern areas represented by Liberal members. Last week end I was in the Chatham-Newcastle area and the unemployment in these northshore Miramichi communities is up to a sickening 30 to 35 per cent.
Recently a team of New Democratic Party members of parliament were looking at the situation in Newfoundland. The increased entrance requirement to 12 weeks from eight

weeks will adversely affect many Newfoundland communities dependent upon fishing and fish processing. Outport communities such as St. Anthony and Twillingate, and indeed the whole north and northeast coast of Newfoundland, will be hit by nothing short of a disaster if these amendments are passed. In past years this coastline has sometimes been icebound till June, enabling fish plants to work only ten weeks, or less. This situation will certainly arise again in the future and the fish plant workers, through no fault of their own, will not be able to qualify for UIC benefits to see them through the long hard winter.
How Liberal or Conservative members of parliament from Newfoundland could support this piece of legislation, which will hit their province harder than any other in Canada, is beyond my comprehension. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) must be very familiar with this problem. In his constituency of Burin-Burgeo there is a fish plant at Isle aux Morts in which the workers are lucky to get eight to ten weeks employment because the federal government has allowed the herring stock to become so depleted. What will the hon. gentleman tell these workers when they will not be eligible for unemployment next year? It truly will be an Isle aux Morts in any language.
One of the sweeteners in this bill, which, in general, is a sour one, is that there will be a saving through reduction in the employer-employee premiums. For example, it would be $4 million in Newfoundland and $7.7 million in Nova Scotia. But each of these provinces in turn would see a reduction in unemployment insurance payouts resulting from the new amendment which would amount to between $24 million and $28 million in Newfoundland and between $9 million and $11 million in Nova Scotia. Manpower Department figures for the first five months of 1976 showed that 63.8 per cent of all eight to 11 weekers were in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces- areas with extremely low job vacancy levels and endemic histories of seasonal unemployment.
Taking the employer-employee reductions in the Atlantic region and Quebec, we find that $85,800,000 will be saved through reduced premiums but that $175 million is taken away from those provinces by these amendments. This means that taking only the effects of this bill into account there will be $89,500,000 less multiplying around in these provincial economies because of these changes.
These total figures for the Atlantic provinces and Quebec are the result not only of the changes in the qualification period but are also attributable to the reduction of benefits envisaged in this bill. No one would argue against simplifying the benefit structure for unemployment insurance payments. However, in simplifying the benefit structure by eliminating the national extended benefit period, the government has also reduced benefits for more recipients.
The minister and his departmental employees have tried to argue that tying special extended benefits to regional unemployment rates rather than the national rate would automatically result in longer benefit periods in areas of high unemployment such as the Atlantic provinces and part of Quebec.
February 2, 1977

As far as I am concerned, they are playing with words. It is true there would be shorter benefit periods in areas of relatively low unemployment such as the prairies, but this would be offset by the fact that the high unemployment areas in the Atlantic region would be still tied to a definition of a region which makes the region equivalent to the province.
For example, the Statistics Canada labour force survey in the province of Nova Scotia divides the area geographically into four groups, plus the Halifax-Dartmouth area. The provincial unemployment average is lower than the actual unemployment in many regions of the province. This is because of the traditionally low unemployment in the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area. In effect, ridings of high unemployment such as Cape Breton-East Richmond, Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso and Cape Breton-The Sydneys do not get their true share of funds through the regional rate of unemployment criterion. For example, in 1976 the average unemployment for the province of Nova Scotia was 9.6 per cent. However, it was 12.7 per cent in Cape Breton Island as compared with only 7.2 per cent for the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area. These, of course, are official statistics and I do not wish to belabour the point that they surely do not reveal the true unemployment picture there. My point is reasonable and important for all UIC recipients there.
Since the bill does not change the definition of the region and follow the labour force survey method of determining sub-regional unemployment, the UIC recipient receives less because, to repeat, the relatively low unemployment area of the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area consistently pulls down the average of unemployment in the province. Since part of the UIC payment is based on these averages, rather than on the statistics taken by the labour force survey for the whole of Cape Breton, people down there suffer. They suffer in two ways. They don't have the jobs and they don't get the amount of unemployment insurance that should be due to them. As a consequence, unemployment insurance fails to play the role of a local stabilizer in the economy that it should.
I cannot understand why the minister does not base the regional benefit on the labour force survey areas, which give a truer picture of the sub-regional unemployment within provinces. Given the fact that the Statistics Canada labour force survey is to be extended, by March, to cover some 55,000 homes instead of 40,000, this is an ideal time to make the UIC payout in these hard hit areas more realistically and fiscally responsible.
Even given this failure, there is no way the minister and his top officials should leave the impression with the public that the changing of the benefit structure is an improvement for areas like the Atlantic region.
The facts are simply these, and no amount of bureaucratic gobbledygook from high paid civil servants is going to change it. Under the present scheme, and I am referring now to the one which is currently operating, a person in Cape Breton who has worked for 20 weeks would get 51 weeks benefit. Under the bill before us, on the other hand, Bill C-27, the person who worked 20 weeks would only be entitled to 38-40 weeks.
Employment and Immigration
Similarly the person who worked for 12 weeks under the present scheme would get 44 weeks of benefit while under Bill C-27 the person who worked for 12 weeks would be entitled to only 30-32 weeks of benefit.
As if that were not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, I must express my anger at the present minister who, on a one-to-one basis, is generally more personable than most Liberal cabinet ministers. I am angry with him because he keeps trying to defend these changes by referring to the fact that only "kids and housewives" will be affected by this reduction in benefits. Not only is the minister's statement inaccurate but it smacks of discrimination. A young man who is 17 or 18 years of age is not considered a kid by the government if he has to fight for his country. Housewives who are among the far greater number of women in the labour force, especially in areas of high unemployment like the Atlantic provinces, work to supplement the family income. It is more than chauvinistic; it is very wrong for the minister's advisers to assume that these housewives would not want to work in order to supplement the family income at a time of high living costs, high educational costs for their children, and the high cost of everything in our economy today.
It is all right for an MP or top level civil servant whose wife does not have to join the labour force, and whose family income is naturally high because the chief breadwinner's income is high, to use the criteria or yardstick of the income of the breadwinner to determine the economic welfare of the family. But I want to tell the minister and his associates in the strongest possible terms, and with the deepest conviction, that they are wrong. They are using a double standard of economic welfare that discriminates against these housewives who want to work and these kids, so-called, between the ages of 17 and 22.
Recently on our visit to Newfoundland we had a well presented brief from a pro-femina group who were attached to the manpower department in St. John's. They told us without equivocation that the surveys that they have made among housewives in the Newfoundland area indicate that over 50 per cent of the housewives surveyed would like either to enter or re-enter the labour force. As the hon. member for Nickel Belt mentioned yesterday, Statistics Canada published a study of unemployment this past August comparing 1973 with 1971, and one of their conclusions was that in both years unemployed wives tended to come from families with low incomes.
The discrimination against young adults and housewives which is in this bill seems to be added to by the inaccuracy of the minister's statement about the composition of those who are to be desentitled. In June, 1976, a month when many students were on the job market and unemployed in large numbers, only 12.5 per cent of unemployment insurance recipients were under 20 years of age. Adult males made up 45.8 per cent of the total recipients, and adult women accounted for 41.7 per cent.

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
When these changes are viewed from a regional and subregional perspective, they become even more significant. The government tries to play all kinds of statistical games by giving a selective profile of these eight to 12 insured weeks applicants. These profiles say that 64 per cent of all these applicants in 1974 had dropped out of the labour force by March, 1975. This, I suggest, is due to the fact that the national economy is performing so badly under this government that the incidence of the discouraged worker withdrawing from the labour force is increasing. The Nova Scotia department of labour publishes monthly current labour force statistics for the province, and in November they included the following note explaining what seemed to be a decline in the unemployment rate in Cape Breton:
However, the figure for Cape Breton is very misleading if one were to look at the participation rate next to the unemployment rate. The participation rate in Cape Breton fell by 4.3 percentage points and thus, accounts for the fall in the unemployment rate. The fall in the participation rate can mean that people in Cape Breton feel that there is no need to look for work because there are no potential jobs in the area, so they fall out of the labour force. Again, one can see the effect of the economic slowdown in that many people are now falling out of the labour force as discouraged workers. A fall in the labour force of the potential unemployed (that would be counted as unemployed if they stayed in the labour force) means a fall in the unemployment rate.
The federal Department of Manpower refuses to acknowledge that the recession is forcing thousands not just on to the unemployment rolls but out of the labour force entirely. They argue that they are trying, through this method of reducing the qualification for benefits by pushing the period up to 12 weeks from eight weeks, to improve the labour force attachment of this group. Indeed, one can view this move against the eight to 12 weekers as an attempt to force them into withdrawing from the labour force faster, and thus erasing the government's embarrassment over their failure to provide Canadian jobs. This is going to affect over 330,000 Canadians in the course of a year, not 50,000, as the minister keeps repeating.
A Canadian Press report yesterday had this to say on this question:
Estimates of the number of claimants who would be cut from unemployment insurance payments as a result of the change range from 50,000 to 330,000.
So the figure could be 330,000, although the figure that the minister used at one time was 50,000. Let us not be fooled by the way the minister and his departmental advisers are using these statistics; some 330,000 are going to be affected by this measure although it would be only 50,000 at a particular time.
The Department of Manpower states that almost half these people are under the age of 25, and that many are working wives and young persons working at home as I have already said. What is left unsaid, however, is that over half are over 25, 75,000 are between the ages of 25 and 34, 41,000 between the ages of 35 and 44, 35,000 between the ages of 45 and 54, and 19,000 are between 55 and 64. As for the charge that some of these people are only a second income to the family, a kind of secondary worker, according to the 1971 census 6,200 heads of households in my riding-and I am sure this would apply to the riding of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen)-draw less than $5,800. Surely these families should not be denied a second source of

income by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), or the Liberal cabinet.
Further, the minister says that only 30 per cent eight to 12 weekers have established a season repeat pattern. This amounts to a total of 110,000 Canadians in the course of one year, 110,000 people who will probably not be able to remain where they are to work those eight to 12 weeks per year, if this measure passes. Has the minister given any thought to what will happen to these seasonal enterprises if the people can no longer stay in the area to work for the two months required, since, this would not provide the necessary number of stamps to carry that person over the winter?
Further, it is alleged by the department that these changes would result, at most, in an additional 2 to 3 per cent in social assistance costs. The federal government is arbitrarily shifting financial burdens to the provinces and municipalities, and then it wonders why a significant segment of Quebec views federalism as a deadend street. Such narrow-mindedness on the part of the federal government helps sow a bitter harvest. The municipalities in my own riding can scarcely afford this increase, even without an Olympic debt. Their industrial tax base is declining, and you can only levy so much property tax before it becomes self-defeating.
Canada is a large country with regional economies that are not always in step. The former minister of manpower and immigration, now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), promised in the budget speech that the so-called four weeks rule would be abolished. This rule now means that an individual who does not receive extended benefits for four weeks, or more, has his claim permanently terminated. Experience has indicated that this rule clearly served as a deterrent for claimants to return to short-term work that lasts more than four weeks and now less than 12. This is the regulation that caused Cape Breton steelworkers to be cut off their unemployment insurance, as reported in the Cape Breton Post on August 10, 1976, after being recalled to the steel plant for a short period of employment, so we are happy about that change and the change regarding severance pay as well.
The "work-sharing scheme" of this bill-under which a private employer can draw part of his wage bill from the unemployment insurance account-is full of pitfalls and opportunities for abuse. It will probably turn out to be like some of the projects on retraining on the job, or like "experience rating"-the idea that employers with lower rates of employee turnover should pay lower premiums. This well-intentioned tinkering with local job markets has now fortunately been scrapped.
The minister, of course, will answer that the new Canada Works program, which in essence is an extended LIP project, and the Young Canada Works program, in the Atlantic region will soften some of the dire effects that could ensue from these changes. I do not blame the present minister, but it surely is the height of departmental inefficiency to have rushed the
February 2, 1977

application date of Young Canada Works as they have done. The high school and college age groups have not had sufficient time, or counselling with manpower and other groups, to come up with projects that could qualitatively improve their own skills and at the same time best help their communities.
Last week in Cape Breton I was trying to get the high schools to move on this because the cut-off date is February 4. All kinds of people were coming to me and asking what they could do. I am not blaming the new minister, for this, but there should have been some planning over the past five months so that there could be many qualitative as well as quantitative projects to improve the total community. The whole Young Canada Works program is now a complete administrative snafu.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from a recent editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, which usually supports the Liberal government, and which is entitled "More Band-Aids For The Jobless". It reads:
Manpower Minister Bud Cullen, like so many before him, mistakenly believes temporary job schemes solve this country's chronic unemployment problems.
New Democratic Party Leader Ed Broadbent aptly calls these programs "handouts". He suggests the government might spend its time more profitably adopting policies to ensure that Canadians can find the jobs they want.
The newest package involves allocating $350 million to such programs as Canada Works, Young Canada Works and summer job corps. A bit far-fetched from a government which only a year ago killed the Company of Young Canadians, in the name of restraint, to save $130 million.
Mr. Cullen says the new program differs from the old ones because of "a permanency we never had in the past". The only hint of permanency is a commitment to a five-year program of temporary job creation.
Ultimately, the government's attitude is the downfall of this system. The Company of Young Canadians case is the classic example: such programs are the first to go when budgets or ministerial portfolios are juggled.
The Liberals should learn from past experience the inconsistency with which funds were distributed and the inherent opportunities for patronage dictate the need for real employment to offer workers the benefits and security enjoyed by those now in the labour force.
I was not surprised but was somewhat amused by the remarks of the Conservative manpower critic in the House yesterday. As the Canadian Press report in today's Citizen puts it, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) claims that his party should get the credit for the proposal to toughen unemployment benefits because he had called for such measures since 1971.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) says he agrees with the provision of eight to 12 weeks; what he did not say in the House but did say to the press was that he wanted 20 weeks. He says this has little to do with the fact that he comes from an area which enjoys relatively high employment. I wonder if members of that party from Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces would say that.
The bill before us is essentially another example of the inconsistency, of the flip flops and excessive ad hoc arrangement and band-aid applications used by the government as substitutes for policies of full employment and economic stability for the Canadian people. Whatever the virtues, political or otherwise, that the Prime Minister is considered to have by his cabinet and backbenchers, and by his followers, principally
Employment and Immigration
in Quebec, he certainly has made a mess of managing economic policy in this country. When he came to office we had the second highest standard of living in the developed world-as measured by per person income; today we are in the eighth place.
The latest available United Nations bulletin of statistics is for 1975. It shows that there were 13 nations in the world with lower unemployment rates than Canada.
Last year the Economic Council of Canada issued a paper entitled "People and Jobs-A Study of the Canadian Labour Market". At page 39 it had this to say, and the Minister of Manpower chose to ignore the advice:
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 become eligible for benefits. But such recommendations could prove harmful to persons most exposed to period and genuinely involuntary employment. It would seem better to go after malingerers more directly. For this reason we believe that much of the problem of abuse of unemployment insurance could be solved by two methods-by tightening of administration efforts to get persons back to work and by creating jobs to absorb them.
To that I say amen, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I read carefully the best speech my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) ever made. I found it so thorough that I shall not go over the topics he dealt with. He denounced the ambiguity of the Unemployment Insurance Act and fustigated the regulations written by the technocrats for being three times as voluminous as the act itself. And to think that all that was done in an attempt to avoid paying the unemployed the benefits they are entitled to. The member for Kamouraska is a former union president, in addition to which he sat on the board of arbitration for several years. In other words, Mr. Speaker, he knows what he is talking about. I shall therefore limit my remarks this afternoon to the object of the bill, unemployment insurance with regard to work.
The minister entitles his bill:
An Act to establish the Department of Employment.. .
The minister thinks he is changing the spirit of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I say the expression "Department of Employment" is even less true than "unemployment insurance" because at least unemployment really exists while employment is nonexistent most of the time. A while ago I heard the former speaker preaching full employment. I always find that slightly amusing under present circumstances. Why think, consider or even believe in full employment? Everything modern should then be completely eliminated. A stop should be put to the invasion of the labour market by the machine which does away completely with some workers; all scientific processes should be done away with if we want to have full employment and go back 50 or 75 years to the days when, for instance, sand was still carried about in little round shovels: that is humanly and economically impossible. So why talk and try to argue in favour of full employment? It is pointless.

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Everybody knows very well for that matter that unemployment, just as welfare, which is its corollary, is the result of our era of automation which creates affluence and leisure. The present state of unemployment therefore demonstrates without doubt that we are fifty years late in adapting our economy to our social reforms and our social reforms to the scientific development we have known for the last fifty years. All this is due to our inability or reluctance to free ourselves from the old principles of the society based on production for the sake of profit that we have known. We are then forced to think out such ridiculous and temporary devices as unemployment insurance, which has the effect of a palliative in a nonevolving society.
Above all, let us not try to have people believe that the government will replace unemployment by full employment. Within the framework of our society where production is aimed at profit, it is impossible to talk about full employment. Let us then talk about full income or a minimum guaranteed income for all, but not about full employment for all.
In spite of all the efforts made by capitalist governments which have always sacrificed human capital to money capital, these gentlemen will be forced by events and by universal logic to agree with social credit proposals, namely the establishment of a dividend for everyone. This dividend will have to be distributed according to the income of Canada rather than be based on set premiums like present unemployment insurance. In fact, when unemployment insurance ceases, that is to say when the claimant can no longer receive benefits, he must necessarily begin to live on welfare. In other words he begins to receive a small national dividend. What people on welfare receive is a small national dividend which comes from the national product and which is the precursor of a dividend for everyone.
I am saying that unemployment insurance is a band-aid treatment because either the real cure has not been discovered or, which is worse, we did not want to apply the real and only cure possible because of stronger financial motivation. I say that these governments behave like criminals towards society.
Perhaps they will tell us that they ignored these data which would have enabled our society to move at the same pace as our scientific emancipation in all aspects of electronics and automation. However it was foreseeable that the more the machine would replace human energy, the smaller the number of workers who would have to sacrifice their lives to feed the rest of mankind. Today, I am well aware that several people in governments would have benefited from learning by heart the works of Major C. H. Douglas because they would have understood fifty years ago what they begin to grasp today.
People have always imagined that the founder of social credit was concerned only about the monetary system, which is untrue since this matter takes up only ten pages in his treatise. He talked mostly about economic and fiscal reforms, about social reforms to follow scientific innovation and to live with

automation which was beginning at that time, and we can conclude from this that the national dividend is the only solution to all job losses caused by automation.
He even talked about unemployment and leisure. This is why I was pleasantly surprised when the minister, in introducing his new Bill C-27, told us about the three programs which he wanted to emphasize, that is recycling or adult training, the leisure fund and job sharing. I therefore congratulate the minister and urge him to continue in this direction. Indeed I would very much like to know if he has read the chapter on leisure and intellectual liberation in the book by Mr. Douglas. In this chapter, we see that it is not an exaggeration to say that 75 per cent of the new ideas, and even the inventions to which humanity owes its progress, can be attributed to unemployed people. As a matter of fact, this is what has enabled us to leave the age of the muscle which benefited a few people and to enter the age of automation, where science should serve everyone. Suggesting that we should keep an outdated and obsolete organization system because of the risk involved is like refusing to build a railway because of the unfavourable effects on stage-coach transportation. I have every confidence that the minister, who is young and full of vigour, will continue to open up new avenues and to find inspiration in the book by C. H. Douglas. If he does not have it, I can give it to him. This book was written 50 years ago, but it is now even more relevant than ever.
In the meantime, I understand that we have to operate as well as we can with the old tools designed by the financial controllers who lead the governments according to their will and the vagaries of their capital. For them, man has always been a simple production tool to enable them to increase their capital, but in the new society created by automation, man will give much more importance to intelligence and sports. I think the minister has just become aware of this, because once they are free from their total involvement in the work which gave them shelter, clothing, food and basic necessities, tomorrow's men and women will be able to spend more time on creative endeavours.
It is up to the government to further direct its efforts towards social security for all citizens rather than acting as a protector of money capital. I would like to add a few words about new programs such as Canada Works and Young-Canada Works. I think these programs are transitory but necessary incentives which will benefit the population provided they are well administered. They will reduce unemployment, using the same money but at least the unemployed will be given a chance to keep busy while producing useful goods. Still I am quite anxious to see what direction will be given to these projects. As I see it, the people of the area concerned are in the best position to advise the minister on that.
I think that Canada Works should be meshed with the other program over the summer months to make it possible to direct the efforts of both groups towards a sole objective. It would be unfortunate for instance if student projects could not be meshed with or even, depending on circumstances, incorporated into those of Canada Works. Therefore we urge the
February 2, 1977

minister to encourage students to work in their respective municipality even if their activities do not coincide with their field of studies. I think 1 heard that student projects cannot be consistent with other endeavours under Canada Works because students must work within their field of interest so that it be a follow-up of their studies. Mr. Speaker, I do not see why a medical student for instance could not plant trees, work on green spaces or do whatever may be worthwhile for his town or his community.
Mr. Speaker, I think that having groups of students work within their municipalities will make them proud to see that they have built something; for when they become adults they will come back in their communities and say: we did that for our own community. And I think it is fine for students, even if they do not make direct use of the knowledge they may have acquired during the school year. I am sure the minister will consider these remarks. I think he agrees with all of us that these projects should not be launched simply to provide employment but rather to leave something in their communities.
We need these projects very badly. I know some in my region which two or three departments may be interested in, be it forestry, environment or green spaces; I know there are many thorough projects that will undoubtedly interest the department, but to do that, both groups must not be opponents or competitors. The projects should be easily merged so that we can do serious work at the municipal level. I am prepared to believe that regional officers do their best to satisfy recipients, although there are some-and thank goodness they are the exception to the rule!-who tell our voters that the MP has no right to interfere in such matter. When it comes to projects like the one pertaining to unemployment insurance, I do believe-and so does the minister since he uses our services so often and I commend him for it-that a certain propaganda goes on at the regional level and I know very well from the start that the minister takes absolutely no notice of it. In any case, as I said earlier, we simply must do something about unemployment insurance.
All these officials do their best, it is quite evident, and I am even prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and excuse the ignorance of those who would not let the MP look into their affairs, but they should try to understand that having voted a certain law the MP must first of all see that the law is enforced fairly and then check to see if it would not be necessary to amend it to make it clearer for the officials concerned and more flexible for the recipient.
That is a role as I see it, although some may choose not to assume it, saying that there are enough civil servants around to do the job; the choice is theirs. But I cannot shirk my duties. In any case, I can speak freely on this subject since I am generally satisfied with the work of the majority of officials in my region. I also wish to tell the minister that we are satisfied with the withdrawal of the regulation concerning the four week period of employment. We have asked for a long time
Employment and Immigration
that this regulation be abolished, since it caused so many injustices for certain recipients.
Finally, with regards to the right of appeal, we are glad to see that we will finally be able to appeal to the Federal Court even if the ruling of the board of referees is unanimous. What nonsense when, after having argued a case before the board of referees and even when the board was unanimous, it was absolutely necessary to get the permission of the chairman of the board-who had just concurred with the board-in order to go before another court! The minister now proposes to amend the regulation. Well, we discussed this during our last party caucus and did consider introducing a motion to that effect in the House. That is why I say we are fully satisfied with the change at this stage.
As for the 12 week eligibility period for benefits, it will certainly be an handicap for a great many workers in my area.
I am referring to the hundreds of people who travel to Ontario to work during the fruit and vegetable picking season. Because the season lasts only two months, or two and a half months at the most, it will be very difficult for those workers to complete the twelve week minimum period. This will affect Ontario producers as well because they will not be able to get the skilled labour they need to bring in their crops.
In addition to diverting workers to welfare, this will force the Ontario growers either to hire off-shore labour or to leave the crops in the fields. The committee should look very closely into the matter, and I would like to call the minister's attention on this. As I said, this is a most serious problem in our area. It has far reaching consequences for Ontario and raises grave concerns in our sector.
I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on work terminations. Whether the minister gave orders or not to convince workers they should obtain the work termination form at all cost from their employers, UIC offices require that unemployed workers do everything in their power to obtain those forms. Indeed, I read the advertisements published by the government on this subject. In my view, they are misleading. Signs were put up urging workers to obtain the work termination form from their employers when they become unemployed.
Unless the act has been changed, certainly the employer must send that form to the UIC's regional office. Of course the worker should ask for it before leaving, but most of the time the employer is not ready to give it to him. In the case of a forest worker for instance he will go home, the camp will close down, and the worker will wait. Fifteen days later he will find the office does not have his work termination form, and he will be told to go back to the employer and ask for it. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the claimant should not have to do that. He has to go through it once, but, the second time, the employer has the responsibility to send a separation notice to the regional office. If he fails to do so, he should be fined. If the employer is at fault, it is the responsibility of regional officials to force employers to obey the law.

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
There have been so many abuses in this field lately that we wonder why officials seem so reluctant to fine unscrupulous employers. I have even heard of cases, which are fairly typical in my area, where they paid their workers cash instead of by cheque. In this way, the employee cannot prove that he has been working when he loses his job after eight or ten weeks. He is not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. I asked the commission to investigate theses cases; I told them the time had come to call in the RCMP, but they never did investigate. Those guys are taking advantage of the workers as much as they like, and the poor fellows have to go on welfare, after working for eight, ten, fifteen or even as much as twenty weeks.
Yet they never miss a chance to penalize claimants, we know that, to fine them right and left. But I have never seen an employer penalized. I do not know if sometimes some of them are penalized because they are late. We should probably start by penalizing the government of Quebec, they invariably take a month and a half to send employment terminations to their employees. When you think, Mr. Speaker, that those employees cannot draw a penny as long as their employment termination slip has not reached the office although they reported immediately after leaving their job. I do hope this matter will also be considered by the standing committee so an amendment if necessary can be brought in to further protect the claimant.
I would like to say a last word on vacation pay. This is another injustice being perpetrated upon the claimant. Everyone knows that the law now allows subtracting a number of weeks proportionate to the amount of vacation pay received by the worker. I am now advising employers to pay the vacation pay every month. The vacation pay is money earned. There are four, five or six months of vacation pay. What is the loss resulting from that vacation pay? To the worker it represents a loss of one week, two weeks, three weeks or four weeks of unemployment insurance. But let him draw immediately that vacation pay so that when he is unemployed he will have no more vacation pay. This is a monumental farce. It is robbery- I call it robbery. I thought the vacation pay compensated for the two-week waiting period. But no, that vacation pay can result in a penalty of four weeks, plus a two-week waiting period, which means six weeks before getting unemployment insurance. I find that absolutely illogical. Once again, I ask the minister and the committee to consider that matter very seriously.
Finally, in concluding I want to say to the minister that we welcome the combining as well as the decision to combine both offices, namely the Canada Manpower Centre and the unemployment insurance office. That is the way it was at the beginning. It is funny how the administration works. It was like that at the beginning; in my area we only had one unemployment insurance office. After much claiming and begging, it was finally divided into two. It was supposed to be subdivided into three, but no, things have stalled. We are still waiting. But now it has been decided to re-unite the two offices. I think it is essential. They work in the same field:

unemployment and employment are in the same area. I have never known why the departments had put a partition between the two, an impassable barrier, to the point that some officers used to tell us: I cannot get the information; you should call the Manpower Centre to get such and such information. If the minister has decided to re-unite those two offices, I think a serious problem will then be settled, and the officers will provide a better service. First of all, it seems to me that a little less staff will be needed, for in my riding three or four more officers would have been needed to have an efficient UIC office, whereas with the reunification we will even save money.
Once again I want to thank the minister for having thought about it and I hope that when the committee completes its consideration we will have the amendments we want incorporated in the bill.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it can be said that the further one gets west, the more one's enthusiasm for this bill increases. That is understandable because the further west you get the lower the rate of unemployment becomes. Consequently, we have in effect a real dichotomy with this kind of a bill, the real regional disparities that exist in this country.
That is not to suggest we do not share the concern of other hon. members about the need to reform the Unemployment Insurance Act. There is a legitimate need for reform, a legitimate need to tighten up this legislation. I wish to quote from a study by the Economic Council of Canada in their report "People and Jobs" which came out early in 1976. It states this at page 39;
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 become eligible for benefits. But such recommendations could prove harmful to persons most exposed to periodic and genuinely involuntary unemployment. It would seem better to go after "malingerers" more directly. For this reason we believe that much of the problem of abuse of unemployment insurance could be solved by two methods-by tightening administrative efforts to get persons back to work, and by creating jobs to absorb them.
That says it all. I believe the need is there to tighten up the Unemployment Insurance Act. Obviously the administrative mechanism needs tightening up. It is a fact that there are abuses, but this is not the time to tamper with the provisions of this bill whereby the qualifying period for unemployment insurance is increased from eight to 12 weeks.
Obviously that is a needed reform, but that reform should not be brought in at a time of critically high unemployment, a time when this country is facing a rate of unemployment projected to be in excess of 8 per cent, a time when unemployment in my province is more than twice the national average by the present Statistics Canada yardstick of measurement.
In actual fact the real rate of unemployment in the province of Newfoundland is more like 35 per cent if you consider that we have over 55,000 people out of a work force of 183,000 drawing unemployment insurance benefits at this time.
February 2, 1977

Another 10,000 people are drawing short-term or able bodied assistance.
In the few minutes I have left to me today I would like to speak in support of and commend to the House the very reasonable and humane amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). That amendment would provide a lever whereby the minister with the approval of the governor in council and the cabinet would have the discretion of applying that particular provision of the bill, the eight week qualifying period, only to areas where unemployment was critically high. It would give the minister the discretion of having the eight week period in areas designated by him. You could use the unemployment insurance areas that presently exist as a means of measurement. In so doing, the minister would have the discretion of keeping in effect the eight week provision.
I hope that amendment will commend itself to the House. It is a reasonable compromise to those who are enthusiastic about reform and to those of us who believe it is not the time to bring in that particular reform. I hope the amendment put forward by my colleague on behalf of my party will commend itself to members of the House.
I hope it will commend itself to members opposite who come from constituencies in the Atlantic provinces where unemployment is criticially high and job prospects are dismal. I hope it will commend itself to members from the province of Quebec where the problem is equally critical. We have had projections from the C. D. Howe Institute to the effect that unemployment will increase in Quebec to 11 per cent, and in Newfoundland to a total in excess of 14 per cent on an annual basis.
I know that some members opposite feel as I do. Many of them are genuinely concerned. They have to face their constituents. They have the same problem of unemployment that I have in my constituency. If these members feel inclined to support this amendment, perhaps it may even commend itself to the minister. It may even stimulate them to break ranks with their fellows and thus ensure that the amendment will be accepted by the House.
I have talked about the unemployment rate in my province. I can only speak from experience with programs already being administered by the minister. The LIP program, for example, is presently functioning on the basis of high unemployment regions, regions which have unemployment of 7 per cent or 7.5 per cent, which happens to be the national average. These constituencies will receive additional funds. Even on the basis of that methodology, my constituency, which is a way up there, currently qualifies for almost $4 million in LIP grants. That shows the degree of recognition by the government of the unemployment situation which prevails in my province.
It is interesting to note that the last time a government bill was before the House to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act the persons hardest hit were those most severely affected by high unemployment. I refer to the amendment brought down in the fall of 1975. At that time the House was faced
Employment and Immigration
with amendments the effect of which was to remove two groups from the eligibility list, first, old age pensioners, and, second, those in that special category who had the right to receive additional unemployment insurance grants because they had five or more dependants.
The region hardest hit by the removal of those two groups from the rolls was, again, the Atlantic provinces. For example, the removal of benefits from those over 65 years of age cost the four Atlantic provinces $7,270,000, broken down as follows: Newfoundland, $1,600,000; Prince Edward Island, $600,000; Nova Scotia, $3 million, and New Brunswick, $3 million. The elimination of the 75 per cent category, that is, those who were able to draw 75 per cent of their insurable income on the basis of having five or more children, cost us even more in terms of the effect on the region.
When you take into account the fact that we live in an area which has the distinction of having the lowest per capita income in the country and the highest per capita cost of living, you can understand the hardship members of these two groups suffer. Yet they are the very people who needed protection most-old pensioners and the heads of large families with five or more dependent children.
I am sure hon. members would be interested if I put on record the average per capita incomes of Canadians in the four provinces by comparison with the national average for all Canadians. In my own province, Newfoundland, it is 31 per cent below the national average. In Prince Edward Island it is 31.4 per cent below the national average. In Nova Scotia it is 21 per cent below, and in New Brunswick 23 per cent below. The loss occasioned by this bill is incalculable.
I would remind hon. members that a bulletin released by the Economic Council of the Atlantic Provinces last November had this to say in reference to the loss to the region because of these measures:
The loss in total personal income in the region based on December, 1975 average weekly payments will be nearly $49 million. This is a very sizeable loss to the four provinces, representing approximately one per cent of total provincial personal incomes.
A great deal has been said about the change in the qualifying period from eight to 12 weeks. This, of course, would mean an even heavier additional burden on each of those four provinces at a time when they can ill afford it. It removes from benefit those people who presently qualify under the eight-week provision. More than 7,000 people will be involved in Newfoundland. This will have the effect of seriously exacerbating the unemployment situation in the region because of the loss of cash income circulating in those provinces. It will mean further lay-offs as a result of this loss of income.
I hope these factors will be borne in mind by the minister who sat here all day attentively listening to the debate in his own quiet way. I hope he will take these things into account when the bill gets before the committee. I hope he will take into account the seriousness of the unemployment situation in my own province where the rate is, as I say, about 35 per cent. The hon. gentleman can talk all he likes about Canada Works and Young Canada Works and about his new employment
2664

February 2, 1977
Employment and Immigration
strategy. The fact is, as has already been pointed out, that these programs will be based on statistics supplied by Statistics Canada, which means the awards will be made in my province on the basis of the latest unemployment figures which show a rate of about 14 per cent at a time when the real rate is about 35 per cent.
I am not seeking to criticize or undermine in any way the initiatives already taken. God knows, were it not for the LIP program in the last three years the situation would be even worse than it is. I want to tell the minister I have appreciated the co-operation I have received from him and from his officials, and from the job creation people in his department in my constituency. Under this program we are able to work together to get the best possible use of the dollars spent to
produce jobs. I appreciate his co-operation, and I want to say this to him: do not put too much stress on the Canada Works program because, as the hon. member for Cape Breton has said, this program is merely an extended version of the LIP program, its application on a yearly basis. In other words, instead of a million dollars being concentrated in a short time on the critical months of unemployment, the same amount is now to be stretched out over a one-year period. Nevertheless, without initiatives of this kind, the situation would be so much worse. I shall have more to say about this later. I hope that before long we can get the bill into committee and begin a serious study of its consequences upon the hard hit regions of the country. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 3, 1977