1977-03-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, that being the complete inaction by the government of Canada to formulate and set before Canadians, for discussion, a comprehensive policy for agriculture during the present negotiations connected with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That because of the extremely short period for discussions and setting down of guidelines to be used by our negotiators the government set up a committee composed of representatives from farm organizations and commodity groups, a committee composed of not more than ten members, and this committee be instructed to work with government officials to bring forth a draft negotiating position not later than mid-June, 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such 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.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I may take half a minute to do something which is being done simultaneously by the Speaker of the other place, who is tabling this report. I have the honour to lay upon the table the sixth report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar year 1976.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question would normally be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because of his absence and its importance, may I address it to the Prime Minister? It concerns reports, today, that Canadian negotiators hope to conclude separate bilateral agreements with three European countries as a temporary solution to our uranium export embargo on shipments to the European Common Market. Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome states that "restrictions of exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between member states," and Article 54 of the Euratom Treaty clearly lays down the principle of equal access to nuclear resources and the pursuit of a common supply policy. In view of the apparent contradiction between treaty obligations of the European countries and the type of agreement being sought by Canada, could the Prime Minister confirm our new negotiating intent and indicate what form of absolutely ironclad safeguards are possible to block actions by other EEC treaty members to override our bilateral agreements? Also, I wonder if he could say if that would be legally binding.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will be in the House later this afternoon. I do not know where he is now. I believe he attempted to deal with this question yesterday. I have not had any report, but I will make sure he follows up that question and reports as soon as possible.
O)


REASON FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH WEST GERMANY FOR NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS IN VIEW OF SALE OF REPROCESSING PLANT TO BRAZIL
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did take notice of this question raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Specifically, because it is part and parcel of this attempted bilateral agreement, that of resuming sales of nuclear materials to West Germany, and in view of the fact that West Germany is concluding an arrangement to supply a plutonium extraction plant as part of its total fuel cycle provisions for the country of Brazil, a country which has not signed the non-proliferation agreement and which could greatly destabilize the situation in the whole of Latin America, can the Prime Minister indicate for what reasons Canada is pursu-

March 30, 1977
Oral Questions
ing this policy in spite of the strong position taken by President Carter in meetings with the West German representative in Washington?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member means when he says "pursuing this policy". Long before President Carter was elected, Canada had taken a very strong stand on safeguards. 1 discussed the matter with almost every European leader that I met and indicated at least three years ago that Canada was taking a very strong stand on this. I attempted to persuade all the other nuclear suppliers that they should come up to the level of safeguards that Canada was contemplating and has since then implemented. Of course we do not have complete authority to run the affairs of other nations, but we do try to persuade them to our point of view. I repeat what I said earlier, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will try to have a report on the particular aspects of the question which the hon. member raised.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder if the Prime Minister could address directly, because of its major importance, whether Canada has taken any position with regard to West Germany's pursuit of the supply of a reprocessing plant to Brazil, in light of Brazil's unwillingness to sign the non-proliferation treaty and the potential threat of the establishment of that whole nuclear fuel cycle in Brazil. Has the government expressed its opinion to West Germany or is that at all part of the negotiations with respect to resuming bilateral arrangements with that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about other ministers and departments but I raised this matter with Chancellor Schmidt. I indicated that I hoped he would come closer to our point of view. We will no doubt have other occasions to discuss this matter together. Of course we are concerned about this. At least three ministers in the House have said that. I repeat, I have personally raised the whole matter of the nuclear question with Chancellor Schmidt as well as other European leaders.


POSSIBILITY OF VETOING SALE OF REACTOR BY COUNTRY WITH WHICH THERE IS A LICENCE AGREEMENT
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, although the Secretary of State for External Affairs has returned to the chamber, I will direct this question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the same topic. My question arises from the fact that it now appears that the agreements we are going to have for sales to Japan are going to be more licensing agreements rather than the export of hardware. Is the government giving consideration to upgrading the safeguards that Canada imposes upon any sales to the extent that it will have the right to veto any sale of a reactor by any country with which we have a licence agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of the safeguards that we want to extend over the whole fuel cycle and the technology itself. This was

announced in the House at least a year and a half ago by, I believe, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


James McPhail Gillies: Can the Prime Minister tell us what mechanism has been put in place to enforce this element of the safeguards, particularly in relation to the deal now being talked about with Japan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when we negotiate a deal, this is part of our safeguards. Indeed, we have endangered some of our commercial interests by insisting on these high safeguards. What is being attempted through the nuclear suppliers' club and through the bilateral meetings that the ministers and myself are having with heads of other governments is to get them to come up to the standard of safeguards that Canada has adopted. It should be clear to the opposition that we are not following President Carter or anyone else on this. They are hopefully trying to catch up to the policy that we have been implementing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SAFEGUARD AGREEMENTS AND INQUIRY INTO USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a further two-part question for the Prime Minister. First, will the government now table in the House of Commons, before they are signed, any safeguard agreements in regard to the licensing, sale and use of reactors abroad? Second, will the Prime Minister give further consideration, because of the increased proliferation that seems to be taking place of atomic capabilities, to a parliamentary inquiry into the whole issue of safeguards, sales and uses of nuclear energy in this country and abroad?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the first question, I will refer it to the minister and I believe he will do what is usual in parliamentary terms. The second question is really one for the House leaders, to determine whether they can get members and parliamentary time for such a debate. I am sure the ministers on this side would welcome it because Canada has taken a position in the vanguard of those who have been concerned about nuclear proliferation for longer, and with more clout, and more often than other nations. I would hope that should this committee, if it exists, will help to inform the opposition about our policies and get them to catch up with the government on this.
March 30, 1977


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising from reports that Mr. Paul Desmarais of Power Corporation has completed negotiations which will lead to the acquisition of six Ontario radio and television stations, thus adding to an empire which through direct or indirect means controls a large number of newspapers including La Presse, the French language paper with the highest circulation in Canada, and extensive radio and TV stations. In the light of the obvious dangers which arise from the concentration of media ownership in a democracy, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take direct steps to prevent further concentration of ownership in this field?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This would seem to be a question which is either premature or directed to the wrong person. I believe the CRTC would have to authorize any agreement of that kind. Given the exercise of this regulation and regimentation by the CRTC I think it is refreshing to see some Quebec entrepreneurs buying into Ontario for a change.


John Edward Broadbent: So much for the seriousness with which the Prime Minister set up this royal commission on the concentration of corporate ownership. I should like to ask this exponent of corporate imperialism whether, given the fact that it is precisely through a series of such decisions which have already been made in the past by the CRTC which have permitted this concentration of power in media ownership, the right hon. gentleman does not think it is an important requirement of his obligation as Prime Minister in a democracy to make it clear that the government does not favour the concentration of ownership in this field?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of the facts the hon. member is discussing. I will take note of them on behalf of the minister. I am sure that if the minister is able to get the information the hon. member is talking about she will be able to comment on it. As far as I know, the CRTC will have to make a judgment on this; it is a quasi-judicial body; it will decide whether or not there is concentration of ownership, and so on.


John Edward Broadbent: It has made decisions in the past, and permitted it-that is the whole point of my question. Considering that seven years ago the Senate committee on the mass media stated that newspapers and broadcasting stations were "pulling the maximum out of their communities and giving back the minimum in return", and that "the concentration of media ownership has proceeded to the point at which some form of intervention by the state is desirable and necessary", and since these opinions come from a committee of the Senate headed by an old friend of the Prime Minister, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he will not take immediate steps, in advance of the report of the royal commission
Oral Questions
which is looking into corporate power, in order that further concentration of media ownership might be avoided?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I told the hon. member I would refer this matter to the minister. I am sure she will be more impressed now that the hon. member has rallied to the defence of the Senate.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister tell the House whether he or his officials have met with the authorities or employees of Quebec Steel Products Limited to settle the problem of temporary financing for that company?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have already had some contacts with that company for several weeks and this morning I met some representatives of the employees. Since it is an extremely delicate problem involving four or five different parties, it would not be advisable to make any comment at this time.


MEASURES TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As this country had a trade deficit of more than $10 billion last year in manufactured goods, the ones that produce the jobs, and as the Prime Minister said at the ill-fated conference in Toronto last week, and has said many times over, that we cannot possibly increase our exports until we increase our productivity, would the Prime Minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what the government is now prepared to do, after these many statements of his, to introduce a series of productivity incentives, to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will give that suggestion very considerable consideration, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister has made it very obvious that he has no more intention of doing anything about this matter than he has in the past few years, I would ask the right hon. gentleman when he intends to abandon this role of irresponsible phrase-maker who is very keen on telling the people of Canada what to do,

March 30, 1977
Oral Questions
without paying any attention to his own admonitions and try to give this country some leadership?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A few days ago the minister talked about being a little flexible, that being under pressure was causing him to do a lot of thinking. I would ask the minister what part of the bill in particular is the minister thinking of when he talks about flexibility?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to target it and raise too many hopes in the mind of the hon. member opposite. The purpose of having a committee stage is to enable us to look at the bill on a clause by clause basis to see if any improvements can be made.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the minister would come clean with the Canadian people but let me ask him this supplementary question. Yesterday the member of parliament for Gloucester stated that he would be surprised if the request made by 13 Atlantic members of parliament to maintain the eight week eligibility period was not granted. He went further and said that if it was not granted the 13 would be voting against the bill. May I ask the minister whether this request has been granted or has it not?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, this House has no more eloquent member to speak on behalf of the unemployed than the hon. member for Gloucester, and he has made some very splendid arguments. When I listen to a man whom I respect, I listen very carefully to what he has to say.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to know more about this "sweetheart deal". I want to know what is going on around here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I want to know whether the minister is giving leadership or is a follower. Would the minister answer this question: Has this request been granted, or will it be granted? Surely the minister is capable of answering that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the distinct impression that that is the question that the minister has just answered.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member deviated in any way in his third question from his second question, I will be pleased to hear him at three o'clock.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that poaching in our salmon rivers is increasing and causing deep concern, I wonder if the minister would indicate the status of the present situation with regard to the number of guardians and if there will be an increase this year in order to provide protection.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that in this time of restraint and at a time when we are trying to stretch every dollar, we will not be able to spend much more money in the area mentioned by the hon. member. But I appeal to him and to his colleagues to help us to put into effect, before the summer season, amendments to the Fisheries Act which will bring much stiffer penalties to those who engage in poaching which, in fact, is an act of vandalism.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned restraint in spending. Can he assure the House that we will not have a recurrence of what happened last year when guardians were laid off after 12 weeks, even before the season ended, leaving rivers unattended, and yet these same people who were laid off after 12 weeks collected unemployment insurance for 51 weeks at a time of restraint?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned restraint, I did not mention less expenditure in the area of fisheries. We are using all the moneys we have, the amount of which has been increased, to the advantage of fisheries in general. It is a question of judgment. If we have to leave a river temporarily unguarded in order to do other priority things, this is the type of judgment we constantly have to make.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It relates to questions I asked about two weeks ago with respect to certain settlements arising from claims by car rental agencies at our major airports. Can the minister confirm, as his department has done privately over the telephone, that in fact the government is now facing, as a result of an out of court settlement made with Avis, a pay-out of $143,000? Can the
March 30, 1977

Oral Questions FISHERIES
minister also confirm that Host is suing MOT for $4 million, Hertz for $5 million and Holiday for $10 million? Would he now care to answer questions directed to him last November with respect to the deliberateness on the part of his department and, I suppose, his own ministerial discretion in the use of some of these funds or a portion of them for the payment of legal fees?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have confirmed the nature of the two settlements which have taken place in relation to claims where we felt settlement was well advised. There are certain other actions and claims. Obviously, a large amount of money can be claimed, but that has no relationship to the facts, and just as obviously, we are clearly defending those actions.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, on seven different occasions the minister has made similar responses, and 1 am sure he is conscious of the seriousness of the implications. Can he confirm the fact that either his department, the Department of Justice or solicitors on his behalf are in fact at this point negotiating claims or dealing with claims by car rental agencies which amount to some $19 million? Is the minister actively involved in negotiating these units?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I used the word "defending" these claims, and that is the better word to use. Obviously in the process of that certain discussions go on, but I do urge the hon. member not to attach any importance at all to the actual figures being used in terms of total claims.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that Canadians are concerned about attitudes with respect to out of court settlements. Having once said to the House that in fact he would not negotiate but then having negotiated, is the minister going to negotiate out of court settlements with these three other agencies? What we are after is some rationalization of his personal philosophy with respect to his tendering procedure. When are we going to get it? It has been promised since last December. Perhaps a simple tabling of the rationalization with respect to it might clear up the matter and bring it to a head.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, those documents are fully available to any hon. member who would want to see them. 1 do not recall any statement about not negotiating, and feeling that there was a need to settle this situation, we did so. Quite apart from our view of our legal position, we examined the questions in relation to Tilden and Avis and ended up concluding that the best techniques in these circumstances were arrangements which led to payments of legal costs of up to $5,000 to Tilden and the total contract settlement in effect, including legal costs, but those only up to $5,000 as well, in relation to Avis. That is as far as we have gone in the matter. Obviously, discussions are continuing.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON TWO-LICENCE SYSTEM FOR FISHERMEN ON WEST COAST
Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Can the minister advise the House what his stand will be regarding the two licence systems in the Strait of Georgia on the B.C. coast? The season will commence in less than two weeks time and the fishermen want an answer. My colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and I would like to know what the minister will do.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, after representations from and discussions with the hon. member and his colleagues from British Columbia as well as members from across the floor, I have decided to delay the application of these changes in the licensing program for one year. This is no reflection on the desirability to move in order to protect the vital interests of the small trollers which are limited to fishing within the waters of the gulf. However, I am confident, after discussions with representatives of industry, that another round of consultation might produce an improvement in the decision. I have instructed my officials to undertake immediately a very exhaustive program of consultation with the all fishing components on the west coast to review the whole licensing program and to make sure that the distortions that might have occurred in the program established by my predecessor would be corrected if possible. I believe that the industry will welcome this announcement.


SUGGESTED MEASURE TO INCREASE SALMON STOCKS PRIOR TO CHANGE IN LICENSING SYSTEM
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat supplementary to the previous one asked. It concerns the fishing industry. I am glad the minister has now turned his attention away from seals and on to the problems of salmon. I might say that I am sure the announcement made today is welcomed by a broad cross section of those in British Columbia.
My question is this: The application of the new proposal would be delayed for one year. The minister has indicated a re-examination of the licensing system, but unless there is an enhancement program to meet the needs of the small fishermen in some small areas, the minister will not solve the problem. What will the minister do about the enhancement program so that before these changes take place there is enough salmon in the water in the local areas that are registering complaints so their needs can be satisfied?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if we are to await the results of the enhancement program in order to solve the problem that the double licensing is supposed to address itself to, I am afraid there would be no fishermen left because of the length of the cycle needed to improve the stocks. However, I do not think

March 30, 1977
Oral Questions
one is dependent on the other. I said two years ago in March that we would enter into a two year planning program in order to bring the full program to cabinet. The full program will now proceed to cabinet for consideration and decision.


PROPOSED LICENSING OF SPORTS FISHERMEN
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the amount of fish that are presently being taken by sportsmen on the coast of British Columbia, is one of the considerations that the minister has under active review the question of licensing of sports fishermen in the waters of British Columbia so there will be some contribution to the enhancement program not merely from commercial fishermen but also from sports fishermen so that they too start to pay some of their freight?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly welcome a discussion of this issue at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. I think it would be very useful to hear the views of all hon. members. My main hesitation about a licence for sports fishermen is whether or not the red tape required to put a licensing program into effect would not in fact eat all the revenue from it instead of providing some revenue for the development of the fishery. That is the problem on which we are working now.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General. First of all, I want to thank him for his letter and to congratulate him for listening to us on this side in reference to a treaty signed between Canada and Mexico regarding negotiations for the exchange of prisoners between the two countries, particularly in light of the conditions in which Canadians have been living in Mexican prisons. Can he advise the House now as to how many Canadian prisoners will be released from Mexico and how many are held there at present? Will they be returned to Canada and will their sentences be reviewed when they get back to Canada?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for the support that he has extended in connection with the treaty we have negotiated with the United States. To my knowledge there are 15 Canadian prisoners in Mexican penitentiaries at present. We have not yet reached the stage of signing a treaty with Mexico, but I have instructed my officials to pursue the matter with the officials of the Department of External Affairs in order that a treaty may be signed with the Mexican authorities as soon as possible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General, in light of the fact that tourists get into difficulties sometimes when they go to Mexico and are held there without charges being laid under conditions that we do not endorse here in Canada, whether this agreement will apply not only to prisoners at present being held in Mexico but to any persons who might in future get into trouble and who sometimes are not even charged but are held in jail for many years?


Francis Fox: Of course, I will bring the hon. member's representation to the attention of my officials in order that this valid point of view may be brought to the attention of the Mexican authorities when we enter into formal discussions with them concerning the details of the proposed treaty.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Yesterday the minister gave a rather dark picture, although very realistic, I feel, of the investment situation in Quebec, adding that he was watching it very closely and with great attention, and that DREE intends to intervene quickly. To my mind, to give greater credibility to his comments, the minister should tell us today how his department intends to help the province of Quebec.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the department will continue to implement its programs and will try, if possible, with the cooperation of the province of Quebec, to accelerate their implementation in some sectors; but with regard to the development of manufacturing industries, I am afraid that the hon. member will still have to wait a while before being satisfied with the situation.


REQUEST THAT DESIGNATED AREAS IN QUEBEC BE RE-EXAMINED TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
The minister also spoke of many means to help and encourage investment in the province of Quebec. Does he intend, first of all, to have a special meeting with his Quebec counterpart? Might it be possible to reassess for instance, the designated areas to enable or encourage investors to benefit from the generosity of his department?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, in fact I have already met my Quebec opposite number, Mr. Leonard; we intend to meet
March 30, 1977

again in the near future to discuss the programs the two levels of government share and apply in the province of Quebec.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the implementation of the recommendations of the Hall report. Former CPR employees who retired about 19 years ago have had a pension increase of SI.50 a month since that date. I know the minister must be concerned about the terrible inflationary pressure that this puts on the economy. I wonder if he is prepared to give them another $1.50 in the next 20 years. May I ask when he is going to implement the recommendations of the Hall report?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the plight of these particular pensioners, just as much as the hon. member is and as he knows, I have talked to many of them. This is a matter that will have to be taken up by the unions who certainly will be very interested. The CPR has an obligation to make rectification in these areas also.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I regret that circumstances prevented giving him longer notice of it. The question relates to the press conference and statement released at 11.30 this morning by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, dealing with offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea. This environmental group alleges that an underground blowout was in progress at the Tingmiark well at the end of the drilling season. Referring to the Minister's statement of September 29 this committee says in its release on page 2:
... no mention was made of the fact that an underground blowout was in progress at Tingmiark, which Dome had been battling unsuccessfully for 12 days to bring under control.
I should like to ask the minister if these allegations are true. Was there an uncontrolled blowout and was the minister aware of the situation when he issued his September 29 news release?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the press release or press conference this morning by the
Oral Questions
Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. I am not aware, however, of any blowout at Tingmiark as is described by the hon. member and I certainly was not aware when I made the statement that he referred to but I will look into all of this.


PROPOSED REVIEW BY COMMITTEE OF DRILLING IN BEAUFORT
William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Arctic Resources Committee has urged that the review of offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea be submitted by a reference to the appropriate committee of the House and I believe that view is shared by the exploration and drilling companies, Dome and Canmar. In other words, both the proponents and opponents of this particular energy exploration share the mature view that the public should be aware of all the facts. Can the minister demonstrate to the House the comparable government maturity, instead of the view that this is too complicated for the public to understand, which is no longer valid? Will he demonstrate that maturity by initiating a reference to the standing committee with respect to offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, none of the companies have made it known to me that they wanted this matter reviewed by a parliamentary committee. As the hon. member knows, a review process has been underway during the winter and we expect the final report very soon. I would be willing to make as much of that information as possible, if not all of it, available to the parliamentary committee. The government will have to make a decision very soon with respect to the Beaufort Sea if there is to be any work done this summer. We could not wait for the parliamentary committee to review this again and then make a decision. That would be too late. We can give them the information to review, however, and do with it what they wish.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising from the long delays being experienced by Chinese Canadians in bringing members of families to Canada from mainland China. Has the hon. minister had recent contact with the government of China concerning the present status on the agreement on family reunification negotiated by the Prime Minister when he visited China in 1973?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any direct talks with the ambassador on this subject but it is conceivable, and I think probable, that there have been talks at the official level. I will make inquiries and see what the current situation is. If it

March 30, 1977
Oral Questions
seems desirable to have discussions with the ambassador, I will be glad to do so.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that delays are resulting from the reluctance of the Chinese government to issue exist visas, when the minister has contact with the ambassador would he inquire the reason for those delays and report back to the House concerning the attitude of the Chinese government?


Mr. Jamieson:: Yes, I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. He was in the House a while ago, but as he is absent just now, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of the fact that a number of hon. members, including especially some who represent the Canadian province of Quebec, have noticed that many buildings belonging to the Canadian government or housing federal agencies do not fly the Canadian flag, will the minister, who has been made aware of this serious omission, give specific instructions to correct a situation which all Canadians find offensive?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it has just been brought to our attention that a number of buildings belonging to the Canadian government, not only in Quebec, but in other Canadian provinces as well, do not fly the Canadian flag. It has been therefore decided that from now on, buildings belonging to the Canadian government or housing federal agencies will fly the Canadian flag on the main mast where it belongs.



TOURISM


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and welcome him back from his visit to the United States. In view of the international travel deficit in tourism experienced by Canada in 1976 which totalled some $1.18 billion, an increase of 62 per cent from the $727 million deficit in 1975 and which contributed to Canada's current account deficit of almost $5 billion last year, may I ask what steps, if any, the minister took to correct some of the imbalance while he was in the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is talking about tourism. I was in Washington yesterday and I raised the problem with Vice-President Mondale and Mrs. Kreps, my counterpart-a very charming lady who is a great friend of Canada and I am sure we will have very good trade relations. I raised that problem because of the $600 million or $700 million deficit in tourist trade. They recognized the problem. When they amended their tax legislation last fall, they wanted to cope with the problem. A few years back they coped with loopholes in convention trade. In doing that they have not realized the impact on the Canadian market. As we have such a deficit, they have recognized they have a problem. I talked with representative Vilman, Mrs. Kreps and Vice-President Mondale and all of them recognize there is a problem. They would like to do something about it as quickly as possible. I realize that if our system is complex theirs is even more so.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the serious deficit which the minister has confirmed that exists between Canada and the United States, is the minister or the government contemplating calling a conference of provincial ministers of tourism so that steps can be taken to improve this situation in the country, from Nova Scotia right across to British Columbia?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we had a conference of ministers of tourism from all provinces on that very topic last December. We are hopeful the situation will be better this summer for many reasons. One reason is that last year was the United States bicentennial and they had a major program to keep Americans travelling within the United States. We also hope that weather conditions will be better this summer than last summer.



FINANCE


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance relates to a CMHC release of March 28 pointing out that of those households that pay an exorbitantly high portion of income for shelter, twice as many are headed by women as by men. Given that the financial difficulties these women face in shelter costs is aggravated by their income amounting to only 57 per cent of that of their male counterparts, can the minister say if he is giving consideration to measures to offset this serious inequity in his budget preparation?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have to say in response to that specific question that the budget is not directing itself at those figures.

March 30, 1977


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask, since the minister is not prepared to take the budgetary route to ameliorating this injustice, will he follow the legislative route?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say that a very substantial portion of income compensation determined in Canada is not under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. Indeed, ours being a free market economy with many private operators, we have not taken the step of legislating the salary levels they must pay to their employees. I think it is important and legitimate that, within the Canadian work force, women should receive equal pay for work of equal value. That, indeed, is one of the positions supported by this government, but I am not satisfied that any single legislative measure in that regard put through by the government of Canada could bind all provinces and all private employers in Canada.



CONFEDERATION


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the government House leader. In view of the great concern among Canadians at this critical moment in the history of our country about the future of Confederation and in view of the many conferences and seminars springing up across the country which reflect this public hunger for a sense of direction, does the government plan to bring before parliament some measure which will allow members to express their ideas and convictions about ways to hold this country together and give the people of Canada the leadership they are entitled to receive from parliament, the central, most important forum for providing a sense of direction for Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may recall that in replying to comments made by the hon. member for Don Valley a few days ago I underlined my personal concern about the inability of the House of Commons to focus on certain current issues, such as national unity. I note that the right hon. member for Prince Albert has raised the same question in another forum. I believe it would be not only desirable but crucial for members of the House of Commons at an early date to have an opportunity to deal with and discuss the various facets of this issue.
I hope, following the Easter break, that I will be in a position to make some proposals which will open the way for the House of Commons to deal, in addition to its legislative program, with current issues which include national unity, the question of external affairs and human rights in various parts of the world.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In describing proposals which the minister said it would not only be desirable, but crucial to put before the House, does he
Oral Questions
intend to consult with representatives of the other parties in the House, in order to draft a measure which would make it clear to the Canadian people that national unity must be defined in economic and social as well as cultural and linguistic terms?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree necessarily with the substantive comment made by the hon. member. My principal concern is to clear the way and provide an opportunity for members of the House to deal with such current issues. How they would be presented, in what form and what their substance would be are matters we can discuss later. I cannot comment on that at the moment.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, if he will lend me an ear? A report of the National Farm Products Marketing Council on chicken marketing boards is to go before cabinet shortly and, if approved, the import levels and quotas will be based on average imports of the last five years. Meanwhile Weston, Kentucky Fried Chicken and other companies have increased their imports by some 50 times in the last five years, from about one million pounds to 50 million pounds. I ask the minister whether that action has subverted the intention of parliament, an intention expressed when it passed the national farm marketing bill some time ago.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can say much. The National Farm Products Marketing Council has held hearings two years in a row. The provincial people want a national farm marketing board for broilers. I think they have come to a final decision on what authority should be vested in the national board. It would be run by the producers themselves. This is something they could do. That is, the majority of them have come to that decision at present. I will be making a submission to my colleagues, in order to decide whether they should be allowed to go ahead with the proposal or not. As far as I am concerned they have met all the criteria at present. But a lot of this was solely up to them to do. Certainly, it is not the government's fault that imports were entering Canada. That question basically is left to the broiler producers themselves, and they could have taken action some time ago.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. broiler board reported recently that Westons in the lower mainland of British Columbia were marking up American chickens by some two cents a pound, to either 57 cents or 59 cents a pound, but were marking up Canadian chickens by some 37 cents a pound, in order to subvert the board. Since one of the aims of orderly marketing is to prevent the abuse of power by large corporations, will the minister undertake to this

March 30, 1977
Oral Questions
House that he will support the formation of that board and make sure that cabinet makes a decision quickly?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, once the producers say they want a product to come under the authority of the National Marketing Board I must, by virtue of the Act parliament has passed, put the matter forward and hope it progresses. Parliament passed the national farm products marketing legislation at the request of the provinces several years ago.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to discontinue the passenger train service between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, and the offer by the Ontario government to take over that service under the auspices of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, will the minister give his support and assistance to having this train service taken over and maintained by the ONTC?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, since the tracks in question are Canadian Pacific tracks, there will of course have to be discussions between the Ontario Northland Railway or the Ontario government and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Certainly, 1 see nothing standing in the way of that discussion and would be glad to help, as a friend or arbitrator in that process.



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. As the international money markets have developed budget jitters with respect to the Canadian dollar which has again fallen, would the minister reassure the market by assuring this House that in his budget tomorrow night he will not impose foreign exchange controls or peg the Canadian dollar and that he does not intend taking such action in the foreseeable future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for indicating his intention to ask his question. I would be happy to give that assurance, that the government does not have the intention either of moving off the floating rate nor of imposing a foreign exchange control system.



POSSIBILITY OF CANADA SELLING GOLD FROM RESERVES OR REVALUING IT UPWARDS

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, may I correct an answer I gave the hon. member yesterday. Yesterday I responded to the hon. gentleman's question by saying that gold was not carried on government of Canada accounts in monetary terms but, rather, in volume terms. I should like to correct that answer. It is carried in money terms, at the rate of 35 special drawing rights per fine troy ounce. That works out at about $40 an ounce. It would be the intention of the government after the amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act are adopted by parliament to revalue the gold supply upwards.
[DOT] * *



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the extraordinary confusion surrounding the status of pre-act and post-act claimants for UIC benefits at age 65, which has required both a letter from the minister and an attractive brochure to clarify it, will the minister prepare a second brochure entitled "Age 60" to explain the inequitable position of the person who chooses to retire or of necessity retires at age 60 and who is eligible, as I understand it, neither for UIC benefits nor for the lump sum payment on retirement?
[ Translation]


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is aware of this problem. A first solution had been found for people of 65 and over who have already appealed and won their case, but the department does not agree on the last successful cases heard before their special committee, and those cases should be referred to an umpire.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the question is really about those who are aged 60 and to whom the Act does not apply. I was wondering if the minister, who suggested he had a very ongoing approach to changing the Act from day to day, would consider bringing in legislative amendments that would clarify the position with regard to receipt of UIC benefits for the person who retires at age 60 because I do not believe the previous legislation was intended to eliminate persons under the age of 65 from the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, as the act stands now, I think that anyone wanting to work and under the obligation of looking for a job is entitled to certain benefits, as long as he is
March 30, 1977

Correction to Order Paper



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
available. I will nevertheless take note of the hon. member's question and bring it to the minister's attention.

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. In view of contradictory reports which have emerged from the most recent meeting of NATO defence ministers in Brussels, will the minister tell the House what was decided with regard to the Airborne Warning and Control System in Europe? Is the situation now any different than it was on December 22 when the minister told this House that the NATO defence ministers were agreed that the system was needed but that the governments of the member countries were not committed?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. All the ministers agreed on the need for the system. There was general agreement on the AWACS system per se. The United Kingdom government reserved their position as to how best this would be fulfilled. The position is one that an airborne control system is required. All countries agreed that the AWACS system was the best to fill that except the United Kingdom which wished to reserve their decision on it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The minister is reported by Canadian Press to have said that Canada has agreed to take part in a North American AWACS system, and that the most likely form of our participation would be provision of bases and crews rather than a contribution towards the acquisition costs of the system. Will the minister comment on the accuracy of this report, and will he also indicate whether the so-called agreement has been signed by both the U.S. and Canada and, if so, will he table the signed agreement?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, our agreement is to participate together with our American allies in the NORAD agreement. That portion which involves AWACS would be a specific American contribution, but it would all be included in the total sharing which we still have to work out based on the new proposals that are being made.


CORRECTION TO ORDER PAPER
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have noted that there is an error on today's order paper under "Introduction of Bills". The French text is correct, indicating that notice is given as of this day of the intention of the hon. member for Peace River to introduce a bill entitled, c'est ecrit en Frangais "Loi modifiant la Loi sur les secrets officiels". Obviously, the English is in error, indicating the bill of the hon. member for Nickel Belt of which notice was given on March 24 and which was introduced yesterday.
I indicated earlier that if I was in error in assessing that the hon. member for Hamilton West had repeated his second question when he asked his third question, I would hear him at three o'clock.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being so understanding. I notice that once I had the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on the ropes, he left the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was talking about the hanky-panky of a sweetheart deal that we have noticed between the minister of manpower and the 13 members from the Atlantic provinces. In my second question I asked the minister of manpower something like this, "The hon. member for Gloucester stated that he would be surprised if the request of the 13 Atlantic members of parliament to maintain the eight-week eligibility period was not granted". Then I asked the minister something like this: "Has a request been granted?" Then I sat down. In my supplementary, and here is the difference I am trying to point out, I asked: "Has a request been granted?" In the last supplementary I asked: "Has the request been granted, or will it be granted?" There was the difference. I do not want to say Your Honour was wrong, but perhaps you will find that I was right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I said, once I had the minister on the ropes he left the House.


Mr. Speaker:: My recollection of the hon. member's language is precisely the way he has described it. Indeed, I recall that on the third question the hon. member for Hamilton West used the words "has the request been granted, or will it be granted?" If that was a departure from the second question-I thought it was not, but if it was I am sure the hon. member is right-the only redress I can give in admitting that error is to give the hon. member the floor to put that question tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
4478

March 30, 1977

Official Secrets Act VETERANS AFFAIRS
Second report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Boulanger.
(Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)
The revised wording, consistent with the original intent, expressly limits its application to enemy espionage and offences against national security as opposed to mere disclosures or leaks of embarrassing but non-strategic information.


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

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table references to the administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, with respect to Ozite Corporation of Canada Limited and New Brunswick Resource Service Employees.


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: 1,705, 1,837, 1,838, 1,839, 1,840, 1,867 and 1,921.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that His Excellency the Governor General in council has today, pursuant to subsection 12(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, directed the Anti-Inflation Board to conduct an inquiry and advise as to whether it is appropriate to make the Anti-Inflation Act and guidelines applicable to the forest industries, the food retailing and wholesaling industries and the metal fabricating industries, all in the province of British Columbia, and I give notice of intent, pursuant to subsection 3(3.2) of the act, that should an order in council be subsequently made pursuant to subparagraph 3(2)(a)(v), it will be applicable as of today.


Mr. Muir: How many projects were carried out on Cape Breton Island under the Federal Labour Intensive Programme since its inception and, in each case (a) what was the cost and its purpose (b) how many individuals were employed?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: listing of all projects carried out on Cape Breton Island under the Federal Labour Intensive Projects Program since its inception in 1971 is not readily available and would be difficult and costly to compile. Many of the projects undertaken have been province-wide and some region-wide, rather than related to a specific location and for that reason costs and man-month data have not been compiled by individual areas. Information is available however for the current year's program and a listing of approved projects on Cape Breton Island is given below.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-411, to amend the Official Secrets Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for calling attention to the fact that there is an error on the English order paper. It has been my experience that any idea, no matter how brilliant, which comes from this side takes a long time to dribble down to members on the other side. I wanted to establish that as soon as I could. The purpose of this bill is to better define the scope of the Official Secrets Act so as to prevent its abuse in the interests of unrestrained government secrecy. As it presently stands, the act exposes members of parliament, civil servants and the press to lengthy jail terms for the most trivial exchanges of information.

Project and Location	Estimated Cost	Man- MonthsCommunications To handle extra clerical workload generated by the 1977-78 five-year licence renewal program Sydney	$ 3,100	4Environment Breakwater repairs Chapel Cove	30,000	18Skidway Extension Pleasant Bay	35,000	21Skidway construction Bay St. Lawrence	21,000	13Dingwall	33,000	20Haulout New Haven	23,000	14Wharf repairs Alder Point	40,000	24Breakwater repairs Little Judique Harbour	50,000	31Judique Baxters	20,000	12Ballantyne's Cove	40,000	24Orisaig	10,000	6Margaree Harbour	85,000	52IAND-Indian and Eskimo Affairs Insulation of housing at Eskasoni	34,021	32Repairs to housing Whycocomagh	46,208	45Complete Wagmatcook Band Hall	31,108	21Extension to homes Sydney	16,864	12Demolishing old building and brush clearing Millbrook	16,000	20
March 30, 1977

Project and Location	Estimated Cost	Man- MonthsRenovation to Band Hall and repairs to six houses Chapel Island	32,224	27IAND-Parks Canada Park Improvements Baddeck	12,000	13Louisbourg	371,000	413Cape Breton Highlands	367,000	309National Defence CFB Sydney Administrative support	13,000	20General labour and maintenance	45,050	52Transport Marine Repairs to Shed Sydney Terminal Wharf	4,800	4Repairs and clean-up Louisburg Wharf	2,500	2Air Repair and paint ATB maintenance garage and telecom sites Sydney	12,300	12Brush clearing and open drainage improvements to airfield Sydney	21,800	21Repair airport perimeter fence Sydney	7,200	8Cut access road to airport boundary Sydney	45,800	48CANADA COUNCIL GRANT TO JEAN-JACQUES	NATTIEZ


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Annual Report of the Canada Council 1975-76 list a grant in the amount of $39,724 to Jean-Jacques Nattiez for researching "the analysis of music by semiological methods" and, if so (a) on what date did such research (i) commence (ii) conclude (b) for what reasons was such a sum of money devoted to this purpose (c) what is a full explanation of the analysis of music by semiological methods (d) what are the principle conclusions of the research and to whom will it be of any advantage?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Yes. (a) The study; (i) was started in 1974 (the amount mentioned covered research costs for 1975-76); (ii) it is expected to be completed in 1978. (b) A majority of the experts consulted considered the project valuable and well-conceived and the candidate competent, (c) Professor Nattiez provided the following explanations; (Translation) "Musical semiology as a discipline is concerned with the updating of the classical methods of musical analysis through techniques used in linguistics and computer documentation; it seeks to demonstrate that music, in its conception or perception, is a symbolic fact; it also tries to provide a basis for comparing various musicological theories and techniques of musical analysis", (d) The research is still under way. Its conclusions will be useful to music teachers, musicologists and musicians.



CANADA COUNCIL-GRANT TO JACQUES HENRIPIN AND EVELYNE LAPIERRE-ADAMCYK

Mr. Cossitt: Does the Annual Report of the Canada Council for 1975-76 list a grant in the amount of $50,558 to Jacques Henripin and Evelyne Lapierre-Adamcyk for purposes of researching "fertility of families in Quebec" and, if so (a) has this research been completed (b) what are the main points discovered in regard to fertility of families in Quebec and did the report make any conclusions as to whether this differed from other provinces (c) on what date did the research (i) commence (ii) conclude (d) what reasons was it considered advisable to give this sum of money to study the subject of fertility of families in Quebec?
Order Paper Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Yes. (a) No. (b) The research is still under way. (c) (i) It was undertaken in 1974 by Professor Henripin and integrated into a previous study, begun in 1971 and supported by the Quebec Department of Social Affairs, the federal Department of Health and Welfare and the Vanier Institute; (ii) it is expected to go on for another four or five years, (d) See answer to 1,837(b).



CANADA COUNCIL-GRANT TO LAURENT SANTERRE

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the Annual Report of the Canada Council for 1975-76 list a grant in the amount of $135,012 to Laurent Santerre for purposes of researching "systematic study of the French language spoken in Montreal" and, if so (a) on what date did the study (i) commence (ii) conclude (b) for what reason was a sizeable grant given for such a study (c) what are the principal conclusions, if any, resulting from the study?
2.	Have any grants been given at any time by the Canada Council for systematic study of the English language spoken in Toronto?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Yes. (a) (i) The study was begun in 1970 by Professor Gillian Sankoof of the University of Montreal; it has been under the direction of Professor Santerre since 1974 (the amount mentioned covered research costs for 1975-76); (ii) it is expected to be completed in 1979. (b) See answer to 1837(b). (c) The study is still under way.
2.	No. However in 1971 Professor Matthew H. Scargill of the University of Victoria was given $15,019 for a research project entitled, "Survey of Canadian English: a survey of the vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and spelling of 30,000 Canadians"; in 1972, Professor Alexander M. Kinloch of the University of New Brunswick was given $873 for a project entitled, "The Survey of Canadian English: an independent follow-up survey" and in 1976, Professor Enoch Padolsky of Carleton University was granted $8,550 for a project entitled, "Linguistic survey of Ottawa Valley English: preliminary study".



CANADA COUNCIL-GRANT TO DANIEL ELLIS BERLYNE

Mr. Cossitt: Does the Annual Report of the Canada Council for 1975-76 list a grant in the amount of $25,414 to Daniel Ellis Berlyne for purposes of researching "Aesthetic motivation" and, if so (a) on what date did such research (i) commence (ii) conclude (b) for what reason was the grant given (c) in the view of the Canada Council what is a definition of "Aesthetic motivation" (d) what were the principal results of the study and of what benefit will it be?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Yes. (a) (i) This research began in 1969 (the amount mentioned covered the research costs for 1975-76); (ii) Professor Berlyne died in November 1976 and colleagues are expected to finish his work by the end of 1977. (b) See answer to 1,837(b). (c) Professor Berlyne describes aesthetic motivation from a research point of view as follows: "It is proposed to continue three lines of research in experimental aesthetics that are already in progress. The first will extend the use of the analytic approach to a study of
80012 - 514

March 30, 1977
Order Paper Questions
motivational reactions to sculptures from a variety of periods and cultures and to poems. The technique involves multidimensional scaling of similarity judgments and preference judgments, combined with verbal ratings of stylistic and other attributes and nonverbal measures of stimulus-seeking behaviour and reward value. The objectives are (a) to ascertain the attributes of works of art that dominate subjects' perceptions of them and their affective reactions to them, and (b) to take the first steps towards an objective classification of style, based on responses of non-expert appreciators. The second set of experiments involves cross-cultural research. The investigation of verbal and nonverbal responses, indicative of motivational processes, to Western and non-Westem painting and to Western and non-Westem music will be extended to other geographical regions. The purpose is to compare the findings with those obtained with local (Canadian) subjects, so that the universality and generalizability of previous results can be gauged. Finally, it is proposed to investigate relations between personality traits, concentrating in the first place on introversion-extroversion, and aesthetic preferences, measured through multidimensional scaling of verbal preference judgments and through a technique that uses manual responses to measure reward value. The material will consist, in the first instance, of Western paintings that have been scaled for various characteristics in previous research", (d) The study is still under way. Its results should be of interest to scholars and researchers in the field of aesthetic psychology.



CANADA COUNCIL-GRANT TO ALAN J. THOMSON

Mr. Cossitt: Does the Annual Report of the Canada Council for 1975-76 list a grant in the amount of $13,710 to Alan J. Thomson for researching "the physiological basis of insect feeding behaviour" and, if so (a) on what date did such research (i) commence (ii) conclude (b) for what reason was such a sizeable grant given (c) what are the principle conclusions, if any, resulting from the study and of what benefit will it be?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Yes. (a) (i) This research started in 1974. This particular grant, tenable for one year, commenced on June 1, 1975; (ii) it ended prematurely on March 31, 1976. A refund of $2,589 was made, (b) See answer to Question 1,837(b). (c) The conclusions are of a technical nature and were communicated to the scientific community through scientific journals. Dr. Thomson's research has important implications for the control of insect populations.



IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD-BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF EACH MEMBER

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What are the names, addresses, age, qualifications, educational and occupational background of each member of the Immigration Appeal Board?
2.	In each case, what position does he/she hold on the Board and what is his/her (a) function (b) title (c) salary range (d) location, in Canada and other countries?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	J. V. Scott, A. B. Weselak, J.-P. Houle, G. Legare, C. M. Campbell, U. B. Benedetti, F. Glogowski, R. Tremblay, D. Petrie. Such information as to age, qualifications, educational and occupational background of members of the Board is not customarily divulged. All members were appointed by the Governor in Council.
2.	J. V. Scott, Chairman and chief executive officer of the Board, SX-3 Salary Range, Location Ottawa. A. B. Weselak, Vice-Chairman, SX-2 Salary Range, Location Toronto. J.-P. Houle, Vice-Chairman, SX-2 Salary Range, Location Montreal. G. Legare, Vice-Chairman, SX-2 Salary Range, Location Ottawa. C. M. Campbell, Vice-Chairman, SX-2 Salary Range, Location Vancouver. U. B. Benedetti, Member, SX-1 Salary Range, Location Toronto. F. Glogowski, Member, SX-1 Salary Range, Location Ottawa. R. Tremblay, Member, SX-1 Salary Range, Location Montreal. D. Petrie, Member, SX-1 Salary Range, Location Toronto. SX-1 $27,500-536,500; SX-2 $31,500-541,500; SX-3 $35,500-547,500.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rarely take the time of the House to raise a question of privilege with respect to questions on the order paper, but I feel I should point out that there are three outstanding questions in my name going back to October 12 of last year. I would ask the parliamentary secretary, through you, sir, whether there is any major impediment standing in the way of a response to these inquiries.


Ralph Goodale: I shall be glad to take a look at those three questions and consult the hon. member about them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTION FOR PAPERS

Ralph Goodale: Would Your Honour please call notice of the motion for production of papers No. 71 ?



COPIES OF MATERIAL RELATING TO SEARCH AND RESCUE IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all pertinent material resulting in the decisions on Search and Rescue in Canada, such as (a) stationing two Canadian Forces helicopters in Newfoundland (b) provision of a CCG rescue hovercraft, strengthened for navigation in ice, for service on the

March 30, 1977
[Stage Direction]
norh-east coast of Newfoundland (c) establishing a marine safety education programme (d) organizing a Canadian Coast Guard auxiliary on a national basis to assist in education, search and rescue work (e) procurement of special equipment to improve marine rescue capabilities of SAR helicopters in Newfoundland (/) the establishment of emergency centres in St. John's, Newfoundland and Quebec.
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the required documents are internal documents of the Department of Transport and documents belonging to the Privy Council and, as they are of a confidential nature, they cannot be reproduced. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


J. Michael Forrestall: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate on behalf of the hon. member. Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 29, 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. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, before I continue my line of discussion of yesterday evening I should like to set the record straight with regard to what the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) raised during the question period. He quoted a paper which meant to quote something I had said. He did not identify the source and I shall not try to contradict that source, but I should just like to set the record straight. I never pretended or intended to speak for other MPs whether from the Atlantic provinces or elsewhere.
It is a matter of public knowledge that members on this side of the House are concerned about some of the provisions of Bill C-27.
I was asked by a series of reporters about my concerns. I stated what those concerns were. I was also asked whether
Employment and Immigration
other Atlantic MPs felt like that, and I said it was a matter of public knowledge that others did. They asked me how many Atlantic members there were. I said that was a matter of fact. There are 13, but I do not speak for the others; they are very capable of speaking for themselves. That I should have said that the government was looking again at Bill C-27 and its implications is not news. The minister himself said last week- I think he stated it in the House-that the government is looking again at some of the provisions of the bill.

Last evening, when the House adjourned, I was speaking on some positive aspects of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that I could support the bill on second reading because it has some potentially positive aspects, particularly as far as the integration of UIC offices and manpower centres is concerned. I say this can be positive because it can be a step towards the structural change which I hope will occur in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said last evening. As far as we are concerned, those of us who come from areas with a high level of unemployment recognize that in some areas of the country, and even in our areas, people are concerned about the unemployment insurance system. In fact there are moral and attitudinal problems throughout the country. Some people abuse the system, both at the employer and employee level, and we know that this situation cannot be maintained, that we must do something. What we suggest is that, in changing this situation, we should be careful to avoid hurting people in high unemployment areas who have no chance to work.

I shall repeat that in English because I think it is important. I agree, and a lot of others agree, that there are moral and attitudinal problems with the unemployment insurance program. We know there are people who decide not to work or who leave their jobs voluntarily, and we know that the program generally is abused and misused by employers and employees. What we are saying is that the way to remedy this is to change drastically the administrative structure of the UIC, not to take the risk of hurting people in high unemployment areas who have no chance to work.
We are concerned about two provisions of the bill. One has to do with the increase in the qualifying period and the other with changes in the benefit structure. I deplore the fact that most of those who have spoken about this bill, including members of the opposition, have apparently not noted what the changes in the benefit structure would mean for those on the minor entitlement side, those with minor attachment to the labour force. Obviously, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Hamilton West, and other hon. members whose speeches I have heard or read have failed to note that the change in the benefit structure affecting those in the areas of highest unemployment would mean that claimants could lose up to three months of benefit.
The Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for St. John's East, said they would put forward amendments in

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
committee. As I have said before in this chamber, I believe their amendment really reflects the fact that their party cannot take a united stand, because up to now they have not suggested that the period should remain at eight weeks in certain regions of the country according to law. What they are saying is that the governor in council should have the power to do this. That is skating on both sides of the issue just to enable them to go into the Atlantic provinces and say, "We wanted it to remain eight weeks. It was the government that didn't want it. We wanted the government to have the authority". If the Conservative opposition believes the period should remain at eight weeks in certain parts of the country, or that it should not be 12 weeks, let them say so and present amendments in committee or in the House at report stage. Then we will do that within the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: Hon. members should not be excited. I am not making a value judgment; I am saying that if the Conservative opposition believes it should be eight weeks, they can move to put it in the law-but they should not skate on both sides; they should not be hypocritical; they should give the government the authority to do it. The Conservative opposition is interested in political slogans, not with dealing with substantive issues. They have not said that changes in the benefit structure would mean that the people in the minor attachment class would lose three months of benefits. Nobody in the Conservative party has indicated he would move amendments to deal with this in committee. Thank goodness there are members on this side, and other members, who saw this and brought pressure to bear to try to get the situation changed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is that the amendment?


Herb Breau: The hon. member is interjecting. He has had a chance to make his speech, but he flunked it. Now he is trying to correct himself. The Conservatives will have to make up their minds, when this bill comes back at report stage, whether to support their members from the Atlantic provinces. I feel that their members from the Atlantic provinces, when confronted with the situation, will want to support it. We will see whether they will be able to come to a united stand or whether they will leave their Atlantic members on their own.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Stick to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) has the floor, and I suggest we listen.


Herb Breau: The hon. member says I should stick to the bill. I am sticking to the bill. I should like to go to another part of my speech, since my time is limited, and deal with this myth that those on unemployment insurance at frequent times during the year are freeloaders or loafers.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Tell your minister that.


Herb Breau: I am not condemning those who say this, because as a politician I am sensitive to what people in other parts of the country feel and I think their questions have to be answered. That is our duty. But some people do feel that unemployment insurance is a means of living for some people, a means to enable them to meet the family budget. As the Economic Council of Canada has said, unemployment insurance is the most effective instrument in the fight against poverty that this country has seen.
I want the unemployment insurance program to remain such. I believe that in this country, which in the world context is a rich country, we should fight poverty and I do not think we should be afraid to maintain programs toward that end. Areas like mine, which are like most areas of the Atlantic provinces, suffer from chronic unemployment which has reached a very high level, and this provision to reduce the qualifying period could have disastrous effects, as could the changes in the benefit structure. While I will support the bill on second reading, I believe the bill can be changed if the House of Commons wants to change it. There are some good first steps in the bill, such as the integration of the two services. I have been told that other members on this side-and, I hope, members on the other side-will continue the fight in committee and at report stage to change these two provisions.
I have heard that there could be a variable entrance scheme. I am not all that concerned about that so long as areas like mine in northeastern New Brunswick and areas in the Atlantic provinces generally are not badly hit by this change from 8 to 12 weeks.
I do not condemn people who believe this myth about the UIC, because they do not know better. If they did, they probably would not say that. The fact is that in some areas of high unemployment unemployment insurance has become a way of life for some people. This does not mean that they are lazy, that they are loafers or freeloaders. What it means is that they have only short-term employment. They have decided to live in that particular area, and the unemployment insurance program is a means of helping them to remain there. This country is concerned about national unity. It is a society that has said that as much as possible people should have the opportunity of living and working in the area of their choice. It seems to me that if we accept this we must pay the price.
A lot of people who are caught up in this cycle of unemployment insurance and short-term employment could work for longer periods. But what we have to ask ourselves is, under what conditions are they working? Through its framework of labour laws at the provincial and federal level this country has accepted a certain standard of work. Through collective bargaining workers can bargain for better conditions, more leisure time and that sort of thing. What is so wrong about people who are unorganized using something like UIC to improve their standards?
I meet people in my constituency office, indeed in every part of my constituency, who have left their employment with just
March 30, 1977

cause. In some other parts of the country, such as Ontario and British Columbia, and even in some parts of Quebec, labour unions are well organized and strong and have fought politically and economically for better working conditions for their members. If they saw working conditions in some other parts of the country, they would not work there. So let us approach this debate from that perspective. It is not a case of people leaving well-paid jobs to go on unemployment insurance. I have never met one person in my constituency or anywhere in my province on the UIC short-term employment cycle who was in that situation by choice. These people find themselves in that situation for historical and cultural reasons.
To give the House an example, Mr. Speaker, in my home town the government helped the community build a senior citizens' home. Workers at senior citizens' homes in New Brunswick have a union. They also know that they will be required to work just about every day, even in the wintertime and even if there is no public transportation. They have to make their own transportation arrangements. In my home area of Tracadie, with a population of about 3,000, there were openings for 34 or 35 people at this senior citizens' home. The general unemployment rate at certain times of the year in the town can be as high as 40 per cent. Since it is a small town, applications were received from persons within a radius of 30 miles.
Do you know how many applications were received for these 35 jobs, Mr. Speaker? There were over 430 applications from people who were ready to drive both summer and winter, day in and day out, to this senior citizens' home to work difficult shifts, sometimes from midnight to eight, sometimes from four to midnight, with no public transportation facilities. How can we say that people do not want to work? People do want to work, but there is no employment. People have accepted that as a way of life.
I am not saying there are no abuses. Since we went on the defensive in 1971 and the pressure is on to deliver UIC cheques, it is easy to cheat, I agree. But do not cut people off unemployment insurance at the base level of 8 or 12 weeks. Do not change the benefit structure to cut them off. The fact is that we have to accept that unemployment insurance is not being administered as the law provides. When this parliament passed the legislation and the amendments it could not foresee that implementation would be so difficult that the present situation would arise.
I believe that integration is a good step. As for dealing with the moral problem of those who cheat, those who are not motivated to work, we live in a pretty liberal society, a very advanced society, and we cannot deal with those not motivated to work by using a stick or by kicking them in the pants. Motivating these people to work should be done positively, sensitively and humanly.
I have a suggestion in principle: I would like to see the Unemployment Insurance Commission changed. I also have a suggestion for some change in the UIC administration and its
Employment and Immigration
implementation. It would be consistent and compatible with this advanced society in some parts of the country which have given the framework of negotiation for workers in order to obtain better working conditions and salaries. That relationship is not only economical but sometimes it is political. We should be able to do that in every labour district with respect to integration. We have computers, and we should have people who know how to run computers and to program them. There is no reason why we do not have a job inventory in every labour district. There is no reason why we cannot update this information every three months so we can have an indication on file of the jobs available in an area.
Perhaps the law will have to be changed. The administration should be such that when a claimant applies for a position we should have on file his profile; we should have on file his age. You could ask him all the information you want about his training and his background. We should match that application with the job inventory and see if there is a job available in that area. If there is not, you can say to the person, "I am sorry; you have to look for a job", and you try to help him look for a job or put him on training. You can also say, "There are job openings in Sudbury, the Yukon or British Columbia that pay $10 an hour. Would you like to take a training course? We can help you to go there." You cannot start with force. You cannot say, "You have to go." There are ways to motivate people. Most of the young people will respond to that. Those who are not established with a mortgage on their homes, and those who are not attached to the community may want to do that.
If you start giving powers to officials to make a job inventory and you cut people off more quickly, as we are doing with increased benefit control, that is not so bad. I do not mind that as long as those people have a relatively quick and sensible human appeal system. The appeal systems for UIC and the Department of National Revenue are totally inadequate. In my home town I have cases of 200 suspensions between November and December on insurability. As of today, March 30, 86 of them have not yet been dealt with. That is incredible; that is not a way to treat people. The appeal system has to be drastically changed and brought down to the community.
The problem of people deciding to stay on UIC, or people going bn UIC presents us with a moral and attitudinal problem. If you want to make a judgment on that, and if you are going to start cutting people off, I would say go ahead and give the onus of the doubt to the officials. In almost every community, or at least within 25 miles of where the population justifies it, an appeal system should be available. I do not think you should put an appeal system in every isolated corner of the country. In communities where the population justifies it, there should be an appeal system available if a judgment was made by an insensitive official on the side of the job inventory or on the side of a decision to exclude a claimant from benefits.
The appeal system should consist of people from the community who will know the claimant so that they can make a judgment on the moral question and on the question of atti-

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
tude. They can make that judgment only at the community level. If you have to drive 60 miles, 100 miles or 150 miles to get to an appeal board as exists in some parts of the country, there is not only a question of economy-the cost of travelling which is an important factor for some people-but also the people there do not necessarily know the person. That is why we are so concerned about increasing the benefit control. If we increase it, we have to make sure that the appeal system is made more sensitive and is humanized.
This bill attempts to redress the balance between what is paid in and what is paid out of the UIC. The minister has said he wants to protect the integrity of the program. I agree with him that the integrity of the program should be protected. We are dealing with public funds and we are dealing with funds that workers pay out of their pay-cheques, and we have to be careful about how that money is spent. The changes we bring about should not be changes that will hurt people. There is a possibility to administer this program in a way that will be human, sensitive and under which people will not abuse it so that we get the freeloaders and the cheaters out. In theory I agree with protecting the credibility of the program. I agree with redressing the balance between what is paid in and what is paid out.
Hon. members should note that all the criticism they hear about people being on the UIC rolls and all the criticism they hear about their neighbours, friends, daughters and cousins being freeloaders will not be dealt with in this bill. By passing this bill we will not have dealt with the problems of abuse. Hon. members should note that and remind themselves of it. All that will be done by this bill is that we will go forward in trying to improve its administration. That will not be far enough, in my view; but we run the risk of hurting a lot of people with the qualifying period and in the benefit structure.
I conclude by referring to an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Monday, March 28, 1977. I was going to write a letter to the editor, but I did not have a chance because I was too busy dealing with UIC cases and all types of cases in my constituency office. I shall read the last two paragraphs to underline the misunderstanding and misconception in some parts of the country about the kind of problem with which we are confronted. The last two paragraphs of this editorial read as follows:
If parliament takes these steps it would weed out, not cheaters-what most of these people are doing is within the law-
That is not true, first of all.
-but many who do not qualjfy for unemployment insurance benefits because they do not seek steady employment. All workers know some of these people, and resent them. Also cut off would be some people who want and need work and cannot find it; but welfare benefits would be available to them.
Canada can concentrate its UIC money on those who have worked to earn it, or it can spread it more thinly-robbing some who have worked to earn it-to cover people who haven't. In spite of all the rhetoric about compassion, it's as unpleasantly simple as that.
It is incredible that a newspaper like the Globe and Mail would so misconstrue the situation. As I said earlier in my remarks, I do not blame them for having this kind of attitude. They do not understand. This society, because it is very

generous and liberal, has put into effect programs like welfare and UIC because it wants to distribute income. The wage structure or the work structure in this country does not ensure a fair distribution of income by itself.
Anyone from the Atlantic provinces and from the rural areas of this country knows that the welfare program is an attack on the dignity of human beings. People do not want to be on welfare. By taking people off the welfare rolls and giving them work for eight weeks and giving them UIC, you have made contact with them. You have put them in contact with the labour force, UIC officials and, hopefully, with Canada Manpower officials. Then there is a chance to save them. The Globe and Mail is correct. For a lot of people who are affected, welfare payments would be available to them, but the people do not want welfare.


Mr. Paproski:: They want jobs.


Herb Breau: A lot of the people who are affected by this program are poor people who want jobs. Whether it is real or psychological is not important to me. They want at least psychological confidence that they can get what they have worked for-and they are entitled to that. I mentioned that in my home town there are 430 applications for 35 hard working jobs. People want to work. In my view, unemployment insurance and medicare are two pillars of the social security system of this country. They are the two instruments which have fought poverty and deprivation, and I do not want these programs to be changed or tightened up to the extent that their intention, which was to help the little people of this country, is changed.
It has been said that the government would compensate the losses of funds with an infusion of funds into job creation. First, it is impossible to guarantee that those who will get the jobs will be the people who are affected. Nobody can give that guarantee. Anyone who knows how the administration of Canada Manpower centres and the administration of job creation programs works knows that it is impossible to guarantee that on an individual basis. Second, there is no trade-off. There is no compensation of funds, because the saving of unemployment insurance is unknown. It is unknown because the job creation fund sometimes takes people off UIC rolls and puts them to work at a wage lower than the amount they receive from the UIC.
I am not saying that is bad. If we put people to work and if we pay them a little less, that is all right, provided it is acceptable employment. But the saving of unemployment insurance benefits is unknown because we do not know exactly what the people we take off the UIC rolls were receiving in UIC benefits and what they will be paid under the Canada Works program or under LIP. In my view, if the government wants to reduce unemployment it should put funds into job creation and there would be an automatic unemployment insurance benefit saving. If we come up with effective job creation programs, UIC money will automatically be saved.
March 30, 1977

Instead of putting the cart before the horse, we should put the horse before the cart and then everything would be fine.
I repeat that I will support this bill at second reading because I think there are some good provisions in it, but I will continue making representations and doing all I can to get the bill changed in committee. If it is not changed in committee to take care of these two provisions, we will make sure it is brought back to the House at report stage so that the House can decide if it wants these two provisions-which could be harmful to people-to pass.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government is basing its success on the principle that the third try is the lucky one. Much time and money was wasted on the previous two changes in unemployment insurance provisions. There can be little doubt that weaknesses and loopholes have mounted instead of diminishing. I believe that one of the first things the government did when it was elected in 1972 was change the unemployment insurance system. At that time there was a ceiling on the amount the government could pay into the fund of $800 million. We thought it was a mistake then to take that ceiling off. We still think it would be a mistake because we can no longer hold the government accountable for the tax money, revenues and income which go into the unemployment insurance fund.
It seems to me that accountability is the key word here whether it applies to the government, individuals or others who pay into the unemployment insurance fund or receive benefits from it. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) just mentioned that this bill would not deal with abuses. I would like to deal with some of the areas of abuse of unemployment insurance because I think we have to recognize what they are and where they are before we can deal properly with them. I am not satisfied with the way the unemployment insurance system operates within our economy. That is not because of the people who administer it, because I know they have a very difficult job, but I think we as Canadians are making a great mistake today because we try to end too many of our problems by confrontation rather than by conciliation. If ever a system of confrontation was set up by a government, it was the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The hon. member for Gloucester himself said that in his town there have been 200 suspensions. That just means that people are going against the system. They are confronting one another and causing problems. The Unemployment Insurance Commission will not operate satisfactorily until the government of the day or a succeeding government comes up with a whole new concept of what unemployment insurance should be. At the present time everybody is angry. The 200 people who have been suspended are angry. There are thousands of people like that across the country, and thousands of people who pay into the fund continuously from January 1 to December 31 year in and year out, are angry because it is just another financial burden on them.
In this government's term of office it has destroyed more incentive in this country than had been destroyed in the previous 100 years. This country was built on incentive and
Employment and Immigration
pride, and this government has done its best to destroy that in the last ten years. In a great many cases this is also happening to our unemployment insurance system. It is difficult to criticize people who have paid into the fund year in and year out and who decide that they want to get back some of the money they paid. Those people think they have a right to it. The government should come up with a plan to create an incentive so that sometime down the road those people would realize that there would be an advantage for them to leave their money in and not use it. If we could do that, they would go out and find work. These people should be encouraged to stay off unemployment insurance benefits rather than encouraged to feel that collecting is their right because they have paid into it.
We have to take a look at all the shortcomings of the operations of the commission in order to arrive at a solution to the problems. This jacking around from eight to twelve weeks and back and forth is not the only solution, but it is a move in the right direction. There is no doubt about that because our economy cannot withstand the heavy load which is placed upon it. Many people are being paid not to work, and in our geographical location where we have four, five and six months of winter and where some of us have to work in the summertime, it is difficult for some to work 12 months of the year. However, there are some people in our society who make as much in six, seven or eight months as others who work 12 months and pay into the fund continuously.
1 believe the latter have a grievance, and until some incentive is built into the system there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction with it. If unemployment insurance is in fact insurance, it should protect against loss of work. In other words, should an employee be out of work for some reason beyond his control-because he was fired, because a business or other operation ceased, because of insufficient work or some other reasonable reason-he should be protected by insurance. However, to some degree this program has worked in reverse and has protected unwilling workers who have quit jobs without just cause as soon as they qualified for benefits or shortly thereafter or who have had little or no intention of working on a continuous basis. In some cases something has happened to destroy the desire to earn a living, to take away the natural initiative and pride in those joining the work force for the first time, and to discourage the legitimate, hardworking Canadians who take pride in themselves and their jobs and in providing for their families.
Regardless of the initial employment requirement for eligibility, regardless of the training provided, regardless of the limits placed on the premiums and benefits paid, the root of most of the difficulty is that people have been misled and encouraged to believe that they are entitled to insurance and to live by that rule.
Far be it for me to imply that the majority of people follow that practice. I am talking about those who work for and live by the unemployment insurance regulations. Instead of unemployment insurance being a protection, as is insurance against
4486

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
fire, accident, ill health or death, it has become part of a life pattern. The federal government is more to blame for this than any other body in Canada. Can we place the blame on the workers who fall into that category when emphasis is put on how and when a person can qualify instead of on how to find work, how to retain work, how to make work for oneself to earn a livelihood, how to train for a job, and how students should work toward a higher education?
I will deal with that question later in my speech. Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) started whining and complaining about students not being able to find employment before the majority of them look around, put a pen to paper or a foot to the ground to find if work is available. What do they do? Surely they do not just question the Prime Minister and wait to see what the government and the taxpayer will do for them. In my opinion the thinking of government has been turned backward into stagnation. The government is prepared to allow a welfare state to develop, instead of following the true and tried principles of teaching and allowing people to earn a living and to do their own thinking, which is necessary-and I emphasize that-to develop a certain quality of life which the pioneers of this country have worked for and developed.
There is another group of able-bodied workers whose training has mainly been to figure out if it is more rewarding, dollarwise, to work or to go on welfare, to qualify for insurance benefits and to quit. Then there is the great majority of those who are prepared to improve and who merit better pay and fringe benefits, such as more holidays and sick leave, a promotion with added responsibility and the wonderful feeling of being a responsible, ongoing citizen able to provide for himself, to help his country and to care for his family.
People who have lost this sense of pride usually are unhappy and wayward, and life has lost its meaning for them. We cannot blame them entirely. The young people of today have not known life without unemployment insurance and other government doles. They do not realize that they are expected to work to earn a living as did their fathers and grandfathers. The government laid and hatched this bad egg-the new workers are its victims.
In addition to the deprivation which such easy living causes the followers of this pattern of life, the economy of the entire country is feeling the impact. Does this government have any idea of the frustration, discouragement, futility of effort, futility of investment by businesses and industry which, after investing huge amounts of capital and, in some cases, spending years of hard work and planning, find that either they cannot find trained or experienced workers or that employees work for only six or eight weeks and then quit? As examples I would cite the construction industry and auto body shops. In these two areas, as everyone here knows, staff requirements change from day to day, often by leaps and bounds.
How can contracts be met without adequate workers? Besides the cost of paying unemployment benefits to these short-term workers, the contractor and the garage owner sustain a loss which eventually is paid by the public. If we are going to say that lack of trained personnel is the cause of the
[Mr. Towers.)
shortage of permanent staff, there must be something wrong with the Manpower training program. Why can it not be scaled according to area and demand? Can we not ensure that the trainees have a permanent trade in mind when they enroll for a course and that a follow-up course is available to ensure they are channelled into work where their services are needed?
Training is useless if it is only another stopgap for those who want to be paid for putting in time for being taught something which they do not intend to put to use to earn their livelihood. Manpower training must be organized, administered and spelled out following consultation with business and industry so it is dependable, useful and sound economically.
The amendments to the unemployment insurance program, including those proposed in the legislation before us, have failed to take into account lifetime workers who have contributed to the program since its inception and have never collected benefits and who, under the existing rules, receive at retirement a lump sum totalling three weeks insurance. I agree that insurance is supposed to be a payment for protection, but why should employees who do not collect benefits continue to pay through the nose for the short-term, seasonal workers?
I suggest that premiums be scaled in accordance with the number of years of contributions, the total number of claims filed and of benefits paid. In that way a person who has paid into the fund for a certain number of years, say 15 years, should be allowed to withdraw completely from the program but would receive benefits at a time of his choice. By the same token, a worker who works for a certain time and then stops, and works again and stops, should have his premiums scaled upwards. If he knows it is to his advantage to continue to be in the labour force, he will be less likely to take his job casually.
An alternative suggestion would be to inform the continuous worker who has not made a claim, or who has filed one only when thrown out of work through no fault of his own, that on retirement he will receive a certain percentage of his contributions. That would provide an incentive for all workers, be they industrious or otherwise, to work toward a benefit based on an excellent work record. When the driver of a motor vehicle is involved in a certain number of accidents, his premium is increased simply because a private company cannot operate if it has to finance that type of risk. Why should Canadian taxpayers be compelled to finance bad risk workers who float along on premiums paid by legitimate workers? We must create incentive, but we must also exercise justice and provide sensible economic management.
Would it not be possible to encourage the industrious, continuous, dedicated worker by putting in place a program for the protection of the constant worker, thus letting everyone know that his contributions are for insurance against the risk of being put out of work, of being laid off, of having a job discontinued, instead of allowing the unwilling workers, however small may be the number, to collect insurance because they have met the minimum requirements and in this way develop a pattern of living? This parliament should come up with an unemployment insurance program which does not
March 30, 1977

include the word "unemployment" but which will do the job that is required for the Canadian people.
I recognize that regional disparities exist in our country and that there are certain areas which are having serious unemployment problems. This is a grievous situation and therefore the whole system must be tightened up when jobs are scarce. At present, over one million Canadians are unemployed. If ever there is a time when the unemployment insurance program needs tightening up, this is not it. It should be undertaken when the economy is buoyant, not when it is in a recession as at present, because this is going to create a number of problems for a great number of people.
Nevertheless, we must realize that our economy will be in worse difficulty if we continue to pay out $3.5 billion or $4 billion per year, regardless of where it comes from. Rather than continue to pay this kind of money to keep people from working, we would be better to devise a system to encourage people to get into the work force.
I recognize that the government has short-changed people in several parts of Canada, primarily the maritimes. At present we are paying an unprecedented price for oil. As we become more and more dependent upon offshore oil, which is very costly, it seems ridiculous to have one million people unemployed, especially when there is ample coal that could be used for heating homes and developing energy. There are other means to develop heat and energy that would use labour, so it would seem to be in our interests to develop those industries. We just cannot continue to have a $4 billion or $5 billion deficit in the balance of trade each year, especially when we are borrowing money on the foreign market. That will break our economy, and if that happens we will know what real suffering is. Now is the time to take action, when we are still in a position to be able to manoeuvre to some degree.
We all remember the power of Great Britain not many years ago. It was said that Britain ruled the waves and that the sun never set on the British empire. Yet that same British empire, Mr. Speaker, had to go down on its knees to the International Monetary Fund to borrow $3.9 billion. When you consider that we borrowed $8 billion on the United States market last year, it makes you stop and think. It rests with the government to ensure that Canada does not find itself in the same position as Great Britain.
Late as it is, programs should be established to realize the potential of the Canadian people. When the tar sands project was in the early stages, the manager of that huge complex was in a quandary about where he could find personnel with the technical ability required. He told some of us that he would have to go to the United States, Germany and Great Britain to find people with the needed technical abilities. Mr. Speaker, it is not reasonable to suppose that the Canadian people have any less ability than people anywhere else in the world, but perhaps we have not had the initiative, the opportunity nor the desire to use their abilities. The problem may be with Syncrude today, but it will happen with other projects tomorrow.
Employment and Immigration
We must have the foresight to provide the technical people needed on these projects.
I have here a clipping from a recent edition of the Red Deer Advocate and I should like to put a few excerpts on the record. Referring to Miss Trudeau, head of the English department at the high school, the report says:
She told the trustees English teachers were frustrated by the problems created by their large classes and heavy workload.
Arguing for more teachers and smaller classes in the English program, Miss Trudeau said the situation places "an incredible strain" on instructors.
Especially difficult, she said, was the problem of teachers who know they are not accomplishing what they think they should.
"That may be the worst kind of strain of all," she added.
The trustees were responsive to Miss Trudeau's presentation, but said the issue is one of priorities.
That is exactly what I was asking, Mr. Speaker. What are the priorities? The article reports, later:
Superintendent Bill Brownlee said it may be that the student to teacher ratios in vocational courses will have to be increased to allow for smaller classes in the academic courses.
Mr. Speaker, under the Diefenbaker government a program of vocational training was introduced and Red Deer was privileged to have one of the first vocational schools in Canada. I want to stress the value of that program. We know that everybody cannot be an academic, so we must help people in the technical field to get the training for work that will keep this country rolling. The article quotes board chairman, Frances Craigie as saying:
I think we have to look at this right from the elementary level.
Provincial governments have authority for education, but I think there should be negotiation between the federal and provincial levels to encourage learning institutions to make sure that graduates will be useful to society. What use is there in teaching something that is not going to be of benefit to students in later years? Thirteen industrial education graduates will emerge from the University of Alberta this year, but that is not enough in this technical age.
One of the teachers I spoke to about the newspaper article I referred to earlier is very concerned because he has to cope with far too many pupils. In a shop project the maximum number of people gathered around a motor or anything else should be five or six. With a number beyond that, those on the outer edge either cannot see or hear or perhaps do not understand what is being taught. It is better to have situations where teachers do not feel frustrated and pupils have a chance of learning if they are to be useful to society and industry in the future.
Not very long ago I spoke to the manager of a garage who could not find anyone to do the body work, a highly paid occupation. In a shop where six or ten people would ordinarily be required, he had only three. He said they were just not available; he did not have them. At the same time, one million in Canada are unemployed. We must consider this question seriously and come to grips with it, otherwise we shall continue drifting and get into even greater difficulty. Somewhere down the road the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. 80012 -6H

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Cullen) will be forced to bring in new unemployment insurance regulations, to cope with an economic slowdown. Our unemployment insurance program is like a matchbox, held up by matches; sometimes a match falls down, and the minister must replace it with another match, or program, to stop the entire structure from collapsing.
We must also consider negotiations between labour and management. In this connection I bring to the attention of the House a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Federated Co-op on June 28, 1976. Copies were sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I shall put the resolution on record because its movers went to great lengths to make suggestions they felt would help labour, management and government in negotiations and efforts to avert strikes. It reads:
Whereas strikes and/or lockouts in services and industries .continue to cause serious damage directly to many sectors of the economy and indirectly to every citizen;
And whereas such strikes and lockouts are making domestic and foreign customers doubtful of our ability to produce and deliver on schedule;
And whereas such loss of confidence diverts buyers elsewhere, resulting in the loss of markets and thus job opportunities for Canadians;
And whereas lockouts, strikes and prolonged periods without contracts create bitterness, loss of confidence between sides and a lack of appreciation one side for the other, leading to a reduced quality of life and productivity at work; Therefore be it resolved that we urge the federal and provincial governments to set up a system of courts where all unsettled negotiations involving services or industries would be settled if collective bargaining were not successful soon after a contract expired (say 30 days);
And be it further resolved that while such collective bargaining or court action was proceeding there would be no interruptions to business or services by either party.
Members on all sides say that strikes lead to lost productivity, hardship for labour and the creation of indirect unemployment. Therefore, we must consider ways to avoid strikes and lockouts. Let me put on record the Co-op's reasons for putting forward the resolution just quoted. They are as follows:
Labour and management in too many important areas seem to have come to the point where negotiations are an ongoing power struggle, where each regards the other as an adversary rather than as a partner dependent on each other. It would appear that each expects the other to bring forth a proposal that is far left of centre so they in turn have to be equally far right. Each side then appears reluctant to be the first to move for fear that move will be taken as a sign of weakness, so we see both sides moving slowly and reluctantly every inch of the way toward centre.
We think also that for the same reason it may well be almost impossible for either side to bring forth a different method to settle deadlocked negotiations, plus the likelihood that if one side were to do so the other would suspect it of being a means of gaining an advantage.
Governments are, we think, in the position of being one of the adversaries because they are the largest employer in the country.
It would appear then that a third party as neutral as possible will have to be responsible for bringing an alternative before the government and country. We believe the co-op body here to be as broad a cross-section of people as it is possible to find in Canada and puts us in the position of being able to and indeed having a responsibility to render Canada and ourselves a real service.
We think that Canadians generally have faith in our courts to deal fairly and resolutely in such matters (for example) damage suits, and could easily be adapted to deal with all aspects of industrial relations.

Those are the words of a non-political body which is sincerely trying to suggest a policy of benefit to all Canadians. I assume that many paying unemployment insurance premiums, and many others collecting benefits, belong to the co-operative movement. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister will seriously consider the resolution passed by the Federated Co-op in western Canada. As I have said, we cannot go on increasing spending on unemployment insurance. The money comes from all segments of society. I notice that this year the programs administration costs will rise 24 per cent. The problem will keep snowballing until it is stopped.
I come from Alberta, but that does not mean I do not sympathize with the problems of working people. The Globe and Mail of Tuesday, March 29-yesterday-on the front page of the Report On Business section, printed an article about Red Deer, the headline of which reads, "Red Deer prospers amid unprecedented economic growth". Some people feel they will get jobs automatically if they go to Red Deer. That may not be quite true, although there is employment available in the area. Let me read part of the article. It says:
Three demi-clad young men in late model cars bearing Manitoba licence plates rolled up shortly after noon to inquire about accommodation. They had arrived the previous day and two of them promptly found work with an oilfield contractor. The third expected to the 'fixed up' with some kind of job, "paying good money," that some afternoon.
According to them, jobs are plentiful but finding rental accommodation proves much harder and 'when you find something you have to pay three times as much for it as in Brandon.'
Nevertheless, the youths hoped to "make out okay," planning to "stick around to make a few bucks," as labourers in the expanding local work force.
That article exactly illustrates my position on unemployment insurance. There are jobs for people willing to go out to get them. People who go to Red Deer looking for work may run into other problems. In this connection I want to quote part of an article printed in the Advocate of Wednesday, February 23, 1977. It is written by George Yackulic, formerly a member of the press Gallery, and reads:
Alberta's booming economy is attracting a creeping unemployment problem from other parts of Canada, a survey this week indicates...
But some of the newcomers, especially those without special skills or training, are not landing jobs . ..
Mr. Mulhall-
He is the manager of the Red Deer Canada Manpower centre:
-says the jobless ranks here are certainly greater now than a year ago ...
Provincial welfare officials explain that, having been on social assistance back home, some of the newcomers arrive destitute.
"We are getting a lot of them seeking social assistance," an official in Red Deer says. "They are as flat as can be and desperately need help" ...
Many of those complaining are skilled tradesmen but they do not have union standing.
The next part I shall quote has to do with the ethylene plant being built in the area:
Hiring of workers for that project is done through the respective unions for electricians, pipefitters, plumbers, carpenters, labourers, and so on, the unions in turn having waiting lists.
March 30, 1977

Union officials say they are not rejecting qualified prospective members. However, joining a union can be costly for a job-seeker on welfare back home and in Alberta with little money.
For instance, to get on the waiting list of the construction labourer's union, a man must pay that union a fee of $106 ...
Last week more than 60 men anxiously sought jobs at a downtown site where construction is just starting for an apartment building. They represented most of the building trades. But with only preparatory work underway at the site, there was need at the time for only the job superintendent and two young laborers.
Employers in other industries and businesses in the city and district tell of being "swamped" by job-seekers.
Often there is a lack of the required skill or experience needed for a waiting job.
That is the crux of my whole speech. There may be jobs in certain places. The reason they cannot be filled is that those applying do not have the required skill or ability to qualify. We have a great many problems in the whole unemployment situation. As a member of parliament, I have a responsibility to make a contribution. I hope I can do that in a forthright, straightforward manner and that it will be accepted as such by the minister, because we have to come to grips with this problem.
There is no other body in Canada which can do as much, if it has the wish, desire and incentive, as the federal government. I mentioned earlier that we have lost our incentive and pride. We have to turn this around so that Canadian society can enjoy the benefits that can be ours, should be ours, have been enjoyed by past generations and will continue to be ours.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In closing, I urge the government to initiate new plans and programs which will do away with those hardships which we must resolve. If governments will not do that, how can we expect business and unions to do it? We have three main components in our society today: big government, big business and big unions. While I do not like to have government in business, nevertheless I feel it is the responsibility of governments, both federal and provincial, to establish an atmosphere and climate which will be conducive to business establishing programs that will not only be beneficial to business but to the people of this country. In order for benefits to accrue to the people of this country we must have a healthy business community.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, Bill C-27 is intended to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. Unfortunately this bill as a whole contains very few suggestions to provide the unemployed and those who look for jobs with a glimmer of hope to improve their situation, without losing any pride or human dignity. On one hand, the unemployment curve going upward, their
Employment and Immigration
chances of finding a job are almost nil. On the other hand, the number of weeks of employment is increased from eight to 12 weeks to get qualified for benefits.
After 12 weeks of employment, either because of lack of work or any other reason, the one who is obliged to apply for unemployment insurance is forced to meet the various regulations which too often, due to regional disparities, cannot be put into effect in some region. That bill was introduced December 9, 1976. Today, March 30, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) sets a time limit for discussing that important bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration seems to realize suddenly that the amendments to that legislation do not meet the needs of the employees and the purpose of the change is indeed to protect the unemployment insurance fund at the expense of the workers. Since he is aware of the fact that the legislation is rejected by most people, he tries to lessen the impact by having it passed quickly.
Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration will strike out at once some 50,000 claimants from the rolls. In addition, the new use of the fund is aimed at establishing the concept of pilot work sharing projects which according to the bill are designed for employers faced with financial problems. Under such circumstances, the employer could keep workers for a few days a week and the unemployment insurance fund would make up the difference.
I can hardly conceal my misgivings about the real beneficiaries of those new conditions if the bill is passed and about the dismissals to which companies will surely resort to take advantage of the pilot work sharing projects. However, I am pleased to see that the government has finally understood that it should remove the famous four-week rule which put the unemployed in a corner, and compelled him to accept a temporary job or to lose the right to benefits naturally earned for a former job. Anyhow, he was not free to accept or refuse it, he was automatically excluded. The removal of that stupid rule will provide, I hope, more freedom and scope to the many unemployed.
I will go as far as saying that the whole thrust of this bill is bad but it is my duty as the representative of an area where unemployment is chronic rather than endemic to point out to the government that some amendments to the present legislation will have bad and even disastrous effects in places where unemployment is very serious. The whole country knows that the rate of unemployment is reaching unprecedented highs, particularly in the province of Quebec and the Maritime provinces where unemployment is anywhere from 11.3 per cent to 25 per cent.
There are now 932,000 unemployed in this country. It should be noted that unemployment affects mostly male workers over 25 and young people between 15 and 24. It could be said that the unemployment trend is less obvious in the over 25 group, and the same goes for female workers. Naturally, workers most affected are undoubtedly young people coming

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
onto the labour market every year. The trend toward increased unemployment in that class is unprecedented and too often underrated.
On March 15 last La Presse carried an article by Paul Bennett entitled: Allegations Statistics Canada underrating actual number of young unemployed.
It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that I am in complete agreement with him. Indeed, here is an extract from that article:
The Canadian Council on Social Development blames Statistics Canada for underrating the actual number of young unemployed by using the "actively looking for a job" criterion in its definition of unemployment.
The council starts by recalling alarming statistics on unemployment among young Canadians. Last January, the rate of unemployment reached 13.3 per cent for men and women between the ages of 15 and 24, whereas it barely touched 5.3 per cent for people over 25. On the other hand, for the whole year 1976 the rate of unemployment varied around 12.8 per cent in the 15 to 24 group when it barely exceeded 5 per cent for those over 25. The council goes on to note that the young unemployeds' position relative to their elders has been constantly deteriorating since the early 60's. While the 15-24 age group accounted for two thirds of unemployed in 1964, the proportion is now five to seven.
Mr. Speaker, it is easily seen that unemployment strikes very heavily on our young people in the 15-24 age group. Whether they be educated or not does not matter, unemployment is waiting around the corner. It is no secret anymore that the Canadian economy cannot absorb the huge number of our young people who are available to serve a country where there is so much to be done: senior citizens' centres, housing for every young couple and Canadian family at a price they can afford, road construction, the maintenance and improvement of our transportation systems, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, who but an irresponsible government enslaved to the financial interests of multinational corporations can let so much energy go to waste with such flippancy? It is high time the government responded to the needs of the human being and took the steps to put things back in order. Everything is upside down from coast to coast. There is an urgent need to put things where they belong, so our young people will not be engulfed into something else than the building of our country. Unemployment and inflation are a much more serious dilemma than some members seem to realize.
When unemployment is combined with inflation it represents a risk for any society. The combination of those two factors activates the red light telling us to stop wasting energy and make sure that good sense takes precedence over absurdity.
In La Presse of March 17, editorialist Jean Pelletier wrote, and I quote:
... the Canadian Council on Social Development warned Canada about the explosive political and economic situation that could result if we do not act to reduce excessive unemployment rates among young people. The recent riots in Italy give us an idea of what could happen ...
So it is important that not only the government but also the opposition, management and labour enterprises, as well as experts and economists, study this matter together to avoid a serious social crisis on top of the many difficulties our country is now facing.
I seriously think that it is more than time for this government to consider some answers proposed by our party. I am thinking particularly of pensions at the age of 60, and of
[Mr. Allard.)
course that would be left to the discretion of the person concerned who could choose to leave the labour market and enjoy a well-deserved pension. Pension at 60 would allow a certain number of individuals to retire which would create jobs for newcomers. The guaranteed annual income would also allow many workers to find a job corresponding to their capacities and their training.
Nowadays people are fed up with all the old slogans. They are perfectly aware that the government is not concerned about people and that in our society, money, profit and dollars are the only important values. Workers are always the ones who suffer from inflation and unemployment. Consequently, I should invite the Unemployment Insurance Commission to study the possibility of transferring at the end of the benefit period the two qualifying weeks of the beginning. Also, I ask that the Department of National Revenue and the Unemployment Insurance Commission ensure better coordination in issuing employers' permits. Many members of parliament, like myself, have already gone through several such problems in agriculture, construction or trade as a whole.
Would it not be a good idea, Mr. Speaker, to make sure from the start, before even paying benefits, that the licence the employer holds does authorize him to pay for what are commonly called stamps. This would prevent the Department of National Revenue from saying the claimant was not holding insurable employment and consequently finds himself compelled to pay back any overpayment by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Usually, the claimant has spent his benefits and he is frequently obliged to beg for a loan from the welfare office or his friends, or even from credit cooperatives in order to refund the money to which he thought he was entitled.
Mr. Speaker, a report published in La Presse of January 25, 1977 gives an illustration of how some unemployed proceed to pay back an overpayment to the commission. This article is entitled:
"Pints of blood to refund unemployment insurance."
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this report states that a 20 year old girl, Vivian Banfield, of Brampton, Ontario, will have to give a pint of blood every six months for two years so as to pay back $685 to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Provincial court Justice John D. Ord ordered her to pay back $350, put her on probation for two years and asked her whether she would agree to give her blood as a public service during this period. She agreed. Miss Banfield was accused of drawing unemployment insurance benefits when she was working. She pleaded guilty. I am all the more convinced that the Unemployment Insurance Act needs to be improved but it must not be done in any way at the expense of workers.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as we look at this change in the Unemployment Insurance Act we have to feel somewhat the same as if we had lost a friend. The unemployment insurance structure has become well known over the last few years to all members of parliament. They are
March 30, 1977

pretty well acquainted with it and with the abuses which take place on both sides of the picture. We embark on a new bill knowing there will be many changes, confusing changes, and that it is very unlikely they will be for the advantage either of the workers or of the country.
The minister tells us he is going to save between $225 million and $320 million and that out of this amount about $175 million will come from the change in the benefits; the rest will come about because of the method of payment and the fact that the federal government will not be putting so much into the fund. All this means is that if people do not receive unemployment insurance they will have to get other assistance. We have been through this many times before. We are told that every time there is a change it is for the betterment of someone, but I have yet to see a change that has been of much help except for the last changes when we added sick benefits and maternity benefits. Obviously they were an advantage, though I am still not convinced they should be in the Unemployment Insurance Act; rather, they should be in some legislation under health and welfare because they apply to a much broader segment of the population. People do get injured when not employed or in the labour force, and therefore should receive some benefit.
With most of the changes to the act we have been playing politics and this has been highly detrimental. We split the structure by separating employment from unemployment. We did that last time on a personal basis; we needed to provide a job for a minister so we made that change. I am very happy that this divorce has now ended and that a remarriage is taking place between what I would have thought was a very compatible couple, those who are unemployed and in need of assistance and those who are providing work. It seems to me that that couple should be reunited.


John R. Rodriguez: Who is going to pay for the reception?


William Arnold Peters: The same people who always pay the bill, the general public. Certainly that will be so in this case. It seems to me we are setting up this remarriage without there being much of a marriage contract between the two parties. I am sure there is not a member of the House active in his community who has not been questioned by some of the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission or Canada Manpower as to how this marriage will work. The minister says he is taking it to the public by way of participation, that all communities will benefit from this marriage. But I suggest that will not be true.
The only place where you can get job information, Mr. Speaker, is from the computer, and I have yet to find a person who can get information from the computer in one batch. Officials in Manpower are concerned because they do not know what their role will be. They are used to being told, "Hands off UIC; we are divorced from them and do not have anything to do with them. We are no longer friends so do not help fill out any forms or anything". Now the two departments
Employment and Immigration
are being reunited and a lot of very legitimate questions are being asked.
Manpower says it has control over information that is available in their region. If they were smart, though not many of them are, they would have control over job openings in the whole country via the computer. But Manpower are well aware that in many small communities people who work in the UIC do not have access to any information at all. At one time in my community the UIC office went so far as to put in a telex operation, but they found that nothing was coming out at the other end so it was discontinued and they depended on the telephone. Sometimes they found it more advantageous to telephone my office for information than to contact their own offices. This is why they are concerned that this marriage is not going to work. They want to know what responsibilities they will have.
Will they have sufficient information to tell a claimant that if he does certain things benefits will be available for him on such and such a date? Will they have the information required to allow each Manpower centre-and there are more Manpower centres than UIC offices-to answer telephone inquiries from claimants? Will they be able to relate the information they have to potential jobs in the area and make a decision whether those jobs are available?
One of the most frustrating things that can happen to an uninformed claimant when he walks into a UIC office is to be told he has to register at Manpower. If he does register at Manpower he then returns to the UIC office to collect his unemployment insurance. Then a few weeks will go by and he will be told that he has not been looking for work in the area. UIC tell him, "We are told by Manpower centres there are jobs available for you in the area". Then when the claimant goes back to Manpower, his counsellor will say, "I am very sorry, Joe; there are no jobs available for you in this area".
I have never been able to figure out how it is that the Unemployment Insurance Commission ascertains jobs are available when they do not have the machinery for doing so. They say they get the information from Manpower centres, yet the Manpower centres say that no jobs are available. It seems to me that if a person contributes to unemployment insurance, then if he meets the criteria and becomes unemployed, he is entitled to benefits. On the other hand the public must be protected, and if a job is available for someone who is unemployed and is qualified to do the job, then he should take it. It seems to me that if you tell a man that he has not made enough effort to find a job and that you are going to disqualify him, you have to be in a position to tell him that a job is available. If he takes the job, then happily the problem is settled. If there is no job, obviously you cannot disqualify him for not having obtained work. If this marriage produces this kind of result, it will be a great improvement over the present situation.
Much of the criticism I have heard of the UIC relates to benefit control. I know that benefit control officers are turned on and turned off at different times. Every time the public complains about the cost of unemployment insurance, benefit

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
control officers are turned on and they remove a number of people from the rolls. If there are no jobs in the area, then all you are doing is putting these people on municipal welfare rolls. Although there has been criticism of unemployment insurance, I think most members know that if it were not for unemployment insurance in this country, where we have had major unemployment levels for seven or eight years, there would be bankruptcies by the thousand in municipalities across the country. If people who are unemployed cannot get benefits in one way, then they have to get them in another.
In the final analysis, if they cannot get work and cannot get unemployment insurance, then they will have to draw municipal welfare, and in most areas of Canada the municipalities cannot carry the load. Poor communities are mostly in areas of no employment or where there is little more than minimal seasonal employment. Every businessman in the country should be appreciative of unemployment insurance. We would have had a depression that would have made the thirties look like a tea-party had it not been for the amount of money pumped into the program by workers, employers, and to a small extent by the government.
I am not the least bit sympathetic with those who say we have to cut back on unemployment insurance. We have to maintain vigilance. I do not like to hear people in the community say, "I know somebody who is getting unemployment insurance, and they are not entitled to it". I do not like to hear that. When you talk to them, they always say "Oh, Joe told me. It was about Mrs. so-and-so." Nobody ever knows it first-hand. When you follow it up you find that it is not correct.
It is interesting to note that with all the benefit control officers and all the fraud officers that UIC have maintained they have had very few convictions in this country. Many of those convictions were of a marginal nature, where a person was receiving benefits, had gone back to work and they really did not know how to shut him off. I know of a case where a woman got about $900 and thought she had gone through the procedure to shut them off on at least three occasions. She obviously knew she was getting the benefits. The only thing that you could say is that she should not have spent the money. She should have sent it back. She thought the government knew what they were doing. Therefore, she was involved in a fraud case. There are many cases of that nature.
The Conservatives have had a change of heart in another section that is very important.


Mr. Mazankowski:: We are all heart.


William Arnold Peters: They have screamed blue murder in this House about abuses of unemployment insurance. The hon. member who seems to be agreeing with that comes from an area where farmers are not unemployed. I would be interested to know whether that particular gentleman would be so sympathetic if there was no rain this summer and farmers were unemployed.
I would be interested to know whether he would be using the

same argument when the farmers ask for help and maybe a farmer in one corner of the township did not have such a bad crop because he was in a swampy area and all the rest were in very serious trouble.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Lang says they have grain stabilization.


William Arnold Peters: Well, Lang's promises of grain stabilization are just about worth the paper they are written on, and not much more. They are saying that we should increase the initial benefit period to qualify from eight weeks to twelve weeks.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: That is the qualifying period.


William Arnold Peters: It sounds reasonable. Eight weeks is not a very long period of time to be working to draw benefits. Twelve weeks is not a very long period, either. In my area I have many people who are trying to raise a family and the only job they get is planting trees and maybe they only get seven, eight or ten weeks of employment. Lands and Forests in Ontario have been trying to give them the qualifying period whenever possible. They will create an extra week of work. If they did not need to plant trees for eight weeks and only needed to plant trees for seven weeks, in many cases they will have planted for the eighth week only to give them the benefit in that area to keep those people.
After the benefit period they draw some benefits. They may get another small period of work, hopefully another eight weeks. It is not because they only work eight weeks to get the advantages of UIC; they can only get that limited amount of work. I know this applies to much of northern Ontario. I imagine it applies to the maritime provinces as well. I think it applies to Quebec the same as it does to northern Ontario. I am sure there are many cases where people would be living on welfare year-round if it were not for the small periods when they can find employment which often qualifies them for UIC.
The Conservatives now say they are going to make exceptions by areas. Well, if there is anything we need less than that to help with the balkanization of Canada, I cannot think of it. Maybe it is another language. It seems to me that the balkanization of this country takes place fast enough without making exceptions. If you come from the maritimes you will only have to work eight weeks; if you come from some place else, you will have to work twelve. Why not make it in the city of Toronto where there is not much unemployment, or in Saskatchewan where there is literally no unemployment? Why not make it 24 weeks, because they obviously have a very high employment figure?
We sometimes fail to realize the benefit to the country that UIC has provided. Because of the contributions it has made it has prevented many storekeepers from going broke. It has prevented many small businesses from going broke in the service industry. It has prevented many of the municipalities throughout all the northern area from going broke. If it did nothing other than that, the government could well afford to throw in the $125 million or some other figure.
March 30, 1977

We are going to try experimental retraining in this country with UIC benefits. I suggest that was not the purpose of UIC. Nobody will ever be told in this country that UIC is helping to carry the educational program in the technical field on a national basis. We will not be told that. We will only be told about the benefits that are being paid out and all the lazy people living on unemployment insurance benefits. We will not be told about the money that the workers are putting up to provide for their own educational systems. Many thought that technical education in this country was free. It looks like the minister is going to reverse that and is going to set up his own educational structure, and UIC is going to pay for it. While I agree it is absolutely necessary, it should be in a special fund rather than under UIC because retraining, unless it is going to be on a national basis and unless it is geared to our ability to provide classifications across the country, will fail to serve much of a purpose in providing for regional unemployment and the difficulties we have with regional unemployment.
The minister may not know that when Manpower was first established one of the things it was going to do was provide employment to a specific person. If you were trained as a secretary, then you were going to be able to get a job as a secretary. Manpower was going to guarantee that you were a secretary when they sent you out. They have not even provided a typewriter in a Manpower centre to check if someone could type or not.
If the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) checks his own staff he will find that almost all of this temporary hiring is done outside of Manpower. He hires very few people through Manpower. Most of it is through Office Overload and the other agencies who can check and tell whether a person is a typist, a secretary, a legal secretary, or what their qualifications are. The private employment section can do that kind of testing. Therefore, it can guarantee when they send somebody out that that person can start work today and can do that kind of job. If the minister will check with his department he will find that most of the people in the job opportunity fields-LIP, LEAP, the Canada Works program or the Youth Works program-have been hired through agencies outside of government agencies. Very few of them come from his agency. He would have to be very dumb if he did not realize that there must be something wrong with the way they select people for specific jobs. If we cannot test a truck driver to see whether he is a truck driver, we are being unfair and pretty stupid. When we send him out, because he has driven a two-ton truck, to drive a Euclid in a mine, he is going to take one look at that truck and say; "I can't drive it", although he is the guy we have sent out as a truck driver.


An hon. Member:: Send the minister.


William Arnold Peters: The truck driver knows he is not qualified. If we are going to provide technical training under Manpower, it should be classification training so that we know exactly what the man can do, and we will not send him out on a job that he is incapable of doing. If we do that, the employer will not phone Manpower and ask for another man. If this marriage is
Employment and Immigration
going to be successful, the man who is sent out to a specific job should be reasonably qualified to do that job, or not be sent out. He should be told that there is nothing available. It would make it much easier for the UIC if that were done rather than sending people out who are not qualified for particular jobs.
I know of a person who refused to take a job driving a truck in a mine, and thank God he did. If he had not, he would probably have been killed because he was not qualified to drive a truck. He did not know how to get into it, let alone drive it. If a person refuses to consider a job, the UIC disqualifies him without knowing whether he is capable of doing that job.
I suggest that the minister has an obligation as an individual to look at how the commission works and to make appropriate changes. He should not leave this to bureaucrats who have never worked in a mine, in the bush or done anything except be bureaucrats. They only know the bureaucratic approach, but the minister knows the practical approach. He has worked in mines, he has done manual labour and he knows that if a person is sent out to do the work of an electrician, he had better be an electrician or he will be electrocuted.
The same is true of many other jobs. If unqualified people are sent to do skilled work, they can be replaced very quickly because they will not be around. Employers know this, and they do not accept people who are not qualified. When Manpower does this, it shows how disillusioned it is. The minister knows that less than 50 per cent of the people who are employed are employed through Manpower. Less than 50 per cent are even listed with Manpower. In a given community Manpower does not even know what 50 per cent of the people are employed for. Most Manpower bureaucrats never go out and look at plants to see what they look like, let alone what they do. When Manpower bureaucrats talk about sawyers, they should know that they are not talking about chains-saws. A sawyer is a person who runs the mill. If he is head sawyer in a mill, he has to be highly skilled because the whole operation depends on him. If he is not competent, the company will be broke before many days go by. When a man is sent out, he has to know the job, and the employer wants to know that he knows the job. Therefore, a technical selection has to be carried out by the department with trained people making inspections of what people are registering for.
This bill amounts to nothing but bureaucratic jargon. It does not say what it means and it does not mean what it says. If the French version of this bill contains as much gobbledegook as the English version, bilingualism will be set back centuries. Ten interpretations can be taken from one paragraph. The minister knows that because he is a practical person.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is not practical.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: He is a lawyer.

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration


William Arnold Peters: Yes, but he had ability when he was going to college. I knew his dad quite well, and he was not rich. He was a doctor, but he was not rich. His dad probably made him work for a living. I know the minister has some experience in the mines of northern Ontario, and that is practical experience. Even though he is a lawyer, he probably likes to read a piece of legislation and not have to compare his interpretation with that of two other lawyers. A year or so ago a fellow asked me to fill out an unemployment insurance card for him. It was a long form. I took one look at it and told him that he should have someone from downtown fill it out for him. I did not know how to fill it out. Every question had two possible answers, and no matter how it was answered there could be problems.
For example, if one question was, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" and you answered "No", that could mean you still were. If the answer was "Yes", that could mean that you once did beat her. Most of the questions were like that. One question was, "Do you have transportation?" To most people, transportation means a bus, but in my part of the country it means an automobile. If people in my part of the country do not have automobiles, they do not have transportation. If the buses do not go where you go, you do not have transportation. However, people who work in plants drive automobiles, and if a person knows what shift he is on, on the second day that person will darned well have transportation. On the first day that person may have to take a taxi. But when a person does not even have the hope of a job, he certainly does not know where that job is to be located. It is hard to decide whether a person has transportation before knowing what or where the job is going to be. If I am asked if I have transportation, I do not know. I assume I have. Once I had a job but no car. There was no bus service, but I had transportation. On the second day of work I was able to get a ride with someone who had a car.
Do I tell these bureaucrats that I have transportation? They will probably ask me if I have a car, and I will have to say "no", and then they will say I do not have transportation. Then I will have to say, "I guess you are right, because I don't have a horse either". In every case, if an applicant makes a wrong answer he is disqualified.
They ask how much money an applicant wants. That seems to be a very simple question. If I had a previous job and was paid $5 an hour, I would say I would work for $5 an hour. I might take $4 or I might work for $3.50, but that is not the question. The question is how much money an applicant wants. If an applicant goes the other way and says he wants $10 an hour, he is disqualified because there are no jobs paying $10. These benefit control officers are great people! In one week they can wipe out half the people on unemployment insurance. It does not matter that the next week they might be over at the municipal welfare office; the bureaucrats do what they are told to do. When they are told to reduce the roll, they reduce it.
This bill does not have to be as complicated as it is. If an applicant appeals and there is dissent, the applicant can go to the umpire. Why should matters be taken to the umpire unless there is a question of legal interpretation? Things have been

changed and there is now only one referee, and he can be as biased as he wants to be. When there were three the situation was not so bad. The three of them would look at the precedents and make a decision. Applicants should be able to go to the umpire only if a matter of law is involved. If it is a matter of principle involved, that could be solved by legislative action. Then it would be possible to go to the umpire, the minister could look at the umpire's decisions, and if he found a series of consistent rulings on a matter of principle he could change the regulations and solve that problem. Then the umpire would not have to be bothered with that particular principle any more.
Once the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) went to his representative on the board of referees and told him he would go before the labour council and have him kicked off the board if he did not dissent from bad decisions. From then on that representative dissented from all decisions, and that was iust as ridiculous.
I did not become involved with any of those matters because they took place in Sudbury, which is far away from my people. However, the hon. member sent 13 cases to me at one time and I won 12 of them. Hon. members can ask the director of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and he will confirm what I am saying. The director went on television, used those 12 cases and said that the argument was made to the benefit control officer that his interpretation was not necessarily correct. I won 11 or 12 of those 13 cases. I have not seen any since. They are not sent to me any more and I do not know if there is still a problem. I certainly do not stir up cases. I deal with them only when they come to me. I am not looking for any.
The point I am making is that if we look at these things impartially, without trying to get rid of people, and if we look at them fairly and honestly, knowing that there are no jobs available in an area and knowing that no transportation is available, applications should be accepted and people should not have to go to the umpire. These particular cases went through the bureaucratic machinery and they were solved.
I suggest that many difficulties of the average person are with bureaucrats whose only job is to figure out the language. I know that proper legal terms must be used and that it makes a great deal of difference whether you use "will", "shall", "should", "must", "might", or "may". But really it is not the main function of UIC to provide benefits to the unemployed with the least offence to them. It is part of our responsibility as government to provide work.
Let us consider such employment agencies as Office Overload. I have a son who hired people for a big electronic company in Toronto. Among others he hired "think engineers". A "think engineer" would come to an office, watch the wall for a while and think about the problem. If, in a couple of weeks, he did not come up with an answer, the company would let him go and telephone the agency to send in another "think engineer", or he might think about the wrong problem and you would get something out of him that you could not use. You hired him because he belonged to a professional pool of "think
March 30, 1977

engineers". You needed him to solve a particular problem, not as a permanent employee.
Until the Manpower centres can provide people in specific categories, such as a rough carpenter, a finish carpenter or a bench carpenter, they will not be doing their job properly. The centre must provide the appropriate person for the employer. The employer does not want to interview a whole lot of people. One lawyer told me that he needed a legal secretary and he interviewed six different girls from Manpower. It is pretty simple to hire a legal secretary, but that was not the case. He made a good suggestion. What Manpower did was to put his professional card on the board stating that a legal secretary was wanted. He told them that it would be better if they were to reprint or photostat his card and pin it up in Loblaw's or Steinberg's because many people go by the bulletin boards in these stores. He said that in the Manpower office only four or five people went by that board on which his card was pinned. Unless there are many people looking for jobs, by going to the board, or many employers looking for employees, we are not providing a proper employment service.
I remember the time when one used to pay to get a job. I remember going to Timmins in 1940 to apply for a job in the mine. The guy wanted five bucks to talk to you about the job. I did not have five bucks at the time and I gave him a really good story. I got the job partly because I was a farm boy. In those times five bucks almost always got you a job. There were not too many five bucks going around then. You would not save that much money in a week at that time, but when you paid the money you got the job. We are paying the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to provide employment, but he is not supplying the jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: He wants more money.


William Arnold Peters: I honestly believe that unemployment insurance should be under the Department of Manpower. I believe we had a good system in Canada when we did not use computers. We had people instead of computers. Many hon. members will not remember it, but when unemployment insurance was first started, all the information was contained on a card, every contribution you paid and how much you were going to be paid every week. When you walked into the office, they got out the card and told you immediately how much money you were entitled to, so much a week, and they would hand you the money. But before you got the money you would have to go over to the other side of the room and ask if there were any jobs available. If a job was offered, you had to take it. If there was no job available, you went back and got your money. When the money was all gone, they started another card.
It may have been an amateurish system. It may have been damned humiliating for highbrow people to have to walk into an office and get the dole after having asked for a job. But that does not worry me and it certainly does not worry the people I represent. They would be damned happy to have that system if it were a more honest one. Because what we have now is not honest. A person thinks he is looking for a job, but UIC says
Employment and Immigration
he is malingering and guilty of all kinds of bad practices because he is not following their regulations.
In my area there is a sawmill employing 40 people. If you worked in that sawmill you know how many men are employed and you know there are no vacancies. What is the point of asking for a job there three times a week? What is the point of asking for a job in the local hotel if you cannot add or subtract? But unemployment insurance says that you have to go there and ask. What is the point of asking for a job in the local restaurant if you have a long beard and are filthy? They will not give you a job, but you have to go and ask. What is the point of going to the liquor store when you know that in Ontario you have to be a lifelong Conservative to get a job there? If you are a Liberal or a member of the NDP, you have no chance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Is that not phony? To me it seems totally idiotic. Surely there are half a dozen people who know that in a certain community there are no jobs available. A guy looking for a job had worked all his life and is willing, but he is not very bright. We would give him a job if one was available, but there is no job. Why should he be made to suffer the indignity of looking for a job when everyone knows there is no job available? Surely to God under the new system Manpower should make an effort.


John R. Rodriguez: There is no hope of that.


William Arnold Peters: The system will only work if we quit fooling around with peripheral matters and get down to providing employment service where the guy gets off his fanny, walks around to the local plant and suggests to the employer, "You can use a guy to clean this up". He might say, "If we send you a man, you could give him that job". Until we do that, this program will not work. These changes are in the main to satisfy the very small fringe element which believes that unemployment insurance should be stopped. These changes are for their benefit. But there are so many changes that could be made for the benefit of the country to provide jobs, to make jobs available which an employer might not even know he can provide. The one provision in this act which is worse than all others is the change in the benefit period. In my area, if people can work for 12 weeks they will draw unemployment insurance. If they can only get jobs for 8 weeks, it would be better if they could draw benefits on that than get welfare from the municipal welfare office.


Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this afternoon to register, in the second reading stage of Bill C-27, some of my concerns as a member of parliament from the Atlantic provinces. I cannot help but express my views, give praise where due and make suggestions in other areas. I am sure everyone is pleased to see the integration of manpower, unemployment and immigration services. This integration would produce a new organization. This will produce a new organization capable of providing, as the minister calls it, a one-stop service to the people. Obvious-

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
ly, this is a proper step. Why should people who are seeking UIC benefits and who must register at Manpower as a prerequisite for benefits, have to go to two different places? This way, the same person who dealt with the benefits will also see the problems involved with finding employment. They can now work together to solve the existing problems of long-term employment.
The servicing which presently exists leaves a lot to be desired. Why can cheques not be sent out faster? Why do returns go through three areas before they reach head office? The terminology has been mentioned earlier, and I agree with this. Let us hope this will be a one-step service and that it will not increase the amount of work the unemployed person has to do in order to get benefits.
The new supporting department of employment and immigration, we are told, will be responsible for strategic policy development, program evolution, labour market research and information services. If this means we are going to do away with relying on inaccurate statistics for South Western Nova I think this alone would be an improvement. My only suggestion to the minister would be to make sure that we are not duplicating service and that this department will be made to produce and really promote the closest possible co-operation between labour market policies and progress and the government's over-all economic and social strategies.
I am glad to see the minister hopes that integration will lead to the simplification of documentation required of the public. I am pleased, as well, to see that the penalty for working more than four weeks will be removed. In other words, the person drawing UIC benefits who finds work for more than four weeks and then becomes unemployed in the past has automatically become disqualified from re-establishing his benefit period. In areas where work is seasonal this has been very detrimental to the employment picture. There are other good points such as the transfer of benefits. If a person is owed benefits and they are slow in coming in, he can go to the municipal authority and transfer receipt of UIC benefits to the municipal assistance authority. I am sure this will alleviate a lot of hardship. There is also the developmental use of UIC funds which I hope to be able to talk about before I finish.
As I have stated, these are some reforms, but there are others which have not been attended to. In the administrative areas there is the use of unemployment insurance versus the guaranteed annual income. There are wives who, if they work for their husbands, cannot collect unemployment insurance. In other words, the shucker in Newfoundland cannot work for her husband, the scalloper, and so must work for her friend's husband. There are also wives whose husbands run a one-man business yet they cannot work for him and receive benefits. There is also no reform reducing the amount of benefit after a certain period of time. There is the woman on maternity leave who has to wait three weeks for benefits even though her child is due two days after she commences maternity leave. These are just some of the concerns that I have not seen dealt with in

the reforms. I also have concerns when I look at the implications and implementation of this bill.
If we go back to the federal budget of May, 1976, we find that the government announced its intention to reform the scope and administration of the unemployment insurance program in Canada. Specific proposals included recasting of the benefit structure and an increase of the minimum entrance requirement for the program from 8 weeks to 12 weeks of insured employment. Reaction to the proposals focused on the number of individuals who would be affected by increased entrance requirements.
In the next few minutes I should like to register my concerns in terms of claimants who would have been affected had this been law in 1976, give a projection of how it would affect the claimants in 1977 and the effects of the reduction of benefit in the maritimes as well as in my own area. In this time period I am referring to the Unemployment Insurance Commission's "Comprehensive Review of the Unemployment Insurance Program in Canada, February, 1977", which I will refer to as "the review" for purposes of this discussion.
At page K54 the review states that a total of 330,000 claimants throughout the year would be affected by the increase in the qualifying period. It is estimated that at any point in time in 1976 there was an average of 100,000 beneficiaries with 8 to 11 weeks of insured employment. The minister and the review have assumed that 50 per cent of the 8 to 11-weekers shown at page K57 would be able to find additional insured employment or continue at their present employment, in order to qualify for benefits at the 12-weeks' entrance requirement. Had the 12-week extension been implemented in 1976, roughly 50,000 people nationally would never have received benefits at any point in time. Going back to the 330,000 claimants, if you take 30 per cent of them as being affected you come to 100,000 beneficiaries who had 8 to 11 weeks of insured employment. As stated by the minister, if you take 50 per cent of these being able to find the additional weeks, there is 50 per cent left-in other words, 50,000 people. If you look at page K58 you find details per province. As far as Nova Scotia goes, 2,600 of the 50,000 would be affected at any one time, and 9,800 in all the Atlantic provinces.
Let us look at the claimants affected by increased entrance requirements and give a projection for 1977 of the number of claimants affected by the 12-week entrance requirement. This is the counterpart of what I have just said and what is shown at page K54 of the review. Based on the assumptions required to derive what I am assuming, that is, that we should have to take a labour force growth of 2 per cent in 1977, an unemployment rate of 8 per cent in 1977, a constant ratio of unemployed to beneficiary population between 1976 and 1977 and the same proportion of beneficiaries in each province between 1976 and 1977, what do we come down to? We come down to an estimate that there would be an average of 117,328 beneficiaries with 8 to 11 weeks of insured employment. If we again assume that 50 per cent of the 8 to 11-weekers in 1977 will find additional insured weeks in order to qualify for benefits at the higher entrance requirement, a total of 58,664
March 30, 1977

persons will be unable to receive benefits at any given point during 1977. In other words, implementation of the 12-week qualifying period would disqualify from UIC benefits about 59,000 potential beneficiaries in 1977. Of these, roughly 11,500 would be residents of the Atlantic provinces.
Let us consider how this reduction in benefit levels will affect the Atlantic provinces. Total benefits under the proposed amendment would be reduced by both increased entrance requirements and by the introduction of the new three-phase benefit structure for those individuals who receive benefits. In other words, under the present structure somebody with 8 weeks of employment receives 32 weeks of benefits. Under the three-phase benefit structure there would be no such assistance. At present, after 12 insured weeks of employment the claimant is entitled to 32 benefit weeks. He would also be entitled to 32 benefit weeks under the three-phase benefit structure. Of course, I am referring to what would happen if one considers that the Nova Scotia unemployment rate is 10 per cent, as opposed to the national unemployment rate of 8 per cent. After the twentieth week of insured earning, the present structure would provide one more week of benefit than the new three-phase system would provide.
The major difference between the two structures concerns the loss of benefits for the 8 to 11 -weekers, a group which is of considerable size in the Atlantic provinces. Putting it in round numbers, one could say that there would be 59,000 potential beneficiaries across Canada and 11,500 in the Atlantic provinces. Those figures are based on the labour force survey. I have my doubts about the validity of the labour force survey.
The UIC review also assesses the financial impact of the 12-week entrance requirement when combined with the new benefit structure. For instance, the study found that at a national unemployment rate of 8 per cent, the total savings accruing from the new proposals in 1976 dollars would be in the $250 million to $300 million range. These figures no doubt assume that a number of the 8 to 11-weekers would qualify for benefits under the 12-week minimum. The government's share of the total would be between $175 million and $210 million, the remainder being saved by employers and employees.
For 1977 an estimate of total savings would be in the $325 million to $390 million range, given an increase in insured earnings of 13 per cent and provided the number of beneficiaries increases to 58,664, or 59,000 in round numbers, or is about 17 per cent greater than the number in 1976. In terms of the loss of funds to the Atlantic provinces, if it is assumed that their loss is in proportion to the number of beneficiaries with 8 to 11 weeks in 1977-11,496-then the loss would be between $63 million and $76 million in 1977. Altsrnatively, a figure of $62 million in 1977 is suggested if it is assumed that the 11,496 beneficiaries in Atlantic Canada received an average weekly benefit of $104 in 1977. In December, 1976, the average weekly benefit paid in the four Atlantic provinces was $92. In either case, the economies of the Atlantic provinces
Employment and Immigration
will be seriously affected by the reduction in benefits, in human as well as in dollar terms.
How will all this affect South Western Nova? The picture looks pretty bleak. Let us assume that between November, 1975, and October, 1976, altogether 44,290 persons were registered at the Yarmouth UIC office. Therefore, on average 3,690 people per month during the 12-month period were registered with the office. Assume, further, that 30 per cent of those registered are 8 to 11 weekers, as the minister suggested. That means that 1,107 people per month were 8 to 11 weekers. Let us divide that figure in half because supposedly half will be able to find work. We see, therefore, that 554 people will not be able to receive benefits. If you multiply that figure by 104-I am thinking of benefits of $104 a week, one readily sees that the government will save $57,616 per week. Multiply that figure by 52, there being 52 weeks in the year, and the result is $2,996,032. That amount will not flow into the area serviced by the Yarmouth UIC office.
What does all this mean? According to the 1971 census the population of South Western Nova was 62,177 persons. In February, 1976, 7,607 people were registered with the local UIC office. Clearly, the new program will hurt in the sense that funds allocated in the past for job creation projects such as LIP, and now we have Canada Works, were determined by the unemployment rate which was based on the labour force survey. As you know, the labour force is made up of people 15 years of age and older who are working or have actively been looking for employment in the last four weeks. The labour force survey says that one is employed if one has done any work in the previous reference week.
The unemployment rate in 1976 in economic region 24, which includes South Western Nova, was 9.2 per cent. But if you consider only those registered at UIC offices, say between November, 1975, and October, 1976, the picture will be entirely different. We note that unemployment in the winter is high and that it goes down to low levels in the summer.
What happens if you accept the unemployment rate as set out in the labour force survey? As I said, that survey defines "employed" as any work performed in the past reference week. What happens is this: if a fisherman works even one hour of one day during the reference week, according to the labour force survey he was employed that week. But if he does not work, he is not included in the labour force, because he cannot search for a job in that occupation. Such considerations apply to all seasonal workers, be they loggers, people working in the tourist industry, fish plant workers or other workers doing seasonal work. The statistics would also show, because of the seasonal nature of employment in the area, that employment declines in the summer.
Much has been said about the participation rate. What is it? The participation rate is the number of people in the labour force over the total number of persons 15 years old and older in any given area. I think the participation rate should be taken into consideration when one considers the numbers of people registered at UIC offices. I say this because I am trying to show that there is considerable difference between the

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Statistics Canada labour force survey and the number of registered UIC claimants. In addition, not only do those figures differ considerably, but if you are going to undertake job creation programs on the basis of the labour force survey it is apparent that an area like mine will be hurt terribly.
I am trying to show that the 8 to 11-weekers in my area will be affected by this proposed amendment. The participation rate for economic region 24, and that includes South Western Nova, was 51 per cent. For the province it was 55.2 per cent. This is rates of employment in the labour force during the summer months when people are employed. In January, 1976, the participation rate for economic region 24 was 45 per cent, whereas for Nova Scotia it was 51.9 per cent.
As I said, the Canada Works program was established to create jobs. However, South Western Nova was given the lowest allocation after Halifax. From November, 1975, to October, 1976, a total of $16,881,000 in unemployment insurance benefits was paid out of the Yarmouth UIC office. In all of Nova Scotia for the same period a total of $147,042,000 was paid out. This indicates that the amount of money being paid out of the UIC office does not show up in terms of the labour force survey studies and the unemployment rate.
Canada Works replaces the Local Initiatives Program. Given the same set of facts, my area received the lowest allocation outside of Halifax. How, then, can I accept for the 8 to 11-weekers the amendments and the labour force survey when at the same time no money is coming back into that area? I will deal with that in a minute.
The Canada Works program this year is based on three criteria: the unemployment rate in the labour force for Nova Scotia; the total number of claimants registered from December, 1975, to November, 1976, in Nova Scotia; and the 1971 census per county in Nova Scotia of unemployed, which incidentally is based on the same definition as the labour force survey. It should be noted that figures for A and B are the same in Nova Scotia in 1976. For this reason I rejected the validity of the Local Initiatives Program allocations for South Western Nova and I must again reject the validity of the allocations for the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs for my area.
I wish to deal with the number of unemployment insurance claimants for January, February and March, 1976. In January, 1976, there were 6,355 claimants registered. I ask hon. members to bear in mind that my population total is 62,000 or so people. If you take 25 per cent of that figure as being persons able to work, and say that in January there were 6,355 people unemployed, there were not too many people not looking for assistance from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The figure for February was 7,607, and March 7,408. I agree that I have an area of seasonal employment.
I do not think this is the time to go into the labour force survey. Why, when the Manpower offices have unemployment insurance statistics as well as Manpower registrations, do we have to use a labour force survey that is discriminatory in a

sense that it is the rural versus the urban. In economic region 24, for example, it is rural areas for the most part. As well, it is seasonal versus permanent jobs. I wish to put on record the fact that economic region 24 comprises all of Digby, Yarmouth, Shelburne, Queens and Lunenburg counties. The preliminary 1976 census shows that the growth in economic region 24 was 1.9 per cent, and for all of Nova Scotia it was 3 per cent. If you withdraw Lunenburg county from economic region 24, you will see very little growth in South Western Nova. The economic growth in Lunenburg county was approximately 4.5 per cent. Again for the record, South Western Nova comprises the bottom part of Annapolis county, which has no town as such. There is Annapolis Royal, which is a town of approximately 850 people. It also comprises all of Digby and Yarmouth counties, half of Shelburne county and the municipality of Barrington. The UIC office in Yarmouth takes in Yarmouth, Shelburne and Digby counties. I realize that some of these statistics can be questioned.
With regard to the labour force survey, an article in the March 2 Gazette indicates that unemployment figures released by Statistics Canada represent only a fraction of the actual number of persons without jobs who want to work. The survey was undertaken by the University of Regina and was funded by the Department of Manpower. I hope that department will act on the results of the survey.
What will be the effect of an increase from 8 to 12 weeks for insured earnings and the decrease in the benefit period? The government is asking an area like South Western Nova to find employment both during the 8 to 12-week period and the reduced benefit. In other words, "A" will now have to find 12 weeks. Before, if "A" found 12 weeks, he got 29 weeks of benefits. Now "A" will get 26 weeks for 12 weeks. I must speak of my concerns about this policy because I do not see any money to provide these targeted people who need work to bring them up to 12 weeks and to get them back. I am waiting to see what the designated work programs will be. The community as a whole will suffer because there will be less UIC money circulating around the area. How much will be cut back, no one knows. I have given estimates, but they are only estimates. If one looks at last year's figures, one has to wonder. I take a certain amount of confidence from the minister's statement of October 21, 1976. I quote from page 340 of Hansard'.
In 1977-78, the first full year of our five-year employment strategy, we plan to invest in the neighbourhood of $350 million beyond our regular expenditures on manpower programs. Over 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 savings to the government from the legislative changes will be about $10 million, but future savings will be even greater. Because unemployment insurance savings will rise as unemployment declines, we are looking at costs and resources averaged over five years. It is generally expected that, if parliament approves the changes 1 shall propose to the Unemployment Insurance Act, reduced government contributions to the unemployment insurance account will offset the extra costs of this employment strategy.
We can take a certain amount of consolation, I suppose, if one fits all the criteria, but up until now my area has had very

March 30, 1977

little in terms of creating jobs. I should like to say a few words on job creation since this represents the other part of the UIC amendments-the money going into job creation. I would suggest to the minister and to the officials of the department that they should consider looking at areas to see what resources are available. Look at the municipalities. They need sewers and water systems, housing, land clearance for future use. We-now have oil exploration off the coast of Nova Scotia. I wonder how many people will be trained by Manpower. I wonder how many will come in from the United States, from across Canada or from the United Kingdom to take jobs. Perhaps one of the terms of Petro-Canada on entering into any contract should be that they hire locally, that they register with Manpower and state what jobs will become available.
Look at our 200-mile limit. We have fish, yet on the finished product we have a tariff. We discourage finishing the product. I should like to see the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce establish markets for fish. I should like to see new factories. Now that we are in control of waters within the 200-mile limit, I should like to see more local people hired and trained. As well, I should like to see these factories operating for longer periods.
We have woodland. Why cannot it be cleared? Why cannot we reforest our land? I should like to see local tendering on government contracts encouraged. I should like to see encouragement given to groups of people for this purpose. I am also aware that in the information papers on the employment and reorganization legislation the minister goes into the development uses of unemployment insurance funds. I welcome the additional training projects. I welcome pilot projects for job creation programs, community-oriented programs where people will feel they have a chance to look at the work. However, I have waited a long time to see a community employment program come into the area, yet we have had "New Start", the "Adult Modules" and other such organizations. We have never seen the rest.
However, I will repeat the question: Will these programs and will this money be designated toward the 8 to 11-weekers? In my humble opinion, the statistics we have had to deal with in the past make me doubtful. I do not know. I am looking forward to seeing what the committee and the report stage are going to bring forth. When I see the estimate for 1977-close to $3 million, using the designated figures-I wonder, especially when I get $190,000 on Canada Works in the first phase. One has to look at the implications of the bill not only in terms of the individuals who will be affected, that is, the 8 to 11-weekers, but also at the community level. I am thinking of those who will have to find jobs for, or support, these people. People will also lose money, as I have said, $62 million in the Atlantic provinces if we go by the projected figure of 50 per cent of the people being affected in the Atlantic provinces.
I look forward to getting the answers to these questions. There are good points in this bill-the transfer of benefits, the sick benefits, the integration of the manpower, unemployment and immigration services, as well as being able to work without being penalized for working during a benefit period. I
Employment and Immigration
cannot understand how we could not have had this before now. Last year we had other changes, and they are working. We had the disqualifying period lengthened for persons who quit. We had maternity benefits, but, as I say, they did not go far enough. When a woman quits two days before entering hospital, surely she does not have to wait three weeks before getting her benefits; you have already deprived her, when she is going back to work in three months, of three weeks. I must say that I look forward to a solution, whether it is in awareness of the problem that the reduced benefit period and the increased qualifying insured weeks will have, whether it is an increase in job creation, or whether it is assurances that go further and which will affect the target groups.
I should also like to say that perhaps the labour force survey should be thrown out and unemployment insurance commission statistics and Department of Manpower statistics be used. If we are paying it out from there, why are not those statistics relevant? Why depend on the labour force survey? I look forward to seeing what will develop in the committee. I have tried to register my concern in terms of the money and job creation for the 8 to 11-weekers as well as what it will do to the area, not only to the Atlantic provinces but to a constituency such as mine which is a seasonal job area. Unless job creation can come out with jobs that are going to be extended, and unless it takes into account some of the local people, instead of starting here in Ottawa and dishing it out to regions, these programs cannot but hurt a great many people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, before calling it six o'clock I should just like to say to the minister that maybe he now appreciates to a degree the monster he created when he imposed closure on this particular piece of legislation and in effect brought Liberals into the debate to make 40-minute speeches. He has suffered through it, and so has every other member of the House, trying to follow the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) who made indirectly one of the most vicious attacks on the government which could possibly be made, because she said, in effect, as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, "We rely on unemployment, not on employment, to keep people with some money in their pockets". That is a terrible condemnation of the government or of a government anywhere in a country as great as this one.


Coline M. Campbell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that nobody who listened to my speech could classify it as a vicious, indirect attack on the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Coline M. Campbell: I was trying to point out to the House some of the problems involved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member had a chance to make her speech. Another may interpret her words in the way he wants. It is not for the Chair to say whether she is right

March 30, 1977
Employment and Immigration
or whether another hon. member is right. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Robert Carman Coates: May I now call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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

Thursday, March 31, 1977