1977-02-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because this matter is one of urgency which grows every month, I ask leave to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House urges the government to bring in without further delay legislation that will establish pension rights for all homemaker spouses equivalent to the rights of those employed outside the home, and that the government commit itself to the taking of this action during the present session of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in view of the continuing serious national unemployment problem that has been so detrimental to the morale of young male and female adults and many of their parents, and in view of the fact that high unemployment and low income areas of Canada's Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec are so adversely affected, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call upon the government to make more money available for the Program Young Canada Works in these areas of very high unemployment, and at the same time that we ask the Secretary of State to review the Student Loan Act with a view to, first, making repayments dependent on the students' ability to pay and, second, to change the minimum study time for a student to receive loans from the present 26 weeks minimum to 12 weeks so that students
from low income families can more easily pursue summer school courses as well as one semester courses.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In recognition of the extraordinary help and assistance rendered snowbound citizens of southwestern Ontario and the saving of countless lives during the recent snowstorm as a result of the quick and effective response of the Royal Canadian Regiment stationed at Canadian Forces Base, London, Ontario, a base which only recently was acquitted by the Minister of National Defence of charges of obsolescence and spared for the greater protection and benefit of Canadians in times of such civil disasters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner):
That this House go on record as commending the men of the Royal Canadian Regiment of Canadian Forces Base, London, Ontario, and urge the Minister of National Defence to give a unit commendation for voluntary excellent citizenship to this regiment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
80008-26%
[Stage Direction]
February 1, 1977
Storms

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have another perfectly reasonable motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of reports of continuing affronts to Canadian sovereignty I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House request the Prime Minister to discuss continuing United States interference in our trade relations with Cuba in his forthcoming visit to Washington.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO SNOWBOUND AREAS OF SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the disastrous snowstorm which struck southern Ontario this past weekend isolating hundreds of small communities and bringing normal daily life to a standstill; in view of the fact that much of this region has been declared a disaster area and that many municipalities are still on an emergency alert basis; in view of the fact that a second storm appears to be on its way and that many roads are still impassable; and considering that most municipal budgets, particularly those in the Niagara Peninsula, are heavily overspent, that costs so far have already run about twice that of a normal year and that storms such as that of last weekend are costing a single municipality about $6,000 to $7,000 per hour to clear, and while thankful for the excellent relief assistance already provided by the local militia, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton):
That this House urges the federal government to consult immediately with the responsible provincial and municipal officials with a view to providing necessary disaster relief whether through financial means or physical assistance and that it give consideration to absorbing or defraying the cost of relief provided by the militia and the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the continued absence of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Where is Pierre?


Charles Joseph Clark: -I want to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister, which may allow him to add some precision to the government's position on constitutional reform. In his recent letter to the various provincial premiers the Prime Minister clearly indicated a preference to start with an agreement on patriation and an amending formula and then proceed to a distribution of powers. In his speech in Quebec city on Friday the Prime Minister indicated that the only conditions he would apply to constitutional reform would relate to certain civil, regional and language rights. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Friday speech of the Prime Minister means that the government has set aside its preference to start with an agreement on patriation and an amending formula.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is wise to conclude that the speech on Friday set aside the desire of the government to patriate the constitution. I do not think these propositions are mutually exclusive.


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Acting Prime Minister is going to continue to be called upon to answer for the Prime Minister, he might want to read the correspondence which was sent to the various premiers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It would be very helpful for the House of Commons, the country and the premiers to know whether it remains the preference of the government of Canada to proceed to give priority to what was called stage one, agreement upon an amending formula and patriation. We can wait until the Prime Minister comes back to the House, if he does-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 1, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: -to provide information. In the letter of the Prime Minister to the premiers the Prime Minister said that it would be, and I quote, "a serious mistake" to proceed with a discussion of constitutional amendment "without a coherent total plan", and I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister can tell the House whether federal officials are now preparing a coherent total plan regarding a distribution of constitutional powers which the federal government will carry into discussions with the provinces.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the context in which the letter ought to be interpreted is one that might involve selection of particular items for constitutional change in connection with the patriation of the constitution. I believe what the Prime Minister was indicating was that if there were to be a general review or discussion of the constitution it would have to be set in quite a broad context. To my knowledge we have not had any response from the premiers on this matter. I believe it is well known to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, however, that the federal government has been equipped for some time now to engage in that kind of constitutional discussion dating back to preparations that were in place well before the Victoria conference. I believe there is a good deal of material available and the process of preparation is continuing.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What we are trying to determine and what the country is interested in is whether the speech made by the Prime Minister in Quebec City the other day in which he appeared to abandon the constitutional rigidity which has been the mark of this government through its years in office, indicates that there has been a fundamental change in their attitude toward constitutional reform. If that is so, is the government proceeding now with preparations on a new basis that would involve the breadth of reform implied in the speech on Friday? We want to know whether those were empty words in that speech or whether there is some concrete follow-up. In effect, we would like to have some guarantee from the government that the Prime Minister's conversion to constitutional flexibility will prove more reliable than his previous opposition to controls.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman wants information or whether he wants to score a few political points in the absence of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: We will take both.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We want to know where you stand.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that probably the speech of the Prime Minister pulled from under him the only rug he has had since he became Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Cheap politics!
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY-POSSIBLE REPLACEMENT OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister concerns the suggestion made the other day by the Prime Minister of a constituent assembly to deal with constitutional matters. Can the Acting Prime Minister say whether this suggestion has been discussed with the provincial premiers and does the government see it as a replacement for federal-provincial constitutional conferences? Perhaps the most important question is what the status of a report or findings produced by any such constituent assembly would be.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I tell the hon. member that this idea that was put out by the Prime Minister is not intended in any way to be a replacement for the normal processes of consultation with the provinces. To my knowledge the idea has not been considered with the provincial premiers.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since the suggestion was put forward by the Prime Minister, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether or not the government has determined what the preferred structure would be for the membership of any such constituent assembly and has any thought been given to a timetable? In other words, I am trying to determine whether the suggestion was put forward after serious consideration on the part of the government or whether it was merely thrown out on the spur of the moment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe both the hon. lady and myself would benefit from reading the transcript of the press conference.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand the question was raised by a journalist and that in reply the Prime Minister made a number of comments with respect to problems which might arise with regard to any such proposal. But I want to assure the hon. lady, in case she has some doubt, that at the present time there has been no formulation of proposals with respect to a constituent assembly.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister? In effect, I am putting to him a question, or questions, I asked yesterday but I do so on the basis of his assurance yesterday that he would give me a further reply today. In view of the mandatory guidelines established by Prime Minister Pearson

February 1, 1977
Oral Questions
in 1963 and confirmed by the present Prime Minister in 1969, may I now ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the persons named on the list attached to the letter of the former Solicitor General of June 15, 1971, have been informed of that letter and of its references to them so that they might have an opportunity under the guidelines to clear their names?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 find, having read the answer I gave to the hon. gentleman yesterday, that that answer is in accordance with the proper understanding of the guidelines. The hon. member used the expression "clear their names" when no charge has been laid with respect to any of those persons. The guidelines to which he refers were those which were announced in the House of Commons by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, I believe in 1966.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In 1963.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In 1963. At that time he outlined the requirements involved in a new system of security which would protect both the interests of the state and the civil liberties of public servants. In dealing with the first of the new requirements of the system, the former Prime Minister stated:
The first of the new requirements is to inform the person involved when his security or reliability is in doubt and may have to involve his dismissal.
Yesterday, the hon. gentleman, by inadvertence, I am sure, left out a very important and controlling phrase-"may have to involve his dismissal". In no case was the question of the dismissal of any of those persons raised, and therefore the notion of putting this particular procedure into operation is quite inapplicable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest the interpretation the minister has just given us is begging the question since, in effect, the word "may" is there. If the reliability of these civil servants has been questioned I suggest that the guidelines apply. In any case, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he is aware that at a press conference on January 26 of this year the Prime Minister, in dealing with this matter, said that he presumed the ministers had taken this step. Does that not confirm the belief of the Prime Minister, that that should have been done? Therefore, would he check further with respect to the rights of these civil servants to be informed of what was said against them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not read what is contained in the press conference comment of the Prime Minister, but I believe that it is important to understand that in this particular case any action which might be taken would be taken by the employing department or agency responsible for the employment of any particular person.


Mr. Fairweatber:: Words, words.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no question at all that the governing point is the reliability or security question which may lead to the dismissal of an individual. If such occurs, the individual must be told about it and given the opportunity to explain or

defend himself. If the hon. member looks into this matter further he will find that there is an opportunity to have a hearing or review, if the dismissal is to be undertaken. I suggest that these guidelines are not applicable in this particular case because at no time was dismissal involved. Actually, subsequent events prove that some of these individuals advanced rather rapidly in the public service, or so I am told.


SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF BLACKLIST NOTATION FROM PERSONAL FILES OF EMPLOYEES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question? Since the Prime Minister's statement on the date I indicated, January 26, 1977, refers to the informing of those civil servants by their ministers so that they could play the game according to the new rules, and since the Prime Minister then said, "which I presume the ministers did and that ended the matter as far as we were concerned," are we not left with an incomplete story, in that the Prime Minister presumed that the employees were notified, but now the minister tells us they were not. Will the Acting Prime Minister comment on that and will he indicate to the House now whether the government is prepared to see to it that any reference to this matter is completely removed from the files of those particular public servants?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member will have to reconstruct the operation of this particular procedure, to understand that it is the responsibility of the employing department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have reconstructed it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is important to reconstruct the operation of this procedure, to understand that it is the responsibility of the department or the operating agency to put into question the reliability or security of any particular employee. In this particular case what happened, as I stated yesterday, is this: The then solicitor general wrote to a number of ministers indicating that it was important that particular individuals should live up to their responsibilities. At that time the decision whether or not to carry the matter further, was a departmental decision, but at no time was the matter carried further, to my knowledge, because at no time was it concluded that action was to be taken or contemplated which would result in the dismissal of any such individual. Only at that time were individuals to be given the opportunity to explain themselves or have a review. I have not seen that particular press statement made by the Prime Minister, and I think the hon. member will have to ask the Prime Minister directly, but there is no contradiction between what I said and the contents of the Prime Minister's press conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Scattered applause.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can the minister advise the House whether he has considered amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that the sons of farmers who find themselves out of a job during the off-winter season, after having been employed by their fathers over an eight-month period, may too become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the very unique publication published by his department entitled "At Home with Transport". While I realize the minister's desire to improve efficiency and to establish greater awareness for the care of government property and government buildings, I wish to ask him about statements contained in the publication to the effect that employees should not stand, walk or crawl on their air conditioners, that they should leave pencils at their desk when they go to the washroom because, as the publication indicates, those walls are for privacy and not for poetry and further suggests that employees should face the front of an elevator at all times lest they be standing backwards and miss their floor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wish to ask the minister whether these kindergarten instructions do not cast a rather sad impression on the public servants who work for the Department of Transport. In fact, does the minister not find them somewhat insulting? Perhaps he might also inform the House whether he is planning a similar booklet of helpful hints on the use of government aircraft.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, after seeing that volume I found on checking that it was a reprint of a popular earlier edition which was designed to avoid certain caustic practices in transport facilities. I am happy to ensure hon. members that most readers of it found the prac-
Oral Questions
tices involved a little surprising. On checking, I found that the vast majority of Transport employees do not walk on their air conditioning units and never engage in many of the other activities involved. However, the volume is a serious effort to warn about some things which cause damage to property.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it may be serious but it is done in a rather kindergarten-like fashion. Can the minister advise whether this publication is exclusive to the Ministry of Transport or can we expect similar other publications affecting other government departments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will try to determine whether the idea is catching on.
[DOT] * *


POSSIBILITY OF GRANTS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO DEVELOP MEANS OF PRODUCING ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the government's commitment to a study of renewable energy resources, is it the intention of the minister to provide grants or other appropriate incentives to challenge the private sector of the economy to devise more efficient means of producing electric power from renewable resources?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making an announcement with regard to a new and expanded top-priority budget with respect to renewable energy resources in the very near future. I think the hon. member will find in that announcement a great deal of emphasis given to stimulating the entrepreneurship of the private sector.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it government policy or for that matter the minister's policy to permit an important regulatory body under his jurisdiction, namely the Atomic Energy Control Board, to completely reverse a very important decision to stop nuclear waste dumping in an area, after it has received continued representations from the local member in this House, the local provincial member and the local municipality reinforcing their original decision? Is it government policy to permit them to reverse that decision without any type of a public hearing or opportunity for input from those local groups?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to consider

February 1, 1977
Oral Questions
his question, I think he would realize that he rather over-stated the premise. He would find that rather than reversing its decision, the Atomic Energy Control Board in fact reaffirmed its intention to ensure there would be the kind of clean-up which he, as the representative of the area, and those on the government side are concerned about, that is to say the permanent management of a waste disposal site which will look after the continuing wastes from the important Port Hope refinery. The Atomic Energy Control Board has extended by six months the deadline which they had earlier placed on January 31.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why is a decision of that importance made by an agency under the minister's jurisdiction without the opportunity of public hearings?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to review the Atomic Energy Control Act he would find there is no provision for public hearings by the Atomic Energy Control Board. He raises an important point. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to assure him that work is going on now with respect to amendments to the Atomic Energy Control Act which will in fact provide that kind of authority to the Atomic Energy Control Board so that it can hold public hearings in the future. There are many other reforms I hope to be able to present to this House in the very near future.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why then would the Atomic Energy Control Board have a public hearing to which it invited public groups to make their representations one week after the decisions was made?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the Atomic Energy Control Board was explaining, and I applaud them for having taken that step, to the people concerned their approval with respect to a six month extension and that the whole question of the possibility of a refinery was dependent upon just not one decision, but a series of approvals by provincial government agencies and federal government agencies, including their own.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment to whom I have given notice. Is it the intention of the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries to close down unilaterally, without the formal request of the government of Ontario, sports fishing in the English-Wabigoon river system in northwestern Ontario?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The minister met late last week with the minister of the environment for Ontario to discuss this matter and other serious problems we
(Mr. Gillespie.]
have in common with that government. The minister has not yet made a decision on this serious situation. He has, however, asked me to assure the House and the hon. member that he will not do so on a unilateral basis.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO CANADIAN ARCTIC GAS PIPELINE COMPANY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from the news this morning that the Federal Power Commission in the United States has approved the Mackenzie Valley pipeline as the best means of transporting natural gas from Prudhoe Bay to the United States. In view of the fact the Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Company have asserted that they must have financial guarantees from the Canadian government before they can proceed, I ask the minister if the government has made a final decision with regard to the granting of financial guarantees to this company? If so, what is the nature of that decision?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has not made any decision, financial or otherwise, with regard to financial guarantees for any of the applicants before the NEB. Clearly, it would be premature for us to have done so. It is important as well to correct the impression that the hon. member has inadvertently created, that the Federal Power Commission has decided in favour of one of the applicants before them. Judge Litt has been acting on behalf of the board. His staff made a representation, he made a report and his report will now be considered by the Federal Power Commission which, in turn, will make a recommendation to the President. Quite clearly, a series of decisions have still to be taken by the United States agencies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is apparent that the present hearings before the National Energy Board are a farce and a waste of time unless the company which so far seems to have the inside track knows whether or not it is going to get financial guarantees. I ask the minister how soon a decision will be made so that Arctic Gas can either withdraw its application or proceed with the knowledge that it will not get financial guarantees from the Canadian government.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is important to point out to the hon. member that before any decision could be taken by the federal government on an important matter of this kind, the Canadian government would want to have received a formal application from one of the applicants seeking a guarantee of financial assistance. To my knowledge, no request has been forwarded to us, nor have we received one.
February 1, 1977


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying, then, that no financial guarantees have been given and that no financial guarantees will be given prior to the National Energy Board bringing down its recommendation with respect to the application by Arctic Gas for the construction of a pipeline from the Mackenzie River delta?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I said that we have not yet received a formal request from the CAGPL consortium for financial guarantees.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. A Toronto legal publisher has distributed a pocket version of the Criminal Code, still in circulation, that includes the gun control provisions of the former Bill C-83 and other provisions. I have been advised that certain police in the Toronto area and other areas have been showing this book to citizens. In light of the foregoing, is the minister, therefore, aware of this unusual practice and, if so, will he make it clear that his department does not approve of the practice of publishing a book containing provisions, which appear to be law, of a bill that died on the order paper when parliament was prorogued?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I presume that while the hon. member has not given names he is referring to a private publisher. I think he will appreciate that neither I nor the government control what private publishers may publish. If they have in fact published a book that purports to be the Criminal Code, and which is not the Criminal Code as passed by this parliament and given royal assent, then it is very unfortunate and I would ask them to withdraw it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then, may I put this to the Minister of Justice. As the top legal administrative officer of Canada he will appreciate that if a book is published as the Criminal Code which sets out provisions that died on the order paper and never got the approval of this institution or the royal proclamation, that in itself would be misrepresentation to the citizens of Canada, and of course we know that ignorance of the law is no defence.


CUSTOMS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the
Oral Questions
minister met with church leaders from Toronto with respect to the importation of material which the Minister of Justice confirmed yesterday is in contravention of section 159 of the Criminal Code, and, as a result of such meeting, what action is the minister taking to stop this illegal activity?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I did in fact have a meeting of slightly over an hour this morning with the representatives of an interdenominational group from Toronto at which they expressed the concerns of many Canadians. The hon. member wants to know whether we have taken steps in this regard. I explained to my visitors what we had done and took them to the departmental unit where those censorship measures are taken under the Customs Act. We then explained the purpose of our censorship which differs from that of the Department of Justice. I also explained how much I needed the full cooperation of the provincial solicitors general. The latter assured me of their cooperation but they will surely, if I am not mistaken, assume their share of the responsibility.
On the other hand, the committee made a very useful suggestion to me, namely that the ports of entry into Canada for trucks bringing in that literature be reduced to two or three and be located in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia where, if I may express myself in those terms, we could specialize in the matter.


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which follows upon the questions asked earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It having been reliably reported that the former solicitor general, now Minister of Supply and Services, personally hand-delivered the EPO list and the letter accompanying it to his colleagues whose names are mentioned, has the hon. gentleman now refreshed his memory and can he recall receiving that list personally from the former solicitor general; and at the time of this personal delivery was there a discussion between the two ministers as to the list and its contents?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously I would not generally comment upon discussions between privy councillors, but I can repeat what I said in the House the other day, that I have no recollection of having seen the proposed letter that was read into the record by the hon. member's colleague, if that is still the letter to which he refers.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister to come to the point. If he cannot recall directly, then can he recall the Minister of Supply and Services, the then Solicitor General, hand-delivering to him the

February 1, 1977
Oral Questions
letter dealing with this issue, and was there any discussion between the two ministers at that time? I am not asking what the discussion was, but was there a discussion between the two hon. gentlemen at the time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will see, if he looks at my answer, that the first part of the answer dealt with that matter. I would not ordinarily comment on discussions held between privy councillors.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, when he returns from Cape Breton, or wherever he is now.


Mr. MacFarlane:: He is delivering something to
Fundy-Royal.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I think he is delivering that list. This is a pretty serious matter.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Be serious, then, if it is serious.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You have just had a substantial increase in pay; I hope you will live up to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain would never be that rude and the hon. member knows it. Apologize.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, is it the position of the government that dismissal is a condition precedent to the operation of what surely we would all classify as the very humane and wise decisions of the former prime minister. Is the condition that a public servant has to be dismissed? If that is the condition, I must say that the civil liberties of many public servants have been seriously jeopardized and it is an unacceptably narrow view of the former prime minister's guidelines.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, that is not the point at all.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What were you saying earlier, then?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member ought once again to read what the former Prime Minister said when he referred to the new requirements. The first of the new requirements is to inform the person involved when his security or his reliability is in doubt, and it may have to involve his dismissal.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is the point; answer that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I said "and may have to involve his dismissal". Obviously, in this particular case the information that was drawn to the attention of the ministers was not of such a character that it would raise in anyone's mind the possibility of dismissal.


Mr. Stanfield:: Just destroy their careers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Halifax says "just destroy their careers". That is an irresponsible statement because the letter was circulated within the government as a secret, confidential letter among ministers. If there is any destruction of career involved, it must be attributable to those who divulged this sensitive document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INFORMING PEOPLE WHOSE NAMES ON BLACKLIST
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether a communication placed in the hands of a minister of the government and, when you add it up, involving several ministers and people does not constitute a threat to the future career of a public servant, whether in fact it turned out that way or not; and is it not consistent with the civil libertarian attitudes that this government and other governments have professed in this country to give such a person notice that such a charge has been made against them, whether it involves his dismissal or not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Opposition has raised the question of the effect of any information on the career of an individual. I believe that is the very serious question to which the former Prime Minister addressed himself very thoroughly in the guidelines which we have had under discussion. What I have said is a very faithful interpretation of these guidelines. It is not intended-at least, in my opinion it is not intended- that if there is adverse information about any public employee of any kind, it would necessitate either the responsible department having an interview with him or the security service having an interview with him. It is the type of information that would constitute in the mind of the person responsible for a judgment the opinion that it would so prejudice that person's reliability or his security standing that his continued service with the government would be put in jeopardy. It is in that context that Mr. Pearson's guidelines must be understood.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: of marine shipping and the offloading of petroleum products is required in order drastically to decrease the now large numbers of tanker accidents which interfere, on a long range basis, with the reproductive capacity of fish and cause their immediate, direct mortality. Since killing one or more species of sea life can affect other links in the oceanic food chain, and kill seals, whales, wild geese, ducks, gulls, etc., is the minister giving any consideration to the need for requiring substantial improvements in the vessel piloting system of ships entering our waters; is he giving consideration to requiring new ships to be double hulled for the protection of the environment, plus ensuring that the quality and number of licensed ships officers are maintained at a high level, which is not always the case when they are serving on ships that fly flags of convenience; and finally, will he ensure that comprehensive liability insurance be made mandatory to discourage carelessness and to cover those suffering damage from accidents?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, these matters are constantly being reviewed. As I have indicated to the House earlier, we have in Canada some of the firmest regulations regarding standards for equipment, construction of vessels and the certification of masters and others in charge of vessels entering Canadian waters.
We have also put into place the ECAREG system on the east coast whereby as ships approach our waters they are required to report and the whole system of computer information is available to determine the past history of the vessel and whether there are any risks concerning it. This is followed up by inspections when the ships are in Canadian ports to make sure these regulations are very effective. I can assure the hon. member that we have these concerns very much in mind and that Canada stands in the forefront in attempting to do what it can on its own in relation to the quality of ships entering our waters. It will take international action to ensure that similar action is taken on a broader scale throughout the world.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of testimony before the Public Accounts Committee by the former president of the Atomic Energy Commission. Has the government prepared, and the cabinet approved, a list of countries with which it is proper for the Atomic Energy Commission to deal in terms of selling nuclear reactors abroad?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not know of any such list, but I know that there are criteria which normally apply with respect to sales of reactors abroad. We have frequently discussed in the House criteria arising
Oral Questions
from the possibility of nuclear proliferation. These are among the tests which would be applied in all circumstances. But I am not aware of any such list as the hon. member has mentioned, though one may exist.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that a clear indication was provided this morning that such a list is available, would the Acting Prime Minister check and report back whether there is, indeed, such a list, and make it public so that the people may know with what countries AECL can deal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yesterday, I believe I intimated that I took a pretty dim view of the notion of pursuing the same inquiry in two places. One of the purposes of the standing committees is to pursue such inquiries apart from the House of Commons. If we rehash in the House of Commons what we do in committees, we might as well drop the idea of having committees.


Mr. Speaker:: I have paid careful attention to the questions asked. Questions can be asked which are in conflict with the proceedings before the committee. However, it is also possible to ask questions which are, really, only incidental to proceedings before a committee and which ought to stand on their own two feet. I thought the two questions asked by the hon. member were in that category.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the evidence by a senior U.S. official before a sub-committee of the United States Congress, which I have here, that the United States government continues to require subsidiaries of American firms to hold licences from that government to trade with Cuba, even in agricultural and other products completely of Canadian origin, will the minister ensure without further delay that the director of the combines branch take immediate steps to apply the new provisions in the Combines Act designed to block this unacceptable, extraterritorial application of foreign law to Canadian business activity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am unfamiliar with this report and would like to take the question as notice.

February 1, 1977
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As there have been delays in the distribution of forms and literature concerning the Canada Works Program, can the minister tell the House whether he is willing to extend the date of eligibility for those projects and so allow a larger number of groups to present projects under that employment program?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as a result of representations from the hon. member for Algoma, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for St. John's East and, now, from the hon. member across the way, I have indicated I am prepared to look at it, given the adverse weather conditions at the present time. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I should have mentioned, also, the hon. member for Saint-Denis. We have something in excess of $30 million in applications but I would prefer to wait until Friday before making a final determination.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The special joint committee on immigration policy stated, and I quote:
The committee recommends that immigration in future be treated as a central variable in a national population policy.
Will the minister table the government's demographic studies on which its well hidden national population policy is based in order that this information might be at the disposal of the House during second reading debate on Bill C-74?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It arises from a report that a former Montreal meat magnate is being detained by the Quebec Police Commission Inquiry into organized
{Mr. Abbott.)
crime. Will the minister request the Solicitor General to investigate the entire meat brokerage business which has created uncertainty and dissatisfaction within the meat industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, according to what I have read about the Quebec meat inquiry, the courts are handling it and seem to be doing a fairly good job. I am sure the Solicitor General is aware of the trial and any possible federal involvement.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In the interim, would the minister consider having the report of the Quebec meat inquiry presented to the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have made my feelings known. That report is not mine.


LEVELS OF PBB FOUND IN BEEF IMPORTED FROM MICHIGAN- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is my understanding that the tests on the Michigan beef that has been imported to this country done by scientists in the last few days have shown that traces of the chemical PBB have been found. I should like to know from the minister whether he can tell the House what levels of PBB have been found in that beef and what will the government do about it.


Eugene Whelan: We have received the results of the tests on the 77 carcasses that were in retention and only one of the carcasses has shown a significant level of PBB. It has been condemned and the rest have been released. We will still be running tests on beef from Michigan. All the carcasses will be tested. We are also running random tests on cattle from southwestern Ontario and western Canada. The tests on this cattle have shown no traces of PBB at all, but we will continue to monitor beef and make sure that it is safe for human consumption, in co-operation with other departments concerned.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of a joint communique and the federal-provincial memorandum of understanding in respect of the administration and management of mineral
February 1, 1977

resources offshore of the maritime provinces, which was signed today.


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: 921, 1,009, 1,010, 1,018, 1,045, 1,090, 1,268 and 1,389.


Mr. Howie: With respect to the five-year strategy for international development co-operation, to which countries and in what amounts is Canada offering loans at (a) no interest (b) 3% interest?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The following statement indicates that Canada has signed loan agreements having terms at 0 per cent interest, 10 years grace and 50 years maturity with 27 developing countries in 1975/76 for a total dollar value of 237.7 million. Similarly, three countries received terms at 3 per cent interest, seven years grace and 30 years maturity for a total of 6.4 million dollars in the same fiscal period.
New Loans and Loan Increases Signed in Fiscal Year 1975/76 (Millions of Canadian Dollars) Face Value of Agreements At 0 per cent At 3 per cent Interest Interest	
Algeria	0.2
Antigua	2.7
Barbados	3.1
Belize	1.0
Benin	5.0
Botswana	2.0
Cameroon	37.0
Colombia	5.0
Grenada	0.9
Guatemala	0.5
Guyana	2.1
India	12.9
Indonesia	27.0
Jamaica	0.4
Malawi	6.5
Mali	6.7
Order Paper Questions
Mauritania	4.2	
Niger	11.1	
Pakistan	61.2	
Peru	5.0	3.0
St. Vincent	0.5	
Senegal	3.8	
Sri Lanka	12.4	
Tanzania	1.7	
Trinidad and Tobago		0.3
Tunisia	12.5	
Upper Volta	3.7	
Zaire	1.7	
Zambia	10.0	
Total	237.7	6.4


Mr. Howie: 1.	What amount has been paid by CMHC either by loans or grants with respect to housing for Indians on reservations in (a) Fredericton (b) Kingsclear (c) Oromocto, New Brunswick?
2.	What housing assistance is available from CMHC for persons on the reservations and how many applications have been received since January 1, 1975?
3.	How many loans or grants were made by CMHC for housing for Metis or non-status Indians in New Brunswick since January 1, 1975 and what are the locations?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as follows: 1. Loans or grants with respect to housing have not been made to Indians on reserves in (a) Fredericton (b) Kingsclear (c) Oromocto, New Brunswick.
2.	Assistance from CMHC for housing is available to persons on reservations through loans under various sections of the NHA, such as Section 15.1 and Section 59. Since January 1, 1975, three loans for $63,000 have been approved under Section 59.
3.	(a) For loans to Non-Status Indians since January 1, 1975, see table following, (b) Grants under Part V of the NHA, to Metis and Non-Status Indians, since January 1, 1975, have been approved as follows: Skigin-Elnoog Housing Corporation:-sustaining grants $258,400; Skigin-Elnoog Housing Corporation:-start-up grant re project in Southwood Park, Fredericton $10,000; Skigin-Elnoog Housing Corporation:-grant to conduct a survey on housing needs $1,136. (c) Financing under Section 40 of the NHA for housing for Metis and Non-Status Indians since January 1, 1975, have been approved as follows: Skigin-Elnoog Housing Corporation:-to purchase and renovate 35 existing units at various locations $490,000.

February 1, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Financing under the National Housing Act,
Housing for Metis and non-status Indians,
New Brunswick, 1975-September 1976
Section 581	Section 402
Location	Loans	Units	$000 Loans	Units	$000Burton (Parish)	1	1	20 1	3	77Chatham	1	1	18	-	Fredericton	4	4	100	-	Gagetown (Parish)	-	-	- 1	5	158Kent (Parish)	1	1	3 -	Kingsley Road (York Co.)	-	- 1	9	285Ludlow (Parish) Minto	1	1	4 - 1	4	99Saint John	1	1	26 -	~~r	Westfield (Parish)	-	-	- 1	4	1101	Existing housing.2	New housing.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1975, what amount has CMHC spent for senior citizen housing in the county of (a) York (including Fredericton) (b) Sunbury County, New Brunswick?
2.	Have any applications been received from Oromocto, New Brunswick and, if so, what decision was made?
3.	Since January 1, 1975, has CMHC held any meetings to acquaint persons in Oromocto with its programme for senior citizen housing and, if so (a) on what dates (b) in what locations?
4.	Since January 1, 1975, have any advertisements been placed in the news media to advertise CMHC senior citizen programmes and, if so, in which publications and on what dates?


Harvie Andre: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. Since January 1, 1975, CMHC has approved loans for senior citizens' housing as follows: (a) York County-two loans for 40 units and 30 hostel beds, totalling $1,157,000. (b) nil.
2.	No applications for senior citizens' housing have been received from Oromocto, N.B.
3.	Since January 1, 1975, CMHC has held a number of meetings with representatives of the Oromocto Non-Profit Housing Corporation, to acquaint them with details of its programmes for senior citizens' housing, as follows:
(a)
March 12, 1975 June 10, 1975 July 7, 1975 September 8, 1975 October 8, 1975 December 1, 1975 May 6, 1976 May 17, 1976 June 22, 1976 August 24, 1976 September 7, 1976
(b)
Fredericton
Fredericton
Oromocto
Oromocto
Oromocto
Fredericton
Fredericton
Fredericton
Fredericton
Oromocto
Oromocto
4.	Since January 1, 1975, CMHC has not placed advertisements in the news media to advertise its senior citizens' housing programmes.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Did the Canada Council provide funds to Professor Jacques Brossard of the University of Montreal to study the legal steps by which a province could separate from Canada and, if so (a) in what amount (b) under what programme or policy (c) on whose recommendation?
2.	Have any similar studies been carried out under the auspices of the Canada Council by academics who were not committed separatists?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. See answer to Question 893 answered November 29,1976.
2. Several studies relating to federalism or Quebec nationalism have been carried out under the auspices of the Canada Council but none of these are directed specifically to the question studied by Professor Brossard. The authors of those studies were not required, any more than Canada Council grantees in other fields, to state their political affiliations.


Mr. Howie: How many home improvement loans were made to residents in the Counties of York and Sunbury, New Brunswick including all municipalities in the Counties and what was the total amount loaned in each fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976?


Harvie Andre: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
Home Improvement Loans approved, NHA section 28
Sunbury and York Counties, New Brunswick, 1973-75
County Sunbury	1973
	1974
	1975
York	1973
	1974
	1975
No	Amount
of Loans	$000
13	37
11	28
10	30
79	216
88	214
71	286
Note: The fiscal year of CMHC is the calendar year.

February 1, 1977


Mr. Howie: 1.	For each fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1970 (b) 1974 (c) 1976, how many female persons were employed as new personnel by Air Canada to serve as stewardesses or flight attendants and how many were residents of New Brunswick?
2.	How many New Brunswick residents applied for employment in each category?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) Not available, (b) Records for the years prior to 1974 are not available. However, between January 1 and December 31, 1974, a total of 146 were employed, of which five were residents of New Brunswick. In addition, 115 were employed for the summer period only. The company hires this latter group only from cities in which there is an in-flight base, allowing these short term employees to reside at home. Therefore, none were residents of New Brunswick, (c) Between January 1 and December 1, 1976, a total of 178 were employed, of which three were residents of New Brunswick. In addition, 60 were employed for the summer period only, none were residents of New Brunswick.
2. The term "flight attendant" is synonymous with stewardess, but also includes males because Air Canada has no employment restrictions for this category with respect to age, sex or marital status. Also, statistics are kept only on those candidates who were actually interviewed or who were hired. Further, flight attendant applications expire after six months and the application must then be renewed. No records of expired applications are retained. Total flight attendant interviews, New Brunswick-1970, not available; 1974, 60; 1976, 58.


Mr. Towers: 1.	Did the Combines Investigation Branch initiate an inquiry into the grain industry and, if so, on what basis or at whose instigation?
2.	Was there evidence of wrongdoing on the part of grain co-operatives and, if so, what are the details?
3.	Did an infraction occur due to an inadequacy or deficiency in the control of grain sales under the Canada Grains Act?
4.	(a) Are the salaries of officials of co-operatives tied to profit (b) is there evidence of fraud on the part of any individual (c) have producers paid all profits?
5.	On what grounds was the investigation authorized?
6.	Did the Canada Grains Commission fail to fulfill its duties and responsibilities?
Hod. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): In August, 1976, the General Manager of Manitoba Pool Elevators issued a press release and made public the fact that an inquiry into the affairs of a number of grain companies had been commenced. In the circumstances the Director of
Order Paper Questions
Investigation and Research (Combines Investigation Act) acknowledges this. However, the privacy provisions of the Act preclude him from making any further comments on the matter apart from saying that the inquiry was commenced pursuant to section 8 of the Combines Investigation Act.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the total national debt as of March 31, 1976?
2.	With reference to Canadian creditors, how many are (a) individuals (b) chartered banks (c) life insurance companies (d) other financial organizations and, in each case, in order of importance (i) who are they (ii) what is the amount of the debt?
3.	With reference to foreign creditors, in order of importance (a) who are they (b) what is the amount of the debt in each case?
4.	In each case of compound interest (a) what is the rate (b) for how long was the loan made (c) what are the terms of repayment?
5.	In each case of simple interest (a) what is the rate (b) for how long was the loan made (c) what are the terms of repayment?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. $38,299 million.
2.	At March 31, 1976 (a), (b), (c) and (d) Statistics on number of holders are not maintained. However, refer to the Bank of Canada Monthly Review Section 22 for distribution of dollar amounts.
3.	Not available.
4.	Not available.
5.	Not available.
Mr. Goot ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 148, 324 and 1,086 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of the Environment?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable Figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?
Return tabled.

February 1, 1977
Employment and Immigration AIB-CASES BEFORE BOARD 
Question No. 324-Mr. Orlikow:
Flow many times has the Anti-Inflation Board or individual members of the Board met with officials of companies or unions in relation to cases before the Board, and what are the names of the companies, unions or their officials in each case?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1974, how many persons have benefited from on-the-job training under manpower programmes in (a) Fredericton (b) CFB Gagetown at Oromocto (c) Oromocto, New Brunswick?
2.	With what firms were the trainees employed?
3.	What was the total amount paid in respect of all trainees for each of these employers during the same period?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jack Sydney George (Bud) 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I intend to concentrate my remarks today on the two main objectives of Bill C-27, the employment and immigration reorganization act, and to outline the basic reasons underlying the changes proposed in the bill. The tirst objective is to bring about the integration of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The second is to introduce certain changes into the unemployment insurance program.
On the subject of integration, Mr. Speaker, the main question I have had in my mind as the new minister of this complex portfolio is why integration is now appropriate, bearing in mind the decision taken about ten years ago to separate the employment service from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. A central factor is that conditions in the Canadian society-economy and the labour market of the late 1970s- are significantly different than they were in the late 1960s.

During the last decade there has also been an important evolution in our manpower programs and in unemployment insurance. Manpower services generally, and in particular the counselling, placement, training and mobility programs, as well as the newer job-creation programs, have greatly strengthened and matured. At the same time, the unemployment insurance program has been extended to cover almost the entire labour force and has come to play a much more significant role in the operation of the Canadian labour market and the Canadian economy. Indeed, we now have some of the most advanced employment and insurance programs in the world.
As a result of these changes, Mr. Speaker, the destinies of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission have become ever more closely linked. Indeed, the complementary nature of the work of the two organizations is illustrated by the fact that half of the claimants for unemployment insurance benefits now register with Canada manpower centres. Such claimants constitute 70 per cent of the total clientele of CMCs.
As a result of these developments, the two organizations have come to co-operate more and more closely, and ways have been developed to harmonize their programs and activities. This has been reflected, for example, in increased efforts to expose UI claimants to the counselling and job placement facilities of CMCs. While this harmonization and co-operation have yielded significant and positive results, it has become clear that a unified management is required to provide the best services to the Canadian public.
Specifically, we believe that integration will lead to substantial improvements to services through, first, a rationalization of the present network of local offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration; second, the conversion of most service points into one-stop centres where the complete range of services of the two organizations would be available to the public; third, the faster and more systematic exposure of clientele to employment services; and lastly, a simplification of the documentation required of clients and a streamlining of the procedures to be followed by them in using the services provided under the employment and insurance program.
It is also important to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the immigration program has had, and will continue to have, a far-reaching impact on the Canadian labour market. Thus, the inclusion of immigration in the mandate of the new organization will be essential to the achievement of an integrated approach to the development of employment programs. I say this recognizing, of course, the important social objectives and consequences of our immigration program.
The new integrated organization will consist of both a commission and a small support department. The new Canadian employment and immigration commission will be responsible for the administration of labour market programs and the policies underlying those programs. These will include the payment of benefits under the unemployment insurance program, immigration, recruitment, selection, settlement, enforce-
February 1, 1977

ment and control, placement, counselling and training, and the administration of other employment programs such as direct job-creation. It will also provide the administrative support functions for both the commission and the department. The support department of employment and immigration will be responsible for strategic policy development, program evaluation, labour market research and information services. It will help to ensure the closest possible linkages between labour market policies and program and the government's over-all economic and social strategies.
The effective fulfillment of the mandate of the commission will continue to require close co-operation and consultation between government, labour and business. Thus, the well-established policy of tripartite consultation and co-operation will be continued through the representation of workers and employers in the new commission. Indeed, the potential for effective co-operation will be enhanced, since the authority of the new commission will extend not only to the unemployment insurance program but also to labour market programs generally as well as immigration matters.
In this connection, Bill C-27 also makes provision for the establishment of a new Canada employment and immigration advisory council. Personally, I attach the highest importance to the role to be played by the new advisory council in terms of the government's approach to co-operation with the private sector in general and labour and management in particular. That is why I intend to recommend that high-level representatives of labour and management be appointed to the council, people with full authority to speak in the name of those whom they represent. In addition, there are many individuals in the community who are not directly representative of labour or management and who have significant contributions to make to the discussions on issues related to the Canadian labour market. They will also be given an opportunity to participate in the work of the council.
I should like to turn now to the second main purpose of Bill C-27, which is to introduce certain changes to the unemployment insurance program. There are three major changes proposed: first, an increase in the number of weeks required to qualify for UI benefits, so-called entrance requirement, from eight weeks to twelve; second, a change in the benefit structure which is the framework used to determine the duration of a claimant's entitlement to benefit; third, the authorization of more productive or developmental uses of unemployment insurance funds, including the use of such funds as income maintenance for claimant's participating in approved training courses, job-creation projects and work-sharing programs.
The eight-week entrance requirement to our unemployment insurance program has certainly been one of its more contentious issues on which there has been extensive discussion. For example, I have received briefs and letters strongly recommending that the requirement be increased to as many as 20 weeks. I have received equally strong recommendations that there should be no change. Those who have argued for an
Employment and Immigration
increase in the entrance requirement have done so mainly on the basis of concern about the incentive to work. An examination of the characteristics and behaviour of claimants with eight to eleven weeks of insured employment-the so-called "eight to eleven weekers"-strongly suggests that an increase in the entrance requirement would constitute for many of them an incentive to work longer. In general, eight to eleven weekers are younger than average, without dependants, and many are secondary earners in families. Basically, they have what might best be described as an intermittent or unstable attachment to the active work force.
The current entrance requirement, which is one of the most generous of any country in the world, provides an all too readily available financial inducement reinforcing unstable work patterns. In light of these characteristics and behaviour of eight to eleven weekers, it is not unreasonable to expect that a substantial proportion of them will work an additional one to four weeks required to qualify for the new twelve-week entrance requirement. For those who do not, we consider that there are other programs which are preferable alternatives to meeting their needs. These are the kinds of programs I announced in the employment strategy, ranging from the rehabilitative measures of training to actual employment in job-creation projects.
Another question which has been asked is: Why choose 12 weeks rather than, say, 15 or 20 weeks?


An hon. Member:: Or 30.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Our investigations have indicated that the eight to eleven weekers receive a significantly higher degree of subsidization from the unemployment insurance account and have a much more unstable attachment to the labour force than any other category of insured worker. In light of these factors, our judgment is that the twelve-week entrance requirement is, on balance, the most appropriate.
The second proposed change is the introduction of a new benefit structure. This will have several advantages. It will be simpler than current arrangements. It will be based on three phases, two of which are related to the number of weeks of insured employment and the third of which is related to local unemployment conditions. This will facilitate an easier comprehension of benefit entitlement and will simplify administration of the act. The new arrangements for benefit entitlement will also be more equitable. In particular, there will be a better balance between the number of insured weeks that a claimant has, and the number of weeks of benefit to which he is entitled in the initial phase of his claim. Provision will continue to be made for additional benefits for those with a longer labour force attachment. Finally, entitlement to regionally extended benefits will be much more sensitive to local unemployment conditions because it will be based directly on regional unemployment rates.
Thus, the new benefit structure is designed to curtail benefit entitlement to those with a relatively short labour force attachment living in regions of low unemployment. At the same time, it is designed to maintain appropriate insurance protection to

Employment and Immigration
those with longer labour force attachment as well as to those claimants who reside in regions of high unemployment.
Other changes will also be introduced into the benefit structure to enhance the motivation for work. For example, we propose to eliminate the four-week rule which now results in a claim being terminated if a claimant returns to work for four weeks in the extended benefit phase. This rule has proved to be a disincentive for claimants to return to employment, particularly when there is some uncertainty about the duration of that employment.
The changes in the entrance requirement and the benefit structure must be considered in the context of our over-all employment strategy. The savings arising out of these changes in the UI program will be redirected to programs designed to create new employment opportunities as well as to help prevent unemployment. In this way we will achieve a more effective allocation of resources in support of a range of employment programs tailored to meet the needs of those individuals, groups and areas of the country most seriously affected by unemployment.
There are a number of other specific amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which are proposed. For example, the right to appeal decisions of boards of referees will be broadened to give all claimants and employers the right to request an appeal to the umpire against the unanimous decision of the board of referees. At present, only claimants and employers represented by associations can appeal such decisions as a right. This amendment will be implemented after changes have been introduced in the appeal system in light of the findings and recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. I should also explain that Bill C-27 makes provision for an increase in the number of Federal Court justices who can hear appeal cases, in order to reduce the number of outstanding appeals.
The final area of proposed change in the unemployment insurance program is the introduction of authority to use unemployment insurance benefits in more directly productive or developmental ways. In this connection I should stress that unemployment insurance will continue to provide a vital measure of income protection to unemployed workers while they conduct an active job search to locate the most suitable and satisfying employment available to them. In this way the program plays a very productive role in Canadian society in maintaining skills, preserving dignity and preventing economic hardship.
There are instances, however, when the productive impact of the program is inhibited by factors such as obsolete or inappropriate skills, or the absence or shortage of employment opportunities in a particular area. In these circumstances the role of the UI program to facilitate job searches has, inevitably, a diminished applicability. I believe, therefore, that there is a need to work out program alternatives that would permit a more productive use of time while on claim. To this end I am proposing three developmental uses of unemployment insurance funds, two of which would be launched on a limited pilot basis.

First, the developmental use of unemployment insurance funds would provide for a streamlining of income maintenance arrangements for claimants on manpower training courses. We know that many individuals are unemployed because they lack appropriate skills, and that many of these individuals can benefit from occupational training or retraining. Under this proposal, trainees eligible for unemployment insurance on federally-sponsored training courses would normally receive their full unemployment insurance benefit as their main source of income maintenance.
This contrasts with the current arrangement under which claimant-trainees receive manpower training allowances, topped up with unemployment insurance benefits, when their level of unemployment insurance benefit entitlement is higher than their allowances. From the standpoint of developmental impact, this rationalization of financial arrangements should lead to a more effective allocation of resources and could, potentially, free-up resources for additional training.
Mr. Speaker, the second proposed developmental approach is the use of unemployment insurance funds as income maintenance for claimants on special job-creation projects. There are large numbers of unemployed workers receiving unemployment insurance benefits who cannot find employment, while at the same time many community-oriented projects cannot be carried out because of lack of funds to pay for such work. Under the proposed arrangements, unemployment insurance claimants would be given the opportunity of participating in job-creation projects on a purely voluntary, basis while they receive unemployment insurance benefits.
This approach would enchance the scope of job-creation projects and increase the number of individuals who could participate in them. I am very much aware that this is a new area which would require careful experimentation and evaluation. We would, therefore, propose to launch it on a pilot project basis to assess its proposed impact on unemployment and the labour market.
The third proposed developmental use of unemployment insurance funds would be in work-sharing arrangements. At present, when a firm faces a temporary emergency it normally cuts back on production and reduces the size of its work force. Many of the workers who are laid off will search for other work, move, seek training for a new occupation or remain unemployed. Typically, there are major losses involved in this process. Workers' skills may erode when they are idle and some of them may lose the habits and patterns of work that are important to their personal and economic well-being. When the firm is ready to rehire, it may find some of its former work force with weakened skills and some no longer available.
Work-sharing could reduce these problems. For instance, instead of one-quarter of a work force in a particular establishment being laid off, employers and workers could agree that it would be preferable for all of the work force to work a 30-hour week instead of a 40-hour week on a temporary basis. During the period of the arrangement, unemployment insurance ben-
February 1, 1977

efits would be paid for one-quarter of a week to all of the workers instead of for all the week to one-quarter of the workers. We also propose to launch this program on a pilot project basis to permit a careful evaluation of its results and potential impact and to ensure the support of workers and employers.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has had a very favourable reputation as an innovator in the field of labour programs and policies, and I think we have, in the proposed developmental use of unemployment insurance funds, another opportunity to demonstrate that spirit of innovation. It is a spirit conditioned by a sensitivity to the practical difficulties which could be involved. This is why we would propose to proceed with the job-creation and work-sharing projects on an experimental basis. Such experimentation is not necessary in the case of training, where we have had substantial experience with the training of unemployment insurance claimants and where our proposals involve mainly a rationalization of financial arrangements.
The annual funding level for all of the developmental projects will be set by the governor in council.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the main changes proposed in Bill C-27 and a brief explanation of their underlying rationale and objectives. We will, of course, have an opportunity of examining all of the areas in greater detail during the committee stage, at which time I will be presenting additional information on the proposed changes.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, once again we are involved in what I call a very significant debate. This is the third time we have had an opportunity to become involved with a bill which in its original form was brought forward in 1971, when it certainly brought about a lot of problems. The government has been playing around with it since then, hoping that eventually they could come up with an unemployment insurance scheme that the people would accept.
Today we are debating amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I want to repeat what the minister has indicated as the highlights. It provides for the establishment of a department of employment and immigration, the establishment of a Canada employment and immigration commission, the establishment of an employment and immigration advisory council, and the establishment of a three-phase benefit structure. The latter is actually an overhaul and simplification of the method used to determine a claimant's entitlement to benefit; that is, the benefit structure as proposed. The existing structure, based on five benefit periods, would be replaced with a simplified three-phase structure. In other words, the minister has found out that the five-phase structure was unworkable, cumbersome and inefficient. The three-phase structure will be made up of an initial benefit period, the labour force extended phase and a regional extended phase.
The initial phase is structured on the basis of strict insurance principles which would require that the number of weeks of benefit to which a claimant is entitled is closely related to the number of weeks a claimant has worked. One week of
Employment and Immigration
benefit would be allowed, therefore, for each insurance week of employment from a minimum of 12 to a maximum of 25 weeks. This move is long overdue. In the labour force extended phase, one week of benefit would be allowed for every two insurance weeks of employment over 25 insurance weeks. A maximum of 13 weeks benefit would be payable in this phase. The regional extended phase recognizes the need of high unemployment for additional income protection. From two to 20 weeks of benefits would thus be payable in this phase, reaching the maximum when the regional unemployment rate exceeds 8.5 per cent.
It is interesting to note that the government understands there is a problem with the regional differences that are maintained through its own ineptness and its mismanagement of the economy. It has now recognized the severe economic problems faced by people, say, in the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec as related to other regions of the country. The minister has admitted something further. The over-all maximum entitlement under the new benefits structure would be 50 benefit weeks to be drawn within a 52-week period. There is not much change there, Mr. Speaker: it was previously 51 weeks; now it is 50.


Mr. Rodriguez:: That is too generous.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is also proposed to do away with the present four-week rule which now results in a claim being terminated if benefits are not paid during four consecutive weeks in an extended benefit period. This rule is considered a serious disincentive to claimants who might otherwise take short-term jobs. All members have had many letters pointing out the inequality of this provision. It actually prevented people from taking that further step to try to become part of the labour force.
Another matter upon which I shall dwell at some length later, and which the minister tried to justify, is the increased pension requirement from eight weeks to twelve weeks. The government stole that policy without giving us notice.


Mr. Paproski:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister is blushing.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Back in 1971, when fewer were unemployed and the economy was healthier, I remember telling the minister who was responsible for bringing in this monstrosity of a law to include in the program incentives for work. I suggested that 12 weeks of employment should be a minimum qualifying requirement, but the minister said no. Mr. Speaker, I made that point six years ago.
It is apparent the government is not aware that national policies can effect detrimentally certain regions of the country. It is about time it began considering the realities of the new federalism. I understand that the thinking of the government has changed in that national unemployment insurance funds are to be used for training purposes. The minister elaborated on the point at some length. In other words, those on federally-

Employment and Immigration
sponsored courses are to receive full UI benefits. These, not manpower training allowances, apparently would be their main source of income. We must explore this proposal. The minister suggested that he is not sure how it will work, and that is why this will be a pilot project. The next pilot project mentioned involved job-creation. The next involved work-sharing. One can only conclude that after six years of thinking about them the government has come forward with pilot projects because it is not sure how they will work. Since they are to be pilot projects, we will need to examine them thoroughly.
There is another point which I am not sure the minister mentioned in his speech. We all heard what he said today- and he did not say a heck of a lot. I do not think he said that the right to appeal, which is now so restricted, discriminatory and harmful to claimants, will now be granted both to claimants and employers. I think such a move would be a step in the right direction because the provisions of the existing legislation are disastrous.
I understand that the National Employment Service Commission is to continue to function; it will continue to collect information, to ensure that discriminatory acts do not take place, and it will define and obtain information for the use of the commission. The minister neglected to say-not deliberately, I think-that the experience rating provision introduced by the former minister has now been judged to be disastrous. No regulations thereunder have ever been passed. I think the minister nods his head in approval of that statement. We brought the situation to the attention of the previous minister, but no, he disagreed with us-the experience rating provision was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now, seven years later, once more the government says that the opposition was right. I do not mind taking a little credit on behalf of my party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I say that particularly since some people in this country do not think that we on this side of the House have proposed good policies for Canadians.


Mr. Gilbert:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I suggest that hon. members should read the speeches members of my party have made and read what has been said in committee. If they do that, they will find that it has been our position that the experience rating provision is cumbersome, discriminatory and of limited effect. We said that in 1971. How the government opposite has survived in power is beyond me. It has stayed in power by procrastinating, playing hanky-panky with the people and giving away the taxpayers' dollars. It has not developed policies, as we showed some time ago.
I have dealt with some of the matters with which the bill deals. My colleagues in this party and other parties will explore various aspects of the bill, the introduction of which gives us all the opportunity to discuss the dismally unsatisfactory record of this government in developing the country for

the benefit of Canadians and creating jobs and growth, the potential for which could make us the envy of the free world.
When we discuss the economy of this country, we are discussing a sad state of affairs. The minister has brought in this bill in these sad times. As the Conference Board of Canada, the University of Toronto Institute of Policy Analysis, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have made clear, in 1977 and 1978 we shall face high unemployment, slow growth and some continuation of inflation. Those respected organizations have painted a picture of doom and depression facing this country, a situation which warrants a statement by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to the state of our economy so that the people of Canada may know what prospects they face. Unfortunately, the statements of those respected organizations, and our demands for a statement to show the people the kind of mess we are in, have fallen on deaf ears. The respected organizations mentioned have indicated that we shall have more jobless in this country unless Ottawa acts swiftly.
Mr. Speaker, many figures have been bandied about, but it is accepted generally, I think, that in 1978 about 875,000 of our people will be unemployed. In short, we must stimulate new business activity and increase consumer spending. Surely, the gloomy picture which has been painted is a powerful argument for the introduction of a budget, the highest priority of which ought to be job-creation. I say this because at present some 780,000 people, making up about 7.5 per cent of the labour force of Canada, are unemployed.
Unfortunately, the government has merely paid lip service to the solution of the unemployment problem. At present, the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is about 13.6 per cent; in New Brunswick, 11.1 per cent; in Prince Edward Island, 9 per cent plus; and in Nova Scotia, 9 per cent plus. We have learned lately of the unsatisfactory employment picture in Quebec where unemployment is running at about 10 per cent. The indications are that conditions will get still tougher in this country.
For all these reasons it is clear that the government has no idea of the extent of this country's unemployment or how to correct it. Surely, therefore, we ought to address ourselves to providing further business investment tax credits, cutting personal income taxes for those in low and middle income groups and bringing about the early removal of controls in order to restore the confidence of the business community and encourage needed investment.
When the government introduced its control program, it stole the idea from us. Unfortunately, it did not steal the right policy, which is why we are in our present mess. The government should have been wise enough to impose the freeze we advocated: it ought to have introduced a consultative process involving labour, management, concerned groups and provincial governments prior to the imposition of controls. In that way we could have known in which direction we ought to go. But the government did not do that. Instead, it chose to bring in its own version of that policy, with the result that the entire country is exercised about it.
February 1, 1977


John R. Rodriguez: But you wanted it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government stole the wrong version of our idea. After it had said for several months that it would not introduce anything like it because it had not worked in Great Britain and the United States, and would not work in this country, it said, in effect, "Therefore, in all honesty, we will not bring it in."


An hon. Member:: The minister changed his mind.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, he changed his mind. This is why his credibility is slowly going down the drain.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: "Slowly"?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Excuse me: "rapidly" going down the drain. In my view, this government still believes that its highest priority is the fight against inflation, something which according to the Prime Minister the government licked some time ago.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Wrestled to the ground.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They are still maintaining that position in terms of fighting inflation, when there are 800,000 people begging for some initiative from this government. There is no problem in terms of stopping inflation. Let me quote Milton Friedman, the noted economist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear hon. friends to my left. With that sort of calibre, is it any wonder that they cannot get any more than 15 or 16 seats. Milton Friedman stated:
We know how to do it. Every economist knows how to do it. I can specify it very simply. The only way to cure inflation is for the government to spend less and to print less. The only way to cure inflation is to hold down the growth in the quantity of money. There is no other way to do it. There is no device which will allow us to slow down inflation. The problem, however, is not how to stop inflation. The problem is to have the political will to do so.
In other words, Milton Friedman was talking about having the guts to move in the direction of stopping printing money and spending money. It has to stop. Failing that, we will end up as some other countries the names of which I will not mention for the moment. What concerns me is that this government does not have the intestinal fortitude to proceed accordingly and to give top priority to the problem of unemployment. The only thing it can think about now is bringing in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and we do not know whether they will be effective or not. The human cost of the neglect of this government, in terms of job-creation, is staggering. We pay about $4 billion in unemployment insurance between the government and the employer-employee premium. We lose billions of dollars in lost productivity, and we lose taxes in the millions, goodness knows how much, just as the result of this government not having as its top priority the creation of jobs.
That is the climate in which this government introduces amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, woefully ignoring the fact that tinkering now and again with the act is not the answer. The answer is the creation of jobs, if you want to reduce large expenditures on unemployment and reduce, if not eliminate, abuses and suspicions about unemployment insurance.
Employment and Immigration
With regard to this act, I had the opportunity to obtain advice from some of the provincial governments throughout this country. I would like to place on record a precis of some of the concerns that have been exhibited. One, the social assistance payments to the provinces may go up due to the eight to twelve-week change. Another, that the provinces be compensated for the loss of moneys from the UI payment by the use of funds for manpower training and job creation. Next, that genuine and close consultation occur between the provinces and the federal government prior to the implementation of the manpower program so that provincial priority needs will be met and the funds will be allocated in a way tailored to the provinces. Another point is that inadequate time was given for the provinces to make budgetary arrangements to offset the loss of revenue from the UIC changes or the planned programs to offset their negative effects. Another point made was that co-operation, co-ordination and consultation between the provinces and the federal government appeared in almost every letter as a key concern.
Let me talk about the province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, as I understand it, is committed to the use of direct employment programs in an attempt to meet the objectives of the Saskatchewan manpower policy. Year-round job creation aimed at high unemployment areas is not one of its highest priorities, since its economy is strong. More important to them is the maintenance of current volumes of employment, should an economic downturn occur in the future, in order to avoid out-migration of labour. The new policy should co-ordinate programs in a way designed to permit individuals to gain access to permanent employment with career promotional opportunities. They do not want more fragmented, short-term federal employment schemes. They feel that the eligibility for training with UI funds should not be restricted to UI recipients. They want assurances that federal funding under manpower training programs now in existence will not be curtailed. I do not know whether the minister knows all this. I will send him the letters, if he wants to see them.
I want to get into work-sharing in some detail. I do not know whether the minister is aware of the problems in Germany and other places in that regard. Saskatchewan feels it is a good idea, that it is consistent with their provincial manpower policies, but employers and employees should be consulted to ensure that the proposal does not interfere with the collective bargaining process. The low rate of unemployment in Saskatchewan, about 3 per cent, means that workers are subsidizing the unemployed in other provinces through their unemployment insurance payments.
What about Ontario? They agree generally with the conclusion of the federal analysis of the legislation and the changes indicated that are needed. They especially agree with the recommendation that efforts are needed to remove work disincentives and unnecessary costs from the program. However, they have some concern about the heavy reliance of the proposal on unemployment insurance as a means for income redistribution. That is the policy this government has been following for some time. Rather than have an insurance

February 1, 1977
Employment and Immigration
scheme, they have used it as income redistribution. Not only is the province of Ontario concerned about that but other provinces are also.
Another point the province of Ontario raised is that major unemployment insurance costs come from persons with weak labour force attachments, that is, the eight to eleven-weekers. Evidence suggests that raising the eligibility period from eight to twelve weeks will not result in a substantial increase in welfare costs. Evidence gathered by the Unemployment Insurance Commission review indicates that many people after eight to eleven weeks of work do not need to resort to welfare for income. The review doubts that alternate compensation schemes will be necessary. On the whole, it feels changes will be advantageous to Ontario and will put government funds to more productive use.
How about New Brunswick? They indicated that Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits will be reduced by $30 million in 1977; that is, a combination of Bill C-69 and the new changes. This will increase the social assistance burden of the province. They felt there was insufficient consultation; there was not enough lead time for them to express their concerns to the degree that they would have liked; that there was not enough time given for them to prepare, provincially, their budget to accommodate the increased social assistance burden or to develop alternate programs to offset some negative implications of the changes. They too, want discussion and consultation on the employment strategy; in other words, the Young Canada Works program envisaged by the minister as job-creation and work-sharing. They want to have input into their development because it should reflect the manpower, economic and social policies of New Brunswick. They also state they must have provincial consultation during the development of the program if the program is within provincial jurisdiction. With regard to work-sharing, this province is concerned that a doubling of staff may be needed to administer it, and that co-operation exist between labour and management and both levels of government. They, too, say that savings from the UIC should return to the provinces in such a manner that positive, continuing-I repeat, positive, continuing-results occur.
What about Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker? We have ignored that province. We have shamefully neglected it, not only in regard to this aspect but in regard to all other aspects. This province has calculated that the UIC changes will cost the province $12 million to $15 million, assuming that 50 per cent of the eight to eleven-week workers find they work for the additional required weeks, as the various studies show. It has also been calculated that the federal government will spend at least that much on job-creation and manpower training programs. It is anticipated that included in the target group for new or expanded manpower programs would be welfare recipients who otherwise would have continued on unemployment insurance if the changes had not been made. The province would control escalation of welfare costs because of the changes.

As for Alberta, Mr. Speaker, they intend to support the proposed amendments because the benefit duration is more closely related to the previous labour force attachment. Alberta also states that the benefits will be more insurance-oriented than the current ones, and the over-all effect will be a minor tightening of unemployment insurance in Alberta. They also state that the federal government and the provinces together should provide income support; that therefore changes at either level can have an impact magnified by lack of deliberate consultation and co-operation between the jurisdictions. Notice, Mr. Speaker, how there is continual reference to co-operation, consultation and co-ordination. This seems to be the big thing with that province. They also state that costs added to provincial programs and services as a result of UIC changes should be compensated; that consultation take place immediately because of differences in the requirements of federal and provincial budgetary cycles.
With regard to the three-phase benefit structure, as far as Alberta is concerned they view phase 7 as the insurance phase, with benefits related to length of employment and paid from premiums. The extended phase 2 and phase 3 appear to be primarily income maintenance. Since Alberta believes that UI should be primarily an insurance scheme, phases 2 and 3 are viewed as part of the program only in the absence of a support-supplementation program.
I propose to deal now, Mr. Speaker, with some of the provisions of the act. Having brought to the attention of the minister the concerns of the provinces, I should like to talk about the integration of manpower and unemployment insurance. I have already stated that this has been our policy. We have always called for this. This is what we now call the one-step approach which was brought forth and, let us say, magnified by the Economic Council of Canada. The one-step approach envisages counselling, payment of benefits and the placement of jobs all under one roof. What we have had in the past is frustration in the area of payments, duplication of documentation, one bureaucracy paying out money and the other trying to find jobs, neither knowing what the other was doing. In my view this has cost us millions of dollars.
I have some concerns about this policy. It has not been spelled out by the minister sufficiently for us to be aware of some of the answers. What will be the function of a counsellor, as opposed to that of a benefit control officer? Will they have the same job? If so, a lot of hardship can arise, with one guy supposedly counselling a claimant and the other guy trying to kick him off unemployment insurance. We will have to watch very carefully whether they are one and the same.
Will there be greater bureaucracy as a result of this? I thought perhaps there would not be, but I have some misgivings about it now. I thought that as a result of the shifting and integrating of staff, we were talking about one group policy rather than creating a whole new bureaucracy. We will have to watch the minister in this respect, too. How long will it take, Mr. Speaker, to bring about this one-group concept? Are we close to it? I get press releases from the minister's office and his departmental officials saying that someone else has a job
February 1, 1977

and that the minister is responsible for this and that, but it does not make any sense in terms of how simple will this integration, or marriage, be so far as meeting the needs of claimants is concerned.
I have a few other points I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the proposed new department of employment and immigration which now will have an associate deputy minister. The duties of the commission advisory council are less clearly defined. For instance, the new commission will perform duties as required in relation to any matters for which the minister is responsible. That is really a sweeping generalization, and I hope it is not true. Previously, the commission's duties related specifically to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Similarly, the advisory council will advise the minister on all matters to which the powers, duties and functions of the minister extend and is no longer assigned any particular responsibilities.
What is going on here? Is the minister not going to have anything to do? Is he going to abdicate his responsibilities? I will not tell Your Honour what I think he said; I will just continue with my speech. Nevertheless, we will want to know whether his responsibilities are staying with him, or are they going to be channelled to some nameless bureaucracy? If so, we take a dim view of that, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the chairman of the commission will be the deputy minister of the department; the vice-chairman will be the associate deputy minister. The chairman of the advisory council may be appointed for an indefinite term, whereas the term previously was for three years. Why this change?
Members of the advisory council may now receive remuneration as well as expenses and allowances as authorized by the governor in council. Previously, members, other than the chairman, could only receive travel and living expenses and a per diem allowance if approved by the minister-not remuneration. I would remind the minister that we are in a period of restraint, and I suggest he will have to answer for this. What is a little more disturbing is that there is no requirement that the advisory council must meet. Previously, they had to meet at least once a year.
Annual reports should be prepared by the council, and the minister should table the same in order that the public might be aware of the areas of disagreement and the consensus which exist within the membership of the council. All this has been secret so far. The minister does with it what he pleases, and we are left in the dark.
I should like to bring some other matters to the attention of the House. In the new bill there is no mention of the continued existence of the various advisory boards which are presently provided for in legislation. Where is the advisory board on adult occupation training? Where is the advisory committee on the co-ordination of rehabilitation services for disabled persons? Where is the advisory committee on the adjustment of immigrants? Where is the advisory board on manpower and
Employment and Immigration
immigration research? These are some of the questions I have to ask with respect to the merger.
Now let us turn to the 12-week amendment. The Gill report of 1962 stated that unemployment insurance should basically be a plan to deal with short-term, fractional and cyclical unemployment and that it is not an appropriate program to provide for structural unemployment or for the seasonally unemployed. In this light it recommended that a test of at least 20 full weeks of employment in the preceding year be established as the eligibility requirement, except for new entrants and those who moved in and out of the labour force frequently. The recommendations of this commission reflected the view that the minimum qualifying period should be long enough to establish that insured employment had an important, if not a principal, place in the claimant's manner of earning a living, and enough to establish that he has not entered insured employment solely for the purpose of qualifying for benefit. The objective of greater regional equalization should be met by other than an insurance scheme.
Nevertheless, eight years later the white paper on unemployment insurance, upon which the 1971 unemployment insurance amendments were based, noted that under the scheme envisaged benefits would be paid more on the basis of need than length of time in the work force, and the program in some respects calls upon the good will and responsibility of more fortunate, better placed Canadians toward those who, through lack of education and opportunity, are in less secure occupations.
Criticism came from left, right and centre-from all quarters of the country-with respect to the program brought forward in 1971. People were concerned about the work disincentives implicit in generous benefits. They were concerned about the increased importance of the welfare aspect rather than the insurance objective of the program. They were worried because they felt it was not actuarially sound.
Now, in 1977, the government is tightening up the program in an attempt to bring unemployment insurance more into line with the realistic principles of an insurance program and with the realities of the labour market by extending the qualifying period of eight weeks to twelve weeks. Coupled with the new three-phase benefit structure proposed, the twelve-week amendment will increase the correlation between real labour force attachment and access to protection through the unemployment insurance program. But Canada still enjoys, and will continue to enjoy, the most generous unemployment insurance benefits in the world. Sometimes I wonder if that is a proper position for us.
I am very much aware of the findings of studies regarding the minor employment group. I am aware that 80 per cent have no dependants; that approximately 50 per cent are under the age of 25; that many are secondary workers, working wives and youths living at home who belong to families with incomes in the middle to upper income range. There is a great tendency for these people to exhaust their benefits. Seventy per cent of all eight to eleven weekers find work within six weeks of exhausting their benefits.

February 1, 1977
Employment and Immigration
I am also very much concerned about the attitude of some provinces with respect to the possible enlargement of their welfare rolls as a result of the amendments we are considering. I am also conscious of the fact that to be unemployed in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan is very different from being unemployed in the Atlantic provinces, since it is much easier to find a job in the former areas than in the latter. Economically developed areas offer greater opportunities to get jobs. In the Atlantic provinces, or the economically depressed areas of the country, opportunities are significantly less. The existence of regional disparity in all its forms calls for flexibility in our approach to this amendment.
Notwithstanding the fact that we accept the 12 weeks, what we seem to have forgotten is that in this day and age, in the new federation, national policies must sooner or later reflect the needs of the several regions of the country. That is what federal-provincial confrontation is all about. The provinces want a new federalism. They want a sensitive government, one which is aware of and concerned about their needs. As I said a moment ago, the existence of regional disparity calls for flexibility, especially at this time, in relation to the amendment before us.
We do not know how successful Canada Works will be. We do not know how successful Young Canada Works will be. The minister said he hoped some 60,000 jobs would be created. At the moment he seems to have made a boo-boo. Right now, as I understand it, the position is this: the forms were not distributed equally throughout the nation-some had them, and others did not. The time allowed for the completion and filing of these forms is unrealistic. The date is February 4. Yet the minister tells us today he is still considering whether the program should be extended. He says some $30 million has been taken up. Has he forgotten we are talking about a $200 million program?
The minister told us two or three days ago that he is still looking at this matter. Perhaps he is looking for a miracle. Something is wrong. Industrial leaders and others fear there will not be sufficient time in which to take advantage of the program. The minister can take this as notice for action.
We do not know how successful this pilot job-creation program will be, so we cannot estimate its impact upon the UIC in terms of savings. We have no idea whether the government is prepared to make job-creation a serious priority. Questions are asked of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). Questions are put to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). He said he does not like to reveal his plans because the opposition will make hay in terms of the unemployment rate-I am paraphrasing what the minister told me. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how seriously that gang is treating this fundamental human problem of unemployment.
I was talking a few minutes ago about regional disparity. We can see no improvement in terms of regional economic expansion. As I understand it from my hon. friend from Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), the policy is not getting the results it should be getting in terms of job-creation. To date, we do not know whether there will be an April budget designed to

stimulate the economy. The minister likes to play games. He says "before June", or "after March", or "bientot"-the minister smiles because I use that word. I am expressing a concern which is extremely important to Canadians, particularly to the 700,000 or so who are unemployed, and this number is envisaged as likely to be around 100,000 more in the future. We do not know what is happening to the Anti-Inflation Board. All I know is that the Minister of Finance believes it is harming economic development, and that officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce holds the same view, as does the chairman of the AIB.
So as it stands now, because of this government's insensitive and ineffective performance we feel that regional differences must be recognized not in words but in deeds. Accordingly, because of our concern and because of the lack of response by the government, I now advise the House that my party will move an amendment to clause 17. This is in general what we intend to do. We propose the following amendment:
In high unemployment regions, the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations
-lowering from 12 weeks down to a minimum of 8 weeks the number of weeks referred to in subsection 16(1) and 17(2)(a);
-defining high unemployment regions, delineating the boundaries thereof and determining residence and eligibility within such region;
-setting a date of termination for any such regulations-
Notwithstanding the fact that we abide by and stick to the 12-week eligibility period, we find that it is time now to consider national policies to meet regional needs. That is what federalism is all about. The present uniformity of policy has created tension and frustration within confederation.
Let me now proceed to another matter which the minister has touched upon, namely, work-sharing. I know that the minister has much expertise with respect to this innovation, but I would like to make a few comments on this matter. For many years statutory unemployment insurance or assistance schemes in France, Germany, Great Britain and Sweden have contained provisions covering payments for partial unemployment. In most countries there is a limit to the time for which partial unemployment benefits are paid.
The average French manufacturing worker now receives roughly half of the regular hourly wage as short-time compensation. Short-time payments are financed partly by the company concerned and partly by the public assistance scheme. The number of workers on short time in France rose from
19,000	in July, 1974, to more than 200,000 a year later.
In Italy, short-time benefits for workers with a permanent job in either industry or construction are paid by an employer financed fund set up originally by collective agreement and subsequently covered by legislative decrees. That is an extremely important point. The benefits now replace approximately 80 per cent of gross earnings for up to 40 hours a week. Short-time benefits in this case replace a greater proportion of earnings than do regular unemployment benefits for industrial workers. A very steep rise in the number of hours compensated followed the widespread use of short-time work in Italy. In the

first half of 1975, hours compensated increased fourfold in industry and represented 3 per cent to 4 per cent of total hours worked.
In 1975 Germany increased the maximum duration of shorttime benefits from six to twelve months, and to twenty-four months under certain conditions. The scheme is primarily financed through the unemployment insurance system. Shorttime payments have played an important role in protecting many workers threatened by dismissal. The number of workers on short-time rose from 292,000 in 1974 to more than 900,000 in May, 1975. In October, more than 700,000 workers were still on short-time work schedules. The practice of work-sharing in these countries has helped to keep unemployment rates lower. However, in the three countries mentioned above the numbers of workers that were on short time went up tremendously after the institution of work-sharing, meaning the cost of unemployment insurance could have been higher than if lay-offs were used.
Is work-sharing an artificial means of lowering the unemployment rate? For example, does it mask the true magnitude of the problem? The minister will have to ask his officials to answer that question in order that we get to the truth of the matter. I am not saying the minister has misled us, but we put the minister on notice that there are significant problems with respect to this work-sharing program. If there is a question of prolonged periods of work-sharing, would some of these workers be better off retrained in a skill in demand?
The major social value to this is that the employees do not lose contact with the work world and are not completely idle. That is of major social value to the employees. According to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, their worksharing proposals will be designed to help employers retain a full force on a reduced work week, rather than laying off part of their work force. Employees who would otherwise be laid off will receive wage supplements so that their income will be higher than possible UIC benefits, but lower than their normal earnings. This will allow the employee to retain employment and save his or her possible turnover costs such as training new employees or finding new employees. Work-sharing should be implemented on a pilot project basis starting October, 1977.
There are some areas to which we should give further thought. From their description, work-sharing may not be applicable to service industries or continuous process operations. Work-sharing in these areas is better implemented through rotation of employment rather than reduction in the work day, since in industries certain hours must be kept for customer service. Let me spell out some of the advantages of this plan for work-sharing that will accrue to the employer. First, overhead costs may be lowered because of reduced operation of the plant, and so on. Second, work-related costs will fall since for all workers on work-sharing the employer will not have to make UIC contributions. Third, it will save the employer possible turnover costs when production resumes at a normal level.
However, there are disadvantages for the employee, and I want to put these on the record because it is upon these
Employment and Immigration
concerns and the answers we get that we will be able to determine whether the type of program the minister envisages will be of maximum benefit to the employee. Much union opposition stems from internal politics-the senior members generally outnumber the junior members-so that in lay-offs based upon seniority they will not be laid off. Why should they sacrifice their full salaries? Second, it may not give them enough useful time to take another part-time job or to make an effective job search. However, they have the advantage of not being completely unemployed and are receiving incomes higher than possible UIC benefits. Third, theoretically, worksharing can be a substitute for lay-offs, regardless of the extent. However, too large a reduction may result in increased UIC costs or in an income for the worker equal to UIC benefits. There must be some limit set out regarding the use of work-sharing: in some countries, and in some collective agreements, reductions beyond one-third of the work week are considered better dealt with by more appropriate methods.
Beyond a certain level, work-sharing may not be practical for the employer or tolerable for the employee, particularly for extended periods. There may be the possibility of abuse by employers wishing to take advantages of the benefits of worksharing, even though the program is to be governed by stringent eligibility criteria. One provincial premier has claimed that work-sharing will cost a tremendous amount administratively, as much as double the present cost. We will have to look into that. But the key is flexibility in designing and administering work-sharing so that it can best accommodate the needs of the employer and employee in each case.
I notice that under the bill the governor in council may make regulations. We will have to be advised of the regulations from time to time when this pilot project is brought in, so that we are aware of the problems and of the progress which we hope will be made if the program is acceptable. This may present problems in terms of the extent of the commission's power to impose an agreement on management and labour; that is, it could interfere in the collective bargaining process. The International Union of Electrical Workers has stated that although it is not against work-sharing per se, it is against government-mandated work-sharing. There may be difficulties in enforcing the program. I know, from having discussed this matter with both labour and management, that they oppose work-sharing based in part on a study of the problems encountered in other countries.
Those are my few remarks at this time. Other hon. members on this side of the House will be involved in this debate. In terms of job creation, we now throw the ball back to the minister, because if the things about which I have talked in terms of Young Canada Works, Canada Works, budgets, job-creation, the Anti-Inflation Board, and regional economic expansion programs, do not take place, then what I have done is indicate to the minister that the amendment we will be proposing shows that there is a need for us to be very much concerned about and aware of the problems caused by federal policies across this country.
2600

Employment and Immigration
The minister may not have to accept this amendment, but in the long run the onus of proof is on him. So, subject to the several reservations I have mentioned, we will support the bill at second reading in order to get it into committee where many questions can be asked and answers given, hopefully to make this bill a much better one than it is at present.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and to the spokesman on manpower, immigration and unemployment insurance from the official opposition, I do not think this bill should be discussed in the House of Commons. I think it should be discussed in the criminal courts of Canada, because it is an assault by the government on the unemployed people of this country and the Tory party should be charged under the Criminal Code as an accessory before, during, and after the fact. What I have heard is an absolute travesty of what is right.
It is significant to note that there are no Newfoundland Tories in the House. Newfoundland is an area of very high unemployment. I do not see any Tories from Nova Scotia in the House. I do not see any Liberal members from Newfoundland or from Nova Scotia, and both those areas have very high unemployment levels.


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that there is a member here from Nova Scotia, the member of parliament for South Western Nova.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I apologize to the hon. member. I suppose she must have slipped in from behind the curtains.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, again on a question of privilege, I think most hon. members know that I have been in the House most of the afternoon, particularly when the minister and the hon. member for the official opposition were speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that he get back to the provisions of Bill C-27.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I think it is wrong to name any hon. member who is not in the chamber at this time when there are committee meetings and subcommittee meetings. I think the members of the NDP should just stick to the legislation which is before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that there is quite a coalition here this afternoon. It is fine for the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to talk about

unemployment, cheaters and people unemployed for a period of between eight and twelve weeks. I suspect that the unemployment rate in Hamilton is very low indeed; it is an area of high employment. I have been with the hon. member in committee when we have discussed bills dealing with changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, in particular Bill C-69, and I have heard the hon. member prod the government for changes to the act along the lines which the minister has brought forward this afternoon. It is all right for those who come from areas of high employment to take a very scathing look at people who are on unemployment insurance, but those people are always in deprived regions of our country. It is easy to be moralistic about those who are collecting and those who have a minor attachment to the work force.
However, for the purpose of my remarks regarding Bill C-27, I think it is convenient for us to look at its proposals in three major parts. The first deals with the so-called reorganization of unemployment and immigration. The second part deals with the substantive changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, and they are those which change the minor attachment period from eight weeks to twelve weeks and deal with the length of time during which benefits are paid to claimants. The third part deals with housekeeping amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
With regard to the first major change proposed in Bill C-27, namely, the unification of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the UIC to form the Canada employment and immigration commission with what the minister calls "a small, supporting department," hon. members will instantly recognize that this attempt is similar to what happened in the past with all the king's horses and all the king's men. However, there is one significant difference. In this case the people who took Humpty-Dumpty apart are exactly the same people who now are going to put him together again.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And he will be scrambled in the process.


John R. Rodriguez: He will be scrambled in the process. But what was being said in 1965 and 1966, when the government and all its agencies were calling for separation of the national employment service from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, as recommended in the Gill report after an inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Act? As a result of that report, the national employment service was transferred to the Department of Labour in 1965 and to the Department of Manpower and Immigration in 1966.
The separation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission from the national employment service and its corresponding department was called for on the ground that the national employment service was for too long considered and adjunct and rather subordinate to the insurance plan. The effectiveness of the national employment service in terms of a national manpower policy was being hampered by its ties to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The two had to be separated so that the national employment service could occupy a leading position in the efforts to solve unemployment problems.
February 1, 1977

Without such a separation there would continue to be an overlapping of efforts and an inadequate provision of staff, facilities and services for the national employment service. We know what resulted from the time of separation to the present. We in this party argued against that dismemberment. We opposed the split of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
We said at that time that no government could look at unemployment without looking at employment in tandem: they could not be looked at separately. But it took this government 11 years to discover that. The government proceeded with the split and began building two empires, with two commissions, two advisory councils, two parallel staffs operating in total isolation in Sudbury, for example, as in many cities. The Canada Manpower offices in Sudbury are hidden in downtown Sudbury, while the offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission are isolated in suburbia and are inacessible by public transportation. The results are Towers of Babel, built at exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, that are just a holding action against rising unemployment-and in some cases not even that.
What does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration say now? In the document entitled "Highlights and Information Papers on the Employment and Immigration Reorganization Act" he says:
This proposal would produce a new organization capable of providing a one stop service to clients and would facilitate a more integrated approach to the planning and administration of employment, unemployment and immigration programs in Canada.
How wonderful, Mr. Speaker! How much is this reorganization to cost taxpayers, and what about all the back-scratching and in-fighting that has already started as these two units are put together again? What effect will that have on the morale of the departments and, ultimately, on the quality of service to the unemployed? We ask these questions because it is very important to consider what is taking place in putting these monoliths together. We can see the problems. Look at what they have put before us. We can see this minister and his bureaucrats wrapping themselves around organizational charts, beautiful flow charts, an experimental unit and pilot projects, to the exclusion of our most pressing problem- unemployment. They have their little plots and charts in the boardrooms, while the unemployed lines grow.
The second aspect of Bill C-27 which I should like to discuss is the substantive changes which affect minor attachments to the work force, a new benefit structure, and something called "developmental use of unemployment insurance funds." There are times, Mr. Speaker, when one wonders if this House is not a cuckoo's nest. This is one such occasion. The minister proposes a change in the minor attachment period from eight to twelve weeks. Since the May, 1976, budget the minister has run around the country throwing out figures here and there to show that people affected by this change are what he calls kids and housewives.
Employment and Immigration


An hon. Member:: An insult to the adults of this country.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. His most recent argument is that the eight to eleven week people are cheaters: they take their benefits until they run out, then take a job for another eight weeks and collect again. I am not surprised at the position taken by the hon. member for Hamilton West. He wants to suck and blow at the same time, and represent to the Atlantic provinces and such places that the Tories are concerned about their unemployment plight; but at the same time he has to satisfy the other parts of Canada which think the unemployment insurance scheme is a disincentive to work.
As far back as May 28, 1975, when the hon. member was in committee with me and we were discussing Bill C-69, he raised the question of going from eight weeks to twelve weeks with the then minister of manpower and immigration, who is now President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). The minister replied:
I think it is a bit of a red herring myself. I think there are other areas that have to be tidied up in the act that are far more significant than that favourite whipping boy the short term work claimant.
I think it is appropriate for the present minister to know that, so that there can be some continuity. In response to the whole question of laziness of minor attachment claimants which the hon. member for Hamilton West raised in committee, here is what the former minister said:
If you examine where those short term attachment people are, you will find that they coincide with areas of this country that have the more chronic conditions of high unemployment. . . they occur in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to a higher degree because the conditions of disparity there are such, that people get marginal jobs, which are almost coincidental with short term attachment jobs ... so I think we have to be extremely careful before we tamper with this.
He was referring to the qualifying period. Later in that meeting, in response to the hon. member and his Tory colleagues on the question of the minor attachment claimants being cheaters, the former minister said:
The incidence of disentitlement or disqualification, as an effect of failure to meet one's obligations under the act, is lower amongst the group with a minor attachment to the work force as their proportion of the total claims load than those with a long term attachment to the work force.
When we consider this particular amendment, we must ask: Who are these minor attachment claimants? Are they the kids and the housewives that the minister has alluded to? Where are they located? Is it Hamilton West, Lambton, or where? The figures for the first three months of 1976, which are the only figures available at this time from the department, show that 62 per cent of all unemployment insurance recipients who had worked eight to eleven weeks are located in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. To show the importance of short-term work in the Atlantic region, the figures reveal that of all recipients in the first three months of 1976, 21 per cent had been able to get work for only eight to eleven weeks. In contrast, the figure was 11 per cent in Ontario, 10 per cent in the prairies, 14 per cent in British Columbia and 15.6 per cent in Quebec.
To reinforce that even further, on a recent visit to Newfoundland, members of this party learned from the United
80008 - 2714

February 1, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Allied Fishermen's Union of Newfoundland that last year, of
1.000	fish plant members in three or four communities from St. Anthony to Twillingate, 400 got less than 12 weeks employment, 200 got less than 16 weeks, and the rest less than 20 weeks. Unemployment Insurance Commission officials in St. John's told us that 48 per cent of all claimants in Newfoundland had between eight and nineteen weeks of contributions.
Mr. Speaker, we know where the minor attachment claimants are, and we should now look at who they are. The government estimates that with an unemployment rate of 7 per cent, 330,000 people will be eliminated from receiving the benefits with the increases in the qualifying period to 12 weeks. According to the government's own estimates, the
330.000	will break down as follows: under 20 years of age,
64.000	people; 20 to 24, 96,000; 25 to 34, 74,500; 35 to 44, 41,000; 45 to 54, 35,000; 55 to 64, 19,000; male, 214,000, and female 116,000. To listen to the minister and his advisers- his lackeys-in the department, the minor attachment claimants are kids and housewives. The facts show that it "ain't so", Mr. Speaker. I wish the minister would stop making these allusions across the country, because they are nothing but false rhetoric.
Let me make another interesting point. In June, 1976, a month when many students were on the job market and unemployed in large numbers, only 12.5 per cent of unemployment insurance recipients, according to the minister, were kids under 20 years of age. Adult women made up 41.7 per cent of all recipients, and adult men 45.8 per cent. Also, what about the myth that unemployed women receiving UIC payments really do not need them? That myth has been bandied about by both major parties in this House. They say that so many of these housewives are working for pin-money.


Mr. Orlikow:: They are married either to economists or civil servants, if one believes the major parties.


John R. Rodriguez: Let me deal with the myth which says that unemployed women receiving UIC benefits do not need those benefits. Consider the facts which are supplied by the minister's own department. In August, 1976, Statistics Canada published a study of unemployment in 1973 and 1971. It was found that in both years unemployed wives tended to come from families with low incomes. For example, in 1973 the unemployment rate for all wives was 13.5 per cent; for those from families with incomes between $4,000 and $6,999 the rate was 21.4 per cent, and for those from families with incomes over $15,000 it was 8.6 per cent. As we might suspect, unemployment among low-income women was a real problem. The women in $4,000 to $6,999 group contributed 22 per cent of the family's income when they were working. The women in the $15,000 and up category contributed only 17 per cent. To add salt to the wound, so to speak. Bill C-27, in simplifying the benefit structure to a three-stage arrangement, will cut back the amount of benefits to most recipients. Again, this change will have dire effects on areas of high unemployment.

I was interested to hear the hon. member for Hamilton West delineating the amendment his party wishes the House to consider. Unfortunately, either he did not read it or did not take advice on that part of the bill the amendment seeks to change, because his party's proposal is discriminatory as well. Let me give some examples. In Nova Scotia, a person who has worked 20 weeks would get 51 weeks of benefit under the present system; that is to say, he would have contributed for 20 weeks and would collect unemployment benefits for 51 weeks. If Bill C-27 in its present form were to pass, the person who has worked 20 weeks would get one week of benefit for every week of contribution. He would not get extended benefits because he had not worked for 25 weeks or more.
As well, he could get the regional unemployment benefit, which is paid for a maximum of another 20 weeks. That person will get 40 weeks of benefits, not the 50 weeks which the minister indicated. The minister suggested that such a person would lose a maximum of one week's benefit, his benefit time being reduced from 51 weeks to 50 weeks. I suggest it is not so. That would not be an isolated case, since in many areas of this country it is difficult to secure eight weeks of employment, let alone 20 weeks.
Surely the government ought to consider these things with some heart. Do not tell me that you are going to put all these people to work under the Canada Works program. Surely you are not going to put them all on training programs. It is apparent, from the government's mentality, that it prefers to have large numbers of trained or retrained unemployed to large numbers of untrained unemployed. I suspect that it has bastardized the manpower retraining program in order to keep people off the unemployment rolls. Mr. Speaker, these programs will never work unless the government is committed to a philosophy of full employment. Otherwise, you will be training people for non-existent jobs, and by the time you have trained them, what few jobs existed will have disappeared.
If it were not so sad, I would laugh when I tell hon. members that every second person in Sudbury on manpower retraining is retraining to become a stationary engineer. We shall have so many stationary engineers in the Sudbury basin that we shall be able to man every furnace and boiler from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland with a stationary engineer. I suspect that we have trained too many hairdressers in Newfoundland to fill hairdressing jobs. Consequently, they are again retraining all the hairdressers they trained in Newfoundland, only this time they will turn them into heavy machine operators. Once that process has been finished and there are no jobs for the retrained people, the department will put them through the mill again.
The C. D. Howe Institute has had much to say about manpower retraining programs. They say such programs will not be effective unless there are jobs for the retrained. In the absence of jobs, the program becomes another income support program. Surely that is a very expensive and dehumanizing way to provide income for people.
We ought to consider the impact on the economy of this country of this bill. Surely we cannot cut off those 330,000
February 1, 1977

people who are considered "a minor attachment". Let us remember that the money paid out as unemployment insurance benefits by and large flows into disadvantaged areas of the country. Surely the minister recognizes that the effect of this bill will be to cut off income for certain areas of the country. Let us consider that for a moment. The minister has talked about a saving next year of SI 10 million in UIC benefits. I notice that certain hon. members have talked about a saving of $110 million. That is a nice, round figure. I suppose people say, "Just look at that tough minister; he is really cracking down on unemployment insurance." But the minister never talks about people's lives which will be affected by this measure. Unfortunately, the unemployed become statistics in the minister's mind because he only talks about the $110 million in savings.
The minister also forgets that that is the government's share. That figure does not take into account the employer and employee contributions which amount to between $275 million and $325 million. That much less will be contributed when the amendments before the House come into effect. We learned last Friday, from the reply to an order paper question set down by the hon. member for Hamilton West, what effect these proposed amendments would have had, in 1976, on the economy of Newfoundland, for example. The loss to the economy of Newfoundland would have been between $24 million and $28 million. Is the minister saying that he will pump as much as $28 million into the economy of Newfoundland through Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs? The loss to Nova Scotia would have been between $9 million and $11 million. Those are the government's own figures. New Brunswick would have lost between $ 19 million and $22 million, and Quebec between $93 million and $109 million. Mr. Speaker, the economies of those provinces are fragile and taking that much money out of them will have disastrous effects. That is why I suggested earlier in my remarks that the government should be charged with aggravated assault. One has only to note the effect of this measure on the lives of the people.
A recently published study in the United States showed what unemployment did to the unemployed. Among the unemployed the suicide rate was higher than the national average, as was the incidence of crimes of violence. That ought to concern the minister, but obviously it does not. The government's philosophy is this: if you cannot introduce policies which will stimulate the economy, you do the next best thing, cut some people off unemployment insurance. He is a pretty tough minister. With Bill C-69 we saw how tough the government was with the elderly. Now the minister is getting tough with children and housewives, to use his words. It is a pretty brave government that gets tough with old people, children and housewives.
I listened to the comments made by the hon. member for Hamilton West. One of the Tory spokesmen on manpower and immigration, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), is reported in an interview in the Montreal Star of January 13, 1977, as having said as follows:
Employment and Immigration
As a result of questions raised in his constituency, Mr. Epp said, he issued a statement that the party will support the increase from eight to 12 weeks before an applicant can qualify for UIC benefits.
"It is my personal view that the 12 weeks should be increased to levels in the former UIC program of 20 weeks. It is evident the changes are necessary and the government should be commended for introducing these changes, which will result in a saving of $110 million per year," he said.
The hon. member is from Manitoba, which has low unemployment because it is run by an NDP government. Here we have a coalition. Suddenly, 12 weeks is not enough; it should be increased to 20. That is the approach taken in this House. If the government were to be replaced by the official opposition there is nothing to indicate there would be any change. All they would do would be to get tougher and increase it to more than 12 weeks.
There is another myth which this government and the Tories propagate, namely, that the government is going broke because it has to support the unemployment insurance fund. What are the facts? In 1975, when unemployment stood at 7.1 per cent, the unemployment insurance account produced a surplus of $321 million after pay-outs of $3.1 billion in benefits. This year, the government has reduced its share of the cost of UIC from 54 per cent to 38 per cent, thanks to Bill C-69. This year, the UIC fund has done so well that the government is suspending an anticipated increase in employer-employee contributions or premiums scheduled for January 1, 1977-a saving of $250 million to contributors.


Mr. Schumacher:: Not bad.


John R. Rodriguez: The reason is that the money is not needed.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: What is bad about that?


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member's party and the government ran around this country saying that the unemployment insurance fund was causing the government and the taxpayers to go broke. However, the contributions of those who work and the employers who employ them have paid for the program.


Mr. Friesen:: It pays for itself?


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. What about the developmental use of UIC fund? Here are some really dynamic programs. Work-sharing, that is innovative. I bet some high-paid economic or sociologist in Manpower came up with that. I wonder if the commission discussed this program. I am sure at some point the minister will respond. I would like him to tell us whether the commission discussed this work-sharing proposal.


David Orlikow: Or the advisory committee.


John R. Rodriguez: It seems to be a half-baked idea that was thrown together. Underemployment is not the solution to long-term, aggravated unemployment. It is fairly obvious that the government's thrust for an employment policy is worksharing. That will not handle all the problems. Incidentally, it smacks of what used to be called "on the job training". We all know how Manpower and the taxpayers of this country were

Adjournment Motion
ripped off by unscrupulous employers in that program. This program is open to abuse.
The job-creation program is something else. That is really creative! Voluntary work on federal government work projects will be available to UIC recipients. They do not have to take that work. It will be on a voluntary basis. Can you imagine any worth-while project being completed? If a person does not want to work on a certain day, he does not have to do so. He may not want to work for two or three days. This is absolutely crazy. Policing will be required. If a recipient of unemployment insurance goes on a job, he is not available to look for work. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, he has to be available, capable of working and looking for work. If a person is on a voluntary job, somebody will have to say that he is looking for work. But is he? A whole bureaucracy will be required to police these people. The minister knows it will not work. He has just thrown this together to give the impression that the bureaucrats in the Manpower offices are doing some creative thinking.
What about training? From 1970-71 to 1974-75 the manpower department spent up to 75 per cent of its annual budget on manpower training. How much more can they spend on manpower training-100 per cent? Where has this gotten us? As I said before, we are recycling hairdressers in Newfoundland into heavy machine operators. If this government takes a hard, close look at the regions of this country, it will see there are programs that can be carried on effectively.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Public Service-Reason for denial of existence of blacklist of employees; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Health-Arsenic pollution in Yellowknife-Acceptability of members of task force; the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Request for reconstitution of committee on international development.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. No. 12, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard): shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Order No. 13, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald): shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order No. 15: shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order No. 16, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia): shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.


RAILWAY ACT
Stanley Stanford Schumacher: that Bill C-217, to amend the Railway Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
[DOT] (UOO)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this bill which has certainly been a long time coming. I think I first introduced it some four years ago and I am happy that finally it has percolated through the parliamentary process to this stage, and I hope it will make some further progress. I should like to point out to the House its importance to the safety of life and limb along the roughly 50,000 miles of railroad rights-of-way that criss-cross this country, often bisecting or otherwise cutting through communities. I also want to say at the outset that I firmly believe such a piece of legislation is long overdue.
First of all, the sole purpose of this bill is to amend the Railway Act to provide a better standard, a modern standard, shall we say, of fencing for railroad rights-of-way in the residential areas of Canada's urban municipalities. At present the Railway Act calls for fences of a minimum height of four feet six inches on each side of the railway. Today, as it has been practically since day one of railroading in Canada, that is the only requirement of railway fencing along the right of way. This may have been appropriate as a fencing standard in 1891,
February 1, 1977

or even 50 years ago when railway fences were designed to keep cattle from straying on to the tracks. But it is far from adequate in the 1970s for the proper protection of human life and limb in built-up residential areas across the nation. I am thinking particularly of children. In one location that I know of, two children have been killed by trains in recent years, one in 1967 and another in 1972, because fences were easily climbed, broken down or cut through on railway properties.
We all know as parents and, in some cases, as grandparents, that kids will be kids. They wander. They take short-cuts. They explore. They climb fences and cross barriers simply because they are there, because such obstacles stand between the explorer and the explorable, between the fascinated and the forbidden. From the child's point of view, a fence hinders adventure. But adventures in railway properties too often become shocking misadventures, if not tragedies, for the curious or thrill-seeking child, or even for the youngster trying to find a short-cut to and from school.
Some of us in this House may recall what fun it was leaping from boxcar to boxcar, running across the roof-walks, hanging from the grab-irons, fiddling with immovable couplings or rummaging in and among empty, open cars. But those of us who may be able to remember the fun of fooling around in a freight yard may also have some bad memories of injuries to ourselves or to our playmates.
There is danger enough among rolling-stock that is not rolling, amidst monstrous steel cars that stand stock still, rusting in the rain, roasting in summer sunshine. But the real danger is in poorly fenced track, in places where the rolling-stock is rolling, where diesels and switchers move suddenly and without warning, dangers that only the trained, experienced railroad worker can recognize and react to in safety. Where the trains move near homes and schools, parks or playgrounds, there is sudden and swift tragedy lurking for the unwary, for the innocent child who may not even realize he is trespassing, let alone flirting with death or dismemberment.
Today there are so many more built-up areas near longstanding railroad tracks than there were when the section of the Railway Act which my bill would amend was drafted and legislated. The concern then, 85 years ago, was for the safety of cattle. Today we are, hopefully, more concerned about the safety of people and, most of all, I would hope, the safety of children. Today there are so many more children and others apt to stray on to railroad property because it is so easy to do, with only 4V4 feet of fencing standing in their way-if in fact it is standing there at all and not falling down, or simply non-existent.
A mere 54 inches stands between safety and danger, at best. Fifty-four inches of wire fencing is nothing to any individual who is curious enough, determined enough, or even stupid enough to climb on to a railway right-of-way, for whatever purpose. But you put up a chain-link fence at least six feet in height, and there you have a formidable obstacle, a solid safety factor, one which could well save many an adventurous child the pain and the agony of being crushed between the steel
Railway Fencing
wheels of trains on the move-and some trains move at a pretty fair clip, even through residential areas.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Railway Act which Bill C-217 proposes is this:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
"1. Paragraph 214(1 )(a) of the Railway Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(a) fences of a minimum height of four feet six inches on each side of the railway and in residential areas of incorporated municipalities having a population in excess of 3,000, such fences shall be of a chain link construction with a minimum height of six feet, the maintenance and quarterly inspection of which is the sole responsibility of the company."
Let me repeat what I said in the beginning, what I have said time and time again since I began trying to get action on this matter four years ago. We are concerned here with saving lives, young lives, not of cattle but of human beings. We should be concerned also that this matter has gone virtually without major public support for far too long and lives have been lost in the meantime. Lives have been lost that need not have been in jeopardy at all. I believe this is a worth-while amendment, otherwise I would not have brought it to the attention of the House and imposed upon this chamber's time. I believe this amendment to the Railway Act is a good move, a most sensible move in terms of public safety.
While it is always nice to have support for one's proposal, I hope I do not get too much support that will cause the hour to expire before some action is taken on what I consider to be a very reasonable suggestion, one that should receive the serious consideration of the legislative process and not just fall to the bottom of the list when the hour today expires.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to have the question put, and I certainly will not speak for very long. I was impressed with the hon. member's remarks in introducing this amendment; it is one with which I heartily agree. I have been very concerned, as I am sure have other members, about areas where there are railway crossings. I think particularly of one area in Ottawa, not far from here, where the railway passes through a very heavily built-up part of town, and they are still using the old type of fence, actually the same old fence. The fence was probably put up 30 to 40 years ago and there does not seem to be any desire to maintain or to meet changing requirements.
Originally, the law requiring railways to provide fencing on both sides of the railway track stemmed from a very simple necessity: animals such as cows, wild animals and domestic, would run on the track, and I presume fencing was originally put up by the railway as a protection against liability. I should like to add that in my opinion, in addition to proper fencing, particularly in built-up areas, an immediate attempt should be made to provide barriers, lights or other kinds of marking, rather than a signpost back 15 to 20 feet from the railway track, especially where a railway track crosses a major highway. This is true in my area where there have been a number of fatalities at a crossing which was unmarked or was very poorly marked and there was a very heavy amount of traffic crossing the track. Your Honour had the opportunity at being

Railway Fencing
at the other end of the problem, as it were, behind the throttle, and I am sure you will agree with me that the locomotive cannot compete with an automobile when it comes to yielding the right of way.
The automobile can stop in a short distance. Trains, especially heavily laden trains, cannot do so in most cases. Many fatalities at railway crossings might have been prevented had the necessary action been taken. We pass legislation making the construction of overpasses the subject of negotiations in communities over years and years. I do not think there has ever been an overpass or an underpass built except in cases where a number of fatalities had already taken place at that point.
The CN and the CP run through my area for 200 or 300 miles, but the railway which I am most familiar with is the Ontario Northland which travels the full length of my constituency. Its solution has been to close off the crossings. However, in consideration of this proposal it is interesting to note that when they close off these crossings all they do is put up a couple of posts in the middle of the road: they put up a couple of planks and leave the road there. Usually the young people drive through before they are convinced the road is closed. Never does the railway put up a fence which really prevents youths from using the road as a crossing point.
It has been the practice of Ontario Northland to close crossings when there is difficulty. If an accident occurs, the result will likely be that they close the road, with the result that the neighbouring township has to build considerably more road to provide a crossing somewhere else. But the railway does not put up an installation of the type the hon. member suggests. Had this been done, at least 15 lives would have been saved in my area alone in the last four or five years. If this is representative of the situation in other ridings across the country, I strongly urge that an amendment of the type suggested be passed.
There must be a major rethinking of our legislation if we are to see the type of link fence comparable to the fencing we find in cities, for example, around hydro facilities or anything else which presents a major danger to young adults. The railway companies should be pressed to consider the installation of such fencing in all areas. It would not be the kind of fencing railroads are now required to provide. It would be a new type which would be child proof, which could not be scaled and which would largely eliminate the danger to which the hon. member has called attention.
I have in mind the safety of children whose parents live in suburbs close to a railway where trains often pass at considerable speed. Perhaps the danger is greatest in those areas where not many trains pass during the day and where, as a result, parents are often not as diligent as they otherwise might be in supervising their children.
It is possible that the provision of adequate restraining fences would call for municipal money as well as for railway money. Nevertheless, I think the idea is well worth consider-
[Mr. Peters.)
ing. I hope the House approves this amendment so that the railways will begin taking this problem seriously and do something about it.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must congratulate the mover of this bill concerning railway fencing. I think this question has not been dealt with for a long time because, according to the law, only 4 foot 6 inch fences are needed. That would be all right in rural areas because, along the tracks in my region which is 90 per cent rural, fences are generally well maintained, even though it is especially difficult for the CN during winter to keep those fences in top shape as snowdrifts have knocked them down over many miles. In springtime the railways companies have to spend much money to put up again their fences. But I do not believe it would be necessary to require that those fences be 6 or 7 feet out in the country.
This bill deals with fencing in urban areas. Here again, I would favour 4 foot fences even though the bill specifies 8 feet 6 inches but that depends on the type of fences, Mr. Speaker. If the bill refers to existing fences, those which are put up according to the law, they will be proposed in the cities, but they will not represent an obstacle for children. So we must discuss the type of fences and I think that should be done by the Committee on Transport and Communications.
I think that what is needed is at least an 8 foot barbed-wire topped steel fence because the usual small fence with large squares would not prevent children from going through and playing on the railroads.
I think that we must inform the people. The best fence is child education. We must teach the children that the railway is a public road, just like the highway. We very rarely see children playing on a regional road. The previous speaker, the spokesman for the Progressive Conservatives, said earlier that the lack of fences causes fatalities, but let us not forget that fatalities can also be caused by cars when children are not careful enough and play on the roadway. But this is no excuse for the railroads.
If we want to talk about the quality of fences to be put in cities, let us talk about fences that will not completely disfigure a city.
Railway crossings ouside and even within city limits where there are no signals are another problem which should be submitted to the Committee on Transport and Communications. I have already talked in the House about these railway crossings where there are no signals. It is a fact that the signals exist on interprovincial roads, but in rural centres, there are many secondary roads with little or no signals.
In my opinion, this is a bill aimed at protecting everyone. This matter should be submitted to the committee. But to come back to the bill, as concerns fences to be put up in cities along railways tracks, I believe this is a very important matter since we cannot take too many precautions to protect the life of children, and even if the only result of the bill was to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to the
February 1, 1977

matter for it to be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications where it can at least be studied so that something can finally be done about a type of fence which would be appropriate for the cities, the hon. member will not have lost his time and we could give the population of our regions a much better safety device to protect the children.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in this debate this afternoon on the bill introduced by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) in which he points out another area of the social responsibility of the railways to the Canadian public. In effect, he is touching on an over-all area which is of interest to me, not by design but more by accident owing to circumstances in the area I represent in metropolitan Toronto.
Here we are talking about a question of the adequacy of safety factors that are designed to prevent people from having access to the railroad tracks, which is quite desirable. In another instance, when we talk grade level separations, as referred to by one of the other speakers this afternoon, we are referring to the need for adequate safety factors in order to prevent collisions between trains and vehicular traffic. In both cases I am personally not at all convinced that the railroads, the municipalities or even the provincial or federal government have given sufficient attention over the years to the hazards that exist.
I was most impressed this summer in England, on an automobile trip that took us perhaps not more than 250 or 300 miles from north of London down to the south coast, to notice that in not one case did we traverse a railroad track at a level crossing. In other words, every single crossing was graded. I mentioned this in the course of a conversation with my companion who has lived in England all his life and I asked him how this came to be. He said it was really simple, because in that country when the railway came into existence many of the towns and the people populating them were there, so the railways had to conform to their wishes. In other words, they were bringing something new to the country and they had to conform with regard to safety factors such as those relating to fencing, level crossings, etc.
We see the exact opposite on this continent and certainly in this country where the railways in many cases constituted the first signs of any major spurt of civilization to appear in many areas. So the railways tended to have things going their own way. Unfortunately, this may have been satisfactory in the latter part of the nineteenth century and in the first part of the twentieth century, but is not satisfactory today and I do not think the Canadian public are prepared to accept this situation in the future.
I noted, in the few minutes that were available to me prior to speaking this afternoon, that the municipality of metropolitan Toronto has appealed to the federal government regarding the matter of adequacy or inadequacy of fencing. I believe that
Railway Fencing
resolutions came forward as recently as 1974 in which metro Toronto was asking for a review of the situation.
I understand that the costs involved in what the hon. member for Palliser has suggested would be exorbitant. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the problem is there and that it must be addressed. I would like to think it will be addressed in conjunction with this over-all question of the adequacy of safety factors in urban areas. At present I am working with the CTC on this very problem. We cannot build quickly grade separations in Scarborough. This is, incidentally the responsibility of municipalities with substantial federal financial backing. We cannot quickly build the 35 grade separations that are needed over the foreseeable future, because 16 of the most urgent alone will cost $69 million. Therefore, we are forced to look immediately at the whole question of the adequacy of existing safety factors. I suggest that this safety factor at level crossings is just another extension, or vice versa, of safety factors that the hon. member is talking about in relation to people having undesirable access to the tracks.
There is another matter in relation to the responsibility of the railways in this country which should be mentioned, and that is the basic need for the railway companies-which, after all, are nothing more or less than a form of public utility-to respond more adequately to the concerns of people. Particularly in our modern urban situation the kind of responses they might have given even 20 years ago are not acceptable today.
When I was speaking in the debate on my own bill, C-20, on the need to have the railways go before the CTC for approval of additional marshalling yards, I used the example of an individual in an urban area who must go to his municipality for approval to build even the most minor structure in his backyard. I think I can bring out the hon. member's point today with the analogy of the home owner who wishes to build a swimming pool. He has an obligation, in most urban areas today, to fence that swimming pool adequately. In fact, in some urban areas the requirements are much greater than in others. This is done for one reason only, simply to ensure that access to that swimming pool will not be obtained by children or others who may be wandering around.
I do not know what the size of the fence should be, nor what its quality should be in order to preclude undesirable access to railway tracks, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the suggestion that we at least re-examine the responsibility of the railroads in this entire area.
I receive submissions from my municipality about the manner in which rights-of-way are maintained; about the fact that weeds are allowed to grow and in many cases the area in general is kept in an undesirable state. So I certainly support the proposal put forward by the hon. member. I presume it would ultimately require the Canadian Transport Commission to at least assess the adequacy of fencing in urban areas. I do not personally know whether it is now adequate or inadequate but I am prepared to believe the review made by the hon. member.
Another area of safety that should be considered is that involved in bridges. There have been examples of children
2608

February 1, 1977
Railway Fencing
being caught on these bridges. In our own area last year two youngsters were so caught and had no chance to escape and were killed. I believe that one fell off and was drowned in the river beneath. Concerns in this area are extremely important.
I wonder if the government should not insist that the Canadian Transport Commission, which, after all, is the regulatory body charged by the government with the responsibility of overseeing railroad operations, take very seriously the submissions which are made to it by members of the public and by members of parliament who are after all acting on behalf of members of the public. In my view, the CTC should consider these areas of major concern. The commission should consider the adequacy of safety at level crossings which remain unprotected, and probably will continue to remain unprotected well into the future. It should also consider the question of speeds of trains through urban areas. That is another important factor. The manual may indicate that a train can proceed at 50 miles an hour through an urban area; that may have been fine 30 years ago, but it might not be fine today. Today there may be tens of thousands of people living in this same area and 50 miles an hour may simply be too fast a speed.
Warning devices in train cabs may be needed to help detect any vehicles that may be caught at level crossings. Perhaps more adequate fencing is needed to prevent undesirable access to tracks. It seems to me that there must be an over-all change in the attitude of the railroads toward their social responsibility. I quite agree that the railroads must perform specific services. They must transport people and goods efficiently and quickly. There is no question about that, but I think they also have social and community responsibilities just as hydro companies do with their electricity distribution; just as natural gas companies do with their natural gas pipelines; and oil companies with their related pipelines. The railroads have a responsibility to ensure that in the course of providing their services they indeed bear in mind concerns about noise pollution and these other very real concerns, whether they be with regard to urban areas or other areas, but particularly in the case of heavily populated urban areas where so many of the current problems prevail.
I have not had an opportunity in the very short time available to me to examine all the ramifications of what the hon. member has in mind, but I can easily and wholeheartedly support the concept of the need for a review by the Canadian Transport Commission at this time of the adequacy of the fencing situation, together with the adequacy of other safety factors relating to the over-all operation of railroads in our urban areas.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my colleagues who have already taken part in this debate in commending my good friend, the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) for introducing Bill C-217. I know that the aim of the hon. member in introducing this bill is the security of people-and animals, probably-and, of course, the security

of travellers. The bill calls for a fence of eight feet in municipalities-


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been a mistake in translation. The bill calls for six feet, but the French version of the bill reads eight feet six inches. I do not know how that happened. I am sorry that I did not notice it earlier, but my intention was to have fencing of six feet in built-up areas.


Maurice Dupras: I am glad that the distinguished hon. member for Palliser corrected me. I have, of course, the French version, and it in fact says eight feet six inches. I suppose the hon. member means a fence with a minimum height of six feet. I read somewhere that fences are to be climbed, and starting from this point of view-

Fences are there to be climbed. I wonder what would be the reaction of the public in general, youngsters who are tempted to jump the current 4 foot six inch high fence provided for by the agreement between the Department of Transport and the municipalities. Section 214 which has been quoted reflects the existing agreement with municipalities wherein there is provision for joint programs with municipalities for the construction of fences.
The security of passengers as well as that of children is of the utmost importance, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my hon. colleague is indeed endeavouring to bring about such a protection. However, as my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) has indicated, I hesitate to think of the cost of replacing the 4 foot six inch fence by a security system providing for a maximum height of six feet since there are indeed places where it would be necessary to raise the height of the fences. On the other hand, in certain other places, it would not perhaps be as necessary for railway companies to build fences if we consider the terrain, whether it is hilly, very isolated, without any houses in a ten mile radius, so perhaps it is less urgent for railway companies to build fences.
What we may have neglected in this matter is instructing our children on the respect of other people's property. They must learn that by trespassing on other people's property, it is as if they were in fact robbing their neighbour and it would perhaps not be necessary to introduce such restrictive measures if schools or families imposed a stricter discipline to prevent youngsters from jumping fences and trespassing on private property.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one railway line, Canadian Pacific, linking Montreal to the higher Laurentians, at Mont Laurier, cutting through my region and there exists already, as I have already indicated, an agreement with the municipalities it crosses, therefore I do not think it necessary to build a six foot fence along that line all the way from Montreal to Mont Laurier.
Perhaps when we give a new structure to our public transport system, it might be necessary to find a new design for our
February 1, 1977

railway tracks, especially on the section between Montreal and Mont-Laurier, and to use lighter and faster equipment, with new faster acceleration and deceleration devices. This would reduce the risk of accidents and in case of an animal, an adult or a child crossing the railway track, lighter equipment and a safer deceleration system would allow a far better control of the engine.
But I think it might not be worth investing in equipment which is not that necessary. A few years ago someone introduced a bill to relocate railway tracks within municipal jurisdictions. This relocation program might then give railway companies the opportunity to build new, safer and stronger fences which would make any trespassing much more difficult.
But outside this program, I do not see the interest for railways companies to assume an additional expense which as someone put it earlier with the number of railway tracks existing in our country could represent several million dollars. This would be an excessively expensive item and I wonder if we should not wait until this relocation program is applied and take the opportunity then to repair or rebuild new fences.
These are the arguments I wanted to put forward, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) raised a question relating to Bill C-217, namely whether the improvement of fences along railroad tracks would reduce the number of accidents recorded each year. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his excellent initiative and I also want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all hon. members who participated in this important debate relating to the bill that the hon. member introduced.
All hon. members have very commendable intentions, and once again let me say that this is especially the case of the hon. member for Palliser. They show that the members are deeply concerned with the matter protecting not only adults but also and especially children. On the other hand, many of the municipalities that the members who took part in the debate mentioned have built miles of fences, especially at trouble spots, in collaboration with railway companies. In some cases however, the railway companies only paid for the usual fences necessary for the protection of the public and the municipalities concerned paid for the difference. In other words, this means that the companies are willing to go along with the municipalities if they want to build such fences.
It is difficult however for the railway companies to pay the total cost of such fences, especially when you know the huge amount of money necessary for such a measure. On the other hand, this situation could create a dangerous precedent if it were applied in various areas of the country.
I think that the systematic building of fences along the railroad tracks is not possible at the present time for the following reasons.
Railway Fencing
The basic question on the proposed Bill C-217 is whether improved fencing would in fact provide a higher level of protection against pedestrian accidents on railway property. At a number of urban locations throughout Canada arrangements between railway companies and municipalities have led to the installation of chain link fencing of the type suggested. The experience in these locations has indicated that while the fences serve the purpose of warning that danger exists, fences alone have not prevented trespassing. Fencing is open at each level crossing and trespassers have ample access at these points to railway rights of way. To some degree, high chain link fencing tends to deflect trespassers along rights of way, as opposed to the direct crossing pattern which exists under the less restrictive type of fencing.
It is not clear that fences, whatever their height, will successfully prevent trespassing on railway rights of way or significantly reduce the potential for injury to pedestrians. Most of the pedestrians killed on railway rights of way by trains are adults who are, of course, fully aware of the dangers of trespassing on railway property. For example, in 1972, 66 pedestrians were killed by trains, and 56 of these were over 16 years of age.

Let me question the very principle of fences along railway lines, as opposed to other modes. Nobody ever thought of installing fences along highways. The danger however is so much greater for a pedestrian to be hit by an automobile than a train. Apparently the public are more aware of the inherent dangers in highway traffic.
The main concern of citizen groups urging for the installation of higher fences along railways is for the safety of children, who do not always realize the danger in crossing tracks. The railroad industry already suggested that children in primary schools should be provided with basic instruction to make them aware of that kind of danger. I believe the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) already indicated this in his speech. Certainly such a policy would be much more effective than this proposal.
It must be noted Canada's two main railroads have already launched school programs to that effect. The federal government are perfectly aware of this problem, and the Canadian Transport Commission conducts regular reviews in areas where it feels there is room for improvement. We have seen a number of cases where the CTC indicated to the railroad companies that extra protection should be provided. Generally speaking the latter have implemented the commission's recommendations.
In Canada's metropolitan areas we have a very high density and length of trackage, and the cost of installing fences along the roadway would be tremendous. Referring to studies that were conducted in 1972, the installation of six-foot high chain link fences in every municipality over 30,000 population would cost upwards of $100 million. Moreover, the annual mainte-
80008-28%

February 1, 1977
Railway Fencing
nance cost of such fences would be so much higher than the current cost of maintaining existing fences. In 1970, the capital outlay required for the installation of metal fences in the city of Toronto alone was estimated at $1,600,000 for a total length of 270,000 feet, and this involved the most dangerous areas only. Assuming this would have to be done in the metropolitan area, the cost would rise tenfold. These studies go back to 1970.
At present the cost would be much higher. It would be extremely difficult to justify this kind of expenditure particularly when we know that safety would not be improved much as a result. And even then in terms of figures let me continue to illustrate the ineffectiveness of a metal fence along a railway track.
Let us now take an example in the city of Ottawa. The Canadian National owns about five miles of fencing starting at the grade separation on Riverside Drive and extending to a level crossing also located on Riverside Drive. That fence was installed by the National Capital Commission and is being maintained now by the Canadian National. There are at present some twenty holes in the fence that were made not by planners but by people wishing to cross the tracks at a place convenient to them.
The job of repairing holes in that fence is given to specialists and is not being done by the maintenance crews of the CN. Repairs to that fence alone cost more than $100 a week, that is about $5,000 a year. The Canadian National also noticed that as soon as a fence is repaired it is nearly automatically reopened the day after.
In addition to the points I already mentioned applications are made from time to time to improve or put up fencing along railway tracks but there is still little evidence that a fence would improve safety or reduce accidents. Finally, the public always manages to get around the difficulties and rather than using the free crossings designed for that purpose it prefers to go over or through fences normally put up to protect them.
The federal government favours improvements in this area. It is doing everything it can to protect the lives of citizens. Hence it is very sympathetic to the ideas and the philosophy expressed in Bill C-217. Unfortunately it does not seem obvious that this bill would actually help improve safety or represent the best investment of public funds to ensure public safety. The government is currently reviewing in its entirety this matter of safety in railway operations. Hopefully that in-depth work will lead to very specific recommendations, as was mentioned by those hon. members who participated in this debate and made specific recommendations concerning the steps to be taken by the government in cooperation with municipalities and the railway industry which, as hon. members mentioned, also has responsibilities in this respect. Following those few remarks concerning the proven financial impracticability and ineffectiveness of such a broad bill the government must regretfully reject it. However, as I mentioned the federal government is now reviewing the whole matter of public safety along railway tracks both in urban areas as well as in certain other places in this country. I think

the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) also touched on this point. We hope then to be in a position to propose a legislation along those lines in the months to come.
Hon. members have also emphasized the necessity for all municipalities to co-operate with the railway industry, and I feel they are now ready to work hand in hand with the government on this matter.
I should like to mention, however-
*750)

In these cases the railway restricted its expenditure to the amount it would expend in the case of normal fencing, and the balance of the cost has been assumed by the city or town in question. In other words the railways are willing to co-operate with the municipalities if it is their wish to install chain link fencing. The railways do not, however, wish to absorb the total cost of chain link fencing, particularly in the face of the large expenditures which could be involved if a precedent were to be set.

All hon. members will doubtless agree that if the federal government were to support such a project, in view of the ineffectiveness of security measures, we could have much more profitable investments.
On behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) I want to thank all those who have taken part in this debate for their positive suggestions. I wish especially to commend the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) who has brought up this important issue and who wishes to amend the Railway Act by adding, and I quote:
"(a) fences of a minimum height of four feet six inches on each side of the railway and in residential areas of incorporated municipalities having a population in excess of 3,000, such fences shall be of a chain-link construction with a minimum height of six feet, the maintenance and quarterly inspection of which is the sole responsibility of the company".
May I assure the hon. member that this bill is highly considered by the authorities of the Department of Transport and particularly by the minister. We can assure him that the government is extremely favourable to this concern with protecting public life adequately, and we suggest to the hon. member, as well as to those who took part in the debate this afternoon, that they continue being concerned about the importance of protecting public interest by ensuring public safety through various means.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the views expressed here by all hon. members and by the Department of Transport reflect the wishes of the whole population. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is six o'clock. Should I continue my remarks?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Surely you are not going to talk this measure out, Stollery, are you?
February 1, 1977


Peter A. Stollery: -this is a most important bill. I was looking through some references concerning the height of fences which ought to be erected in municipalities. I think it is an interesting proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is no way to mend fences.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, my friends opposite think I am taking this opportunity to talk this bill out.


An hon. Member:: Ho hum!


Peter A. Stollery: That is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is trying to mend his fences.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when we broke off at five o'clock this afternoon I was commenting on the so-called development use of unemployment insurance funds as proposed in Bill C-27.
One of the so-called uses of unemployment insurance funds is for training programs. The Conference Board in a recent report noted that we had enough training programs and what we lacked was jobs. This is echoed by Ms. Barbara Goldman of the C. D. Howe Research Institute in a recent study entitled "New Directions for Manpower Policy". Canada gets a real
Employment and Immigration
payoff from training only if the trainees can find steady employment. Otherwise training is simply another form of providing income support.
In the same article, Ms. Goldman quotes Seymour Brand-wein, the Director of the Office of Manpower Program Evaluation, Employment and Training Administration of the United States Department of Labour, as saying in 1976, and I quote:
To the extent that economic growth generates new jobs, training programs should be a tool for developing the skills and performance needed to sustain such growth and for equipping workers of limited skills or other background to fulfil the opportunities offered by such new jobs.
Obviously putting more money into training programs will not eliminate unemployment. The economics of those regions I mentioned earlier will not even keep up with those coming into the work market. When in St. John's, Newfoundland, we learned from the Canada Manpower Centre and UIC officials that, just to keep the Newfoundland unemployment at 13 per cent, the economy of Newfoundland would have to produce 10,000 jobs, yet last year only 5,200 jobs were created.
We learned on that trip to Newfoundland and Cape Breton that there are many specific proposals regarding development of long-term economic opportunities, but they offer no farsighted decision making by the federal government in collaboration with the provinces concerned. Such things as secondary harbours, establishment of marine bases for air and sea rescue, improvement and initiation of transport facilities, primary resource development to final stage, and shipbuilding with specific attention to fishing trawlers and a Canadian commercial fleet, require planning and a commitment to full employment as a basic right of each and every Canadian.
One other housekeeping amendment in Bill C-27 which ought to interest us is the pregnancy benefits amendment. Since clauses 34 and 38 open up this question, an amendment ought to be made which would provide adoptive mothers with the same right to unemployment insurance benefits as is allowed to one who has given birth naturally. This is a discriminatory clause which presently exists and ought to be changed now.
One other matter I would like to deal with is the question of appeals. At the present time there is an automatic right to appeal to an umpire by any worker covered by an organization of workers, a trade union. But a non-represented worker must seek the approval of the chairman of the board of referees. If he has a unanimous decision against him, he may get special approval to go to the umpire. I suspect this is watering down the right of organized workers. Now they all have to get approval of the umpire under certain conditions to have the appeal heard before the umpire. It would be much better if we gave all those who have appealed to the board of referees and who have had a unanimous decision against them an automatic right of appeal to the umpire.
In conclusion, we as a party cannot support those clauses in Bill C-27 that so obviously discriminate against the helpless of our country who have absolutely no influence with regard to public and private economic decision making. We will

seems his job should have been found by the employees of the manpower centre. But they simply cannot get him a job so the man himself, because he has connections-a friend on a working site, a parent-manages to land a job and after making sure-he has got to work for a few weeks at least- after making sure that his job will be permanent he gets in touch with the manpower centre. No, sir, that doesn't work, you did not submit that at the beginning-he did not even know he would find a job at this place.
If a citizen from Sainte-Helene in Kamouraska gets a job in Fort-Captif, 400 miles away from his home on the north shore, or if another one from the same place in Kamouraska wants to get a job in Montreal, 300 miles away from his home, when he leaves home he does not know if he will succeed in finding a job. But he has got to tell the employees of the manpower centre where he goes and, if he finds a job, he will have to leave it temporarily to tell them that he might probably get a job. This system can hardly be applied. In the construction field, how many workers had to suffer from the rules of the construction bureau which wants them to get working permits? Several workers from my area had to pay $200 and $225 fines for the simple reason that they had worked without a permit and that they could not get one for particularly stupid reasons.
I already took action to shorten the sentence of a young man, an 18-year-old student who had been found guilty of nothing more than working with his father on a construction site during his holidays without a working permit. We should not be surprised by the violent reactions that sometimes happen. Patience grows thinner with rigid laws and regulations too often creating more problems that the incentives that would be needed at certain times in life when things get difficult. The end result is that revolt gets the better of people who used to be moderates, and no amount of promises will quiet them down.
When the unemployed lose patience with the finicky administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act which is too complex already, should they be admonished or should they be said the benefits they are entitled to? The time is ill chosen to tell them there was a computation error or their file is dormant. In my view, many civil servants are dormant themselves. Not all of them, but a good number. The unemployed derives no comfort from being told his file will be converted providing there is no problem in the complex computer techniques. That is the kind of answer we get from the Unemployment Insurrance Commission offices.
It is easily seen that the well paid bureaucrats-some are too well paid-who draft the legislation know nothing of the unemployed's position. I looked up the definition of the term "Technocrat" in the dictionary, and this is what I found: "A supporter of technocracy; a politician or high-ranking civil servant exercising authority on the basis of thorough theorical studies of economic mechanisms, without taking sufficient account of human factors." No wonder our Unemployment Insurance Act is not understandable to most unemployed workers. Add to that a deluge of regulations prepared in such
Employment and Immigration
a way as to allow the most inventive civil servants to get at the unemployed at every stage of the application processing. Everyone knows this, we easily realize that everything is aimed at protecting the fund. Rather than helping the unemployed obtain a lucrative job, they are given generous benefits to assure their subsistence and that of their family. Another indication that the protection of the fund is the determining factor is the authority given to income tax officials-those are two teams which do seem to get along rather well-to determine whether a job is insurable.
The legislation is so complex that a team of officials is necessary to establish whether such or such a job is insurable. This transfer of powers proceeds from Bill C-259 passed at the end of 1971 after closure was invoked, one of the most bulky bills to be introduced in the House, having more than 700 pages. It was the result of a ten-year study of so-called improved taxation procedures and that famous bill had to come into effect at the beginning of January 1972.
The taxing authorities had been ordered to be on the alert and put an end to the rip-off and the first to experience the modified system were the unemployed. It is unthinkable but true. Some unemployed who had been waiting for their benefits for months were paid retroactive to January 1972 amounts due in November and December 1971. The computer with all its electronic circuits working deducted from unemployed workers $4, $5, and $6 a week for federal and provincial income tax. What a fine example of cooperative, separatist, leftist and provincialist federalism. All unemployed were taxed as of January 1972.
Of course, UIC officials received numerous phone calls about this method of taxation. Since they already had transitional problems to cope with as a result the new act, I saw fit to point out this fine example of fund protection. There are many others, namely the decision to disentitle people of 65, when most of them had contributed to the fund ever since the act came into force. You must agree with me that the fund was far better protected than the unemployed.
A further example: do we know what happens when a benefit period must be established? Officials must take into account all severance allowances which may have been paid to the worker when he was laid off, as well as special holiday allowances in addition to normal vacation pay to which he is entitled under the act and all bonues or premiums owed to him, since those fringe benefits are considered as income. Consequently the officials shorten the period during which the claimant is eligible for benefits. There again, they are protecting the fund. There are even examples of the UIC reducing the rate of benefit of farmers who had been getting subsidies for "wintering" cattle when the beef market was paralyzed. They are sort of subsidized by the government. The UIC considers this as an income. They have to report it and then their rate of benefit is reduced.
I could go on giving many other examples where the main intention is to save the fund. When we read the sections of the law and the regulations, we find out that those in charge of the administration of the plan have managed to attain their aim,

Employment and Immigration
through the technocrats who write the law; regulations are added when the increased number of unemployed people makes it necessary. One time they decided to summon claimants to the UIC office and prepared non-eligibility notices for those who did not show up on time or on the date they had been called. I often had the opportunity of seeing that both notices were mailed on the same day. This has already hap-penned: anyone who does not report on the day he has been called does not have time to explain why he could not come, the notices are ready, the forms prepared in advance. Then, if your are not there at 11 o'clock, you will receive a notice of disentitlement of six weeks. I intervened with the board of referees a number of times to try and help out unemployed who were held through the system's faults.
Let us take a look now at what is happening when the employee leaves his job. The officials pay attention mostly to reasons given by the employer and the claimant receives a notice of disqualification for six weeks. They do not bother to ask him what are his reasons for leaving, no way. They call the employer on the telephone for additional details. The employee is disqualified for six weeks, he is not entitled to benefits. One would believe that a great number of civil servants are there because there is unemployment, because workers have contributed to the unemployment insurance funds for months and years. These civil servants owe their own job to this very fact.
Unfortunately, with such a bad law, these people have reached a point where they say: This is our fund, we are the ones who should protect it. How many times have I helped out poor workers to clarify this type of decision. It has been established beyond all doubt that the employee had good reasons to leave his job. I do not approve this attitude when reasons are not adequate, but one must not penalize a worker who has good reasons to change jobs.
Since statements of employment are often given too late to the employee, the ensuing loss of income should be charged to the employer. No, nothing in the act provides for that. Naturally, employers issue the statement of employment when the employee leaves, but some employers take weeks and months to do so. Then the commission says: You may file your claim anyway, but you will not be paid until the commission receives the statement of employment. But nothing in the act requires the employer to issue it or to support the unemployed person who has to wait because of his failure to provide the statement of employment.
I shall summarize this part of my speech by quoting a statement made by the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, which was published in the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil on March 20, 1971, and I quote:
Unemployment, a necessary evil-Rasminsky
Last Thursday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada warned that Canada should not wage an all-out war against unemployment at the risk of creating further inflation.
He is safe, he has nothing to fear, for he is handsomely paid.

"A margin of security must be maintained in the rate of unemployment", stated Mr. Rasminsky in his annual report to the government. Keeping a large number of unemployed on the labour force is a necessary evil to prevent greater evils, such as an excess demand and the depletion of supplies which would automatically result in price increases.
In a recently published book entitled L'economie du diable, by a French author, I read in a paragraph of Chapter I a short comment on the mirage of unemployment and employmnet, and I quote:
The extreme sensitivity of public opinion to the unemployment curse creates ideal conditions as it were, a sprouting of illusions. Myths, simplistic reasoning, beliefs, mischievous dogmas are second nature to man. Indeed, no other area of investigation succeeds any better in separating the researcher from the rest of mankind. Reality is not only far from, but often contrary to appearances.
Because of a so badly worded Unemployment Insurance Act and the confusion it creates and entertains, a number of civil servants confuse reality with probability. Some appear to have lost all sense of proportions. They know or ought to know that unemployment has reached very high levels in certain areas, but they force victims of unemployment to take useless and sometimes costly steps in search of undiscoverable work, particularly at certain times, of the year. If they were serious, they could consult manpower centres officials: they would be told that they have hundreds of applications in their files and no jobs to offer. Their regulations seem to get their inspiration from a Birman proverb which says: There may not be gold in every stone but there is no harm in looking.
Unemployed people are accused of living at the expenses of workers. Basically, if someone is living at the expenses of workers in our society, is it not rather those who exploit them? Unemployed people are entitled to social benefits. This is not a gift from the government. Unemployed people are entitled to some objective, undisguised information on their situation, on their due. They should not be penalized for the slightest omission. This is not a right, this is something of an attitude taken by civil servants, and I do not know what temper they can have, but there are some among them who are not easy to deal with. The worker is penalized if he deliberately quits his job, even if he is exploited and works under inhuman conditions; the unemployed is penalized if he does not look actively for a job, even if there are no jobs available and if the unemployment rate reaches 30 per cent; the unemployed is penalized if he is not available; he ought to stay at home near the telephone, watching television, listening to the radio, reading the newspaper, always on the look-out for a job. He is penalized if he moves, and moreover, he has to pay his moving expenses. The unemployed pay out of their own money for the operation of the UIC. And if, in spite of all this, mistakes and delays occur, they only have to pay twice. These are more or less the conclusions to be drawn.
Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister an idea of the reaction and I may add that it is fairly general. I used to know a responsible senior citizen who had been out of work and became quite familiar with the act and regulations. So, I asked him: I will give you Bill C-27 and I would like you to tell me what you think of its content. So he told me: I'll try. I shall
February 1, 1977

read you what he has to say which I feel is worth reading. I quote:
The person who shares his impressions here is a man of some years, with average schooling-equivalent to fourth year high school-who once in his life collected unemployment insurance benefits and to whom was handed the statute book on unemployment insurance in Canada, 1976 edition, as well as a copy of Bill C-27, as passed on first reading concerning unemployment insurance.
After over twenty hours of arduous reading, one reaches the conclusion that those documents are so ambiguous as to represent aberrations on initial reading, which aberrations then go beyond the limits of logic.
One gets the feeling that an attempt is being made at assembling a puzzle that would leave the most able creators in the field-some of whom are famous- flabbergasted and speechless with astonishment.
It seems someone was intent upon creating a maze the like of which schizoph-renes or paranoiacs alone have the secret, or so it seems to me. I have had the same feeling before on hearing music composed solely of perfectly rhythmic discords. I take my hat off to those creators who deserve palms come from the most remote of equitorial jungles.
That gives you an idea of the reaction of one fellow who read Bill C-27 and the act of 1976.
Yet, I am no more stupid that the average guy. Until now, 1 thought I was of average intelligence. But now, I must confess that I suffer from serious complexes for, to my great shame, I must admit I learned very little except that some people can get unemployment insurance according to hypothetical conditions lost in a maze of nebulous considerations reaching from the stratosphere to the depths of Jules Verne's earth.
Yet, I must gather my wits about me and find out who can get, and how, those benefits that seem to come from another planet. Which benefits are measured by a yard stick that has nothing to do with British measures and even less with the metric system.
Now, the dismissed worker will be able to draw UI benefits if he manages to create opportunities for employment through his non initiative by convincing the employers that they will need him in the near future. The pregnant woman will only draw benefits if she has already been on unemployment insurance; if not, implicitly she will have to resort to abortion, secretly of course, be dismissed by her employer, pretend that she is unemployed and draw benefit-I can prove this-and get pregnant again.
This is the only way I know to become entitled to maternity benefits. This is right, is it not? Once again, implicitly; I did read between the lines. If I bore someone a grudge for something unforgivable, to be utterly sadistic, I would implacably condemn him to read these documents and to give a coherent report on unemployment insurance in Canada. But whether or not he succeeds in the long run, he would have the merits that only saints can deserve. Mind you, this man has drawn conclusions from the text of the Unemployment Insurance Act and from the contents of Bill C-27. I have plenty of examples in hand. I will cite a few, I have lots of time. We can say what we think about that legislation. It seems to me that we have got the time today, and there are many workers wishing to take part in this debate, I am sure. I hope there will be as many speakers as possible and that practical suggestions will be made to the minister so that he may improve that piece of legislation. I was told that the premises of the question I raised yesterday were rejected. If you want an idea of how it is working over there, hear what I have to say. Last summer the
Employment and Immigration
construction workers were on strike. Apparently 15,000 workers were affected. I am not a striker, I am a unionist, and I am glad to say it, but I am not a striker.
I find it unfortunate that a large number of unemployed workers underwent some hardship as a result of a strike. However, what is even more unfortunate is that the commission officials took so long before making their investigation. After that, I do not know how they worked. As far as I am concerned, there are some people who dragged their feet in that investigation, since the results took a long time before appearing. I have evidence of it here. Here is an individual who applied for benefits and was told the following: After considering your claim-he had submitted his claim on November 18, and he gets his reply on January 14 and is told: After investigation you were not party to the collective conflict, so you are entitled to benefits. But it took a month and a half to settle that. During that time the unemployed was not getting anything and he had no income. After that try and make me believe that the Unemployment Insurance Commission officials are doing their work properly. They certainly do not work rapidly. You have very clear evidence of that here.
Here we have another worker faced with technical difficulties. It is generally believed that computers costing thousands of dollars and installed in the offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission should improve the situation. I heard it said once that in some cases people could be paid within two days. It was even suggested on the very same day. It was even suggested that a guy could get a cheque within four hours, a manual payment if it were in particular circumstances. I have personally never seen any. If the minister knows people who were paid within four hours or two days I would be quite happy to know their names because I would be pleased to meet them. Generally it takes a month to five weeks. Why so much with big machines that cost millions and hundreds of public servants who serve or do not serve. So does it take a month, a month and a half to pay an unemployed who needs his money?
Here is another case. The commission tells the guy who submitted his application: We took action on December 16 to allow the processing of weekly reports as of November 21 but we are unfortunately encountering technical difficulties in the settlement of your case. The transactions sent to our regional computer service were returned to us on January 13. So we are taking other means to accelerate the payment of benefits due for the weeks beginning December 5 and 12. We are following this case. That was on January 17. They had technical difficulties.
There are other examples. Another chap from Saint-Gabriel-de-Kamouraska was a construction worker and became involved in the famous inquiry. I point out to the minister that he should pay closer attention to my comments this evening because what I say relates to hardships encountered by workers in my area. There will be less of a surprise for him if he will pay attention and undertake to introduce amendments to help people in need. Indeed, the minister may be in for some surprises as was the case with some of his Quebec colleagues who failed for too long to cater to the poor

February 1, 1977
Employment and Immigration
in their province. It would be better for him to pay close attention. It is a casual advice that I give him.
On August 16, the Commission said: "We received your claim for benefits. In the statement of employment received in September from Aluminium Bridge it says that the work stoppage may be due to a labour conflict; this is not sure, but it could be so. Then, as soon as the decision is known, we will follow-up, and that is all. We are sorry but such is the law." They are always sorry, but it remains that the man gets no benefits. There is another case where due to a complex wording, this inadequate legislation requires the officials to find something to tell the claimants. They have to check the third paragraph of the disqualification notice to the claimant. The legislation and the rules governing the unemployment commission are so complicated that employees, civil servants and others have to resort to incomprehensible phraseology. For those who are listening, try and make something out of this language. Civil servants say to the unemployed: You did not find that if you had not been unable to work as you state, you would have been available to work indeed? This is the text of a letter from the commission. Do you understand anything in that? What do you think a claimant can make out of that?
Here is the case of another worker in the construction industry. The head of special information at the central office in Montreal, 1441 Saint-Urbain Street, mentions in a letter dated November 24 that the renewed application by Mr. Bourgoin has been granted from September 12, 1976 and that steps will be taken on November 24 to expedite the payment of benefits. On the other hand, from the office in Riviere-du-Loup, on December 6 I am informed that payments are stopped after four completed weeks, four consecutive weeks. In the new measure, this has been changed, fortunately! But it took two years of hard work on the part of the commission officials and ministers-two of them-to finally be convinced that there is in the law a provision that prevents people from working. That's true, if they went to work for four weeks in a row during a period when they were unemployed, then they were absolutely disqualified.
More than 100 workers at the Bombardier plant in Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere were called back two years ago, when Bombardier renovated its Moto-Ski plant, people who were unemployed because the plant was half closed. The company had called back more than 100 workers to work in the plant, so all those people who worked for four or five weeks completely lost their benefits. They were told their claim year was ended. Imagine! It took two ministers and their officials two years and a half to grasp that. Now it is changed. I owe congratulations to those who made that change, it does not happen often that we have the opportunity to congratulate them, so you can applaud them, gentlemen. I would like to applaud everything they do, but there are so many things in there which have to be changed.
I have here another case of job searching, and the difficulty to find a job. It is about a man whose leg was amputated at the knee. I know him well, he is a friend of mine. He even mananged to drive a tractor during 29 weeks. The commission

starts annoying him concerning a visit to an independent doctor. He must go see an independent doctor to check if his leg was really amputated there. Imagine! We see stupid things like that every week. It is really stunning and absolutely ridiculous!
Another one had worked at the Desjardins plant until he had reached age 67. Naturally, he had not applied for Unemployment Insurance benefits; he had been receiving his Old Age Security Pension cheques since he had reached age 65. When he stopped working, he applied for his benefits. This occurred before the implementation of the provisions excluding people 65 years of age. These benefits were paid to him for a few weeks. Then, one day, he was asked to call at the Unemployment Insurance Commission office and offered various jobs. He was even invited to go and work in the Port Cartier as well as Bay James areas. This was a 67 year old man with only one finger in his left hand. How could the Unemployment Insurance Commission civil servants do this to him! They were relying on an Act which does not make sense, which requires complete reviewing and thorough amending.
Suddenly, they realized that they had made a mistake-they come up often enough with wrong figures-and claimed that there was an overpayment of $134 to his credit, as they had disqualified him for refusing to accept employment in the Bay James area. They had disqualified him and paid him $134 in excess. Later, they asked him to reimburse this amount. So I intervened and discussed the matter with the director who was probably the most understanding man in the world but who was under the obligation to apply the most stupid legislation in the world. So, this man was not yet entitled to his guaranteed income supplement since he had worked during the year. So they told me: He must get income from somewhere, he should be able to pay back those $134 since he does not get any supplement! If you can prove that he is eligible for income supplement, may we drop the case. This was pursuant to Section 175(l)(e)ii. By the way, I would really like to hear from the minister, at the first opportunity, how many unemployed people have received $100, $150 or whatever from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, due to an error and how many have been able to avail themselves of Section 175(l)(e)ii. I would really like to know that. So, I have contacted the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and I have not yet been paid, and then-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired. He may continue his remarks with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska):: I thank all my colleagues for being so tolerant. I suppose they would like to know how this legislation works. I thank them very much. I will try to be as brief as possible, but I want to mention those cases. The Unemployment Insurance Commission keeps asking this 67
February 1, 1977

year old senior citizen-who is now 68 for $ 134. I felt inclined to pay it myself. Really, I was ashamed to see such a team of civil servants. This case became known as far as Montreal. Some of them even told me that they were considering garni-sheeing the savings he had in his bank account. Of course, I insisted that he get his supplement and he got it. I think that he and his wife each got $1,000 in arrears because his case had been pending for a long time. When the Unemployment Insurance Commission learned that they each got $1,000, they wanted the $134 paid back. They did not take into account the debts he had incurred. He had to pay the rent and still had to reimburs this amount. So, the case is still pending. This is why I am asking who can avail himself of this section?
I was talking a while ago about a friend of mine whose views I had sought about the bill dealing with pregnancy benefits-I know that many women get them as I dealt with many cases- but there are also endless complications in some cases. I have in hand a letter by a lady-who, like many other ladies-is not afraid to raise her children and who had been working for 24 weeks. Two months prior to her confinement, she applied for unemployment benefits. She had phoned me before hand to ask me what the procedure was. I told her that it was quite easy. But then, troubles started. She did not receive 10 week benefits. Between the 30th week and the 50th week prior to her confinement: Can you imagine? How foolish can you be?
I am still in contact with the Commission. I received an answer recently. They tried to convince me that she was not eligible for benefits while I knew she was; in spite of all the intricacies in the act, she should be entitled to benefits, it is a matter of common sense. She could not have drawn benefits between the thirtieth and fiftieth week before delivery since she never claimed them. She worked during the qualifying period, namely 24 weeks; why then would the Commission not pay? There are many similar cases. Mr. Speaker; if the minister wants to check, all he has to do is come with his team of civil servants and I shall show him files in my office; he will see by himself what is going on.
It seems that civil servants have been ordered to reduce the number of registered unemployed by 33 percent and the letter I received from this man gives me some reason to believe this. They say: I do not care whether it is you or another. We have received instructions from somewhere. I have been eight years on the board of referees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Quebec City. I was representing labour. From time to time we would meet senior officials of the commission and they would give us specific instructions. Of course it was confidential material but I never saw one in favour of the unemployed. They were always at the advantage of the fund. Only I was a worker representative and I did not fear to raise objections whenever valid reasons called for it.
For some time now I have had many occasions to appear before the board of referees to defend unemployed people in a bad position and I have never seen, or very rarely, unless he is more open than average, a union representative who would accept a dissidence on a doubtful case. Most of the time it is a unanimous decision and when there is unanimity, it is written
Employment and Immigration
in the law and permission must be requested from the chairman of the board to refer the case to an umpire. Imagine a chairman who has made a decision three days or a week earlier and finds himself confronted with a request in the following terms: your decision was not correct, could we have the authorization to refer the case to an umpire? What simpleton dare write such ineptitudes in the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act? It seems that with this new legislation, there will be no further need to ask for an authorization from the chairman of the board of referees. That is fine, for I know many lawyers from the legal assistance clinics who are having problems in that respect. It often happens that the board of referees maintain the decisions: they want to keep in good terms with the official. There is nothing so odd in my opinion, when I come before the board of referees, seeing that all of them are nice people. I do not want to over-criticize them, but sometimes the situation seems so strange. The unemployed I represent are asked: Are you aware of our responsibility? They say: No, not exactly. The board says: We are not officers of the commission. We will look over the legislation, and, your case considered in respect to the act and the regulations. If there is any chance of getting benefits paid to you, we will do it. That is what they say to cheer up the claimant. But decisions are delayed until three or four days. They are not taken right away, because too often the office would be upset if decisions were given immediately to some people I know. I told a chap who was not too shy to ask them by whom they were getting paid.
I have been on a board of referees and I know that they are paid by the UIC. Usually, I work for whoever is paying me. They are trying to make people believe that they are totally independent in spite of the fact that they are being paid by the UIC. The setting up of boards of referees was requested by workers' unions, especially by workers' organizations, to help people who were faced with unfair decisions made by UIC officials. This system has solved some of the problems, but it also has to be improved. Thanks to the amendments contained in this bill, no authorization will be necessary. Cases will go to the board of referees but all this process will take time. There are insurability cases pending since 1974. Even today, I have two phone calls related to cases that are pending, because the income tax people say that the employment is not insurable.
Here is the case of a worker who builds homes. He owns a cab in Saint-Gabriel, Kamouraska, but he did some construction work for five weeks. That job was recognized for insurance purposes. Fifteen days later he worked on another house. The work was the same but that job could not be insured because the man was not there often enough to supervise the present worker. Can one imagine such stupid decisions!
Now let us talk about trying to find a job. I have here a fellow from Riviere-Bleue. The man is quite active and once wrote to me to find out if I was in a position to find him work or make suggestions. At first I suggested he get in touch with the manpower people: he could at least visit them. They seldom find you work but in any event it gave him a chance to talk to them. He went to see them. Later on I suggested he

February 1, 1977
Employment and Immigration
write to the Departments of Labour, both in Quebec and in Ottawa, and to everyone who might be able to find him work. I have that correspondence here. The fellow always got a nice reply, but he was told to get in touch with the local manpower people. He received the following answer: We have received your letter of May 4. But I was the one who sent that letter. I wrote to a manpower centre to see what would be their answer in Mr. Bouchard's case. The letter said: This is to inform you that we are sending your letter to our office in Cabano, 14 Commercial Street, as Mr. Bouchard is registered in that centre... From Riviere-du-Loup, this is not very far. There are labour ministers, all kinds of civil servants, all kinds of officers, but he cannot find a job.
How can this be? The minister is responsible for all this, no one can deny it. How is it that the employees of the commission disqualify people because they cannot find a job during a period when there is no work? Look here, I was told that the premises of my question were not acceptable but I can assure you that this is not a way to apply the law either. Somebody will have to change it.
I have here more examples of people looking for jobs, for example this young girl. I communicated with the manpower centre. She has been looking for jobs in 52 different places and she gives all their names. She is a shorthand typist and received a diploma from the school she attended, last June. She has not found a job yet. Today I am told that she will have to make a new application. The unemployed are penalized because they do not find jobs, because they have not searched long enough. But all this monkey business of our administration is madness and this should be changed, the sooner the better.
Recently I received this letter and the minister must have received the same one; it was written by a union leader who I think represents employees of the Public Service Commission and who asked me to retract my words after I said they did not know their job. That is funny. He sent this letter to the minister, who must have received it, to the leader of the Social Credit Party and to myself and he assures me that his people have exceptional qualities. I recognize that many of them are acceptable. But there are four categories of civil servants performing government functions: those who perform, those who perform slowly, those who don't perform at all, and those who perform in the wrong direction. We must be careful with those categories.
I wrote to him, I am not ashamed to say what I wrote. Here is my letter. He sent me back a copy, but I have extra ones in my files. This is a fellow who was ill, he had been hurt in an accident, he had a broken leg. Indeed he has not recovered yet. He may be fit for work again next month. He is still under medical attention. He was visiting with his father-in-law in Saint-Pamphile, in the constituency of Kamouraska-L'Islet.
He went back to Montreal where he had worked before. He went to see his employers to find out if he could resume working, even at a light job. And of course he applied for UIC illness benefits. He was entitled to it, he had contributed enough. The case is before a high-ranking UIC civil servant in
[Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).J
Ottawa. I phoned him yesterday morning. So he sends a medical certificate, he sends a cheque. The fellow had received a small amount of insurance, a first cheque is deducted, so he is due $12, and on the other one they send him a cheque. Then he gets a notice: Final payment if work is not resumed. The fellow has a broken leg, this is plainly stated in his medical certificate, but final payment if work is not resumed.
So I wrote them because I was getting fed up to hear all sorts of remarks like that. The guy is going to send me the card which reads: final payment if work not resumed. So what did I tell them that crossed them so much? I thought it was very funny, though. That enabled me to know who was sick. Before that I was not too sure but now I know. He asked me to retract. Does it mean I should say; "maybe I should not have written that because you should not always tell the whole truth".
I told the commission guy the man had problems and had sent in two medical reports. The last one was dated December 10. It is obvious that Mr. Bernier was unable to resume work, he has a broken leg, and had to go back to his doctor. I was surprised to hear that the commission had sent him a cheque, the only one ever paid to him since he made his application. And that cheque, said: final payment if work not resumed. I think there are a lot of sick people on the staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission who should be under appropriate care. In this case it is easy enough to understand that Mr. Bernier will not be able to resume work for several weeks. He has made the required number of payments, he is entitled to sick benefits. Why should the commission civil servants prove so mean? What they want me to retract are those two words-sick and mean. I think this is very funny. It is mean to deny payments and to make no effort to try to find out whether an applicant is eligible for benefits or not. That is being mean. I have nothing to retract on that. As for being sick, well, yes, there are sick people, perhaps sicker than that man who needed benefits. But they are sick in the head, and that is the trouble. There are all sorts of incurable illnesses.
In concluding, I would not want to take excessive advantage of the fact that my colleagues have allowed me to continue. I would like to make a few suggestions, not directly related to the clauses of the bill-I will have an opportunity to come back to them, as I have gone into them very thoroughly-and I think I am in a position to make practical suggestions, concerning phrasing and the legislation such as it was submitted to us. But tonight I shall limit myself to the following: First, we should rephrase the law and rules to make them more understandable, more social, more human, and change our way of implementing them to protect the unemployed instead of the fund; we should retrain, and that is important, as many civil servants as possible, those who do not work or who do not do their work properly, in an atmosphere of practical comprehension, by rotating lay-offs, so they become aware of unemployment related problems through living experiences. Let us lay them off for a while and we shall see their reactions. When they have waited one month, maybe two or three, to get their first benefits, they will be in a better position when they are
February 1, 1977

back on the job to listen to what the unemployed have to say. Maybe they would be eligible for holidays allowances or a severance pay and those moneys will be considered as revenue pursuant to rules 172 and 173.
They would learn to live for a few months under the same conditions as the unemployed and in many cases they could advantageously be replaced by qualified unemployed whose applications for jobs have been on file in the manpower office for months. That would not increase the number of unemployed and would contribute to train a team of civil servants who would be qualified to administer the law and rules, and appreciate the hardships and worries associated with a period of unemployment such as the one we are experiencing now.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27, which we are debating this evening, is part of the package which the government calls its new employment strategy, and we ought to examine the bill in that context.
If we are to endorse and support a policy for employment, that policy surely ought to meet two basic and vital tests. First, such policy must give individual Canadians the opportunity, encouragement and assistance required to obtain self-respect, adequate income, and satisfying employment. Second, it must do everything in its power to ensure that the priceless human resources of this nation do not go to waste or lie idle; it must ensure the well-being of all people, and see to it that the productivity of all our people is used to its best advantage.
A major contradiction is involved here, Mr. Speaker, because at the very time we are considering this "new employment strategy" which the government has brought forward we are observing in this country, as my colleague mentioned, a monumental increase in the number of unemployed. At present more than 750,000 Canadians are unemployed. They are people who are prevented from contributing productively to our economy.
To this group of unemployed one can add other groups of people who are all too often forgotten and excluded from productive employment. I think, for instance, of young people who are forced to stay in some training program or the classroom because there is no opportunity for them at present to be productively involved in society. I think of the handicapped and the disabled; I think of the elderly who often are forced into idleness although they have many productive years before them. I think of the mothers of young children, mothers who would gladly work part-time, of workers whose jobs make poor use of the skills they have acquired, and of those who are in employment which underutilizes their capacities. Finally, I think of the discouraged worker who has simply dropped out of the labour force because there are no openings for him. Measured in those terms, I believe Bill C-27 is a modest piece of legislation indeed.
I am surprised at the government's attention to this measure, since this bill would open few new vistas for bringing neglected groups or areas into the productive mainstream of
Employment and Immigration
the Canadian economy. Apart from its over-all lack of vision, what disturbs me most about the bill is its insensitive-I might almost say unaware-approach to regional unemployment.
I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) has not yet, to my knowledge, publicly commented on this bill. Unfortunately he is not with us this evening. I certainly hope he will make some remarks at some stage during second reading because much of what I am going to say this evening has a real impact on the portfolio he carries with regard to economic disparities in this country.
I really wonder whether it is accurate to describe this bill as part of an employment strategy. As I said a moment ago, I am particularly concerned and I am going to speak very largely tonight about the implications of this legislation with regard to regional economic and social disparities in Canada. There are aspects of the bill I will not deal with that certainly are open to very real question. I presume other speakers will want to address their attention to them.
There is the question of job training. Over the past few years there has been a series of attempts, with programs under the Department of Manpower, to give people on-the-job training, and opportunities to provide skills and upgrade their education so that they will have better access to and better opportunity on the job market.
After the experience that we have had over almost a decade, it is high time that we know if there is any over-all strategy involved, if there is any realistic co-ordination between the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Transport, or some of the provincial departments which have exercised very active concern and interest in this area. It is not enough to announce we are going to have new pilot projects without giving an evaluation of how effective we have been with previous programs, whether we have learned from them, and how we are going to tailor more clearly job training programs to realistic job needs.
In the area of job-sharing, which the minister commented on briefly this afternoon, there is a great deal of question and uncertainty. My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), gave an indication from his experience of some of the difficulties that have arisen in other countries with regard to this particular proposal.
I am somewhat disturbed by the fact there does not appear to have been much meaningful consultation with either the various provincial departments or agencies that will be responsible in this area, or with the major sectors of the industrial and economic community which obviously will have to take a very activist role.
My present understanding is that organized labour and indeed the industrial community do not look with any great amount of favour or interest upon this proposal. It is somewhat useless for the government to say this is a part of a new employment strategy if in fact there is little interest or cooperation on the horizon from these significant groups.

Employment and Immigration
As I said at the outset, fundamental to any employment strategy must be the recognition that each individual in our society who wishes or requires to enter the labour force should be entitled to do meaningful work at an equitable return. Surely all of us recognize that as an essential requirement. This is essential both for the well-being of individual workers in our society and for the well-being of society as a whole.
When we look at the extent to which people on an individual and collective basis require the help of the whole community, both on an economic and social basis, to say that that must not be the central and beginning point is simply not to recognize the reality itself. As we examine these present changes with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act, we must look at them against the backdrop of the individual's experience and companion programs which have been in the job creation field. It is a mixed record at best.
We have had programs particularly directed toward young people. Opportunities for Youth comes to mind as a first initiative of the kind of job creation area where people were given sums of money to create, in effect, their own jobs for socially beneficial projects of a short-term nature.
OFY and its companion program, Local Initiatives, which has gone through years one, two, three and four, have given us a great deal of experience with regard to the usefulness, advantages and disadvantages of this kind of job creation experience. In the last month or two the minister has launched the latest addition of these particular kinds of job creation programs with Canada Works and Young Canada Works.
The message is beginning to get through to the minister and some of his officials that all is not well with regard to a continued repetition of a particular, novel approach to job creation. While there have been substantial benefits in terms of some community improvements and some opportunities for people to be engaged in the work force for periods of time, it has not been shown to be at all encompassing or even a major solution with respect to job creation. I hope the minister will be one of the first to recognize this. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but he would not want to be anxious to say that through these programs, whether Local Initiatives or Canada Works, that in itself will affect in a major way the three quarters of a million people presently unemployed.
What disturbs me, and has disturbed me for some considerable time, is that at best these job creation programs are of an ad hoc nature. Their very set-up is an indication of that. Over the past four or five years that these programs have been in operation, there has never been any legislative measure which this parliament, or any of its committees, has had an opportunity to examine with regard to the efficacy of the programs or their required continuation. At best, this is a casual approach to a major expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. At worst, it is an indication that the government is not yet ready to say in categorical and long terms what are the benefits of such a program and why it should be enshrined within some form of statute which parliament has had a chance both to scrutinize and give its authority to.

To go on from year to year without any statutory consideration of programs of this nature, which obviously are now becoming somewhat of a permanent fixture, is really to play fast and loose not only with enormous sums of money but with the good will that is in communities, both large and small, from coast to coast in this country. They are willing to accept this form of government intervention, but only if there is proper stewardship connected with it. Unfortunately we have heard enough of abuses that have taken place to realize that public sentiment in a number of areas does not support these job creation programs.
I live in an area where people are so desperate for employment, and have been so concerned as to make the program work satisfactorily, that we have had a very high percentage of commendable projects both for individuals and for communities. However, for us to continue on a year after year basis with the government rushing in from month to month, either creating another kind of ad hoc job creation program or throwing more sums of money into specific regions because the unemployment figures have become absolutely intolerable, is a very irresponsible way for it to provide leadership.
I would hope that this government, even though it may well be in its dying days, would at least try to come to its senses with regard to a more sensible management of this particular initiative. That is all I will say about that particular matter because I know that other speakers will comment on it more extensively.
I want to deal with, as I said at the outset, what I see as a prime problem with regard to Bill C-27. Really it is a form of paradox or strange inconsistency. This is an interesting bill because, as the minister said today, and as was pointed out many months ago by his predecessor during the original budget debate when this proposal was first introduced, there is going to be a raising of the eligibility period from eight to 12 weeks. As my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, reminded the minister again today, this is a policy which we enunciated some years ago and which the government has now, with some very delayed wisdom, accepted. The minister has accepted it and has gone on to estabish another principle about which we have also been equally concerned, and that is to deal with all parts of the country fairly.
Here is where we come to this strange paradox, Mr. Speaker. On page 18 of the bill the minister provides in clause 35 for what will be known as a regionally extended benefit. Then on page 33, and particularly on page 34 of the bill, we discovery what this regionally extended benefit may mean, that there will be in fact extended benefits in areas or regions with unemployment in excess of 4 per cent. Then there are various levels, depending on the percentage of unemployment.
I have no hesitation in saying that I think the government has recognized a fundamental truth about this country, one that it does not recognize very often. Perhaps that is the reason why the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has just left. I was going to refer to him in particular as one who has had great
February 1, 1977

difficulty recognizing this fundamental truth about Canada. We are not a bland monolith from coast to coast. Perhaps it is not nearly so necessary to say it today with the kind of regional tensions and anxieties which obviously exist in the country, but I believe those who think for a few moments about the varying problems, capacities, concerns and needs of this country will realize that there is a wide variation, not only in regard to such subtle things as attitudes, concepts and understandings, but also in very basic things, such as the ability to work and the wage scales which people receive for similar kinds of employment.
The government is certainly not uninformed in this particular area, Mr. Speaker, because it has been the subject of debate from time to time. The fact that the federal government itself as a national employer has offered various rates of pay for the same kind of work in different parts of the country has been previously questioned. So it is right and proper that with respect to these benefits there is one standard whereby benefits will be based on the number of weeks a person has been employed, which I think form the standpoint of incentive, which concerns all of us very much, is a proper and effective principle to have in place.
Then there is another set of criteria with respect to benefits which relate realistically to unemployment levels in regions across this country. I have not heard anyone, either today or prior to today, when discussing this bill oppose this basic concept of regional variation with respect to benefits. But the part that concerns me is that while the government has accepted, enunciated and established this policy in the legislation before the House today, it has done it for only one side of the equation. The government has said that it should exist with respect to the benefit side, but that it should not exist with respect to eligibility. I am going to say a little more later on about the specific approach which we feel must be taken in order that this piece of legislation be consistent.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am not really giving the government news that it has not been aware of in bits and pieces in other areas of its responsibility. It is just that there is a shocking lack of consistency. In the program of local initiatives to which I referred a few minutes ago it is a well known fact that each year, once the program has been laid out, great attempts are made to judge, on a region by region basis, the exact unemployment situation so that the amount of money available can be tailored to particular needs. In fact in this particular year the variations are so great that the department discovered that certain constituencies could not even make use of their original allotment. Others were receiving two to three times the amount they were originally awarded last September. With respect to the Canada Works Program, as the minister knows, so far as additional provision for capital works is concerned there is no provision for those areas of particularly high unemployment.
We know that one of the fundamental principles of this bill is the bringing together of the Manpower side and the unemployment insurance side in some kind of package, the services being centralized and to a degree made more accessible to the
Employment and Immigration
individual who is looking for employment or to the individual claimant. There may be an additional hidden benefit, apart from the local services factor, or the national planning factor, which the minister has in mind in respect to this new legislation. Perhaps it will allow the department, this new reorganized department, to realize that it must be consistent on its eligibility side as well as on its benefits side. It will, in effect, let one side know what the other side is doing.
In its present context, this particular legislation is what I can only describe, in light of regional realities, as a sort of half pregnant piece of legislation. It is halfway there when it comes to recognizing that there is a particular problem, need or responsibility which the commission has in regard to abnormally high unemployment, and that there must be, as appears from the tables, a specific response to that particular situation.
I suppose that the minister or others might say that the reason we are not providing this eligibility period on a flexible basis is because the situation is basically the same from coast to coast. I think the minister referred to the fact that basically unemployment affects young people, those who are single, or second income earners; and he might also have said it affects those who are women. The implication is given, both in his comments today and in the notes earlier, that there is not really much of a difference whether people are unable to acquire benefits of 12 weeks, whether they live in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, St. John's, Newfoundland, Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver. I want to make it very clear this evening that nothing could be further from the truth.
The minister may now have had a chance to study the figures, but the fact is that the areas that are going to be hardest hit are the very areas with the highest unemployment. It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that on a national basis the percentage of those who are going to be affected is something like 13.2 per cent, those who are in the category of eight to 11 weeks entitlement. But when we look at the province of New Brunswick we find the figure there is 18.2 per cent, in Newfoundland it is 17 per cent, in Prince Edward Island it is 15.5 per cent, in Quebec it is 14 per cent, and in Nova Scotia it is 14.8 per cent. In other words, the five eastern provinces with roughly one third the population of Canada will have approximately half their people who have this entitlement from eight to 11 weeks affected.
This means that these provinces are the ones that will bear the heaviest brunt with respect to alternatives-either the alternative of getting some form of employment to increase eligibility to the acceptable level of 12 weeks, or the alternative of drawing social security, or simply the alternative of not generating any income whatsoever. But let there be no mistake that the estimated loss in terms of income on a provincial basis is going to fall extremely heavily, inordinately heavily, on those provinces least able to protect themselves. When we refer to New Brunswick we are talking about $13 million to $16 million. When we talk about Nova Scotia, we are talking about $6 million to $8 million. For Newfoundland the figures are $14 million to $18 million. For Prince Edward Island, something between $2 million to $4 million, and for the

February 1, 1977
Employment and Immigration
province of Quebec, something around S80 million. I know some of the provinces have complained publicly, but I am surprised they have not complained more than they have to date. I suppose this is because they are preoccupied with other things and have not fully realized what a penalty they will be called upon to pay.
I suppose we shall be told that many of these people will find employment of an alternative nature to make up the difference. This is what the minister said in his statement. But look at the job vacancy rate in the Atlantic provinces. It has not exceeded 3,300, yet the statistics show that some 53,000 people in the Atlantic provinces will be directly affected by this change in the provision. If we assume that all of them will be looking for work, this means a ratio of 16 people for each job vacancy that exists.
Even more telling is the impact this measure will have province by province. I think, as I read the figures, we shall see a pattern here which is really serious from the point of view of reinforcing regional economic disparity. As the minister knows, there will be some benefits derived from the suspension of indexing. In 1977 this will mean a total over-all saving of something like $250 million, which will produce a benefit to Newfoundland of something like $4 million, but the loss of income to individual claimants in that province, those who are presently receiving unemployment insurance benefits, will amount to between $24 million and $28 million, leaving a deficit of well over $20 million. With respect to Prince Edward Island there will be a saving of $1 million and a loss of $4 million to $5 million; in Nova Scotia, a saving of $7,750,000 and a loss of $9 million. The province will only lose something like $1,250,000. In New Brunswick there will be a saving of $6 million and a loss of between $19 million and $22 million; in Quebec, a saving of $66,750,000 but a loss of $93 million to $109 million; in Ontario, a saving of $97 million and a loss of between $85 million and $101 million. In other words, Ontario will just be about in balance. In fact, depending on how things work out, there could be some real economic benefit to Ontario. The province of Manitoba will save some $10,500,000 and lose between $7 million and $8 million. Saskatchewan will save $7 million and lose between $8 million and $10 million.
Take a look at the western provinces. In Alberta, they will save some $19,700,000 and lose only between $7 million and $8 million. In British Columbia they will save $29,500,000 and lose in UIC payments between $18 million and $21 million. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories they will save $1 million and lose between $1 million and $2 million.
These figures are dramatic in their implications when one looks at them in terms of one simple comparison. The Atlantic provinces will be saving $18,750,000 but losing between $56 million and $66 million, as compared with western Canada which will save some $66,500,000 and lose between $40 million and $47 million. It is apparent, therefore, that there is a very real regional impact associated with this bill.

The minister has told us nothing about all this. The information has been given in percentage terms which always reflect an average on a national basis, with an indication that this proposal will affect only certain individuals who are not closely attached to the work force anyway-they are little people who work a few weeks to get enough stamps to draw benefits for a considerable period, and the assumption is that we should not be too concerned about them. The insidious thing about the comments that have been made is this: there seems to have been an attempt to cast aspersions on those who are young, or single, or second-income earners, as though they are somehow a second order of humanity.


An hon. Member:: That is your interpretation.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is an interpretation. That is right. And it is one which I make with a very strong assurance. As I studied those figures I realized that a very high proportion of these people are also low income earners, as the minister himself agrees. He told us they have a weaker attachment to the work force. One of the conclusions I draw is that these are the people who are likely to be hit first by any change of program, the people who find it hardest to establish a permanent attachment to the work force. This is not because they are consciously trying to rip-off the unemployment insurance fund but because they are the people who find themselves at the bottom of each and every scale in terms of employability, opportunity, training, and forms of employment available to them. This approach on the part of the government, taking it out on those least able to protect themselves, is not a new approach.
We may have a new minister, but what is being developed here is consistent with what the government has been doing over a considerable period. I would remind hon. members that it was the present government which, only a short time ago, decided to eliminate from benefit possibilities those who are over 65, and decided to reduce benefits for those whose families were larger in size than average. Again a high proportion of such groups live in the very regions which have the highest unemployment rates. On a per capita basis, provinces such as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have a much higher proportion of people aged 65 and over than the national average. In those same provinces larger family units are to be found on a per capita basis than in other parts of the country. Yet these are the people who are called upon to bear the effects of these benefit changes.
There is a consistent pattern here. I suppose that as one member coming from a disadvantaged province I should be grateful that the bill at least offers a provision for regional benefits. Maybe the government is taking one timid step toward recognizing that this is a country of regions and that it must respond to the needs of those regions sensitively and reasonably. However, what we have found up to the present is an anti-regional development policy, with the sole exception of the benefit provisions. If the government really wants to harmonize its program with respect to regional disparities- and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has often said that
February 1, 1977

this is one of the cornerstones of his leadership-it will need to be more consistent in its legislation than it is in the bill before us.
If there are those who believe that the whole question of opportunity for employment is the same from coast to coast and they have not yet begun to realize that there is some major variation in employment opportunities, I would just like to throw out this one further fact with respect to the seasonality in employment, and I want to make it very clear that one of the underlying problems we face in dealing with abnormally high unemployment in several regions of the country is that far too many of the major industries in these areas are seasonal in nature. We have only to think of industries such as agriculture, fisheries, and tourism to realize the very short duration of employment that is offered in these specific industries.
As one indication of this variation in unemployment rates from the best to the worst month in 1976, let me point out that it was two and a half times greater in terms of variation in Newfoundland than in Ontario, and that was because the province of Newfoundland, perhaps more than any other province in this country, has so much of its industrial employment located around seasonal industries, and until they recognize this, not just in terms of the benefit provisions but also in terms of the eligibility, this legislation represents at best an inconsistent attempt to deal with an employment insurance program for this country.
I said a few minutes ago that the minister referred today- and there have been references previously-to the situation of those who are single, young, or second income earners, but, as I noted, particularly those who are in the low income brackets are in that situation because they are employed in jobs which pay very little and, in far too many instances, provide employment for a short-term period. I am specifically and consciously aware of this fact because during the past few months one of the major industries in my end of Prince Edward Island, that of Irish moss harvesting, has been particularly hard hit. In a good year there may be employment in harvesting Irish moss for perhaps 10 or 11 weeks, of maybe even 12 weeks. In a bad year they will be lucky to get eight weeks. That has certainly been the situation this year. But perhaps I am not telling the government something it does not know because, as a matter of fact, just a few days ago the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) announced a subsidy program because of the particular hardship borne by these Fishermen in PEI and other provinces as well.
I want to come to the essence of what I think is important to make this bill equitable and consistent, and I draw the attention of the minister and of all hon. members to the amendment which my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, indicated today he intends to propose in committee. I think that this is a basic approach, and while affirming our desire to see the Unemployment Insurance Commission move closer to its original insurance principles, he has recognized that it must not be done by attacking the poor, and that any solution must
Employment and Immigration
be highly sensitive to the differences and the composition of our regional work forces.
The amendment would accept the basic 12 week entrance minimum but would allow, in regions of chronic unemployment or seasonal unemployment, the lowering of the minimum down to eight weeks where there would otherwise be undue hardship caused for those who live in those situations. I think this is a fair amendment. Without going into detail, it is certainly consistent with the other parts of this bill where we see, for instance, that regional unemployment rates are used as part three of the benefit structures. I would hope therefore that the minister would seriously consider it when this bill reaches the committee stage. Certainly it fits very clearly with the report of the Economic Council of Canada in 1976 when, in commenting on the general question, in this document entitled "People and Jobs" it states the following, on page 39:
It would, of course, be possible to try to eliminate abuses by cutting certain categories of claimants or the duration of benefits, or by extending the period of work before claimants become eligible for benefits. But such recommendations could prove harmful to persons most exposed to periodic and genuinely and involuntary unemployment. It would seem better to go after "malingerers" more directly. For this reason we believe that much of the problem of abuse of unemployment insurance could be solved by two methods-by tightening administrative efforts to get persons back to work, and by creating jobs to absorb them.
I believe my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, has focused on the problem in the right context. He used the words this afternoon of a new federalism, one that will be realistic and flexible but one which would consistently recognize the basic employment and insurance needs of people in the various regions of this country. I hope that members on all sides of the House, and in particular other colleagues of mine from the Atlantic provinces in other parties, and those who are concerned that we have in effect a national program which adequately reflects the situation in this country, will give favourable consideration to this proposal when it reaches committee and make this in some measure at least a more responsible bill for the Canadian people generally.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the main purpose of this bill is to camouflage another major policy shift in the direction and the thrust of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and one which I predict will be as unsuccessful in meeting the needs of the Canadian people as the earlier reorganizations which have taken place in the last dozen years have been.
I remind the minister that until 1966 we had a national employment service whose function was to find jobs for people who were unemployed, and an Unemployment Insurance Commission whose job was to provide insurance for those who were temporarily unemployed. Then the so-called experts inside the department, and some of the myriad experts from outside who were hired on contract at fat prices, decided that the real trouble in this country, the reason we had so much unemployment, was because our work force was under trained. They ignored the fact that in the last 20 years tens of thousands of young people continued through the high schools, young people who in earlier generations would have left school after

February 1, 1977
Employment and Immigration
grades six, seven or eight. But the panacea for unemployment was to give people training to fit them for the jobs which were supposedly available. So we concentrated on job training.
We built community colleges and technical vocational schools, we spent tens of millions of dollars, we hired teachers and we offered courses. In the estimates for the last fiscal year we provided for job training and training allowances to keep people while they were taking courses $771 million, and in the supplementary estimates, low and behold, there was another $100 million. So we spent $880 million on job training in the last year. With what results? Let me quote from a study done by Barbara Goldman who worked for the C. D. Howe Research Institute, in which she said:
Canada gets a real pay-off from training only if the trainees can find steady employment. Otherwise, training is simply another form of income support, and there are, in many cases, more effective ways of providing income support.
In the same study she pointed out that current manpower programs are heavily weighted toward training, even though the training given does not often match labour market requirements. She pointed out that the amount of manpower training money was often decided not by the needs of the people who supposedly would get the training but by the political considerations of the government. She gave examples. She pointed out that in June, 1975, the then minister announced a $450 million direct employment program to last two years. When he did that the unemployment rate was 7.1 per cent. However, in December of the same year, when unemployment was up to 7.3 per cent, the then president of the treasury board announced cuts in Manpower programs of over $100 million, not because we did not need the money, not because there were not people who needed the training, but simply because it suited the political objectives of the government at that time.
Despite the $880 million we spent on manpower training last year, we have the highest unemployment this country has seen since before World War II. Now the experts are going to break up the existing structure of Canada Manpower centres and the department on the one hand and the Unemployment Insurance Commission on the other, and they are going to amalgamate the two departments into a commission headed by one deputy minister and an assistant deputy minister. I have a great deal of respect for the capacity of these two gentlemen, but they will be responsible for twice as much work as they have been responsible for up until now. I suggest that what we will have is a bureaucratic structure which will collapse under its own weight. However, there is another reason why this program will not work, and that is that the government has no commitment or belief in full employment.
We have heard two members from the official opposition today, and they really believe that many of the people drawing unemployment insurance benefits could in fact be working if only they wanted to. It is obvious the official opposition believes that, because it was the official opposition which first proposed that the period during which people should work before they can draw benefits should be increased from eight weeks to twelve weeks. They reason that many people get a job

and work for eight weeks, just long enough to qualify for benefits. Then they quit and live happily, easily, and comfortably on unemployment insurance benefits. There is just no truth in that kind of thinking.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh yes, there is.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) says that there is. No member of parliament and no person who has looked at the question of employment and unemployment seriously would suggest for one moment that nobody is ripping off the unemployment insurance system any more than anyone would suggest that nobody tries to beat the income tax system or the medical insurance system, or anything else.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That doesn't make it right.


David Orlikow: Of course it does not make it right, any more than it is right for some doctor in some part of Canada to pad the bills he sends to the health insurance commission of that particular area. The question is, is there a substantial percentage of the people who are getting unemployment insurance benefits who could be working, and I say that the figures we have which are compiled by Statistics Canada prove conclusively that that is not true. Let me put on the record what the figures for unemployment are, what the job vacancy figures are, and if the hon. member for Provencher would compare those new figures, he would see that even if every job vacancy in Canada were filled, there would still be over 700,000 unemployed. That is a fact, and the prejudices which members of parliament or people outside parliament may have will not disprove the facts.
What are the facts as we have them from Statistics Canada? As reported in the Globe and Mail of January 12, 1977, the unemployment figures for December of 1976 were as follows:
Unemployment jumped to 7.5 per cent of the labour force during December from 7.3 per cent a month earlier, Statistics Canada reports.
The number out of work jumped sharply to 754,000 from 708,000 in November.
In December of 1975 there were only 693,000 people unemployed, so there is an increase of over 60,000 in December of 1976. Quoting again from the Globe and Mail:
The higher December unemployment brought the average unemployment rate for all of 1976 to 7.3 per cent. For each month, there were an average 736,000 jobless.
If we look at the provincial breakdowns, we really get a feeling of total despair. In Nova Scotia the number of unemployed jumped in December of 1976 to 32,000 from 26,000 the year before. In New Brunswick unemployment jumped to
30.000	from 27,000 in December the year before. Unemployment in Quebec jumped in December of 1976 to 253,000 from
216.000	in December of 1975. I have said this before and I say it again: I am not surprised that the people of Quebec did not re-elect a Liberal provincial government. With that kind of unemployment the people there did not have much choice. In
February 1, 1977

Manitoba the unemployment figures were at a stationary rate. In British Columbia-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to what I thought was a fairly straightforward question which I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) last Friday about denials by a top civil servant of the very existence of the now widely known and widely discredited so-called EPO list.
On September 30 of last year, Michael Pitfield, Clerk of the Privy Council, said in a letter to Walter Rudnicki, one of those on the list, the following: "I have never before heard of the concept of an extra parliamentary opposition, least of all one so officially dubbed". He then went on to elaborate.
What I would like to know is how it is that someone in such a high position did not know about this odious list and the silly letter accompanying it, particularly since last October 2 hon. members of this place made inquiries, and while no one knew anything then either, at least notice was, in effect, given.
Months later, confronted by a copy of the list and the letter, however, suddenly official minds and attitudes changed, and the whole matter is really quite shocking. It involves more than just the credibility of this government or a top civil servant. It reminds us of the so-called October crisis which was magnified by this government out of all proportion and became one of the worst blots on the civil liberties of Canadians one could possibly imagine. It also recalls the famous Aislin cartoon of a then prominent cabinet minister carrying Bell Telephone directories in his arms with the caption: "Now we have the list of suspects". All of a sudden lists are in the news again, not separatism this time, but EPO sympathisers, of all things.
The stonewall techniques and the silly, evasive non-answers are just as distasteful in some ways as the list itself. Are we so weak a democracy that we must have lists of young people and students who are radicals of the left or of the right? Are we to be lumped in with the iron curtain countries and former Nazi regimes which epitomize the police state concept, which deal in lists, which dealt in lists of all sorts, and which tolerate no dissenters?
Adjournment Debate
I wonder, when the government House leader was attempting today to avoid the questions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) by saying that the Pearson guidelines for giving persons singled out for certain purposes a chance to be informed and to defend themselves did not apply in the case of the EPO list, was he thinking how keen he was when minister of immigration to have Mr. Loney dismissed from his summer job and then, before he was even mentioned in the letter-before the list ever compiled-were we in 1971 and are we now so fragile a democracy that we resort to putting young people on lists-in many cases the best and brightest of our young people-merely for having strong views and speaking out, or for being activists.
As nearly as I can ascertain, the "radicalizing of the under classes of society", one of the things that the then solicitor general indicated some of these people on the list were doing, appeared to consist of trying to get a better deal for non-status Indians and Metis people by encouraging them in self-help.
I hope the present Solicitor General will take a strong stand against this sort of listing process and join with us at this time in roundly condemning the whole circumstances and practice. It reminds one of the Christmas rhyme which goes as follows:
He's making a list,
He's checking it twice;
He's going to find out Who's naughty or nice.
In the particular case of the former solicitor general, he personally hand delivered it, and apparently all those to whom he gave it forgot about the whole thing. I have a feeling that Walter Rudnicki and some of the other score of persons will want more justification for what was done than this.
There is a lot of injustice still around, Mr. Speaker. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made some comments on the way the Japanese were treated during the war. Perhaps people like Walter Rudnicki, formerly a member of the Public Service of Canada, and Don McCleery and Gilles Brunet and Joe Primeau and others formerly in the RCMP ought to merit some redress and apology while their cases are still current.
In the meantime a little more frankness, openness and information would help a lot, and we will be counting on the Solicitor General for his co-operation in this respect.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate tonight, I am of course aware that I have only a few minutes to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). Late on the morning of January 28 last, the hon. member asked me if I knew that certain high officials not under my jurisdiction had supposedly denied at a certain time the existence of the letter read in the House by one of the colleagues of the hon. member, the member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).
Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that I was not aware of the letter which had supposedly been written by the Clerk of the

February 1, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Privy Council since I do not usually-I think that we do not usually do this on this side of the House-read the personal mail of other people. In any case, I think that the reply given at that time in the letter to which the hon. member for Central Nova has just referred clearly shows that among both politi-cans in the House and high officials, there never was in their opinion a black list like the hon. member tried to imply in this House.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is indeed because this document has constantly been referred to as a black list that it has been mentioned only in general terms without any precision as to the date, so as to make allegations that there may have been a misunderstanding on the subject raised in fact by the hon. member for Central Nova. It is therefore not surprizing that no one on either side of the House ever heard of a black list because, as a matter of fact, there was no such list.
We all know that that the sole responsibility as concerns security that befalls the Royal Canadian Mounted Police consists in gathering information which is then transmitted to the departments and that it is then up to the departments, if they believe the information to be based on fact, after their own evaluation of this information, to apply their own rules. Of course, as the House leader and Acting Prime Minister explained this afternoon, if ever there was any doubt as to the loyalty of the person involved which could lead to a new classification or even to a demotion, a transfer or a simple dismissal, it would then rest with the department concerned to approach the individual, to acquaint him with the doubts raised and thus solve the entire matter.
Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the basic questions raised by the hon. member is the existence of a security service within a state. Nevertheless, when the report of the Royal Commission on Security was tabled in the House in 1969, it was clearly accepted by all the parties in this House that a security service was indeed essential in any democratic country if it did not want to behave like an ostrich in the face of the possible existence of subversive groups.


HEALTH-ARSENIC POLLUTION IN YELLOWKNIFE- ACCEPTABILITY OF MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, the topic with which I wish to deal this evening concerns the establishment by the Department of National Health and Welfare of a task force to study arsenic pollution in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories.
The issue of arsenic pollution in Yellowknife is not new, by any means, since Yellowknife residents have known about arsenic pollution for some years. On January 18 of this year, as the arsenic story broke in the newspapers, an early Yellowknife pioneer by the name of Charles H. Schwerdt wrote me a long letter in which he described Yellowknife in the 1930's and 1940's. Mr. Schwerdt is retired and presently living in Surrey, B.C. He stated that residents of Yellowknife were aware of arsenic pollution even in those days. I shall quote part of the letter he wrote. He said:
We had arsenic pollution of snow, water, vegetation all over the area as early as the spring of 1947-exactly some 30 years ago.
I do not know if any records are in existence at this time to establish certain facts...
This I do know. One Mr. Callaghan, known as the Peace River farmer, brought some milk cows and other stock in Yellowknife, hoping to establish a dairy farm there. I believe that was in the summer of 1944 or 1945, but not certain. However, this I do know. He lost all of his stock in less than a year after bringing them. Dr. Stanton, who was the resident doctor at the 'Con' mine, diagnosed and established the cattle died from arsenic poisoning on the vegetation. Plus the water. What compensation he was given I do not know.
That was the situation around 1947, Mr. Speaker. Over the years there have been many studies on arsenic, and people are losing confidence in the government's ability to cope with the problem; but the minister has announced yet another study, which I welcome, although with reservations. One of my reservations is that so many such studies have been undertaken over the years.
The Grainge report, which is part of the Yellowknife environmental survey, lists 24 separate studies on environmental conditions in Yellowknife in the last ten years alone. Most of those studies dealt with arsenic pollution. One study done in 1969 neglected to inform the public about such dangers as unsafe drinking water in Yellowknife Bay. The YES study indicated that there is a high level of arsenic in the snow. These and other examples over the years show that residents of Yellowknife have reason to be suspicious of the federal health department.
I also have reservations about the terms of reference of this task force, as set out in the minister's news release of January 18, 1977. There is no indication that this task force intends to break new ground. It is instructed to review all available data relevant to arsenic in the Yellowknife area; and, 24 official studies having been done in the last ten years alone, I wish them luck. But the minister has not laid down instructions for the testing of specific groups, particularly miners and people living in the Indian villages near Yellowknife.
On January 15, at a press conference I attended in Toronto, the National Indian Brotherhood and the United Steelworkers issued a statement declaring that there is a most serious arsenic problem in the Yellowknife area. As a result of these charges and the national publicity in the media, the minister announced the establishment of the task force.
One fact which came across clearly in the NIB and Steelworkers press release was that certain specific groups in the Yellowknife area, especially miners and certain Indian people, have come into contact with high levels of arsenic. However, little provision has been made in the terms of reference of the task force for directing the task force to examine closely these specific groups. Perhaps the general health of Yellowknife residents is good, and the exposure to arsenic low; but if certain groups are being exposed to unacceptably high, even dangerous levels of arsenic, the federal health department ought to act quickly.
I call for immediate action with respect to the Indian children tested by the National Indian Brotherhood. I also call on the task force to examine closely the working conditions of

February 1, 1977

those working in the mill and the mines. We know that the arsenic in the area is the result of the mining operations in that region. Mr. Speaker, the people of the region must risk exposure to arsenic on a daily basis in order to provide a home for their families. Surely, since the task force is to deal with arsenic and the dangers it creates to one's health, the first priority should be to examine workers who are in daily contact with it.
I would also point out to the minister that I found out earlier today that both the National Brotherhood and the United Steelworkers of America are highly dissatisfied with two of the three members on the task force, namely, Dr. Mackenzie and Mr. Tupper.
These two groups have asked, right from the day the minister announced the task force, that the members of this body be acceptable to all parties concerned, the mining companies, the unions, the Indian bands, and the federal health department. It was to this matter that I referred when I questioned the minister on January 24 of this year. As a result of appointment to this task force many concerned groups are prepared to be cynical of any findings even before this task force has had its first meeting.
The residents of Yellowknife are proud of their community. They are not ashamed of hard work, and they have adapted to a cold and often harsh environment in the northern half of our nation. Because they do work so hard they have the right, I repeat the right, Mr. Speaker, to expect the government to act responsibly in protecting their health and environment.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has raised a serious question this evening about arsenic pollution. I want to assure him on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his parliamentary secretary, who unfortunately cannot be present this evening, that they take his concern seriously and those of the people of the area which he represents. That concern is demonstrated by the fact that the minister has taken the initiative to appoint a task force to investigate the situation.
I am grateful for the serious and conscientious approach to this matter which the hon. member for Northwest Territories has shown this evening. He has put a very useful commentary on the record tonight.
I was pleased to hear his words of welcome for the recently announced task force investigation into the situation which may exist at the moment. We are confident it will do a constructive job in identifying the nature and scope of any problem which may exist, and will recommend the appropriate kind of action that ought to be taken.
With regard to the hon. member's specific representations and suggestions about the work of the task force and how that work, in his view, could more properly and effectively be accomplished, I want to assure him that I will ensure that the
Adjournment Debate ideas he has placed on the record this evening are brought to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare so that he can take them into consideration with respect to the task force.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR RECONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, last week I concluded a speaking tour of 16 Canadian cities where I discussed with audiences across the country the subject of Canada and the Third World future. This journey followed a six-week study tour of development in Asia, where I visited China and also examined the operation of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in Indonesia and Bangladesh.
Thus in the past few weeks I have been able to examine Canada's foreign aid in the field itself, and also to observe the reaction of Canadians across the country to CIDA's $1 billion program. I made a similar tour of Canada one year ago and found widespread confusion about the effectiveness of aid.
I am sorry to report that confusion has worsened in the past year. There is now, in fact, a crisis of confidence in CIDA. The agency has been attacked for "goofs", the Auditor General of Canada has criticized "a serious internal control weakness," and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has let the agency drift without full-time ministerial leadership. Canadians are now asking where CIDA is going. Until that question can be adequately answered by the government, CIDA will continue to suffer from an appalling image across Canada.
I found Canadians generally to be in favour of assisting developing countries, and I want to underline that fact. There is still support for Canada's involvement in helping developing countries, but the declining credibility of CIDA is undermining that very support for foreign aid. That is the point I want to bring home to the government tonight in asking that there be an overhaul of CIDA. This overhaul is now imperative to restore the support of parliament and the public in the strengthening of Canada's relations with developing countries.
The sub-committee on international development which received a reference from the House just prior to Christmas will begin its hearings this month. I think those hearings must attempt to get beyond the superficial criticisms of CIDA which we have been hearing from such critics as Dr. Morton Shulman, who has been raising questions which, whatever validity there may be to the charges raised, are still peripheral questions and do not address themselves to the heart of the question. The heart of the question is: does Canadian aid actually help the people for whom it is intended, and is it getting through to them?
I found on my tour of Asian countries, particularly Indonesia and Bangladesh, which are among the top ten aid recipients of the Canadian government, that not enough of our aid is getting through to the village level and that there ought to be greater emphasis on the community level. I think more attention should be paid to those projects that reach people's

February 1, 1977
Adjournment Debate
lives and which enable them to take hold of development in their own lives. This would entail at the very least the raising of the priority of funding available to non-governmental organizations within the existing CIDA budget so that there would be a greater ability on their part to take part in community development in Asia.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am making an appeal for an improvement in the quality of CIDA's aid as distinct from increasing the quantity. The question of quantity is now, to my mind, a secondary question. The first question is to improve the quality. In order to do this certain steps must be taken. It is now obvious that the external affairs minister has neither time nor the inclination to control CIDA as it must be controlled. Here is a $1 billion agency that is not receiving any sort of full time ministerial control. The agency does need its own minister to control its far flung operations and to report on them to parliament. There is too much money involved for it to be given casual ministerial supervision.
This question has been floating around Ottawa for the past several months. It is time that the Prime Minister took specific action and made that change in CIDA's leadership. I think it is time now to re-evaluate our aid to Cuba and to consider cutting off aid to that country. Whatever good CIDA's agricultural projects are doing in Cuba, it is not possible to support them when Cuba finds the resources to send troops to Angola, and also now to train guerrillas for war against Rhodesia's white minority. The expulsion of Cuban diplomats from Canada for conducting an intelligence operation in Montreal raises further questions about CIDA being duped.
In other words, I think every so often CIDA must re-evaluate the actions of countries that are receiving our aid, and if indeed they do have resources to conduct spurious activities I think it is a solid enough reason to reconsider aid. The parliamentary sub-committee on international development must deal with the basic question I raise of whether aid is getting through to the village level, and of an increase in priorities.
Finally, CIDA ought to start a concerted drive of development education in Canada so that Canadians would have a better understanding of the actual help that CIDA is providing, along with the limitations of aid. There are many good things about CIDA. It is not only a question of the mistakes made by the agency. Canadians, as well as the members of this House, need to be able to get a balanced appraisal in order to have a proper judgment made of the value of this very important agency. The CIDA five-year strategy for international development co-operation has been in existence now for 18 months and supports the trade and monetary changes called for by the United Nations. I am sorry to tell the House that Canadians hardly even know of the existence of that strategy, and for that I blame the government for putting its own strategy on the shelf.
I think the time has come when those who feel warmest toward the aspirations of the Third World should probe the faults and failures of policies in both the developed and developing nations. Only such a thorough probe which the

committee would be able to give if it had access to complete information about CIDA, including country reports, will help Canadians have a deeper appreciation of our changing role in developing nations. Only that kind of study will help us go beyond aid so that we can take part in the structural changes called for by the United Nations, and bring the Canadian public along with us.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has assigned very precise duties to the hon. member for Edmonton-Stratchcona (Mr. Roche) as regards the External Affairs Department and I wish to congratulate him for it. I was under the impression, falsely it would seem, that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) was our department's official critic. It would appear however that he is no longer in his leader's good graces and that the hon. member for Edmonton-Stratchcona will be taking over.
In the debate of October 21, 1976, the hon. member asked some questions which have not been repeated tonight. He has dealt what I consider to be low blows to CIDA but these attacks were surely not included in the questions he asked on October 21 and that his leader has again asked on November 1, that is who is the minister in charge of CIDA. But that is not the case tonight, they are attacking CIDA, something we do not like at all and in the limited time allowed me, it is evident that I will not be able to present all the benefits of CIDA and specify exactly under whose control the federal government has placed it. Here again, I think that when they want to debate a question the members of the opposition should try to limit themselves to that question and not act as did the hon. member for Edmonton-Stratchcona and make criticisms while knowing perfectly well that I am unable to answer in the three minutes I am allowed.
On November 1, 1976, his leader asked other questions about the minister in charge of CIDA, to which the Prime Minister replied:
That proposition has been under examination for several months now. The fact that the cabinet shuffle took place before the decision was actually made led me to discuss with both ministers the possibility of not having a junior minister for CIDA but using the present House leader to continue his excellent direction of CIDA, and that is a matter which is still under discussion between the House leader and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
This question is still under examination. I think it is a straightforward, clear and precise answer. Nonetheless, I think it would be appropriate that I add a few remarks in English. [English]
The government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) is continuing as the co-chairman of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation in Paris until the end of that conference. The responsibility for CIDA rests at the present time with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). Not only has the minister had regular meetings with the president of CIDA, but in recent months he has familiarized
February 1, 1977

himself with CIDA operations in several countries in Latin America where he concluded bilateral agreements on development aid and technical assistance.
With regard to the reconstitution of the subcommittee on International Development, the hon. member knows that as the last item of business before parliament rose for the Christmas recess on December 22, 1976, the President of the Privy Council introduced a motion which the hon. member has himself discussed.
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Speaker, I believe that members wishing to discuss a question on adjournment should perhaps limit themselves to the specific substance of the origianl question, thus making it much easier to answer appropriately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, February 2, 1977