1977-02-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, considering that according to figures released by Statistics Canada a few hours ago, real gross national product declined in the last quarter of 1976 by .6 per cent and considering that unemployment forecasts done by the Department of Finance indicate further economic deterioration for 1977 with an unemployment average of about 10 per cent in Quebec and 13 per cent in Atlantic Canada thus promoting disunity in the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the government to bring in a budget within ten days which will have as its purpose the expansion of the national economy and the provision of jobs, both of which are essential to the maintenance of national unity.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of utmost importance and urgency to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
As according to the new CN passenger service schedule becoming effective in early April, the only passenger train will be arriving into Montreal at 23:30, as at that late hour all connections with other trains is impossible and as, according to that new schedule, three days and two nights will be needed to spend one business day in Montreal, that waste of time never having existed previously because the same trip is now made during the night, and as the implementation of that new
schedule will cause serious prejudice to the travelling public in the area to the extent where the clientele will disappear, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the Minister of Transport exert immediately the required pressures with the CN president and Mr. Jean-Marie Beaulieu, general superintendent, to delay the implementation of the new schedule for six months, with a view to allowing local organizations to present their suggestions in that regard.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the president of Sydney Steel Corporation said on Friday that unless minimum orders are received by Sysco it is possible that by this summer closure of the Cape Breton plant may take place for weeks or months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this government guarantee that its Crown corporation, the CNR, buy the required rails and so ensure that there would be no closure at the Sydney plant.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 28, 1977
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it arises out of continuing uncertainty about the termination of wage and price controls in Canada. Specifically, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance for the validity or the nature of the documents that have been reported on this weekend that suggest that the control program is to end on October 14. What is the nature of those documents, are they official documents, and can we believe what they say?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously to the House and outside the House, we now have under way a process of discussion with the provincial governments and with other major economic decision makers on a possible date for the termination of the controls. I should say that, more than a possible date, it is a range of dates and an analysis lying behind each of them. The documents or statements referred to over the week end appear to have been taken from some of the working papers that have been under discussion with the provincial governments. As I said, those papers indicated a range of possible dates commencing next October 14 and running into the next year for the possible termination of controls. No decision on this point has been taken by the government as yet. We have not had a full and definitive response from the provincial governments as yet.


James McPhail Gillies: Is the minister saying that the October 14 date is not a possible date for the termination of controls, and when will he get rid of the uncertainty which is dominating the economy? When will business and the people in this country learn from the government when these controls will be terminated or what the government's views on them are? I ask this question particularly in relation to the fact of the continuing decline in the confidence of business, which seems to be apparent in the figures for the last quarter of last year with respect to real growth.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman asked whether this is a possible date. I indicated there was a range of dates set out for the provincial governments. The position we have taken in this regard is that in a program of this kind, which was brought into effect with the co-operation of the provincial governments, it is entirely reasonable for them to be fully consulted on the possible dates for the termination of the program. In that sense, we have gone to the provinces and put to them a series of solutions and sought their response. It seems clear from this that the government of Canada will have to make its choice among possible dates, but I think it makes sense to have full consultation. I hope we can have definitive responses from the provinces at a very early date, in which

case I, too, would look forward to the possibility of making a statement on the projected termination date. However, until we have had the full consultation it would be difficult to make a final determination.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. AIB vice-chairman June Menzies told the Winnipeg Society of Financial Analysts on February 18 this year that Canada must maintain wage and price controls until the annual rate of inflation reaches 4 per cent. She also stated that, and I quote, "the time to decontrol is not yet", since the objective of the program is to move to a 4 per cent inflation rate during a three-year period. Since the Minister of Finance implied at the financial ministers' conference in January that the controls program would end in January 1978, is it his contention that a rate of inflation of 4 per cent is possible before January, 1978?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that it is not the government's conclusion that such a rate would be attained during the current calendar year. Just to pick up a specific reference of the hon. gentleman, we indicated to the provincial ministers both at the conference and since that we are looking at a range of dates, but not specifically the January date.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will the minister confirm whether it is the intention of the government to retain controls until a 4 per cent rate of inflation is reached?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We will have to make a judgment in that regard and, in particular, if we can find some assurance from major economic decision-makers in the country of the same commitment to reducing inflation, it may be possible to get out before that time.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister confirm that the price of oil going up as much as 4.6 cents on Wednesday of this week and a further increase of 4 cents by next September will cause the loss of an estimated 80,000 jobs? 1 assume his department has done some studies on this. Assuming that to be the case and considering that the existing levels of unemployment are felt disproportionately on a regional basis in the country and thus contribute to disunity, will the minister give us some assurance that he will bring forward a budget within a matter of five to 10 days which will have as its principle objective the creation of jobs in the Canadian economy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check as to the accuracy of the
February 28, 1977

calculation to which the hon. member referred in the first part of his question.
On the second part, I am not anticipating bringing forward a budget in the next five to 10 days.


SUGGESTED HOME INSULATION PROGRAM TO AVOID INCREASE IN HEATING COSTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Considering that the almost 10 cent increase in the price of oil which will come by next September will be felt by all Canadian homeowners as they purchase oil to heat their homes for the winter, will the government embark now on a national program of residential insulation similar to that established by the government for Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, both as a means of creating jobs now and of heading off energy cost increases in the fall?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the preamble of the hon. gentleman's question suggests that Canadians are already paying a very high price for home heating oil. There is no question that prices are going up, but I think we should also realize that because of the government's policy Canadians are paying less for their home heating oil than people in other countries.


John Edward Broadbent: Now answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: The second part of the hon. gentleman's question dealt with the question of insulation. I agree with him that reinsulation programs are very much in the interests of individuals and in the interests of the country as a whole. The policy we introduced for P.E.I. and Nova Scotia was aimed at helping offset very heavy increases in electrical energy costs. I have suggested that there are other ways Canadians might be able to benefit from reinsulation. I hope that the public utilities across the country-oil companies, for example, and other companies, including banks-might introduce programs which would encourage Canadians to save.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister took two minutes to say no. I will ask a final supplementary of the Minister of Finance.
Unemployment in the Cape Breton region in real terms is about 30 per cent. Mr. Tom Kent, president of SYSCO, said last Friday that work operations at the steel plant in Sydney will be suspended completely by this coming summer unless
Oral Questions
some orders for rails are received by the company. Given the continuing need for rails in the future by the CNR, will the government now make a commitment to SYSCO to purchase the rails in order to preserve those existing jobs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take that as a suggestion which 1 will discuss with the Minister of Transport.
* * [DOT]
[Translation)


INDUSTRY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering that the price of gas and other fuels is increasing and might continue to do so, and considering that this increase considerably affects freight transport which in turn raises the cost of living, can the minister tell the House whether inventors have filed patents regarding the manufacture or the invention of new engines which considerably reduce the fuel consumption of cars and trucks.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this problem. I will make an inquiry and report to the hon. member.
* *


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice relating to his answer of a few days ago concerning the curtailment of use of writs of assistance. I want to ask if it is a fact that although the minister proposes not to authorize the use of any more such writs, there are approximately 900 outstanding? I understand they will remain outstanding until they are specifically cancelled. What does the minister intend to do?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated we were reviewing the law and practice relating to writs of assistance and that I had instructed my officers not to apply for any more. I thought I would not touch the existing writs until I decided what should be done in the future.

February 28, 1977
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


PRINCE ALBERT-INQUIRY AS TO APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On Friday last I put the following question to him:
It has to do with an agreement which has been entered into between the government of Canada in the right of the Department of Transport and the city of Prince Albert concerning the possibility of there being an expenditure of some millions of dollars being made to improve and bring up to date the airport at Prince Albert.
May I ask whether the minister agrees?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board has not yet received a formal submission with regard to this item.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister is always very frank. I thank him for that negative answer. I suggest to him that this is a matter of great importance and that an agreement has been entered into. I want to know whether this agreement made between the Minister of Transport and the city of Prince Albert is simply designed to cover up something with an election in the constituency of Prince Albert set for Wednesday, March 2?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly think that the right hon. member might better address his question to the Minister of Transport who I am told made his comments about it on the basis of the possibility-the right hon. member also used the word "possibility"-of this airport improvement being forthcoming.


John George Diefenbaker: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think this should be taken into consideration, the way things are today. The Minister of Transport cannot either land or depart from that northern city, the gateway to the north, because jets cannot land there. Does he realize how important it is for an improvement to be made so that the minister will not lose any time getting to that important city?


AIR SERVICE BETWEEN EASTERN SASKATCHEWAN AND WESTERN MANITOBA
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related. With reference to air service to communities of eastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba which the Minister of Transport announced would commence this year, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if he will be providing funds for the upgrading of airport facilities in these communities in preparation for the service?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, general proposals concerning the Department of Transport or any other department come forward to Treasury Board in two forms, one of which concerns general proposals in the main estimates for main programs, which are under review now. I would have to check on the particular item to

which the hon. member referred. I do not keep each one in my memory.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the long delay in implementing this air service which is so vitally important to the economy of the region, an air service first announced by the Prime Minister during the 1974 election campaign-


Mr. Hees:: Ha! Another one of those.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -will the right hon. gentleman urge the air transport committee to give early consideration to the designation of a carrier to provide this service?


George Harris Hees: It's only three years later, Pierre.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been following the exchange of questions and answers, but I will take note of the question and see if I can satisfy the hon. member.


Mr. Paproski:: The promise was made only three years ago.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? Given the continued reports and speculation that the Canadian ambassador to Washington resigned as a result of continuing conflicts between officials in the PMO and Department of External Affairs officers, could the Prime Minister now confirm that the arrangements for his visit to the United States were handled by his special adviser, Ivan Head, and his staff, rather than by the established professionals in the Department of External Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since widespread media comments and a number of officials in the External Affairs department do not reflect the Prime Minister's view, and given the possibility that the PMO's activities, which bypass normal diplomatic channels, threaten our established system of diplomacy, could the Prime Minister undertake to provide the House with a specific listing of Mr. Head's responsibilities and, in particular, his relationship to the Department of External Affairs?


An hon. Member:: We want his "head".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker; Mr. Head is my adviser on foreign matters.
February 28, 1977


George Harris Hees: What about the minister responsible for External Affairs? Where does that leave Don Jamieson?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, and what about Allan MacEachen?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is apparently continuing his trek to having some sort of presidential system put into effect in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 ask whether or not he has, in his department, a group similar to the group of seven economic advisers which caused his former colleague, Mr. Turner, so much concern that he resigned from the cabinet.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Answer that, your excellency.


George Harris Hees: Come on, your excellency. What do you say to that?


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Plan, or a separate fund? What did he have in mind in this regard?
Steve Eugene Paproski: He doesn't know.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 must apologize to the hon. gentleman. I thought he was addressing his question to my colleague and 1 was not following him.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question. The Minister of Finance has been making unclear statements outside the House about pensions. I am seeking clarification. He was talking about extending indexation to the private sector. Was he planning to have this handled through the Canada Pension Plan, or through a special fund? Or what did he have in mind when talking about this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not reporting accurately what I said. We are conducting an intensive study on the question of retirement income, in conjunction with the Department of National Health and Welfare. It will include, among other things, the impact of inflation upon the private pension system.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question, addressed to the President of the Treasury Board, is related to the somewhat confusing announcement he made regarding an inquiry into pension funds. Can he specify if the independent actuarial analysis he was planning to commission will examine the general pension fund or the supplementary retirement benefits fund?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the particular assignment is to verify or otherwise the actuarial assumptions underlying cost calculations, with particular regard to the indexation of public service pensions. But it will, in relation to that, be looking at the broader question, that of the existence of the fund and the basic pension fund as well.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be prepared to table the terms of reference of the group inquiring into those areas and the names of the actuaries employed for that purpose?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to make these matters public on the first possible occasion.


PRIVATE PENSION INDEXATION
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance who is also concerned about pensions. When he made statements outside the House having to do with the carrying over into the private sector of pension indexation, was he thinking that that ought to be handled by the Canada Pension


MANPOWER
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. With respect to the offshore labour program for agriculture, what conditions must the farmer fulfil in order to qualify to receive this type of labour to harvest his crops?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, probably one of the more successful programs run by this department is the offshore assistance given to farmers. We are in close consultation with them, asking them to help us in setting some of the terms and conditions. We have indicated the housing conditions that must be met and the salaries or wages we feel should be paid. We have arranged for a liaison officer from the West Indies on occasion to be there as a liaison person for the workers. This is probably one of the better integrated and co-operative efforts we have with the farm community. We have received many kudos from them, as they have from us because of their continued co-operation.


William David Knowles: Can the minister give assurance that tobacco farmers will be given the same access to offshore labour as farmers producing other crops, and will the minister now announce the wage scale for offshore workers for the 1977 season?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot announce the wage scale other than to say the figures I heard quoted at a recent

February 28, 1977
Oral Questions
convention were somewhat in excess of what we anticipate establishing. We feel the wages should be put at a level that, hopefully, will attract some Canadians into that field as well.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the minister's colleague, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, announced a few weeks ago the building of another 2,000 grain hoppers, which brings the total for western Canada to 8,000, could the minister use a bit of pressure and some arguments to bring his colleagues to realize the importance of building a sufficient number, somewhere between 500 and 1,000, refrigerated rail cars for the movement of potatoes in eastern Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put the record straight. The 2,000 hopper cars referred to are to be used in all commercial grain growing areas of Canada. We had a meeting on reefer cars this morning. A lot depends on the producers themselves, the use that is to be made of these cars and whether they will make a commitment guaranteeing a certain use of them. If we are to build them in order to leave them idle on the tracks, it will not do anyone any good.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, some time before Christmas of last year the minister indicated on one or two occasions that he was preparing a memo with respect to the building of reefer cars. After Christmas he indicated that that memo was still in preparation. Is that still the case? With respect to his comments of a moment ago about the possible continued use of these cars, does the minister not have a very firm assurance from the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board, as well as the New Brunswick potato growers, with respect to the absolute need of 1,000 of these cars in the foreseeable future, particularly because of the rapid deterioration of rented cars from the United States?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if they would give an absolute assurance that they will use these cars and guarantee a certain usage of them-and this does not only include the potato growers in the maritimes; the horticultural producers in western Canada are making representations about more, better and more modern cars. They are also considering whether they should use the refrigerated type of trailer that can ride piggyback on railway cars and be unloaded at the point of destination. This type of program is being considered. We have done a lot of work on this matter, trying to arrive at a unified approach to this kind of program for the construction of these cars. We realize that more people would be put to work in the construction of reefer cars; therefore, there are a lot of things in their favour.
(Mr. Cullen.]


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is very important that the minister clarify this issue with the potato growers of eastern Canada as well as the potential apple growing market in western Canada. Has he determined from Canadian National Railways the actual condition of the present cars in usage? There is a very grave possibility of shortages. In fact, some shortages have been reported this year. There will be many difficulties in the next two or three years if we do not have adequate cars, and there will be a kind of mixed system for many years to come. Will the minister take action to clear up any difficulties because of the absolute need for placing the orders now, and not some months from now?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we definitely know that you should use rail cars to ship produce to Montreal, Toronto, and so on. They do a better job. However, if you are shipping produce to the port of Saint John you can probably do a better job by truck. I might also state that the railroads have failed miserably. I have visited the areas and have seen the horrible equipment they are using. There is no doubt about it. They are renting equipment that will not be used in the United States. They use it here, saying they are providing a service. As far as I am concerned, the railroads have an obligation which they are not fulfilling. It appears the government may have to do it for them.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is with regard to an important matter that 1 have spoken about on many occasions both in the House and in committees; that is, the need for a good log housing program for the north, a program that will make use of local labour, local renewable resources, and will fill a local need. Is the minister doing anything to implement a log housing program at least in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check with the territorial government and my officials on this matter. I do not know the status of that program.


DREE GRANTS FOR NORTHERN TERRITORIES
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It is on the question of DREE grants for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. 1 first raised this question in the House on March 17, 1974. I was assured at that time by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice that an announcement would soon be made. Can the acting minister advise the House of any progress that has been made since then?
February 28, 1977


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and get back to the hon. member accordingly.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I raised the question of the purchasing of steel rails by Canadian National from SYSCO and stockpiling, if necessary, before the Christmas recess. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister did not look upon it with any great frowning-in fact, he seemed to be quite encouraging-1 now wish to pose a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with particular emphasis on industry and trade. In light of the fact that, unfortunately, there was nothing definitive at all in last week's throne speech in the Nova Scotia legislature as to either modernizing the present steel plant at Sydney or bringing a new steel complex to Cape Breton, and in view of the situation whereby this minister and other ministers of the government have continually professed great interest and, indeed, commitment relating to the subject, namely, federal involvement, is this minister and the federal government in a position to bring the House up to date as to the progress being made on this very serious matter?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position at this time to give a definite answer to the hon. member because I have not discussed this matter thoroughly in recent times. However, I do know that we are trying to promote the sale of equipment produced by this Cape Breton Island company in several government enterprises. We believe that some progress has been made in certain cases. As soon as we have detailed information on the sales prospects, we shall inform the public. As far as the modernization of this industry is concerned, I am not aware of any particular program on this. I shall inquire about this and inform the hon. member.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his reply. Is the minister aware that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion supposedly has a committee dealing with this specific problem, and is he also aware that the present work force at the SYSCO plant has been reduced in the last two years from 3,900 to 2,250? If so, in light of the extremely high unemployment rate in Nova Scotia what plans does the government have to assist these workers to resume their employment? If the minister does not have the information today, will he look into it and make a more comprehensive report tomorrow?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall meet the hon. member's request.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister now in a position to tell us the real growth in the economy last year, and could he at the same time inform the House how this figure compares with the estimate of real growth made at the time of the budget last year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
government's estimate of real growth for the current year is now lower than it was at the time of the budget. The forthcoming publication of national accounts for the fourth quarter will confirm this, but the final figures will not be available until some months have elapsed, when full adjustment is made for the year as a whole. It is difficult to give a definitive figure.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In light of the disappointing results for 1976, would the minister tell us whether a prediction of real growth as low as 3 per cent in the current year might also be his estimate, and would he at the same time let us know when he will be bringing down his budget which is urgently needed now to alleviate the present unsatisfactory situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would not make an estimate at this point. As to the second question, I hope to announce the date within a matter of weeks.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: My
question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Speaker. I know we all welcome him back to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that the schedule of availability of domiciliary and chronic care beds in hospitals already transferred and not yet transferred shows a waiting time of up to 18 months, would the minister now tell the House what his plans are with regard to the transfer of further hospitals? Would he consider putting a stop to all transfers of hospitals until this waiting period and the lack of treatment and care of veterans is reviewed?
3466

February 28, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Daniel MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member may 1 say that at this time there is no thought of stopping the transfer of hospitals to the provinces or the municipalities. The ones we have transferred so far have been quite successful and we are reasonably pleased with the treatment the veterans are receiving. We get this reaction from the veterans' organizations and we also get it from the veterans themselves. With regard to space in hospitals for domiciliary care treatment, etc., this is actually a medical decision. We have many people waiting for different treatment in various hospitals who can wait. This is the general practice, not just in veterans' hospitals but in all hospitals. The question was fairly long. What was the last part?


Jack Marshall: I asked the minister whether he would put a stop to further transfers of hospitals until a complete review is made of the lack of domiciliary care beds.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question. I thought there was another one.


Jack Marshall: The minister is his usual succinct self. 1 am sure he is well. Would he look at the schedule prepared by his own treatment services branch and note, in particular, one comment they make, that in one hospital applicants are on a points system as well as having to wait for a vacancy? Applicants with the lowest points could in some cases wait forever. Would the hon. gentleman look at this seriously, review the situation and make a statement on motions after he has had a chance to look into this problem?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1 will be more than glad to look into this matter. As far as that goes, we have followed the performance of various hospitals very diligently. 1 have just had some of my people with my chief medical doctor out in Western Canada, and my deputy minister, and this was the main function of the trip.


DEER LODGE HOSPITAL, MAN.-USE OF EMPTY SPACE FOR NURSING HOME CARE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: 1 have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the liaison committee of the Manitoba Medical Association and the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses has approached the government of Manitoba with regard to using the empty space in the Deer Lodge Hospital for nursing care, there being a list of 1,200 persons waiting for entry into nursing homes in Manitoba, has the minister had any correspondence or communication with the Manitoba government on this subject, and does he intend to allow the unused sections of Deer Lodge to be used for nursing home care?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: This comes within policy formation as to what we should do with veterans' hospitals. We are not really set up to serve the public generally. I will have to look at this. We had some

correspondence some time ago, but I am not aware of any correspondence recently.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
According to some reports, the Quebec premier recently expressed his intention to appeal to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which is under the authority of the minister, to support the request for an important Swedish investment at Magog, Quebec. Is the minister prepared to help the Quebec premier reach that goal and can he tell the House where that matter stands?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, only Friday did we receive from the Quebec government approval of the request that was made to the Foreign Investment Review Agency before Mr. Levesque became premier of Quebec. We sent the request from the Quebec government in late November and we got a Final answer only Friday. We will now be able to proceed within cabinet and make our decision in a few weeks.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF GASOLINE AND HOME HEATING OIL ALLOWED BY ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? It arises from the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to permit the price of gasoline and home heating fuel to rise by up to 4.6 cents a gallon, and the statement by the minister in a speech in Toronto last Friday that we could expect an additional 4 cents per gallon increase after July I as a result of allowing the price of crude oil at the wellhead to rise by $1.25 per barrel. Has the government in mind, when it discusses this matter with the provinces, suggesting a price of $11 per barrel for crude oil and, if so, what is the justification for such an increase?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sure the hon. member knows the answer to that question; I have stated it many times, and quite recently before the standing committee. If the hon. member would like to raise the question again before the standing committee, I will go over all the reasons why it is necessary and why the government has adopted a policy of moving oil prices toward world levels.
February 28, 1977


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the present minister and the previous minister have argued that the justification for raising the price was to give the oil industry more money for exploration and development, and in view of the fact that the present minister and his predecessor promised as far back as 3'/2 years ago that this increase in price and the consequent increase in revenue to the oil industry would be monitored to ensure that the money would be spent on exploration and development, I ask the minister two questions. First, would he tell the Flouse the result of that monitoring over the past 316 years? Second, would he tell us what mechanism he intends to put in place to monitor present and future increases, bearing in mind that his own departmental report entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada" says that over the next five years the industry will retain, after paying taxes and royalties, $3 billion a year for the next five years? I ask the minister what he proposes to do, first with respect to the report of the past monitoring and, second, with respect to monitoring in present and future years.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, again, the transcript of the proceedings before the standing committee makes my answer quite clear and it is not necessary for me to repeat it to the hon. member. But I am pleased to do so for the benefit of the House. I indicated to him before the standing committee that I hoped within a matter of a few weeks to be able to present to the standing committee the results of the exploration and development activities related to the increased cash flow for the petroleum producing companies over the last five years. So the answer to the first question is, "within a few weeks' time". I would hope to do this before the standing committee which is now dealing with the question of an energy strategy for Canada. As to the monitoring mechanism in the future, again I have made it clear in the past, and I reaffirm right now, that it is my intention to bring a bill before the House of Commons dealing with the whole question of monitoring future cash flows.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we cannot get the results of the monitoring in 1977 regarding price increases which were granted in 1974, are we to assume that the monitoring for 1977 on the price increases that are going on this year will be received by the House in 1980?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MANPOWER
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I gave him notice and he acted on one part of the question; I thank him for that. I confess that I am doing this so
Oral Questions
I can raise the matter at ten o'clock. Will the minister ask his officials to investigate the mix-up which resulted in a failure of his department to authorize a manpower mobility transfer grant resulting in extreme hardship to a constituent, Mr. Carl Champion, and his family.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, given the individual situation as the hon. member has indicated, I did look into this particular case and found that where allegations were made against my department for being slow in acting, this particular individual moved to do something in 1971 and then proceeded to move across the country and did not come back until 1976. So it was a little difficult to move quickly on that particular matter. However, when the information did come to our attention we moved quickly and, naturally, used ministerial permission to give effect to what the hon. member was asking for. 1 am satisfied that, given the second problem, we can probably deal with that just as competently.


Mr. Fairweather:: Ten o'clock.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Revenue's predecessor, in order to get Bill C-58 past the Senate last July, agreed that he would bring in legislation at an early date which would define the "not substantially the same" provisions in the law relating to advertising in periodicals, would the minister indicate whether or not the government intends to keep that promise and, if so, what sort of formula is going to be followed to define whether or not a periodical's contents are "substantially the same" as those of another periodical?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, 1 will do my best to keep my predecessor's promise concerning the bill on the Canadian content of periodicals but I cannot say more about this to the House because it would involve a bill related to the budget.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that Bill C-83, the notorious gun control bill, died a merciful death in the last session of
80010-I3'/2

February 28, 1977
Oral Questions
parliament, will the minister please advise why, subsequent to that event, the firearms and ammunition control system of the RCMP was, and is, making inquiries of retail outlets concerning firearms and ammunition sales, and are these inquiries still being conducted?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. member's question and report further to him. I understand that in preparation for the possible passing of the legislation certain inquiries were made by the RCMP in order that they would be ready to implement the legislation had it been passed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, who has been getting a little news. It concerns his trip to Washington, which was less than a week ago but undoubtedly seems much longer to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister have any discussions with the President on communications policy matters between the two countries and, if so, were any commitments given or agreements made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is so long ago that I am not quite sure 1 can remember.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Oh, come on! This is Monday, not Friday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We did cover a lot of subjects. I will have to check my memory and get in touch with the hon. member.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Prime Minister's dilemma, because I was trying to get to him a little earlier last week when the subject was a little more current, and many things have happened. But memory has been transcribed into print, and one of the Prime Minister's answers on February 24, as reported at page 3371 of Hansard, in reply to a question, was that there were many areas other than the constitution which could be settled, such as administrative arrangements affecting social matters, immigration, and communications. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us in fact what administrative arrangements are being considered or have been considered by the government, so that the question of national unity can be enhanced in the field of communications?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in this particular area there is the very recent arrangement which the government of Canada signed with the government of Manitoba, which is a perfectly good example of an administrative arrangement within the framework of the present constitution. It satisfies the government of the province and obviously is acceptable to us. This was the fruit of long negotiation, and I congratulate the
[Mr. Brisco.)
minister of communications for having conducted it very successfully.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last year the minister gave a very firm commitment to investigate the method used by StatCan, the thought and the purpose being to minimize or, hopefully, eliminate errors in forecasting our domestic needs, our current levels of production and future requirements in the dairy industry. I would like to ask the minister what progress he has made with reference to this investigation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As far as 1 remember, Mr. Speaker, the difficulties concerning these data have been discussed and settled by Statistics Canada and the Canadian Dairy Commission. However, if there is anything to add, I will check and tell the House.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since there is growing concern in farming areas of Canada that the government may move to close the Canada-United States border to herbicides and insecticides passing from the United States to Canada, and since the Minister of Agriculture has consulted with, I believe, four farm groups on the matter, may I ask the minister the outcome of his consultation with those groups and what they were asking the government to do; and if the government has made any decision whether or not to restrict the flow of herbicides and insecticides into Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken. We have met all the farm groups, as I said we would, and I think we will be making a decision shortly. Let me say that herbicides, insecticides, pesticides-or whatever you call them-will still be allowed to move into Canada freely, regardless of the decision we make.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question. Since the minister appears sympathetic to the chemical companies, I should like to say to the minister that there will be strong opposition from farmers and also from members of the opposition if he tries to move to close the United States border in this regard.
February 28, 1977


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING WHEAT CARTEL WITH U.S.A.
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. Possibly he could answer it, in view of the absence of his colleague. Reports indicate that discussions are taking place between the United States and Canada to explore the possibility of establishing a wheat cartel on a similar basis as the oil cartel established by the OPEC countries. Can the minister say how far the discussions have gone, and whether a decision in principle has been made by the Canadian government to participate in a wheat cartel?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to discuss with the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board what actually took place in Washington when he met the secretary of agriculture, Mr. Bergman. 1 look forward to discussing this matter with him at greater length. No decision has been taken at this time, but I would say that what I know of the new secretary of agriculture of the U.S.A. would lead me to say that he is making sure farmers will have the use of the programs that were announced in their election campaign, programs which are not very different from those of the Canadian Minister of Agriculture.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture how it is that he does not know the government of Canada has brought forward this idea. I find it strange that as Minister of Agriculture he does not know that. If such a wheat cartel is in fact formed, would this cartel be only between the U.S. and Canada, or is Canada thinking of expanding it to other wheat producing countries such as Argentina and Australia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is hypothetical.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask whether under Standing Order 41(2) the Minister of Finance might table the documentation between the government and the provinces with respect to the date of the termination of the incomes program, on the grounds that today in answering the question he referred to dates in that document. On the ground that such a document would be invaluable to all members of parliament in ascertaining the way in which these programs are advancing, I would use citation 159(2) of Beau-chesne's as the ruling on it, and under 41(2) 1 would hope the minister can table it. I would think that Your Honour's ruling would depend upon whether or not the dates mentioned by the minister were a quotation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not in a position, from memory, to refer to the exact language used by the Minister of Finance in answering the question during the question period today. In order to give effect to the argument raised by the hon. member for Don Valley on a point of order I would have to be satisfied that within the precedents and the language of the Standing Order the minister had cited the document, as
Order Paper Questions
the language has been used in the past. Therefore, 1 would have to reserve my judgment until I have examined the answer to see if that was the case.
As I indicated when this point was raised in the recent past, the spirit of the rule is that if the minister has used the document to his advantage during either debate or discussion in the House, in fairness that document should be tabled so that all hon. members can use it. That has never been extended to the point of a minister making reference to a document or simply to its existence in answer to a question. But in this case I will have to examine the specific answer to see whether or not there might be any compulsion, within our precedents, upon the minister.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if it will assist you, may I point out that I do not have the documents with me this afternoon, so obviously I did not cite from them in answering the question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the first reading of Bill C-402, to amend the Hazardous Products Act (aluminum wiring).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: The purpose of this bill is to recognize the danger of using aluminum wiring in the construction of homes, apartments, hotels and rooming houses. There is growing evidence that when connected in traditional electrical outlets, aluminum wiring causes fires from which death has ensued to sleeping persons. Human life is precious, and any doubt with respect to the hazard of aluminum wiring should be resolved in favour of protecting human life.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,088, 1,143, 1,163, 1,234, 1,263, 1,450, 1,467, 1,513, 1,514, 1,546, 1,640, 1,715 and 1,820.

February 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1976, have any wage increases for physiotherapists in the Public Service been approved by the Anti-Inflation Board and, if so, what rate increase was approved?
2.	During the same period, were rate increases for physiotherapists in the New Brunswick civil service disapproved by the Anti-Inflation Board and, if so, what are the annual wages being paid in 1976 to (a) federal physiotherapists (b) New Brunswick physiotherapists?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. Yes. There are some 65 occupational and physical therapists in the Federal Public Service. A two-year agreement from January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1977 was subject to review by the A1B in June, 1976. A regional rate of pay structure was proposed with different rates of pay for the following regions: Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Yukon and Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. The group's compensation increases for both years were within the maximum permissible under the AIB regulations (i.e. 11.95 per cent in the first year and 8.55 per cent in the second year). In addition, however, the two parties to the agreement requested exclusion of payments made in both guideline years to react to both emphasized recruiting and retention difficulties. The parties argued the exclusion of these payments on the basis of Schedule C of the AIB Compensation regulations which deal, in part, with vacancy rates and recruiting plus retention difficulties. The AIB decision allowed the exclusion and approved the collective agreement as negotiated. In the Maritime Region the annual rate for the working level therapists is as follows: Effective December 29, 1975, $11,225 to $12,995; Effective June 28, 1976, $12,011 to $13,905; Effective December 27, 1976, $12,491 to $14,461; Effective June 27, 1977, $12,991 to $15,039.
2. During the same period an agreement for the New Brunswick Pharmacy, Mental and Physical Rehabilitation Group covering a period from March 1, 1975 to August 31, 1976 was received by the AIB. The agreement provided for a compensation increase of 29.91 per cent. This increase related to an arithmetic guideline of 14.09 per cent for the group's first guideline year. The parties could not support a historical relationship argument and did not present detailed information for exclusions on the same basis as the Federal Government therapists. The AIB decision was to allow the arithmetic guideline increase of 14.09 per cent for the first year. The parties have implemented a further 12 per cent increase for the second year from April 1, 1976 to Marclf 31, 1977. The following rates of pay apply to the New Brunswick physiotherapists: April 1, 1976, $9,932 to $12,428.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	For the year (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975, what was the total of government revenues emanating from the Province of Quebec?

2.	For the same years, what was the total of government expenditures and transfer payments to the Province of Quebec and to residents of the Province?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. At the present time the information requested is not available for the Province of Quebec or for any other province.
2. At the present time the information requested is not available for the Province of Quebec or for any other province. However, a considerable amount of information concerning federal expenditures by province is available in section 34 of Volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada for each year.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	For the year (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76 did the government make any equalization payments and, if so, in what amounts and to which provinces in each case?
2.	For the same years, did the government make any payments to the provinces under its various programmes and, if so (a) in what amounts to each province (b) under which programmes and in what amounts in each case?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I. The federal government made equalization payments to seven provinces in respect of each of the fiscal years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The payments were as follows:
	Amount of Payment		
Province	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76(final)*	(final)*	(subject to adjustments)$'000	$'000	$'000Newfoundland	157,583	173,759	201,393Prince Edward Island	33,745	43,513	49,025Nova Scotia	184,890	230,760	258,762New Brunswick	148,548	173,383	197,612Quebec	728,170	908,188	1,000,310Manitoba	111,964	124,166	145,415Saskatchewan	117,097	53,921	69,412Total	1,481,997	1,707,690	1,921,929
*Subject to adjustment in respect of population change following completion of 1976 census.
2. Complete information is not available. However, a comprehensive list of federal payments to provinces is set out in the Public Accounts of Canada for each fiscal year. See section 34 of Volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada for 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	By province, what amount has been paid under the Municipal Grants Act in each of the past Five years?
February 28, 1977

Order Paper Questions
2.	Are any payments presently being contested and, if so (a) which ones (b)	NATIONAL DEFENCE-MANPOWER, STRENGTH OF SERVICES
for what reasons?	SINCE 1965


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. See statement following:


Mr. McKinnon: 1. What was the strength of each of the three services on January 1, 1965?
Grants in Lieu of Taxes on Federal property Paid to Municipalities Pursuant to the Municipal Grants Act During the past Five Federal Fiscal Years, by Province
1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76Newfoundland	$ 341,945	$ 304,479	$ 417,826	$ 746,941	$ 748,501Prince Edward Island	186,742	101,880	155,688	78,056	18,060Nova Scotia	3,813,014	4,106,690	5,144,564	4,318,940	5,179,436New Brunswick	669,726	700,000	702,268	624,373	500,000Quebet	11,703,222	10,588,392	14,446,826	14,359,035	14,757,607Ontario	25,649,236	30,309,062	27,379,159	32,018,657	34,081,716Manitoba	3,280,657	3,521,557	4,255,122	5,131,056	5,704,021Saskatchewan	1,475,639	1,654,929	1,722,458	1,928,876	2,113,657Alberta	3,030,797	2,986,405	3,523,334	3,532,507	4,684,289British Columbia	4,810,415	5,047,691	5,000,503	5,489,427	8,188,534Yukon Territory	71,061	82,050	250,752	213,781	292,896Northwest Territories	194,482	273,863	286,910	264,954	428,917Totals	555,226,936	$59,676,998	$63,285,410	$68,706,603	$76,697,634
Grants in Lieu of Taxes on Federal Property Paid to Provinces Pursuant to the Real Property Grants Regulations During the Past Five Federal Fiscal Years
1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76Prince Edward Island	$ -	$ -	$ 149,823	$ 84,457	$ 24,169New Brunswick	1,432,745	1,750,000	1,400,000	1,350,000	1,400,000British Columbia	528,741	728,720	549,363	1,155,964	815,977Yukon Territory	-	-	-	488,687	167,221Northwest Territories	-	-	-	147,549	289,649Totals	$ 1,961,486	$ 2,478,720	$ 2,099,186	$ 3,226,657	$ 2,697,016
2. Within the context of the discretionary nature of payments under the Municipal Grants Act, discussions are held with those municipalities concerned with respect to issues of (a) eligibility and (b) amounts of grant.
2.	What was the strength of each of the three elements (sea, land and air) in the Canadian Armed Forces on December 1, 1976?
3.	What was the strength, military and civilian of National Defence Headquarters on (a) January 1, 1965 (b) December 1, 1975 (c) December 1, 1976?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Navy, 19,613; Army, 46,579; Air Force, 48,173.
con-act programmes	2. Only those personnel who were enrolled in the Forces
prior to February 1, 1968 can be identified by their former services elements. Personnel who enrolled in the unified


Mr. Stanfield: Has the Department of the Solicitor General received a community based residential centre application or request from the programme known as CON-ACT Programs and, if so, is the Department considering this application and, if not, for what reason?


Francis Fox: By Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Service; Yes. However, after due consideration, this application was not approved for the following reasons: (a) The CON-ACT Program authorities did not have adequate facilities to accommodate the parolees, (b) The department has a contractual agreement with the Halifax YMCA for the provision of basic accommodation and meals for the members of the group who are granted day parole, (c) The original proposal did not meet the minimum standards for the establishment of a community residential centre as specified by the National Parole Service.
Canadian Forces after 1 Feb., 1968 are not assigned to a specific single service element, but are assigned classifications (officers) or trades (men). Some of these classifications/trades are readily identifiable i.e. artillery man, infantry man, etc., but the total of the 90 odd classifications/trades would not give meaningful data in terms of sea, land and air elements. The Canadian Forces are organized on the basis of functional commands and the effective strength by functional commands as of November 30, 1976 is presented below: Mobile Command, 17,907; Air Command, 22,856; Maritime Command, 10,210; National Defence HQ, Canadian Forces Communication Command, Canadian Forces Training System, Canadian Forces Europe, Elements such as workshops, supply depots, military colleges, staff colleges, recruiting units, medical centres, project teams, Liaison centres (London and Washington), military attaches, NORAD personnel, standardization groups, etc., which report to NDHQ, 27,127; Total, 78,100.
3. (a) Military, 3,232; Civilian, 4,402; (b) Military, 3,100; Civilian, 4,169; (c) Military, 3,032; Civilian, 3,892.

February 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is first-class mail from the United Kingdom, in particular, the blue letter forms, treated as second-class mail in the Vancouver Post Office?
2.	Does such mail receive a lower priority than domestic first-class mail?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. No.
2. No.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Were masks and mask carriers contracted for by the Department of National Defence in December 1976 at a price of $238,654 and, if so, what kind?
2.	On what date will the masks be delivered?
3.	How many masks are to be produced?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. A
contract for a quantity of 29 components used in the assembly of C-3 Chemical Biological Masks was let in December, 1976, at a cost of $243,523.20.
2.	Delivery is to commence in February, 1977 and be completed by March 31, 1977.
3.	Seventeen thousand eight hundred.


Mr. Howie: As of January 1 (a) 1976 (b) 1975 (c) 1974, how many persons were members of the Canadian Militia and how many were from New Brunswick?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Canadian Militia	New Brunswick
	Strength	Militia Strength
(a)	15,225	903(b)	14,166	953(c)	13,200	881


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Does the Royal Canadian Mint charge and collect sales tax for those provinces which have such a tax and, if so, by what authority?
2.	Are the Provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island exempt and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Does this provision apply to the purchase of coins and other items commemorating the 25th anniversary of the accession to the Throne of Queen Elizabeth II?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The collection and remittance of provincial retail sales taxes are governed by the respective Provincial Retail Sales Tax Acts. The Royal Canadian Mint numismatic products, when sold for an amount in excess of face value, are subject to a provincial retail sales tax in the following provinces at the rates prescribed in the respective Provincial Retail Sales Tax Acts: British Columbia, 7 per cent of selling price; Manitoba, 5 per cent of selling price; Saskatchewan, 5 per cent of selling price; New Brunswick, 8 per cent of selling price; Nova Scotia, 8 per cent of selling price; Newfoundland, 10 per cent of selling price; Ontario, 7 per cent of selling price. Alberta, Yukon and Northwest Territories do not impose a retail sales tax. It follows, therefore, that the Royal Canadian Mint collects and remits provincial retail sales taxes in accordance with the above.
2.	The Provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island have advised at the time of registration that Royal Canadian Mint numismatic products are exempt from provincial sales tax in these provinces. No specific reason was mentioned.
3.	This provision applies to all coins (when sold for an amount in excess of face value) and other items commemorating the 25th anniversary of the accession to the Throne of Queen Elizabeth II. In so far as the Royal Canadian Mint products are concerned, yes.


Mr. Howie: For the year 1976, did the Department of National Defence have any student summer employment programmes in (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick and, if so, in each case (i) what were they (ii) how many persons were given direct summer employment and what were the wages (iii) what was the cost?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
and (b) Yes. The program, the number of persons who were given direct summer employment, the payroll and the overhead costs are given below:
February 28, 1977

	Number	Canada
Cadet	Employed	PayrollTraining Reserve	973	$ 812,968Training Community	4,233	4,239,927Assistance	922	920,566
Order Paper Questions
New Brunswick
Operations Costs1	Number Employed	Payroll	Operations Costs$887,032	70	$ 61,740	Not Available660,073	298	324,149	Not Available31,434	69	65,011	Not Available
Note: 1 Overhead costs consist of transportation, rations and clothing and equipment.


Mr. Jones: Is consideration being given to establishing a branch of the Royal Canadian Mint in Moncton, New Brunswick and, if so, on what date?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 215 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. Once again, the reason for answering in this way is the lengthy and detailed nature of the answer.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since January 1, 1976, how many persons, by public service classification, were employed by the Anti-Inflation Board and in what capacity?
2.	Since March 1, 1976, by public service classification, how many persons were employed by the Anti-Inflation Board and in what cities?
3.	Does the Anti-Inflation Board have regional offices and, if so (a) in what locations (b) on what date was each opened?
4.	Does the Anti-Inflation Board rent premises and, if so, in each case (a) in what location (b) who is the lessor (c) what is the monthly rent (d) what rent was paid by the previous tenant?
Return tabled.


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


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I should like to inquire about question No. 1,304. It is a starred question which has been on the order paper since December 10 last, and it is a very important one. Starred questions are supposed to receive prompt attention. The parliamentary secretary gave a partial verbal reply to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra the other day, so obviously the information is available. The question seeks information on the loss of revenue from depreciated stamp sales in the United States.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicates that starred questions should receive particular attention. I can assure him that all questions on the order paper receive close and careful attention. 1 took particular note of that question and will try to secure an answer as quickly as possible. But it bears repeating that the rate of return of answers in this session has been very high indeed.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the same type of point of order. It is with regard to question No. 1,040 which has been on the order paper since November 10 last in my name and has not yet been answered. It is very similar to a question I put in December which has been answered. These questions are on a series of payments being made to Lockheed on the LRPA contract. I am puzzled why the one in December could have been answered but not the one in November. 1 fear there has been an oversight, and I would like to have this question answered as soon as possible.


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the question put just now when it was asked whether the questions would be allowed to stand. Does that require my consent? I think the question is archaic and we should change its form. I assume it does not need unanimous consent to stand them. If it does, then I am prepared to withhold it and go on with questions. In raising this point of order 1 suggest that we change the procedure which is being followed, because 1 do not think it means anything.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming has raised an interesting point of order. There are two or three aspects of the routine proceedings that I have raised with representatives of the parties in respect of the manner in which we call routine proceedings each day. For example, we call government notices of motions and we call first reading of Senate public bills every day, yet we do not take advantage of the two items in routine proceedings more than two or three times a year. I wonder about the necessity of continuing to call them.
In fact, in respect of the business of standing questions, the Standing Order is phrased in such a way as to indicate that with the consent of the government the remaining questions can be allowed to stand. It would appear to be something that the government is consenting to. In fact, the consent to the standing of the remaining questions is for the benefit of hon. members who put the questions on the order paper, because if we do not stand them every day presumably they will disappear from the order paper if not answered and will have to be refiled. To a certain extent this is for the convenience of those
3474

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
who have questions outstanding. However, I will take the remarks of the hon. member under advisement to see if there is not some better way.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I was waiting to see if any starred questions would be answered today. But they were not. I placed a starred question on the order paper on January 24. It was a very simple question; I asked whether the government has purchased a Gulfstream-2 executive jet. The answer to that question could be obtained in one hour, and 1 would appreciate having an answer as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, to establish the department of employment and immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: problems which are facing us at the present time. I could cite other Figures but I think the figures I have cited sufficiently indicate that we are in serious trouble with regard to unemployment because of the action, or lack of action, of the federal government.
We believe, as well, that our educational and retraining system must reflect more closely the manpower needs of the country. This relates directly to the issue before us. In this respect I would like to point out that the Senate committee report on Canada Manpower, published some five months ago, said that employers see the Manpower centres, and 1 quote-
Chiefly as a source of unskilled labour-very few regard the Manpower service as place to recruit highly skilled, managerial or professional employees.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration is expected to spend a total of about $833 million this Fiscal year. The money is there and it is being spent. However, because of confused government priorities much of it is being misused and, indeed, wasted. Even in the peak years of Manpower spending in 1972-73 only 32 per cent of the Manpower budget went into direct job creation. Most of the rest went, and even today goes, into training and into Manpower centres even though the Canada Manpower centres are known to have an extremely poor placement record and the training all too often equips people for jobs that do not even exist on the labour market. The government has more than adequate staff, I believe, and more than adequate resource personnel to forecast what will happen in the economy and to take corrective action. There are at the present time three or four quite prestigious forecasting institutions that are actually doing that job. I believe the government would do well to avail themselves of this material in order to lay out a program that will provide a solution and reduce the unemployment rate we face today.
Bill C-27 proposes to implement the integration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration to become the Canada employment and immigration commission. This is something we have been looking forward to. In fact, we never agreed with the department being split up when that was done some years ago. It did not make sense to separate a department concerned with finding jobs from the agency concerned with paying unemployment benefits-unless, of course, the Unemployment Insurance Commission were to become mainly an agency for the redistribution of income. I suspect this is the reason the government made the change some years ago.
We have felt for some time that too easy entrance into the program has had an unfortunate effect on the work ethic in Canada. We have felt, and have been advocating, that the qualifying period for unemployment insurance beneFits should be increased from eight weeks to 12 weeks, recognizing, however, the regional inequalities of job opportunities. We are advocating, as well, that the governor in council maintain the right to make special provisions in areas of extremely high and chronic unemployment such as, for instance, Newfoundland and the maritimes. My colleague, the hon. member for Hamil-
Employment and Immigration
ton West (Mr. Alexander), gave notice of the amendment he intends to move on behalf of our party covering this situation.
An overhaul and simplification of the benefit structure is good news as well. Presently the regulations are, to my mind, unnecessarily complicated, as evidence by the number of people who contact their member of parliament about unemployment insurance claims. Many are completely baffled by the system, and even after their claim has been processed they are not sure why they are receiving benefits other than knowing that they paid into the plan for so many years. If that is the way it is looked upon by those receiving benefits, how much more difficult is it to explain to those who do not qualify for benefits why they are in that situation?
We all know that just because a person pays into the unemployment insurance scheme for ten or 20 years that does not ensure he can claim benefits for that length of time. The plain fact is that many people look upon unemployment insurance as a pension or retirement plan of some sort. I hope the new benefit structure and new procedures will emphasize the fact that this is an insurance plan and not welfare, pension or some other form of redistribution of income. On a number of occasions I have raised the point, as have others, that in many instances it seems to be too easy to receive benefits under the unemployment insurance program. But the other day I came across an article in a newspaper that pointed out that department was going to continue searching the records to make sure those who are receiving benefits under the plan are justified in doing so. I believe that is as it should be.
A great many people are bothered, however, that some people receive unemployment insurance benefits for a long period of time after perhaps working only a short while, yet others who have been working for many years and paying into the scheme are cut off after receiving three or four months of benefits. That situation should be looked into, Mr. Speaker. I can give one instance right on point. I received a communication from a lady who had worked in the same place for about 13 years, paying unemployment insurance premiums. The shopping centre where she was working was destroyed by fire. She was given about three weeks to find alternate employment. This lady was possibly over 50 years of age. Although she had been working for many years, she did not own a car and walked to work. She had to try to find alternate employment at least until the shopping centre was rebuilt. After three weeks she was told that was long enough to find alternate employment and she was cut off benefits even though she had tried in other areas as well to find work. In fact, she went to a major community about 30 miles away and made inquiries. Everywhere she went she was told there was a list of people ahead of her and there did not seem to be any possibility of work.
It seems as though these people are forced to journey back and forth considerable distances to try to find employment in other communities, yet the stores in those communities have lists of local people also seeking employment. If they were to hire the one from out of town it would leave someone in their own community unemployed. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker,
80010 -14>/z

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
that in some of these instances more careful consideration ought to be given at least to those in the upper age bracket so that they can bridge the gap between the cessation of employment and re-employment perhaps in the same situation in the same locality-perhaps even with the same company that had to lay them off because of unfortunate circumstances. We are in favour of removing from the rolls those who are not qualified and should not receive assistance, but I believe attention should be given to people facing impossible obstacles.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments. Enough has been said to point out that 1 am in favour of the action being taken, but there are some areas where the government ought to make adjustments and take remedial action.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I approach this debate with a rather jaundiced eye and with mixed feelings.


An hon. Member:: And with mixed metaphors.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It seems to me that in this country unemployment insurance has been terribly misinterpreted by those who have never experienced the process. Our greatest critics inside and outside the House-mainly outside-have been those who had job security and never had to enter an unemployment insurance office. As a practising politician-


Donald W. Munro: Are you still practising?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, still practising. To repeat, when I go home on weekends and sit in my office between nine o'clock and three p.m., I find that half the people coming to me have unemployment insurance problems. One must endure the emotional spectacle of watching a man in his fifties crying because his unemployment insurance has run out and he must fall back on welfare. People like that, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. They do not control the economy; they do not have the economic input of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), other cabinet ministers, or our captains of industry. Some of these people remain unemployed for several months, sometimes for as long as one or two years. Such unemployment leads to tremendous family conflict and personal depression-depression which needs medical treatment.
The government's proposals as embodied in this bill puzzle me. Why, when more people are out of work in this country than at any time since the great depression, does the government want to tighten up unemployment insurance? Why is it changing the qualifying period? There is no logic to it. As far as I am concerned, it is immoral. Neither the government nor industry can move the economy forward. Approximately one million people are out of work, and the government chooses this very time to tighten unemployment insurance. Why? I suggest that the government is bending to the wish of a minority of rednecks, is bending the wishes of people who don't know the first thing about unemployment. They have picked out one or two examples in their communities to show that somebody has been caught ripping off the UIC fund. They

therefore think that a great minority of recipients, or even the majority, are cheating on UIC. Once and for all, let us put that myth to rest.
On February 1, 1977, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) tried to convey desperately to this House and the country that Canada has the most advanced employment and job insurance programs in the world. Although official figures show 889,000 people as being unemployed, the minister was able to say with a straight face and serious-minded mien that Manpower services generally, as well as the newer job-creation programs, have been greatly strengthened and matured in the past ten years. After hearing this, someone was led to comment that if we have much more of this kind of strength and maturity we shall most likely be doomed.
I want to concentrate on two main aspects of the bill, the integration of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and the charges in entrance requirements which must be met if one is to obtain benefits under the unemployment insurance scheme. I touched on the latter point briefly in my opening remarks. I wish to review these changes within the context of our present economic situation and then assess the effect of the proposals on those presently unemployed and on others who will no doubt be uprooted from their jobs in the months to come.
As various spokesmen have said, our number one economic problem in Canada is unemployment. My party has been stressing this point for the past two years. Finally, in the past few months the government has begun to recognize that employment is our number one problem. Official figures published by Statistics Canada show that more than 889,000 men and women in this country are now unemployed. I stress "official" figures because, as my leader showed, those figures do not take into account the hidden unemployed, those who have simply given up looking for non-existent jobs. They are the hidden unemployed. I submit that there are at least 450,000 people among the hidden unemployed, and if you add their numbers to the official figure the real unemployment rate rises to approximately 11 per cent. That is a disgustingly large figure for this country.
In my riding, Brant, Canada Manpower officials recently listed 4,261 people as unemployed. That was the last figure available, in January. At the same time there were 106 job vacancies listed in my constituency which has a population of over 100,000. In all the country there are only 42,000 job vacancies at present. This means that if every job vacancy were filled, 889,000 people would still remain out of work. If you add to that number the number of the hidden unemployed, you can see that more than one million people altogether would be out of work in this country. At present more than one million individuals in this country have no recourse except apply for unemployment insurance. Their livelihood depends on it. Canadians have every right to ask why, in this rich country, this is allowed to happen. The answer is straightforward: the government does not care any more. If it did, the Minister of Finance would not wait until April before introducing a new budget.
February 28, 1977


Mr. Benjamin:: It's Herbert Hoover's policies all over again.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The magnitude of our unemployment, aside from the misery it is inflicting on our people, is costing Canadians millions of dollars in lost productivity and extra money spent on social assistance programs. The social services office in the city of Brantford, Ontario, is currently handling between 25 and 30 requests for assistance a day. I am often accused of coming from the "golden horse shoe" area where everybody is a millionaire or worth at least half a million dollars. I am cataloguing the situation in Brantford because it is one of the relatively wealthy parts of Canada. I am informed that the number of out-of-province requests is increasing as well. The administrator of the social services office in my constituency stated that last year $33,000 was' spent assisting people who had moved to Brant county from other provinces looking for work. Those people had come from provinces where unemployment exceeded 15 per cent. They do not want hand-outs. They move into the area in the hope of finding employment. They do not want make-work programs which last for three months or even six months. They want jobs on which they can depend. Unfortunately, the job situation is disastrous not only in my constituency, but right across the country.
Further, forecasts for the months to come are gloomy. The consensus among economists is that the unemployment situation will worsen before it gets better. Referring again to my own constituency, local businessmen do not expect any improvement in the unemployment situation for the coming year, this at a time when it is being rumoured that there might be an election within the next few months. This is rather interesting.


An hon. Member:: Are you ready?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We are, but you sure as heck aren't. It is against this background that we should examine this bill. The minister, in his preamble during debate on this bill, would have us believe that everything is coming up roses. Like his predecessor, he is very conversant with the services his department renders. The minister and his colleagues take great pride in the unemployment insurance scheme we have in this country. Like his predecessor, the minister is of the opinion that unemployment is not really a serious problem because our unemployment insurance scheme relieves the unemployed of the worst financial hardships that used to go with the loss of a job.
Possibly that is the reason this government has totally neglected the underlying problem that job opportunities were not, and are not, developing fast enough to keep pace with the growth of the labour force. The minister is shaking his head. Why, then, do we have nearly a million peqple out of work? Answer that. Instead of spending its time developing policies which would create more jobs and get people off unemployment insurance, this government is preoccupied with possible abuses of the insurance scheme. Dealing with those very few people who abuse the unemployment insurance system during
Employment and Immigration
this period of high unemployment shows that the government has a somewhat warped sense of priorities. This is an affront to all those who are legitimately receiving payments as a result of something totally beyond their control.
As W. A. Wilson stated in an article in the Montreal Star:
For all the fears that the insurance system has been exploited, human beings are by nature active, and for most men and women, this means that they work and indeed want to work.
Mr. Wilson added something else which I want to stress especially to some members to my right. He said:
The maximum benefits from UIC are generous enough in terms of keeping the wolf from the door, but they must seem small to a wage earner who becomes unemployed and finds the payments on his automobile or television set do not fit in to his reduced income.
This reduced income comes about overnight. We talk about an average pay-out of $94 a week. What about the emotional effect on the breadwinner, the head of the family, going from $200 a week down to $94 a week? We still hear people say that that person would rather get $94 a week and do nothing than the $200 he was getting while gainfully employed. That is a psychological jam which some people in this country- indeed, a few in this House-have that I do not understand. According to recent statistics, and I am repeating myself here, the average pay-out is $94.56. That was as of November, 1976-just a few months ago.
This leads me to discuss the main purpose of Bill C-27, which is to change the entrance requirements for unemployment insurance benefits. The minister said in the House that the main reasons for changing the entrance requirements were that the present system provides too many people with a disincentive to work, that eight to 11-weekers are mainly individuals without dependants, young, or secondary earners and for that reason, following the minister's logic, they really do not require financial assitance. Furthermore, the current entrance requirements reinforce unstable work patterns. I believe that is a quote from the minister's speech. I want to deal with each of these arguments in turn.
The view that the present unemployment system is a disincentive to work is not novel. The only problem with this view is that it is not supported by facts. Even the eight weeks of steady work needed to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits can be hard to come by when job seekers outnumber jobs by almost 20 to one. The minister does not understand or, even worse, does not know that in many parts of this country it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get even eight weeks of work. At least the former minister, despite his shortcomings, with respect to this aspect of unemployment insurance acknowledged that increasing the qualifying period was not the way to tighten up the unemployment insurance system. In May, 1975-and that is not a generation ago-the former minister had this to say about the qualifying period, and I quote from his statement in the House:
-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-

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
He went on to say, as was pointed out by those members of my party who were on a fact-finding trip to Atlantic Canada:
-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-
The minister mentioned the young as those who would probably lose out as a result of this change. I suppose he is suggesting young people in this country have no incentive to work. If he cared to examine the present situation, he would realize that the young do want to work. Many university graduates are accepting menial jobs and are accepting positions which underemploy them. But the basic fact remains: There are about 387,000 unemployed between the ages of 15 and 24 and they, along with the over-25 group are currently scrambling for the some 41,000 jobs that are available in Canada. Instead of creating satisfying, fulfilling jobs for these people, the minister simply eliminates many from unemployment insurance rolls. That is what will happen if this bill passes.
The other group affected by this change is secondary earners, many of whom are housewives. We are led to believe that these individuals do not really need financial assistance; they do not need to work. This is sheer nonsense, and the minister knows it. The Minister of Finance, during debate on the income tax bill, stated that the average income in Canada in 1975 was $16,232. That average income was derived in most cases as a result of two or more people working in the family. It has become an economic necessity over the past ten years for both spouses to earn an income in order to make ends meet. Finally, it was suggested that the current entrance requirements reinforce unstable work patterns.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, what are the effects of prolonged joblessness? Does this government even consider the frustration, the deteriorating morale caused by lengthy idleness? What, for that matter, are the effects of temporary jobs? I refer here to the type of jobs created by the minister's employment strategy. Make-work programs may have short-term social benefits, but as the Economic Council of Canada pointed out last year they can also have a debilitating long-run effect. Make-work programs such as LIP and Canada Works, Young Canada Works, and so on, do not and were never intended to provide permanent employment. As many of us know, having been involved with the LIP program, the main dissatisfaction among LIP workers is the lack of job security. This is the very thing we should be trying to eliminate in this country. We should be providing job security, not insecurity.
We know, from studies carried out, that programs such as LIP do not contribute a significant stepping-stone to regular employment for unemployed, marginal or poor workers. Rather, for a substantial majority of participants in make-work projects the job constitutes a temporary source of employment income, to be followed by unemployment, labour force withdrawal, another make-work project, social assistance or a combination thereof. They get themselves into a vicious circle. They go on a LIP project. They are there for six months. The project terminates and they are thrown back on
(Mr. Blackburn.]
the labour market. They go through the process of seeking employment. They draw unemployment insurance benefits. They carry out an active job search. Before they know it, they are called upon by some person who was lucky enough to get a grant for a LIP program. "How would you like to come back?" The man answers, "Well, 1 have just got on unemployment insurance, so why should I get off unemployment insurance and go back to LIP?" He is talked into it, and he goes back to LIP. He works another three or four months and the same thing happens again under that program.
tf)
Hon. members opposite know what happens in practice as opposed to what happens in law. These people get into a cycle and they find themselves asking, at the age of 20, 40 or 50, "I do not have a permanent livelihood ahead of me; I am going from one job-creation program to another; there is no permanent aspect about what 1 am doing." I wonder how many of us around this place would feel if we knew we had no future at all. I am not talking about being defeated, but suppose we knew there was nothing there of substance for us should we be defeated in politics, or should we decide to resign, except the unemployment insurance fund, even though we are not entitled to it? I wonder how such a situation would affect us. I am not saying we are a special group in this country. We are citizens in the same way as everyone else. But would it affect the way we legislate? At times we tend to forget there are a lot of people outside the House who depend upon us for a reasonably happy and secure future. I fear that these make-work projects are becoming a permanent fixture under this government. No longer is permanent employment a goal. I strongly urge the minister to determine what kind of work patterns are being reinforced by this binge of make-work projects.
To conclude my remarks on the proposed changes in the entrance requirements I should, again, like to quote the former minister of manpower and immigration. Speaking on the qualifying period, he said:
I think it is a bit of a red herring. I think there are other areas in the act which have to be tidied up, areas which are far more significant than the favourite whipping boy of the short work claimant.
That is what the former minister said about a year ago. Now everything has changed drastically. These are my sentiments. I do not support these changes which would penalize individuals for something which is entirely out of their control. If a person does not want to work, don't give him anything. That is his choice, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. The vast majority of those who are unemployed today are people who have no control over the economy or over the business decisions of the various factories or institutions in which they work. They have no control over politics, either, except when there is an election.
At the same time, I cannot support the amendment introduced by the Conservatives which would allow for selective reduction in the qualifying period from 12 to eight weeks. It is obvious that the party to my right introduced this amendment not on the basis of known fact but, rather, on the basis of the number of votes to be gained. They do not care about the
February 28, 1977

welfare of the citizens of this country. This was shown by the way they voted on the tax bill on February 14, only a few days ago. It has also been shown in the course of the debate on the bill we are presently considering. On February 2, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) commended the government for bringing in the 12-week qualifying period. As far as he is concerned, unemployment insurance is a means of getting something for nothing. His colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said on the same day that this was not the time to tamper with the provisions of the act in such a way as to increase the qualifying period from eight to 12 weeks. In typical Conservative fashion, members to my right have straddled the fence and opted for selective reductions in the qualifying period.
Obviously, this was a device for gaining support in those areas of the maritimes where unemployment is so high and where it is difficult to get a job for five or six weeks, let alone for eight or 12 weeks. That is the kind of politicking I do not like. We are all Canadians, and we should all be treated equally and do everything possible to hold the country together in a positive way. When you start making changes to suit various areas of the country, you are just putting another nail into the coffin of the country and dividing it more than it is now.
When I came here in 1971, this country was not too badly divided. When the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected in 1968 there was not one Parti Quebecois member elected to the legislative assembly in Quebec. Look at the situation today. After nine or ten years during which the present government has been in office we have a bitterly divided country. It is not just Quebec. We have western alienation-Alberta, British Columbia and the prairies. Yes, and Ontario too; northern Ontario. I am not blaming the Prime Minister entirely for this, but I hope he does not go on one more of those emotional binges he went on in 1968 and try to tell the people of Canada that he is the only federal leader who can keep the country together, when the country today is more divided than when he was elected nine years ago.


An hon. Member:: Disgraceful.


Mr. MacFarlane:: What have you guys been doing?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We have not been trying to divide the country.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: You are doing it right now.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I see I am getting a little rise out of members opposite. They are being a little sensitive.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Sensible, you mean.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: They are hustling to get to the ballot boxes because they have to send their leader out of the country to make a half decent speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Employment and Immigration


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I would ask the hon. member to get back to the bill.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: 1 appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker, and will do so. If the Conservative amendment were to be passed we would have a situation whereby an individual unemployed in Steinbach, Manitoba, would not be entitled to benefits, whereas someone in St. John's East would be. I have come to accept this kind of thinking from the government benches, but it now appears as though the Conservatives are competing with the government to see who can waffle the most on any issue.
I should now like to turn to the subject of integration. In a period of our economic history where close to 8 per cent or more of our population is out of work, it is ironic that the minister is now going to establish a new department of employment and immigration. I have to agree that that is the power of positive thinking, but I think it is a lot of nonsense. The minister took it as a sign of great efficiency that, as a result of the co-operation between Canada Manpower Centres and the UIC, half the claimants for unemployment insurance benefits now register with Canada Manpower Centres and such claimants constitute 70 per cent of the total clientele of the manpower service.
According to the minister, in order to improve these superior services-I underline "superior" services-integration is a must. I suggest that, before the minister proceeds with this move, he takes a look at the shortcomings of the present system, and indeed there are many of them. I think we would have to admit that Canada Manpower Centres and the Unemployment Insurance Commission have not really worked in harmony. In many instances they have worked against each other. I know for a fact, having talked to one or two employees of Canada Manpower, they sure as heck do not want to be loaded with unemployment insurance problems.
Manpower services at the present time are woefully inadequate. That is the consensus in any given neighbourhood or community. This has been pointed out both by the Senate committee that investigated this matter and also by the Economic Council of Canada in its report entitled "People and Jobs".
Both these reports said that employers see Manpower Centres chiefly as a source of unskilled labour. Canada Manpower Centres are used for only 25 to 35 per cent of the total number of hirings that occpr during the year. Many of those, I might add, are in the category of which I spoke earlier, namely, of very temporary nature. Furthermore, a considerable number of the jobs listed by many Manpower Centres are in the primary sectors where turnover is high and employers simply put in standing orders.
Another legitimate complaint about Manpower services was brought to my attention by the United Steel Workers of America. We have witnessed, over the years, situations where companies which are in dispute with their employees list vacancies with local manpower offices. This happened again

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
recently in Scarborough, where workers at Wyandotte Chemicals have been on legal strike seeking a first contract since November. During the strike area manpower offices have posted employment openings for the company. Although these notices indicate that a labour dispute is in progress, nevertheless they encourage people to interfere in a legal dispute between a company and its employees. As a staff representative of the United Steelworkers of America said in a recent letter, Manpower seems prepared to help companies make a profit even when they face a legal strike; why do they not provide the same kind of help to workers when they are locked out? That is a good question. Someone should ask the Minister of Manpower in the question period how he would answer that. There is no provision in this bill to deal with this situation. The government is quite content to continue this policy of what I call legal scabbing.
Generally speaking then, Mr. Speaker, most of the jobs registered at Canada Manpower Centres are unattractive, frequently of relatively temporary nature, low paying, and non-unionized or not organized in any way. As the Economic Council of Canada was forced to conclude, these factors limit the over-all effectiveness of Canada Manpower Centres and adversely affect their public image.
I am not addressing my criticisms directly to the counsellors who work in Canada Manpower Centres; 1 am simply saying that the way the centres are structured they are not doing their job efficiently. They are not doing the job for which they were originally set up. This is not really the fault of the employees. It is the fault of our economic system; it is the fault of employers in many cases who look upon Manpower Centres as a source of cheap labour, not expert, skilled or even semi-skilled.
The minister is quite content, ignoring these facts, to proceed to rationalize and to harmonize the present services to provide a one stop service to clients. It matters not that the present services are virtually useless. The minister hopes that integration will eliminate whatever defects exist. Most important, how does the minister hope to overcome the problem of matching-and this is a very conservative figure-the 750,000 job searchers with the 41,000 available jobs? No flow charts or diagrams will accomplish this, regardless of what the minister says.
This bill also promises financing for on the job retraining, administration of labour market programs and the policies underlying these programs. Pumping more money into training programs and into make-work programs will not alleviate unemployment. The only way to deal with unemployment is to create a job for each and every Canadian who wants one.
I conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker. I do not care if Manpower and UIC reach 100 per cent efficiency. I do not care if LIP, Canada Works and Young Canada Works achieve 100 per cent efficiency within their terms of reference. I do not care how efficient any government department is in the country today. Unless we can get the economy moving and provide jobs for the 750,000 or 800,000 people-we might even say the one million people-who are looking for work, then it does not

matter how much money we spend on make work programs, temporary jobs and all the rest; there will still be ill-feeling and restlessness in the country which will increase over the years. If we cannot solve reasonably well the economic problems of the country and create more jobs, then what is the point of spending all this money and energy on make work projects? What is the point of even taking a serious look at Bill C-27 when it is not going to alleviate the basic problem of providing meaningful work for people who want it?


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, while Bill C-27 deals with various matters, I wish to make only a few comments on certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. As I understand it, there are three major changes to be made to the act. In his speech on second reading the minister listed, first of all, the increase in the number of weeks a person must work before being entitled to draw benefits which, as the House knows, is from eight weeks to 12; the second change is in the benefits structure, which is the framework used to determine the duration of a claimant's entitlement; the third change is the outlining of more productive and developmental uses of unemployment insurance funds, such as income maintenance for persons taking approved training courses, job creation projects, and work-sharing programs. It is not my intention to comment on all of the changes, even though I realize their importance. Some contain pitfalls, some are improvements.
Job training is a subject on which I could spend 40 or 50 minutes. The minister and I have discussed it both in the House and outside the House, and it is difficult to know what the minister of labour in the province of Nova Scotia is looking for so far as training is concerned. He has made some loud statements about all the training that is going to take place, but in the meantime at the Point Edward training school in Cape Breton instructors are being laid off. However, I will deal with that on another occasion.
I should like to discuss first the increase from eight to 12 weeks of employment before entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits is achieved by those who are no longer employed. I believe, as other speakers have said, that this amendment is a backward step. It discriminates against that area of the country where the rate of unemployment is very high. As is the case in most regions of Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and the constituency which I represent suffer from a very high rate of unemployment.
I am glad to see here the hon. member for Bonaventure-Jles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) who last Friday told the whole story. His words are worth quoting. He made a very commendable speech, as he always does. Those comments which I wish to quote are to be found on page 3446 of Hansard. I trust the minister will listen very carefully to this. The hon. member said:
It remains-I am willing to admit this-that even with the best scheme, a number of unemployed could not find a job. In cases such as those which are found in the Magdalen Islands and elsewhere in my constituency, as well as in
February 28, 1977

the Gaspe Peninsula generally, including the Gaspe and Matane constituencies, and some neighbouring areas, the whole Restigouche area, the Gloucester area and New Brunswick as a whole, it should be possible, wherever the industrial base,is very limited, to adopt special measures, as mentioned by previous speakers, until such a time at least when the government decides to organize the economy in a way which would guarantee a more permanent employment of our active population.
I certainly commend the hon. gentleman for that statement because it spells out the problems with which we are confronted in the Atlantic region and in most areas of the province of Quebec. He went on to say:
Just as the duration of benefits varies and the number of weeks increases depending on the difference between the local or regional rate of unemployment and the national average, so, in my humble opinion should the number of working weeks before obtaining benefits vary in the case of the Magdalen Islands and the Gaspe peninsula in general, as well as the New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces ridings. Let us put an end to the ridiculous practice whereby an applicant must file evidence that he is looking for a job in a region such as ours where there are few openings, if any. Instead we should require all employers to report job openings to Canada Manpower offices, including those they fill themselves without going to the Manpower Centres. This way Manpower officials will always know what jobs are available.
This is good advice from the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine. As he said, we are faced with a situation where people get tired going to Manpower offices and hearing the same story over and over again that no work is available. They are told they must make a job search. They go to see five or six employers who tell them that there is nothing available. This is ridiculous. We know there is no employment in the first place. The Manpower officials know that. It is no reflection on them. They do the best they can to place people.
For example, in the Sydney office the latest report for January, 1977, showed that the number of those seeking employment was 13,134 and there were only 210 job vacancies, so you can see what they are faced with. As was mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on Friday, this is the situation. In his riding the official unemployment figure was 29,000, but when he investigated it thoroughly at the Manpower offices he discovered that the actual figure was 60,000.
I do not understand why the government is bringing in this bill now. I recall very vividly that when it was first introduced it was supposed to be the greatest thing since Bryce Mackasey, not since sliced bread. Here we are with our unemployment rate higher than it has ever been. We are making it more difficult for people who are truly serious and honest in trying to find work to receive a few dollars. I am not trying to protect those who abuse the fund. I condemn the judges and the magistrates who tap them over the fingers, people who are guilty of defrauding the system and of defrauding the government. All they are told is, "Don't you boys do any more of this, and everything will be all right". We should condemn them and give them the severest of penalties. Remember the postal strike when we discovered the ski bums who were not there to collect their cheques? There were none from the Atlantic provinces or the eastern regions of Quebec among them, because in most of those areas people cannot afford to buy ski equipment, let alone go skiing and collect unemployment insurance.
Employment and Immigration
It is great for members of boards of directors sitting in back rooms to say that, "So and so does not want to work anyhow, so cut him off." That is absolutely incorrect. I think the frequency of abuses is minimal, particularly in the regions about which we are talking.
As 1 said, in my constituency in industrial Cape Breton where the rate of unemployment is very high it is very difficult to obtain an accurate figure. It is estimated to be somewhere between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. I hope it is less than that, but I am afraid the rate is even higher. I know the sources of employment in that area and 1 know they are shrinking, while the labour force is growing. It is difficult to justify the change, and 1 can tell you that those arguments have no validity whatsoever in the region that I represent.
The minister and others have tried to justify this amendment by stating that it is an incentive, especially for young people, to work longer. All I can say is that this argument does not apply to either the younger or the older workers in my area, in the Atlantic region or in eastern Quebec. The young people there do not need incentives to stay in the work force. Their big problem is more to get into the labour force and obtain employment in the first place, than to keep it. Those who may be in and out of the active work force are the victims of an economically depressed area. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, because I know these young people.
As many other hon. members do, I discussed this with the young people and also with my older constituents. 1 know they are anxious to be part of the active work force, and it is a sad state of affairs when they do get a job that it only lasts for a few weeks. Certainly they would rather work than be on unemployment insurance. They would love to have a permanent job. They would love to have job security so they could plan their future with confidence, free from the worry and anxiety of loss of work.
To say there is a 25 per cent or 30 per cent rate of unemployment is startling. Of course other people talk about a rate of 14 per cent or 15 per cent, but 25 per cent to 30 per cent is terrible.
These statistics are called hard figures. Personally, I think of those men and women who make up these percentages, and when I hear the word "claimant" or "bodies"-bureaucratic lingo-in reference to the unemployed, I think it is shocking. I think of the man or woman seeking employment or seeking unemployment insurance as human beings. In so far as industrial Cape Breton is concerned, I deny most vigorously that the number of people in and out of employment has increased and that these people are doing so of their own free will. They are doing so from necessity, not from choice. I agree that if there are abuses under the U1C Act then those abuses should be corrected, but not by increasing the period of employment from eight to 12 weeks. An abuse will not be corrected and a real hardship will be inflicted.
I noticed that in his speech on second reading the minister also mentioned that unemployment insurance will continue to provide a measure of income protection to unemployed workers while they conduct an active search for jobs to locate the

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
most suitable and satisfying employment available to them. This puts the pressure on the individuals, and that is only right because he or she should go and look for jobs. But surely if a Canada Manpower Centre, which is the official government employment agency of the federal government, does not know where there are jobs, where will the people find jobs? They will have to go through this phony deal of going to a series of businessmen and being told there are no jobs available. They know that from the beginning.
I only wish there were no necessity for this active search for jobs in my area. The time is past when they have to conduct this solitary, ineffectual search for work. If employment is not available-and the officers should know whether or not it is available-then the insurance should continue to be paid under the legislation. For whom will this create a hardship? It will create a hardship for fishermen, lumbermen, fish plant workers, construction workers, and all those who work part time. I commend the minister for changing what is commonly known as the four-week rule. It is proposed that it be done away with. At the present time it results in a claim being terminated if benefits are not paid for four consecutive weeks in an extended benefit period.
This rule is considered a serious disincentive to individuals who might otherwise take short-term jobs. There are many hundreds of people caught in that trap. There people are anxious and willing to work, particularly construction workers, fish plant workers and so forth. They go back for a day, two days, or three days, and they think they re-qualify. However, they are told that they are out, that they do not have any chance to collect benefits or to continue collecting benefits. This will continue, as others have said, to put more people on welfare, but the municipalities cannot stand it. At the moment it is difficult for municipalities in the regions I have mentioned to get by. They just cannot afford to pay more welfare, and people will just be hungry.
I am not being dramatic or anything else when I say that there are people on Cape Breton Island who are losing their homes. They cannot pay the cost of electric heating. They cannot pay their mortgages. They formerly worked at the steel plant. Their benefits are running out quickly, and some have already run out. There is no way for them to carry on. If we adopt this measure, we will make it much more serious than it ever was before. It will take millions of dollars out of the economy in those areas of the country where it is needed most.
Some ask-the previous speaker included-why we should pass a law to suit certain regions of the country? This government and previous governments have done that to suit certain regions of the country. We cannot pass a blanket law which will treat everybody equitably across this vast country. I spoke to a Liberal member from Saskatchewan the other day. I asked him what is the employment rate out there and he said it is 2.8 per cent. Well, now, that is rather nice.


Mr. Leggatt:: That is NDP country.


Robert Muir: I expected that, but I wonder why it was higher before. Incidentally, hon. members to my left always preach the great philosophy of socialism and that kind of thing. If socialism is such a millennium, why in hell are Callaghan and Britain in such a mess? Why have socialist governments been turned out in other countries? I wish the hon. member would not try to divert me. I am really after the Liberal government. I am asking the ministers to try to change the rules and regulations, but often I hear some misplaced clergyman and others to the physical left of me in this House attacking the Conservatives as if they formed the government. It is strange that they attack the people to their right but not the government. There seems to be a bit of a liaison.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: An incestuous relationship.


Robert Muir: What did you say?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Celestial.


Robert Muir: I doubt that. At any rate, I would be less than frank with the government and this House if I did not reaffirm that I cannot under any circumstances but oppose in every way available to me the proposals contained in this package of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I wonder if in this package there is anything to deal with a case whereby a group of whizz-kids came to a regional office and to local offices to conduct so-called investigations as to the possibility of alleged padding of placements. I do not know if that is quite correct. It is supposed to have happened. I trust the minister is listening very carefully. In the interim three senior people who have 30, 40 or 50 combined years' service in the public service were suspended immediately for a week with pay. No charges were laid. There was no money they could have stolen.
There is an investigation going on. These people still receive their salaries, but they have been warned not to talk to anyone in that office nor to be seen around that office. When that kind of thing is allowed I wonder what we are coming to. I do not at all blame the minister for that, but I hope and trust he will look into situations like that. In a small area if John Brown or Joe Blow is suspended, people immediately get suspicious and wonder what is going on. They think that where there is smoke there is fire, and that something has to be going on. The character of the people involved can be grievously injured because to this point nothing has been proved against these people or any of the staff in that office. I hope the minister will take this into consideration either in his legislation or investigations.
It has been mentioned by others that there are roughly 39,000 or 40,000 job vacancies across this country at the present time but that there are over one million who are unemployed. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has been making great noises about that, and rightly so, but if hon. members would look up the comments I made here two or three years ago they would find that I said the same thing. I said that we do not get true statistical figures
February 28, 1977

because many people get tired of going to Canada Manpower Centre offices, they head out on their own and just keep chasing around anywhere they can trying to find a job on their own, therefore they are not considered as being unemployed as far as the C.M.C. is concerned. Hon. members know that. These people come to their member's offices every day and, if they do not, some hon. members must live in a wonderful part of the country. I know that places like that exist because people have come to me telling me that in Toronto there is difficulty getting employees. My goodness, I wish we had that problem on the east coast.
Coming from an area which suffers unemployment to the extent that one would have to conclude that Cape Breton in many ways is akin to the developing countries of the world, without the interest-free loans which are available to the developing countries, I probably have one of the most honest methods of describing the terrible plight of our area. If we want an example of why this nation is in a state of almost complete chaos, we need only examine the multitude of proposals which have been made in an effort to combat the problems of the Atlantic region and then to witness nothing more than lip service-and that can be lip service or LIP service-as the end result. Every question I pose and every suggestion I make in this House is taken by the various ministers of the government as if they are deeply and truly concerned about our problems, but as soon as they disappear from the House the gravity of the situation seems to disappear with them. The only result is a continuation and worsening of the problem.
In my own area I look back on the loss of General Instruments Corporation. That corporation assembled radio tuners. 1 look back on the loss of Canadian Motor Industries which assembled Toyota automobiles. I look back on the loss of Kaiser Strontium. Two years ago, as I said earlier in the House today, 3,900 employees worked at the Sydney steel plant, but that number is now down to 2,250, and there is no assurance that that figure will be maintained. I look at the drastic cut-backs by Canadian National in the Atlantic region and at the Canadian National marine services on the docks at North Sydney where in peak periods in the summer there once were 1,000 people employed. In the winter the number was about 500, 600 or 700. Now we have only about 200 working there every day. There were 1,000 people working at General Instruments, this in an area of chronic unemployment. Such industries with that kind of employment opportunity were allowed to leave. This happened under the Trudeau and Regan administrations. What would have been required to keep General Instruments or Canadian Motor Industries in operation there would probably have been far less than the amount which has already been expended on unemployment benefits and welfare.
All this is not to mention the human degradation associated with any form of assistance as compared with gainful employment. No one knows better than I and other hon. members from the Atlantic region about the operation of UIC and Manpower offices, particularly in my area. Probably three
Employment and Immigration
quarters of our work is associated with the problems of constituents in securing employment or securing unemployment insurance benefits. The time which is not involved with those two operations is associated with welfare, with schemes of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the provincial department of social services and those of the Department of Veterans Affairs. People in Cape Breton need hope, and hope comes in the form of jobs. It is not a matter of taking people off the unemployment insurance rolls because they will not take the jobs available; there just are no jobs.
My efforts are geared to trying to get people enough work to get them on the unemployment rolls, and it is difficult to get that much work. It means two months work out of 12 months if this bill goes through. A number of people in Cape Breton would not qualify if this were in effect now because they have not been able to get very much work in the last 12 months. They do not even figure in the statistics. When I ask them if they have gone to the Manpower Centre they tell me they have, but there is nothing for them. They are the forgotten Canadians. Because they are not included in the unemployment statistics they do not get a passing thought from the government. Do not talk to Cape Bretoners about the break-up of Canada because the government shows more concern for the underprivileged in other parts of the world than it does for the human misery that has become their way of life.
Some will say that is a terrible thing to say when some people in the world are starving. 1 do not think there is anything wrong with foreign aid, but I do think we should try to help people in this country who are truly having problems. A week ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) said that he did not think anyone in this country was starving. I can tell him people are starving in this country, Mr. Speaker.
Now we are being told that the qualifying period for benefits should be increased from two months to three months- this at a time when over a million Canadians are without work. We are telling people we will legislate them off the unemployment insurance rolls and onto the welfare rolls. Mr. Speaker, I will not condone that nor will I co-operate in order to have this type of ordeal perpetrated on the people of Cape Breton Island, of the Atlantic region or of anywhere else in Canada that is having unemployment problems. This government can tell me it wants a longer qualification period for unemployment insurance benefits when it can also tell me there are jobs so that people can obtain employment long enough to qualify for benefits, or indeed work permanently so that they do not have to apply for benefits. When that happens I will be pleased to support this proposal, but not until then. I see no sign of that happening, so I was pleased that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) moved an amendment that would maintain the present program in areas of higher unemployment than the national average. I will support that amendment, but there is no way I can support any lengthening of the present qualifying period.

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
This government said a few years ago that this bill was a great thing, but there were not so many unemployed then. There are thousands more people unemployed now. If the government can live with itself after proposing such callous and unfeeling legislation let it, but I will have no part of the decision.
The terrible financial mess the government has put the country in will not be loaded on the shoulders of the working men and women of Cape Breton Island so long as I represent that area. For too long the working people of this nation have been the scapegoats of the horrendous ineptitude of the government. There has been one example after another of alleged scandal, corruption and mismanagement. The poor people are singled out as the culprits in government waste and extravagance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others tell the people to stop spending, but they do not have money to spend. Government spokesmen blame them for their spending and extravagance as the cause of inflation. They are much like the Romans who found themselves in the arenas facing the lions because they were the entertainment of the nobility and the mobs alike. This government tries to trample on the rights of the poor and the defenceless but, Mr. Speaker, it will do it against the strongest opposition I can muster.
It is easy to say that people will not work, but in areas of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and almost all of Quebec, most people try very hard to find work. They just cannot find it, Mr. Speaker.
We cannot afford the luxury of this government and its unrealistic and uncaring schemes. If we are to have a country in the future we had better meet the challenge of the people of this nation to be able to reside and work where they want to themselves. Government spokesman may say that people in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island who cannot find work should move and they will be paid a mobility grant.


William Arnold Peters: Move where?


Robert Muir: Indeed, where? If they could move what are they faced with? They have worked hard all their lives to get their homes. Maybe they have a couple of children in school-even university if that is possible. If they move to Ontario or the west it is going to cost them so much to buy a home that they just cannot do it. The work has to be provided where they live and that is why I have been pressing continuously the government to do something about steel in Cape Breton which is the backbone of the economy of Nova Scotia. I think possibly the government might be trying to do something.
People in this country should be able to reside and work where they wish. That is not possible and will not be possible so long as proposals are brought forward that are so out of touch with reality. I am surprised that the minister would go along with this. I have the highest regard for him. I know that he has been out of work in his time and has had to pound the roads looking for work. He has worked in the mines as I have as a miner, and knows what that is all about. Surely he will listen to his backbenchers and not only to his bureaucratic

advisers, and think seriously about the amendment our party proposed.
I mentioned the steel situation, Mr. Speaker. Many people have been laid off. On November 25 last I posed a question to the Prime Minister regarding the possibility of the government purchasing steel rails for stockpiling. It has been done with coal, uranium, and wheat, so it could be done with steel and it would get people back to work until there is an improvement in the market. The Prime Minister gave the following reply as reported at page 1360 of Hansard'.
The hon. member raises a question which the Minister of Transport has been discussing with me and some other colleagues. It is a suggestion that has considerable merit, but as the hon. member would recognize, it requires considerable expenditures and at a time of restraint...
The Prime Minister did not completely frown upon my suggestion, so I hope he will give it consideration and people will not have to depend on unemployment insurance.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read from an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of February 10 written by the editor-in-chief and prominent newspaper man, Harold Shea, a former member of the Press Gallery here. Under the heading'"Unemployment Taken Calmly" he writes:
One of the most puzzling aspects of the country's current unemployment situation is that so many people are seemingly unmoved by the extend of the problem.
Those words apply to the government, but the government is unmoved. Government ministers figure that they are giving the workers many benefits; I say they are doing little to help our people find work.
I do not have time to read all of the editorial. I commend its reading to hon. members. It is available in the reading room. Perhaps I can quote one or two more sentences. The author goes on to say:
Thank Heavens there are no riots, name-calling incidents, or something worse. But neither is there much concern-even quiet concern-about the idleness, which is disgraceful and demoralizing...
Nowhere is the situation more difficult than in our own Atlantic provinces. Statistics show that in some parts of the area, unemployment is running 50 per cent above the national average.
I point out that the unemployment rate in Cape Breton Island alone is between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. I continue quoting:
The report that unemployment is rising in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, too, is just as worrisome, because it is these rich provinces-the Big Three-that contribute in such large measure to the equalization of wealth and services across the country.
We can't afford to yawn much longer. The government should speed up the production of the budget and get on with the job of stimulating the economy. The lethargy must end, and the sooner the better.
In conclusion, I say that no way, in no way, can I support the concept of this bill. I will not support it, despite what some hon. members, including some members of my party, say about it. They do not live in the real world or know what is happening. Some hon. members who live in or near Toronto say that they cannot find employees for their factories. Mr. February 28, 1977

Speaker, we do not even have the factories in my area. They are moving out all the time. 1 raised this question with the ministers responsible, but little has been done. I have raised those questions I mentioned earlier with industrial planners, provincial organizations, and with DREE, but little has been done.
I hope the minister will give every consideration to my remarks. If he does not wish to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West let him bring in his own amendment, or let another member of the government party propose an amendment that would give the government the credit for acting. If the unemployment rate were 4 per cent, right across the country, perhaps the government's proposal would be acceptable. But that is not the case. Therefore I plead with the minister to give every consideration to my suggestion, for the reasons I mentioned and for a heck of a lot more I did not have time to mention.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-27 I will attempt to keep my comments brief. All concerned are anxious to have the bill proceed to committee where the merits of the proposals are going to receive the deliberation they deserve.
The recently disclosed monthly labour force survey shows 889,000 Canadians as officially unemployed; two-fifths of these were heads of families or single people living alone. It is enough to provoke another round of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth, but because there are commendable suggestions in the bill, which we have for years been advocating, I will try to restrict my comments to a general appraisal of the government's approach to unemployment and job creation.
Not since 1953, when the Dominion Bureau of Statistics began compiling such data, has the monthly rate of unemployment been so high. Added to these official figures are the controversial hidden unemployment statistics which range from 108,000 to 573,000. Depending on whether we consider those who looked for work in the last six months but not in the last four weeks, those who have thrown up their hands in despair, or those temporarily laid off or intending to start a new job within a month, we can conceivably get quite different interpretations of the unemployment picture.
If we continue to concentrate on figures, statistics, the attempts to define the typical unemployed Canadian, we tend to lose our perspective and turn our backs on the real issues. The situation has been labelled a human crisis. We ought to concentrate on the debilitating loss in productivity, the human degradation, the frustrations and cynicism that are fostered by having 889,000 Canadians, who are ready and willing to work, resort to transfer payments to subsist. We hear accusations that, according to the figures, secondary wage earners, wives and youths, not the principal sources of income for the family, are collecting the majority of insurance benefits. Every member has, I am sure, a thick file of correspondence from constituents complaining of lack of employment opportunities or injustices at the hands of manpower and unemployment insurance administrators.
Employment and Immigration
Some of us represent ridings that suffer proportionately greater hardships than others, either due to the lack of natural resources or the failure to accrue the full benefits of exploiting the nation's wealth. These inequities have long been recognized and programs set up to mitigate the harsher effects. Recently we saw the doubling of LIP allocations to $200 million, the addition of $50 million for labour-intensive projects in high unemployment areas and the cut in unemployment insurance premium rates for employers and workers. A $40 million program for occupational training was added, supplemented by an expansion of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program to $13.7 million.
In the final three quarters of 1976, about 39 per cent of corporation profits was paid out in corporation taxes. This helped meet the cost of a wide range of public services. Another 40 per cent was used to expand and improve productive capacity, creating and maintaining jobs for the future. But the increase in production was not sufficient to reduce unused industrial capacity appreciably. Nor, do we discover, did it reduce the unemployment rate. Although total employment rose by 2.4 per cent last year, the unemployment rate climbed marginally from 7 per cent in 1975, through 7.2 per cent in 1976, to 7.5 per cent in December of 1976. Moreover, the additional employment was not uniformly distributed among the various industrial sectors. For instance, employment declined in the export-oriented industries, reflecting the cyclical downturn of world markets. We cannot place the blame totally on world market situations, though. It is obvious that the economy as a whole should grow faster to reduce unemployment. We need a new budget, and we need it soon. Personal tax cuts, business tax concessions to promote expansion and reduced government expenditures, are requisite.
I notice that the government has abandoned its publicity campaign to convince the public that it is serious about austerity. With an increase in spending of 14 per cent, I do not blame the government. How long could you keep that type of spending spree under wraps? The effects will filter down through the economy, causing more inflation and doing nothing to create more jobs, because the spending priorities are all wrong.
Unfortunately, the expectations for the rate of recovery in the industrial world have been revised downward since the middle of 1976. We can expect Canadian exports to be adversely affected, which will reduce the external stimulus to the Canadian economy, this in turn being translated into continued high levels of unused industrial capacity and high unemployment. One is struck with the realization that conventional wisdom and traditional policies are not at all adequate to tackle the problems. In fact one wonders if the government has even selected the most popular priorities.
While a recent Gallup poll showed 48 per cent of the respondents thinking that the government should give greater attention to unemployment, only 42 per cent agreed with the Liberals that inflation was of greater concern.
There has been no dearth, either, of public sentiment on the functioning of the UIC system. It is in the context of these

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
factors-Canada's labour market, the nature of our unemployment, and the history of the acceptance of the UIC scheme- that we must address the proposals included in Bill C-27.
Prior to 1966, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the National Employment Service worked closely together, sharing the same facilities, and by close association and co-operation were readily able to discern whether or not claimants were eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Once again the merging of these services, provided the process is properly administered and how large a bureaucracy is created, is hard to find fault with. Indeed, we have witnessed the disturbing phenomenon of job vacancies rising hand-inhand with the unemployment rate, except in some severely depressed areas. This is an indication that joblessness today has become the outgrowth of an increasingly high turnover in the labour market as more and more people abandon old jobs in search of new, more rewarding and fulfilling ones.
In British Columbia this January, for instance, there was an unemployment rate of 8.8 per cent. When broken down to sex and age we find that 6.8 per cent were men out of work, 12.2 per cent were women, and 17.6 per cent were in the 15 to 24 age bracket. The figures are slightly higher than the Canadian average but the proportions are roughly the same.
Unemployment insurance benefits have generally been touted as good for frictional unemployment, moving from job to job or re-entering the labour force after raising a family. They are also found to be beneficial for sufferers of cyclical unemployment, victims of the vagaries of the business cycles.
Although insurance benefits are not as appropriate for structural unemployment, the mismatching of skills and labour requirements, or seasonal unemployment, it could still be said that our jobless were being maintained by one of the most generous and comprehensive social security systems in the industrialized countries.
The inappropriateness and the abuses have given rise to scrutiny and study of the scheme which corroborated, to a certain degree, intuitive doubts and misgivings about the system. While induced unemployment in British Columbia, was low as compared to the ratio of induced total unemployment in Canada, residents are still inimical to tales of rip-offs. In 1976, 274 British Columbia residents were convicted of defrauding the Unemployment Insurance Commission, almost double the number in 1975.
It can be argued cogently on both sides that the change from eight weeks' work to 12 weeks' work for qualification will discourage those who flit in and out of the labour force, simply in order to qualify for benefits, or on the other hand that individuals will be deprived of the occasion to search for/ appropriate positions leading to satisfying employment. /
Our work force suffers from under-employed, over-qualified people unhappy in their unsuitable positions. In fact, the sjudy which revealed the inducement effect of insurance benefits also indicated that the greater inducement was not to quit but to remain unemployed for a longer period of time. There was
[Mr. Whittaker.)
an average of 32,000 college graduates out of work in Canada last year. How many more were under-employed? Or, what may be the level of hidden unemployment, those so discouraged with the system that they are not looking for work? We have only estimates.
Will the joining of the two services accommodate those cases where the individual legitimately takes the time to seek the employment he or she is trained for, and who won't receive compensation because he or she is classed as a new entrant to the labour force or as inexperienced, as so many housewives are labelled when they enter the labour force after raising children?
What is needed is an improved job search program, increased training funds, and job creation funds in areas of high unemployment.
Training succeeds in improving skills. It increases the productive capacity of the Canadian labour force, which in turn reduces the risk of inflationary pressures. Skill shortages are less likely to occur during periods of strong economic growth. The complaint is often heard that there is too little on-the-job training or that federally sponsored industrial training takes place primarily in small firms. These have little training capacity, or teach only skills which lead to dead-end low wage jobs.
It has to be assumed, for a program's success, that training will provide the trainee with skills to match demand and that there is some creation of skilled jobs as a spin-off from the training program. Such a program can be much more effective in stimulating employment than other fiscal measures involving the same amount of money.
Hand-in-hand with the notion of training programs goes mobility grants. It has been argued that they lack efficiency as well as equity. This does not mean mobility grants should not be given to the poor and disadvantaged; it can be learned from data that people with low incomes and with unemployment experience are more mobile than others. In fact further orientation of the Manpower Mobility Grants Program in this direction would probably have a beneficial effect in terms of income distribution.
The phenomenon of the mobile unemployed individual is probably largely misunderstood. Persons experiencing short periods of unemployment have high mobility rates. But as the duration of unemployment lengthens the mobility rate falls, and mobility rates vary inversely with the number of weeks worked. The workings of the adjustment process appear to be influenced by general economic conditions in the country as a whole. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
February 28, 1977



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 lime of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles)- Citizenship-Delay in providing forms to Simcoe, Ontario- Possibility subcourts phased out; the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Indian Affairs-Legal authority of department to remove children from custody of parents-Suggested compliance with provincial law; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-National Defence-Proposed research centre at Winnipeg- Delay in completing land purchase agreement-Government position.
It being Five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government.
Notice of motion No. 7, in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is general agreement to consider motion No. 25 standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies).


Mr. Ellis:: We agree to that, Mr. Speaker.


PERPETUAL BONDS, 1936 SUGGESTED REDEMPTION BY GOVERNMENT
James McPhail Gillies: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reconsider its decision not to redeem the 3 per cent perpetual bonds, issued in 1936, through a scheme whereby (a) original purchasers would receive full face value for their bonds (b) all other holders would receive payment for each bond according to the market price for the year in which the bond was purchased (c) that an
Perpetual Bonds
immediate freeze be placed on the market value of the bonds to prevent speculation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time that this motion, or a variation of it, has been brought to the House for consideration at private members' time as a private members' bill. The motion should be changed slightly because the government agreed last March to redeem the bonds in 1996. The motion should now read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reconsider its decision not to redeem the 3 per cent perpetual bonds, issued in 1936, on September 15, 1996, and redeem them instead through a scheme whereby (a) original purchasers would receive full face value for their bonds immediately-
Parts (b) and (c) remain as printed.
The story of perpetual bonds in this House of Commons has been, I might say, perpetual. For a long time we have tried to get the government to remove these bonds from its portfolio altogether.
Perpetual bonds carry an interest rate of 3 per cent. They were bought, for the most part, in the depths of the depression by people who believed they were acquiring a security which would help them in their retirement. The government supported this idea by advertising that no one had ever lost a cent by investing in the government of Canada, so these people, who were willing to invest during the worst period of our history, economically, came forward. What happened was this: as interest rates rose during periods of inflation the value of the bonds fell. It has fallen to such a point that they are now worth around $45 or $46. In terms of real purchasing power, the people who were ready to lend the government money in the depth of the depression now hold something worth around $10. This is surely an iniquitous situation and one which ought to be remedied.
Various ministers of finance have wrestled with this problem and sought to devise means to remedy it. I believe it is recognized that it is patently unfair to those Canadians who now hold these bonds, senior citizens, most of them, that they should have no hope of getting their money back.
When the former minister of finance announced a retirement date of 1996, it did have the effect of increasing the yield on the bonds as anticipated. The difficulty is that '96 is not a realistic date because most of the people who bought the bonds back in 1936 will be dead by then. It is important that these people should be able to get their money back, money which they lent to the government in good faith. This is why it is essential that members on all sides should support my proposal.
The bonds themselves are a very small thing in the total portfolio of the government's debt but they represent a big consideration for those few thousand people who still hold them, perhaps the difference between a reasonable lifestyle and none whatsoever. It is not a matter of much consequence for the government to get rid of this $55 million in perpetual bonds. There are no others of the kind in the portfolio. They were put out only once. They are not an integral part of the

February 28, 1977
Perpetual Bonds
Canadian debt structure. To ask the purchasers to wait until '96 is an unconscionable thing to do because at that time many of them will not be around.
There is no question but that there has been some trading in this issue. There is no question but that there may have been some speculation. There is no question but that some people might have taken advantage of the government's action to reap some sort of windfall gain-those who bought the bonds in the last years of depressed prices from people who were forced by circumstances to sell them. But this is inconsequential when measured against the benefits which could be gained by redeeming these bonds at face value for the benefit of the people who have kept them and whose badly needed resources went into their purchase.
I think this is the third time I have spoken on this subject. There is not a single party in the House which at one time or another, through one of its members, has not addressed this question seeking an improvement in the present position. It would seem to me to be a matter of showing humanity on the part of the government in a day and age when government generally is remote from the concerns of the population. It would be an indication that governments, no matter how large, can still be concerned about the individual.
Redeeming these bonds at face value would make little difference to the government's investment picture. It would get this type of security out of the portfolio and, once and for all, we could get this issue settled to the advantage of those who bought these bonds in good faith in the thirties.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I should like to get an understanding of what the hon. member means by item (c) in the resolution which asks that an immediate freeze be placed on the market value of the bonds to prevent speculation. Would the hon. member accept a question?


James McPhail Gillies: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) did not accept the question, so the parliamentary secretary, if he speaks, is on his own time.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the mover of this motion. If anyone deserves a reward for effort, it is he. He is not the first to raise this matter. I remember that in a previous parliament Mr. Steve Otto showed an interest in this subject. He was a supporter of the government and he explored in debates during the private members' hour, as we are doing today, various measures which he thought the government should undertake.
I, too, find some difficulty in understanding exactly what the hon. member wishes to do, though I wish to make it quite clear that I am in total agreement with his assertion that something should be done. However, I think the cause would be best served if we knew exactly what the hon. member had in mind. Like the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), who attempted to put a question a few moments ago, I have some difficulty with regard to the third part of the motion. It

asks that a freeze be placed on the value of the bonds. How could this be done in a free society? The hon. member is well skilled in financial matters. He is by no means an amateur. 1 think it is clear what the government should do.
I have in my constituency a lady who inherited some of these perpetual bonds from her father's estate-I hope the hon. member will listen, because I am trying to make a point. In this case they had been held in the family since 1936. According to the strict terms of the hon. member's motion, she would not be eligible because she inherited the bonds from her father. I suggest that is not the criterion which should be used. I do not know how much of the original $55 million issue would be in the hands of the original purchasers, but I doubt it would be more than $5 million to $10 million. I think this bill is based on too narrow a concept. Having inherited from one's father's estate and kept oneself during the years should qualify just as much as being an original purchaser.
I think there are other situations closely akin to this. I am going to get a telephone call tomorrow from this lady, I am sure, when she reads today's Hansard because she has called my attention to this inequitable situation persistently over a long period of time. I can only say to her that I am willing to do everything I can as a member of this place to try to correct something which I believe is wrong.
What is the solution that should be adopted, Mr. Speaker? I do not know how a government can freeze prices in a free market. Either the government redeems or it does not redeem. It seems to me that the government should redeem at face value the debentures of those wlio have demonstrated that they have held them for a certain period of time-I suggest ten years would be sufficient. If purchasers could demonstrate they had owned this security in their own personal title for a period in excess of ten years, I would say that would be good and sufficient grounds for redeeming the debenture.
The question of speculation is a very serious one. In every previous debate on this subject in the House, those who spoke on behalf of the government have said, "Think of all the speculative gains that are going to be made; think of all the banks, those terrible creatures, that will gain; think of the insurance companies that bought on speculation; think of the professional speculators, how terrible it would be if they were to make a dollar out of this sort of thing".
I agree that the speculators should be taken out of the game, but surely the most reasonable way of dealing with the speculator is to establish for those who have not held the securities for the required minimum period a date at which the government would be prepared to go on to the open market and purchase. There is nothing wrong with the concept each year of having something equivalent to a sinking fund for purchasing a certain proportion of the issue that is outstanding. The price at which the government would take the issue off the market would be raised a little to reflect interest, and at a certain date all of it would be retired. I think the date of
February 28, 1977

1996 is ridiculous; I think it should be something like 1986, or at least ten years sooner than 1996.
If the government were to accept the suggestion that 1 am making today-I am sure 1 can convince the hon. member who moved this motion that this makes sense-first to redeem at face value in the case of anyone who could prove continuous ownership in excess of ten years; second, to establish a price at which the government would go on to the open market and purchase offerings, which purchase would be the discounted value of, say, face value in 1986 or some date like that, retiring the issue in an orderly way between now and then, it seems to me that this woul^l meet all of the criteria the hon. member has in mind. First, there would be some equity to the longterm holders who purchased in good faith; secondly, there would be protection against those who purchased for speculative purposes. I agree no one should make a windfall gain out of this, but I think people are entitled to get their money back on some kind of equitable basis.
The incredible thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is the government's reluctance to move. I do not believe it is the government but rather a few senior civil servants who are giving this advice. It is such a picayune item in the total handling of the government's debt. This issue could be retired, I suspect, over a period of years for something like $30 million to $40 million, and the handling of this part of the government's debt is absolutely nothing in terms of debt management. What is at stake here is surely a question of good faith. What is at stake is the assurance to those who purchased government securities that the government is not going to be a hard-nosed private bargainer. The government is in a position of being more than a private bargainer; the government sets the rules of the whole game-the financial market, management of the currency, and the whole question of the degree to which the currency retains its value. The government can influence all of this.
As was argued very ably by the hon. member who proposed the motion, it seems to me that the government has the responsibility of saying to those men and women who bought its securities that while there is no perfect equity in the business market-there are good deals, bad deals; caveat emptor, you take your choice-beyond a certain point the government is going to play fair. Beyond a certain point the government is going to recognize that what has been done was a very serious inequity to those small numbers of people who tried to do the fair, the right, and the honourable thing, as they saw it, and let the government have the use of their funds as part of the government debt.
I think it would be a little easier for the government to be credible if it did this, because in the period ahead it is highly likely that we will have to call upon Canadians for levels of savings and investment in different types of securities. Canada Savings Bonds have, of course, been made extremely attractive, and do not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as perpetuals. If the government is to maintain its credibility to its citizens and encourage a positive program of savings and investment in government securities, it is an article of faith with me that the government must do something a little better
Perpetual Bonds
for that group of citizens who bought 3 per cent perpetuals, especially for those who have held on to them during difficult times.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Ottawa West permit a question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: 1 would be delighted to, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What would the hon. member have in mind to compensate these long time holders against the ravages of inflation over the last 15 years, where those who might have acquired them through devolution or by some other means are now going to be paid 50 cents on the dollar face value?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no perfect equity in this land. There is no perfect fairness. I do not have an answer to that. What I am suggesting, which 1 think is a logical flow from the motion before us, would give such people something more than they have now, and the old maxim of half a loaf being better than none is the best answer I can offer to the hon. member's question.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking to this motion and I will keep my remarks brief.


James McPhail Gillies: Good.


Frank A. Philbrook: A popular move. A great deal has been said on this subject and I am happy to say a few words, partly to learn a few things about the subject that I did not know before, in the hope that it will be resolved once and for all and we will not have concerned elderly people worrying about what is going to happen.
In my short experience with perpetual bonds I have discovered that most of our predecessors who have spoken on the subject have regarded them with some amusement, saying "Oh, that old thing again, the good old perpetual bonds". At the same time, I think it is a fair impression that these bonds have been of real benefit to Canadians over the years. However, their day seems to have come. The history going back to 1936 was well covered by the previous speakers. As well as the original provision for calling these bonds, such as 60 days' notice, some provision to call them by lot is necessary if only some of the bonds were called, and also some measure to try to protect the bond holders.
As we know, in September of 1966 new bond certificates were issued for 30 years. To go back in history, these bonds have had their ups and downs in market value, but mostly down. Apparently the bonds did go up a little after the war, but that was for a very brief time. Within recent years, interest rates in Canada and elsewhere have risen to higher levels. This

February 28, 1977
Perpetual Bonds
has made them rather unpopular in terms of the lower interest rates which originally applied.
With regard to the motion moved by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), it seems to me that one important aspect is the problem of the distribution of bond holders. That seems to be a very complicated proposition at the moment. However, if we can say one brief thing about that, there seems to have been a substantial change in ownership of the registered bonds since 1966. Since 1936 that change in ownership has been almost complete, so perhaps this mitigates a little the concern for the older bond holders not making it to the final date of 1996.
I understand also that there is some concern about there being a difficulty for the taxpayer in the proposal before us. The government has had a great deal of advantage from having these funds over the years, but it is considered somewhat difficult to ask the taxpayers-many of whom do not have investments of any kind, such as bonds and others-to bear additional interest costs in order to benefit those investors who bought bonds on their own initiative way back in 1936 and since then. It is even more difficult to justify the fortuitous benefit that would be derived by the vast majority of present holders with regard to the change in ownership that I just mentioned.
From the government side, how practical is the motion put forward by the hon. member for Don Valley? There are a number of concerns on the government side. First, there is the problem of trying to identify the original purchasers. Second, there is some problem with discrimination in the proof of purchase. There are problems concerning those bond holders who are deceased and the role of the successors in holding the bonds. There is a problem with selling recently at a loss, which would occur with some people. There is the problem with the proof of ownership once it has been discarded. It would discriminate against those people and would be in favour of those who maintain their ownership. There are various problems with redeeming prices below par.
Apparently various governments have looked at this possibility from time to time. The hon. member for Don Valley mentioned that the United Kingdom has gone very heavily into this type of investment as part of its debt structure, and there are others. The conclusion that has been reached by most of them has been that it would not be in the nation's best interest to fix the maturity date on these obligations.
There is also a concern about setting a rather difficult precedent, an implication that once we take some action to protect the investors from the vagaries of the market there is some discrimination against all other investors. Contrary to what some would propose, this does not apply to the issue of Canada Savings Bonds.
Therefore we have come down to the present solution proposed by the government, which is this. Having regard to all the circumstances, and although not necessarily to the current advantage of taxpayers, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) announced on March 18, 1975, that the 1936 issue of perpetual bonds would be redeemed at par on September 15,

1996. The legal process will be completed by June 7, at which time the Government of Canada will be irrevocably committed by law to redeem the bonds in 1996. Prior to the announcement the bonds were quoted at $37.25 per $100 for a yield of 8 per cent in perpetuity. At the present time the bonds are trading at a price of about $50.75 for a yield of 8.02 per cent to maturity. This yield is now comparable with other long term Government of Canada marketable issues.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) permit a question?


Frank A. Philbrook: I am just about to finish, Mr. Speaker.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get this correctly. What is the present price, and the present yield? Could the hon. member just go back to that? What is the quoted price and yield?


Frank A. Philbrook: As I said, at present the bonds are trading at a price of about $50.75 for a yield of 8.02 per cent to maturity.
However the motion is resolved, I think it is obvious that the time has come for these very valuable historical bonds, and 1 simply hope that the people involved, although they might not have the ideal solution, will be able to accept the government's proposal as a reasonably fair one under the circumstances.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions when this matter has been debated we have spoken about it from this corner of the House as well. As a matter of fact my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), has taken a leading part in trying to get the government to do something about these perpetual bonds.
It still strikes me that it was one of the silliest things ever to write into a statute that a bond was to last in perpetuity. The other place where I know that word appears in a statute has to do with the Canadian Pacific Railway which promised to provide certain rail services in this country-passenger and freight-in perpetuity. If the word is not being lived up to by the CPR, I suggest that the holders of these bonds should not have to hold them forever, into all eternity, and then on to perpetuity.
I think all of us who have spoken up to this point support the principle or the spirit of the motion that is before us in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). There has been some criticism of one or two of his suggestions, such as that of putting an immediate freeze on the market value of the bonds. But even those who have said that, have come down very strongly for settling this issue. It is cliche to stand in the House and say, "Let us settle something once and for all," but when the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) said it, I wanted to say "hear, hear" because I think he has already indicated that the change which was made a couple of years ago has not resolved it, and trying to shift the ownership of
February 28, 1977

these bonds has opened up room for speculation. That is my quarrel with the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) that there be a 1986 date. Any more dates down the road, 1 think, will produce further shifts in the ownership of the bonds and create a further opportunity for speculation. I think the time to settle it is right now.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) should take his responsibility and admit that the Liberal government in 1936 did not quite know what it was doing-that is par for the course with Liberal governments anyway-and redeem these bonds, working out a formula that pays the full value to those who have held them all the time and a lesser amount to those who have held them for a shorter period of time. 1 do not think we should try to resolve all the details here in this private members' hour.
I suppose it is too much to hope that the motion might pass just because the spirit of it is right, but 1 hope that all the voices which speak will be in favour of what is in the motion and that the government will pay some heed to that.
As I say, I welcome the strong stand which the hon. member for Ottawa West took on the matter. I forgive him for finding fault with one or two phrases in the motion, but he said one thing I wish he had not said, and that was that it probably is not the government which is doing it; that it is some civil servants. That surprises me, particularly coming from an Ottawa member. I hope civil servants do give advice to the government. That is what they are there for, but the final responsibility is that of the government. The final responsibility rests with the Minister of Finance, and I hope that in this case the minister will take his responsibility and, in the words of the hon. member for Don Valley, settle this issue, and in the words of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), settle it once and for all.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion proposed by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). It looks like a very reasonable proposition. The hon. member made a short speech appealing to the sense of humanity of the government and of this House. He called on the government to do something. Then when he sat down the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) got up to ask him a few questions about the motion, questions which evidently have to do with technicalities and the major effects of this motion if it were passed, and at that point I could not believe my ears and my eyes when the hon. member for Don Valley refused to answer questions.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Caccia:: The hon. member is a frontbencher of the official opposition. The official opposition criticizes the government daily in its questions, and it feels it does not receive adequate answers. There is quite a difference between a private member's motion which is prepared carefully in due time and what goes on in the question period when the
Perpetual Bonds
frontbenchers of the official opposition shoot questions at ministers without any warning.
A motion in private members' hour allows its proponent to prepare himself to answer questions. That is much easier than the task of ministers in the question period. In question period hon. members opposite expect adequate answers. However, here is an aspirant to the ministry in case his party might- God forbid, of course-be elected to govern, who refuses to answer questions about his own motion.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Secrecy!


Charles L. Caccia: This is really a very sad moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He didn't want to talk it out.


Charles L. Caccia: Perhaps the only conclusion we can come to is that it is expecting too much of members of the official opposition to answer questions about their own proposals. Perhaps 1 am in error in attributing to them standards of performance which we on this side of the House apply every day as a matter of course when it comes to question period. Once in a blue moon an opportunity for us to ask questions of the official opposition arises, and today the most unbelievable thing has happened: our questions have been turned down or not accepted.
I wonder whether at this point there would be unanimous consent in this House to allow the hon. member for York Centre, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, a second try. The parliamentary secretary is obviously a person who would have to justify the passage of a motion of this kind. He would have to have facts, and 1 presume those facts would have to be on the record. Perhaps he could be provided a second opportunity to ask the hon. member for Don Valley the questions he has in mind, and perhaps the answer could be put on the record so that we will know more about the effect and the result of a proposal of this nature.
Without wanting to stretch the point too far, it seems to me that this is the minimum required in any parliamentary exchange of thoughts. The proposal sounds reasonable, but when someone asks questions those questions should be answered so that a reasonably intelligent decision can be made on the basis of certain facts. I am sure there would be unanimous consent to permit a second try for the parliamentary secretary to ask questions of the hon. member for Don Valley about, I suppose, technical points with regard to the motion. I submit this request to you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The time of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) has expired, but if he will accept the questions 1 will ask the House if there is unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Don Valley to answer the questions of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Is that agreed?


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am not answering questions is that we only have an hour to discuss this matter. 1

February 28, 1977
Perpetual Bonds
do not want to have the matter talked out. I presume there is a willingness on the part of hon. members in this House to do something for the people of Canada, and I do not want to waste time answering questions.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it is very well to want all debate on the motion to be heard so that we can proceed to a vote, but is it not reasonable for the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) to tell some hon. members who do not understand some of the provisions of this motion what he means by them? It is one thing to talk a bill or resolution out, but we have an hour. That gives us a lot of time to consider the matter, and I think the hon. member ought to be prepared to devote four or five minutes to clarifying and explaining his motion to us, rather than giving us such a flimsy excuse.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I must say that to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) admit bold-facedly to this House that he does not understand the motion is really an affront to this House. When he tells us that with all the resources, expertise and bureaucrats available in the Department of Finance he and the minister do not understand the implications of this motion, that is an affront not only to parliament but to the sense of decorum of this House, and I suggest hypocrisy has no place in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, at this point I am rising to participate in the debate.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 would like to indicate to the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) that the parliamentary secretary asked the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) if he would accept a question. The hon. member for Don Valley said no. Therefore the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) should proceed with his speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Obliged?


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to challenge your ruling, but when the question was put to the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), he very clearly said he would not answer it. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, you clearly told the parliamentary secretary that that was on his own time, and I suggest he has started to speak twice on the same matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hastings' (Mr. Ellis) question was refused by the parliamentary secretary; therefore the parliamentary secretary has his 20 minutes. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan).


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is now 19
minutes to six and the hon. member has 20 minutes.


M. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) began by being rather critical of the minister and myself because I asked for some clarification of the wording of the resolution. He made the assumption, I suppose that if there was something in this resolution that we could not understand, that was our fault. I would like to suggest that there are some problems with the resolution that make it difficult for anyone to understand who wants to look at it objectively and see what the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) wants to do.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out that one should see the spirit of the resolution. Certainly I can see the spirit of it; I know what he is getting at but I cannot understand one part of it. I should like to read the resolution and indicate the part I do not understand. I should then like to make comments about the equity of it, the spirit of it, and why the government introduced the policy of redeeming the perpetuals in 1996 and not immediately.
As the hon. member indicated, redemption would not cost a large amount of money, certainly not something which would show in the estimates of the government. The point is that to redeem the bonds might do justice to a small number of people who are involved but it would do injustice to a number of other people who have been involved in the story of these perpetual bonds. I want to come to the story of the other people who have been affected by the perpetual bonds. The hon. member for Don Valley offers nothing to the people who have disposed of their bonds. It is a small amount of money, and if small amounts of money can buy perfect justice-and in a lot of cases they can-I think it ought to be done.


John Raymond Ellis: Put forward a better idea then.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It would not be hard to put forward a better idea.


John Raymond Ellis: We will accept a better idea.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reconsider its decision not to redeem the 3 per cent perpetual bonds, issued in 1936,-
Then the hon. member introduced an updating of his own because since the time his resolution was formulated and submitted to him the government acted in a way which has affected the value of the bonds somewhat in favour of the people who hold them. The resolution continues:
-through a scheme whereby (a) original purchasers would receive full face value for their bonds (b) all other holders would receive payment for each bond according to the market price for the year in which the bond was purchased (c) that an immediate freeze be placed on the market value of the bonds to prevent speculation.
1 have some trouble understanding what the point of (c) is. If, after all, the bonds are to be purchased by the government
February 28, 1977

at differential values depending on whether they have been held since they were first bought or have been purchased subsequently, then what is the purpose of the freeze? Presumably the bonds would cease to exist if they were to be redeemed and if they are redeemed they do not have any continuing market value. The holders and subsequent purchasers receive payment for them. When I read (a) and (b) I understand, but I am puzzled by (c) which reads:
(c) that an immediate freeze be placed on the market value of the bonds to prevent speculation
What further speculation is there to be in these bonds once the government announces it is going to buy them?


John Raymond Ellis: Even the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) can understand that difference.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not understand it. I asked for some assistance from officials in the Department of Finance. I take it from the hon. member's unwillingness to give an explanation that there is none. Why would we want to freeze the market value of bonds that are going to be redeemed if this resolution is adopted?
I indicated that to understand the equities of perpetual bonds one has to go back over the whole story which began in 1936 when the government of Canada issued $55 million of 3 per cent perpetual bonds at a price of $96.50 to produce a yield to first purchasers of 3.11 per cent in perpetuity. The issue was offered for cash as well as in exchange at par value to holders of a certain series of four year bonds maturing in 1936. A total of $11.3 million in bonds of a total issue of $55 million were issued in exchange for maturing bonds, and the balance was presumably purchased for cash.
The original certificates for the $55 million of bonds bore coupons providing for semi-annual interest. There were 30 years of coupon forms attached to the original bonds so that the last of the coupons would be payable on September 15, 1966. In 1936 the 3 per cent yield was considered relatively attractive because it provided a perpetual annuity on reasonable terms, so as a result it was broadly distributed. That was the first occasion and, I believe, the only occasion on which the government of Canada issued perpetual bonds. But there was a pattern of perpetual bonds, Mr. Speaker. They were an understandable security throughout the world of bonds. Similar bonds have long been an important part of the debt structure of the United Kingdom, and the hon. member for Don Valley aknowledged this. It was not some novel security never heard of before, but was well known in many countries. In 1935 about 60 per cent of the marketable outstanding debt of Great Britain was in the form of perpetual or undated bonds called consols.
The 1936 issue included a provision that the bonds could be called in whole or in part on 60 days' notice by the government at par any time after September 15, 1966, the date of the last coupon. If less than all the bonds were called by the government then the bonds to be redeemed would be determined by lot. Again, this call provision in a government perpetual security was a common feature of long maturity bonds issued by
Perpetual Bonds
enterprises in the private sector. On the one hand, such a feature is intended to protect the bondholders from having their bonds called prior to the call date. This prevents the issuer from calling the bonds during periods of lower interest rates and refinancing them with bonds offering a lower yield.
In the case of the 1936 issue, the 30-year period did provide protection to the holders on those occasions when the bonds traded at prices exceeding the issue price. There were periods when they did trade at values in excess of the issue price. On the other hand, the right of the issuer to call provides protection to the country's taxpayers by permitting the bonds to be called subsequent to the call date should lower interest rate levels permit them to be refunded and replaced by lower cost debt. The 30-year call provision is therefore a trade-off between the interests of the lender and the borrower and, together with yield, constitute the basic determinants of the market value of a security of any given term. In September, 1966, new bond certificates were issued, with an additional supply of coupons attached sufficient for an additional 30 years. They replaced the 30-year-old bond certificates.
The perpetual bonds are marketable and their price is therefore determined by the play of market forces. Since they were issued, their market price has generally lected changing levels of interest rates in Canada. For se._.al years after the war the market price exceeded the issue price and, consequently, sellers of the bonds at that time could have and did obtain a capital gain. Within recent years interest rates in Canada and elsewhere have risen to much higher levels and the market prices of perpetual bonds, as for the vast majority of fixed interest obligations everywhere-I include government fixed rate obligations and fixed interest obligations issued by private sector enterprises-have, as a consequence, declined substantially below their issue prices.
At the end of 1976 about 45 per cent of perpetual bonds were held in bearer form. It is impossible to determine with any degree of precision which of these holders bought the bonds at the original purchase price, or at prices higher than the current market price. However, the balance of $30 million worth of bonds were held, at first issue, in registered form.
At my request the Department of Finance tracked down about half the number of bonds issued, namely, the registered bonds. They were held by 3,575 investors. Today, 1.3 per cent are held by investors who purchased the bonds at the time of issue in 1936. Those untransferred bonds are held by 109 investors, three of whom hold 60 per cent of the $379,000. Therefore part (a) of the motion, which calls for original purchasers to receive the full face value for their bonds, will apply to only 1.3 per cent of the total value of the issue. We are considering only the original bonds issued in registered form. Clearly, we are talking about a small amount of money. The hon. member is right. And we are talking about 109 people, a relatively small group.
Let us assume that the unregistered bonds have been held more or less in the same ratio. That would mean that we are

February 28, 1977
Perpetual Bonds
talking about, say, 200 people who have retained their bonds from 1936. Their bond issues would now be valued at, say, about $750,000. The hon. member wants to call our attention to the injustices suffered by those who have had to hold their bonds for such a long time. Naturally, bonds not held by the original issuees have been sold to others. Some of those buyers bought at prices higher than face value, and others may have bought at below face value. The motion goes on to call on the government to repay the difference to bond holders.
The trouble with the motion is that it only calls for justice for those who presently hold those bonds. If you are putting the case on equitable grounds you must ask, are the equities greater for those who still hold those bonds, that is, for those who bought them on the date of issue or bought them subsequently, or for those who sold the bonds? The question arises, should one feel more sorry for those who have held the bonds all this time, or bought them within ten or 15 years of issue, when the price was not the same as the present price, or should one feel more sorry for those who took big losses?
The hon. member for Don Valley in referring to those people acknowledged that they had probably taken big losses. But he spoke of people who still have those bonds in their portfolios. Perhaps the people who were forced to sell did not have portfolios. Perhaps they had to sell because they needed the money, not for investing but for living. If you want to approach this issue on equitable grounds, would you not also want to hear from those who had to sell their bonds over the years and were forced to take less than they paid? The motion says, nothing about that group'. If I were to guess, 1 would say that that group of people might be far worse off, having suffered more from inflation, than the group which presently holds the bonds and to whose cause the hon. member has been recruited.
There is a broader issue to consider. The hon. member's motion calls for justice for one small group of people hurt by inflation. But many people in this country have been the victims of inflation, and they have not all been victims at the hands of the government-if I can put it that way. If the government could write a cheque, to redeem the damage done by inflation, that cheque would have to be for an extraordinarily large amount. The victims of inflation tend to be the aged, tend to be those on fixed incomes, tend to be the poor. If we are to begin remedying injustices and compensating for inflation, does the hon. member suggest we should begin with bond holders? Perhaps we should take the amount of money involved-whatever it is-and compensate for inflation by helping those in society who are the worst off. I know the hon. member would agree with me when I say that the bond holders in Canada, the holder of government securities, are not usually among the worst off. I could refer to many existing programs of the government which fight inflation and seek to compensate its victims.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock and the hour appointed for the consideration of
[Mr. Kaplan.)
private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight 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.
George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned the debate on Bill C-27 at five o'clock, I was speaking about the mobility of workers.
When employment conditions generally worsened in 1970, the migration responses to differences in income prospects became less significant, and the short-term income increases experienced by migrants became less favourable. Of course, while the migrant may benefit marginally from the move, the migration process contributes in a minor way to the structural problem.
When an unemployed person leaves a region, he takes with him his expenditures on locally produced goods and services, which to a large extent is financed from federal transfer funds such as unemployment insurance and general welfare payments. Through the multiplier process, his reduction in expenditures produces an unfavourable effect on the sending region's employment.
Under the new phase schedule, this effect might be mitigated by compensating for high unemployment. Regions with unemployment rates near, or slightly above, the national average will be much better off, whereas places like Vancouver and Victoria would receive only eight weeks of national extended entitlement and receive no regional extended entitlement under the present system. The three-phase schedule would grant these regions 14 to 20 weeks of regional extended benefits in those circumstances where the national rate is 8 per cent.
February 28, 1977

I am skeptical, at best, about regional adjustments wherein unemployment figures are compared to the national average. The example of the Canada Works allocation in my riding and the fiasco surrounding the additional allocations for materials, have not endeared me to the government's generosity. Regional manpower figures certainly do not jive with those used as criteria for eligibility; but then the minister has assured me that "other factors were used".
That specific criticism aside, 1 wonder about the wisdom and intent of using 8 per cent unemployment as a benchmark for computing benefits and schedules. While this does not seem overly optimistic on the government's behalf, 1 suppose it is only realistic. Faced with the possibility of such a rate, the government must consider the ramifications. The financial impact of the new three-phase benefit structure at that rate will be, unfortunately, minimal. The logical course then is not only to try to minimize the losses, as this proposal thankfully does, but to attack the source of the problem-a sagging economy.
We know, for instance, that the pulp and paper industry is suffering. Sales started to recover in early 1976, but by mid-year demand was dropping. There was a price increase announced for July 1, 1976, and publishing companies responded by placing large orders early in the year and were fully stocked before the increases took effect. So we need new markets.
The construction industry association in British Columbia has indicated that, while there is no shortage of workers, the level of construction by private enterprise will be very low this year. This raises the cost of housing. Paradoxically, a high cost of housing is translated by the Department of Manpower as a sign of a healthy regional economy and disqualifies a riding from Canada Works funds. So less jobs are created, the price goes up even further, and on and on until about 21 per cent of union carpenters and labourers across British Columbia are collecting unemployment insurance. The government might suggest work sharing to ensure that their incomes be higher than U.I. benefits and that they don't lose their skills. The unions don't look too favourably on the idea, and seniority tends to affect the sharing scheme.
Fortunately, I can speak today with the benefit of the findings of the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program in Canada tabled earlier. It suggested further areas of study which I find to be the real crux of the issue and which the government has not had the courage to approach.
The extent to which the unemployment insurance program facilitates productive job search and speed in return of unemployed persons to productive employment relevant to their skills was one area. It cannot be argued that we do not need a program to insure against temporary loss or wages. But disincentives to work are inherent in the scheme, and the lack of an effective job creation and job search program only aggravates the situation. The labour force experience of the covered
Employment and Immigration
population has to be monitored. A more ambitious analysis of claimant behaviour before, during, and after a claim is necessary to evaluate the effects of the U.I.C. program in meeting its twin objectives of providing adequate income replacement and helping workers to a rewarding and stable employment.
After all, the effectiveness of the U.I.C. program depends on government's over-all social and economic policies and, in particular, on manpower policies and programs. We need policies to alleviate the problems, not some mechanical reaction to statistical quotations and budget estimates. We have to re-appraise the unemployment insurance, not only because it is costing too much but, because it is the wrong approach, it is a defensive reaction rather than an offensive assault on unemployment itself.
It is inhumane to threaten Canadians, to threaten to cut them off insurance benefits without promising to engage in job creation programs. It is demoralizing and damaging to the work ethic to charge so many Canadians with what amounts to fraud. We on this side of the House are the first to admit that there are rip-offs but these can and are being controlled at the administrative level. What we should be discussing, what we should be planning, are alternatives to unemployment, not alternatives to the insurance scheme.
It is frustrating for unemployed Canadians that nothing is being done. It is doubly frustrating for young Canadians contemplating post-secondary education to know, before they begin, that chances are poor of having the opportunity to apply their acquired talents. Those individuals have to be encouraged. We can't cop out on them now. They need and should be rewarded with a new budget which takes into consideration all the ills of our economic environment, and that addresses itself to these by providing stimulants. We need sales tax cuts and promotions for the housing industry. Industries should be encouraged to reinstate research and development programs. They should also be encouraged to locate in areas where unemployment is at its highest.
These approaches would cost, in the long run, less than trying to support close to a million people on transfer payments, because employment not only reduces the cost of the insurance scheme, it helps the economy get rolling again. Instead, we know that new capital investment will be down in Canada this year. We have to make every effort to recreate a climate of confidence in Canada or we will continue to see the great potential of this country wasted.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this legislation is certainly timely, if only because it gives us an opportunity to discuss the unemployment insurance program, something which has become a major factor in our economy and, indeed, in our performance around the world.
I thought there were significant implications contained in the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program tabled in the House. It drew attention to the fact that expenditures on unemployment insurance are the equivalent of about 10 per cent of the total federal budget and 2.1 per cent of the gross national product. It is evident that the over-all

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
economic and social impact of the program can hardly be underestimated, and its administration is of corresponding importance.
Unemployment insurance has come a long way since the thirties when the concept was to provide some sort of basic insurance against unemployment. While in its earlier days the provisions of the act constituted, for the most part, a true insurance program, the present act is obviously filled with items such as income maintenance, social welfare and other benefits, including "job creation" and so on.
With the bill before us, the government is putting a few patches on the act, proposing, among other things, that 50,000 people should be cut off the unemployment insurance rolls at a saving to the government of $110 million a year. The cost of the program today has certainly escalated since the days when Mackenzie King first introduced it. The estimate, then, was $70 million a year, whereas now the scheme runs through $70 million in a week and a half. Over the years a great deal of welfarism has crept in, the most obvious example being the provision for insuring groups with intermittent employment opportunities, for example, fishermen who, being selfemployed, should not have been covered on any insurance basis. There is no doubt that fishermen should have a program available to them, but it would not be easy, as I understand fishermen, for them to be covered by an insurance program. I understand from conversations with many maritimers that if the fishermen were covered by some other program the statistics would not be nearly as bad, and the assessment of programs could be made on a sounder basis.
These new costs sent the fund into bankruptcy in the 1960's. The Gill Commission suggested that the fund be restricted to insurance purposes and further proposed that everyone, not just groups at risk, should be called upon to pay for coverage. The extension of coverage along these lines was obviously an important feature of Mr. Mackasey's reform of unemployment insurance in 1971.
Presumably Mr. Mackasey believed his new system was sacred. It has already been tinkered with. Last year people over 65 were dropped from the rolls. In addition the federal treasury was relieved of $600 million which was transferred, through a pay roll tax, to employers and employees. This year it is proposed to chop at the other end. People who work for less than 12 weeks may not claim benefits. This, I might point out, is in itself a departure from the insurance principle. The government takes money from these people, through deductions, and gives nothing back.
The diverting of money from the fund to a work sharing scheme is certainly not part of the insurance principle. No plan will ever be perfect, but the most serious criticism of the attempt to reform the unemployment insurance system is that it still leaves an element of welfare where needs are financed by a regressive tax which tends to hit the low income people harder than those of high income.

The changes last year concerning the moving average system of deductions increases the employer-employee share to a higher and higher level, so that eventually the whole system will be borne by the employer-employee and the cost to the federal treasury will diminish to nothing. Indeed the thought arises that deductions would be so great that a system of contract might even replace wages, which seems to have been happening. I think this is an important observation because, since the government is going to transfer money to certain groups for a scheme, the cost of which is entirely borne by the employer and employee, with the government not putting in any money of its own, we could be in serious difficulties.
As a parliamentarian, and having observed the workings of unemployment insurance in 1971, in my opinion two main things have happened. The first was that the benefits were greatly increased over their pre-1971 level. As I recall, the level of benefits in 1971 was approximately 41 per cent of the average weekly wage, with many benefits as low as 30 per cent. The highest was slightly over 50 per cent, but even then the individual had to be in the low income brackets and have numerous dependants. Since the 1971 legislation it has been obvious that the program has shifted drastically from the insurance principle to income transfer, through the combination of welfare coverage, greater benefit entitlement, and federally financed extended benefits.
As the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program asks, should unemployment insurance play an increasing role in the redistribution of total income maintenance and in the government's over-all social and economic policies? In other words, should only those parts of the country that have a strong economy support those regions that have a weak economy? Certainly this is happening at the present time. Does this practice over a period of time merely perpetuate discrepancies and allow individuals to have as good a living and standard of care in one part of the country as in another, particularly when substantial groups of people do not need to work compared with those living in other parts of the country?
A study of the relationship between cost and employer-employee benefits and deductions shows many interesting things. For example, in 1974, the last year for which I have figures, citizens of Newfoundland received benefits of $114 million, with deductions of $26 million. Nova Scotia received benefits of $93 million, with deductions of $50 million. New Brunswick received benefits of $105 million, with deductions of $39 million. Quebec received benefits of $740 million, with deductions of $408 million. Ontario received benefits of $609 million, with deductions of $669 million. Manitoba received benefits of $49 million, with deductions of $71 million. Saskatchewan received benefits of $46 million, with deductions of $44 million. Alberta received $66 million, with deductions of $123 million. British Columbia received benefits of $281 million, with deductions of $178 million. Total benefits paid were $2,115 million, while deductions collected were $1,600 million. With an additional cost of $150 million for administration, the total cost of the plan was almost $2,300 million. In other
February 28, 1977

words, $700 million had to come from the federal treasury, or out of general revenue.
Assuming that citizens in all parts of Canada paid approximately the same in tax, it is obvious that there has been a shift of money out of the prairies and Ontario to Quebec and the maritime provinces, while British Columbia broke about even. As one who comes from the prairies, I know there are many people in my area who leave for greater opportunities in British Columbia, where wages are considerably better and work opportunities greater. In short, in a province with primarily a high agricultural base, a number of its working force do quite poorly in terms of benefiting from unemployment insurance. They have to pay large amounts toward general tax revenue, but since they are a self-employed group they are not able to partake of the many benefits of the plan.
The review discusses the fundamental alienation of adequate income protection and work disincentives, and I think this is the central core of the whole program. All members will remember the large number of claims that were brought to their attention once the new act was introduced. I am sure many hoped, as I did, that as the program began to work itself out calls on individual members would settle down into some kind of regular pattern. This, in my experience, has not happened, and I think it has not happened because of the definition in the act that, in order to collect benefits, a claimant must be actively seeking work. Obviously this condition is very difficult to define, especially in rural areas.
Many people in my area have been cut off unemployment insurance because, in the eyes of the unemployment insurance officer, they did not have adequate transportation. Immediate job opportunities are often sparse in rural areas. The question arises whether or not rural workers are not disadvantaged, as it is much more difficult for them to prove they are looking for work than it is for those who live in cities.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I have been struck by the fact that I have little trouble with workers who belong to large corporations or large unions. These people seem to have a much easier time proving eligibility for unemployment insurance than those who work in less organized industries, particularly casual workers on farms, small company employees and so on. Where a claimant receives benefits it is, in large measure, a kind of lottery in that one has to make the right answers on the right form.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the decision on whether an individual receives unemployment insurance rests with the unemployment insurance officer. With this in mind, the amount of money paid out by the UIC depends on what a specific officer thinks of a specific application. I think this is the weakness of the plan. It does not appear to be fair and is not fair to many recipients.
There is no doubt that there is a large element of cynicism about who should receive benefits. The tribunal that was set up to guard against this does not seem to be very effective. In the past I advised applicants in my riding to appear before the tribunal to state their case, even though they may have had to travel 200 or 300 miles to do so. Judging from the actions of
Employment and Immigration
the tribunal, in my opinion they have always supported the unemployment insurance officer; as a result, I have quit advising people to make the journey because it is almost certain that the tribunal will find against them. Indeed the tribunal seems to go out of its way to make things difficult in some instances. For example, claimants have received a notice to appear after the date that was set for the hearing. In fact tribunals have themselves been doing their bit to clamp down on unemployment insurance by virtually always agreeing with the unemployment insurance officer.
Another important aspect is what effect unemployment insurance has on the work ethic, job attentiveness, and so on.
We hear much about the fact that people should have rewarding and fulfilling jobs, whatever that may be. Much of this would indicate that the necessity to work is not related to productivity or to doing a job that society finds useful. In effect most jobs are boring and unrewarding to the spirit, but there is little we can do about it. Life is like that. During the war an army selection group was supposed to put the square pegs in the square holes and the round pegs in the round holes, but as the war progressed people could neither be placed in positions they wanted nor could positions be found to suit them. At one time 90 per cent of the men had to go into the infantry because that is where the losses were the greatest.
When you consider Table C-5 of the comprehensive review which indicates that work shortages accounted for only 27 per cent of the lay-offs while voluntary separations amounted to 41 per cent, it is certainly interesting to note that of most people who quit their jobs only 25 per cent did so due to lack of work. The table also indicates that of those who quit voluntarily many did not make claims.
There are some interesting comments on disqualifications and disentitlement, one of them being that females have a significantly higher incidence of disqualification and disentitlement than males, regardless of insured weeks or dependency status. In other words, it appears they quit their jobs without any just cause in the eyes of UIC.
In Table C-15 there is a most significant factor in assessing the over-all effect on unemployment insurance. It indicates that only 26.8 per cent of males who received benefits had dependants, while 37 per cent who received benefits had no dependants. This was also significant with regard to females. Only 1.7 per cent of females who received benefits had dependants, while 34 per cent who received benefits had no dependants. In other words, of the total number of claimants, 71.5 per cent were single-or at least had no dependants. Further statistics showed that there was a significantly larger number of claimants under 25 years of age than people of that age in the work force, which is to be expected.
All of these facts should be a lesson to us, or at least an assessment of the way in which things are going. If only 27 per cent of job separations are due to shortage of work-and 1 doubt the number is that high because certainly most private employers, even when the job separation is voluntary, make
3498

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
out certificates indicating that there is no work available in order to enable the claimant to make his claim earlier-it certainly seems significant that almost 72 per cent of the claimants are single so far as the income tax is concerned. In other words, these single people in the labour force-at least single so far as income tax is concerned-did not worry too much about job separation and must have left their jobs because of personal reasons, unlike those who have dependants.
The question arises that if 66% per cent of the average weekly wage is not too great a sum for single people-at least if we are to maintain the spirit of the UIC Act-then 1 believe that the crux of the problem is the benefits obtained by single people under this legislation. In fact in a country with our cold climate, if an unemployed person is to receive 66% per cent of his wage in unemployment insurance benefits, there is some truth in supposing that many would consider themselves as well off not working, especially when the job entails working outside in cold weather, buying expensive clothes and working in unpleasant conditions. There are also complications with cars which refuse to start in cold weather, and other such difficulties resulting from the cold climate. We are all entitled in a free society to make the best we can in the circumstances, and I imagine that there are always some people in any society who arrange things in such a way that they do not have to work as hard as their fellow workers. No one, least of all myself, disagrees with their right to do this, but I think the question is whether or not they should receive equal remuneration for less work.
Another area that brings unemployment insurance into disrepute is the fact that the program makes little allowance for the dollars earned in any one year. With wages as high as they are now, particularly in certain industries, in a few months a person can earn $10,000 to $20,000 and yet draw unemployment insurance for a substantial portion of the year. Meanwhile there are many people who toil for a much smaller total yearly return, who are never unemployed, and who never draw unemployment insurance benefits. These people become very discouraged and resentful because they feel the system to be inequitable when deductions from their wages go to pay unemployment benefits to people who make a great deal more money than they themselves do because their jobs are seasonal.
Unemployment benefits should certainly be related to the total yearly earnings, and perhaps methods should be considered whereby the unemployed, particularly those in lower income groups, could have their deductions reduced or eliminated if they are unemployed for a number of years.
In my opinion benefits amounting to 66% per cent of the previous wages are too high for claimants with no dependants. I think a good case can be made for claimants with dependants receiving this percentage of wages. I believe there is substantial evidence that when benefits amount to more than 50 per cent there is an abnormal call on the benefit structure. This is certainly true in the case of unemployment insurance related to job separations of many millions of people. Such a benefit structure plays a large part in encouraging excessive work

changes and separations without just cause, at least causes other than the unavailability of work.
With regard to the change of the eight to 12 weeks 1 have mixed feelings, but certainly I think the old requirement of the eight to 16 weeks was far too generous. However, if a person pays unemployment insurance for eight to 12 weeks and then receives no benefits at all, he or she is unhappy, and it certainly seems unfair that they should not be abie to receive some benefits for their contributions. Certainly they should not be able to receive the extended benefits received by those with a real attachment to the labour force, but it is debatable whether they should have nothing for their deductions.
We should consider the circumstances in our cold climate where much of the work is seasonal, and students are not entitled to benefits because they cannot qualify. This raises an issue which I think should be considered. Some of these people can only work for a few weeks and they will not be able to claim the benefits, so they should have no deductions from their pay.
The effect of this bill will be to reduce the claims on the unemployment insurance fund, but it will certainly not cure all the problems. The allocation of moneys for the partial payment of wages does not seem to be in keeping with the insurance principle. It does not attack the problem in the benefit structure which seems to encourage unemployment, particularly in the younger age group. On the national level it seems to create the problem in that regions with a high unemployment rate continue to have that high rate of unemployment. Furthermore, job mobility from one region to another will not be discouraged by high unemployment insurance benefits.
It might be wise for the government to bring forward some statistics along the lines produced in the comprehensive review showing whether or not job mobility from one region to another is being discouraged by high unemployment benefits and, if so, to what degree. There are still a good many unanswered questions in this legislation, and I hope the minister will provide some answers in committee.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I think that when this government wants to sell a rather shoddy or questionable product it usually tries to package it together with some good which, at least apparently, looks more palatable. That is how I feel about Bill C-27, establishing the department of employment and immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council; a department, a commission, a council, it looks merely like a rearrangement of already existing institutions.
If all this commotion, this jumble of re-definition of terms of reference and structures, on both national and regional levels, were really to do some good to the country, 1 would certainly support the bill. Of course, a small army of officials has already spent a long time studying this issue. Some well-paid
February 28, 1977

officials would have been more productive trying to solve our present problems instead of devising new structures which would clear up all difficulties. However, I would take a chance to support this part of the bill, not without strong reservation. I shall return to this later on if I have time.
For the moment, I want to come back to my preliminary comments on the title of the bill dealing with the reorganization of government services and also with the working labour force and is aimed at amending the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971. It is on that part of the bill that I wish to make a few comments. It is also to that part of the bill that I referred at the beginning, when I spoke about a shoddy product packaged with a palatable added as an appendix to be shaken off.
Everyone in the House knows that there are some people in this country-and by this I mean employers-who openly condemn unemployment insurance and pay wages which hardly reach provincial minimum wages. For such employers, the removal of unemployment insurance would be just like giving them carte blanche to take unfair advantage of a captive and poor labour force ignorant of their rights and the legislation. There is also another group of employers who can live with the Unemployment Insurance Act, but only to a certain extent.
The law allows them to make the best of difficult situations, generally to their advantage and at the expense of the employee. It is a way for those employers to get their activities subsidized. It is also a convenient way to free themselves of their social responsibilities and to pretend at the same time that they have a social conscience. That kind of employer consciously takes advantage of the system, and let nobody try to have me believe that only workers abuse the unemployment insurance syste'm, when there are abuses.
The kind of employers I am referring to often take advantage of a slow period or a temporary or seasonal decrease of activity to lay off employees they should keep come rain or come shine. Those people simply say: "Society will take care of them, if they just apply for unemployment insurance." That is the reaction of those masters with little conscience.
I should point out that those two types of employers, that is the one who rejects unemployment insurance totally, and the other who accepts it because of the egotistical advantages the system provides for business and profits, those two types of employers can go into the same bag. Both refuse to recognize the right of their employees to organize into unions to protect their interests and will lay off any employee of theirs who talks about labour association. And it is not suprising that the employers of this type are found very often in areas of generally high unemployment. I could state names, but I shall not take advantage of my privileges as a member of the House to do so. However, I shall mention them outside when the time comes, Mr. Speaker, as I have already started to do.
And yet, when do we hear about these bad employers who abuse the system? Most of the time we hear about the small wage earner who can neither defend himself nor make use of the media to present his views. Apparently it is better not to
Employment and Immigration
mention these bad employers who hurt small wage earners who are defenceless.
If I have mentioned these two cases, Mr. Speaker, it is because I want to get rid once and for all of all these stories about workers who are supposedly taking the system for a ride. It is unfair on the part of the news media to spread these stories and to make generalization from exceptional cases. Rather, let us talk about employers who force some of their employees into ambiguous situations where often the weakness of human nature prevails.
It is unfortunate to use this bill to reduce the revenue of the poor, for such is the effect that this bill will eventually have. And at this very moment, Mr. Speaker, most of the workers do not realize all the implications of this bill. They do not realize that they will be the victims three months, six months, two years from now whenever this bill will be enacted, if ever.
I do not like this legislation and I say so quite frankly, I do not like it being introduced along with a measure of administrative reorganization. I can support the first part, which is not perfect but which has undoubtedly become necessary because of the defects in the old organization and particularly because of the lack of integrated services to the working force over the years.
Last Thursday evening, while driving home, I listened to a review of the area press in the Atlantic provinces. It was a CBC broadcast and the commentator who was reviewing some press reports said at one point that the government had been forced to amend the UIC Act to calm down the outcry raised particularly in Ontario during the last general election.
I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is so. Oh, we all heard those self-righteous voices during the last general election as well as during the previous one asking the federal government to cut down unemployment insurance and force the people to go to work. If this is the situation the commentator was referring to last week, he was probably right in guessing that the government simply wanted to improve its electoral position with an eye to the next general election, but never would I believe that measures that have proved beneficial until now and have dealt with a situation in our economy that had to be corrected as it has been since would be abandoned.
I warn hon. members from Ontario, the province from which rose the outcry. Regardless of the side of the House on which they sit, it seems to me it is their duty to explain to their electors-and perhaps I could make the same request of hon. members who come from more privileged areas in Canada- that there are areas in Canada whose rate of growth is still lower than the national rate. It is also their duty, as I see it, to counterbalance what the press reports about the few persons who abused the unemployment insurance system. Is that any reason to punish everyone by reducing, across the board the number of weeks giving entitlement and benefits? To my mind, that is a blow to the poor worker who cannot defend himself.
3500

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
It is difficult for city dwellers-and in this, I am not making a personal reference to the colleague who sits across from me this evening-but it seems to me it is difficult for people who come either from Forestville or Westmount to understand or try to imagine the situation a family head, father or mother, without work, as there are some now in my riding of Mada-waska-Victoria where a number of work activities producing employment depend essentially on the seasons, and where the difference between work and unemployment depends on outside factors and decisions more often than otherwise than on the will to work of my elector.
As several hon. members said before, it is not a matter of working when we feel like it and then taking holidays at the expense of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. When there is work in Madawaska-Victoria, people work! They are eager to work! Whole families, for generations, have gone into exile in the United States to respect their right to work, to earn the daily bread on their table, to feed their children and send them to school. And even today, in my province of New Brunswick, many citizens leave their city, their town, on Sunday night, to go and work in Saint John, in New Brunswick, and come back home late on Friday night or early Saturday morning.
Those people want to work, they go where they can find work. However, there are limits, Mr. Speaker; some people cannot travel. Some people have too many local obligations to be able to sacrifice everything to a rather temporary job. Unfortunately no mention is made of such situations.
There is very little industrial decentralization in favour of underdeveloped areas in spite of the considerable effort made by the present federal administration which provides for loans without interest, subsidies for manpower training and many other programs. Indeed the government decided a bit late to decentralize their own operations, which is an excellent move. Far be it from me to try to minimize the important part played by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion since 1969. I give them very high marks because they tried to improve the regional economy of the Atlantic provinces in particular. However, I give the highest mark to those industrialists in the Atlantic region who took full advantage of the DREE programs to create temporary and permanent jobs in our part of Canada. But I have yet to see, except for some very rare exceptions, the private sector of central Canada, of the very prosperous city of Toronto for instance, send us industries and take advantage of the benefits offered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
I am quite aware, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing the unemployment insurance plan and the reorganizing of federal employment services. Yet, it is difficult not to mention the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in that context, and I seriously wonder if the reorganization went far enough, if some components of the reorganization of the Department of Manpower, as we know it at the present time, would not have made more sense being linked with some of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion whose main task is to create and promote creation of new industries in the Atlantic area.

However, if we have missed the boat this time, we must hope to get on board later on. We must achieve not only a better coordination of components within the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission but also better relations between this and other government departments.
Mr. Speaker, I am not in the mood to support the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act as contained in this bill. Tonight we talk about the principle in general. I deliberately avoided going into details; I hope I will have that opportunity further on at the committee stage or when the bill comes back to the House, if we are not successful in having some amendments passed. Several times in the last few months, I examined that question, not individually but with several of my colleagues, and I must admit quite frankly tonight that I do not have a clear conscience about the bill as it is now presented. I cannot say all I have to say, but I only want to express what I think is the concern of many of my constituents, many citizens from New Brunswick and even from the entire Atlantic region. And I will have the opportunity, as I said earlier, to come back to that matter.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to a fairly thick document received a few weeks ago entitled "Comprehensive Review of the Unemployment Insurance Program in Canada" published by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This study, said to be the first of its kind, was done with the help of official departmental experts and a number of outside consultants. It is presented as the first major analysis of the impact of unemployment insurance on Canadian society and economy.
The study is, if I may say so, rather non-conclusive in many of its conclusions. One of the statements which has drawn my particular attention is found in the concluding observations on page L-8, and I quote:
It should be noted that the review did not examine the more beneficial socio-economic impacts of UI, such as maintaining dignity, supporting a skilled job pool, etc.
Goodness knows what they mean by "etc.". It is beyond my comprehension that the document which is presented under the guise of the first major analysis of its kind would leave out such a fundamental concern as the one I have just referred to, that is, "the more beneficial socio-economic impacts of Ul, such as maintaining dignity, supporting a skilled job pool, etc."
It is for these two reasons that I cannot go along with the bill as much as I know of it and as much as I have read about it. Perhaps I am a slow learner. I do not have the legal training of the super experts who have made statements on the bill. In certain respects it is a jungle. Only an experienced lawyer can make his way through the mumbo-jumbo of some of the propositions of the bill. But one thing hits home, openly and directly-the small worker, the small man and his family, will be adversely affected by some of the clauses modifying the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not like that.
February 28, 1977


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments on the legislation before us. At the outset, I would like to say that 1 have followed very closely the speech made by the hon. member for Madawaska (Mr. Corbin) who, in my opinion-


Eymard G. Corbin: Madawaska-Victoria!


Roch La Salle: -Madawaska-Victoria, granted, who, in my opinion, seemed concerned about this legislation. He said that his fellow citizens are also concerned, and I believe that on the government side, there are also other members who are as concerned as he is. I would hope that, like the previous speaker, they will have the courage and the candour to point out to the minister the concerns and dangers involved in this legislation.
It is true that reference is made to restructuration and reorganization. It is also true that this is an experiment, and since this government has made several such experiments in the past decade but not always with the anticipated results, I believe, like the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria and this side of the House, that we have every reason to be concerned and to entertain serious doubts about this new experiment of the government and the minister. Moreover, when considering the bill before us one might well wonder why the government had to introduce such legislation. About two weeks ago, I said in this House that the government was much more willing to introduce social measures than to create jobs, and in view of its numerous failures, I feel we have been very generous towards unemployment insurance and other social measures.
Today we want to apply a certain rigidity, which we did not dare do a few years ago, and as it then seemed to be a makeshift or a short term solution which is now turning into a long-term solution, we are forced to back up to a point where we will embarrass thousands of Canadians. Given this legislation which requires 12 weeks instead of eight for claimants to qualify, it is clear in the present context that the period was never so ill chosen to introduce such a bill.
Perhaps a measure of this kind could have been introduced a few years ago but they waited for years and years. At the very moment when specialists forecast an increase in the rate of unemployment for 1977 we are presented with a legislation that will in effect send thousands of Canadians directly to welfare offices without considering-and perhaps the government thought about it-that the provinces are responsible for the additional expenditures for people they will help financially because they are no longer entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. We believe, of course, as the government does, that work incentives must be put in-we agree on that-but I do not think that the period was well chosen to introduce such a legislation.
And there is absolutely no concern about those areas facing great difficulties with that plague called unemployment.
Employment and Immigration
Thank God, an amendment will be introduced in due time to ask Parliament at least to enforce that minimum qualification period of 12 weeks only in areas where the unemployment rate does not cause too much hardship. We hoped, of course, to have the support of a majority in this House considering that I think this amendment is quite humane and quite logical in view of the economic context in which we find ourselves if we seriously want to avoid the worst from the results of this legislation.
So, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of adequate policies to create jobs, they managed to introduce measures to keep people on unemployment. Indeed, I repeat that the Prime Minister did warn us that we would have to get used to a rate of unemployment that was at the time much lower than it is today. But when we talk of about one million unemployed in this country I seriously wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether that is really the best time to introduce such a legislation. Once again, it seems that the government could not care less about the amount of money the provinces will have to pay to these persons, once they will be on welfare. I think we will find other short-term solutions. One hears of course of all the savings which will be made on the cost of the programs and which will be used to find all kinds of new policies to help raise our productivity and create job training or job creation programs. But, Mr. Speaker, the government has already adopted similar policies through its Canada Manpower Centres with a certain success but this did not prevent unemployment to increase in Canada to the present high level.
I think this is the very moment to invite the minister to weigh seriously the effects that the enforcement of this legislation could have, particularly on the most disadvantaged areas, and when I say disadvantaged 1 mean the areas where the present rate of unemployment is totally unacceptable. To think that all people who draw unemployment insurance benefits are not seeking jobs is totally wrong. In the area 1 represent, I met this morning with some union representatives and I had the opportunity to discuss with them and with journalists who are seriously studying the situation in my constituency where the rate of unemployment seems to be now around 10 to 13 per cent, a rate which we had never seen in this area before. There is a great deal of concern there about this legislation.
1 do not know yet to what extent this legislation now before the House will not be implemented. Under normal conditions, I would be in complete agreement with the minister. If we had a reasonable unemployment rate, I would fully agree with the government. But the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) referred to the concerns, the dangers and the hardships that such a legislation would cause, and 1 think that we, on this side of the House, have been quite outspoken on this issue.
Are these comments enough to make the minister realize the seriousness of the present situation? All this because the government failed to develop adequate policies and to have enough leadership to prevent us from facing a catastrophe.

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Unemployment is the main disease of Canada. But once again, we have long said that the government has not had the foresight even to protect Canadian industry, which, in my opinion, if more courageous action had been taken, could have maintained a much lower unemployment rate than the present one.
May I also remind the minister of a flagrant injustice concerning this whole unemployment insurance policy? I want to mention it particularly because the government has already referred to and agreed to rectify an injustice, a monumental mistake that some officials made in December 1975 concerning people aged 65 who were declared ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits during the following year even if they did not find any employment. I would like to note that this concerns a group of people of which nearly 99.9 per cent had seldom received unemployment insurance benefits and who had been most proud and laborious for 40 or 45 years.
The decision made by the government in December 1975 rendered them ineligible for unemployment insurance if they wished to stay in the work force. Of course, when those people lost their entitlement to unemployment benefits and had to rely on their old age security pension, they naturally claimed benefits from their retirement pension plans, whether the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. They had no other choice, and since the officials had told them that it was all over, they applied for the Quebec Pension Plan. Recently, after a number of people complained about a vested interest, the government lost this case and it is now obliged to pay unemployment insurance benefits to these people. But in this case, in its own typical way the government has deceived these people of 65, stating that it would pay back only those who have not applied for retirement pension benefits. I know that when you claim benefits under the Quebec Pension Plan or the Canada Pension Plan, you recognize effectively that you no longer wish to work. But it is necessary to remind the House that if those people have applied under a pension plan, it is because they were deceived when they were told they would no longer be entitled to any unemployment insurance benefits.
In a most generous move, the minister is prepared to pay them back until they get the first pension plan cheque. But we all know, Mr. Speaker, that they would have been better off if they had received unemployment insurance benefits to which they were entitled. They have won their case. It was more interesting than claiming under their retirement pension plan. In order to eliminate this inequity, last week I moved a motion under Standing Order 43. It was rejected by my friends opposite. I was asking the government to agree at least to pay the difference between the retirement pension plan and unemployment insurance benefits to which these people were entitled.
And I hope the minister will take that opportunity to correct the injustice towards those senior citizens for whom we as members of parliament must have the greatest respect considering their age and their services to society. Is it necessary to talk about it for 20 minutes? I hope not, Mr. Speaker, but I

think this is the most abominable action taken by a government against senior citizens. And I am sure that on the other side of this House some members agree with me and have already made recommendations to the minister to correct that unacceptable and indefensible injustice towards those senior citizens.
I do not know by what means I could defend that category of people, but as limited as they might be, I should not hesitate to insist that justice be rendered to those senior citizens manipulated by civil servants or by the government concerning a vested right. I find it absolutely scandalous that the government hesitates to correct completely an injustice. Of course, some people will tell me, that the situation will be partially corrected but we have no right to hesitate to correct completely a mistake made by civil servants and that the minister agreed to correct partially. The minister understands very well my view. If the minister has a minimum of human feelings, I think he can understand that those people are not only entitled to those allowances, but that they need them. I hope that those few comments and this appeal to the minister will be taken seriously and that eventually, and as soon as possible, the minister will announce, maybe tonight, that he will correct completely the injustice made by his own civil servants or his own department.
I also wish to mention that it might be important for the minister to consider a question that was put to me this morning, Mr. Speaker. I was asked if in the case of a person who normally would have been entitled to make a claim for unemployment insurance allowances and complying with all the criteria imposed by the minister, if the spouse could benefit from her husband's entitlement?
This has not been cleared up adequately. I have put this question to many persons who told me to put it to the minister since it seemed to bother him. It annoys me also but I believe that the government will respect the vested right of the widow whose husband was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits in 1976, regardless of the term, and will pay to her the benefits to which her husband was entitled.
Mr. Speaker, I will add also that the bill under study will probably annoy the farming community. In my riding as elsewhere in general, we know that there is a high manpower demand during the summer months. The claimant entitled to unemployment insurance benefits for a few months still will hesitate before accepting a summer job planting or harvesting if he is not guaranteed a minimum of eight weeks' work.
Obviously, the 12 week qualifying period will mean that thousands of claimants will be reluctant to work on farms next summer and they will possibly be called lazy but we must understand that if they do not work 12 weeks-and no farmer will want to guarantee them 12 weeks-they will surely not try to qualify for such employment next summer, since they are almost certain that it will be for only eight, nine or ten weeks. Such a situation not only prompts this type of worker to claim unemployment insurance but also annoys our farmers who do not have the help they need. They will lack workers and face enormous difficulties. I wonder whether we should not be
February 28, 1977

seriously considering other similar categories. It seems to me that farming already has enough problems and difficulties. After federal policies have hit the dairy industry, is this the time, Mr. Speaker, to impose new problems on our farmers?
I wonder whether serious consideration was given to the implications for our farmers and producers. It is my hope that at the committee stage, amendments will be put forward to avoid hindering more people, to make this legislation positive. 1 feel it is my duty as a-rpember to express these concerns, and as I said I am very much pleased that an hon. member opposite is worried by the bill and flatly stated he was not prepared to support it tonight. He hopes as we do that certain amendments may remedy the weaknesses. I will spare the House with data that were so aptly referred to by hon. members before me.
I commend the hon. member from Hamilton who stressed the need for an amendment in favour of areas now facing tremendous difficulties, and in my view the government cannot refuse to consider the amendment we will be putting forward. It is also my hope that the government, the minister in charge will remedy as fast as possible the injustice done to people 65 and over. This is the main item I wanted to bring to the attention of the House. I will conclude with the hope that the minister as I said will seriously consider my remarks as well as all remarks and recommendations that have been and will be put forward by my colleagues.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the time of the House for long. I must say that the measures which the government has introduced to tighten up the unemployment insurance provisions are not necessarily measures I would oppose, given a different economic situation, given a different approach to the question of unemployment. But since we start this debate with unemployment at 8 per cent, perhaps 11 per cent in real terms, it seems to me the government continues to put the cart before the horse.
It is the duty of any government worth its salt to provide work for those of its citizens who wish to accept it. The present government and the government before it have failed appallingly in terms of their obligations to the citizens of this country. Let me say this: it is also the duty of all the citizens of this nation to accept work. I do not believe for one minute that we are a society capable of lying around in parks and dreaming while making this a worth-while community. If this House would accept a reciprocal ethic, one which says we have an obligation to provide work for the citizens, and that the citizens have an obligation to accept that work, we would not need this bill and we would not be sitting here arguing and worrying about the deficit in the unemployment insurance fund. We would then have a society which was starting to build together, a society with a common purpose. Therefore when I deal with the specific provisions of the bill I do not want to sound like a dog in the manger.
Employment and Immigration
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that an NDP government does not like people cheating on unemployment insurance any more than anybody else does, and that we would be just as firm in making sure that the rules were obeyed. But I also want to tell you that in the constituency I represent, New Westminster, in one week in January 1,500 people showed up to get their unemployment insurance claims in. These were not people who were skiing out on Whistler or flying to Hawaii. They are not cheats. They are genuine, ordinary people, people this economy has failed. They want to do something productive. They do not want to sit around and loaf. To suggest they do, is a myth propagated by those who do not understand the nature of the Canadian people.
Not only did 1,500 people apply for unemployment insurance in my riding in one week in January, but in one trade alone, that of carpenter, 450 people registered as unemployed. No less than 450 carpenters, heads of families, were unemployed. Why? One of the reasons is that the OFY, LIP, Canada Works, Youth Works programs, you name them, are starting to take over some of the jobs they used to do, and instead of paying carpenters' rates they are paying lower rates for the same jobs.
Carpenters do not want to go on unemployment insurance. They want jobs. They are in the hiring halls every day but they are not called. They are not called because the government will not embark on capital projects to put them to work. We used to have a winter works program, not make-work, but real work. We could even now put our municipalities to work. I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) applauding. I know she agrees with this. We need capital works. I am looking at the minister now and hoping he will agree, too. We cannot continue to hold the fabric of Canadian society together with LIP. That doesn't work. We are not ready to sit in sloth in this country. We want meaningful capital investment.
If the minister would like to show some leadership I could take him to my riding; we could clear up the bars in my constituency along the Fraser River. It would take five years and thousands of people to do it. It would be creative in terms of people sitting on bars fishing. There is a whole recreation potential there which is fantastic. But we will not do it because an entrepreneur has not got up to say, "I want to do it." Mr. Speaker, if free enterprise refuses to do the things which create work, I believe there is an obligation upon the government to do so. But it has not done it, and it will not do it. I believe ministers will not do it because they are stultified. They refuse to See the other side of the equation.
We have to put people to work in order to reduce the crime rate and build this country back together. The crime rate is only one aspect of the social disintegration which has gone on as a result of the permissive society of the sixties. That society was not healthy, and the sooner the government recognizes it the better this country is going to be.
God knows, I would not stand in this House as a member of the New Democratic Party and object to unemployment insurance. Of course it is necessary, it is desirable, and it is humane.

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
But a good government would not need very much unemployment insurance, and we would not be taking part in a raging debate over the subject if we had good government. We have experienced high unemployment because there has never been in this country a national government with a will to create full employment. I hope some day the people will wake up and vote for a government which has as its number one plank the creation of full employment. It can be done. It has been done in many societies, and it does not destroy the economy. It can even co-exist with free enterprise. But because chambers of commerce moan and groan we shall not move decisively in this direction.
Then again, we live in a society which is foreign-dominated, which means we cannot manufacture here; we simply dig out and ship, and until we come to grips with this aspect we shall not solve our unemployment problems.
Something that bothers me about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is clauses 52 and 53, and I should just like to deal with specifics for a moment. As the minister knows, these provisions deal with experience rating. He has decided to abandon the principle of experience rating. My constituents who work in the mills are getting a little tired of having to subsidize other people. The guys who work all year long, apart from their three week holiday, and who do the tough job of pulling lumber off the chains, or who work in Oshawa manufacturing cars, are also getting a little tired of paying their unemployment insurance contributions knowing they will never collect. They would like to see their industries experience rated so that their premium is reduced. I think people in the construction industry, including my friends in the trades such as carpenters and plumbers, would be willing to see their industries experience rated as well. I think it is time we quit subsidizing contractors in Canada in that they have a ready made pool of labour available whenever they need it. It is a mistake to abandon experience rating. We should keep it in mind because it could make a significant difference in terms of the way we fund programs.
I said something about unemployment insurance cheaters. I want to give a commitment to the House that this party would be just as vigorous in prosecuting those who do not abide by the law. But I am a little tired of hearing about middle class families signing the weekly card for, say, a daughter in Hawaii, and then complaining about what a terrible society we live in. Honesty is for everybody, not just a few. One aspect to this life is that everybody wants to get as much as they can while giving as little as they have to, and that is wrong. I think we have all seen examples of the rare cheater on unemployment insurance, and the sympathetic mother who says, "Well, she has worked very hard and needs a holiday, and actually she would have taken a job if one had been available". We must prosecute people who cheat; otherwise the credibility of the whole unemployment insurance program will be brought into disrepute.

Having said that, I am still unsympathetic to the change from eight to 12 weeks. I have heard that it is proposed to move an amendment at some stage to the effect that 12 weeks is all right in some parts of the country, but there are areas where more than 12 weeks is all right too. This would not wash very well with someone in my riding who works eight weeks and cannot get unemployment insurance, and then he hears of someone in Nova Scotia who has worked eight weeks and can. If this House accepts that kind of amendment we will have lost our sense of proportion and justice. Any worker in British Columbia who works eight weeks is entitled to unemployment insurance every bit as much as someone in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.


Charles L. Caccia: Nonsense.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is not nonsense at all.


Charles L. Caccia: Have you never heard of regional economic development?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I would be happy to listen to the hon. member. Could he tell me why constituents in my riding are second class citizens? Why should a worker be entitled to draw unemployment insurance after eight weeks in Nova Scotia but not in British Columbia?


Charles L. Caccia: They do not pay the same premiums. You are talking nonsense.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I would be happy to listen to the hon. member, who appears to be supporting the proposition that there is one law for one part of the country and another for another part. When a person is poor, he is just as poor in British Columbia as in Newfoundland. Poverty itself is a rotten thing, and those who are poor need help from this legislation, no matter in which part of the country they live, so let us not get sucked into the idea that because one part of the country has a higher unemployment rate than another part, the rules should be different in terms of collecting unemployment insurance. That would be a mistake. It would be divisive and would not contribute a darned thing to national unity.
I believe there are some obvious things that the government can do. The minister keeps shrugging his shoulders over what are remarkably practical propositions which have been made by members of this party and which, in effect, are supportive of the capital system. A tax cut at the lower income level would do a great deal to help small businesses in my community, but this has been rejected. A federal winter works program and additional housing programs have also been referred to by hon. members.
Then last, but I do not think least, cannot we somehow put the two major problems of increasing energy costs and unemployment together so as to reduce energy costs and create employment? What I have in mind is a national insulation program. Why in God's name this is rejected out of hand by the government is beyond my comprehension. There are six million building units in this country in need of insulation and of government financial assistance, yet the only move in this
February 28, 1977

direction was a minor effort in P.E.l. and Nova Scotia. I think the will to govern is starting to slide.


Mr. Herbert:: Where are you going to get the insulation from?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If you do
not know that, you should not be here.


Harold Thomas Herbert: There is already a shortage of it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Is the hon. member telling me he cannot find any rock wool and people looking for work? Let him try some of the 800,000 unemployed; they will tell him how to put insulation into a house. They do not need the hon. member's kind of sophisticated university training for that; they know how to insulate a house, and they will find a way to do so.
I understand the minister's concern to see that this legislation works in a rational way. If he were to bring the legislation back after having reduced unemployment to 4 per cent, then he might get some help from this party. We are facing a national crisis not only in terms of unemployment but of what many of us see as a breakdown in the social fabric. I think we need a Canada youth corps. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) did bring in a bill to this effect which he abandoned.
I hope that we can give consideration to enabling the youth of this country to spend two years contributing to the country and learning about it, not merely in terms of the military- that should not be excluded-but in terms of a whole range of activities. As a result we would, first of all, effectively reduce the number of unemployed, we would reduce to a large extent the deficit we are now facing and the problems we are facing with unemployment insurance, but, most of all, we would be making a contribution to holding this country together. We could ask young people from 18 to 24 years of age to donate their time to this country, to go across the country and get to know Quebec, the maritimes, the prairies and the west coast. We would be doing a great service, and this would take us out of our ideological straitjacket. We would be doing something imaginative, something that would be a positive contribution to the two major problems we are facing, namely, unemployment and national unity. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to something more than the kind of sophistry we have been facing in the House for so long.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) would allow a question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: By all means, especially since I ran out of time.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member mentioned in his speech the winter works program. I wonder if he would agree to a winter works program that is not simply oriented toward labour, in other words, that contains grants for labour as well
Employment and Immigration
as grants for material and equipment and thus be of practical use in those communities in Canada that have a difficult time with finding money for such programs. I hope the hon. member would agree that the winter works program should include not only grants for labour but also grants for capital expenditures for equipment and materials in order for the program to be meaningful, especially in small communities which do not have the same financial base as do the larger communities.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am delighted to hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) support the main thrust of my remarks tonight. I agree with his point. Certainly I was not restricting capital investment to labour. I am quite prepared to accept the fact that these capital grants should be on capital projects. They would have to include materials and be administered by the municipalities themselves, which this government and previous governments have starved of money. Let us put the responsibility back at the local level. We do not need the bureaucracy to do it; we already have small municipalities in place to administer these funds. What we need is a major and massive capital investment at the municipal level to create the kind of employment we need, and I am delighted to hear the hon. member support my point of view.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this bill because I come from an area of Canada where the rate of unemployment is very high and where unemployment insurance is abused, and I will speak on the latter point later.
I have been dubbed here in the last two weeks as the $5 million constituency man, not only by people outside the House but by some members of the House and some cabinet members. 1 do not know whether they expect me to take my hat off to them, but let me point out that the estimated unemployment rate of 19.74 per cent in my area is underestimated because we have communities in northern Manitoba where the unemployment rate is running closer to about 90 per cent or 95 per cent.
Starting last fall we had a $1 million LIP allocation in the constituency. Before we could even snap our Fingers, another $1.4 million was made available through FLIP. Then of course on March 20 the Canada Works program was brought in. The First indication we had of the Canada Works program was on December 20. When the allocations were made, a total of $943,000 was made available through Canada Works. The Indian allocation amounted to $843,000, and the regular allocation was $100,000. I believe the reason that one allocation was made to Indians and a separate regular allocation was made is that whoever devised the Canada Works program had his head in the sand and did not realize what the implications would be. The money is all divided up by a ministerial advisory board which O.K.'s the project. I will tell you what it does.
It completely eliminates the Metis and the non-status Indians and the others, which is what we call white people in the north. This is consistent across all communities in the north. It drives a wedge between the community that has status Indians
3506

February 28, 1977
Employment and Immigration
and the one that has non-status Indians and Metis. It divides these communities. The line is often through the bush. Often there is intermarriage and someone on the other side of the line is just as unemployed and just as deserving as the status Indians living on the reserve who will be getting the benefits.
I brought this to the attention of the minister because I thought there was no need for a ministerial advisory board to divide up something that has already been decided by the dreamers or the designers of this country in a program to which little thought was given. This program was thought up very quickly to give band-aid treatment to the problem of unemployment.
The next program that was brought out was Young Canada Works, with an allocation of $379,000 to the Churchill constituency. By this time whoever had designed the Canada Works program was at least smart enough not to make an Indian allocation and a regular allocation because they could see what would happen. They realized it would drive a wedge between the communities in the north. Next came the FLIP program. The FLIP program was for $1,088,000. Again this program was rushed into with little or no thought given to the allocation of moneys, and there was no planning of the projects that were to be carried out. In the course of about four months $2.4 million was allocated under LIP, $1,088,000 under FLIP, $943,000 under Canada Works, and now $379,000 under Young Canada Works. On top of this we have a program called LEAP which is also injecting money into the constituency.
I would not be surprised if the government were to come up with a "FLOP" program pretty soon. It would be called the federal labour optional program. The way the government is going the FLIP program and the "FLOP" program would fit in quite nicely, because the government is flip-flopping around the country trying to alleviate the unemployment situation. However, what it is really doing is thoroughly confusing people who are really in need of jobs.
What came along with the Canada Works program was a new batch of project officers. The project officers who worked in the LIP program were not even considered. Along came a whole new batch of project officers for each of these programs, and I will tell the House exactly what happened in the north. Some communities are 200 miles away from a central distribution point, and the only way to get to them is by air. One project officer was working on a LIP project, one on a FLIP project, and one on a Canada Works project. There were three different project officers who did not even know what the other project officers were doing. They were chartering aircraft into these communities to look after their part of the program, which is absolutely ridiculous. People in isolated areas of this country do not know whether their project officer is there for LIP, FLIP, Canada Works, or the LEAP program. They do not have any idea of what is going on.
One would think that with this much money going to the north there would be a saving on welfare payments I did some
(Mr. Smith (Churchill).J
checking into this, and I found that in communities living totally on welfare, even though several of these projects have been approved for them, the welfare is going to decrease by only 25 per cent.
Let us consider, for instance, the LIP program. Under the program there is a miniumum weekly wage of $167, from which deductions have to be made. In order for a family to survive it has to have its income supplemented, and this is where the welfare comes in. It seems that rather than one project officer looking after LIP and then somebody else coming in in connection with welfare to supplement incomes, it would be more reasonable to pay the person working on one of these make-work projects a decent salary so that he can keep his family in one of those isolated communities. This would cut down on the number of people spending money to travel into these communities, money which should be going to the communities.
I understand that for FLIP, LIP, Canada Works, LEAP and Young Canada Works, Manpower officers must make the referrals for jobs. It has been brought to my attention that the Manpower officers are just not capable of doing this job because they do not have the information required. They have a heavy workload as it is, and they do not have the confidence of the communities that they are capable of doing a good job of placing people in employment.
I will refer to a newspaper clipping which came out of the Winnipeg Free Press just last week. This story is from South Indian Lake. South Indian Lake is a typical northern community where unemployment is high. It is estimated 70 per cent of the residents are living on welfare-and an official from the community claims that ten people who collect unemployment insurance also collect welfare, even though they are working on one of these make-work projects. So what happens? The jobs with Manitoba Hydro on clearing projects which are available have not been filled. Six men were needed to harvest ice for next summer's fishing. These people could not be found in the community. No one wanted to go to work. People had to be brought in from outside in order to harvest the ice for next summer's operation.
The president of the local fishermen's association said that transport rates for fish to the Transcona plant went up to 8.5 cents a pound. There is a contract for five cents a pound, but because the trucks were not full the fishermen who were fishing were penalized. Meanwhile, 20 active fishermen make good money, and another 40 fishermen who are licensed are either back home working on one of the make-work projects, they are collecting UIC benefits, or they are partly on welfare. This is jeopardizing the entire fishery and penalizing fishermen who are out there trying to make a living at fishing.
The official said that the worst offender is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is responsible for 60 per cent of the 650 residents who are treaty Indians. This is what is happening in most of the communities. There are only so many people in those communities. Everybody comes in with a new program, but what we should be looking for is one delivery system for these make-work pro-
February 28, 1977

grams. Why should we have four project officers spending thousands of dollars flying into one community to administer programs to try to give the people some benefit? The people at the other end are the losers because much is taken up in the administration of these programs. That money really is not getting to the people it should be reaching.
Canada Northlands is another good example. Even though money is going through Canada Northlands, the people are not benefiting from this program for the simple reason that the people who make the decisions are far removed from the needs of the communities, and they do not even know who is employed or who is not employed in these particular communities. The job creation branch is also involved in this. It is in charge of the project officers, and it also has to work very closely with Manpower, which is having a real problem because it is not able to look after the clients it now has in some communities.
1 would like to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the acting House leader what the intention of the government is with respect to business tomorrow.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the acting House leader is, but we will not be going on with this bill tomorrow. I believe we will be dealing with the transportation bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my request for an opportunity to elaborate on my question in the adjournment debate arises out of a question reported in Hansard of February 21 at page 3232 where 1 asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Guil-bault) for some explanation as to why the citizenship court in Simcoe is not able to process the many applications which came in as a result of the proclamation of the new Citizenship Act. The parliamentary secretary was at a bit of a disadvantage on that occasion. He was not aware of my question. He gave me the best answer possible under the circumstances, and I thank him for it. It was because he was not prepared to give
Adjournment Debate
a complete answer that 1 asked to be allowed to elaborate at this point.
Since that time the parliamentary secretary has communicated with the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), who was kind enough to write a letter to me explaining this matter in greater detail. There are two paragraphs of the letter that I should like to read into the record:
My officials have investigated the points you raised and inform me that a slight delay did, in fact, occur in sending application forms under the new Citizenship Act to one or two county courts in Ontario. A telephone communication with the Simcoe county court on February 22, 1977. however, confirmed that the forms had been received on Friday, February 18, 1977.
On the matter of citizenship work currently being done by county courts, we have undertaken, at the request of the Ontario attorney general, a review of the situation. It is possible that as a result of this study the county courts may be relieved of their responsibilities . . .
That last is the sentence that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, and I will elaborate on the letter later in my remarks.
The predicament and confusion at Simcoe were disastrous, to say the least, to those people who came to make application for citizenship. The forms finally arrived a few days later, as has been indicated, but there was no letter appointing His Honour Judge John Pringle, the county court judge, to do the work in the citizenship court, nor the clerk of the county court to process the applications, so we are still without a citizenship court in the town of Simcoe. Their duties were terminated by a letter from the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship dated December 22, 1976, the relevant paragraph of which reads as follows:
Persons currently dealing with citizenship matters either in the judicial capacity or in the application taking function, will require new appointments. Further advice will be forwarded to you in this regard as soon as administrative details have been completed.
That advice still has not been received at the citizenship court in Simcoe. Over 100 people presented themselves at the court during the two or three weeks following the proclamation and, to say the least, there was frustration, as can be understood. The appointments of the judge, and of the clerk to take applications, still have not been made.
I have a letter here from the sheriff of Simcoe, and had a telephone conversation with his office this afternoon. In the letter he wrote:
The new appointments have not arrived to date and, therefore, the county court judge and the county court clerk are not authorized to accept applications.
This was confirmed, and the letter of appointment had not arrived by this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, how do we resolve this difficulty?
The county court clerk defines the problem as insufficient staff to take applications. He has to use the staff of the sheriffs office to do the work of the citizenship court for a federal department. He has been advised that a Mr. Peter Gale from the Hamilton citizenship office will be in Simcoe on Friday, March 18, from 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. to process applications. This would help take the workload off the sheriffs office, but it seems to me that help once a month is not
80010 -16^2

February 28, 1977
Adjournment Debate
sufficient to handle the flow of applications in that area where there are a great many ethnic groups anxious to become Canadian citizens.
The county court judges in Simcoe and Gayuga do an excellent job in handling citizenships. Judge John Pringle in Simcoe and Judge Leach in Caledonia make the ceremony more than an examination and swearing in of the applicant. The Canadian flag and the provincial flag adorn the courtroom. The band from the local high school leads singing of our National Anthem and God Save the Queen. A welcome committee made up of prominent citizens in the community and members of the RCMP attend a reception sponsored by the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire where the new citizens are welcomed. This is a truly impressive and meaningful ceremony, and I would be concerned if it were not maintained.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to refer to an article in the Simcoe Reformer. The judge told the newspaper's correspondent that he viewed the occasion with a little nostalgia, and feared some of the meaning of the old ceremony may be lost when the new Citizenship Act goes into effect this Tuesday.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to our attention. We have investigated with the department and found that there has been some delay in sending out the forms. We apologize to the hon. member and the people of the area concerned. I was not aware that the letter of appointment of the judge has not yet reached its destination. I shall look into that.
I ask for the indulgence of the hon. member and the people of the area. There is much work to be done in connection with the new act. The work of the department has been hectic in the last few months. We had been getting ready for the proclamation of the act. This has involved the writing of regulations, the drawing up of new forms, printing of three different brochures for the people to use, as well as the appointing of ten additional judges and 69 additional staff members across the country. All those people have had to be trained, and we tried to be ready by January 15. I contend that we did not do too badly, because occasions such as the one raised by the hon. member are rare. We hope that in weeks to come everything will return to normal and that the area mentioned by the hon. member will receive service similar to that received by people right across the country. I realize that help once a month for filling forms is not enough. We shall look into that matter, and I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I ask him to bear with us for a couple of weeks to enable us to do the job properly and provide the good service to which all Canadians are entitled.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-LEGAL AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT TO REMOVE CHILDREN FROM CUSTODY OF PARENTS-SUGGESTED COMPLIANCE WITH PROVINCIAL LAW
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising this evening is to attempt to obtain further information from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Penner).
My intervention is the result of a question I asked on January 31 with respect to something almost incredible which happened in Saskatchewan. I was referring to children living on reserves in that province, children who had apparently been apprehended by departmental officials without legal authority, as the minister admitted when answering my question on January 31.1 asked the question originally because some 700 children apparently have been apprehended by the department, and I felt that the matter affects a substantial number of children who may have been apprehended without legal or judicial assessment as to whether the apprehension was justified.
When replying the minister indicated to me that that particular action had been taken because a number of sad situations with respect to children obtained on the reserves. But I think that answer was not sufficient to meet the point of principle which I raised when I questioned the minister on January 31.
What has happened has not merely happened in the recent past. The matter has been of concern for the department for some years, apparently. According to my information some of these apprehensions took place over five years ago, when children were taken from their parents without a court order. They have been placed in foster homes, or reared in foster homes, for a number of years. I simply point out to the parliamentary secretary, who is a compassionate and sensitive person, the wrench that could take place where it is determined that the parents have the right to have their children back. These children may have accepted the foster parents as the actual parents and accepted the other children of the family as their brothers and sisters.
That is only one side of the matter. An even more important side is the right of parents in this country who have any agency, whether government or otherwise, take children from them without judicial review.
I suppose the answer the parliamentary secretary will give tonight is that there is no agreement between the province of Saskatchewan and the federal government. I realize we have a possible conflict in the sense of jurisdictional authority with respect to Indian children. However, it causes me a great deal of concern that over a period of some years, at least five years as far as I am able to determine, the provincial government and federal government have been haggling over who will pay the expense with regard to the administration of child apprehension on Indian reserves in the province of Saskatchewan.
I find it incredible that we have two levels of government haggling over the cost of this. The great social concern here is
February 28, 1977

being ignored and being left to the rather arbitrary and, in fact, unlawful actions on the part of the department. It is a very basic principle of our law in Canada that as far as the taking of children is concerned in any province one cares to look at, the parents have a right to have a court review the circumstances and give an independent assessment as to whether the apprehension is justified.
The department in effect has been guilty of some acts of malfeasance in the cases to which I referred. I am concerned because we have these 700 cases. If they have been taken without a court review or without any application to the courts, we might have a situation where these 700 children may be ordered to go back to their parents or be left in a state of limbo.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to state this evening what precise action the department is going to take with regard to this sad and tragic situation. 1 say this on behalf of the parents who have possibly had their children taken wrongfully. I say it on behalf of the foster parents who may have received children and regard them as their own, with the children regarding the foster parents as their new parents. There will be an awful wrench if it is found to be an illegal seizure on the part of the departmental officials.
1 ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us this evening if the department has any game plan with respect to this whole problem because there are many people concerned about this from the point of view of the rights of individuals. There are many immediate practical situations which we have before us. At least 700 beg some satisfactory answer from the department. 1 will be interested in hearing the response tonight.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has raised this question because the department has a very satisfactory answer. It is a good opportunity for me to elaborate this evening on the concern which has been so well expressed by the hon. member.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development pays full costs for maintenance of 778 Indian children in Saskatchewan who have been taken into care by the Provincial Superintendent of Child Welfare as a result of court action. Departmental staff and employees of band councils have arranged foster homes for an additional 607 children, also maintained at departmental expense. The hon. member will see immediately that there is no question at all about haggling over costs, as he suggested. In such cases, the child's parents have given consent for the arrangements, except in instances where we have been unable to trace or contact them.
When we are called in to help a child who has been abandoned, neglected or abused, we first try to locate the parents. If the parents are available, every attempt is made to help them improve the situation. However, if the parents wish to have the child cared for in a foster home, the best possible placement is arranged with their approval. I am advised that in
Adjournment Debate
a good many cases attempts to obtain provincial participation are fruitless.
When the parents of a child in need cannot be contacted, or when they refuse to take responsibility for the child's proper care, assistance is sought from the provincial department of social services or from the RCMP, since they alone have the authority to take custody of a child, or to take the matter to the appropriate court. When the province and the RCMP refuse to act, we are faced with a critical moral and human problem, and have no alternative but to make the best possible arrangements for the child.
It must be obvious to any honestly concerned observer that there is nothing illegal in arranging for foster homes when the child's parents consent to it. There is a very great difference between breaking the law and having no law under which to act. For many years, parents who needed such services depended upon the department to provide them. It would be unjust to deprive them or their children of this sort of care until such time as better arrangements can be made. There is no question of the rights of either the children or their parents being ignored, and there is no evidence that the arrangements that have been made for the children are unsatisfactory. Any parent who is dissatisfied can have their child returned at any time. I would hope, however, that any such decision would be made with care, and in the knowledge of its implications.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PROPOSED RESEARCH CENTRE AT WINNIPEG-DELAY IN COMPLETING LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on February 23 I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) to tell us what the intentions of the government were with regard to the defence research centre for Winnipeg which was announced three years ago. Since that announcement the city of Winnipeg has been subject to an undue amount of procrastination and stalling tactics from the Liberal government here in Ottawa. This has cost Winnipeg a considerable amount in lost revenue and placed an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers of that city. 1 am referring in particular to the 111 acres of land on which the defence research centre is supposed to be constructed.
When one takes a look at the record of government in connection with the research centre one cannot but seriously question its motives. Is the government so unconcerned about declining Liberal popularity in western Canada that it is deciding to write off western Canada altogether, or is it sheer confusion and disorganization which have caused delay in the construction of the centre?
I think it worth noting that ever since the former minister of defence, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) made the announcement in February, 1974, that Winnipeg would be receiving a defence research base, nothing has happened in terms of action by Ottawa. For the record I would point out that on October 22, 1976, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dionne) stated in response to a question I put to him:

February 28, 1977
Adjournment Debate
I am pleased to inform the hon. member that the new research establishment in Manitoba will be constructed in his constituency.
I wonder if that is still the intention of the government, because on February 18 the Minister of National Defence told us that the defence research centre project had been deferred for a period of between six months and a year. In the face of these conflicting and confusing statements, I contend that the government has a moral obligation to come clean with the city of Winnipeg and make a clear cut statement as to whether or not it really intends to purchase the land and build a centre. It is interesting to note that the 1977-78 estimates for national defence make provision for an expenditure of over $20 million for a defence research establishment in Manitoba, yet the government will not even tell us where in Manitoba it will be constructed or when the work will begin.
The government should be more responsive to the city of Winnipeg because there are a number of crucial matters at stake. First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is the matter of 111 acres of prime land that was originally negotiated to be sold at a price of $1,200,000 to the federal government. During the time the Liberal government has wasted in stalling, the value of this land has increased three times. The federal government in all fairness to the people of Winnipeg should renegotiate this deal so that the taxpayers of Winnipeg will not be the losers.
The second matter is that if the federal government does not intend to use this particular parcel of land it should notify the city of Winnipeg so that consideration might be given to using it for other purposes. As I say, this is one of the last prime pieces of residential land in the city.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not place a burden on Winnipeg taxpayers by not paying any taxes on this land. It should take the immediate steps necessary to reimburse the city of Winnipeg for the lost revenue on this land that it could have been collecting from private developers.
During the past three years there have been numerous communications between the city of Winnipeg and the federal government. Let us take a look at the number of communications since the fall of 1976. In each instance I must point out that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Guay), better known as the minister of nothing, has been aware of these communications, yet he has seen fit to do nothing. As I said, let us take a chronological look at the events since the fall of 1976.
On September 13 last a letter was sent to the Department of Justice from the city of Winnipeg enclosing a draft agreement. On September 21 an acknowledgement was received. On October 26 a re-draft of the agreement was received by the city of Winnipeg from the Department of Justice. On November 8 a letter was sent to the Department of Justice on changes to the agreement. On November 24 a letter was received by the city of Winnipeg on the price. On November 26 a memo was sent to the land surveys and real estate department of Winnipeg on discussions of price. On December 27 a letter was sent to the Department of Justice outlining changes to the agreement. On January 13, 1977, a letter from the Department of Justice advised that material was forwarded to Ottawa for consideration.
These, Mr. Speaker, are just a few instances of the constant communications going on over a project that was announced three years ago. What has the minister of nothing from St. Boniface been doing in the past few months to assist this project? The answer is quite simply, nothing. That is why he is called the minister of nothing and I suppose he is paid to do nothing. In the meantime the city of Winnipeg suffers.
In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the national defence research centre should become a political football. Either the Liberal government is serious in its commitment or it is not. When the. Minister of National Defence told me on February 23 that he did not expect the city of Winnipeg to hold on to the land, what did the minister of nothing do? Absolutely nothing. During all of these deliberations the hon. member has done nothing whatsoever to help resolve this matter. He did not even make the effort to communicate with the city of Winnipeg.
As I pointed out earlier, the 1977-78 estimates for national defence include a defence research establishment for Manitoba and I, along with many other residents of the city of Winnipeg, would like to know where and when the government intends to build this research station. After all, Mr. Speaker, surely to heaven the Minister of National Defence must have some idea as to the future of this project, especially if officials from his department have it included in the 1977-78 estimates. I really do not think it is fair to the people of Winnipeg to ask them to put up with this procrastination.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) has stated in this House that the project to create a new defence research establishment at Winnipeg is in temporary suspension. The primary reason for that is that the Minister of National Defence wishes to study the rationalization of the scientific, research and industrial processes in the Department of National Defence in relation to other industrial efforts.
The minister has stated:
I think we want to look for things which will serve the best long-term interests of Winnipeg and all of western Canada and also to rationalize our defence purchasing so that it is to the best advantage of Canadian industry and the armed forces.
I am advised by the DND that no land deals have been concluded with the city of Winnipeg for the proposed site of the research establishment. Would the hon. member not be the first to chastise the government for paying taxes or grants in lieu of taxes on property that it did not own? It would seem to me that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) has enough talent and ability to defend himself, and I would leave it to him. He must be something more than the "minister for nothing" because he must have done something to get under the hon. member's skin.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday, March 1, 1977