1978-12-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Having regard to the fact that although during the past weeks wheat has been selling out of Vancouver and Thunder Bay at between $4.50 and $4.70 a bushel, and that the initial price for wheat for the farmer at the farm gate is only $2.75,1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House requests the initial price of No. 1 and No. 2 wheat be increased immediately by at least 50 cents a bushel.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Turned down by Liberal members again.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Noting the decision of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to form an advisory council to study the increasing use of social insurance numbers only after persistent pressure by the official opposition, and noting with dismay and incredulity further evidence of government expansion of the use of SIN in that the Canadian Transport Commission now requires all domestic charter passengers to provide their SIN if they wish to profit from the savings of
advance booking, that Statistics Canada demands farmers' SIN in their agricultural enumerative survey, and that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uses the SIN as an employee identification number, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the minister immediately convene the advisory council and instruct it to report as soon as possible so that legislation limiting the continued expansion of SIN can be introduced after the Christmas recess and, in any event, before 1984.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in recent days I and other members, such as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), have received several complaints from farm people regarding a recent program about beef farming on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation entitled "High Steaks". Farmers claim that, like the program last year on grain entitled "What Breadbasket", the program was biased, one-sided and it did not represent a true overview of various opinions on the beef industry.
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House recommends to CBC president A1 Johnson that he review the position of Mr. Don Baron as director of agricultural and resource programming and ensure that the CBC maintains a high standard of objective broadcasting in their agricultural and resource programming.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 18, 1978
[ Translation]


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the decision of the National Film Board to abolish the Francophone regional production centres in Ontario and western Canada; considering that such a decision will deprive Francophone minorities outside Quebec of an important communication and cultural tool and will also prevent them from obtaining the provincial government and nongovernment funds they need to operate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) call on the administrative board of the NFB to justify that reprehensible action which did not contribute to the cultural survival of Francophone minorities outside Quebec when it abolished French regionalization in Ontario and western Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, as the rate of unemployment for men and women under 25 years of age is twice that for those 25 years and over, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Minister of Finance be instructed by this House to introduce a program of incentives, without delay, which will induce businessmen and primary producers to employ our young people and enable them to take their rightful place in the work force.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of extreme urgency affecting the economic future of thousands of Nova Scotians.
Recognizing that the ten-year, multimillion dollar contract between the Sydney Steel Corporation and the Tree Island Steel Company of British Columbia may represent the only real hope of revitalizing the Cape Breton steel industry, and recognizing the importance of this industry not only to Cape Breton but to all of Nova Scotia, and in view of the fact that Tree Island intends to cancel the contract unless financing can be arranged by December 31 for improvements to the Sysco billet mill-and I note that today is December 18, Mr. Speaker-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates):
That this government give its assurance that it will approve that portion of funding required for the modernization of the billet plant so the province of Nova Scotia may take advantage of the very substantial contract with Tree Island Steel Corporation of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented at this time for debate only with the unanimous agreement of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the fact that there are at least 45 unassigned grain cars in a small area around Red Deer city, which means there could be hundreds of boxcars sitting on sidings in western Canada at a time when elevators are plugged and barley is not moving.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board appoint immediately a capable co-ordinator with authority to ensure maximum use of railway cars so vessels will not be held up at the west coast, and thus avoid breaking last year's record $25 million in demurrage charges.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 18, 1978


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that two constituents of mine, aged ten and 12, last week cashed in coupons from their Canada Savings Bonds to buy Christmas gifts for their parents, and in view of the fact that they were penalized by an unfair 25 per cent deduction because they did not have social insurance numbers, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
The Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately rescind the regulations that brought about this parsimonious action, and allow children, or at least pensioners, to cash their Canada Savings Bond coupons without penalty or, conversely, that the minister be called Scrooge instead of Santa Claus.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the sorry history of financial negotiations by this government with regard to the sale of Candu nuclear reactors abroad, a history which includes losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, disappearing agents and mismanagement by AECL-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -can the minister say that the $1 billion loan made by the Export Development Corporation to Romania for the construction of four Candu reactors is all the financing that will be made available, in view of the fact that similar financing with Korea by EDC for one nuclear reactor has now escalated to a cost of $560 million-$1 billion for four; $560 million for one? Is this another $1 billion financial fiasco?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians will take pride in this transaction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gillies:: Especially when they develop an atom bomb, like India!


Alastair William Gillespie: Canada has developed the world's best nuclear technology. There is no question that the Pickering reactor, for example, is the best performing reactor anywhere in the world. I do not think most Canadians would want to keep that technology to themselves, on the basis that they are not prepared to export it, or would want to hold back on the manufacturing opportunities which that technology represents.


Mr. Fraser:: Answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: That particular arrangement which has been negotiated with respect to a licensing fee, an engineering fee, and Export Development Corporation standby credit in the amount of $1 billion will provide $1 billion in opportunities for the Canadian manufacturing industry.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the minister was very careful not to answer the question as to whether or not this $1 billion would be the limit to which this government would involve itself in this particular transaction.
It appears that the licensing agreement between AECL and Romanergo could encompass the construction of more than four reactors. Can the minister tell the House whether the licensing agreement will allow Romanergo to sell reactors to other countries, or expressly states that reactors will be built solely in Romania? In other words, could it allow for further nuclear proliferation even to Soviet satellite countries?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, Romania has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has accepted international safeguards and inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Romania has in every respect observed Canadian safeguards, the toughest in the world. We negotiated the agreement with Romania a year ago.
As to the question of additional Canadian benefits which may flow from this transaction, it is quite possible that after the four reactors have been put in place, Romania will want to purchase additional components and engineering services from Canada. That would be to the advantage of Canada. But before they can export any part of that technology to foreign countries there will have to be a further agreement negotiated with Romania with respect to those export opportunities.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if perhaps the next customer on the government's list of clientele will be the People's Republic of China.
Since Canada has only recently begun to develop the technology for nuclear waste disposal, and since Romania has not moved in this field at all, could the minister assure the House that any agreements signed between Canada and Romania

December 18, 1978
Oral Questions
anticipate where the nuclear waste will be stored which comes from the Romanian nuclear program? Have there been any discussions between Canada and Romania with respect to the possibility that the nuclear waste would be returned to Canada, or can the minister say that such a proposal has been explicitly ruled out?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I can say categorically that there is no question of any waste which results from the spent fuel in Romania being returned to Canada as part of this arrangement. The answer is absolutely and categorically no. The Romanians will have to deal with their own waste fuel.
I can say, however, that as a result of the manufacturing opportunities inherent in this field, there will be thousands and thousands of jobs created for Canadians.


SALE OF CANDU REACTORS TO ARGENTINA-STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I presume that this initiative in eastern Europe was for the purpose of opening up new markets for our nuclear technology.
Could I inquire what the situation is with respect to the initiative we took in South America some time ago and, specifically, how matters are proceeding in Argentina? Is the initial reactor close to completion? Is there any progress in settling the misunderstandings that so far have prevented this country and Argentina from proceeding further and, indeed, proceeding further in South America, from the point of view of AECL's first steps in that part of the world?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, answered questions on this particular point last week and gave a progress report in respect of the discussions between Canada and Argentina.
I think it is fair to say that that particular reactor is on schedule, or within a month or two of being on schedule.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to the minister that the report given by his colleague was not very specific and that the impression given by the minister is not the one generally held by people following the situation.
1 should like to follow up the question asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and ask the minister directly whether, in view of his latest initiative, when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce visits the People's Republic of China, as reported earlier in the year, he is going to have a mandate to talk about nuclear technology with that country.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that if he has a question for the Minister of
[Miss MacDonald.)
Industry, Trade and Commerce, that question should be put to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport-who is also supposed to be in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board-in view of yesterday's announcement about the United States establishing full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China.
Reports indicate that this will mean greatly increased commercial opportunities for the United States in general, and particularly with respect to grain sales, including an additional three million to six million tonnes that could otherwise be bought from Canada.
What action does the minister and the government intend to take to increase our capacity to transport grain from the prairies to west coast ports, so that the Canadian Wheat Board will not be left in the present position of not tendering for further contracts with China because of lack of sufficient rail capacity to handle additional sales?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the capacity to handle grain was considered at a meeting of the senior transportation committee last week and certain steps are being taken in that regard. The existing elevator terminals at Vancouver are adding a total of about ten millions bushels of storage space.
The hon. member knows that we are determined to see that a significant increase in capacity occurs at Prince Rupert so that by the early mid-1980s we can handle a lot more grain there.
His reference to the relationship between United States and China should not be left untouched in view of the fact that Canada long ago recognized the Chinese government. 1 am sure that will stand our relationship, in terms of the grain trade with them, in very good stead; and perhaps even more than that, the Canadian Wheat Board is alert to maintaining the good relationship which it established by having negotiations and transactions with China even before recognition was given by Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad the minister said what he did about our trading relationship with China in view of the fact that on November 7, and again on December 7, the minister advised the House, in response to my questions, that CPR had maintained it had enought equipment to handle the projected grain movement and it is now obvious that CPR misled the minister and has caused him to mislead the House, because on December 5 CPR wrote to the Canadian Wheat Board saying
December 18, 1978

that it would not have enough railway cars to move grain in 1979 and 1980.
In view of the fact the CPR now says it will not have enough cars, will the minister require CPR, under the provisions of section 262 of the Railway Act, to supply sufficient accommodation for this grain movement?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member is misleading the House in suggesting that I thought at any time that CPR had enough equipment. If he would check those answers, I hope he will be good enough to advise the House that I made it clear at the time that I did not necessarily share the view of the CPR which had been put to me about their having enough equipment.
When I saw the letter, not only to the Canadian Wheat Board but an identical letter by the president to me which referred to the shortage of equipment which CPR foresaw for 1979, I began to take immediate action in relation to the question of further cars, and I hope to be able to report further on that soon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope I did not imply, and I certainly did not mean to imply, that the minister misled the House. He passed on information whereby CPR misled him.
In view of the urgent requirement to enlarge our capacity to move grain and to increase grain sales to China, which is being undermined by CPR-in fact, I think they have lied to all of us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -will the minister now give an undertaking that the farmers will not have to pay for up to 2,000 hopper cars tendered for by the Wheat Board, and will he give an undertaking to implement the Hall commission's recommendations regarding the Crowsnest statutory grain rates, so that henceforth the railway will be responsible for providing sufficient equipment to move our grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Those are several major questions which are not really related to the earlier sense of the hon. member's question. 1 did indicate to him that I was taking very seriously the issue of CPR ensuring there is enough equipment later in 1979 and 1 will be able to say more about that at a later date.
Oral Questions
minister may find me somewhat tenacious, but if I am, it is that I still believe in his honesty and therefore that he will solve this case. I also put this question because of the serious unfairness and discrimination this regulation visits upon many farm workers who have never been consulted and who will have to live off welfare if the situation does not change. In fact, only the minister can solve the problem because it stems from regulation 57 on page 124, and is not part of the Unemployment Insurance Act. According to that regulation, a worker has to work 125 full days. As the minister is aware of this, I merely want to ask him when he is going to give us a final answer on this matter. He promised he would look into the situation. That was about a month ago. When will he give us his answer?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we did study regulation 57 and I believe a letter was sent to the hon. member in that regard. Moreover, I am sure consultations were held with farm workers; but 1 shall look into the matter once again, further to the representations of the hon. member.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that consultations were held with the employers. However, none were held with the employees. I looked into the matter myself: today, 90 per cent of all farmers are opposed to that regulation in provincial organizations, and all workers are opposed to it because it is unfair as compared with other industries. That is why I should like to ask the minister whether he can give us a final answer before December 31.


SALMONELLA CONTAMINATION OF TURKEYS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has been reported that as many as 83 per cent of the turkeys being sold in Toronto are contaminated with salmonella. Can the minister tell the House why this contamination is so high, and why no action has been taken by her department to reduce it?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I want to come back once again to regulation 57 under the Unemployment Insurance Act. 1 do so for the fith time; the


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have just received a briefing notice on this. I have only just returned from my constituency and have not had time to study it. I prefer to study this matter and, if I am satisfied that the briefing answers the question fully, I will send a copy to the hon. member.


Paul Yewchuk: Since the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not informed on this matter, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, who is also involved.
About 5,000 cases of salmonella poisoning per year are reported in this country, the largest percentage being in chick-

December 18, 1978
Oral Questions
en and turkey. Will the minister indicate why the percentage of contaminated birds is so high? Also, it has been reported that the percentage is increasing annually. Why is no action being taken to check this increase in contamination of birds as some other countries have done-namely, Denmark and Sweden-and come to grips with the problem?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, supervision of the salmonella problem, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated, is mostly under her jurisdiction. The Department of Agriculture is also concerned about it.
As I am sure the hon. member knows, there are 1,800 different varieties of salmonella. About six or eight kinds can do damage to human beings. We are trying to control this. I am sure the hon. member also knows that the problem starts right at the beginning with the chicken, turkey, or whatever it may be. This is not confined to poultry products; it is in all meat and fish products.
1 am sure the hon. member knows, as well, that it is good kitchen practice to properly clean the board which will be used for cutting up the chicken. The poultry must also be properly cooked. In that way this problem can be eliminated and one will be perfectly safe. You can be perfectly content with the product if you follow proper hygiene. It is a known fact that two out of three persons have this contamination on their hands and can spread it by touching food, and so on.
It is not right to say that any one country has eliminated this problem completely. You could not possibly eliminate it, but you can use every precaution I have mentioned, and that is what we are doing.
* *
*


RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
possible, as the CTC suggests in its report, that because the changes are not as major as might have been thought, they will be easier to implement. I shall be discussing this aspect in particular with VIA and CTC, of course, will now come forward with a final plan after which we will hear from VIA as to whether there are any alternatives requested.
As far as rolling-stock is concerned, VIA has been proceeding in obtaining from CN and CP dedicated passenger rolling-stock and has been going ahead with the refurbishing of passenger cars. As well, the ten trains, the lightweight, rapid, comfortable type are, of course, on order so there is no problem contemplated with relation to implementation in this regard.
Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I gather from what the minister has said that once again the people in Atlantic Canada are expected to go ahead with a new system with old or worked-over equipment.
Can the minister tell us whether or not VIA Rail will be in a position, some time prior to the implementation of the final report, to bring into service the new light, rapid and comfortable type of diesel rail car service to which the minister has alluded?


Otto Emil Lang: The Atlantic provinces will have the same opportunities as Canadians throughout the VIA system to use cars which are improved and rebuilt. I would join the hon. member in seeming to suggest that this is not an important change. However, he will have to agree that Canadians in the Atlantic region can be no further ahead than the rest of Canada with respect to riding in the light, rapid and comfortable trains which are on order.
These trains have been on order for about a year now. They will cost a great deal and will be excellent trains, but we really do need them to be built before even the people in the Atlantic provinces can ride in them. So as soon as they are ready, which will be some time in the mid-1980s, they will be available to the maritimes as well as to other parts of the country.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a non-turkey question for the Minister of Transport. I would not call him a turkey; he is not too bad.
We now have in front of us the preferred plan for eastern transcontinental rail passenger service. While at first blush it seems to provide us with an adequate improvement over existing services, it does give rise to one or two questions. First, the timetable for implementation calls for roughly April, 1979. I wonder whether the minister would indicate to the House what preplanning has taken place up to this point by CN, CP and VIA to put in place the necessary timetables and to order the new type of rolling-stock and other facilities which are strongly recommended in the report?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the date of April 1 is being suggested by the Canadian Transport Commission, but I do not know whether the railways or VIA have yet had a chance to react to it. It may be


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs and follows up an earlier question by the sometimes vocal member for Regina-Lake Centre.
Can the minister say if the historic move to establish diplomatic relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China has any immediate implications for our own relationship with China, and especially our very favourable trade relations at the moment?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I can only repeat what has already been said, that Canada certainly regarded this as a welcome de-
December 18, 1978

velopment. It is positive and follows, by some years, the enlightened policy that was introduced by this government in 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. In view of the increasing harassment being experienced by the Orthodox Doukhobor community at the hands of the Freedomite Doukhobors in the form of arson and threats of arson, is the minister prepared to consider recommending the establishment of a commission of inquiry to examine this problem which has gone unresolved for five generations, costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars and untold damages, police work and prison services?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly consider the hon. member's suggestion and the request he is making. First, however, 1 shall try to ascertain whether this is not a provincial responsibility and whether I should not instead refer this matter to the attorney general of the province concerned. Just the same, I shall consider most seriously the issue raised by the hon. member.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I thank the minister for his answer. I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Solicitor General.
In view of the fact that at this time some 16 homes of members of the Orthodox community of Doukhobors are reported to be on a Freedomite Doukhobor hit-list, and that these home owners are weary from guarding their homes and in fear of their lives, would the minister support the proposal of additional RCMP personnel to be assigned to protect these home owners and others, and to provide increased manpower to the RCMP "D" squad in the Kootenays?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question the hon. member directed to the Minister of Justice and I do not know what relation it bears to the question he has asked of me. However, with reference to his representation, the allocation of members of the RCMP within the province of British Columbia is a matter for the province. It relates to the administration of the RCMP within that province for which the attorney general of the province of British Columbia is responsible.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


UTILIZATION OF GRAIN TERMINALS SEVEN DAYS A WEEK
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and relates to the two questions I asked three weeks ago.
Has the minister received any report as yet from the Board of Grain Commissioners about the utilization of grain terminals seven days a week and about bypassing terminals by putting barley through on final export permits from the country elevators?


Eugene Whelan: Just this morning, Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting with the chairman of the Canadian Grain Commission. He informed me that several of the suggestions made by the hon. member are quite good, but with respect to some of them he is getting a legal interpretation of the act since he does not feel he has the authority to direct the elevators to run seven days a week. Consideration has to be given to such thing as union contracts, hiring extra people, and so on. Apparently there are quite a number of aspects involved in following these suggestions.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, still maintaining the constructive mood which exists between the minister and myself, would the hon. gentleman advise the Board of Grain Commissioners that there was a meeting between labour and management on this subject on July 7, 1975, in Vancouver. The railway unions at that time requested the seven days a week operation. If the Board of Grain Commissioners are informed of this, they will perhaps be in a position to ask more pertinent questions of the grain companies.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners is aware of these facts. He has a slight labour difficulty at the present time, as I am sure the hon. member is aware. If I interpreted the chairman correctly, he does not wish to aggravate the situation. Of course, I take the same stand as the hon. member, that when the need is there and urgency exists, the facilities, whether they be on the farm or off the farm, should be run around the clock.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplemental to one asked of the Minister of Justice by my hon. friend from Kootenay West.
Considering the telegram received from the participants in a mass meeting of Doukhobor communities at Brilliant, B.C., over the weekend protesting that the court proceedings during last week's arson trial at Nelson, B.C., were a complete mockery of our justice system-as was graphically illustrated by CBC coverage on Saturday night during the national

December 18, 1978
Oral Questions
news-is the minister investigating that trial with a view to developing procedures to prevent a recurrence of events during which the Sons of Freedom group gained complete control of the court proceedings?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall certainly refrain from answering in a way which would suggest that I agree with the hon. member's interpretation of these legal proceedings. As the hon. member is certainly aware, the administration comes under the jurisdiction of the province, and if there are specific complaints about the way a trial was carried out in a province, they should be directed to the attorney general of that province who is responsible, as I have said, for the administration of justice within that province.
*
* *


INCREASES IN PRICE OF OIL-EFFECT ON INFLATION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it relates to the inflationary effects of world oil price increases.
In light of OPEC's announcement to increase the price of oil by some 14.5 per cent-I believe that is in terms of American dollars, so the increase will be higher in Canada-and also the government's stated policy to increase the price of domestic oil in July of next year and January of the following year, a 16 per cent increase, can the minister inform the House whether his government has undertaken studies-and, if not, will it undertake studies-to determine the inflationary effects of these oil price increases, particularly on the consumer but also on the competitiveness of Canadian industry, as well as the general drain on federal revenues?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, work which has been done has indicated that if we had gone forward with the $1 a barrel price increase on January 1 which had been the basis of an agreement with Alberta, that particular price movement would have resulted in an increase in the cost of living index over the course of the year of one-half of one per cent. We regarded that as too significant an increase, and that was the reason we renegotiated the agreement with Alberta and postponed the increase which would have taken place.
As a result of the OPEC increase, it is fair to say that other countries will now be hit with the kind of increase we were able to postpone. Indeed, over the period of a year other countries-European countries and Japan in particular-will experience increases of that order or perhaps a little higher.

Our policy has been to protect Canadian consumers and Canadian industry. As a result of the measures we have taken,
I think the hon. member can appreciate that Canadian industry will be more competitive with European industry and Japanese industry and that we will be able to maintain our competitiveness with the United States, because as a result of the OPEC increase Canadian prices will still be below the level which will exist in the United States.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the minister has confirmed only that there will be a postponement. Instead of facing one price increase in January, we will face two in the next year, and as a result of the additional OPEC increase I suggest that prices will rise even higher.
In view of the continuing trend of higher world oil prices and also the commitment the government has given Syncrude that it will receive world prices, has the minister undertaken any special plans to offset our dependence on high-priced, foreign oil? In particular, are there any plans to push for an extension of the natural gas pipeline to eastern Canada, and perhaps an oil pipeline as well, so that we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil and hence the inflationary effects on our economy?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is paraphrasing the policy announcements we have made and acted on over the course of the last six months. The hon. member will recognize that in August of this year we announced that we were going to renegotiate our agreement with Alberta with respect to the proposed oil price increase in January. We have done that successfully.
We also indicated that we were going to try to work out with Alberta a flexible pricing system so that we could increase the market in eastern Canada for Canadian natural gas, and thus displace foreign imported crude which carries a higher price and which is more vulnerable in the sense that the Middle East is a less secure source of energy for the future. Those are measures which we have already taken.
If the hon. member is suggesting that we should not have postponed price increases, let him say so. It has not been at all clear to me how his party feels about this. It has been even less clear how the official opposition feels about the postponement. The last time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: We know how we feel about you, Alastair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


PROPOSED ACTION TO MITIGATE EFFECT OF OIL PRICE INCREASES
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
December 18, 1978

If, as he says, the effects of the oil price increase are inevitable, has the government made any assessment in order to be able to tell us when those effects will be felt? If so, how does the government intend to mitigate these effects, and will the one-price system for oil be maintained in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the one-price system for oil is fundamental to the government's policy, just as the whole process of moving up to international prices in a graduated and manageable way is also fundamental to our policy.
The last time we moved to slow down price increases we were attacked by the opposition as if our action was some kind of an election ploy. It is about time the opposition stood up and told us and the Canadian people where it stands on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


NARCOTICS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
In light of the findings of the British Columbia drug commission according to whose report there has recently been an increase in the use of drugs by high school students in Vancouver, can the minister tell the House whether he has discussed or intends to discuss the issue with the British Columbia attorney general in order to find a solution to the problem?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have not met with the attorney general of British Columbia since my appointment to the justice portfolio. However, I had the opportunity to meet him a few weeks ago on which occasion we had a few words on the issue of drugs in British Columbia, but not specifically on the problem referred to by the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it relates to the Prime Minister's visit to France last week.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister was able to make any headway regarding the idea of a Francophone summit meeting, or whether the government of
Oral Questions
France does not really recognize the Government of Canada as a Francophone government and is insisting that the province of Quebec be represented as the delegate, or member, from North America at any proposed summit meeting before the government of France would agree to participate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot tell the hon. member whether this particular subject matter was raised between the President of France and the Prime Minister, although I do know that their meeting was very constructive.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All two minutes of it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I add, by way of clarification, that the suggestion contained in the latter part of the hon. member's question would be entirely unacceptable to Canada and to my knowledge certainly has not been advanced by France.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Has the minister discussed with the relevant parties in the grain trade the possibility of the government's appointing a grain co-ordinator or somebody who would have jurisdiction to sort out the mess in which grain transportation has found itself in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that subject did come up at the senior transportation meeting which I chaired in Ottawa last week. I think there was a strong feeling among the participants at that meeting that much could be accomplished by some hard-hitting, direct contact in meetings like that, and that that might be preferable to putting another agency in position, even an agency under the name of controller. However, we did agree to meet again early in the new year, and I will certainly keep an open mind regarding the right solution, depending on what progress is made.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that he is favourably disposed to thinking about the whole question or the idea of a grain transportation co-ordinator with the power necessary at least to sort out some of the problems in the grain transportation industry at the present time.
In relation to a grain transportation co-ordinator, when will the minister be prepared to make a statement? What time in January? Will it be in the early part of January, or at the Palliser Wheat Growers' meeting at which 1 understand the minister will be speaking? Is he prepared to make a statement and inform western Canada whether this is a real solution to the problem as he sees it at the present time?
2212

December 18, 1978
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not made up my mind about when to comment on that issue because, obviously, I have not reached a firm conclusion on it. I just told the hon. member that I will be looking at the matter again in an early January meeting when I will meet once again with the senior people involved in grain handling and transportation. It would not likely occur to me to say very much definitively before then.


CUSTOMS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is multibarrelled in that it may affect a number of ministers, but it is directed primarily to the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of State for Small Business, as well as to the Minister of Public Works.
Is it the intention to move the customs training school to the quarters being vacated by the coastguard training school on Walkley Road? The Department of National Revenue has received an eviction notice from the Department of Public Works for the premises in the Daly building, effective the end of December this year. In approximately nine or ten months is it still the intention to move to Rigaud, Quebec, the whole being part of a decentralization program costing some $10 million, the minister having clear evidence that the involved personnel do not want to move from Ottawa and the Walkley facilities being perfectly suitable and ample for their purposes?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not certain of the details of the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: But I certainly know-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Be mean.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -that the school will be moved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: My understanding is that it will be moved to Rigaud. I will leave it at that, rather than try to deal properly with any of the insolent remarks from over there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister will address himself to one of those clear, concise memos, and not only his files, for the benefit of those of us in the House who are interested in the government's program of retrenchment. This would mean a saving of $10 million in the coming year.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am able to get the information from my office before it is stolen by someone opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That is a mean thing to say.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who is always designated in Hansard and in other places as the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
On November 30, a press release originating from his department used a terminology little known to date, namely that of Minister of Fisheries and the Oceans.
Is the minister prepared to tell the House what could justify this change and would he give an explanation as to the legal basis of such a terminology?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact legal implications the hon. member is alluding to in his question. I will have to look into that matter. I was told there was no objection to use unofficially one title instead of the other.
I must say that if the hon. member refers to first reading of the legislation splitting the Department of Environment, he will note that its intent was precisely to give that title to the new department, namely "Fisheries and Oceans". Besides, it is to pinpoint the real autonomy, if not in the still official statute, of the minister responsible for environment in relation to myself and to indicate that separation between the two, that those two titles are used.
I must say that the new bill setting up the new department went last week to the legislation committee of the Privy Council, and I hope my colleague will present it within the next few days.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-IIes-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
In order to avoid another sizeable, and perhaps even the total disappearance of air transport services in the Magdalen Islands by the carrier Eastern Provincial Airways, could the
December 18, 1978

minister tell us whether a decision has been taken or will soon be taken as to the request for subsidies for that service by Eastern Provincial Airways for the next financial year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to communicate that information very soon to the airlines providing service in that area. I share the hon. member's concern to ensure that, indeed, service is continued.


RAILWAYS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. My understanding is that the minister has had in his office since November 30 a report from the Prairie Rail Action Committee-known as PRAC-which sources indicate contains a recommendation for the abandonment of 60 per cent of the 2,400 miles of line which it studied.
Can the minister inform the House when he intends to make that report public so that farmers will know whether the lines they utilize will be axed or safeguarded within the basic network?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, indeed I have the final report from the Prairie Rail Action Committee. In the earlier cases, a good number of its decisions came in single report form and we were able to take our own decisions regarding them and announce them fairly quickly. In this particular case the report is very comprehensive, including all of the remaining lines under consideration by the Prairie Rail Action Committee. Also, it includes very extensive documentation on the manner in which the committee proceeded and the theoretical basis upon which it approached each line.
We are analysing it for our own purposes in order to decide what we have to do; in addition, we are in the process of printing the report. It will be made public and the decisions will be announced as soon as the printed report is available.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Last Friday, the Government of Canada and the government of the province of Manitoba signed an agreement for agricultural development. We have had similar agreements under PFRA, especially in the interlake region. Many of us have attempted to obtain an agreement for southeastern Manitoba to have agricultural
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk
development go forward in that area. I understand southeastern Manitoba was included in the agreement. When is the agreement to take effect? What specific proposals are being made in the agreement regarding agricultural development?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the agreement takes effect April 1. That is why the signing took place the other day in Ottawa between myself, the minister in charge of DREE and the minister of agriculture for the province of Manitoba.
The province and the federal government will be spending approximately $9 million for drainage programs, diking, etc. That will include the part of the province of Manitoba to which the hon. member referred. The agreement is over a dozen pages long. It outlines each area for crop research, forage research, livestock testing programs, etc. It is quite a detailed agreement. I would think it is a public document and that it can be made available to the hon. member for study.


PRIVILEGE
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a matter of great importance and urgency which reflects unfavourably on all members of this House.
On Friday last, representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood and of the maritime Indian chiefs had a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson), since the minister did not have the time to meet with them. The meeting was cut short by the division bells at 3.30 p.m. and an arrangement was made to reconvene on Tuesday to continue the discussions. As the Indian representatives were leaving the parliamentary secretary's office, words were uttered which the delegation found offensive. The words were as follows:
Maybe when we meet next Tuesday, you can wear your feathers.
The Indian representatives felt this was a racial slur against them and an insult to all Indian people in this country, and that these words were unbecoming of a member of this House. They have asked me to raise this matter in the House on a question of privilege in order to give the member or perhaps the minister a chance to retract that statement and to apologize to the Indian people as well as to members in this House.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot prejudge what my parliamentary secretary has said or has not said. Hence I will let him clarify himself this part of the question. However, I can assure the House that the first part of the statement of the

December 18, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Parker
hon. member for Athabasca is untrue. I have never refused to meet the Indian chiefs. In fact, I talked to them Thursday afternoon and the hon. member was there. I had twenty minutes with them at the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs where a kind of filibuster was organized.
The Indian chiefs of the Atlantic provinces arrived in Ottawa on Thursday, after sending me a telegram late Monday. It was the first time I ever heard of their visit and 1 answered right away, indicating that unfortunately on Thursday my schedule was extremely full and that I preferred that our representatives meet first to make a good analysis of the question and, of course, I assured them that I would meet with them personally afterward. I proposed to go to the maritimes myself instead of having them come to Ottawa, at a cost of some $9,000 since it is the most elementary courtesy from a minister to her Canadian constituents. I wanted to make that clear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised by way of a question of privilege a complaint that has come to his attention from a body which, of course, is not a party in the House. I would have very grave doubts about the procedural basis for this matter. I should think it would require some sort of conduct on the part of a member which would in some way bring the whole House of Commons into disrepute. If it is simply a matter of some sensibility on the part of any group, whether or not that sensibility is well founded-and I am not commenting on the sensibility of that group as that is not the point-I have to deal with the matter only on a procedural ground.
Upon reflection it may be, since the hon. member has raised the point, that the member or parliamentary secretary involved may want to examine what has taken place and consider whether any statement, either here in the House or privately to the group involved, may be in order or appropriate. But on procedural grounds it would appear to me that it would be a great extension of a question of privilege as we understand it to bring this matter within the bounds of a question of privilege. I will not make that final determination until there has been an opportunity for a response by the parliamentary secretary.


MR PARKER-REPLY OF MINISTER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to a remark by the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) during the question period. I do not have the exact quote but I believe he referred to the theft of documents from his office by members opposite, unspecified. I am very new in this chamber, but it seems to me that kind of accusation unfairly impugns the reputation and practices of members on this side of the House. I would ask that the minister either clarify his remark, make a specific charge if he has one in mind, or withdraw the remark entirely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Like the hon. member, I will have to examine the record. I did not have the impression that what the minister said at the time was unparliamentary in nature, but again I will look at the record to determine whether it was or not.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, a report on the classification audit in the national capital area and the non-national capital area.

[ Translation]


JUDGES ACT
Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, to authorize the granting of an immediate annuity to the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Raymond Morand.


[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. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 178, 258 and 552.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,853 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament which states in part: "Clerks, typists, stenographers, secretaries may use any classification stamp or seal provided they have been properly cleared and are acting under the direction of a person authorized to classify information", what are the names of all persons in each department who have authorization to give such directions to staff members regarding classification of documents as "top secret", "secret", "confidential", "most secret", etc.?
December 18, 1978


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171(a), (b), (c) and (d).


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Auditor General's Office and what amount was each paid per year?


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.


Mr. Hare: 1.	What is the income from the tax on insulated steel, one-door systems?
2.	What would the income be if all storm doors were not exempted from the federal sales tax?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1.
Revenue is not recorded in a manner which permits identification of the sales tax paid on this product.
2. This information is not available.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House is aware that there are 31 motions on the order paper at report stage of Bill C-14. I have closely studied all of these motions and should indicate now to the House that I have procedural reservations concerning five of them, specifically motions Nos. 11, 12, 27, 30 and 31. As has been my practice in the past, I will give an indication now, in a preliminary way, of the reasons for my reservations. Then, depending on progress in respect of the bill, I hope I will have an opportunity to give the proponents of
Unemployment Insurance Act
those motions the opportunity of trying to persuade me otherwise, following which I will make an adjudication in respect of these motions in a procedural way so the House will be aware as early as possible of the manner of dealing with these, and will be in a position to plan its business for the remainder of its consideration at this stage.
As I have done in the past, I have asked that a copy of my own notes in respect of this decision at this time be distributed to House leaders. My own notes are prepared for me and my use in the chair in English, but where relevant I have asked that a rough copy in French be prepared for those members who may be involved and who may be more at ease in French than in English.
Perhaps I could indicate the motions, and there are several, that ought to be debated and voted on separately. They are motions 1, 2, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23 and 29. Those eight motions in my view ought to be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 3 and 4 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately. An affirmative vote on motion No. 3 would obviate the taking of any vote on No. 4. Motions Nos. 6 and 7 would be grouped for debate and a vote on No. 6 would obviate the necessity of a vote on motion No. 7. Motions Nos. 5, 8, 9 and 10 should be grouped for debate. Motion No. 5, I believe, is in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour). Motions 8, 9 and 10 are in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Motion No. 5 will be voted on separately. With respect to the other three motions, we will vote on motion No. 10 first, as the result of the vote may eliminate the necessity of voting on motions Nos. 8 and 9.
Motions Nos. 13 and 15 will be combined for debate. An affirmative vote on motion No. 13 would obviate the necessity of a vote on motion No. 15. Similarly, motions Nos. 17 and 18 should be debated together, with an affirmative vote on No. 17 obviating the necessity of a vote on No. 18. The same holds true with motions Nos. 19 and 20, motions Nos. 24 and 25 and motions Nos. 26 and 28. Those pairings of motions will be grouped for discussion with a vote on the motion to delete in each case ruling out the necessity of a subsequent vote on the motion to amend.
With respect to motions Nos. 11, 12, 27, 30 and 31 1 have reservations on procedural grounds. Motions Nos. 11, 27 and 30 clearly seek to amend the parent act in a way that was not envisaged by the amending bill. In each of these cases the very language of the motions directs us beyond the amending statute into the parent bill and is contrary to the citation in May's nineteenth edition at page 521, paragraph (l)(d).
Motion No. 12 is defective in that it proposes to amend more than one clause. It poses for the House the procedural impossibility of amending two clauses in a bill by one motion. I would direct the House to Standing Order 75(5) which states, in part:
-written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill-

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Elon. members will note that the word "clause" is singular. I would also like to refer hon. members to a statement made by my very distinguished predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, on June 20, 1969 at page 1218 of the Journals which reads:
It appears each motion at the report stage should actually be directed to a specific clause of a bill rather than a number of clauses. Such motions, I submit, should not relate to two or more clauses.
Motion No. 12 is therefore defective in that it seeks to amend two clauses and clearly flies in the face of that precedent.
Finally, motion No. 31 is out of order on the ground that it does not make a date certain, either by royal assent, proclamation or date fixed, for the act to come into force. The hon. member, it seems to me, has made a very sporting attempt in motion No. 31, by a very imaginative approach, to put a condition precedent in front of the coming into force of the act. I am not saying that that is impossible, but that if it is attempted the effect of it has to be that the act still comes into force on a date which can be fixed. I would think that the hon. member, being a strong proponent of the argument that unemployment rates are not agreed upon in this Elouse, will agree that the formula for finding an agreed upon rate of employment would be quite an achievement in itself. Even if that were to be agreed upon, it still does not lead us to a certain hour on a certain date when the conditions would be fulfilled and upon which the act would come into force. Whatever the effect of a proclamation clause, it must lead to a date which can be fixed with certainty so that all the world knows exactly the moment the law comes into force.
For those reasons, I would say these motions are procedurally unacceptable to the Chair. Each proponent, if he so wishes, may try to persuade me otherwise. I do not expect that they would be prepared to do so at this moment, but since we do not come to one of these troubled motions until we have debated the first ten motions, perhaps they could be debated at that time. I presume we will take the greater part of today on those ten motions. If we do not, however, it would not be inconvenient to the House, upon the calling of this measure tomorrow, if it is the government's intention to so call it, to give the proponents time to put their procedural arguments, whereupon I could rule at that time as to whether or not the matter ought to stand and be considered as part of the discussion on the report stage of this bill, or whether it will be set aside.
If there is no serious objection to my proposal, I suggest that the House move now to the consideration of motion No. 1. The next day that this bill is called, at the beginning of the debate, I would call the hon. members who put these motions to put their arguments. I would try to make a ruling as soon as they have completed their discussion, and let the rest of the debate proceed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on one point relating to your suggestion, I would advise the House that it will be the intention of the government to call this bill tomorrow and on whatever remaining days are required to pass it. I notice the very large number of amendments, and I would indicate to the House that it would be agreeable to the government, in order

to give hon. members additional time to debate this important item of legislation, to have additional hours of sitting during this week.
Finally, may I seek clarification as to whether it would be the practice, when the debate, for example, on motion No. 1 is completed, to call the vote at that point, or would we call the votes when a number of motions have been finished?


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding that we would follow the practice which we have in the past, that is, to enter into the discussion of some of these motions and at a time when we have covered enough of them that a vote might be arranged, or when it is convenient for the House, or, failing that, when I thought that a number of votes might be called, we would deal with them.
I understand that one of the motions which I have ruled aside on procedural grounds stands in the name of the government, motion No. 11. In respect to that motion, there may be a desire to deal with it in some way, even if ultimately after argument it is found to be a new amendment to the bill. I understand there may be a disposition to deal with it and let it continue on some consent. Since we now have the assurance that the bill will be called tomorrow, I think we ought to deal with it in a final way at that time.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 simply wish to support the suggestion you have made that we might defer the first four, five or six votes until we reach a convenient time. In other words, there is no point in taking a vote immediately after motion No. 1. I also would indicate our approval of the proposal that the procedural debates might take place tomorrow. Only one of the five concerns us in this party, but it would seem logical to have all the arguments at the same time.
As to extended hours, perhaps we should wait to see what happens.


Mr. Lavoie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like some information, as I am not used to the procedure regarding the introduction of amendments to legislation I would like to propose an amendment to Bill C-14 and I would appreciate if the Chair could tell me when I can do so.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) proposed motion No, 27. I indicated that there was some problem regarding this motion and I said that, if possible and if it is agreed, I would prefer to hear tomorrow the arguments of each member who has proposed a motion. There are five such members, including the member for Hochelaga, who has proposed motion No. 27. I have the impression that the hon. member for Hochelaga is now asking for a ruling regarding the motion that he intends to propose during debate. Is he referring only to motion No. 27?
December 18, 1978


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the number you mention corresponds to the order in which the motions are to be discussed. The motion that I proposed and that I gave to the clerk concerns clause 14 of Bill C-14. Obviously, it relates strictly to that. If it is not possible to discuss these amendments today, and if it is possible tomorrow or the day after, I will simply discuss them at that time, Mr. Speaker. That is all I wanted to know.


Mr. Speaker:: It must be clarified that there are two points to be considered in motion No. 27 from the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie). I indicated that we would discuss the procedural matter tomorrow at three o'clock. Then, after that, we will start the discussion on the substance after other discussions.

I would therefore propose at this stage to proceed with the discussion on motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) (for Mr. Leggatt) moved:: That Bill C-14, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting clause 1.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have proposed this amendment to delete clause 1. From the moment the minister announced on September 1, 1978, that he intended to tighten up the Unemployment Insurance Act and sketchily outlined the areas in which he was going to move, this party went on record as saying the minister was distracting attention away from the real issue that is evident in this country, and that unemployment insurance was not unemployment insurance but employment insurance. That is the issue.
I recall turning on the television set on September 1 to watch the national news. There was the minister in full living colour telling how he was going to tighten up the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then came the Conservative party spokesperson, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), on the television set telling us that this bill moves in the right direction but does not go far enough. He talked about moving to the right with the Unemployment Insurance Act and put the Conservatives on record in what they want to do, that is, move beyond what the minister announced on September 1.
When we examined the bill that the minister brought down, and particularly that section of the act it proposed to amend, we concluded that this was a vicious and discriminatory bill. We pointed out the clauses which we feel are discriminatory and those which are vicious. We consistently tried to pin the minister down on the rationale behind the bill. He told us it was the government's perspective that the public thinks people are ripping off unemployment insurance. The minister was looking for a scapegoat in order to regain popular public support for the government and hit on the people who are collecting unemployment insurance as the people who are ripping off the system.
Unemployment Insurance Act
To set the stage, the minister placed $150,000 worth of advertisements across the country which say, in effect, that such and such a person who is collecting unemployment insurance has his hand in the taxpayers' pockets. He created an atmosphere in which those people who are working feel that those who are collecting unemployment insurance are indeed sticking their hands in the workers' pockets.
The minister then conducted a survey to find out if the advertisements were effective, and as you might expect the results showed the public perception to be that those who were collecting unemployment insurance were doing so illegally and were rip-off artists.
This party has never avoided saying that the unemployment insurance program suffers from a percentage of rip-off. It is no greater than the percentage of doctors who rip off the medical insurance program, however, and no greater than the percentage of lawyers who rip off legal aid schemes. It is simply comparable to any other social program in our society.
The minister brought in Bill C-14 on the basis of perceptions gleaned from a survey probably taken in areas where the advertisements had been placed in some density. Apart from the Conservatives, who supports the minister in these conclusions? Mr. Speaker, you will shortly see one of the greatest performances ever seen without a stage. You will see the Conservative party in the House swallow itself.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is smiling at me. 1 hope he will continue to smile as they rise to his eyeballs.
Who supports the minister in this attack on the unemployed other than the Conservative party? No one else but the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. They came before the committee which was studying this bill. By the way, only nine witnesses were heard on this bill. The manufacturers appeared before the committee to support the moves the minister was making in the bill. They urged the minister to go even further on some amendments. Who appeared for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to give witness that night but the vicepresident of the International Nickel Company, Frank Burnett. How Inco fits into the CMA is completely beyond me. Moreover, I do not know what Inco has done lately to create employment in this country. It seems to me they have helped to put people on the very unemployment insurance program which they came before the Commons committee to tell members of parliament to tighten up.
What was their argument for supporting the bill? I want to quote from the brief they presented in which they said:
Because of the extent of unemployment among young people and women, we suspect that over 50 per cent of claimants come from households and families where there is more than one wage earner.
They are saying that overwhelmingly people on unemployment insurance do not need it because they can pool the family

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
income. Where are the figures to support that argument? They were tall on statements but very short on programs.
Who else supported the minister on this bill? The Canadian Construction Association came before the committee. What did they have to say? Their contribution was some of the most unadulterated garbage that has ever been presented to a Commons committee. When we take a look at the friends in the minister's corner, we should all tremble with fear in this country. They said:
What is probably the most serious problem of all-
They are talking about the unemployment insurance program.
-is the impact on moral and social values. This is particularly evident among young people. The ease with which they are able to achieve a satisfactory way of living supported by long-term unemployment insurance is becoming increasingly popular and widespread amongst large numbers of young people. It is difficult to measure the price that our country will pay for this deterioration of values. Our society cannot stand further deterioration of moral standards.
There is not one shred of evidence to support this garbage. This is the kind of support the minister has in his corner. Perhaps that is why he was led the other night, in an unguarded moment in the committee last week, to accuse the young people, in Cape Breton specifically, of sitting with their thumbs in their mouths, of being thumbsuckers. He said:
I just cannot understand the thinking of the New Democratic Party ... that we are forcing young people to move around this country.
Now, is that not just too bloody bad! That is the best thing that could ever happen to this country! I hope to hell they move all over the country!
We heard that suggestion before, that young people not only move around this country but that they move beyond the borders of Canada to look for work. The fact is that there are no jobs for young people to move to. It was thought that they could move to Alberta, that Alberta is now the Valhalla of employment opportunities. But that situation has changed. It is not so now. Even the minister's own department of manpower is refusing, for example, in Thompson, Manitoba, to relocate people from the Sudbury basin, even though Inco had hired people to go there from Sudbury. But lo and behold, the manpower office in Thompson will not relocate them. As a matter of fact, I have just drafted a letter to the minister with respect to that matter.
Who else is in the minister's corner, apart from the Conservative party in this House, the CMA, and the CCA, who said the following in their brief:
As the result of the Public Attitude Survey-September 1975-
Now we are legislating by public attitude.
-sixty per cent of Canadians felt that the eight weeks minimum entrance requirement is too short and that an entrance requirement of about six months would be more appropriate.
That is from the "Highlights of the Comprehensive Review" of the minister's own department, what was called the public attitude survey. So why not six years, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) suggests, or why not eternity? Or why not until the unemployment rate drops to 4 per cent? That would be even further into the future than eternity, if it is conceivable at all.
Who else is in the minister's corner? None other than the Canadian Federation of Small Business who sent me a telegram saying that they carried out a survey among their members and found that 95 per cent of them supported Bill C-14.
We see lined up on the side of the minister the Conservative party, who is supposed to be the official opposition in the House, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Construction Association and the Canadian Federation of Small Business. Who else do we see there? We see the Canadian Chamber of Commerce right smack in the minister's corner.
Who is on the opposite side? Who is saying to the minister that unemployment insurance is not the problem? None other than the Economic Council of Canada. In their 1976 report under the section headed, "People and Jobs", they said the following, and I want to quote it because it seems to me that it puts the whole matter into context. They have garnered the facts and analysed them and come to what I think would be some legitimate conclusions. They said:
We have looked closely at the provisions of the unemployment insurance system, as revised in 1971. We believe the system is comprehensive and generous by any standards and, as a second line of defence against financial hardship and income security, it has gone a long way towards eliminating poverty in this country .. . It-
The unemployment insurance program.
-has the effect, it may be argued, of transferring to persons most prone to involuntary unemployment, many of whom have less than average education, some of the income security that others now enjoy as a result of past public transfers of wealth implicit in the education and training systems.
It concludes as follows:
-It would, of course, be possible to try to eliminate abuses by cutting certain categories of claimants or the duration of benefits, or by extending the period of work before claimants become eligible for benefits. But such recommendations could prove harmful to persons most exposed to periodic and genuinely involuntary unemployment. . . For this reason we believe that much of the problem of abuse of unemployment insurance could be solved by two methods-by tightening administrative methods to get persons back to work, and by creating jobs to absorb them.
That has been the cry of those who have lined up against the minister and this vicious and discriminatory Bill C-14.
Who else is lined up against the minister on this bill? The following telegram was received by members of the committee:
The poverty task force of the United Church of Canada is opposed to any reduction in unemployment insurance benefits. The reductions of 1976 have already gone too far. We are also opposed to increases in entrance requirements. Fourteen weeks of work in the current qualifying period is more than enough. We don't believe that the rationale for discontinuing coverage to people who work under 20 hours per week as described in information paper 1 released by Employment and Immigration Canada makes a case. It's hard to comprehend these proposed amendments at a time when the unemployed number over a million.
Rev. Robert Lindsey, Associate Secretary, Division of Mission in Canada,
United Church of Canada.
When that was brought to the minister's attention in committee, he made the facetious remark that he would speak to his pastor or to the United Church because that is where he
{Mr. Rodriguez.]
December 18, 1978

goes. He said he would have a chat with them. That is the way this government handles opposition; it has a chat.
Something that irks me about Bill C-14 is not so much what is in the bill but the way in which the government has handled it. Have you ever seen this government bring in legislation with regard to the corporations in this country? 1 was on the finance committee when Bill C-16, the Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act, was brought before it. I have seen amendments and changes to the Bank Act. This government would not bring in any changes which affect the way corporations do business in this country without first consulting them for their opinions and ideas.
When Bill C-14 was before the committee, there were witnesses who had some knowledge of unemployment insurance. In fact, they deal with the Unemployment Insurance Act almost every day of their lives. When asked, they told us that they had not been consulted about these changes.
The CLC was never consulted and neither was the CSN of Quebec. The National Union of Students and its counterpart in Quebec were not consulted on the contents of this bill. The government's own Advisory Council on the Status of Women was not consulted. The government should have advised that group what they were contemplating and asked for their opinion. However, they were not consulted at all.
The height of pomposity was the minister saying it was not up to them to consult but that the government should be consulted. It is not up to these organizations to consult the government. The government would never act in that way with regard to the corporate sector of this country.
We asked whether the government had consulted with the trade union movement because the bill specifically affected the subplans and the wage loss plans the unions had negotiated with employers. The deputy minister said they did not consult them. When we asked if the government was going to consult them, he said they would if they were asked. I have never seen such autocracy. I have never seen such-what is the word I am looking for?


An hon. Member:: Liberals.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. They have acted like Liberals with regard to this bill. They do not consult with anybody; the people must consult with them. Not even the dictators of Latin America act that way. I know the minister will get up and plead innocent to a lot of what I have said.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand we are dealing with motion No. 1 which reads:
That Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting clause 1.
The hon. member's diatribe, most of it not based on fact, may be appropriate for second reading or third reading. However, when dealing with a specific motion that the clause be deleted, the hon. member's comments do not have any relevance.
Unemployment Insurance Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. minister's point of order is well taken. I ask the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to stick to the motion under consideration.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was speaking to the bill. Clause 1 of the bill reads:
(1) Paragraph 2(1 )(r) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(f) "Minister" means the Minister of Employment and Immigration
except in parts IV and VIII;"
As this is the minister of employment, I am right on the clause I am talking about. We have looked at this bill. It is important to get the thrust of what the government is trying to do on clause 1. We want to have it deleted. If it is deleted, the rest of the bill will become meaningless.
As I was saying, there was no consultation on clause 1 or any other clause. The minister cannot get up in this House later and say there was consultation because he admitted in committee there was none. There was no consultation with the provinces. In fact, the provinces have worked out what their costs will be under their welfare programs if Bill C-14 is carried.
A great debate began between the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and the provincial welfare ministers with regard to whose figures were right. What they did was typical. They set up a federal-provincial committee to study whose figures were right. Emanating from the provincial welfare ministers, and touted by the Tories, the lackeys in the House of Commons, was a two-tier system.
There was no consultation with the provincial ministers and no consultation with the trade union movement on clause 1 or any other clause. In fact, the Steelworkers of America pointed out they had several hundred contracts which were tied to the maximum unemployment insurance benefit. Lo and behold, in one fell swoop this minister says that collective agreements do not count. The government can cut right through to the heart of it, cutting right through collective agreements.
We found out that could mean up to $17 a week in 1979-1980 under a collective agreement agreed to by workers and their employers. When they have a strike, the government will turn around and say that is what happens when you take off wage controls. The government is inciting workers into a situation where they will be developing bad relations between the employers and employees. What did the minister and deputy minister say in committee about that issue? They said that when the contract comes up for renegotiation, they can renegotiate a new figure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member get back to the terms of the debate and speak to motion No. 1.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was no consultation whatsoever on clause 1. Having given the background to the bill and what transpired in committee, I would like to make clear the lines that have been drawn in this debate. It is the government and the official opposition that are pushing
2220

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
this bill. This party, the party of right, justice, goodness and light, is opposing Bill C-14. I should get a little applause for that!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Clause 1 has a connection to clause 14, which talks about taxing back unemployment insurance benefits. In effect, it dandies up the language which allows clause 14 to take effect. What is the government arguing with respect to taxing back? They are saying, in effect: People who are wealthy should be prepared to pay back benefits via the income tax provisions; they should be prepared to pay back the benefits or part of the benefits they have received under unemployment insurance. So they have introduced this formula of 1.5 times the average annual insured earnings. That is what is proposed and it works out to around $18,700 for next year. That is what they are calling an excessive amount of earnings; if you are getting that much or go above it, you will have to pay back a percentage of benefits.
It just so happens, Mr. Speaker, that the metro Toronto social planning council came out the other day with the latest figures showing that there is a $1,150 jump in costs affecting a family of five. Such a family would have to earn a taxable income of $14,450, or $12,170 after tax. The poverty level in metropolitan Toronto therefore, for a family of five, is now $12,170 after tax. But the government wants to tax it back as soon as income reaches $18,000 or over.
We in this party have said this is a phony approach. When the provinces proposed a two-tier system and the provincial Tory premiers got their lackeys in the House of Commons to push it forward, we heard the minister say that it took away the insurance principles from the program. What does he think clause 1 does, Mr. Speaker, if it does not take away the insurance principle? Those people at the top of the earning scale, paying the same premiums for the coverage, are going to find their benefits have been taxed back. That is not an insurance scheme, Mr. Speaker; that is breaking with the insurance principle which the minister has touted time and again during debate in committee on this bill.
That was the argument he used against the Conservative party when they proposed a two-tier system. We say this is really a prop; if you want to go about with this sort of game, taxing people who are making a lot of money in this country, why not revise the Income Tax Act? I have been around here participating in debate, sometimes at great length, on the income tax program. But what has been done? It seems to me the principle the government is following is to take from those who earn a lot from this country. They ought to get into the whole question of revising the progressive income tax system so that as people earn more they are expected to pay more income tax. That is why we argued so vigorously against the loopholes, the RHOSP, the RRSP and the various other ways the government allows those who are wealthy in this country to escape paying their fair share of taxes. It seems to me a

worth-while project for the government to embark upon would be to set up a just tax program so that those who earn most from the economy are taxed accordingly.
It seems to me this clause is the thin edge of the wedge. The next step will be consideration of family income. If a family's income is over, say, $22,000, the government will want to tax back. This is the new game which is being played by the government. That was the thin edge of the two-tier proposal made by the Conservatives-to take family income into consideration.
We have heard some very persuasive argument by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) against the whole concept of using family income to determine what persons will get under any kind of social program introduced. That is what the minister is proposing to do though. That is where they are headed with this proposal, it seems. I can just imagine the bureaucratic red tape which would be involved. Already the unemployment insurance program is a very tough one with respect to administrative detail. Large numbers of those receiving unemployment insurance do not have the educational background to understand what is involved. That is why members of parliament often become advocates for constituents on unemployment insurance. We have tried to bring this point home in the past when we dealt with Bill C-69 and Bill C-27, which was an erosion of the 1971 Mackasey agreement. God bless his soul; he is now up there with the chairmen-


An hon. Member:: He won his war with poverty!


John R. Rodriguez: Yes. After bringing in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 he has gone on to his just reward-to be chairman of the board.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is flying up there in the clouds, now.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we brought the point home to the minister and his officials that the act is very complicated and bureaucratic. What the amendment before us will do is to superimpose on an already very complicated act an involvement by the income tax department. People who dispute what has been deducted will have to appeal under the Income Tax Act. So there will be two appeal authorities to be dealt with, the Income Tax Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, and, as I said before, this will affect people who have very basic concepts about the way in which the unemployment insurance program works. In that shuffle I am sure many people will be hurt.
How much is the minister proposing to get out of this tax back clause? In all of Canada, $9 million. What about the hundreds of thousands of people who have paid premiums to get coverage? If they go on benefit their premiums are not reduced. If the minister wanted to extend this principle of insurability he ought to have established a ratio between the amounts paid by people who are taxed back and the premiums they should pay, but he has eschewed such a principle. It is unfair. I will tell you what it is, Mr. Speaker: it is grand larceny. Because people have no choice but to contribute to the
December 18, 1978

program. It has, in effect, become a tax. That is what it is, and I wish the minister would cut out all this flim-flammery. If he is going to tax the people and take back so much from them through income tax, why does he not come right out and say it? Why is he playing all these "here we go around the mulberry bush" games? In the harshest language I can think of, the minister is perpetrating grand larceny.
This government should be taken on the carpet for this. It is saying to people that they must come in, they must belong and they cannot escape. Unemployment insurance premiums are compulsory. They are deducted at source. That is not a matter of choice. People pay premiums thinking they will receive maximum benefits related to the amount of money they pay per $100 of insured earnings. Lo and behold, when the time comes to collect, there is the minister with his hat trying to collect $9 million. He is stealing $9 million from Canadians, and I wish he would come clean and tell the Canadian people that that is exactly what he is doing.
We have said in a very serious way that the overrun in the unemployment insurance program does not exist on the employer and employee account. What employers and employees pay carries the program for what it was designed to do. The overrun on the program is carried on the government account. Last year that overrun was $1.8 billion. That was the accumulated deficit on the government account, and that is where the minister is having difficulty. That money comes from the coffers of the country directly. It is costing the government. The minister wants to indulge in some fiscal legerdemain and slip this over to the employer and employee side of the ledger sheet so that he will look good in the eyes of the public. Here is a tough minister. Look how tough he is. He has really cracked down on the unemployment insurance program.


An hon. Member:: He is not tough; he is nasty.


John R. Rodriguez: The minister does not talk tough, he talks nasty, and in light of some of the quotes I read into the record, his mouth should be washed with soap. Back in the old country where I come from my mother would wash my mouth with soap if I used the language this minister of the Crown used. It was a totally shameful display. He used such words as "bloody" and "hell". I think that is disgraceful. He may think that is flamboyant language, but the people of Nickel Belt do not think that at all.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Those genteel miners.


John R. Rodriguez: We think the minister is blustering. If he is trying to speak to the people of Nickel Belt, he should speak more clearly. His language is certainly not becoming.
In conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I see that Libera! backbenchers now have the claps.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I think we have put forward an admirable proposal. We have said that clause 1 should be deleted. Hopefully that would result in the deletion of clause 4. As a matter of fact, we are hoping that we can extrapolate the plausibility of our proposal to the whole bloody bill.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Dawson:: Soap!


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, pardon me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member watch his language in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I listened to your reprimand and I know that, being an old railroader, you will certainly understand that my language was most intemperate.
We are suggesting that clause 1 should be deleted. In all the hearings of the committee the minister accepted none of the propositions put forward by the opposition-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, today is just like last week in the committee. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has again used all his time. There were about 34 committee meetings over the last few weeks, during which time I was afraid that I might end up being brainwashed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: No problem with that.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: It took a great deal of adherence to my principles to avoid having some of his garbage rub off. The hon. member for Nickel Belt spoke about garbage coming from members from other corners of the House in the committee, but there was a full share of unmitigated garbage coming from the dreamers on my left, who seem to think that this country does not need any taxpayers. They seem to think that all we need is unemployment insurance beneficiaries.
If there were any provisions in this bill which might have the effect of cutting anyone's benefits, we would be sure to hear from the hon. member for Nickel Belt or one of his rotating army of colleagues who came into the committee to keep us amused. It was interesting that when the time came for the committee's procedures finally to wind down, the hon. member for Nickel Belt sat there by himself and exercised his vote. His rotating army had taken off for greener fields or dreamier pastures. I do not know where they went.


An hon. Member:: We are entitled to only one vote.
80067-69V2

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: They may be entitled to only one vote, but in that committee we saw how NDP tactics for delaying things work. Some of us who were there had somewhat higher motives than those of the NDP.


An hon. Member:: Get a halo.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: If there is any question about the motives of the NDP, I think we need only refer back to November 10 when this bill was referred to the committee. We heard no objections from the NDP. As a matter of fact, I do not think any member of the NDP was here that day.


An hon. Member:: What about the Tories?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The Tories were here that day. They were anxious to get this bill into committee so that it could be given the detailed examination which only a committee could give to it. I think 34 committee meetings should be adequate to allow that kind of study. I think it is obvious that the NDP wants to continue its delaying tactics. One tactic is to move to delete clause 1, which sounds innocent enough, but it would subvert the whole bill.
I want to state why it is the intention of my party not to support motion No. 1. It is the stated intention of my party, and has been for some time, to support restraint on the part of the government. Speaking for my party in the second reading debate, I said that this bill was a step in the right direction, but we do not like the minister's proposals, and I think that probably became obvious when we opposed the bill in committee. However, we have hopes, and the amendments proposed by members of my party should indicate that we hope that the government will see the light before this debate ends. It is our intention to re-submit our amendments at this stage.
I want to say a word about why we oppose this motion and about what complaints we have regarding the government's methods. We will be debating our proposals fully as we proceed with this debate, but it is obvious to us that the minister made proposals which would not strike at the problem which we and the public perceive to be present in the unemployment insurance system. The minister's proposals are more inequitable than we would like them to be.
As a national party my party was able to accept proposals made by three provincial ministers on behalf of all the provinces and territories. It is worth noting that included therein were the agreements of the New Democratic Party province and of the Liberal party province. I do not think there is anything unusual in the national Progressive Conservative party seeking to agree with six provincial Progressive Conservative governments. It demonstrates that we as a party can work on a national basis to put forth ideas for which there was agreement. The proposals put forward by the provinces were a fairer method of solving the problem of unemployment insurance inequities.
The scope of the bill does not allow for many of the inequities. As I have said many times, it is unfair that many

Canadians who are not entitled to benefits under the unemployment insurance system must nevertheless contribute to what I call the deficit and to what the minister calls a commitment. One can call it what one wants, but it costs taxpayers approximately $2 billion every year. Hard working, self-employed Canadians and those retired on pension are not entitled to benefits under the scheme, yet they are required to pay into the deficit. We do not think that is fair.
Members of the New Democratic Party talk about their labour friends and how angry they are about the cutbacks. There are working people in my riding, as well as a lot of people concerned with labour. The view of labour organizations does not surprise me-that some of their members will lose benefits. The majority of working Canadians realize that they pay not only through payroll deduction but also toward the $2 billion deficit. They do not like that fact, and they do not think it is fair. The abuses are well known to workers. In fact, they are probably better known to the workers of the country than to many of us in the House. The proposals of the government will not be effective in getting at the people who need to be curbed in order to make this scheme an insurance one.
The government's proposals will load an unfair burden on to many of the less affluent provinces. This was pointed out by the provinces. It was not done deliberately by the government, but through ineptness. It put proposals forward without studying how the costs would filter back into the provinces. The government was not receptive when this was pointed out. We consider this to be bad, and it led to our amendments. Perhaps we borrowed our proposals from the provinces, but they will save more money than the proposals of the government aimed toward restraint. Our proposals are less complex and adhere more closely to insurance principles. When the House considers our motion, we will deal with the proposals.
I sympathize with members of the Liberal party. Perhaps they have been required to put their scheme into effect more quickly than they would like. For approximately two or three years, my leader called for a major overhaul of the unemployment insurance system. The government commissioned a report entitled "A Comprehensive Review" in 1976. In February, 1977 the government released a report on that comprehensive review. One would think that the government had enough time to get matters into shape; but the government cannot even put the pregnancy amendment into effect because it does not fit into the rules concerning the presentation of motions.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came back from Bonn this summer, he saw the light. He announced to Canadians that restraint was necessary and that further announcements would be made. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) had the finger pointed at him. He was told to get his amendments going and on the table. Dutifully, the minister made an announcement on September 1. He announced his program to the world at large. Approximately two months later, the minister introduced his bill into
December 18, 1978

the House, and for reasons he will not tell us the proposals were not quite the same as he had indicated on September 1.
I feel sorry for members opposite. They have had adequate time to establish a perfect set of rules for the game. But when they are finally forced into action, they cannot stick to their guns for more than a month or two at a time. Now the combined opposition will be blamed for delaying this matter. It is similar to the Grinch who stole Christmas. We will be blamed for sitting here instead of being on Christmas holiday.
I should like to remind the House that the bill was introduced on November 2. Debate on second reading commenced on November 9 at eight o'clock in the evening. At that time there were less than two hours of debate on this important bill in the House. I do not think 34 committee meetings was an unusual amount of study. Many more witnesses could have appeared before the committee in order to tell their problems, but I think we received adequate input from them.
We cannot expect to scrap all of the work which has been done to this point. Restraint and reform are sorely needed. We will see what happens to the amendments we put forth. Then we will make up our minds on the bill itself. For us to support motion No. 1 and thereby scrap all the work which has occurred to this point would be contrary to our policies. Therefore, we will not support the motion before the House.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, one has to calm down somewhat after hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). He has a way with words. I was pleased Your Honour chastised him and indicated that he should clean up his language. The hon. member misinterpreted almost everything I have said. He made reference to rip-offs. I have not used those particular words at any time in any of my speeches. Also he suggested that people thought there was a lot of illegality. That is not what the report called for, and the hon. member should know that.
Turning to the motion itself, clause 1 simply is consequential to clause 14. It provides that the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) will be responsible to administer the benefit repayment provisions of the bill. We do not require a long-winded or bombastic debate by the hon. member for Nickel Belt on that particular subject.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) talked about the pregnancy benefits and suggested that we cannot get the particular motion through. As I said to the hon. member at committee, I knew it was not a proper amendment. I indicated that it could not be passed at committee stage, but that I was prepared to bring it forward at report stage on the understanding that clearly the motion was out of order unless it received unanimous consent of the House. As Mr. Speaker said earlier today, for those very reasons we will get into debate tomorrow. But I concede the motion is out of order in so far as the rules are concerned.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I did give an undertaking to members opposite and to the women who will benefit from this particular clause that I would bring the motion forward. If we get unanimous consent of the House it will in fact be carried. If we do not get unanimous consent it will not be carried and certain benefits will be lost by these women. I think it is a little unfair to suggest that we could not even bring forward an amendment that was in order. The hon. member knows I gave that commitment at the committee stage.
I am a little disappointed in the position taken by the NDP.
I think there can be legitimate differences of opinion. We have those with members of the official opposition and we certainly have them with members of the NDP. We could have had a good debate, and we could have had solid input rather than the bombast and histrionics we have witnessed from the hon. member for Nickel Belt. There are obviously some areas of this bill that could be improved upon. I would hope that we continue looking at the bill to see how we can make it better and more effective.
However, hon. members of the New Democratic Party have totally destroyed that opportunity by bringing in something like 25 amendments that are all over the park. They really are not interested in a serious debate on this particular bill. Because of that, it is somewhat difficult to respond to the hon. member, particularly when, in respect of an innocuous amendment to a clause in the bill simply indicating that the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business) is responsible for administering this particular part, we get a 40-minute diatribe by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. That, in my opinion, is really not honest debate. I suggest we get on with the vote, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that clause 1 is the subject of the amendment that has been proposed encourages me to take issue with what the minister has just said. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) made a similar remark, in respect of the suggestion that, because we were so active in committee and had more than one person in attendance at the 34 or 35 meetings of that committee, this indicated somehow unparliamentary behaviour on our part. It was suggested that the fact that we debated the measure all the way through in terms of its content also put us in this position. I suggest to the minister that, if he looks at the transcript of the remarks made in that committee by various members of our party, he will find very serious criticism of the philosophy that is behind and underlies this bill. Certainly I put forward that criticism, as did the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters). We were all there speaking on behalf not only of our constituents, but also on behalf of the many other groups who have come to us asking for help.
Many groups were not able to attend the hearings. The committee did not hear from the largest industrial union in the

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
country in respect of this bill. It did not hear representation in respect of the programs that are going to have an effect on supplementary unemployment benefit packages which are part of collective agreements right across the country. I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt put it very well when he suggested that, if this were a financial bill, there would not have been an employer, an employers' group or an industry that would not have preoccupied members opposite. Simply because it is trade unions and the working people involved the government thinks it can lump them all into one group and say: "We have heard from the auto workers so we know what labour is going to say anyway, and we do not have to hear from anybody else". That is the kind of sympathy and understanding that organized labour gets from this government, and that is the kind of sympathy and understanding this government gives to the ordinary working men and women.


An hon. Member:: And the Tories.


Bob Rae: There is no point in even dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, because the Tories really missed the boat in terms of what we have been saying about this bill. I think that hon. member said there were inequitable aspects of the bill that went too far even for the Conservative party, or words to that effect. The only thought that occurred to me, as it did to my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), was: What are the inequities that those people find acceptable? I would like to know what they are so we can put them forward.
I think it is a good time to look back at the debate of 1971, and this speaks directly to the motion and to clause 1, because the minister's authority and responsibility for administration of the act is really what is in question here. I would like to read into the record some words spoken by the then minister of labour, Mr. Mackasey; may he fly in peace, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mackasey has gone on to his own reward. I think it was Lord Palmerston who once referred to the British civil service as the indoor relief department of the aristocracy. I think the Canadian civil service has become the indoor and outdoor relief department of the Liberal party. They have their own unemployment benefit scheme for superannuated politicians on that side. I do not suppose they could really be heard to blame other Canadians if they expect equal benefits from their government.
I want to just read into the record exactly what Mr. Mackasey said when the benefit increase went up. In 1971 there was a maximum of $53. The government of the day brought in amendments that put it up to 66% per cent and 75 per cent for people with dependants. Let me read into the record something Mr. Mackasey said as it appears at page 5039 of Hansard of April 19, 1971:
-the increase in benefits will postpone the day when people chronically unemployed must turn to welfare if they have no other sources of income. It can be said that the benefit structure has been developed by people who care about people. The argument that this will breed laziness, that it is catering to lazy people, is an argument that should not be raised in this chamber. But, Mr. Speaker, it is an argument that we hear too frequently. It is said that people are inherently lazy. That has not been my experience.
[Mr. Rae.J
Later in the same paragraph he said:
-I do believe that the overwhelming majority of Canadians in the work force would prefer a job rather than unemployment insurance or welfare, if they have that choice.
Mr. Mackasey then goes on to say-and for the benefit of those who want to look at this I would repeat that it is in Hansard for April 19, 1971, and I would suggest to hon. members opposite that they listen to this because they might learn something:
There have been the usual criticisms, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment insurance is welfare in disguise. It never has been that and it was never meant to be. We have attempted to close up the unintentional loopholes that previously permitted welfare connotations to creep into the plan. One of the weaknesses of the present structure is this: it has been difficult for people legitimately in the work force for the first time to become identified as legitimate members of the work force. After you leave university or high school or teacher's college and enter the work force for the first time, you must be part of the work force for two years and accumulate by a tortuous formula 30 contributions-hon. members know all the rest of it-as well as so many contributions in the last year before you are eligible for any type of assistance. We propose to reduce that period. We shall consider someone as attached to the work force if that person has as few as eight weeks of contributions. I say that because we are interested in the future of that worker and not in his past history. I think this will be of tremendous advantage to the Canadian worker. This is his fund.
Those are the words of the minister of labour who at that time was responsible for the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. He is the one who brought in the amendments in 1971. I think it is worth pausing a moment to reflect on those words, that this is the worker's fund, or the fund of the working person; it is his and her protection against unemployment.
We can see that the government's approach in this matter has been crystal clear from remarks made by the deputy minister in answer to questions, and from remarks by the minister in answer to questions. It is perfectly clear that this is no longer the workers' fund, but that this is the employers' fund. This fund is now regarded as the fund of the organized employer in Canada.
Keeping the record in mind, tell me at what point the Canadian Manufacturers' Association gave a damn about income maintenance. I am sorry for using that word, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is necessary in these circumstances. When did the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen worry itself sick about the fact that working men and women are not able to pay their mortgage payments or deal with the difficulties of economic life because of unemployment?
There was a revolution of ideas, Mr. Speaker, in the 1930s. That revolution and idea brought home to people that unemployment is not a voluntary thing. To use the words of the great social scientists of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, "unemployment is a social disease, a disease of industry and the economy". It has many different causes and many different facets to it as an economic phenomenon, but it is not a voluntary act. We must never forget-as the government has, and of which the Tory party has had no knowledge at any time-that unemployment is something which happens to working men and women. When people are suddenly put on unemployment, it has a devastating effect on
December 18, 1978

the individual, their well-being, their ability to deal with life, not to mention the family.
Let me quote from a speech made on April 20, 1971, when the new act was passed, it was made by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), who is still the hon. member for London East. It reads:
I must emphasize that the lower qualifying requirements have been proposed only after a considerable amount of research and study centred around the motivation of the individual, the needs of a worker when faced with a loss of earnings, and the ever-changing composition of our society, which brings with it a reshaping of the labour force and its attendant dislocation of individuals. The results of these studies have shown us that no rigid guidelines are available from which we could formulate a hard and fast rule for qualifying, but there are indications that current conditions require a re-orientation of our thinking in terms of providing protection and assistance to members of the labour force. Therefore, we must look to our objectives in deciding on a level of minimum attachment.
That speech went on to refer to what it was like to be unemployed and what the Canadian worker was up against when he faced unemployment. Today that spirit seems to be dead on that side of the House. Their Christmas present this year for the unemployed worker is a reduction in his or her benefits of 10 per cent, at a time when welfare payments, old age pensions and workmen's compensation benefits are increasing to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. In this case the government has taken one critical weapon in the fight against poverty and the maintenance of income for the families of these working men and women and has singled it out for special attention.
It is unbelievable that welfare payments are going up while unemployment insurance benefits are going down. Families can now get more from welfare programs than from the unemployment insurance program. It is a guaranteed incentive for those people to stay at home and not join the work force. Perhaps that is what the government wants, to see women and youth, who are often part-time employees and unable to achieve the sufficient number of hours to qualify for unemployment, leave the unemployment insurance system and go to the welfare system. That is their philosophy.


Mr. Boulanger:: It is the demagogy of the NDP.


Bob Rae: The hon. member has said it is demagogy. I do not think that is fair. The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) has said that I am a demagogue. That is a very unfair charge because, like an archaeologist, we go with the evidence which is before us and the footprints are there. They are the footprints of dinosaurs. The government is not walking in Bryce Mackasey's footprints; it is walking in the footprints of dinosaurs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Bob Rae: If I have wandered from the path, Mr. Speaker, it is because of some hon. members opposite. If one looks at the
Unemployment Insurance Act
philosophy which underlies this clause and the other clauses, it is completely incoherent but at the same time it is a reactionary attack on unemployed people at a time when the world recognizes that unemployment is not the problem of the individual worker but of society.
The government has not decided whether the program is an insurance scheme; therefore they have raised the question of overpayment of benefits. Part of the underlying philosophy of this bill seems to be that the government would like to go back to an insurance scheme to help tighten things up. However, they also say that they will collect back benefits paid to people earning more than $18,000, which turns it into a welfare scheme, a needs-related scheme. If it is a needs-related scheme, it does not relate to the needs of Canadians. Their needs cost much more than the maximum of $240 which the government proposes.
The metropolitan social planning council of Toronto in its report two weeks ago said that a family of four in that city requires $14,000 to live above the poverty line. This bill does not provide for that fact. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has brought in a scheme which provides tax credits to families making less than $18,000. This is a small step in the right direction, but the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is taking that away with the stroke of a pen.
This government cannot make up its mind where it stands with regard to income security and income maintenance. It says that we are filibustering this bill and taking our time, and that is quite correct. We are doing everything we can to explain to the people of Canada that this measure combines an incoherence of thought and purpose with a reactionary philosophy that needs to be exposed. We all have our different styles in exposing it. If the hon. member for Nickel Belt can use colourful language, then more power to him.
What our purpose in committee was, and what our purpose is this week, is not to talk for the sake of talking, but to attempt to get across to Canadians, who may be confused and uncertain as to exactly what the abuses of the unemployment system are, what the program is, and explain that the amendments which have been proposed by the government-many of which are supported by the Conservative party-will quite simply have the effect of reducing the income of working Canadians and Canadians who are not working but would like to be.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has attacked the New Democratic Party, saying that we do not care about spending, about who pays for these programs, and that we would like all of Canada to be unemployed and drawing unemployment insurance benefits. That is reactionary twaddle which has no substance. This party would like to see all Canadians working. There are now nearly one million unemployed in Canada, or over one million by any definition other than that of the government. I should like those people to be able to lead a decent life. I should like the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to indicate what level he thinks is appropriate and what a 10 per cent cut in benefits will mean to people

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
who rely on those benefits. I should like him to tell the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) how to explain this to people in the Atlantic provinces where the unemployment rate is over 15 per cent and where unemployment insurance benefits are critical to income maintenance and planning for those families.
I can speak first hand on how this situation affects my riding. When I go there and meet with people on Friday night, Saturday and sometimes on Sunday I find that there are some who cannot get mortgage money at less than 13 per cent. There are others whose cars are being seized because they are unemployed or have been unemployed for so long that they are now on welfare. Some people, for example, cannot draw workmen's compensation for one reason or another. There are women who cannot get back on the labour market because when they become unemployed, the benefit payments are low compared to welfare. They cannot get on manpower training programs either because of problems I have mentioned to the minister.
I am concerned about the level of benefits being paid to Canadians, about the fact that the government appears to be enamoured of the concept that unemployment is apparently a voluntary phenomenon and that hundreds of thousands of people are choosing it rather than employment. This philosophy is based on anecdotal evidence and is not substantiated at all.


Prosper Boulanger: You should read all the court cases.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Mercier cries out that I should read something.


Prosper Boulanger: I said you should read the court cases.


Bob Rae: I have read the court cases.


Prosper Boulanger: How many in the last year?


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this clause because it seems to me there is surely a contradiction here. Indeed, reference is made to overpayments, as referred to also under part VIII or clause 14, if your prefer, about which an amendment has been introduced and on which I will have an opportunity to speak. In any case, Mr. Speaker, what is important is the problem as it relates to unemployment insurance, and it is obvious that this problem preoccupies all members.
When people come to see us-of course, we are there to look after them and we try to do a good job-sometimes that is extremely difficult. I am not blaming the minister. I know he is doing what he can. 1 know also opposition members are
(Mr. Rae ]
there, more often to criticize rather than suggest practical amendments to the legislation, but it seems to me the following could have been taken into account but the minister will probably be able in spite of the bill to take into account the fact that at a certain point when people come and see us and say: Young people do not want to work, they prefer to live off social welfare, that is not true, Mr. Speaker. There are some but not many. Often, Mr. Speaker, young people who come to see us want to work. That is not complicated but it seems to me that we should be providing more training whether of an academic nature or in other areas where young and older people also have access. There is often talk, Mr. Speaker, of managing to provide full employment. That is not complicated. It is possible in this country.
I have spoken about this before, and I will come back to it. I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, if what I say is out of order, to tell me. I think that young people, when someone receives-and I have talked about this before the parliamentary committee- and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) knows that, just like all the others. I simply mentioned that we want to save money. It is obvious that the government must cut expenses one way or another but, Mr. Speaker, I would not like to penalize people who are unemployed against their will and who have no other choice. And the way it is, those people will in fact be penalized. Therefore, it seems to me that we should have a closer look into that situation in order to prevent those people from being penalized later. So, it is true that we must save money.
Obviously, I will talk about clause 5 which says that we are going to take the 66% per cent and make it 60 per cent of the income to save 6% per cent. But if, for instance, we tell someone who earns $100 a week at a rate of $5 an hour that he is going to work 20 hours a week under Canada Works or other projects, according to what the minister decides, it seems to me that will allow us to encourage people to go to work, and that we will in fact discourage them from depending on unemployment insurance.
It seems to me that only then can this becomes truly concrete. If we want to pass legislation, we must be reasonable. We should not penalize people who have no business being penalized. I have nothing against clause 1 as such, but I wonder whether this clause could not be broken up in two since it mentions part VIII which comes under clause 14. There seems to be a contradiction somewhere. I am not a lawyer, I am a simple citizen like everyone else, but I am trying to understand. Mr. Speaker, there is something which does not seem clear in all this. If someone in the House can clarify this for me, I would like him to do so because I want to understand and to participate with all my colleagues on both sides of the House in passing bills which will benefit all Canadians. After all, they are the ones who contribute, they are the ones who pay our salaries, they are the ones who pay for unemployment insurance. As a matter of fact, we should not even call it unemployment insurance, but rather employment insurance. In
December 18, 1978

my opinion, it is time that we stop talking about unemployment all the time. We should talk about employment instead.
Mr. Speaker, this is how we can encourage people to work. Let us stop talking about unemployment and telling them: You are like this or like that. We talk about that too much, even in this House. We create psychological problems for the people when we should be trying to do the opposite. We should encourage people and show them that there are not only bad things in this country, but also some good. We must try to strike a balance.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this clause will be amended, unless the minister can provide further clarification. I believe there is some confusion between clause 1 and part VIII. If the minister can explain this and make me understand this clause, I may be able to support him.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned, this bill received considerable attention in the committee and some references have been made to the relationship of various committee members to the bill as well as to the fact that the representation on the committee was not necessarily fair or equitable. I presume the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie), who has just spoken, had that in mind when he made his comments because he also comes from an area where unemployment is a considerable problem and where the problems of the individual become more apparent than the $1 billion, in nice round figures, which the government has decided it wants to save.
It is all very simple, Mr. Speaker, and it has not much to do with employment. Nor has it much to do with unemployment, I suppose. It involves every Canadian, and there are one million of them who are unemployed. Individually they believe that if they go through the various stages which they are asked to go through to locate a job, then they have fulfilled their obligation, but that the government has not fulfilled its obligation in making work available for them. Because they have done what they are supposed to do-when they were working they paid money into the insurance fund-now that they are unemployed, they should be able to receive their benefits.
That is the problem as seen from the point of view of the individual. When we look at the problem from the point of view of the country as a whole, we are ashamed to admit that we have one million unemployed and that we have to raise $2 billion to add to the insurance fund which was established a number of years ago when we thought that a 4 per cent rate of unemployment was too high. When the individual looks at this plan, he hears the government saying to him: "No, Joe, we will change the rules now; although you have been paying in for years, your benefits will change now."
There is another group of people who are watching the individual, Joe Doe, and wondering what these changes will mean to Joe Doe in relation to them. I am referring to the municipalities of this country. The government and the Con-
Unemployment Insurance Act
servative party are saying that there are many people who abuse the unemployment insurance program. They say that every day, and I am sure most Canadians are saying that. It is quite true that many people in organized labour, as well as housewives and people on the street, do say that. Everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who has a friend who has taken advantage of the unemployment insurance program.
That may be true, and if it is, it is a pretty sad state of affairs; but we members of parliament can plug those loopholes if they are as broad as people seem to think they are. But that is not what the government is doing. The government has said: "We must get rid of the expenditures; we must cut out SI billion." If, because we have an excess of unemployment we are paying out more than the amount for which the plan was originally designed, and if, out of that $2 billion, there is a waste of 25 per cent, or half a billion dollars, then the other half will have to be built up by the municipalities because we are saying that the need is still there and will have to be met in some way.
It is very interesting that the various provincial governments have indicated that there would be a large drain on their treasuries and they were not sure how large it would be. The figures varied anywhere from $10 million to $50 million in some of the provinces. That seems to be quite a large sum to be playing with.
I think the plan has been unfair in another way. The minister indicated that we should have had some serious, intelligent discussion of the bill. Surely one or two good ideas have been put forward by the ten witnesses who appeared before the committee, and surely the minister would agree that some cogent arguments were put forward by one or two of the witnesses on some aspects of the bill. Surely the minister will admit also that the hon. member for Hochelaga had a good point to make, that his parliamentary secretary who gives him advice had some good points to make somewhere along the line, or even that some good amendments were put forward at some time in the back rooms.
The minister himself did not amend the bill in any way and he did not make any major concessions on any important aspects of the bill. To be fair to the minister, let me point out that he toyed with one part of the bill that is probably more complicated than any other, and that is the totally new concept of the two-tier system. I think the minister would agree that the new concept, to be realistic, would have to be considered in a pretty broad philosophical way rather than by way of an amendment to the existing act. If the implementation of the two-tier payment system were to be considered seriously, it would have to be considered initially from a philosophical point of view and new legislation would have to be brought forward. In my opinion, the minister did not consider any of the proposals put forward by the witnesses who came before the committee, and he did not want to hear any more witnesses because he did not listen to the ten who had been before the committee. There is no point listening to 100 witnesses if you decide not to listen to one.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
2228

December 18, 1978
Compensation



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Agriculture-Request that beef import quotas will not be increased; the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker)-Employment- Clarification of provisions of Outreach program.
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 and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


James McPhail Gillies: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to limit the total compensation payable to (a) a public servant (b) an officer or employee of a Crown corporation (c) an officer or employee of an agency coming under the jurisdiction of the government, to an amount no greater than the maximum salary and allowance paid to the elected representative who receives the highest salary and allowance under the terms of the Senate and House of Commons Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope this motion will be supported by a number of members of the House for a number of reasons.
First, I have said many times in the House that because we operate under the British parliamentary system we have not built into our legislative processes any system of checks and balances. Moreover, because of the changes that have taken place in the rules of the House over the course of the last decade, members of parliament have been unable to hold up supply to the government, one of the fundamental privileges of any opposition. Consequently one of the fundamental ways in which a government should be held accountable for what it does is non-existent in our parliament.
I have also often made the point in the House, as have many of my colleagues, that in the examination of estimates before the committees of this House we are not able, for a variety of reasons, to do an adequate job of finding out where the taxpayers' money is spent. Consequently, it is important that we begin to build into our system some checks and balances to take the place of those checks and balances we no longer have.
This proposal today introduces one check, albeit a rather modest one in terms of the total number of dollars involved. However, it is symbolically an important check on the way the taxpayers' money should be spent.
If we legislate that no employee of the Government of Canada, or of a Crown corporation or agency of the government, can receive compensation greater than the highest compensation paid to an elected official of this country, namely that of the Prime Minister, we have set a standard for salary determinations which I think is important. Can one argue affirmatively that any member of the public service or of an agency of the goverment should be paid more than the Prime Minister of Canada?
My second reason for introducing this motion is that we have had great difficulty over the years establishing appropriate compensation for senior executive members of the public service. As hon. members know, a variety of committees have been set up to examine compensation for public servants and to set up adequate guidelines. However, this has always been extremely difficult to do. These committees tried to have some kind of comparability with similar salaries in the private sector, but the problem is that the jobs are not the same.
I have had friends point out to me that a person who fulfils the responsibility of deputy minister has only half the job of a senior vice-president or senior executive officer in the private sector. In the private sector, the man with that responsibility has to raise the money he spends as well as oversee the way in which it is spent. The deputy minister, on the other hand, does not have the problem of raising the money; he only has the problem of spending it.
I am not suggesting a deputy minister might not have other duties that a man in the private sector does not have. The reality is that it is difficult to make comparable decisions as to how these positions should be compared.
The third reason for bringing forth this suggestion is that we are in a period of restraint. Anyone who has been in this House of Commons for a number of years knows that politicians do not raise their compensation without considerable debate. They do not do so without assessing whether the people of Canada really believe members should be paid more for the services they provide to their constituents and the people in general. There is always heated discussion when the question of payment of members of parliament comes forward. That is not the case with the establishment of compensation for executives on the administrative side of government. There is no public debate on the question of compensation for a very large number of government, agency and Crown corporation employees.
In the last ten years, as the figures show, the increase in the number of appointments of people filling executive level jobs has been larger than in any single area of employment in the federal government in relative terms, and the public knows little about the salaries of these employees.
The fourth reason for supporting this motion is that it would bring public accountability to the establishment of salaries in

December 18, 1978

the public sector and Crown corporations. On occasion we try to find out what the compensation in certain activities paid for by the public happens to be. It is difficult to get that information. Too often the responses are very much like that made by Senator Marchand when he was minister of transport. When asked on the order paper to provide to members of parliament the levels of compensation for senior officers in Air Canada, the reply was that it was not in the interest of the corporation to make that information available, that it would be competitively difficult because the private sector did not make such information available, and it would be bad for morale. The shareholders of that corporation are the people of Canada and yet they are not given this information.
When Air Canada's major competitor, CP Air, decided to do some financing in the United States, it was forced by the SEC to make that information available and it did so. Why should the people of Canada not know what the compensation is in this corporation and in fact all agencies in which they are the major shareholders? If my proposal were adopted, the people of Canada would know what the compensation is for a large number of people who work for them.
Fifth, such a measure would help to redress some of the imbalance which has developed between the legislative arm of the government and the administrative arm. Politicians constantly hear that the government is really run by the public service. We are asked why politicians do not have more control over the public service.
If a situation develops where the deputy minister is paid more than the minister, what can one expect? Who in the eyes of the people of this country is worth more in the service to this country, the deputy minister who is paid more, or the minister? Presumably it is the deputy minister. While this is not a significant factor, the imbalance needs to be redressed. We need some way to ensure that the legislative element is in control. One of the ways this can be looked at is through the compensation system.
I am sure most members know that in the United States a system limiting compensation has been in effect for many years. In fact, it has been in effect throughout the history of that nation. There have been many studies, and suggestions that it is very difficult in that country to get the type of public servants that are needed, but the system prevails.
Under the administration of President Ford and the administration of President Carter, changes have been made in the compensation to senior executives in the public service, but in no case have they been made in such a way that public servants are paid more than the elected representatives. There is no one in the United States public service who earns more than the senior elected officials in the United States. There are very few people in the public service of the United States who earn more than cabinet ministers.
To give some idea of the way in which the situation has got out of balance, at the present time a deputy minister in Canada can earn over 18 per cent more than a senior undersecretary in the government of the United States. There may be very good and just reasons why senior public servants in this
Compensation
country should be compensated substantially higher than public servants in the United States.
I want to be very clear that I am not arguing or suggesting that our public servants are necessarily over-compensated. What I am arguing and suggesting is that we do not have in place in this country a built-in way of keeping sound control over the payment of senior public servants and that our system needs it. I would argue that the appointment of ad hoc committees to try and bring in studies of comparability with regard to compensation is not as satisfactory as built-in control.
If we are concerned about restraint and a proper balance between the legislative and administration function in the nation and a proper utilization of the resources of this country, what better way to start than by putting in a built-in check on the use of the taxpayers' money and that no legislating employee of the government or any of its agencies may be paid more than the Prime Minister of Canada? What a sensible solution! What a sensible way!
I am not arguing in favour of an increase in pay for legislators; I am arguing that under the present system there should be some sort of built-in control, some built-in guideline, so that we might know where we are going. How foolish it is to have a system under which deputy ministers are paid more than ministers. What kind of a system is that? We in this country badly need controls built in in the way in which compensation is paid to employees of the public service. We need controls built in to the whole system of expenditure in this country. I am arguing that the government give serious consideration to passing legislation limiting the amount which any public servant, any employee of any agency of the government, can receive. They will not be permitted to earn more than the Prime Minister of Canada gets. I can think of nothing which would do more, symbolically, to improve the legislative posture in this nation and I urge every member here to support this motion.


Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I found this motion interesting and in some respects unusual, coming, as it does, from the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). I do not discard it out of hand because I think there is much merit to some of the points he has made, but I believe the mischief he is trying to correct would not be affected by the adoption of the motion he proposes.
We are considering a motion which essentially excludes the marketplace; it curtails the right of the individual who offers his services to a Crown corporation in an executive capacity to negotiate a level of remuneration which he might expect to receive in the private sector. Under its terms, no man or woman could be hired by the government or by one of its agencies at a higher salary than that paid to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I suggest this would place a government in an untenable position and make it impossible to obtain people with the competence we require in, for example, Crown corporations which play an increasingly important role in this
80067-70'/2

December 18, 1978
Compensation
country. It would concern me very much if Air Canada, for instance, could not compete in the marketplace for the skills and talent required to give the people the best service available.


James McPhail Gillies: That is why you hired Bryce Mackasey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: I am glad to see hon. members have a sense of humour. I detected an ambiguity in the remarks of the hon. member. Are we being asked to increase the level of remuneration of legislators in this country, specifically of the Prime Minister, since that is to be the touchstone used to determine maximum compensation to be paid elsewhere? Or are we being asked to roll back the remuneration paid to senior civil servants, presidents of Crown corporations and so on? I gather from the comments made by the hon. member that it is the latter.
I personally favour the hon. gentleman's view because the people who are involved in the political process are not essentially seeking remuneration. As the hon. gentleman knows very well, "Man does not live by bread alone", and nothing could be truer of the representatives of the people involved in the legislative process. I would suggest, however, when we turn to the people who are serving as employees of government agencies and Crown corporations, that this is not the case. The hon. member is seeking a form of wage parity which does not accord with what 1 understand to be a classical philosophy of the Conservative party, one to which I happen to subscribe myself, namely that we are not to be envious of what is paid to others, of what is paid to members of the public service.
I share the view of the Auditor General, expressed some weeks ago, that we should be prepared to remunerate the public servants of this country by paying the highest wages required to obtain the best possible people, while at the same time we should retain the right to terminate those services in the manner adopted by the private sector. I have no doubt that, notwithstanding the argument put forward by the hon. member, deputy ministers and senior officials in Crown corporations and government agencies discharge responsibilities which in many instances are as great as those undertaken in the private sector, sometimes greater.
The hon. gentleman made the point that officials in the public service wear only one hat-the spending hat-whereas in the private sector they have responsibility both for spending and for raising money. I do not think the analogy holds. I believe there are many officials of major corporations whose roles are almost identical to those of the deputy ministers of many of our departments. I believe that at the top level of responsibility our public servants are probably underpaid, not overpaid as the hon. member suggests. It may be that adjustments ought to be made elsewhere in the public service, but they should not affect senior public servants nor should they affect presidents and senior executive officers of Crown corporations.

I return to my view that if this motion were adopted we would not be able to attract necessary skills into the public service.


James McPhail Gillies: Let's try it.


Donald James Johnston: The hon. member says, "Let's try it", but I am personally not prepared to take the chance of losing some of the most able people in the country on this issue of remuneration. I think the Canadian people are prepared to pay according to responsibility assumed.
The hon. member has drawn upon the American experience, but the American experience, fortunately or unfortunately- and there are arguments both ways-is quite unlike our own in that policymakers in the United States change, by and large, with change in the administration. As we know, federal administrations in the United States change every four years. The difference is that people who assume the roles of undersecretaries, assistant undersecretaries and others in terms of the policymaking apparatus in the United States are essentially servants of the people during limited periods of time. It is a responsibility and an honour to take such positions, but these people are basically private sector people who return to the private sector at the end of a given four-year period. Some of them take leaves of absences from universities, businesses and so forth. In fact, in many respects I suggest that that aspect of the U.S. system is healthy because there is a constant interchange between private sector and public sector personnel due to this process.
There are very few major law firms, investment houses or corporations in the United States which do not have among their ranks some people who have served government in senior capacities in one or more administrations. Unfortunately-and I say "unfortunately" because our system as it now operates is not compatible with that kind of change-we have basically a permanent civil service in this country. There are great advantages and disadvantages to our system, but I suggest that in the absence of undertaking very fundamental reforms in the entire government apparatus in Canada it would be virtually impossible to adopt this motion at this time. It would have a severe impact and the civil service would experience severe dislocation, not to speak of Crown corporations and Crown agencies.
Hence I am drawn to the conclusion that as much as I agree with the motives which obviously underlie this motion, I cannot accept it as being a reasonable means of accomplishing the objectives the hon. member for Don Valley wishes to accomplish.
I say in conclusion that we must never forget the role of the elected representative of the people, the role which each of us in this chamber sees as being very distinct from that of the public servant. There is no reason to suggest that if any limitation is to be placed upon the remuneration paid to public servants, it should take the form of wage parity with the people
December 18, 1978

who represent the people of Canada. I really do not think the people of Canada believe that a deputy minister is more important than a minister just because the deputy is paid more. I believe that the people of Canada and the people in this House are willing to pay for performance.
I also believe-and the Auditor General endorses this-that if performance is not forthcoming, that man should go. That is one part of our system we should look at in terms of establishing checks. I would much prefer to see our public servants and the officers of Crown corporations and Crown agencies paid salaries, remuneration and benefits which are comparable with those paid to men of equal ability in the private sector, with the knowledge that, if performance is not forthcoming, the people of Canada have a right to terminate services in the same way they are terminated in the private sector.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious that this matter be dealt with during the course of this private members' hour so I will confine my remarks to a minimal length of time.
I was glad to hear the comments of the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston), which in essence indicated to me that while the hon. member has certain reservations as to what would necessarily flow from this resolution, by and large he is very much interested in and sympathetic with the objectives set forth by my colleague the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), who, incidentally, is to be congratulated for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
Generally speaking, I think all of us in this House feel that this resolution has great merit, that it should receive some very serious consideration in terms of the operation of the public service vis-a-vis the operation of the legislative arm of our parliamentary system. I suggest, however, that there is a problem with respect to defining precisely what effect this resolution might have on the whole question of secrecy in government and in government agencies. As the hon. member for Don Valley pointed out in his introductory remarks, very often we in parliament inquire about the salaries of chief executive officers of Crown corporations or government agencies and are told by ministers responsible over and over again that that information is confidential and not available to the people of Canada.
Perhaps the hon. member argued this matter on the basis of principle, but we really do not know in pragmatic terms exactly how many senior public servants and chief executive officers of Crown corporations might be affected. The most immediate example of which I can think is the recent appointment of the chairman of the board of Air Canada. I think there is information, not through the House but through press reports, to the effect that this new chairman qualifies to be part of a very elite group of chief executive officers of Crown corporations and that he will receive a salary and other incidental benefits which will bring his level of total remuneration above that of the person who was responsible for his appointment, namely the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
The main reason I join in this debate is that I think most hon. members feel that this subject matter should receive
Compensation
detailed consideration in a committee of this House. That would provide an opportunity for us to examine the context within which this motion might be beneficial to our system in an institutional manner. That is to say, are there ways by which we in parliament can come forward with suggestions or amendments in accordance with the motives which brought the hon. member for Don Valley to put this motion before the House? Are there specific suggestions, guidelines or legislative provisions which could be brought forward for consideration and which might bring about the perspective I know we all want to have with respect to this division between legislative and executive or, indeed, public servant pay scales and the relationship which exists between these two segments of our system of government?
Under those circumstances, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion before us. I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this motion be not now further debated but be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for consideration and report back to this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) want to rise on a point of order or does he want to participate in the debate?
I shall now consider the motion that is being proposed.

I want to consider the amendment attentively because it is a new perspective and at first glance seems to be a new proposition. At this time I will now recognize members who are interested in contributing to this. However, if the House has no objection, while I am contemplating the amendment, 1 will recognize the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont). [Translation]


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). According to that motion, and I quote:
-the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to limit the total compensation payable to-
Mr. Speaker, suggestion is made here, not that the motion be referred to a committee, but that it be discussed by the House. First of all, I should like to say that the motion of the hon. member is intended primarily to restrict, generally, the expenditures of the government by offering civil servants reasonable, good and equitable salaries. That is an objective to which no hon. member in this House could possibly object, and towards which this government has constantly strived, and continues to do so. I believe one can say, in all fairness, that the various succeeding governments of this country have always endeavoured to achieve that objective, regardless of their respective accomplishments.
The motion raises a problem since it endeavours to compare and conciliate two quite different facts, that is the compensa-

December 18, 1978
Compensation
tion of parliamentarians and employees of a vast multidisciplinarian organization which assumes responsibilities of direction and management in specialized disciplines, those responsibilities being sometimes similar to those of employees in the private sector. With your leave, sir, I would say that the comparison made by the hon. member is not valid. The needs of both groups, the reasons underlying the definition of their compensation and the points of comparison are quite different. I wonder if the hon. member, when he refers to the elected representative who receives the highest salary and allowances under the Senate and House of Commons Act, means the Prime Minister. I know that such reference was made by the hon. member for Don Valley, but in doing so he made that comparison more difficult.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the hon. member of the unique character of the basic problems which their compensation system was suppose to solve. I will refer hon. members to the report of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses prepared in the early seventies under the chairmanship of Mr. T. N. Beaupre. Generally speaking, the advisory committee refers to the discussions that took place in this House a few years ago and more particularly to the comments made in 1963 by the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. The report contains the list of specific problems enumerated by the prime minister to justify the adoption of special provisions pertaining to members of the House. That list mentioned, and I quote:
The maintenance of two residences, one in the riding and one in Ottawa;
With a few exceptions, Mr. Speaker.
Financial sacrifices especially for new members;
Disruption of family life;
Difficulties in educating children;
Difficulty in attracting young candidates because of the loss of income in accepting a political life;
If the financial barrier were allowed to continue as a deterrent to attracting candidates to public life, parliament would lose its representative character as only the financially independent could afford to be members.
In general, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that these conditions, although they must necessarily be taken into account in order to establish the salaries of members, do not concern the compensation payable to public servants. The nature and conditions of work differ greatly in both cases and it would not be reasonable to ask for exact comparability between the two systems of remuneration.
I would like to quote again from the Beaupre report and draw the attention of the House to some interesting paragraphs. First:
The establishment of appropriate levels for -parliamentary salaries must be based largely on subjective judgment. The position of the federal parliamentarian is unique and therefore, it cannot be easily compared to apparently similar positions in other political jurisdictions, either in Canada or elsewhere, nor to other occupations in Canada. Virtually none of the guidelines normally used to determine rates of remuneration in other sectors of the economy is applicable.
Furthermore, the committee does not "accept the proposal that parliamentary salaries should be related to the salaries

that the government establishes for the executive category in the public service", even though it briefly dealt with the relative salary of a deputy minister accountable to the ministers.
I am prepared to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the opposite is equally true. Public servants' salaries should not be compared arbitrarily and systematically to the salaries of members of parliament. However, you can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that to raise peremptory, arbitrary and systematic barriers, as proposed in the motion, will result without doubt in a direct and relevant comparison between the duties and responsibilities of the various groups concerned.
Since government activities represent a practical exercise rather than a mere exchange of intellectual ideas, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gilles) has considered all the real problems that the passage of his motion v/ould entail. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are obviously and quite legitimately some differences in the nature of the activities, working conditions and underlying factors behind the salary rates paid to legislators and public servants. Allow me to look a little more fully into some aspects of civil servants' salaries. To this end, I believe it would be appropriate to take into account two agencies which have allowed successive governments to direct their efforts in order to determine the level of compensation of federal employees. They are the Royal Commission on Government Organization, the so-called Glassco commission, and the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service, most often identified with the name of its current chairman, Mr. Lambert.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a few extracts from the Glassco report which represent in many respects the basis of the administration and compensation policy within the public service for the past 15 years. In Volume I, dealing with the policy of compensation, the commission states in part: "Levels of compensation comparable with those of other employers keep an enterprise financially competitive in the market for skills and talent. They also tend to minimize the risk of losing present employees to more attractive employment elsewhere. At the same time, the philosophies underlying the internal administration of wages and salaries may have a profound influence, for good or bad, upon the employees morale and productivity, and upon his incentive for growth and development. They may emphasize the relation between employee effort and the objectives of the organization, as well as the performance and reward, or they may conceal a link which should, precisely exist."
Mr. Speaker, the Glassco report also states the following: "Although comparability with wage levels outside the public service has been a stated or implied bench-mark for wage determination in the federal public service ever since 1919, it is not possible to make a single, simple generalization about these relations." As far as I know, the commission does not refer to the comparability of wage levels between parliamen-
December 18, 1978

tarians and civil servants, maybe, Mr. Speaker, because it would have found that the proposal we are considering today is a method that is too general to determine the compensation at more senior levels in the public service.
In the late sixties, the creation of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service was a concrete attempt by the government to collect judicious advice on the remuneration of senior officials. Hon. members certainly know that the present advice originates from people who are themselves representative of senior levels in the Canadian business sector.
I am sure you are all aware that the present chairman of the group is Mr. Allen T. Lambert, and I should like to take the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to some very pertinent parts of its most recent report. In the second report of the group, we can read the following, and I quote:
-we were struck by the fact that it is necessary to ensure that executive personnel compensation in the public service should remain at a reasonable level of equality with those in the private sector; this level should however be considered reasonable comparatively to wage levels of other categories of public servants. We think more than ever that the efficiency and effectiveness of the public service, and the importance of this efficiency to the government and to the taxpayers could not be stressed enough, continue to depend to a significant extent on the maintenance of reasonably competitive wage levels for senior public servants.
In the fifth report, the group continues in the same direction, and I quote:
It was impossible for the advisory group to arrive at precise conclusions with respect to the equivalence principles and limitations that should exist between the public and private sectors. We do not believe that specific mathematical formulas could be set. However, the studies undertaken were useful in our considerations on the appropriate rates, and we will continue to take them into account when time comes to formulate recommendations that are made from time to time.
The reports the government got based on the advice of experts in these matters clearly show that the salaries paid to senior officials must compare with those paid to their counterparts in the private sector and must in so far as it is possible remain competitive with the latter. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. member can bring himself to believe that senior officials are going to protect effectively the interests of the public if they receive salaries that differ a lot from those paid in the private sector. So that will not happen, a comparison has to be made between the levels of pay in the public service and the private sector.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that I cannot support this proposal not only because it goes against the policies set by successive governments but also particularly because the remuneration policies of those governments which are intended to achieve over-all comparability with the other sectors of the Canadian economy are still adjusted to needs, and I find it impossible to reject them for the proposal of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Mr. Speaker, we must continue, and I am sure we will, to recruit and keep competent senior officials not only because their work is a challenge and important but also because the pay they get squares with the work they do and compares by and large with what is being offered elsewhere.
Compensation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the next hon. member might I be permitted to give my ruling in respect of the proposition moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
The difficulty I am faced with at this time in respect of the proposed amendment is that the hon. member is proposing two things. If he will refer to citation 200(4) of Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 168 he will see it is clearly stated there that:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately.
There may not have been too much difficulty in that regard but for the fact that the hon. member is proposing to refer the subject matter to the committee and trying also at the same time to stop the debate by the first part of his amendment. In addition, we might have members in the House who agree with the second part of his amendment but do rot agree with the first part.
If the hon. member would take the trouble to read citation 202(6) of Beauchesne he would find that it states as follows:
It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee.
His second proposition is faulty in that it is completely contrary to citation 202(6). On this ground, and because of the fact that I cannot put before the House an amendment, part of which would go against the rules, I must reject the complete amendment moved by the hon. member.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, of course I recall the citations to which Your Honour has referred, and they were in my mind when I proposed this particular motion. I would simply like to get some clarification of the point you have raised. The first aspect is, of course, in respect of the nature of the two parts of the amendment. It would seem at first glance that the first part would terminate the debate, but there is no question that it would not have had that effect because the motion itself is debatable. For this reason it seemed to me we might have the opportunity of discussing the merits or otherwise of what I think is a very sensible and worth-while proposition, namely, that this matter should receive more intensive attention than we are able to give it in the course of the one hour allotted for private members' business.
The fact that there seemed to be general acceptance of the proposition put forward by the mover of the motion was the rationale within which I brought this forward.
Secondly, while the motion contained the recommendation that the matter be referred to a standing committee for detailed examination, the most important part of it was that the committee report back to the House, perhaps for further debate. I was wondering whether under those circumstances that would now take the matter outside the prima facie objection that you have raised by your ruling, that this matter

December 18, 1978
Compensation
is not a motion merely to relegate the matter to a committee where it may then die but, indeed, was a motion which directed the committee to report back to the House. I would like you, sir, to clarify under those circumstances what might be the distinction which would allow you to put the motion so that we may have the feeling of the House on giving this matter more consideration in committee and, at the same time, that we not be precluded from debating the matter at the time the committee reports to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is making a suggestion on which I do not have to agree or disagree, the merits of considering the motion either in committee or in the House. My difficulty is with the procedural aspect of the matter. I agree with regard to the topic of the debate, and if 1 were accepting the motion it would not preclude a debate. Procedurally, however, the debate should be on the amendment proposed by the hon. member, not on the main motion, although these debates sometimes allow members to spend most of their time debating the fundamentals of the main motion.
At the same time a suggestion to have the Chair allow a question of this kind to be put to the House so that the subject matter may be referred to a standing committee which would report back to the House, is not a practice that follows precedent. Perhaps the hon. member was not listening, but I read a citation from Beauchesne's, paragraph 6 of citation 202, which says very clearly that it is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to committee.
I realize what the hon. member is attempting to achieve. I believe he is trying to do what we sometimes do with private members' bills, when a motion is made that a bill not be read a second time, that the bill be struck from the order paper and that its subject matter be referred to a committee. Even in situations like that, we are not entitled to order the committee to report back to the House. We send the subject matter for consideration to the committee and that is the end of it, so even in that respect the hon. member is overstepping the rules.
With regard to the suggestion to allow his proposition to refer the subject matter to committee, the motion, which is for general discussion, is before the House at this time. It is here for discussion, decision, and recommendation, and I think that the hon. member's objective should be first to let the House go as far as it will with the debate and to hope for a vote. If things do not go as the hon. member would like, perhaps in another way he could make a proposal that might meet his objective. As it now stands, I do not think that we can deal with his amendment.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for taking so long in coming to your decision. I followed your procedural perambulations with a great deal of interest, and I did not think the decision would take anybody with your experience quite as long. I was not really sure whether it was the legality of the procedure or the indecipherability of the longhand written amendment in the first place that was bothering you.

I thought that the motion by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) was interesting, and still is for a couple of minutes. In the wording, the hon. member is limiting the compensation payable to so and so, and so and so:
-to an amount no greater than the maximum salary and allowance paid to the elected representative who receives the highest salary and allowance under the terms of the Senate and House of Commons Act.
In other words, this motion narrows it down to the question of what we pay executives in the civil service and Crown corporations.
The hon. member might have said in his motion that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-knowing that he is underpaid because of all the flack that goes with the job-should get at least twice as much money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, no!


Samuel Victor Railton: The hon. member did not even say that the other members of the civil service at the lower grades should not be paid higher than members of parliament. However, members are so notoriously underpaid, they haven't had a raise, I think for about six or seven years, and they get nothing but flack. Right now members here do not get as much as members in the provincial legislatures. I do not know why the hon. member for Don Valley mentioned congressional salaries in the United States because they are so far ahead of our salaries that there should be no doubt about the foolishness of comparing or setting the same salaries based on the salaries of elected representatives to the House of Commons.
The other point I would like to make, if you will give me a little time, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the suggestion that we set ceilings in the private sector. How can we do that unless we adopt the same authority as they have in Moscow? This is a democracy, and we do not set the salaries in the private sector. I could go on and on and really get down to my prepared notes, unless you wish-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member-


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and just so there is no further confusion, there is nothing whatever in my motion about setting salaries in the private sector.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps it is time to say that the hour provided for private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock, 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 Bill C-14, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
William Arnold Peters: Before we were interrupted by private members' hour, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the government has decided to save a billion dollars. This saving is to be achieved principally through adding to the burden on the backs of the working people, particularly those in areas of high unemployment.
It is very interesting to note that although the unemployment insurance fund was presumably actuarially sound when it was established, it now shows a drain of $2 billion. This has certainly been a political football. The Liberal party has won a couple of elections by promising to include people who were not intended to be included when the Unemployment Insurance Act was first enacted. Now it appears that contributions of employers and employees are to be reduced simply because there is a surplus of about $400 million in the fund. This indicates that up to the point where workers and employers were to carry the unemployment insurance plan, the plan was sound.
Where the difficulty arises, Mr. Speaker, is that ten years ago 4 per cent unemployment was considered too high. I remember that the New Democratic Party felt a reasonable figure would be 1 per cent and that this would take care of the turnover of people who looked for jobs in other fields, those being transferred, or such things as retraining and reclassification programs. We certainly thought that 4 per cent unemployment was too high. In the last ten years the government has increased the intervention point from 4 per cent to 5.5 per cent, to 6.5 per cent and now, according to this bill, the trigger figure is 11.5 per cent. I suppose the government considers that things are not bad if it is less than 11.5 per cent. If it goes over that figure I do not know who is going to handle it. Certainly the government apparently does not intend to participate in the unemployment insurance fund in order to carry that kind of unemployment.
Whether 4 per cent, 10 per cent or 50 per cent is the acceptable level, it is the unemployed person who is affected, not the worker. It is the unemployed person who worries how to cope with his situation, whether he loses his car or his house. Even whether he loses his wife and family sometimes depends on how long he is unemployed.
The cost is immense in a social sense, Mr. Speaker. It may well be that we should not be covering social costs through unemployment insurance and should not be making arrangements for the well-being of citizens in lieu of employment. The way to help the unemployed is to give them jobs.
Unemployment Insurance Act
When I first started paying unemployment insurance it was a simple proposition. I do not know how we allowed this government to get into this mess. There was cyclical unemployment then too, but not to the degree we have it now.
The Liberal party bragged about how many more people are working today. That is all right for the person who is employed, but the one who is unemployed and cannot buy his children Christmas presents or pay the light bill is not helped by knowing that the Liberal government is able to provide jobs for more Canadians than ever before. There are more people in Canada today than ever before, Mr. Speaker, so the only figure that has relevance is the percentage of the population that is working. Unemployment has an immense effect on the individual concerned.
The government is really saying to employers and employees that they have done very well. The government is saying, "You have $400 million excess in the kitty, you have a surplus. It is so high that, under the act, we have to reduce it, so we are reducing the premiums to you people."
They have not covered the problems about which, I am sure, everybody in the street speaks. They have not covered the problem of your neighbour who came from a big construction job where he made $20,000 and is now on unemployment insurance. No one knows where he got the $20,000 construction job or where he spent his summer, but he is supposed to have made a large amount of money and he is supposed to live the rest of the year on unemployment insurance. We are not doing anything about him, nor are we doing anything about the people about whom the minister is speaking, such as the women who are the abusers of this system. We are not doing anything about the young people in that sense.
What we are doing is to say that it will be much harder for women to get into the labour force and that they will be treated less advantageously than other segments of the population. We are saying to the young people that they are repeaters because they do not have permanent jobs. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they are lucky to get any kind of job.
Your son and mine who go to college find that it is almost mandatory for them to find a summer job of some kind to qualify for the benefits they will need to put them through college. They will take any kind of job. Sure, these are temporary jobs and they are not the kind of job they expect to put them into the labour force, but they are the best jobs they can find.
All of our young people are plagued with the problems of having no particular training for a career job and very few of them have any experience after living on a farm, working in a store, or doing some such work because of their parents' occupation. Most young people do not have experience in any form which would enable them to get a better job. These are the people we are cutting off, these are the people we are hurting, and it will create an immense problem.
I would have no problem at all walking into an unemployment insurance office and collecting unemployment insurance.

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
It would mean that I had worked at a job and paid my contributions so I was entitled to unemployment insurance. That was my right because I had paid the premiums. No one goes out and bangs up his car because he has car insurance. Perhaps I should not say that nobody does it because there is always a nut somewhere who will park his car on a dangerous corner and wait three or four hours knowing that eventually somebody will run into the car and he will get whatever had been wrong with the car previously fixed up. There are exceptions to everything. Doctors cheat, lawyers cheat, and workers cheat, but that does not mean that all workers, all doctors, or all lawyers cheat. There are just some who do, and we have to look after those exceptions, but we should not abuse the whole system for them.
As I was saying, before the Liberal government bought the computer system and the high-priced help-they decided they must have a means to check the help they had hired the day before-one would go into the employment office and, if they had a job, one would take it, but if there was no job available for you, then they would mark it on their slip and you could go over to the unemployment insurance side where you presented the card which had the record of your contributions on it, then they gave you the cash and you went away looking for a job. When you found a job, you started again making contributions which were then marked on the card. If you thought you did not get enough money, they would show you your card and you could add up your contributions yourself or you could have your lawyer or accountant look after it. Now it is so complicated that we do not really know whether or not people are honest in collecting unemployment insurance.
It is very easy for the minister to say, as he said in a discussion in which I was involved, that he anticipated people would move. I do not expect a Liberal government to be always in office. The last time it stayed 20 years. Now it has been in office long enough and it should go. I expect some change after the next election, and when it comes about I anticipate-perhaps I am a born optimist-that things will be better and that more jobs will be available, especially in northern Ontario, in my riding, where the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) has spent $2.5 million looking for minerals. If they find any minerals, I expect some mines will be opened, and if they are, I want those young people, not those living in Toronto but those living in Timis-kaming to get those jobs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Is there agreement to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take exception to the statement made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Donald James Johnston: The statement was made that doctors cheat and lawyers cheat. I do not think that is a parliamentary comment. He went on to say that not all doctors cheat and not all lawyers cheat. I would like to correct the record-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate, and if the hon. member wishes to get into the debate, I will recognize him later on.


Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, before I start my comments on the bill I should like to tell hon. members about the education which this whole process has been for me in the last few weeks. The process to which I refer is the legislative process which this bill has gone through from second reading in the House through the committee stage.
In my naivete as a new member I approached consideration of the bill in committee with a fair degree of optimism, thinking that we would find in the committee a considerable amount of co-operation on the part of the government to get to the nub of the problem of unemployment insurance and of unemployment, and a willingness on the part of the government to accept suggestions and amendments to its proposals in the legislation.
We heard from the minister himself that this piece of legislation is not the end-all and the be-all, that the bill is not perfect and that it is expected it will be revised in the future because it does not provide the whole answer at this time. Since that is the case, I was quite taken aback, I must say, when I found out that the government seemed completely unwilling at the committee stage not only to accept suggestions for changes in the legislation but even unwilling to listen to the witnesses and to accept the proposal that more witnesses appear before the committee.
The distinct impression I had of the attitude of the government was the attitude which I had observed in some circles before, that is, "My mind is made up, so don't confuse me with the facts". That was the attitude that came across to me as a freshman member of the House, and that is before being tainted with all the prejudices which members normally acquire with time in the House.
At first I was astounded to find that the government did not wish to listen to many groups and individuals who are concerned about the impact this bill will have upon them. At least 35 groups and individuals wished to appear before the committee to state their case. They wanted to state their view on the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act and to offer suggestions as to how the problems presented by the government could be better met and solved than by the legislation before us.
The minister stated a willingness to listen to suggestions. He stated that the legislation certainly was not perfect and would suffer revisions over the next few years. In spite of that
December 18, 1978

statement, there was a severe restriction on the number of witnesses who could be heard. There was certainly a restriction on the time which each witness was allowed, which was about one hour before the committee.
Because of the efforts of the minister and the parliamentary secretary to force this legislation through the committee stage as quickly as possible, the witnesses were not allowed enough time to prepare their briefs, do the necessary research, and present telling evidence to the government which might have convinced it to accept some revisions to the legislation. There were accusations by some witnesses that they were severely handicapped by the shortness of time allowed to them to prepare their brief and present it to the committee.
I repeat, it was quite an education. When I came to the House, I felt that government and opposition members alike would co-operate and look at legislation before them, not as the end-all and be-all in itself, but as a proposal for the committee to work on, make amendments to, and make adjustments so that it would be a little more perfect when it came back to this chamber for final deliberation. I did not see that. As I say, I saw a government which had a piece of paper in its hand called Bill C-14. I saw that it was completely unwilling to accept amendments or to listen to witnesses.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to do so knowing that the hon. member is a newcomer. As with all NDP members, he learns fast. However, I think he is going a bit too far. I suggest that he stick to motion No. 1 rather than give a resume of what happened in committee. 1 believe he should be instructed to stick to the motion before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour) stick closely to motion No. 1.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, I believe my comments are relevant to the over-all consideration of the bill. The experience over the past three weeks has given me, as a freshman, certain opinions on the bill which I would like to present. It is important that hon. members understand how I came to feel this way and have these opinions with regard to what has gone on.
I repeat, it was my opinion as a freshman member that, in the main, the government was unwilling to accept alterations or amendments to this bill. As I said before, the attitude was, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." That is my opinion of the government's attitude.
I come from one of the poorest regions of the country. My constituency is among the highest unemployment areas in this country. The official unemployment figure announced by Statistics Canada is in the vicinity of 15 per cent to 17 per cent. However, Statistics Canada has finally adopted a concept of hidden unemployment figures. Including the hidden unemployed in my constituency, the figure would be somewhere between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. Because of that, my constituents are very much interested in what goes on with this bill and what it will mean to them.
Unemployment Insurance Act
There are communities in my constituency-the same probably applies all over the country but my experience is related only to Newfoundland-where at certain times of the year unemployment insurance is almost the only source of income for a great majority of the people. For many people it is the only source of income for at least a certain part of the year. It is a very necessary part of their family budgeting for the year. Without it, they would be destitute.
To give an indication of what this might mean, I will quote the reaction of a member of the minister's department, an employee of the commission in St. John's. When confronted with the type of proposals the minister announced in August, his reaction was that in Newfoundland next winter it will mean cold homes and hungry children. That man had seen how necessary unemployment insurance is in one particular part of this country. He knew precisely what the effect would be of restricting or withdrawing benefits from certain people.
Cold homes and hungry children in Canada in 1979 are completely unacceptable. That is not the way this country should be governed. However, that is what the minister is offering to people on the northwest and northeast coasts of Newfoundland, people who have no alternative to unemployment insurance.
It is difficult to tell someone to get a job when there are no jobs available, when the unemployment rate in that area is between 25 per cent and 30 per cent, and the person knows that if he moves to a large city he will not have the necessary skills to get a job. In addition, it would mean leaving his family and his home.
I know the minister has encouraged young people in particular to travel around this country. That may be very commendable, but it is another story when you are forced to leave your home and your family. When a member of the family has to travel to western Canada in order to support his family back home, it often results in a broken family. I hope that is not what the minister is offering the people in parts of the country like Newfoundland. I know that deep down he is a good man. If he knew the facts, he would not be offering that kind of solution to those who have no alternative.
The proposals before us in Bill C-14 will do two major things. They will restrict the number of people who can collect unemployment insurance benefits and reduce the amount of benefits they receive. Let us look at these individually to see how they relate to my part of the country where unemployment is extremely high.
Because of the seasonal nature of their occupations, such as working in a fish plant, fishing, logging or whatever, some people in my constituency only get so many weeks work during the summer. In the past, this has meant they have been able to obtain unemployment insurance which has enabled them to survive the winter without having their children cold and hungry. They survive the winter with some degree of dignity in the hope that the next summer they will be able to obtain the same kind of work which will carry them over the next winter. For more than 8,000 in Newfoundland this will not be possible-they will be forced on to the welfare rolls, they will be

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
obliged to cut down the amount of food and fuel they can buy for their families.
If this proposal goes through it will mean serious deprivation for many people next year. Many people have depended on unemployment insurance for a substantial portion of their annual income, and now much of this support will be taken from them. There are, of course, the welfare rolls. In Newfoundland the welfare office is fairly active as things are-I cannot say it has more clients in proportion to the total population than any other province in the country but I suspect that is the case. The welfare rolls will get longer. Newfoundland is a province which already has a tremendously high debt. I shall not go into the financial status of the Newfoundland government, but the added costs of welfare payments will prove to be a serious additional burden. It is somewhat unbelievable to me that some 8,000 people-


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member might mention that we pay 50 per cent of welfare costs. He might put that on record.


Alphonsus Faour: That may be so, but this will still have serious consequences for many communities.
Reduction of benefits is another aspect to be considered. The government has proposed that benefits be reduced by 10 per cent across the board from 66% per cent of insurable earnings to 60 per cent. That is a reduction of about 10 per cent. At a time when inflation is wiping out the benefit of any increase in income people may get, at a time when incomes in provinces like Newfoundland are among the lowest in the country, at a time when the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council suggests that a family needs $14,000 if it is to live above the poverty line, the government is cutting down on the amount the average individual in Newfoundland receives from unemployment insurance.
Since the amount is based on income earned we need to look again to ascertain who is being hurt worst. They are people at the lower end of the income scale receiving the minimum wage, or slightly better, for a few months of the year, enough to qualify them for unemployment insurance benefits. They would qualify for two-thirds of the meagre income they earned in the summer and this will have to carry them over the winter. This is certainly not a very great amount at present, but under the government's proposal the proportion would be cut to 60 per cent.
In Newfoundland the average wage is about $100 a week. The government is proposing that an individual should live and feed his family on $60 a week. In other words, a person who earned the minimum wage in the summer would have to live on a weekly income of $60. I think, for instance, of fish plant workers who are not unionized and whose wages are not very high. They earn the minimum wage or slightly above it and, of all people, it is they who will have to accept a cut in income because of the government's austerity measures. This is unforgivable. What they should be getting, as was suggested by one or two witnesses, is added income during the winter months so

that they could cope with inflation. Remember, payments are based on income earned some time earlier, and inflation is eating up every month the amount they are receiving. So while the government is putting forward the figure of 60 per cent, in real buying terms that figure may be closer to 55 per cent six months after the claimant begins collecting benefits.
These are aspects which I believe the government has failed to consider or, if it has considered them, it has dismissed them as being too unimportant to stand in the way of slashing reductions in expenditure. What the government is doing is making people at the low end of the economic scale, people who can least afford any reduction in income, shoulder the burden of cutbacks and restraints. The government is telling them it is they who must bear the brunt of government waste and excesses. To my mind this is not fair play. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) many years ago talked about a just society. This is not a just society. If the Prime Minister would cut out give-aways to corporations the government could probably make up the same amount of money as it hopes to gain from this bill without attacking the poor and the unemployed who can least afford a cut in income at the present time.
As I said before, I am sure the minister has some good in his heart. If he really knew what the effects of these cutbacks would be, especially in parts of the country like Newfoundland, he would never introduce them in the form in which we see them. But he has not had a chance to see what the situation is really like. The committee, led by the government members, heard only nine witnesses, and most of those were from central Canada, either academics or professionals who had jobs. We never saw a single unemployed person appear before that committee; we never heard one bit of testimony from a person who was unemployed, the person who would be most affected by these cutbacks. I am sure that if the minister could have heard testimony from those directly affected by his proposals he would have relented. I cannot believe that if he understood the impact of these proposals on Newfoundland, for instance, where unemployment is very high, or on Cape Breton, he would seek to push these proposals through. For some reason, however, the government appears to have made up its mind. It does not wish to be confused by the facts. It wants-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. He may, of course, continue by unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped until recently that I would not have to take the floor on this bill as the original purposes of the legislator, when he presented Bill C-14 to the House, are commendable and I think that if this bill could be
December 18, 1978

fairly applied for all Canadians I would not have any objection to support it.
However, Mr. Speaker, we realize that because of some geographic divisions some people and some underprivileged areas of the country are completely deprived of the income they require to live, of rights to which they are entitled. Owing to the magic of some geographical line, the residents of a given village might be exempted from some provisions of this bill when a few miles further other people just as underprivileged would be subject to regulations imposing severe financial and moral hardships, because those people will not be able to find employment.
Mr. Speaker, I have before me a document dated June 1978 and published by the Department of Manpower and Immigration which says that the official unemployment rate in the Charlevoix riding is 23.4 per cent. This rate has been determined by manpower and immigration officials to calculate the budget for the Charlevoix riding under the Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program.
Mr. Speaker, 23.4 per cent is the official rate established by Manpower Canada when we know full well that the rate does not take into account welfare recipients who are not included in statistics of unemployment or manpower offices.
Mr. Speaker, I checked today with the offices of Manpower Canada in my riding and I was informed that in December unemployment in Charlevoix, including welfare recipients, reaches 42 per cent. But because of an imaginary line somewhere along the St. Lawrence River, three-fifths of Charlevoix riding are included in metropolitan Quebec where you find cities with an unemployment rate around 5 per cent or 6 per cent. This is why, Mr. Speaker, my riding has an effective unemployment rate of 9.5 per cent when the actual and official rate as established by the department is 23.4 per cent.
Well, Mr. Speaker, a majority of my colleagues are from urban constituencies where the unemployment rates can be high and the people also are faced with property problems, but very few members here, outside my colleagues from the Atlantic region and eastern Quebec, really know what it is to live in an area where the unemployment rate may be as high as 20 per cent.
When we suggest it is not possible for an individual to find work for more than ten weeks, this is something other members from more affluent areas cannot get themselves to understand. Apparently they do not realize that in areas where the tourist trade is the only industry, the season extends from June 15 to September 15. Apparently they cannot understand fishing clubs are only open from June 24 to September 3, which can only give some nine work weeks. My colleagues do not seem to realize that even if people make five job inquiries a week by visiting in some particular village the two garages, the two groceries and the clothier or any other office where they might find employment, even if they repeat this 40 times or
Unemployment Insurance Act
during 40 weeks, they will not find enough work to last for more than 12 weeks in a year.
And now we are dealing with Bill C-14. Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest all the changes are acceptable in principle, because all the unemployed support the allocation of more funds to job creation, which is the specific aim of this legislation. However, Mr. Speaker, in the extremely underprivileged areas, particular measures are absolutely essential for the people to live decently. And to meet that concern to some extent, a special clause was introduced for areas with unemployment rates above the 11.5 per cent mark. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the following change has been made in clause 7(z) of this bill:
(I) establishing regions appropriate for the purpose of applying subsections 17(5) and (6) and section 35 and delineating boundaries thereof, based on the boundaries of the regions used by Statistics Canada in relation to its labour force survey;
It is because of this, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot support the bill in its present form. The government seems to be delineating areas without checking on the spot the effects that this will have. Those responsible will probably never have the opportunity to visit these areas or alleviate the human tragedies that their decision will cause.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall the anguish of Sir Cyril Rad-cliffe when Lord Mountbatten asked him to divide the Indian empire between what is now India and Pakistan. Sir Cyril Radcliffe was very concerned about the situation and very unhappy about having to do what was asked of him, but I have the impression that we are now faced with a blind administration which is saying: The Saguenay river goes through here and it will be a good place to put a boundary. No one thinks about the chain reaction that this can provoke in a specific area where people are too poor to fight and to look for more work.
Mr. Speaker, the major employer in my constituency is the Canada Works program, and every year, 600 to 700 jobs can be created in the area. This is an excellent program, and I must say that the people have learned to depend on it to improve their economic situation. However, there are certain rules for programs such as Canada Works. For instance, if someone worked last year on a given project, he is not entitled to work on another project this year. Now, people will be left without a job for 52 weeks. They will never again be able to qualify as former applicants or newcomers and be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make my colleagues aware of this type of day to day reality, of the serious problems that confront the underprivileged. Those are the concerns that I wanted to communicate to my fellow members. Perhaps we could ask Statistics Canada for example to refine its economic regions, to increase them so that the statistical data can correspond more closely to reality.

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill requires of lot of improvement before it can be passed, and I trust that if we all decide to make it more acceptable to the underprivileged we can do so. It is with this wish that I would like to conclude my remarks.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating a bill to tighten up the Unemployment Insurance Act. This bill is made necessary, if it is necessary at all, by the disastrous economic and social policies of this government.
In introducing this bill on November 9 the minister said it was necessary because the government wanted to reduce some of the disincentives to work which are present in the program. The minister said this bill was necessary because the program cost over $4 billion in the latest fiscal year. If the program cost that amount, it is because in the last half dozen years of Liberal government there has been a steadily increasing number of unemployed and a steadily increasing unemployment rate. To a large extent this was brought about by the fact that the government has been more concerned about the threat of inflation than it has been about unemployment.
At the present time there are over one million people unemployed in the country. At least the last available figure for October, 1978, indicated that there were more than 900,000 people unemployed. That is an increase of approximately 2.5 times what it was ten years ago when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. It is an indication of the failure of the goverment to deal with this problem. Although the bulk of unemployment, substantially more than half, occurs in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, there is relative silence on the part of members of parliament from Quebec. I find that rather interesting. They seem disinterested in the plight of their constituents, particularly the members from eastern Quebec where the rate of unemployment is 15 per cent or more.
In March of this year there were more than 300,000 people unemployed in the province of Quebec; in Ontario, more than 300,000 people; in British Columbia, more than 100,000; in New Brunswick 40,000; in Newfoundland, 35,000; and in Nova Scotia, 42,000. The situation is getting worse rather than better.
The announcement yesterday and today concerning the sharp increase in the cost of oil charged by OPEC countries will result in a further increase in the unemployment rate. The United States is expecting a substantial increase in its rate of unemployment, which will be reflected immediately in an increased rate of unemployment in Canada.
The official unemployment figure in Canada for the month of October was over 900,000 people. Many studies have been conducted in which estimates were made as to the real number of unemployed. The official figure represents only people who are unemployed and actively seeking work. Many researchers have established that the number of people unemployed is

perhaps 30 per cent to 35 per cent higher than the official figure. The unemployed people who are not included in the official statistics, because they have given up looking for work, are married women and young people living in the slow growth areas such as Newfoundland, New Brunswick, eastern Quebec, northern Ontario, and the interlake area of Manitoba. In those areas there are no opportunities for employment, so people have stopped looking. The general problem of unemployment is serious, yet the problem facing young people is much, much worse. The official youth unemployment figure for many parts of Canada is 2.5 times the number of unemployed, rather than the 8.2 per cent figure for the entire labour force. In March of this year the official figure for youth unemployment was 16.5 per cent. In fact there are substantially more unemployed youths than that.
The government is attempting to hide the extent and the seriousness of unemployment in Canada. It has attempted to limit access to employment information at the regional level because the government realizes the situation is much worse than it has been willing to indicate or the public understands. It has been suggested that many people could be working but they do not want to work. The fact is that there are over 900,000 people unemployed, and there are less than 50,000 job vacancies in the country. This means for every job vacancy there are between 15 and 20 people unemployed. It does not take into account that many of the vacant jobs require skilled workers who cannot be found in the ranks of people seeking employment. That is a problem hon. members should discuss at length with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). The minister and his department have spent billions of dollars in manpower training programs which have failed miserably to meet the needs of employers. But that is not a subject for debate this evening.
We require more information than we are receiving if we are to deal with the problem of unemployment. If information became available as to the number of unemployed in various regions, the types of unemployed people, and the types of jobs which should be available and are not available, the government might be embarrassed. The fact that this information might embarrass the government ought not to dissuade us from insisting that Canadians and parliament are entitled to more information rather than less. The fact that this information might cause difficulty and embarrassment on the part of the government should not obscure the fact that the secrecy which the government and the Department of Employment and Immigration are attempting to achieve is not consistent with an open and democratic method of public policy development.
In September the government announced the cancellation of the joint federal-provincial community employment strategy program, even though the employment programs implemented by the government in recent years have always been too little and too late. The reason for the government's failure to meet the needs of people who want jobs can be found in the fact that the government has refused to commit itself to a program of full employment.
December 18, 1978

In the United States a full employment bill is seen as a necessary legislative framework to achieve full employment. Such a commitment has never been adopted in Canada. The equal opportunity and full employment act before the United States Congress and Senate defines full employment as a "situation under which there are useful and rewarding employment opportunities for all adult Americans willing and able to work." The Americans talk about full employment for all Americans willing and able to work, yet we receive a constant revision of the idea of full employment from the government.
At one time the government and its economic advisers considered acceptable unemployment to be 3 per cent of the labour force, then later it was increased to 4 per cent, and now the government talks about a much larger figure. A few years ago a system was adopted through the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby the more government failed, the greater number of people unemployed, the higher the percentage of the labour force unemployed, the more we paid our share of the unemployment insurance deficit. There is a built-in incentive for the government to fail, because the greater the amount of unemployment the less the government is required to pay. This is the situation which we are facing.
The minister, in various speeches inside and outside the House, has indicated there is a great desire on the part of Canadian people for a tightening up of unemployment insurance programs. He has indicated that the government wants to make unemployment insurance programs less generous, and wants to encourage the unemployed to take work. He has suggested there is a belief on the part of the public that many jobs are unfilled because the unemployed are unwilling to work.
On what does the minister base that belief? He bases it on a so-called marketing research study on unemployment insurance which was commissioned by his department and published in September, 1978. There is an indication on the first page that it contains "public reaction to proposed 'information on hiring' procedure". It states that it is "a survey of public opinion for: Employment and Immigration Canada", and was prepared by Contemporary Research Centre Limited.
Let me refer the minister to page 25 of that so-called survey which contains some of the questions which were asked. The first question or statement to which an answer is required is:
Stricter controls are needed to ensure that unemployment insurance benefits do not go to people who will not take a job.
That statement received an 87 per cent favourable response. Anybody who has given any thought to the subject will know that the answers one gets depend to a large extent on the questions one asks. If one asks: when did you stop beating your wife, or have you stopped beating your wife, you will get a different answer than if you were to ask a sensible question.
Supposing instead of asking that kind of question about unemployment insurance the minister had asked a similar question about income tax, what do you suppose the favourable response might have been? Let me suggest a question to
Unemployment Insurance Act
the minister. Suppose the survey had asked the following question: do you believe that the people at the upper income levels in this country do not pay their fair share of income taxes? I am sure he would have received more than the 87 per cent favourable response. He would likely have received a 97 per cent favourable response. Instead of asking the question that was asked in this survey, if it had asked, or suggested: many people in the upper income brackets take advantage of loopholes in the Income Tax Act in order to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, what percentage of favourable response would that have received? I would suggest it would receive a 95 per cent favourable response.
The survey then requested a response to the following statement:
The new stiffer requirement to get unemployment insurance is a step in the right direction.
That received a 72 per cent favourable response. Supposing the survey had asked, or made the statement to which a response was required: the new stiffer requirements to make sure that people do not use loopholes in the Income Tax Act in order to avoid paying their fair share of income tax, what response do you expect that would have received? I suggest it would have received a 95 per cent favourable response, particularly if it had been asked of people working for wages and salaries, about the self-employed, doctors, lawyers and architects.
I suggest to the minister that this was not a fair survey and does not really represent what the people think. The minister received answers to questions predetermined or designed to elicit the kind of answers the government wanted, because the government was determined to cut down on the amount of money it has to pay out in unemployment insurance benefits to those who are unemployed.
The solution to the unemployment problem will not be found by forcing people to accept work they do not want. The solution to the problem is not to suggest to teachers, social workers, and others that they should take jobs mopping floors. The solution to the problem will be found when the government finds the jobs it promised the young people would be available when it encouraged them to go to colleges and universities.
We have the best educated and trained group of young people Canada has ever had, but what are we saying to them? We are telling them there are no jobs in this country in the fields in which they have been trained, and no jobs in the fields in which we encouraged them to study and labour for two, three, four or five years. We are saying that there are no jobs that will be financially rewarding, and no jobs that will be satisfactory in terms of the jobs for which they have been trained and which this country requires. That is what we are saying to them when we turn the screws on unemployment insurance regulations. We are telling them to take any job, regardless of past experience or education. We are telling them they have to take jobs because, if they do not take them, they will not receive unemployment insurance benefits. We are saying this as though it was their fault there are no jobs.

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
As I have indicated, the number of available jobs is limited to probably not more than one job for every 15 to 20 people unemployed. By forcing people who are receiving benefits out of the system we are not going to force them into other jobs. If every job vacancy was filled we would still have in the neighbourhood of 850,000 unemployed. That is a fact the minister stubbornly refuses to face.
We must consider who will be adversely affected by this measure. If we look at the facts we will discover it is not the ordinary citizen who has been brainwashed by the media of this country, and fooled by the kind of trick questions asked by those trained seals the minister hired to do this so-called survey, who will be affected. We will find it is precisely the poorest people in the country who live in slow-growth areas who will be adversely affected.
Let me refer the minister to a letter from a member of the legislature of Manitoba, the hon. member representing the provincial constituency of Churchill. That is an area in which a very large percentage-


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


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting debate because we have people sitting across there like the minister who has been desperately trying to extricate himself from one of the biggest examples of foot and mouth disease this House has seen for a long time as a result of his intemperate and untimely remarks in committee.


An hon. Member:: You're full of bugs.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I can tell you about bugs, if you like. There are more bugs in this bill, and in the head of a minister who would make a statement like he did in committee, than one could find anywhere else outside a Dutch elm farm, I would suggest. The simple fact is that those people opposite have got themselves in a bit of a box. These are the hon. gentlemen who, over the years, have prided themselves on being the guardians of the social conscience of the nation. I remember when the present chairman of Air Canada, recently appointed, extolled the virtues of income redistribution, and assured all and sundry that this was a great thing, and that the situation was going to be all right just as long as these people had the opportunity to talk about unemployment insurance and bring in their big ideas of what was going on in admiration of it.
Members in my party and in the New Democratic Party pointed out at that time what would happen. In fact the whole history of unemployment insurance difficulty in this country can be traced back to when the government started to manipulate the situation that was to be found when we had a national employment service. Anyone who would care to go back over the history of the parliamentary debates and to examine what occurred, would see that some years ago when Tom Kent, the exalted gentleman who is looking after Sydney Steel and who was previously appointed to look after Devco, in the name of a

national manpower strategy and other such misguided attempts to change the social fabric of the country, brought in, the forerunner to the present Unemployment Insurance Act.
There was a time in this country when employment and unemployment matters were in the control of the local office, and the local officials knew who needed work and who needed benefits. All of that was changed in the name of a national manpower strategy. In the aftermath of having this program computerized and dehumanized, there has been such gross administrative incompetence over the years that probably hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted, dollars which could have been applied to permanent job creation programs.
We have reached the stage now, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has said, where $4 billion is paid out in this country in such a way that it is a tremendous drain on the economy, simply because the government has manifestly failed to do anything constructive in the way of giving Canadians who want jobs an opportunity of full employment and to do something to help their country in the process.
When the minister is made to face his failure, he talks about people in the most disadvantaged areas of the country in terms of saying that he does not want to spoon-feed them or, as he says, "put a nipple in the mouths of those young-people of the country the way the New Democratic Party would do". Another comment he has made is, "sit at home and wait for the unemployment insurance just to pour in." I do not always agree with some of the theories of my friends to the left, but certainly there was no suggestion by anyone in that party or by any other members in this House that people in any part of Canada were exhibiting an attitude like that. I think that it shows the attitude of this government and the attitude of the minister, that he would blow his cool, make a statement like that and, in so doing, harden and exacerbate the attitudes in this House and, indeed, in the country, and create this kind of environment where people have to sit back and take those kinds of gratuitous insults.
What is the outlook for people in the slow growth areas of this country, particularly in view of the energy crisis and the increasing costs which people will face in provinces like my own, Prince Edward Island, and in many other areas of the country? There are absolutely no real prospects for industrial growth and, therefore, regional development, as long as this kind of economic condition exists. Yet this is the time when the government chooses to bring in legislation to make it basically impossible for people who do not have jobs to survive without either going on welfare or some sort of relief, which is provided not by the federal government but by the municipalities or the provincial governments.
It is very easy to see, if the government cared to listen to some of the statements put forward by spokesmen for the provinces, that there is no way that the economies of some of the Atlantic provinces can withstand this additional burden. The submission by the Hon. Leslie I. Hull, the minister of social services for New Brunswick, sets this out very graphically. He says:
December 18, 1978

As you are well aware, there is a large seasonal component to unemployment. In the Atlantic provinces, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate not only masks the true unemployment picture, but is subject to unilateral manipulation by that agency of the federal government-Statistics Canada, with whom New Brunswick in particular has had a disastrous experience with respect to the equalization formula.
There are many interesting comments which could be made about that hon. minister's statement. I do not know whether Statistics Canada can be blamed entirely, but it seems to me- I am glad to see that the minister is back in his seat, and I know that he will correct me if I am wrong-that there has been a real effort made by the minister and his officials to keep from the public and members of this House some of the more distasteful pictures which have emerged about job vacancies. For example, I think that there have been memoranda which have found their way out into the public realm and into the House which show that the minister and his department are very reluctant to have the people of Canada know the extent of unemployment in this country.
I have listened to my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), for many months while he has tried to bring to the attention of the House the situation of the hidden jobless. I have heard members in the New Democratic Party do the same thing. But this government steadfastly refuses to concede-or did until additional information came out-that anything other than the official figures as put out by Statistics Canada or the department could indicate the true state of unemployment. This kind of dishonesty is wrong, and it also indicates the attitude of this government in showing its distaste for job vacancy figures, another point which has been emphasized from this side of the House on different occasions.
How can people be expected to find employment in this country when there are only approximately 50,000 jobs available officially and there are perhaps, as my friend from Winnipeg North has indicated, over one million people unemployed? It does not make sense. Many provinces have made submissions to this government indicating ways in which they felt this bill could be improved and better administered, but again they met with absolutely no co-operation.
It is obvious, as far as answers to this country's unemployment question are concerned, that this government does not have any, when $4 billion is paid out as a drain on this country's economy and as a graphic testament to the failure of this government to take advantage of this nation's potential. If one thinks of the multiplier effect or the spin-off in the form of other unfortunate consequences as a result of the poor administration of this $4 billion, it is disastrous. This $4 billion is half of what the entire federal budget was not too many years ago.
When one thinks of the contribution that could be made to this country if those persons receiving the $4 billion in benefits were able to work, pay income tax and put their creativity to good use one begins to wonder. Some of them undoubtedly would be able to give up unemployment benefits and start their own businesses or create things which would enrich this country, instead of having to sit at home as do the people in my part of the country.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The people in my part of the country are not sitting at home and sucking their thumbs. They are looking for work, but they also feel that they have a right to live where they would like to in this country, where their forefathers have lived, and where they feel they have a right to make a decent living in the process.
A former minister of finance some years ago made the remark that it would be more appropriate for people to move out of depressed areas in this country.


An hon. Member:: One-way tickets.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, one-way tickets, as my friend has said. By taking that approach, the minister merely helped to exacerbate the attitudes of many people in this country.
The minister introduced this bill at a time when we are supposed to be considering national unity in this country. We are supposed to be considering equality of opportunity and a chance to develop that part of the country where confederation began. Instead of that, we get gratuitous insults about the kind of life we have a right to live in eastern Canada and are told that we are probably sucking our thumbs instead of trying to work. I do not really believe that the minister meant that literally.


An hon. Member:: Or said it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: If he did not say it, Mr. Speaker, then the minutes of that committee ought to be checked. If he did not say it, he came so close to saying it, as the minutes reflect, that a lot of people across the country, including the news media, television commentators, and members of parliament have been misinterpreting what he did say. The Canadian Press among many others.
If the minister did not say it, then it is interesting that the old fox, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), had to go to such great lengths to explain what he did say. I do not think he got very far in convincing Cape Bretoners and Nova Scotians that he did not say it. Perhaps the minister will have better luck in trying it again, but I doubt that very much.
The process of unemployment insurance benefits has really been deranged and dehumanized over the years by administrative incompetence. First of all, the government had to go through the exercise of divorcing unemployment insurance, and the Canada Manpower strategy, setting up separate offices all across the country, confusing the public in the process, trying desperately to improve on a system that was working satisfactorily and then going through what to anyone else would be colossal humiliation. This government, however, has delusions of divine omnipotence and expects the people of Canada to take this in stride. It proposes to undo all that which had been done at taxpayers' expense at a cost of several hundreds of millions of dollars of administrative costs.
They are now putting unemployment insurance offices and manpower offices back together again. That they should come

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
to parliament with such an administrative record and tell the Canadian people that they have to save money by cracking down on those who can least afford to pay, simply boggles the mind. With their history of maladministration, overpayments, complete disinterest in pursuing the abuses, how can they now come to this House in the Christmas season and through you, Mr. Speaker, tell unemployed people in the areas such as Newfoundland where unemployment is highest, that the only way the government can save money is to crack on the benefits available to seasonal workers and the like? Even Scrooge, with all his miserliness and the other objectionable qualities, would be taxed to the utmost to try to put together an approach such as this.
As this bill unfolds and as other members have an opportunity to speak, it will become more and more obvious that what this government proposes is not socially just or financially sound, but is unacceptable in every way. If they seek to impose it by use of closure, for example, or whatever other parliamentary device they have by virtue of their majority-which will not last much longer-they will have to answer for it very soon when the election is called.
I cannot think of a better issue on which to fight the next election than this government's record, in the creation of unemployment and the methods they choose to try to fool the people by bringing in such a measure as this. I am sure that many members who have sat in this House much longer than I, have not seen the equal of it. This could best be described as the personification of poetic justice-that this government has to come before parliament at this time of year, in the lame duck period of its administrative life, at a time when it is trying to push national unity, at a time of decay for this country that it brought on, at a time after ten years of its administration under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that has seen unemployment go up by several hundred per cent, at a time when the country's deficit and economic performance and social climate have never been more inhospitable to the type of measures the government is trying to bring forward.
Whether it is unemployment insurance or regional development to try to help the have-not areas, whether it is transportation, in order to bring some semblance of equality across the country, or energy rates, does not matter. It does not matter what sort of social or economic measures this government has tried to bring in, the record shows that matters have reached a state of decay. It is not possible to find any area of social or economic life in this country that has improved in the last ten years.
This particular measure hits people where they can least afford it. Their economic livelihood is affected, and this is something that cannot be excused.
To use a trite expression, Mr. Speaker, this is the last straw. This is the last administrative gasp of a government that has taken what used to be a reasonably good system that had some actuarial soundness and twisted it to where it is costing the country $4 billion. All they can think of is to try to change it hastily. The hon. member for York Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan), one of the newest and one of the most able
members of this House, pointed out in committee that instead of looking at it in an administrative way that makes sense from an actuarial point of view, the government is taking a hamfist-ed approach, an unfair approach, an approach that is socially unjust and administratively unsound.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, none of us on this side of the House can understand this particular approach, and why I could never support a measure such as this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to outline my concern regarding Bill C-14 which relates to the use by the Unemployment Insurance Commission of economic regions established by Statistics Canada to implement the repeater provision of the bill.
I notice that hon. members opposite are very vocal tonight, Mr. Speaker.
In reviewing the proposals in this bill, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it can be said that most people look forward to the amendments. There certainly has been a need to reform some of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would think that most people would support the provision that the minimum insurable earnings-if the bill is passed-will go up from $48, or one-fifth of maximum insurable earnings, to 20 hours per week at minimum wage, or 30 per cent of the maximum insurable earnings if a person is on commission or piece work. At the present time this would be 30 per cent of the maximum insurable earnings, $240, for minimum earnings on commission or piece work of $72. It is my understanding that the saving in Nova Scotia is $1.5 million.
The new entrance and re-entrance amendments will require people who are entering the work force to work for six months, and re-entrants, if they have not been part of the work force, to work for the last two years. Again this will mean a saving in Nova Scotia of $15.5 million.
Another amendment reduces the rate of UI benefits from 66% per cent to 60 per cent, which will become effective on January 1, if the bill is passed. This will mean a saving in Nova Scotia of $23 million.
Had the provisions for the 33 per cent recovery of payments, the benefit repayment for higher income recipients, been in effect in 1978, the threshold would have been $18,720, or coming from 1.5 times the yearly maximum insurable earnings, $12,480, so there will be a 30 per cent recovery payment. The saving in Nova Scotia will be approximately $0.6 million.
Let me return now to my area of concern in this bill, that is, the repeater provision. I would like to outline exactly what it would mean in Nova Scotia. This provision is for repeaters to the work force.
According to the variable entrance requirements, they will need up to six weeks of work over and above the present entrance requirement. This proposal would mean a higher entrance requirement for people during their qualifying peri-

December 18, 1978

od-the qualifying period refers here to the last 52 weeks since the last claim started, whichever period is started-who received more weeks of UI benefits, and again the weeks of benefits would include weeks where benefits are being paid or are payable. For example, weeks of disqualification for voluntary quitting are deemed to be weeks of benefit paid. In other words, this proposal would mean higher entrance requirements for people who receive more weeks of UI benefits than the number of weeks they need to qualify under the variable entrance requirement, that requirement at present in Nova Scotia being ten weeks.
Individuals who on their previous claims receive less than ten to 14 weeks of benefits, depending on where they live, would not be affected by the change. They would only be required to find the needed ten to 14 weeks of variable entrance requirements to establish a new claim. However, the penalty comes in areas where a person has been on an extended benefit period or has taken more weeks than their ten insurable weeks or variable entrance requirement.
In an area of high unemployment, where the entrance requirement is ten weeks, the maximum entrance requirement to requalify for benefits would be 16 weeks. In other words, there is a provision in this bill which will affect the repeaters in the same qualifying period, although the department officials have stated in committee, and in studies they have done, that approximately 30 per cent of the repeaters will be able to find additional weeks to qualify for benefits in the same qualifying period. The saving in Nova Scotia, excluding the exempted areas-and I notice that the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) represents an area which will probably be exempted, the proposed exempted areas being Cape Breton and northern Nova Scotia-will amount to a total of $5.5 million. Under the proposed amendments, the total saving in Nova Scotia will be approximately $46.2 million.


An hon. Member:: What a terrible government.


Coline M. Campbell: That is the proposal for the coming year.
My concern, as I said, is that the adoption of Statistics Canada economic regions does not reflect the true unemployment rate in South Western Nova. As presently defined, these regions will create a real hardship to thousands and thousands of Canadians, in my opinion. Nova Scotia has five economic regions according to Statistics Canada. As I mentioned, two areas are exempted from the repeater provisions, namely, Cape Breton and northern Nova Scotia which includes, for instance, Truro which, I am sure most Nova Scotians would agree, is one of the higher income areas in the province. However, areas such as these will be exempted from the repeater provisions.
My constituency illustrates the problems which would be created by the amendment. In economic region "E", which includes South Western Nova, the unemployment rate in 1977 was 10.3 per cent. Therefore we would not be exempted under the repeater provision contained in the bill. However, statistics obtained from the UIC district office in Yarmouth, which represents Digby, Yarmouth and Shelburne, are as follows: the average number of beneficiaries per month in Nova Scotia in
Unemployment Insurance Act
1977 was 39,382. For the same period, the average number per month at the Yarmouth district office was 4,339, approximately 11.1 per cent of the total number of beneficiaries for the province of Nova Scotia. However, the labour force for the Yarmouth district office, according to the 1976 mini-census, was 26,575 people. The percentage of unemployment at the Yarmouth district office, based on the average number of beneficiaries in 1977 out of the labour force in that area, was 16.3 per cent.
The total unemployment insurance paid out in 1977 for Nova Scotia was $192,881,000. For the Yarmouth district office it was $20,878,000, or approximately 10.8 per cent of the total paid out for Nova Scotia. However, the total population, using the district office figures, is only 8.8 per cent of the total population of Nova Scotia.
The above figures indicate that the UIC office in Yarmouth has an average unemployment of 16.3 per cent on a total labour force of 26,575. However, these statistics are overshadowed in economic region "E" by other areas, such as Lunenburg, which bring down the unemployment percentage of the region to the point of painting a badly distorted picture. The result is that this bill will disqualify, in my opinion, thousands of Canadians who would not be disqualified if they just lived on the other side of what is evidently an artificial boundary line.
As hon. members are aware, many areas in the Atlantic provinces have been exempted from the harshness of this clause. In Nova Scotia there are two Statistics Canada economic regions out of five which are exempt because their levels of unemployment do not average below 11.5 per cent. As I already mentioned, these areas are Cape Breton and northern mainland Nova Scotia, which includes approximately 38.9 per cent of the population of Nova Scotia 15 years of age and over.
The constituency of South Western Nova falls in another economic region which is not exempted. This region has about 14.5 per cent of the population of Nova Scotia. However, in this economic region the unemployment insurance district office for most of my constituency, Digby, Yarmouth and Shelburne, is situated in Yarmouth. It represents about 7.6 per cent of the total population of Nova Scotia.
The economic base of the constituency of South Western Nova is solely dependent on the amount of fish caught, a bit of farming and forestry and, of course, the tourist season in the months of June, July, August, and part of September. Therefore it is seasonal employment on which the people have to depend. This area also has some of the lowest incomes in the province.
As I said, this provision, particularly the use of economic regions without any discretion, is harmful in its effect on the constituency. Because the economic regions used by Statistics Canada are inadequate in calculating the unemployment rate in a given area, the minister or the commission should have the power to make special regulations so that all regions in

December 18, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Canada will accurately reflect real unemployment levels and not just area wide averages.
I realize that the pledge of this government is to produce work programs. I also realize that at the provincial level, in conjunction with federal programs, there is job creation. I believe that areas such as South Western Nova should have some say in how and where those jobs will be created. I also realize that our fishing industry will have to produce, as well as produce more finished products.
Come next September, October or November when one is looking for the required number of weeks, I hope there will have been jobs in that area in order that the people there can qualify with this ten to 16 weeks repeated provision.
I know the people in my area and all across Canada are looking for reforms within unemployment insurance. However, there must be some discretion as to the hardship this provision will cause if it is included in this bill. I cannot see why one area in Nova Scotia should be discriminated against because of the use of statistic regions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the next speaker, 1 should advise hon. members that 1 am becoming concerned about the way this report stage debate is developing into a second reading stage debate. This may be because of intimations of the Chair in the last session. However, there will have to be a rethinking of the process of report stage with some direction given to the Chair because it is impossible for the Chair, with all the authority given to it, to intervene every time and try to bring a member back to an amendment to a clause. I say this without wanting to prevent any member from participating in the debate. I just draw that to the attention of hon. members. When we get an opportunity tomorrow to look at the debates of today, we may be in a position to evaluate whether we are going in the right direction.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my distinguished colleague from South Western Nova would reply to a very brief question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member accepts the question, there is no problem.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I attended the committee meetings. I did not see the hon. member there. However, if he would like to ask a question, that is fine.


J. Michael Forrestall: Having supported this motion in committee, would the hon. member care to indicate to the House how she intends to vote at report stage?


Coline M. Campbell: The hon. member has been here longer than I. I am sure he realizes the final bill is not here. I will let the hon. member know at that time.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the comments you made a moment ago concerning procedure at the report stage of the bill. I am the first one to

be dismayed by procedure. I have to put up with it like all other members as long as it exists in its present form, because it has to be enforced. It is not the first time that we witness such confusion in our proceedings specifically as the result of that procedure. We think we are progressing but instead we are moving backwards. I have always maintained that it would be advisable to proceed in committee of the whole. I have always found that we then moved more quickly. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with procedure but merely say a few words about the comment you made a moment ago.
Mr. Speaker, I would like very seriously to give my view on the bill amending the unemployment insurance legislation. I remember that when the bill was passed by parliament some years ago, it then met an essential need. It was after or during the war. It was at a time when there were a great many jobs. With a few exceptions during the seasonal periods, most Canadians could work. It was not so mechanized and modern as it is today, and parliament adopted this legislation to make it possible for workers who became unemployed once in a while to get some money without incurring debts. That is why it was termed an insurance, for workers were called upon to pay a premium to protect themselves.
Later on, the legislation was amended. If the government is complaining today that too many workers are abusing the unemployment insurance legislation instead of actively seeking employment, it is because it introduced amendments which encouraged workers not to work-unfortunately, for a number of them, I do not want to generalize-and then to quit the labour market, because it was more interesting to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The benefits had been increased considerably and made more readily available.
Mr. Speaker, it is when there is much activity in the economy of a country, more particularly in Canada, that the eligibility conditions for unemployment insurance benefits must be the most difficult to meet. In such periods, it is generally possible for workers to find jobs and keep them. Therefore, in such times it is absolutely essential that the law be more strict if we want workers to keep serving the country, if we want them to be patriots and to work in order to transform our resources into useful goods that will be sold at the retail level in order to meet public demand. But when there is a recession, when the economy is in difficulty, when jobs are scarce, when progress has left less and less place for the worker and for the human participation in the production of essential goods or in the transformation of resources, I think the advantages or benefits of a law such as the Unemployment Insurance Act should be easier to obtain. Indeed, we must not penalize people because scientists, intelligent people, have succeeded in inventing and modernizing services. In all fields of activity, everyone aims at producing as much with fewer employees or at producing more without having to use a larger work force and they always succeed.
December 18, 1978

Naturally, the union movement as we know it today is another cause of the problem we are now witnessing in Canada. I am all for unions, but I am absolutely astounded to see some leaders use their unions as a tool not to build, not only to fight for the rights of the workers, but to change all sorts of things in our society which do not always better the fate of the workers, their families and the people as a whole. That is one of the reasons why many businesses in Canada do not want to expand at this time despite the incentives offered by the various governments. There are so many problems on every side, so many complications. Someone says: Let us set up a program to create jobs, to help public organizations give services to municipalities, to the people. On the other hand, we see a proliferation of rules, laws and requirements which prevent the implementation of thoses programs. And the bickering starts. On the one hand, there are inspectors who check on the people who work; and on the other, people are penalized when they work.
I could see that again in my constituency during the weekend. It is discouraging to see how public affairs are administered to annoy people, to make them quarrel. The Unemployment Insurance Act in its present form has bad aspects. The previous time it was amended, through Bill C-27, it was worsened instead of being improved. I recall that at the time I took part in the debate, and I said in the House that the amendments we were introducing were not likely to improve the conditions of the workers or to create jobs. The act in its present form, does not please everyone, of course. Earlier I heard the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) who wanted to express his views on this bill-


An hon. Member:: Where is he now?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I think he was right when he said that this piece of legislation would be acceptable if it were applied only in centres where manpower is being trained, where the unemployment level is very low. But in rural and underdeveloped areas, where industries do not settle but where there is plenty of manpower, this legislation will create more problems than it will solve.
The hon. member said that the 23 per cent figure as we know it is not correct. He is the one who quoted this figure earlier when he mentioned that in his riding 42 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. If he quoted that figure, I suppose he analyzed it first and I am convinced that he did not exaggerate. In my area, it is the director of the manpower centre who conducted an analysis and a review of the situation, and who stated at a certain point that 25 per cent of the labour force in that area was unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, I have other things to add, but I would like to point out that it is ten o'clock.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight have to do with two questions I addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. All-mand) and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on November 27. They were related to a beef industry seminar which was held in Regina on November 22 and 23, and at which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was the after lunch speaker.
This two-day seminar was sponsored by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Meat Packers Council of Canada. It was an excellent conference, the first of its kind in some five years. Discussion was focused on four main subjects-consumption, production, marketing, and government. It was significant that the opening session dealt with consumers, and their representatives were very much involved throughout the entire two-day meetings, especially Mrs. Yvonne Miles, president of the Canadian Association of Consumers.
I suggest that the minister's remarks to the seminar were abrupt and abrasive. I suggest to him that the public at large is well aware of the extreme difficulties from which the Canadian cattle industry has just emerged after three or four years of operation at or below cost of production. This applies to all sections of the industry, but particularly to the cow-calf, grass yearling and feedlot sectors. Just a courteous reference by the minister in his speech to this background would have been both appropriate and appreciated.
His two personal assistants attended the meeting and could have properly briefed the minister. Certainly, he was invited to speak as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but he might at least have been more aware of his audience and of the people they represented. They represent a $2 billion industry, the largest agricultural commodity group in Canada. Instead, the minister called for a conference of all sectors of the beef chain to establish a dialogue for decision. That is precisely what that meeting was. It was the first time in five years we got around to doing that on our own.
He told us to rationalize our operation and improve efficiency. Where was he in the terrible western drought year of 1977, the worst since the 1930s, and during last winter's blizzards which killed thousands of cattle?
Then he proposed floor and ceiling prices for live cattle and opening up our beef import quotas, this to protect consumers.

December 18, 1978
Adjournment Debate
He quickly forgot the $10 market drop over the entire North American continent which came after President Carter opened the United States beef import quotas by only one pound per person last spring. This, of course, was done for political purposes.
Finally, at a beef seminar he told Canadians to eat more fish and poultry. I repeat: he was abrupt and abrasive.
We are now on the down side of our cattle number cycle, in Canada and the United States, and that is why the price cycle is now higher. Continued heavy kill of cows and heifers in North America has definitely lowered our potential per capita supplies for 1980 through to the end of 1982. We are now in a critical position.
Our Canadian Cattlemen's Association has advised Canadian cattle producers to retain 15 per cent to 20 per cent more heifer calves than last year for breeding next year. In my opinion this has not happened and, in addition, too many cows which could have produced two more calves each went to slaughter this fall. Both of these developments arose for the same reason, that is, to take advantage of the very strong cattle prices to pay off creditors, in other words, banks, after four losing years.
In my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture I asked for a reassurance that it was not government policy to increase beef import quotas and to install floor and ceiling live cattle price limitations. I thank the minister for this reassurance. He said this: "At this time we have no intention of changing it." He went on to add, and I quote:
-if the policy which was announced jointly by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself did not work, we would bring in an immediate import law.
That was a reference to a joint policy announcement by the Department of Agriculture and by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce last March 30. The announcement came under the heading "Beef and Veal Import Controls". I want to quote briefly from that announcement:
The quotas will be set under the Export and Import Permits Act in relation to the average level of beef and veal imports between 1971 and 1975, adjusted for changes in domestic beef consumption since this base period.
The announcement went on as follows:
We will use this procedure for the next three years and evaluate its effectiveness ... we will introduce legislation to control imports.
Such legislation would be introduced if it were necessary. That three-year period will not be up until March of 1980. Let us not have a repeat of 1976 when 186 million pounds of offshore beef were imported. That was an increase of some 60 per cent over the previous year, with the help of that infamous "6 cent under" rule.
Finally, I want to add that Canadian beef cattle producers and feeders desperately need some incentive to remain in the beef cattle industry. Their confidence in government policy, both short and long term, has been severely tried over the last four years. Increasing import quotas and bringing in floor and ceiling live prices is not the way to bring confidence and increased production and stability to our cattle industry. I urge

the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to announce the 1979 beef import quotas as soon as possible and before the year's end so that our industry can plan accordingly.


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in a joint statement dated March 30, 1978, issued by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), it was announced that the federal government set up an ongoing procedure to control imports of beef and veal. At the time it was stated that the quotas will be set under the Export and Import Permits Act in relation to the average level of beef and veal imports between 1971 and 1975, adjusted for changes in domestic beef consumption since this base period. The government is currently in the stage of calculating what the import levels should be for 1979. We are not able to say specifically that there will be no adjustment in 1979, but I can say that the minister does not expect any substantial change.
It is recognized that cattle producers have had a difficult time during the last four years, but fortunately cattle prices have improved substantially. However, we believe producers must be given an opportunity to recoup some of their losses and regain confidence in the cattle industry. Only if Canadian cattle producers have confidence that in the longer term they will receive reasonable and stable prices, will they again increase their cattle inventory levels. Of course, this is in the long term interest of consumers as well.
With reference to the current marketing situation, undoubtedly the hon. member is aware that the level of cow marketings has decreased. This points to an increase in cattle inventories some time down the road. However, a turnaround in the beef situation will not take place until around 1982 because of the time required for the build up of cattle herds.
While it is recognized there has been some increase in cow exports, this was brought about partly as a result of the change in exchange rates, that is, the reduced value of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the United States dollar, and partly by the failure of our processors to outbid their United States counterparts for Canadian supplies. We have no intention of introducing a floor and ceiling for live cattle prices. Concerning the floor price, hon. members are probably familiar with the stabilization program which is in effect.
Slaughter cattle are one of the named commodities under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. This act, along with the cow-calf stabilization program, has been of real benefit in helping producers through the difficult period. The stabilization program assisted producers to cover their cash costs of production and to carry on despite the low prices as a result of the sharp increase in beef supplies on the world market.
The emphasis on stability is consistent with our policy to control imports. A ceiling on live cattle prices, on the other hand, would only further disrupt the cattle industry and undermine the confidence we are trying to restore to the
December 18, 1978

industry for the long-term benefit of Canadian producers and consumers.


EMPLOYMENT-CLARIFICATION OF PROVISIONS OF OUTREACH PROGRAM
Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, my concern tonight is a question which I asked of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) on last Thursday. It arose in a committee hearing at which the question of the outreach projects and their evaluation was being discussed, particularly the question as to why the evaluation of those projects could not be made public.
In answer to a question asked by an lion, member of the New Democratic Party, the minister said that there may be some situation where they do an evaluation of the project and find that somebody in charge of it is a hopeless alcoholic or a drug addict or they have a problem at home, or God knows what else. Also he indicated that they did not want to make that kind of information public. The sentiment on the part of the minister seemed quite clear in his answer. At the time it took some 90 people who worked for Outreach programs across the country-and there are 22 such programs-and put them all in the same bag. It made them all subject to the possibility that their projects were not being evaluated in a public way because they were drug addicts or alcoholics.
I asked a question of the minister. He said that there may be some situations. I was not asking him to make all evaluations public. I was asking him to clarify whether he was referring to all of the employees, all of the project managers, or only some of them. I received representations in my office, as I am sure a number of other members did, from the employees or people who were working on those Outreach programs. They wondered why they were singled out to be slurred with this type of allegation by the minister. His answer was simply to explain what was quite clear from his original statement, that they did not want to make personal information public. We understand that on this side of the House.
Perhaps there are occasions when personal information in a memorandum may be embarrassing to someone if released. We would never make anything public, or want it made public, when it is embarrassing to a private individual. If it is embarrassing to someone in the House, that is a slightly different case. We understand the concern the minister had. What we do not understand is why he refuses to make those evaluations public in the face of what is a perfectly reasonable request. Hopefully tonight will give the minister or his representative a chance to put that wrong right and to admit there is a valid principle of privacy, but you do not have to extend it to all 90 people.
We wonder whether the reluctance to release that kind of information is perhaps because in the process of the budget cuts that were announced during August the government has been cutting programs without regard for their efficiency or effectiveness. We wonder whether the evaluations that are so
Adjournment Debate
secret for these allegedly personal reasons are being kept secret because they reveal that these programs operated by volunteers have in fact been more effective than programs operated under the direct control of the minister.
There is suspicion on this side of the House, as well as outside the House, that many of these cutbacks being talked about in such broad terms are a sham and that where the cutbacks are real they are being implemented in a very sudden, unplanned and ad hoc way, and that projects which are more efficient than those of agencies directly under the control of a variety of ministers in the government are being cut back without public reasons being given because it would be embarrassing to the ministers involved to have that fact revealed, that volunteers working on their own for low pay, with poor resources, can achieve a higher level of accomplishment than the vast bureaucracy run by this government.
Let me quote from a presentation prepared by some of the Outreach people backing up that point. They said:
In response to a question posed in the House of Commons, Bud Cullen justified the elimination of women as an Outreach target group on the basis of "16 or 17" other programs which his ministry has set up to help women.
That has reference to the ministry of unemployment and immigration. I suppose I should say "employment and immigration", to be formally correct.
The quotation continues as follows:
In fact, there are no other services which fill the needs that Outreach programs address. Mr. Cullen did not specify the programs he had in mind, and employees in his department were unable to name 16 or 17 other services that are directed toward women. Programs which do exist to serve women, while useful, do not deal with the client volume served by Outreach projects. In Ottawa, for example, two major C.E.C. women's courses ... respectively served 16 and 18 clients last year, compared to 600 served by the three counsellors at the Ottawa women's Outreach program. Similar ratios apply to Toronto and London.
This whole evaluation process is being kept very secret. The people who run the programs are not being consulted. They do not know how they are being assessed. They do not know what the results of those assessments are. All they know is that the minister justifies his refusal to make those assessments public by saying that some of the people who manage the programs might be drunks or dope addicts. I think that is an inexcusable refusal to provide information on how well the programs have gone.
We sympathize with the government's desire to cut back. We feel it is necessary to cut back on the amount the government is and has been spending, but if the government is doing it in this way without any public assessment of programs, and without any ability of people to compare the assessments that are being made, and to say then that this is a justified cutback, and that is a justified cutback, and this is an unjustified cutback, is not acceptable. There may be cases where very valuable programs have to be cut. We are certainly never going to know, if this is the kind of process the government follows. We are certainly never going to know, if ministers of the Crown give this kind of answer to serious questions when the reputations of very dedicated volunteers have been impugned in this House or in committees of this House.

December 18, 1978
Adjournment Debate


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate the minister's opposition to the tabling of the individual Outreach project assessments in their entirety. However, at committee the minister was asked to provide the following: (a) the program evaluation, less its recommendations and conclusions: (b) the program criteria; and, (c) the assessment of certain women's projects. The minister has agreed to table soon, at the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, the evaluation and the criteria. He will not table the assessments as they may contain material which could be misconstrued and cause a negative effect on the projects themselves.
Let me explain to those who may not be aware what the Outreach program is. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission's Outreach program aims at improving the job prospects of people who, for various reasons, cannot benefit fully from services offered by local Canada Employment centres, manpower services.
Some of the commission's clients have many barriers to overcome in their search for jobs, and Outreach focuses on helping the following groups who are particularly affected: native people, physically and mentally handicapped people, long-term welfare recipients, inmates and ex-inmates, residents of isolated or remote communities, and people experiencing great difficulty entering or re-entering the labour force.
Through Outreach, community groups and agencies can sponsor a project which delivers a full range of personalized employment-related services and provides access to commission programs for their clients. In many cases these agencies already offer employment-related services, and with the help of and on behalf of the commission, can broaden the scope and extent of these services. The agencies fulfil a valuable role by providing an interim service for their clients until they no longer need it or until they can benefit from regular Manpower services.
When a community group or agency has identified a need for employment-related services for a special group, it submits a project proposal. Once a proposal is accepted, an agreement is signed between the commission and the community group or agency. The agreement reflects the project activities, procedures and objectives, and defines the commission's rights and obligations and the agency's obligations to the commission and to the clientele.
Having said all this, and to explain the program better, the minister will also be tabling, with the standing committee, profiles of all women's projects in Canada, with selected statistics relating to each of these projects.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME II