1978-12-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that this administration has consistently refused to be specific about the serious long-range expenditure and revenue implications of the family allowance and refundable child tax credit program, and noting that the Department of Finance has criticized the very method the government used to implement the program, both calling the accoun'ing of it "somewhat artificial" and suggesting that refundable tax credits should be presented as explicit expenditures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. de Cotret):
That this House refer the method of accounting for the family allowance and refundable child tax credit program to the Auditor General, so that he may determine whether the revenue and expenditure implications of the program are being presented properly in the accounts, so that he may discover whether the government is aware of the long-range financial implications of the program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SALE OF SURPLUS GRAIN ON EXPORT MARKET-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion, under Standing Orde: 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Because a larger than normal crop usually produces a surplus above that the Canadian market can absorb and drives prices down, and in order to maintain farm prices at a level which will give our farmers a satisfactory return for the capital
and labour they put into their year's operations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to, in future, sell such surpluses in the export market for the best price obtainable, thus removing the downward pressure from the Canadian market and enabling Canadian farmers to receive a fair return for their year's work.


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. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In view of the fact that the drydock in Saint John, New Brunswick, has been pledged $10 million toward expansion to allow that dock to undergo ship repairs-and we welcome that news because it will provide badly needed jobs in Saint John-I move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce act immediately on the application made nine months ago to provide the $8 million for the Government of Canada drydock in St. John's, Newfoundland, to instal a synchrolift, thus increasing employment by some 200 and giving the drydock the facilities to enter into major contracts already arranged for the repair of foreign fishing vessels as well as handling all work offered.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent, under Standing Order 43, in the spirit of Christmas, there having been discussion for some time among the parties.

December 22, 1978
The motion is to reintroduce a bill to redress an anomaly in the redistribution of northern Ontario ridings. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That Bill C-60 of the second session of this parliament, an act to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario, be reintroduced this day at introduction of bills and proceeded with at all stages and disposed of without further debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the meeting earlier this week of the Council of Maritime Premiers which decided unanimously to appeal directly to the Prime Minister over the unilateral withdrawal of support for the land information and registration service, with the subsequent loss of a new, high technology industry for the maritime provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Crosby):
That the Prime Minister immediately make arrangements to meet with the three maritime premiers and ask for a joint review of the original announcement by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the minister of economic development.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the position taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) regarding an important air navigation order known as the Aeronautical Communications Standards and Procedures Order regulating some aspects of the use of the French language in the air, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Minister of Transport take the requisite steps to modify or remove provisions of this high-profile air navigation order affecting the options for the use of the French language, since he has ignored his responsibilities as minister
(Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).]
for over two years in this matter, with the result that the whole system of air regulations is being undermined and the practical considerations for the use of the French language in the air, in light of present-day technical realities, has been set back by his failure to recognize the obvious need for change as thousands of violations have piled up.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek unanimous consent to move a motion.
Having regard to the frustration and disappointment felt by all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as a result of their being prevented from taking part in the implementation of their subcommittee's report on penitentiaries, and in view of the fact that the report, made and accepted unanimously, recommended a continuing reference of the subject to the standing committee, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Solicitor General initiate proceedings to cause a reference to be made to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs concerning the implementation of the report on penitentiaries.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Before it can be presented for debate the unanimous consent of the House is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: 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 the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has indicated that the default rate under the AHOP program is probably around 5 per cent, involving approximately 5,000 households, a figure which includes all AHOP purchasers, and since the candidates most likely to be in a default position are the initial purchasers in 1973 and 1974, the figure of 5,000 householders more accurately represents a default rate of 20 per cent, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
December 22, 1978

That this House direct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and his senior officials from CMHC to appear before a special meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, a motion such as has been proposed requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is still waiting to set up a poultry and broiler marketing agency in Canada which is unfair and not too encouraging for Quebec farmers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle):
That the Minister of Agriculture and the government deal as soon as possible with the establishment of that marketing board and the national program for poultry and broiler producers in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such motion can only be introduced for debate with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last November, a little more than a year ago, the hon. gentleman predicted we were on the threshold of tremendous growth. We are still on that threshold.
Oral Questions
Yesterday, his department issued a report, "Year-End Review and Outlook", in which it was stated that a sharp slow-down in the United States economy next year would hurt Canadian exports. We know there is going to be a sharp downturn in the U.S. economy next year: predictions are for an increase in gross national product of 2 per cent only. The report says exports have fuelled Canadian growth in the past two years but that we are, unfortunately, not going to be able to rely on a repeat performance in 1979.
An aide to the minister has suggested that the views of the department and of the minister do not necessarily coincide. My question is this: do the minister's views coincide with the views and opinions expressed in the report of his department?
If they do not, will the hon. gentleman explain where they do not coincide, and would he tell us upon whose views the government is proceeding-his views, or the department s if there is a difference?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the department's views versus my views. The department is making an estimate based upon what they think could happen next year if there is a slowdown in the American economy. I believe the American economy will not slowdown as much as some experts have suggested it will, and I certainly believe we will experience another good year in exports next year because it takes a while for the lower dollar to really take effect.
So I think the department is really being somewhat ultraconservative in the economic predictions in their paper. I do not take that view: I look forward with a very buoyant attitude toward the future of the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In other words, the hon. minister is saying he is very bullish. What the minister has said is that he does not agree with the estimates made by his department with respect to the growth, or lack of growth, in the U.S. economy for next year.
Gin)
If that is the case, why is he permitting his department to put out a report that says our export performance is going to be down next year as compared to this year? If the minister believes that his department's forecasts are not accurate, and if he believes that the Americans have now got their economics right-that is what he was implying a few weeks ago when he said that they had not got them right-will he explain to us why he permits the department to put out assessments that he does not agree with?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I did not say I did not agree with the assessment the department made, but 1 think it is customary for civil servants to tend to put their projections a little on the safe side. The hon. member refers to me as being bullish. That is fine. But I am not a civil servant; I am the leader of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 22, 1978
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think it would be natural for me to be slightly more optimistic than the ultra-conservative attitude which sometimes is found within civil servants. I do not disagree with them; I am just up ahead of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know they have a leader in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, because we thought that the Minister of State (Small Business) was usurping that position. The press has said, "There is Tweedledum and Tweedledummer; sitting by Jack is really a bummer".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister's National Design Council has received a report on commercial innovation of secondary industry which states that Canadian firms will have great difficulty competing against imports, despite the decline in the dollar, because they do not have technical ability to match the imported products, and they say that much of Canadian manufacturing in newer products with the fastest growth rates are the areas where we have the heaviest imports.
In view of that, what steps has the minister taken to act on that report and to try to overcome these serious problems? If the minister is not going to overcome them, we will have to call on his deskmate to overcome these problems.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I made a lengthy speech in the House the other night outlining clearly the financial responsibility which my department is taking to encourage rationalization in some industries and to encourage investment in some industries. I am pleased to be able to say that in manufacturing alone we have produced, November over November of last year, over 130,000 more jobs in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am also pleased to say our imports of manufactured goods, if termed on a volume basis rather than on a dollar basis, are practically nil. There has been very little increase at all in the import of manufactured goods, if one rates it on a volume basis. If imports are rated on a dollar basis, because they are priced on the international market they are priced 15 per cent higher, or thereabouts, in relation to our dollar. So the dollar figures make it look like the import of manufactured goods has increased, but in fact that is not really the case.
If the hon. member can understand figures nearly as well as the hon. member for St. John's East, he should be able to comprehend what I am saying. However, I have very great difficulty believing that the hon. member can really understand figures, because he is a jokester around this House; he seems to understand poetry and humour, but nothing else.


CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT IN 1979
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, following on my colleague's questioning of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
It is obvious that various members of the staff of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce now feel that our trade balance will worsen next year, which will mean that the current account deficit will be even worse in 1979 than it has been in 1978. In a review last month, McLeod, Young, Weir pointed out that in Canada's case, interest rate increases to stabilize currency simply reflects an unwillingness to come to grips with and deal with our four major current account problems.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to follow the policy of increasing interest rates domestically, with the hope that he will attract sufficient foreign funds to overcome the current account deficit, which seems to be increasing steadily, or will he agree that fiscal measures are needed, and not this monetary approach he is taking, to stabilize our dollar?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: If I understand the hon. member-and I hope he will put it in his program- we should not raise taxes, because he speaks about stabilization of the fiscal side of our policies. But that is not what his party speaks about when they go to the country trying to buy votes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member has taken the study and tried to make a lot of it. I was expecting him to get up this morning and congratulate me because OECD, in its report yesterday, made exactly the same prediction as I did for next year. We will do much better than the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Minister of Finance forgot to mention who supplied OECD with the figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: However, let me follow-up further on the question of the mounting current account deficit, which I notice the minister does not deny. Does he propose to continue to spend as much as $500 million a month-that is the amount that has gone out so far this month and that is the amount that went out last month-and does he intend to spend that amount in U.S. dollar reserves in defending the Canadian dollar which he claims is floating?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First, Mr. Speaker, the current account for the first three-quarters of this year was $200 million less than last year. So when the hon. member speaks about the fact that it is ever-increasing, he should read the latest statistics.
December 22, 1978

Perhaps the hon. member would like to repeat the second part of his question; then I will be able to reply to it.


An hon. Member:: You need a holiday.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would point out to the Minister of Finance that Canada has run a current account deficit of $3.8 billion to $4.8 billion since 1975, as compared to the current account which was basically in balance between 1971 and 1973.
My question which the minister forgot was this: in view of the chronic current account deficit which is putting our dollar under pressure, does the minister intend to maintain his program of spending as much as $500 million a month on U.S. dollar reserve losses, rather than to correct the basic problem that is causing the current account deficit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should like to hear the hon. member repeat that his answer to the problem is to raise taxes, and I hope he will say that during the campaign. If I were to add up all the promises made by his leader while campaigning around the country, I would have to come to the conclusion that we would have to reduce taxes by a further $5 billion. I want to say that in terms of the floating currency we have to spend some of the reserves. But this is not spending money, as the hon. member would like to think. When we have to use some reserves, we gain Canadian dollars and the cost to the government is the difference between the price we pay for the borrowed money abroad and the price we get for that money which we lend back.
The floating dollar policy is one that has been followed for a long time. We were the first to start it in the early 1970s and we have maintained that policy. At this moment, the value of the Canadian dollar is very good for our business performance. We will have a record year in trade this year, amounting o close to $4 billion, and we will still have a large surplus next year. So we are not in a bad trade position; in fact, we are in a very good position because of the dollar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark:: You will have to live with those words.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Get up and speak now.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Rae:: It is only 11.30 in the morning.


COMBINES
[Stage Direction]
OFFER BY DOMTAR TO ACQUIRE MacMILLAN BLOEDEL
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It was announced yesterday that Domtar Incorporated has made an offer of some $587 million for all outstanding shares of MacMillan Bloedel Limited of Vancouver.
Oral Questions
In view of the dramatic increase in profits in the pulp and paper industry and increased merger activity in that industry, of which this is only the most recent example, can the minister tell us how he feels the interests of Canadian workers and consumers are being protected by this kind of merger and acquisition activity?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed merger is presently under review by the director of investigations under the Combines Investigation Act.


Bob Rae: As the minister may be aware, between January 1 and September 30 of this year the competition policy branch of his department revealed that there were 336 proposals for mergers, of which 199 were from foreign companies and 137 from Canadian firms. These range all the way from the energy business to real estate and from the liquor trade to the pulp and paper industry.
What guarantees can the minister give that this kind of concentration activity, with its skyrocketing prices and profits, will result in new jobs and investment in Canada and also reasonable prices for consumers?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment further on the investigation carried on by the director, because that is contrary to the general policy: it is not considered a proper thing to do while an investigation is under way.
Respecting the second part of the hon. member's question, the result of mergers in general on the economy is a difficult question to answer during the oral question period. It requires a much more detailed response.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that the minister was a paper tiger: perhaps I should say that he is a pulp and paper tiger in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: The minister's question simply reveals that free competition among industrial giants leads to a concentration where one company is devouring another. Can the minister not see a distinction between investment which creates jobs and lower prices, and merger and acquisition activity which simply leads to guaranteed markets and guaranteed high prices?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that hon. member is entering into a very general debate.

December 22, 1978
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could he tell the House whether he intends to establish a national poultry marketing board in Canada and, if so, when?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and very soon.


SUBSIDY PAYMENT TO INDUSTRIAL MILK PRODUCERS- MINISTER'S POSITION
Léonel Beaudoin: In that case, I am very optimistic, considering the minister's answer. I am going to go to another subject. Can the minister say whether he is considering giving industrial milk producers the 52 cents they are asking for, and if not, why not?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, yes.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether he has received a communication from representatives of the Indian people in the prairie provinces asking him to remove or replace the Minister of National Health and Welfare because of her unsatisfactory handling of the Indian health services? If he has considered this good advice, when can we expect him to take some action on it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I received such a communication but I do not agree with the hon. member that it is good advice.


MINISTER'S MEETING WITH MARITIME INDIAN CHIEFS
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in the House, so I will direct my supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact he apparently wants to keep the minister on the job, will he ask her to live up to the commitments she made in the House last Monday and Friday that she would meet with the maritime chiefs in the maritimes?


An hon. Member:: Here she comes.


Paul Yewchuk: Today, she sent a telex suggesting that she wants them to come back to Ottawa to meet with her. In view of the charges made by the president of the Alberta Indian Association, that the new health policy she enunciated for Indians will result in unnecessary deaths among Indian people, will the minister give a commitment to review this policy to prevent these unnecessary deaths?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Prime Minister-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. If I appear to be emotional about that question, it is because I am deeply shocked-and I mean every word I am using this morning-at the accusation of the hon. member that the guidelines regarding eyeglasses, dental expenditures and transportation costs will cause the death of anybody in the country. I do not accept that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: I should like the hon. member to withdraw what he said, because it is an accusation unacceptable to any Canadian.


An hon. Member:: That's nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What a cry baby.


Monique Bégin: I find that shocking and absolutely unacceptable. We are faced with a problem which I think is taking on proportions that are dangerous for those who care about the health of Indians, starting with the Indians themselves living on reserves. They do not know what goes on in this city in a political way, at times at an irresponsible level.
I have received representations from some chiefs. I did not hear from the National Indian Brotherhood with whom I met a few weeks ago, including representatives from every province and territory. I have since received, quite suddenly, representations from chiefs of four groups of provincial federations. I addressed the problem immediately and told the people who suddenly wanted to come to Ottawa, after I had already agreed to meet other groups' representatives in my department, for whom I work, that I would not see them immediately because that was impossible, but I would very soon and I asked if our technical people could meet with them right away.
The CBC had a program which was-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious why the minister has imposed this policy, because one of the things she has cut out is ambulance rides to take sick people to hospital. If she does not think that is a threat to their lives, then she is a lost cause in this regard.
December 22, 1978

I would like her to explain why she sent a telex to the maritime chiefs this morning telling them she will not meet with them there, but wants them to come to Ottawa, when only this last Monday and last Friday she said she would go to the maritimes to meet with them to discuss this very serious problem.


Monique Bégin: Because in between, Mr. Speaker, the CBC made a statement that is completely incorrect and incompetent and I have asked for a retraction, and I am speaking English to make sure it is understood directly by all those who are representing English-speaking Indians in this country.
This subject is a most important one. The health of Indians and the health of anybody is sacrosanct. I will never accept that a member has the guts to stand up, without checking any facts, and accuse anybody of causing death. There is no fooling around on that question, and I will not accept it.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Postmaster General. Is he aware that the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission is using a private postal carrier to deliver its bills, at a cost of eight cents a bill instead of the 14 cents, soon to rise to 17 cents, charged by his department?
Has A. J. L. Whitton, marketing director for the Post Office in Ontario, advised the commission that it may be in contravention of the Post Office Act which gives the Postmaster General the sole and exclusive privilege of delivering and collecting letters in Canada? If this is so, is this government policy? Furthermore, can the Postmaster General explain how a private carrier can deliver and make a profit at eight cents a letter when the post office is losing millions of dollars at what will soon be twice the rate, namely, 17 cents?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should tell the hon. member that I am well aware of the incident. However, I have not yet had a full report on the incident in order to see who is right or wrong. I have asked for legal advice on this and I will take the proper steps depending upon the result of that legal advice. However, nothing has been proven, either-that a private carrier can deliver for six cents, seven cents or eight cents and make a profit. He might do that just for annoyance or in an attempt to do business with this commission.
I think it will be very interesting to see the legal advice we receive, because depending on whether we can apply the law or not we may want to ask for an amendment to the bill imple-
Oral Questions
menting the Crown corporation in order to make sure this is well clarified.
I am surprised that a public commission or municipality is not ready to abide by the Post Office Act, if they are aware of it-and I am sure they are. As an ex-mayor of Quebec, I can say that I abided by the law of governments and by any law as it was submitted to me. I am surprised that a municipality does not want to abide by the law within the terms of the Post Office Act.


EMPLOYEES NOT RECEIVING FULL PAY IN CERTAIN AREAS
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct another question to the Postmaster General. Reports indicate that there has been a great mix-up in Calgary and in some other offices in respect of pay cheques, resulting from deductions due to the recent strike. Many employees wll not be receiving their full pay before Christmas.
Can the Postmaster General inform the House what the problems are and what action he is taking to remedy this situation, so that everyone can go home with a full pay cheque and have a happy Christmas?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member not to believe everything he hears from people who call him-probably the same people who call me. Mr. Hall, president of CUPW in Calgary, probably has called the hon. member in the same way he called my office.
The truth is that they are being paid. The cheques are in the right amounts, but the coding on the cheques is wrong. That does not prevent them from cashing their cheques. I should like to mention to the hon. member, as well, that at the moment I do not think there is any justification for hon. members to ask questions which create confusion in the Post Office. We have had the best Christmas season yet. Morale is good, and we have delivered mail better than ever before during a Christmas season, particularly in the last seven years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it is a follow-up to the motion under Standing Order 43 which I proposed two days ago and which, unfortunately, did not receive unanimous consent.
Could the minister advise the House whether the government has taken into consideration the consequences of the motion I moved, which would allow into Canada, one of the most fortunate countries in the world, an appropriately higher number of refugees known as boat people?

December 22, 1978
Oral Questions


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, somewhat prior to, during and after the hon. member's motion under Standing Order 43 the government was looking into this matter. We have had representations at the Geneva conference and I am pleased to say that in co-operation with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we will triple the number from 70 families per month to just about 200 families per month. For 1979 we will take 5,000 refugees from Indo-China.
In addition to that, we will double the amount of our contribution to the budget of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees from $1 million to $2 million. That, of course, will be in addition to the moneys we are already contributing to many refugee camps around the world.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the shouting from the Liberal side: they have to shout since closure has been introduced to stop them from speaking on a bill they oppose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I can wait, sir, until they stop their shouting and their moaning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is supplementary to those posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca, which the minister did not answer, preferring instead to put up a fog of emotion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: What kind of emotion?


Charles Joseph Clark: A fog of emotion. The minister is having difficulty hearing me because of her colleagues' shouting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am trying to create a situation for the minister where her colleagues will let her hear me.
My question is: why did the minister break her word today to the maritime chiefs, that she would meet them in the maritimes, by sending them a telex changing the venue of the meeting to Ottawa?
[Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi).l


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in trying to develop his credibility by talking only about what he thinks is serious-cuts, constraints, restraints and economic problems. He is not interested in the social sector at all.
He becomes nervous when I use emotion when talking about undue accusations with regard to the lives of people in this country. I will continue to use emotion, and if the hon. gentleman does not know what to do with his emotions, he is not ready to be the leader of a country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the politicking which is taking place this morning does not help to solve a very serious issue, which is the apparent misunderstanding in Indian communities of the guidelines that are merely intended for my staff to make sense of and control expenditures relating to four items regarding uninsured health expenditures. I name them often, and everybody knows they have nothing to do with the lives of people.
I would like to inform the House that I never committed myself to go to the maritime provinces on a specific date but, rather, that I would try to go there because it is less expensive than to have huge delegations come to Ottawa. Since that day, new developments have taken place. I mentioned the CBC report but the Leader of the Opposition, of course, was not listening. 1 mentioned an interview which took place in front of millions of Canadians and gave dangerously wrong facts. Therefore, the situation has changed.
I cannot go to the ten provinces on the same day in the month of January. Therefore, I had to ask for the co-operation of the chiefs and I invited them to meet me in Ottawa immediately after the opening of parliament, on January 24. I hope that I will have the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter and that he will ask the opposition critic, the hon. member for Athabasca, to stop this unacceptable form of politicking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it escapes the understanding of most of us why a broadcast on the CBC makes it impossible for the minister to move about in the country, but I suppose if she feels incapable of defending her policy the CBC is as good an organization to blame it on as any other organization.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The firm commitment which the minister gave to the native people of the maritime provinces is on the record of Hansard and she will have to live with it.
My question relates to a statement made in May by the president of the Indian Association of Alberta whose claim is, as president of an organization directly responsible for people whose lives he feels will be in danger, that actions being
December 22, 1978

proposed by this government, in regard particularly to ambulance services, will jeopardize the lives of native people in western Canada. My question to the minister is a repetition of one she refused to answer earlier.
An bon. Member: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 see her refusal is being supported by the NDP.
A.i hon. Member: Put the question.


Mr. Benjamin:: You are sounding like a green backbencher. Ask the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the minister consider with an open mind the argument put by the president of the Indian Association of Alberta, to the effect that the changes introduced will, or may, endanger the lives of native people in western Canada; and if she so finds, after an open examination of that allegation, will she change the policy?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, at least the NDP are capable of showing emotion. The questioning by the Leader of the Opposition is becoming more and more ridiculous every minute. I am surprised that he does not have the courage to withdraw the type of stupid allegations which are being made on a very important issue dealing with the lives of people. I would like to repeat that the hon. gentleman does not seem to understand that this is not a matter for politicking.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Time for a new minister.


Monique Bégin: I am convinced that we need guidelines regarding the control of reasonable expenditures for all Indian people in need of health services, but eyeglasses have nothing to do ' h the lives of people.
I would like to repeat that the hon. gentleman does not seem to understand that the usual health services will continue exactly as they have in the past. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Athabasca seem to have forgotten that I have said the last paragraph of my telex was probably the most important: that is obvious, because I asked the chiefs to send to me, immediately, information on any cases of hardship which they have witnessed across the country because I would like to look into such matters personally.
Nine days ago, when I met briefly with the maritime delegation, they spoke to me of abuse and the death of some people. Immediately I asked for a dossier on the situation, and I have not received one single name. I have had an assistant deputy minister travel across the country to obtain the names of people and to look for hardships caused by my department, guidelines or no guidelines, and he has received no information. That is what I would like to look into right away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS


LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
In view of the fact that thus far in this session there has been no legislation respecting veterans, will the minister do his best between now and the time we meet again to persuade his colleagues in the cabinet to permit him to bring in legislation respecting the pensions of widows of disabled pensioners, and also respecting the tying of the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension to the composite level designated in the Pension Act? Would the minister also be ready to report to us in January on the review of the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the references which were made by the hon. member are under consideration in my department and we will have something to say about them at a later date.
With regard to the review of the War Veterans Allowance Act, it is coming along quite well and I hope to have something presented to me some time in February.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister deals with war veterans allowance recipients.
Would the minister tell the House whether he now has clearance from Treasury Board that such recipients who also receive either the increased GIS due in January or increases in their child benefits will not have these increases cut off their war veterans allowance?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am able to be quite positive on that matter this morning. The recipients of the war veterans allowance who receive the GIS increase and the children's benefits will also receive the benefits previously passed under the national health and welfare act and they will apply to the recipients of the veterans allowance and the civilian war allowance.


POST OFFICE
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware of the extremely serious deterioration in postal service in the Indian Community of Fort Hope in northern Ontario? This deterioration has been brought about because of an alleged misappropriation of funds by a postal employee whom the Post Office apparently neglected to bond in the usual way?
Will the minister explain to the House why the entire community is being punished for an alleged wrongdoing by a postal employee? What action is being taken to restore postal service to the Indian community of Fort Hope?

December 22, 1978
Oral Questions


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that there has been no abandonment of postal service in that community. There has been no punishment of this community.
As the hon. member knows, we have had some problems before with the Fort Hope post office and this time there was misappropriation of funds and we had to discontinue the operations of the post office. However, we did not discontinue the delivery of the mail. It has been flown there as usual. My people are supposed to meet with the band council of the Indians at Fort Hope to try to see if they could take care of the security of the mail and take on the operation of the post office themselves. So there is no abandonment of the mail. Deliveries are being made normally, and within the next ten days someone will be there to see what we can do in conjunction with the band council of Indians of this community.


INDUSTRY
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: it has to do with the domestically charged, Canadian-produced aluminum.
In light of the fact that some Canadian businesses involved in secondary manufacturing industry have had price increases of upwards of 26 per cent in the past year and yet cannot secure guarantees of continued adequate supply, will the minister investigate the situation to ensure that Canadian companies are not being treated unfairly and that jobs will not be lost to Canadians?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the difficulties in securing aluminum for Canadian companies, nor am I aware of the price increase. I will take the hon. member's question as notice and try to reply to him before the House reconvenes in the new year.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. During recent weeks the demand for aluminum has increased dramatically due to a shortage on the American market.
Would the minister look into this possibility of price fixing and collusion among the major producers in this country, to guarantee that favouritism is not being shown to those manufacturing companies in which the primary producer has a vested interest?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether the accusation in the question was accurate. I can say to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that Alcan has just announced a major expansion in their capacity for putting out aluminum and that might

have some good effects on Canadian procurements. However, I will look into the whole matter and give the hon. member a reply.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the Acting Minister of Transport? I direct my first question to the Acting Minister of Transport, who will be aware of intense and grave concern on the prairies with respect to rail transportation.
At the time of the first ministers' conference a request was made by Premier Sterling Lyons to meet on January 5 and 6 with all transport representatives of the three prairie provinces.
I ask the Acting Minister of Transport whether he is accepting that invitation; will he be meeting with them on those dates?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not yet given a formal answer to that invitation, and he is very seriously considering doing so as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, in light of the very grave and important situation of prairie rail transportation, could I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has accepted the invitation? Does he intend to be at that meeting with the prairie transport ministers with relation to the concerns that were expressed to him at the time of the first ministers' conference?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows the dates were just sent to us and, in addition, that this date was the date the meeting was to be called. We immediately responded and said that we had other commitments at that time. We suggested that any time after January 12 I believe, we would be ready and willing to meet, because I had a long-standing commitment.
We had cancelled the government trip to Israel in November, I believe it was, and that was the third time that trip had been cancelled. We had rearranged that I would leave on New Year's Day for Israel and return here on January 12. That trip is in conflict with the meeting, and I talked to the minister of agriculture in Manitoba about that. He told me at that time he did not see any difficulty in changing the date. I have not heard back from him yet. I believe we sent a telex to him
December 22, 1978

about four days ago in that regard. We realize the importance of the meeting, but I am sure that the Premier of Manitoba also realizes the importance of the exchange of agriculture, trade, etc., in Canada and, as well, the agricultural exchange of research which is a long-standing commitment that we have with that country.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Postmaster General, about which I gave him notice, with respect to postal service in my constituency.
I would appreciate being advised what plans the Post Office may have with respect to postal addresses within the new cities of Nepean and Kanata, because there has been a considerable amount of confusion. Also, could he advise what proposals there are for informing the residents of the new cities about changes of address and the time when these changes should be made?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton for giving me notice of this question: it is in the right Christmas and New Year spirit.
I would like to make the answer as clear as possible. With the establishment of municipal authorities such as those in the cities of Kanata and Nepean, the main factor for postal operations is notification of our facilities across the country as to where these new addresses are located. We are in a process of doing that.
Secondly, our delivery system will remain basically unchanged. Since the postal code does not change, there does not seem to be any problem in that area. As for uncoded mail, it may take a little while before people across the country are completely familiar with the names of the new cities. However, we do not anticipate any major difficulty, and much information will be given about that.
Rural routes should not change at the moment and they will still come from the same post office station. Residents may address their mail as they wish, for example, "Nepean", "Kanata" or '"Ottawa". We will deliver it. We have been in consultation with municipal authorities regarding their new boundaries and we are expecting to notify residents of this. I can reassure the hon. gentleman that we will carry on the usual efficient and rapid delivery of mail in this area.
Oral Questions OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


ALLEGED IMPROPER DESIGNATION OF &quot;BILINGUAL&quot;
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement made by the Commissioner of Official Languages that there are many bilingual phonies in the civil service, does the minister intend to ask Mr. Yalden to identify these people so they may defend themselves from the charge that they are not what they are supposed to be?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that in his comment the point that Mr. Yalden was making was there are many people who have not yet achieved the level of bilingual capacity that they like to achieve. I really do not accept the word "phony", though.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
Last November 6 we had here in Ottawa a demonstration by more than 600 residents of Ste-Scholastique during which the predecessor of the present minister promised an answer to their claims within two weeks. 1 think the minister is aware of their claims. Two weeks later the minister reported his decision to a later date, namely before the end of the year. Considering that we are at the very end of the year, is the minister today in a position to give us answers to the claims of those thousands of people who were expropriated?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, I would like to to say that the expropriated had, thanks to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, a series of meetings with officials of my department to examine what new compensations could be given to them, which would meet their hopes, and which could put them on the same level as those who were expropriated in Pickering.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
As the minister is aware, I believe, of the representations already made by hon. members on both sides of the House asking that the expropriated be given at least a glimmer of hope at the end of the year, can the minister assure us that by the end of January, 1979, at the very latest those regulations will finally be accepted by the department as well as the expropriated? In addition, after all this time, will an effort be made to give those people a definite answer?

December 22, 1978
Introduction of Bills


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, a meeting was held a few days ago. 1 asked my officials for a report which I am to receive in early January. There are a few technical points I want to check. Moreover, I am waiting for additional representations from the expropriated which are to be sent to me through their MP; as soon as the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes has handed them over I hope to be able to reach a decision in the first few weeks of January. In any event, I am sure the expropriated can spend a very happy Christmas.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On December 18 the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Parker) raised by way of a question of privilege that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) had used language which offended him, and he asked for a determination as to whether the language was unparliamentary. I indicated at the time that my recollection of the language was that it was not.
I examined the record, as I indicated I would; and I also examined two precedents which may be of assistance to the hon. member, one under date of July 19, 1960, at page 6553 of Hansard and the other on November 16, 1977, at page 941 of Hansard. In light of both of those precedents it seems to me that the language lacks specificity. Therefore, there would be no grounds upon which I could intervene.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-36, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.


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

Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-456, to promote the participation of small business in federal government programs and contracts.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give small businesses in Canada the same special favourable and preferential treatment that is given to their competitors, United States small businesses, by the United States government, especially in the area of government procurement and research and development support.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of Bills. Mr. Chretien?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would rather not introduce the bill today.

[ Translation]


FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill S-9 (from the Senate), respecting fugitive offenders in Canada, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
CHRISTMAS RECESS On the order: Motions:
December 18, 1978-The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council:
That, when the House adjourns following the disposal of the third reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding on the said bill or the giving of royal assent to the said bill and any other bills then ready for royal assent;
That after the disposal of such proceedings or in the event the House does not meet for those purposes, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be, until January 23, 1979, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
December 22, 1978
[Stage Direction]
That in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the motion providing for the adjournment of the House. It is not my intention to call the adjournment motion at this stage because it may be more expeditious to postpone dealing with it until after the vote on the third reading of the unemployment insurance bill. I propose not to call this motion at the present time but following the vote on the third reading of the bill we are dealing with today, when I will ask for consent of the House to go back to motions and have the adjournment motion dealt with. What I am really asking now is consent to do that at that particular time and, if possible, to have an order of the House made providing for the ability to revert to motions at that point to deal with the adjournment motion.


Walter David Baker: There have been discussions carried on through the usual channels, and the government House leader's proposal is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and we agree.


Léonel Beaudoin: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered that, after the taking of the vote upon the third reading of Bill C-14, the House will revert to motions for consideration at that time of the adjournment motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 270.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-LAWYERS IN PROVENCHER
Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs 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.
Unemployment Insurance Act


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 136 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


ETHNIC NEWSPAPER
Mr. Mitges: 1.	How does the Department of Employment and Immigration define "ethnic newspaper"?
2.	In which ethnic newspapers did the Department advertise (a) in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 (b) since March 31, 1977 and, in each case, what was the total amount of advertisement placed?
3.	What criteria does the Department use to determine which ethnic newspapers will receive government advertising?
Return tabled.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I want to wish the parliamentary secretary a Merry Christmas. He has done a pretty good job today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-14, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions about another matter as well. I think you will find there is agreement to provide that a 20 minute rule apply to all speeches today on third reading. This agreement has come about because, after all, there is a limited amount of time. If we had 40 minute speeches or speeches of unlimited time, not many members would be able to speak. I believe such agreement has been discussed among all four parties.


Walter David Baker: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Léonel Beaudoin: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered that speeches about to be made on the third reading of Bill C-14 shall not be more than 20 minutes in duration.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, probably few bills have been more controversial than the one which we are presently discussing. It touches the heart strings of the members of this House who have consideration for their fellow man while at the same time having respect for the capability of our society to do all those things we might want to do.
It is because of the restrictions which have been placed upon the capability of government to fulfil its promises of 1971 that it has found itself in a very penurious position and has been compelled therefore to bring in amendments which would offer another opportunity to practise constraint.
This is laudable, I agree; the purpose is long since past due. However, it is the method of application of the objective which is objectionable. It has been introduced in a fashion and in an environment which is unacceptable. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has set himself up as the great unifier of this country. He has suggested that the federal and provincial governments should form a co-operative confederation type of structure. Yet this bill has been brought in without consultation with the provinces regarding the impact it might have on provincial treasuries. It is evident, therefore, that the Prime Minister and the government are devoid of sincerity in their advocacy of a federal-provincial co-operation structure. Their actions denounce and contradict their own ideology.
There is a multitude of hidden factors which I believe we should consider at this time. First of all, objection was raised to this bill by many supporters of the government both on the front benches and on the back benches. I wonder what has been done to silence those objections? For instance, what happened to the objection of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell)? She made a speech indicating that she in no way supported the bill as introduced. Her speech was a condemnation of the government and its approach to the subject. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour) made statements outside the House condemning the government without qualification for the lack of consideration which this policy extends to his province of Newfoundland. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) was equally disappointed by the behaviour of the government, and as we sat in this chamber last night and watched those dissenters brought back to the fold we could not help wondering what price was paid, what promises were made and what pot will be opened to fulfil the demands of these people in their own constituencies.
Who should be the spokesman, Mr. Speaker, for Nova Scotia? Who should best understand its needs? Who should be the spokesman for Newfoundland and for Atlantic Canada in general? There are two groups which are obviously best qualified; they are the members elected to the House of Commons along with the premiers and elected members in the provincial

legislatures. It is not the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) acting in a unilateral way.
In view of the objection expressed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), who is the chairman of the Atlantic caucus, we cannot help wondering on this side what plums were passed along to satisfy the objectors. I say this because last night it was very obvious they had been whipped into line and were voting against the best interests of their constituents. Is it a continuation of the discrimination which has been exercised in the allocation of funds for the Canada Works program? The last time that program was examined-and it has been examined several times-it was found that Liberal members of the House of Commons were receiving $600,000 to $900,000 per constituency more than opposition members were receiving, regardless of party affiliation. This is a deplorable and despicable practice because people all across Canada where unemployment is high are entitled to equal consideration. The government has ignored the needs of Canada but has recognized the needs of Liberal members and their constituencies.
To what extent will this pork barrelling be permitted to go? There is certainly evidence from the past behaviour of the government that the DREE program in its various aspects has been used for political purposes. Assistance under this program can be granted to the provinces to aid their economic expansion, but under the dictates of the minister in charge of the program or of the minister representing a particular province.
I have complained about this situation for a long time. One would imagine that moneys granted to a province to assist its economic expansion would be administered by the provincial government as being closest to the scene and knowing more about the need. But this is not to be the case. Before the moneys are released by Ottawa the planning and the location of the expenditure is arranged between the Government of Canada and the individual provinces concerned, without too much consideration being given to the specific needs of the province. Is this use of DREE money to be expanded into a political pork barrel to the detriment of the country as a whole but to the benefit of individual members and individual constituencies? This, we must consider, is what is going to happen. The Canada Works program, as I mentioned, has been loaded in favour of Liberal members. Liberal members of this House are very often inclined to contradict remarks made from this side but I notice there is complete silence on this occasion in recognition of a statement of truth as delivered to them.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) has made an incorrect statement. I am sure he does not want to mislead the House by saying that the Canada Works program is loaded in favour of certain constituencies. Grants are made under a formula of which I am sure he is aware, and that formula is geared to unemployment rate. His statement is misleading the House completely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. What the parliamentary secretary is trying to say could be said when he contrib-
December 22, 1978

utes to the debate. This is a matter of opinion. If we were to allow points of order with regard to different interpretations of, or opinion on, what is said, there would be little time left to members who had the floor. The hon. member did not make a specific attack; he was speaking in generalities, he has his own opinion and he is entitled to it.


Fred Alward McCain: In reply to that intervention, let me tell the hon. member something. They have a formula in place which no member of this House can figure out. Can the parliamentary secretary figure it out? Has he ever sat down with that formula in mind and tried to determine whether his constituency is getting its fair share of the funds available?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Yes, I have.


Fred Alward McCain: Well, in that case the hon. gentleman may be able to sit down and give us a lesson. The government has changed the regulations but the basis of the formulation cannot be substantiated.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Untrue!


Fred Alward McCain: What price is going to be paid, what plums are going to be passed out to Liberal constituencies through the distribution of wealth and various government programs? I see an example in the designation of districts. I want to start with one district in the province of Quebec. I want to congratulate the government because to the extent that I understand Quebec-I cannot claim to understand it all-a perfect example of a suitable district was carved out when the city of Quebec was regarded as one district because it lies in an area of seasonal unemployment, agriculture, seaway transportation and so on.
But let us turn to New Brunswick. Are we going to change the boundaries of the regions and thus grant a few favours? There are chances for changes in those regions. Let me explain why I say that. If we look at the Carleton-Charlotte constituency, we find that the southern half of that constituency is included in the city of Saint John. That is an area of high employment. Saint John is grouped with a seasonal, rural, small village and town area of the province of New Brunswick. When the unemployment rate in Saint John is averaged with the rate in the surrounding district, the level is brought up to the point where this bill would apply in full.
Why do I complain about that? Part of the city of Saint John is in my constituency, but so is the island of Grand Manan, and so are all the fishing communities on the shore of Charlotte county and on the other islands. If we were to count heads on Grand Manan today, we would probably find that unemployment in that area is somewhere between 20 per cent and as high as 40 per cent. However, that island is included in the same region as the city of Saint John. The government did not use the discretion in New Brunswick which it used in Quebec, and I wish the minister was here to hear this.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: He will be back.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Fred Alward McCain: Let us carry this a little further and go to the city of Lredericton and the region in which it is included. Included with the city of Lredericton are rural areas of York county and other areas nearby. What happens when this is done in a highhanded way without consideration for the nature of the region? The city of Lredericton again is an area which is blessed with a high employment rate, but the surrounding area is forest, agriculture, seasonal. If a person lived, for instance, in the community of Stanley in the county of York in the province of New Brunswick, that person would find himself without any of the privileges which special circumstances grant under this bill to seasonal employees. However, if he moved a few miles into Northumberland county or to the constituency of Northumberland-Miramichi, he would find another little community which has a source of employment common with the village of Stanley but, because they are ten miles apart and a district boundary comes between them, this person will get no unemployment insurance in Stanley while people in Boiestown will be as eligible as they ever were. This is unfair, and there is no way it can be supported.
On the boundary between York county and Carleton county there is a little village called Meductic. If a person lives north of the river in Meductic he is eligible, but if he walks or moves across the bridge, he is then in an area of high employment and seasonal employment and is not eligible for unemployment insurance. There is no way this type of bureaucratic division of a country without any consideration or knowledge of employment opportunities can be made by regulation.
That reminds me of a responsible individual in this House, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I think I have identified him. He spoke in support of this bill, and this is what he said:
Regulations can be implemented to make sure that no one suffers, and no one will suffer.
It was emphasized earlier that regulations have already been gazetted. I will not touch on that, but backbench and responsible members are relying upon regulations to be sure that their constituents are not hurt. The hon. member also said:
Every bill needs minor changes. That is done through regulations.
Every Canadian is entitled to know exactly where he stands and to equal treatment in this nation. This bill would discriminate among equals, and some will be much more "equal" than others. If this bill can be defended in the village of Meductic, in the village of Stanley or in a multitude of other places, in view of the way the province of Quebec has been handled, I would love hon. members opposite to campaign on that basis in the next election because they are going to have some explaining to do.
This bill is inequitable and unjust. It ignores all the democratic principles which I thought this House of Commons should espouse. This is pure and utter contempt for parliament. This House is asked to consider a bill. The bill goes to committee. It is considered by very hard working people who are dedicated to the welfare of the people who are involved with unemployment insurance, and they learn that the bill is already in effect because by regulation the major aspects of
2408

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
the bill will be in place and effective on January 1. This bill is a multi-billion dollar item, and it will be passed in this House today through closure.
Then it will be passed on to the Senate in a very degrading form. Senators will hardly be proud of themselves if they yield to the pressure of this government and pass the bill in an hour or two. This contempt for parliament and the parliamentary process is unacceptable. The Senate as well as the House of Commons should have an opportunity to give this measure adequate consideration, but no one extended us that opportunity.
Let us consider again what the Prime Minister is supposed to have espoused early in his political life. I am referring to issue No. 11 of November 30, 1978, of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration at page 11.10. On that page we find the following:
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if my recollection of our Prime Minister's message in his earlier political life is accurate, he has taught us that to negotiate is not to capitulate, but to set democracy in motion.
That was an early political statement by the Prime Minister of Canada. What negotiations with the provinces took place in this instance? None. There was a meeting in Toronto. The minister gave the participants an hour and a half.


James Aloysius McGrath: After the fact.


Fred Alward McCain: The provinces came before the committee to present their cases, but no amendment has accrued from that.
This bill would transfer the cost to the taxpayers of Canada from the federal realm to the provincial realm. I ask those hon. members far to my left who have so assiduously supported everything they thought was right, including the transfer of this expense to the provinces, to refer to the election of 1974 and the processes they followed. One gentleman who took a hard stand against all amendments proposed by the official opposition failed to get himself elected. Hon. members should take the trouble to read the presentations by the provinces and remarks made in this House yesterday about the transfer of cost to municipalities by virtue of the passing of this bill. I wonder if the people of Oshawa-Whitby will embrace the leader of the New Democratic Party when their taxes go up as as result of the transfer costs to the welfare system in that area.


Mr. Peters:: We are opposed to every clause in this bill, not just some.


Fred Alward McCain: Members of the New Democratic Party have thrown their forces more with the government than with us. There is a virtual coalition.


William Arnold Peters: Nonsense.


Fred Alward McCain: I think there ought to be a new definition of the word "nonsense". The minister and the New Democractic Party should cause a revision to be made in dictionaries, because "nonsense" seems to be anything but ideas which

originate with the NDP or the government. Any idea which comes from anywhere else is nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is fading away. There is a problem in this field. The opposition recognizes that. The man on the street recognizes it. The provincial governments recognize it. But the federal government does not know how to solve it. This bill cures little. Passing this bill is like calling on a witch doctor to treat multiple sclerosis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will excuse me if I am not my normal shape today. It is because I am under medication for the flu. I might not be able to deal, for example, with the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) as I normally do; but I am sure that in the substance of my arguments, even if the form is not there, I will do the same.
I would just like to comment briefly on some of the things the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) said in his speech. One wonders why the hon. member would refer to Quebec having been treated differently in the designation of economic zones. I have never seen Statistics Canada setting up a particular system for the province of Quebec, and I wonder why a member from New Brunswick would refer to small towns in some parts of New Brunswick and say it is too bad that the government has not treated them in the same way as small towns in Quebec. When I hear members talk in this fashion, I wonder why they do not stick to the facts and explain to their constituents and to the Canadian public when they speak in the House exactly what they mean by that sort of thing.
First of all, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about when he suggests that economic zones have been set by this bill. It is not this bill that sets up economic zones. All it does is to refer to some of the effects of unemployment insurance benefits on some zones. If hon. members were honest, they would state the facts correctly and say that it is not this bill which sets down economic zones and boundaries. They have always been set down by order in council. In this case the minister has changed them by order in council, and he can change them again by order in council whenever he gets a good argument to do so. So when members start saying that it is this bill which sets up inequities in the designation of economic zones, they are just making political arguments which are completely outside the realm of this bill.
The minister has said to me personally-I believe he has said it publicly and also to other members who have asked him-that he realizes there are inequities in the designation of these boundaries, and he has said he would look at this. I am sure that if he speaks in this debate he will tell us that he is prepared to look objectively at criteria other than a clear and straight statistical arithmetical formula to make sure that these inequities are corrected.
December 22, 1978

I know that this minister has always been fair and objective with this sort of thing. When I hear the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte suggest that the appropriation of funds under Canada Works has been politically manipulated by this government, all I can say is that this is complete nonsense. I will make sure that I use parliamentary terms when I speak of him, but let me say that for a Tory member like the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte to suggest this sort of thing, when he knows that the appiopriation of funds is based on an arithmetical formula, is not to have the courage to speak out. That is what the hon. member is doing, to use parliamentary terms; he does not have the courage to speak the truth. For a Tory member from New Brunswick to talk to me-I am also from New Brunswick and I know how the Tory government operates in that province-and suggest that people would manipulate funds strictly on an electoral or political basis is sheer hypocrisy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: When this government appropriates funds on programs which affect people, it does not ever manipulate them politically, and the hon. member knows that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Come on.


Herb Breau: Hon. members might say "oh, oh!", but I challenge the hon. member to rise and prove what he said, to prove that any program administered by this government which affects people directly has been manipulated politically. I challenge any member to do that.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am worried about your throat.


Herb Breau: My throat is good enough to deal with the hon. member for St. John's East; he does not have to worry about it. Whenever I hear this kind of hypocrisy in the House, I can always find enough strength to speak.


William Arnold Peters: What about your medication?


Herb Breau: To suggest this sort of thing is not to have the courage to speak the truth. I do not like this bill particularly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: It is not my invention..! did not ask for the bill. But I will support it because-	'


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Because you are a Grit.


Herb Breau: I heard the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) utter something. If he likes to put it on the record I will answer him, but 1 will not force him to do so. He knows I do not support anything.


William Arnold Peters: Conflict of interest.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Herb Breau: This bill has to be seen in the context of an exercise by the government to moderate the rate of growth of deficits in Canada. It must be seen as an exercise by the government to make sure we do not spend the GNP at too high a rate at any particular time. The deficits in Canada are not out of proportion in comparison with deficits in other industrialized countries, but the rate of growth of these deficits has been too rapid in too short a time.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) should not get too excited because I understand his party's position. It is very clear. They say one should not worry too much about the rate of growth of deficits, and they need not be responsible for whatever they ask for. I would love to be in that position, I would love to be able to ask for anything and to propose anything that sounds good, that is good and just. I happen to be responsible and I happen to be a member of a party which wants to do things for people, which wants to set up good programs for people. But we must answer to the House of Commons and to the public for the amount of money that is spent in Canada.
Also we must answer to the public for the amount of money that must be borrowed abroad or elsewhere for the country. That is why in the months of August and September the government has looked at some programs to see if they could not be changed so that some funds could be liberated to increase child benefits through a tax credit scheme; to increase old age security supplements and to change the spouse's allowance program to provide for a benefit of six months when the spouse dies; and, most important of all, to provide funds for manpower training, job creation and economic development. That is the objective of the so-called August and September exercise.
It is in the context that I support this bill. When the minister first spoke about putting forward this bill, there were some things in it that I could not support and I told him about them. Many of us here do not need a filibuster in the House. We do not need to spend four or five debates discussing two or three amendments and making political speeches to make a point. We sat down with the minister and we discussed these matters with him. He has been very forthcoming and very flexible and he drastically changed his proposals from when they were first announced in September when he presented the bill in the House. I want to thank the minister publicly for having done that because, first of all, the most drastic proposals in September were those with regard to repeaters. He has changed those provisions so that the maximum penalty for repeaters would be six weeks.
The minister went even further and used the best information available, the economic zones provided by Statistics Canada. These zones were not drawn up by the bill; they were drawn up prior to the bill by order in council. Perhaps they are not the best zones, but the minister went further. He looked at the 48 economic regions and indicated that they happen to be in areas where people work and are subjected to living in
80047 IP/,

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
seasonal economies, such as fisheries, peat moss, tourism and other seasonal industries. The people of those areas are subjected to seasonally affected economies. The minister indicated that this was the best measure in order to deal with the problem.
Tie excluded all economic zones with unemployment rates of 11.5 per cent or higher, which is a very good thing. Of course there are problems, and the minister will continue to look at them. The regions were drawn up by order in council, and therefore they can be changed by order in council. The minister does not want to put himself in the position of making a decision alone. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and other Conservative members do not have to worry. Whenever the government passes an order in council, it does not apply only to Quebec; it applies across the country.
Dealing with the question of allocation of time, hon. members of the Tory party said allocation of time was brought in to gag or muzzle us on this side of the House. I am speaking today despite a very difficult situation. We have never been gagged by the government. We have been gagged and muzzled by the filibustering of the Progressive Conservative party. Sometimes we are gagged and muzzled by the New Democratic Party, but not very often because the NDP is a little more reasonable than the Conservative party. We on this side of the House are gagged when Conservative members filibuster legislation. Allocation of time is brought about in order to balance the debate. In any event, we on this side do not need an army of members rising to make a point. We are not interested in just making political points and playing politics. We are interested in discussing the effects of programs on Canadians. We do not require a lot of time to do that. I wish allocation of time was applied to every piece of legislation presented in order to ensure a rational use of the time of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is new Liberalism.


Herb Breau: I should like to deal briefly with the outlet that the Tories thought they had. I sympathize with the hon. member for St. John's East because he is used continuously by his party. He is a very sincere man. He sounds sincere and speaks well. He represents a constituency which requires government attention. His province also requires the government to do more regarding its economy. He is from an area which needs government attention. The province of Newfoundland cannot be left with the effects of a laissez-faire attitude and with the private sector looking after it.
We have heard a few good speeches in the last two months by some of the new members of the Conservative party, yet they talk about doing more for Canadians. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and other members talked about doing more. I cannot refer to the contituencies of the other members because as yet I am not familiar with them. But we did not hear very much from the people who set the fiscal and economic policies of that party. We all know the Conservative proposals regarding the unemployment insurance scheme. When they talk about reducing deficits, and the intervention of

government into the economy, they want to slash the expenditures of government. I would not want to trust them to present a bill dealing with unemployment insurance because I suspect what they would want to do. The poor member for St. John's East is being used as an outlet for the Tory party. They think they have an outlet by proposing a two-tier system of benefits: one for people who have or claim dependants, and one for people do not have dependants.
Approximately seven or eight weeks ago, the Conservative party criticized us from a human rights standpoint. They used the valid arguments of the human rights commissioner to criticize the government because it thought of bringing in programs which the Conservatives thought were discriminatory to women. The economy of the province of Newfoundland is similar to the economy of my province. In some areas the only employment women obtain is unstable. In a lot of cases, these women are married to men with reasonable salaries because their husbands work in certain industries. Because the husbands have higher incomes, it is normal that they would claim the dependants for income tax purposes.
The Tories have not defined the term "dependant". They have not indicated how they would deal with this area. If a husband works in a good industry and earns $18,000 to $20,000 a year, of course he claims dependants in order to save income tax. If his wife works in a fish plant or a restaurant for a few months of the year, her salary will be lower; but they are very lucky to have more than the minimum wage. The hon. member for St. John's East suggested that such a husband would never go on UIC or, if he does, it would be for a very short time at the high rate. They are willing to give the husband 66% per cent by way of unemployment insurance, but the wife who works at the minimum wage will be given 50 per cent.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: But the government is going to cut her off.


Herb Breau: We exclude working women unless they are new entrants or re-entrants into the labour force.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is becoming nervous because she is supporting a measure which will penalize people with low incomes, particularly women and single people. We know that single people and women work in the worst conditions.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: What about your proposal?


Herb Breau: If the hon. member looks at any definition of employment or any study on employment, she will find that young people without dependants and women do the worst jobs. They are the people the Tories want to punish. They have said that people with dependants will receive 66% per cent, but the single people and working women, because they cannot claim the benefit of dependants as a result of their lower salaries, will be penalized. The Conservative outlet did not work this time. The Tory party showed that either it cannot
December 22, 1978

take a position, or that when it takes one it does not care about working women or single people. They do not care enough to look at the effects of their proposals.
I am ashamed to see the sincere member for St. John's East being sucked into that kind of position just because some new member from Toronto in the Conservative party, who was accustomed to working in theory, sat down at a desk in order to write down a few things. The new member wanted to find an outlet for the Tory party and said, "This is a very just position". They have a half-hour meeting, they have a caucus and they have a few arguments, and that is the position of the Tory party. That is why the Tory party will never make it to government. They cannot make up their minds properly.
I must say that the Conservatives have helped me quite a bit. As I have said, I would prefer not to have this kind of bill but I will support it because I agree that for a few years until the economy of this country has picked up again we have to reduce the rate of growth of deficits in Canada. We have to bring the economy into order again. I will support this bill at this time because it will liberate some funds for manpower training and job creation. In this kind of situation I would rather do that than not do anything, and not have these funds available, because our rate of growth of deficits is too high in Canada at this time.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by confessing that our party is in fact seriously split on a major political issue facing the country. I think we should confess to that split. There is a very serious division between us as to which of the other two parties is worse, the Tories or the Liberals.


An hon. Member:: Both.


Bob Rae: I must say that after listening to the two speeches today I would say it is a draw and the Canadian people will soon have a chance to express their own views on the matter.
The conflict that took place in the committee and that is taking place in this House in respect of this measure-and I say this not in the sense that we have a monopoly on virtue in this party, or that any party has a monopoly on virtue-


An hon. Member:: You are kidding. That's the first time I have heard that.


William Arnold Peters: He is speaking for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: I think the conflict within a modern industrial economy such as Canada's is among those people who want to allow the labour market to dictate, to the maximum extent possible, the fate and the well-being of its citizens and the extent to which that society recognizes that labour is not a commodity. That conflict is a very old one in society. It is not something that started with the introduction of this bill, and it is not something that will go away with the passage, the defeat
Unemployment Insurance Act
or the delay of this bill. It is something that will stay with us for quite a long time.
I want to remind the minister that over 140 years ago in England the Poor Law Commissioners were told to come up with a system that would deal with the great problem of vagrancy that existed in that society at that time as well as the problem of unemployment that then existed as a result of the industrial revolution. The Poor Law Commissioners came back with a report that said that the one principle that has to be maintained is that, whatever maintenance is provided for people who are not working, it must be less eligible than the lowest form of labour in that society. That was known as the "less eligibility" principle. We have advanced not one single jot beyond the less eligibility principle that was set forth over 140 years ago.
I want to read just briefly from the report of those commissioners. They stated:
The assumption behind this principle of less eligibility, as it came to be called, was that the indolent, disspirited, and feckless, when faced with a choice between working harder and living in what amounted to a prison, would become industrious, alert, and responsible. The law was expected to achieve miracles. "New life, new energy is infused into the constitution of the pauper," one of the commission's investigators insisted. "He is aroused like one from sleep... he surveys his former employers with new eyes. He begs a job-he will not take a denial-he discovers that every one wants something to be done... He is ready to turn his hand to anything."
That was the view of the Poor Law Commissioners in 1834.
I do not think we have advanced very far beyond the views of the Poor Law Commissioners.


An hon. Member:: That is a lot of crap.


Bob Rae: No, it is not crap. I would point to the principles which have been put forward, and they have been put forward by the minister, by his parliamentary secretary, by civil servants, and by such other distinguished contributors to the debate as the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell), who said that more than half the people who are on unemployment insurance were abusers and cheaters. He is the brains trust, 1 suppose, of the Liberal party in this regard. That is the view of the government, and I dare say it is also the view that is being taken at the current time by the majority of the Conservative party.
For political reasons the Conservative party has been able to play both sides of the fence, and for those of us who were in the committee there was never any question as to where the Conservatives really stood. They wanted more restraint, not less. They wanted more cutbacks, not less. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) put it very well in the debate the other day in this House when he said there were more inequities in this bill than the Conservative party was prepared to put up with. He wanted something that would have some inequities but not as many inequities, as, or different inequities from, the inequities presented by the government. I would suggest that is the choice which the Canadian people have been presented with in this bill and in the amendments proposed by the Conservative party.

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Our party has simply taken the position that working people are entitled to decent maintenance, that there is not widespread, systematic abuse and cheating of the system. Our party has taken the position that the real problem in Canada- and you can cover it up, throw it away, try to reduce the participation rate, cosmeticize the unemployment figures-is the fact that we have an economy which historically has produced a great deal of unemployment and a great deal of seasonal work, with large areas in the country where unemployment is in the 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent position.
May I call it one o'clock?	[DOT]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, there are features of this bill which we object to in particular, and I would like to go through them in the time remaining. The first feature which we object to is that the minimum insurability has been increased. This means that 42,000 part-time people, according to the minister's own calculations, will be cut off the rolls at a saving to the department of $60,000. This proposal affects women and youth more than anybody else, and we think that that is a mistake. In fact, the minister himself admitted it during his speech on second reading when he said that these features would affect women.
The second feature is clause 4. It is part of the guts of the bill and it increases the requirements for new entrants and repeaters up to 20 weeks. While the minister has allowed a trigger clause for areas of underdevelopment in Canada for repeaters, he has not allowed a similar clause for new entrants. This cannot be done by regulation. This feature is expected to save $300 million, and the majority of that saving will come from the area of heaviest unemployment in the country, the area east of the Ottawa river.
The third feature which we object to is the fact that benefits right across Canada will be reduced by 10 per cent. The thing about restraint which is important to remember is that one man's restraint is another man's income cut, and that is a point which we should bear in mind, especially at this time of year. It is all very well for those of us who are making a fair chunk of money to talk about pulling in our belts, but it is another thing to talk about pulling in somebody else's belt when that person is making at the very most $160 a week from unemployment insurance. I think that the 10 per cent cut is the most vicious feature of this bill, the one clause which will be the most unpopular and the undoing of this government.

The Tory party has put forward their two-tier proposal as the answer to the situation. I look upon this two-tier proposal as shedding one tear for youth and women and another tear for Atlantic Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is very good.


Bob Rae: That is what it amounts to. I would contrast the approach of the Conservatives on this matter to the approach which the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) took in the debate on the child tax credit, and I was present right through passage of that bill, as I have been here right through debate on this bill. It is two completely different songs, and I cannot believe that it is the same party. That group was saying that the concept of a family income was discriminatory. In fact, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands gave several speeches, and they are all on the record, with respect to the fact that if you have joint filing in the matter of a child tax credit, it is discriminatory against women. How is this bill any different? How can that party justify saying to women who, for income tax purposes, do not have dependants, but who do have dependants for family benefit reasons, that they should not get the same benefits as men?
I have written a little song about the Conservatives which goes like this:
Cutbacks, cutbacks we like best,
But that won't wash in St. John's West,
So you mothers and singles give two Christmas cheers,
For the Clarks, Joe and Bill,
And their mighty two tiers.
Yes it's 50 bucks, 50 bucks, ringing in your ears,
And even less as part-time nears,
So you mothers and singles give two Christmas cheers.
For the Clarks, Joe and Bill,
And their mighty two tiers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: The Liberals remind me of a game I used to play when I was a child, not too long ago.


An hon. Member:: Yesterday.


Bob Rae: Yes, it seems like just yesterday.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: How can you say that, sitting behind Stanley?


Bob Rae: I feel like I have been here for years. It was a game called "Simon says". But the game which the Liberals are playing is called "Gallup says". When Gallup says stand on your head, the Liberals stand on their heads; when Gallup says take it out on the unemployed, because there is a popular feeling going around that there are abusers and cheaters, the Liberals follow Gallup. He who lives by Gallup dies by Gallup. There is nothing easier, and I think that the Canadian people can see right through it. In doing the thing which may be temporarily popular, because of misapprehension and the misconceptions there are about unemployment insurance, those
December 22, 1978

people who follow Gallup and follow what they think are the vagaries of public opinion in this regard will be undone by that very same public opinion.
Granted, it may be unpopular to defend unemployment insurance in a time of restraint. But that is the price we in this party are quite prepared to pay. We have paid it before through other measures and we will do it again. The fact remains that the vast majority of people who are in receipt of unemployment insurance are deserving, both in terms of the law and in terms of need. The fact is that the overwhelming effect of this bill will complicate matters considerably for everybody. I cannot understand some of the provisions, and I have sat through committee meetings. I challenge the parliamentary secretary to explain to me once again the difference between repeaters, re-entrants and new entrants. It took two or three nights going through the bill for the civil servants to explain that to us.


An hon. Member:: The Globe and Mail said you were bright!


Bob Rae: For once the Globe and Mail was right. But when I think of the Liberals I always think of what that great Canadian philosopher, Larry Zolf, once said-"The Liberals firmly believe that you should never kick a man when he is up". I think that is the philosophy that the Liberals have taken on. They are not prepared to take on the powerful people in this community who have taken advantage of the tax system to acquire companies rather than to invest in Canada. The people they would rather take on at the present time are the unemployed. There is no easier road to follow than that road.
Just to show you how far industry has gone in this respect, I have a letter from the Pulp and Paper Association to the committee praising the proposals that have been put forward by the government. It says:
It is well known that the employment rate is not strictly a demographic function of a growing working age population trying to fill too few jobs.
The industry feels that the proposed amendment to the benefit rate reducing it from 66% per cent to 60 per cent of average weekly insurable earnings will help break the linkage between the participation rate and the benefit rate.
If the total labour force had expanded at the same rate of growth (1.9 per cent) as the working age population the number of job seekers would have risen by 203,000 over the past twelve months. Given the 362,000 new jobs created in the same period, the seasonally adjusted employment rate would have come down to 6.8 per cent instead of staying at 8.2 per cent.
The participation rates are very volatile and are reflective of many tendencies, among these being young people staying out of school, and women seeking a second family income because of rapid inflation. Also among these must be included the high participation rates induced by the level of unemployment benefits itself. An interesting statistical analysis on this phenomenon was presented last December in Executive Magazine by Mr. John Kettle. Reducing the benefit rate to 60 per cent of insurable earnings should, in our view, help to reduce participation rates and thereby the unemployment rate by adjusting the number of job seekers more closely to the job-creation rate.
We know where to go now. We do not go to the Economic Council of Canada who have not called for anj changes in the unemployment insurance-they have called for a change in the administration but not for a change in the regulations-we go to Executive Magazine. It is Executive Magazine that is dictating the course of this government.
Unemployment Insurance Act
We can see precisely what this government is trying to do in this regard. The government is trying to get a lower unemployment rate by cutting down on the participation rate in the economy. So if we get people back in the homes and back in the schools where, in the government's view, they belong, we will not have to put them on the unemployment statistics and worry about them any more. That is precisely the point that I made to the minister when we discussed the Outreach program in committee. That is precisely the point that is made by the Pulp and Paper Association, and that is precisely why the Pulp and Paper Association and Executive Magazine and the business corporations of this world are 100 per cent behind the government. They want to see that participation rate go down. They do not want to see women and young people in the employment market; they want to see them out of the employment market. I think it is a sad day for those people when it has been proved statistically that the vast majority of women working in the work force need to work because of the economics of the situation.
In Toronto, the metropolitan social planning council found that a family of four needed $14,500 per annum just to live above the poverty line, that the average income of families was $19,000 and that 80 per cent of families needed to have two incomes just to be living at the level of a $19,000 per annum salary. So I say to the government, and I say to the Conservatives-you cannot tell the difference any more-to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) who keeps talking about secondary wage earners-and he was talking about secondary wage earners in his speech the other day- that in my opinion there is no such thing as a secondary wage earner in Canada today. There are primary wage earners only, because every single wage earner is necessary in order for those families to keep up with inflation. The theory going around that there are secondary people in the labour market who are causing all sorts of problems, that women do not really need to work and that children do not need to work until they reach the age of 24 or thereabouts, is a dangerous and reactionary theory. If that is what the government is trying to put forward, I think they are making a major mistake.
We have opposed this bill tooth and nail right down the line. I know that our opposition has caused a great deal of concern on both sides. We have been attacked almost equally by the government and the Conservatives because we have put up such strong opposition. In view of this opposition, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted, and that the following words be substituted therefore:
"Bill C-14 be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this
day six months hence."


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, as the debate draws to a close on Bill C-14, which to my mind is of considerable importance to the Canadian people, to make a few comments on third reading. This bill was parachuted and passed full steam ahead, to say the least.

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Mr. Speaker, I say the bill was parachuted because the government is imposing its passage through a closure motion; for my part, I certainly do not accept that willingly. The Canadian people surely deserve better than a government that legislates too hastily on matters as important as family allowances and unemployment insurance.
I do not want to limit myself to criticizing the government; I also wish to explain my line of thought and my attitude towards this bill we have all been discussing in the last few days. The present unemployment insurance system is a necessary evil, some claim, necessary for sure, but also evil in that it is an insult to the dignity of man. What people want is work and not unemployment insurance benefits. That is probably what the minister had in mind when he introduced this bill, but the means suggested to do it are absolutely contrary to the basic principles of good public administration.
At a time when the country faces the highest rate of unemployment it has known in many a year, cuts in the unemployment insurance benefits are certainly not indicated. Let us not forget that the majority of those who will be deprived of unemployment benefits will fall back on welfare, the social cost of which is extremely high. The unemployed is looked upon as a worker without work, whereas people on welfare are relegated to the lowest rank of society.
It would be pointless for me, at this stage of the debate, to go into each and every detail of every proposal contained in this bill. Besides, my colleagues have already explained to the House the views of the Social Credit Party of Canada on this bill. However, I wish to make a few comments on the essential features of the bill which makes it entirely unacceptable. First, those proposals are extremely arbitrary. Second, they will have nefarious effects on many disadvantaged unemployed and will deprive them of the benefits which some members of the working force especially the most vulnerable ones, should enjoy. They all deal with, the unemployed. Third, those proposals do not solve nor remove the hindrances referred to in connection with dishonest unemployed. Fourth, those proposals are very difficult to understand and still more difficult to enforce.
Incidentally, the parliamentary secretary, the member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) said yesterday that the Social Credited were not interested in the bill. I would like to point out that if he wants to be charibable, as he believes he is, he should go and administer an unemployment insurance office after the bill is implemented and he will then realize that he is no longer in the constituency of Wellington protected by the popularity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He will realize that facing the unemployed is much more difficult than enjoying the popularity of the Prime Minister.
This bill comes on the heels of a costly publicity campaign aimed at portraying the unemployed as a bunch of crooks and parasites. That campaign has been conducted in spite of objective statistics which proved that there is a real lack of

jobs available. The number of jobs available is ridiculously small when compared to the number of unemployed looking for a job. Still, I am giving the benefit of a reasonable doubt to those we call swindlers of the unemployment insurance system because those we believe are swindlers are actually people who need to earn money to eat. I do not think we should call these people swindlers just because they need unemployment insurance benefits to buy their groceries; it is as simple as that. Some measures affect the unemployed who are members of a category which we want to despise and which we call repeaters.
The government seems anxious to avoid mentioning the real facts at the root of the unemployment problem. It constantly refers to steps aimed at encouraging our people who are out of work to seek employment, but without ever mentioning the real lack of job vacancies available, with some 60,000 job openings for a million unemployed. We should not put too much of the blame on unstable working habits. We may wonder if last spring advertising campaign which tended to assimilate the unemployed with cheaters and the introduction of this government bill are just a coincidence or a scheme by the federal government to hide its ineptitude at creating new jobs without depriving the most unfortunate members of our society of the money it needs to set up employment programs.
We believe that this government really wants to create a Canadian bank of cheap labour. The worker who holds an insurable job and who has already received benefits will not dare leave his job no matter what, even though painful working conditions may endanger his health, his security and what have you. A job on any terms, that is what is meant in the legislation. The minister himself indicated that when he said the new scheme would make low paying jobs more attractive. Those are key notes in this legislation. As the minister suggests, the purpose of the measures proposed is to reinject more money in job creation. Why has it not occurred to him that he could take that money from the rich, from the multinationals for example, instead of taking it from those who do not have money at all or are expecting a mere pittance from unemployment insurance to eat and give their family something to eat?
With this bill the government wants to save $2.5 billion in the long term, and in the short term $1.5 billion within two years. That is how they will get that amount of $1.5 billion because, again it does not hurt too much those who have more money. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable in my opinion. Yesterday all members witnessed how little courage the majority party has shown in favour of the poor when they used their majority in the House to defeat by vote 29 amendments which could have affected the bill. I hope the poor, and here I mean the unemployed, will remember that at the next general election.
December 22, 1978

The most striking thing about this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the nice words used by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). He claims that this bill will make the unemployed more reasonable and more responsible. I wonder when an unemployed worker becomes reasonable and responsible. I think it is when he can eat three meals a day with what he can earn by working. If we want to strike off the unemployment rolls people who may rightfully deserve to be there, why do we not simply repeal the act, and rather than moving this measure in the House, propose legislation which would give these people a guaranteed annual income. If we had legislation to ensure a guaranteed annual income to these poor people, all members of the Social Credit Party of Canada would support the minister. We think of the poor and I believe there are many well meaning Liberal members who share our view-


Roch La Salle: Yes, but they cannot say so!


Léonel Beaudoin: I have spoken to a number of them and they sigh in reply. It is like when Mr. Caouette occupied a seat next to me-I had the honour of sitting next to him for many years-history is repeating itself. Times change but history keeps repeating itself. If the Prime Minister lifts his little finger, everybody on the government side lift their little fingers, but that does not show much intelligence. There are far more unemployment than people who abuse of the system.
A study of the Economic Council of Canada stated that:
Four out of five unemployed in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits are jobless through no fault of their own.
I think this single sentence should make the minister realize that the bill which is brought forward on third reading is completely wrong and will do nothing to make us better understand the unemployed or to improve their lives.
As a corollary to this last point, let me add that for the legitimate unemployed, that is the worker who cannot find a job, the ever rising cost of living is just the same as for the rest of the people. But instead of compensating for the loss of revenue caused by inflation the government decides to lower the benefit rate from 66 per cent to 60 per cent. In view of the inflation factor the unemployed is therefore doubly penalized. In an announcement which has been published on September 1, 1978 the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) was explaining one of the main objectives of the new amendments of the Unemployment Insurance Act:
I want to make sure that the unemployment insurance system fully encourages Canadians to seek and to accept jobs.
What kind of story is this, Mr. Speaker? The minister knows full well that there are no jobs! There are 60,000 jobs for some 200,000 unemployed. For the 249,000 unemployed who are offered 50,000 jobs, that will represent three or four workers for the same job, if I get my figures right, and for long periods, five for the same job. What are they going to do? They are going to knock at the door of factories until the
Unemployment Insurance Act
personnel officer is tired of them and they are going to go home frustrated with nothing to live on, nothing to eat, they will have to live on welfare with the help of the province to be able to eat three meals a day.
With the application of the standards which are contained in the bill which we are dealing with today, we end up with a complete nonsense. Once again, if we could give a sort of guaranteed maintenance so that those who have undergone a loss would be able to live decently, we would agree to adopt this bill. But we see with this new bill that the government once again gets its priorities all wrong. Instead of cracking down on the unemployment insurance system and making cuts they should crack down on the economy, and give it the necessary stimulants which would create more jobs.
The government says that one of the shortcomings of the present unemployment insurance plan is that people can too easily get benefits over and over again. That is a chronic disease. But who must be blamed if the unemployed cannot find a job or if they have to draw unemployment insurance to meet their basic needs? They cannot do otherwise. So, they cannot do anything but try to get unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance is a form of guaranteed annual income for a number of unemployed and the government seems to reject a that philosophy, yet it is not against the guaranteed annual income concept. To say the least, the government is not very consistent nor logical in its line of thinking.
The government declares to anyone who wants to hear it that it is prepared to dialogue with the provinces. As regards the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, it did listen but for a while only. For instance, at a recent federal-provincial meeting the Minister of Employment and Immigration refused to concur with the views of provinces. They were seeking a delay in the implementation of the new amendments until the publication of a study on the impact of those amendments on various welfare agencies. If we try to implement those changes without taking that study into account, what is the use of such studies? Why should the government request studies on regulations for the poor or for those who are out of work will lose their unemployment insurance benefits after this bill has been adopted? But the government does not care about that nor does it agree with the provinces. It says: We are still going to adopt this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is not very consistent with that bill.
The government unfairly accuses the unemployed of having caused an increase in the cost of unemployment insurance, but is the government forgetting its own role in this cost increase? The report of the Auditor General for 1977 mentions that $142 million was paid out to people who were not entitled to benefits. What about that? I really wonder who will be able to solve the mystery of these expenditures without knowing who is responsible. I think I have explained the main aspects of my opinions on Bill C-14. However, I would like to remind the
2416

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
House of the efforts and the wish of some ministers to help the most underprivileged members of our society. I would also like to note, Mr. Speaker, that on the side of the majority, there are now ministers who work very hard to at least show that they want to redistribute the wealth of the country to those who need it most.
In his last budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) took a step forward by bringing up the possibility of a guaranteed annual income. He gave us a book and asked us to read it and study it to determine what could be suggested in the House on this subject. This book concerns essentially the possibility of a guaranteed annual income for the future. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for having thought of this. However, this should not be an excuse for the minister who now sponsors the bill on unemployment insurance to wash his hands of the whole matter and say: We shall wait for the guaranteed annual income. It should have been implemented at the same time as this bill was introduced.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) talked about optional retirement at 60 for those who want it. I hope that this is not only an idle promise, as the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has just said, and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is truly concerned about the fate of the poor. Because of her association with her department, she is well aware that a great many people are below the poverty line. There is quite a contradiction. The Minister of National Health and Welfare tries to help the poor while the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) creates poverty. And that in the same government. Does that mean that one has much more compassion than the other, or the latter forgot that to please the majority? I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker. I feel, however, the minister was in error when he brought this legislation in. For this reason we feel in this party we cannot support it.
We proved last night we have no other choice. We are sorry because we feel no sympathy for those who abuse unemployment insurance. We cannot stand those UIC "pensioners". We cannot approve that. A few of them I would not be sure about, but a fraction can and do abuse it. Some 30 unemployed at least come to see me every week, 99.9 per cent of whom are certainly honest, but some of them have lost track of the system because the program has been amended four times in five years. The unemployed would have to be lawyers to understand this legislation. Unfortunately they have no choice.
Let me come back to another minister, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I like the way he operates. He is very dedicated. He does all he can for those who want to get out of farming because of the impact imports have. They stay on. He looks after the poor and I commend him for that.
As the hon. member for Richmond, and I would conclude on this, as Social Credit member I would like to make a comment, but I want to be well understood. This comment is made in the spirit of Christmas. The parliamentary secretary, the

hon. member for Wellington stated yesterday he wanted to deal mainly with Social Crediters because we had not attended committee meetings and so forth. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remark that we are nine members from the Social Credit Party of Canada elected in the House, and I do not think we have stolen our seats because we won them in an honest and democratic election.
We are nine, and three are ill, so they are not here which leaves only six to attend the meetings of all the committees of the House, to sit in the House and to fulfill the other duties. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration to withdraw the words he said yesterday. I think he said this: I am the only one here who can say that with any degree of honesty. I would tell my hon. colleague that if he has the degree of honesty he thinks he has, he should withdraw his words.
[DOT]	(1432)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the minister is seeking the floor.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: There is a new motion before the House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is correct. There is an amendment. With the amendment before us the minister has the right to speak.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister does not need to speak again; he has won.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member to my right, who is really on the left but is not sitting in his proper place, says we have already won. The reason we have won, I suggest, is because we have been fighting for this bill with might and main.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: That shows how poor your case is.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) has done a phenomenal job. He has attended every meeting of the committee and every steering committee meeting. No minister has been better served by a parliamentary secretary. He had a difficult job to do and he did it extremely well; I am greatly indebted to him.
I have listened carefully to what has been said during the debate. I shall not attempt to deal with all the comments which have been made but I see present in the chamber an hon. member who has been described as the "perfect little mayor."
[DOT]	(1442)
When I heard him make his speech I felt that some imperfections were beginning to show and that perhaps the perfection was somewhat overblown when he was mayor. I was reminded of a grammatical expression. Perhaps the hon. mem-
December 22, 1978

ber's past was "plus perfect." I feel it has been somewhat overstated.
The hon. member spoke of the Seafarers' International Union. I dealt with that union. It expressed a concern. The hon. member also expressed that concern. We were able to solve the problem with about three telephone calls. I was subsequently visited by a representative of the Seafarers' International Union who was concerned about those members of his union who work in the far Arctic and on dredging contracts. We were able to satisfy that union representative that there was no need for concern. The explanation given to the union by members of the New Democratic Party was wrong, and the union representative left the meeting at which my officials were present satisfied that the union had nothing to be concerned about as far as northern points and dredging are concerned.
At second reading I stated that these changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are being made with two purposes in mind. The first is that we want to reduce some of the disincentives to work which are present in the program. Second, we want to encourage workers to establish a more stable work pattern, to develop longer attachments to the active work force and thereby reduce their dependency on unemployment insurance. I think those are good goals. Cutbacks are necessary, and they will result in a better and more balanced program than before. There will be new emphasis put on encouraging all Canadian workers who look for, accept and remain at work.
Some misinformation has been spread through this House and across this land by hon. members opposite regarding job vacancies. We are told that there are few vacancies. We are told that 900,000 people are unemployed and that there are only 44,000 vacancies. I believe the Creditistes said there are 66,000 jobs available. Hon. members based their allegations on the job vacancy survey. All the job vacancy survey indicates is the number of job vacancies in a particular region for a limited number of sectors on the particular day of the month that the survey is conducted. In no sense, therefore, can the figure be used to indicate the number of jobs which become vacant during the course of a week, a month or a year.
Let me put that in simple terms so that hon. members opposite who are not using the job vacancy survey the way it was meant to be used can understand it. In 1977 the job vacancy survey showed 44,000 job vacancies on average, whereas total hirings which took place was more than 11 times that number. There were 495,000 at that time, when the job vacancy survey was indicating 44,000 vacancies. In my view that is a dramatic demonstration of the dynamic quality of the Canadian labour market and, in particular, the number of jobs which are filled on a continuing basis. Thus, despite high rates of unemployment there are many opportunities for unemployment insurance claimants to find and accept suitable employment.
We have been criticized in the House for not being amenable to change and for being hard-nosed. We are accused of saying: "Here are the changes; take them or leave them." Hon. members opposite know that when I piloted through this
Unemployment Insurance Act
House Bill C-24 and Bill C-27 a significant number of changes were made. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) mentioned that in his speech. He indicated that we had not agreed to any changes to this bill.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) clearly demonstrated that we have made many changes since the first announcement on September 1 of this year. We made changes in the repeater section which were necessary in order to prevent repeaters from having too detrimental an impact in areas where people are concerned. I will not repeat what the hon. member for Gloucester said. He handled this aspect very well.
In all their haste to be critical hon. members in the official opposition did not listen to their own members. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) came forward with a concern that he felt. He made a solid representation. He said there is something wrong when Indians on reserves are not counted in statistics. We listened to what he had to say. My department checked with Statistics Canada. We made an amendment at the committee stage, but not one member of the opposition saw fit to give credit to the hon. member for Churchill for a change he worked on and which we implemented on his behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Herb Breau: He did his homework.


Mr. Railton:: Great man, Churchill.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said we would not have had to impose time allocation if we had accepted the change the New Democratic Party wanted to make. The NDP wanted to reduce the benefit rates. The hon. member said that if we had done that, this bill would have gone through very easily. The hon. member misses the point. We studied the impact of reducing the benefit rate. Some people thought we should have dropped it to 50 per cent. With their two-tier approach the Conservatives would drop it to 50 per cent for those individuals who have no dependants and who draw unemployment insurance.
We moved the rate from 66% per cent to 60 per cent, but I think it is important to realize that the level of benefits is one of the most important factors giving rise to disincentives to work. The study commissioned for the comprehensive review indicated that the benefit level is the single most important factor in this respect. We received representations from right across Canada. We received representations from the Atlantic development board, chambers of commerce and from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the people who create jobs in this country. The vast majority of jobs are created in the private sector, and it is the private sector which was telling us that at 66% per cent the benefit rate was a disincentive to work and that it resulted in an unstable work pattern. We listened to the private sector because, after all, it is not just the government and employees who pay into the program. Employers pay into it as well, and they have some rights.
80047-12'/

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
We were being given some solid representations, and we accepted them. We did not go all the way with the Chamber of commerce, which wanted to see the entrance requirement increased much more than I wanted to increase it. We did not listen to those who would have had us reduce the benefit rate to 50 per cent. Elowever, we accepted what we thought was an appropriate compromise. That is the way a bill should be drawn. We could not accept the main amendment of the New Democratic Party. We were told that if we accepted it, the bill would have gone through quite easily.
Then we looked at the two approaches taken by the Conservative party. The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) said he spoke to my officials. We examined the two-tier approach and the voluntary quits approach to see if they had any merit. We looked at the approach the Conservative party was presenting. We did not feel that approach had any merit.
The Conservative party did a flip-flop with its own representations. Conservative members kept changing. They would tell us what they would like. When we pointed to a flaw, they flipped-flopped on this two-tier approach. It is roundly and soundly condemned by members of this party and by the NDP.
The two-tier approach is not equitable. We pointed out during committee hearings that, if this proposal were adopted, it would have a serious discriminatory effect on women. If one were to use the definition of "dependants" as contained in the Unemployment Insurance Act before 1976, total savings would be about $850 million, which is comparable to the package contained in Bill C-14. But if one were restrictive and adopted the provincial definition of dependants-that is, dependent children only-savings would be increased and discrimination toward women even more profound. Using the former unemployment insurance definition of dependants, the two-tier proposal could result in a situation whereby only 5 per cent of women would receive the higher benefit rate and 42 per cent of men would be entitled to that rate. I could not accept the two-tier approach as proposed by the provinces and by the official oppositions.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Because you do not understand choice.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We pointed out this discrimination, and they drew in their horns somewhat. Perhaps the provinces were not totally right. Hon. members opposite did not bother to refer to the province of British Columbia, which said that our approach is a step in the right direction. Admittedly, the government of British Columbia is a Social Credit government and might have wanted us to go a little further, but that government said our approach is a step in the right direction. So all the provinces were not in favour of the two-tier approach.
In order to overcome the discriminatory aspect the Conservatives then proposed that either spouse could claim children as dependants. In other words, it was no longer a differential benefit rate for those with or without dependants but for those with or without children, whether or not they were really dependants. If they were trying to save money, this would have

reduced savings by another $200 million. That is somewhat surprising because they were trying to come out with something which would get them off this hook.
When I introduced my package, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said it was like a kick in the gut. The hon. member for York-Simcoe said that it was a great move and that it was too bad it was not taken long ago. Hon. members opposite are trying to skate off this thin ice on to which they have got themselves, and they have come up with a two-tier system which is total discrimination against women. They say it is not discrimination and that it is just that more women are affected than men. They say that that is not discrimination. I challenge them to tell that to the National Action Committee and the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
Then yesterday they were trying to bail out the party. They had about six critics over there, but finally the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) rose to speak. I thought we were going to hear something other than a political speech. To his credit he got in a couple of good political jabs-one at me because I did not keep my mouth shut as I should have, but I appreciate it; that is what this place is all about. But then the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on the report stage of the bill, introduced the notion that the Conservative's two-tier proposal would use the same definition of dependants as that contained in the Income Tax Act.
Now we have heard a third definition of dependants. This definition is very similar to that formerly used in the unemployment insurance program; that is, it includes dependants' spouses as well as children. What effect would it have? The Income Tax Act allows either spouse to claim the children as dependants. If this course were followed in such a way that whichever spouse was claiming unemployment insurance could claim the children as dependants, it would have the effect of reducing discrimination against women; but it could reduce the savings to $635 million, when they were touting their program would save more money, closer to $ 1 billion.
If, as at present, the spouse with the highest marginal tax rate continues to claim the children as dependants, then the savings would be in the order of $850 million but the discrimination against women would continue to be profound. In other words, the Conservatives cannot have it both ways. In order to maintain the high level of savings, the two-tier approach must discriminate against women. The removal of that discrimination implies a considerable loss of over $200 million in the savings to the unemployment insurance program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Another suggestion from hon. members opposite dealt with voluntary quits. We were condemned because when we looked at it some of my officials said that if we studied it long enough, maybe we could make it work, but we could not consider the approach of opposition members. We recognize
gig
tiS:'-
December 22, 1978

that voluntary quitters should have greater penalties imposed on them than individuals who are laid off work.
When we brought in our last bill, we put in an amendment with a double disqualification from three to six weeks. Experience since that time has shown that some further action may well be called for. I doubt, however, that the Conservative approach, particularly the doubling of the penalty from six to 12 weeks, is the preferred approach. It is not that we did not look at it, but that we did not think it would do what they and we wanted it to do. It certainly needs more study than the half hour about which the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) spoke today when apparently the Conservatives were considering their two-tier approach, whatever that approach may be-because although it is a two-tier approach, it has about 16 different applications depending on how you define dependants, and so on.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and I wondered if he really knows how parliament works. Certainly he showed no indication that he had any idea whatsoever. There was a time when you went out and did carolling at Christmas because you enjoyed it and it entertained your neighbours. We find the Conservatives going out carolling, but they always make certain they have a cameraman along to make sure they capture this effort. Even at Christmas they made sure of that.
I mention that primarily to show that the approach on this side is different. Legitimate and honest concerns have been expressed to me by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell), the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessi-er), and the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron). They raised their concerns personally with me, they raised them in caucus, they raised them with my colleague and they raised them in the House. If we had made any changes or suggested that we could accommodate them, the opposition parties would have taken all the credit. Not one of the opposition members raised this as a particular issue. All of the complaints about the benefit rates and how these particular lines work against the benefits of people in their ridings were raised on this side. So we looked at the issue.
The first suggestion made to me by the hon. member for South Western Nova was to the effect that the minister should have the discretion to draw the lines so that they would be equal. One can imagine what kind of response that would have had from the opposition. We found the possibility of doing that in the legislation under a provision which would authorize a group-it will be a competent group composed of the representatives of the commission and of the department, Statistics Canada and outside consultants-to investigate complaints about the drawing of boundary lines for the specific areas where complaints are being put forward and to make recommendations on options for improving the situation. I could have done that in caucus. I could have let them make their complaints, I could have made that change and announced it. There is no gagging on this side. I could have said: "Okay, we will deal with that in caucus and I will make an announcement". Nobody was gagged. Everybody who had a comment to
Unemployment Insurance Act
make, critical or not, got up and made his pitch. I listened and we made changes to accommodate their concerns. That is the way we make changes in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: To my surprise-perhaps I should not say that I am surprised because I have never been one of those who thought that the Senate was ahead of this chamber, although it is certainly ahead of the opposition; but in this case they have been-the Senators recognized that we were coming up against the Christmas deadline, so they discussed this bill simultaneously with us. They have had our officials going over this bill clause by clause and over the philosophy of the legislation. Now they are prepared to deal with this piece of legislation. They have given it a tremendous amount of study.
I have appeared before them myself in committee and, as I said, my officials have also done so.
The government's proposals in Bill C-14 are designed to deal with abuse and will not come to grips with this problem. That is the charge made by the opposition. The objectives of the amendments, as I have said during second reading, are to reduce work disincentives and to encourage workers to establish a more suitable work pattern. I continue to believe the amendments with respect to new entrants, re-entrants and repeaters in particular will contribute to the achievement of these objectives.
One of the submissions made at the first ministers' conference-i Said this, or a discussion paper said this and I repeated it-stated:
In the longer run, a conceptual review of the UI program, in the context of an evolving social security system is imperative, so that the aspect of "meeting needs" as distinct from the purer "insurance" aspect can be clarified.
I indicated to my provincial colleagues that we would prepare a paper on this subject and enter into full and comprehensive discussion with representatives of provinces and the private sector so that collectively we can help ensure that we have the best UI program to meet the challenges of the 1980s. That is a commitment I made to my provincial colleagues, and most assuredly that is a commitment I make to the House at this time.
I do not think I have to belabour the changes that were made. We did not use blunt instruments. Probably we could have found some simple way of doing this. We decided we should tax back, for example. Some people feel that if individuals receive $30,000 or $35,000 a year, they do not need unemployment insurance. We moved away from the insurance principle, and we are being criticized for doing that. The two-tier approach appears neither to adhere to insurance principles nor to income transfers. It does not take into account the income of individuals. If it is to be an income transfer, surely we should deal with the amount of money being earned by that individual. The two-tier system would be a disaster; it is not that I was being obstinate and could not accept it. It does not make good sense to bring in legislation at this time which does not adhere to insurance principles or income transfers.

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
This is a good bill. I appreciate the solid support I have had from my colleagues. We have made the changes that needed to be made. We listened to the hon. member for Churchill when he had a significant point to make, and we have made that change. We considered recommendations made not only by the NDP but also by the official opposition; we found them significantly wanting. We will still carry on a study and make this an even better bill, but heaven help us if we had accepted some of the suggestions made by members opposite.


Walter David Baker: Heaven will not help you now.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with real interest to the minister's defence of this bill, a bill which does not improve with the retelling and restating of it as the minister has tried to do in the last few minutes. I have also listened with some real interest to his defence of his flexibility, and I wonder where that flexibility was when he had the representations of the ten provinces before him on how this bill should be improved. I wonder where that vaunted flexibility was when he had representations from women's groups across this country as to how the penalty provisions could be improved. I wonder where that vaunted flexibility was when he listened to his colleagues, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie). Where was the flexibility of which he spoke? His flexibility seemed to be limited to a few of the business groups which appeared before him, presumably during private sessions. That was the flexibility he showed. Then he came before us in final reading and asked us to take for granted the fact that the bill is a good one. Some of us did not think it was a good bill in the first place, and we do not believe it is a good bill at third reading.
I have listened to the rationalizations of the minister and other members of the government in defence of the bill, but surely there is very little which can be said in defence of the bill because of two major glaring weaknesses in it. The weaknesses will have an impact long beyond the initial blow to concerned individuals, and long beyond the adverse effect it will have on individual constituencies and even the people who represent them at the present time.
The minister did not deal with the two major weaknesses in any of his remarks, or when he went off on different tangents. Indeed, they are more than weaknesses. They seem to be deliberate moves by the government against two of the most vulnerable groups in Canadian society. The moves seem to be designed to weaken their tenuous position and to undermine the fragile base on which they exist in Canada. Despite what the minister said, and despite all his protestations, these two moves are against the have-not regions of Canada and against women.
In the first of these, the shellfire of the government is levelled against Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec, in large

measure. The provisions in the bill addressed to seasonal workers, entrants and re-entrants, will be much much onerous on the Atlantic and eastern Quebec regions than on any other parts of the country. The minister did not mention that when he put up his defence of the bill. I single out the Atlantic region because I know it well. I know what the costs will be, not just in dollar terms as applied to the bill, but also what it will mean in limited opportunities being further reduced, in entrenched difficulties being further aggravated, in the hopes and dreams of individuals already restricted being denied totally. The bill goes further than severing the lifeline which is often needed by individuals in Atlantic Canada. It has very negative implications in terms of the unity of the country. The minister did not address that because he and the Liberal party do not understand how the bill can impact on the unity of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Hon. members opposite laugh, but there are more dimensions to unity than those to which the government will ever address itself.


Herb Breau: Did you listen to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: How often have hon. members opposite extolled their self-professed ability to hold the country together? How often have they paraded their pious virtue in this regard? As has been shown in this bill, their actions speak louder than their words. The bill is a perfect example of their lack of understanding of a region of the country continually is being set back by the social and economic policies of the government. It has a sorry record of reducing regional disparity in the country, but the bill will do much to worsen it. That affects not only the region concerned, but threatens the fabric of the entire country. The government does not seem to understand and realize that is being created, as it moves more and more against Atlantic Canada. It does not seem to realize, in making its moves, that the balance among the regions is further aggravated.
This measure has tremendous implication for the delicate equilibrium which must keep all regions of the country in proper balance. It is not original or new to say that eastern Quebec and the Atlantic region are the most disadvantaged regions in the country in terms of personal incomes and resource revenues. It is not new, and it is sad that one has to repeat it. The bill will mean a further loss of income in Atlantic Canada at a time when the provincial economies of that part of the country can ill afford it.


Herb Breau: Not true.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) said that is not true. To his province it will mean a loss of revenue of $62.7 million. That is what it will mean to the provincial economy of New Brunswick. It will mean a loss of $13.1 million to Prince Edward Island; a loss of $52.2 million to Newfoundland; and a loss of $43.8 million to Nova Scotia.
December 22, 1978

That will amount to a total loss of approximately $171.8 million to that region of Canada. That is bad enough, but when it is added to the other steps the government is in the process of taking, the viciousness and vindictiveness of the situation become even more apparent. At the same time as this measure is going through, there are cutbacks in the equalization program, the very linchpin of confederation.


Herb Breau: Another untruth.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will not say how much those cutbacks will be. He indicated that there will be cutbacks. He did not deny that in the House. The hon. member for Gloucester can look at the record. How much will the cutbacks amount to? Will they amount to $100 million or $150 million? Perhaps the hon. member for Gloucester can tell us. He knows they will come about. On top of that, there were cutbacks in the social services program. If the program had been carried out and put onto effect, the impact would have been most beneficial to Atlantic Canada. But it was abolished, it was cancelled unilaterally by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). As well, the minister cancelled the health resources fund where the Atlantic region had more difficulty than the prosperous regions in gearing up the machinery to bring to fruition certain programs on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis. Just as those programs were about to come into effect, the Minister of National Health and Welfare unilaterally cut them.
These four programs represent a cutback to Atlantic Canada of $500 million which provincial governments had been led to believe would be forthcoming. One can say, "What about the other parts of the country? Why are they not facing the same problem?" The reality of the situation is that the other parts of the country can absorb such a body blow more readily. When Atlantic Canada is hit with a body blow of this nature, it can become a death blow. That is what hon. members from Atlantic Canada should be aware of when they support a bill of this nature.
What the government seems to be saying in a callous, cruel, and calculated manner, is that one can take the most vulnerable part of the country and kick it while it is down. But in doing so, one makes it more difficult for that part of the country to bounce back. That is why the long-term effect will have an adverse impact on Canada as a whole. Holding the country together is no easy task; no one ever professed it would be. Certainly Joe Howe 110 years ago did not think it would be. But not even he, in his angriest denunciations of what Ottawa might do to Atlantic Canada, would have forecast a deliberate move by a federal government to undermine the economy of that region, to cripple it, to make it more dependent, to increase its dependency rather than its self-sufficiency, and to make it a continuing cause for concern to all of the other parts of the country.
Ontario, not the federal government, expressed that concern very well when it spoke on behalf of all the provinces against
Unemployment Insurance Act
the measures in this bill, because its ministers could see what it would do to the country. Only Ottawa seems blind to the fact that its moves are undermining the very unique union in which we live.
I would say to you, sir, that the unity of this country has many dimensions. The government is attacking one of them in this bill, and that is one of the very weaknesses of the bill. The other, sir, is that the legislation we are addressing today will have its heaviest brunt against working women, women in the labour force.
I am delighted to welcome the new recruits in this House in the last couple of days to the cause of women's rights, including the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon. member for Gloucester. I welcome their belated concern for the rights of women. I would say to them their expressions of concern on behalf of women in this House, while belated, are nevertheless welcome, and I trust we will hear from them on this subject on many occasions. I hope their conversion to this cause will continue. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, to my left, has undergone a conversion, but I must say, sir, that in sticking with the provisions of this bill the government has undergone no similar conversion with regard to women's rights in this country and no similar conversion with regard to the lot of working women.
In fact, sir, the government has a long history of policy and attitudes which discriminate against women, and this bill is one more of them, and the minister cannot dump his responsibilities. He ignored completely the representations made to him by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and by the National Action Committee. What we hear instead is a continuing group of ministers going about this country blaming high unemployment on the entrance of women into the work force.
Who was the latest to do that? It was none other than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking the other night in Toronto to a Liberal fund-raising dinner. Mind you, he was speaking to a Liberal fund-raising dinner, and when he put this proposition forward he knew only Liberals would accept it. That is why he gave this kind of message to the Liberal fund raising dinner, under the heading of unemployment.
Who was to blame for unemployment? The Prime Minister said "there has been a social revolution" in this country. "Women and young people are entering the labour force at a rate at which they've never entered it before." Why did he single out women and young people? Why does he have to be focusing continually upon women? Then he went on to say in a wonderfully patronizing manner, "I'm not knocking it, particularly the women." How long do women have to take that kind of patronizing comment from the Prime Minister of this country? How long does he intend to go on making such comments that it is women entering the labour force who are causing unemployment in this country? That is the kind of thing we hear, and that is the kind of intent that is embodied in this bill.
The fact that the government makes this kind of comment, and that the Prime Minister goes out and makes this kind of

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
derogatory statement, completely ignores that if it were not for the fact that so many women are working and so many women are in the working force, not only would the work force lose some of its most vital workers, but the ranks of the poor in this country would swell. But, sir, such facts as that do not intrude upon the government's attitudes, which remain, in spite of their fine words to the contrary, ambivalent or, even worse, squarely against the attainment of equal opportunity for women in this country.
The clauses in this bill pertaining to part-time workers, and to entrants and re-entrants to the labour force, contain exactly the intent the Prime Minister put forth when he spoke in derogatory terms of women entering the work force, equating that fact with increasing unemployment in this country.
If the minister has forgotten, perhaps I can remind him of what the National Action Committee said when it appeared before the committee. When Carole Swan presented the brief she said:
-various policy and program changes that are being acted upon or enacted by the government are having the effect of driving out of the labour force those workers that they consider marginal and secondary, particularly women-
That is what the National Action Committee said to the minister, but did he take that advice or listen to those words when he was considering this bill?
We now find that when the government runs out of arguments that put the blame for unemployment on women who have jobs or who want jobs, it often acts as though women who lose their jobs are intent on abusing the unemployment insurance system. That is what the intent of this bill is all about.
Let me say to the minister that independent research has shown that the unemployment insurance scheme has not had a significant impact on women's participation in the labour force, either to encourage it or to discourage it.


An hon. Member:: Name your source.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I will name my source. It is a C. D. Howe Research Institute report entitled "Opportunity for Choice", and I would recommend it to the hon. member as it will give him some insight into what women in the work force do for this country. This institute studied unemployment insurance, it studies women workers, and it concluded by stating:
When we removed the effect of trend factors and the influences of business cycle, the recent changes in our Unemployment Insurance Act have not had a different effect on female than on male unemployment rates. Recent high female unemployment relative to males can be attributed more to trend and cyclical factors than to unemployment insurance.
That is what the report said, yet the government persists in the mistaken belief that women do not need-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but her allotted time has expired.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member would answer a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Her time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This would require unanimous consent, and I take it there is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to participate in this debate a few days before Christmas, and it is certainly a great pleasure to me to see that the spirit of Christmas has pervaded the House. I suppose the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) can no longer be referred to as a "red Tory", but as a "green Tory".


An hon. Member:: Ho, ho, ho!


Hugh Alan Anderson: What we have heard from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is a proposition I never thought would be put forward in this House, that the unity of Canada depends on a greater amount of unemployment benefits to Canadians. If one followed that argument to its logical conclusion, if we spent $8 billion rather than $4 billion, we would have twice the unity in Canada that we have today. Mr. Speaker, that is patent nonsense.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: All of her
speech was.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The second assertion made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was that Bill C-14 hits hardest those individuals in high unemployment areas who are least able to find employment. The reduction in UI benefit expenditures for Canada as a whole in the fiscal year 1979-80 is 14 per cent. If we look at the Atlantic provinces, we see that in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia the percentage reduction is less than for Canada as a whole. For example, the rate is 13.1 per cent in Newfoundland, and 12.5 per cent in Nova Scotia. In the case of New Brunswick it is equal to the national average, and in Prince Edward Island it is slightly over 15.2 per cent.
The point which has been missed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and, with all deference, by the New Democratic Party as well, is that the distribution of funds to the employment strategy will more than compensate all provinces for the loss of funds attributable to the amendments in Bill C-14. For example, in 1979-1980, the $710 million employment strategy, together with the $300 million employment development fund, yields expenditures substantially in excess of the total Bill C-14 programmed savings for 19791980. In that period the funds which will be decreased in unemployment insurance amount to $655 million. If the same employment strategy figures are applied to 1980-1981, they are still estimated to be greater than the estimated Bill C-14 programmed savings which are estimated to be $935 million.
December 22, 1978

What I am saying, and what should be clear to all members, is that the savings are not being put into the general revenue of Canada to reduce debt and to reduce our spending, but are being redirected into job-creation programs and skill-training programs which will reduce unemployment.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Don't expect the Tories to understand anything.


Hugh Alan Anderson: In all sincerity, 1 expected the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands to look at the program and at least grant that jobs will be created as a result of funding from this program. I do not expect the New Democratic Party to understand it, because economics is not their strong forte, but I did expect some hon. members opposite would congratulate the government on its attempt not to maintain people on unemployment insurance, but to have these funds go into training people so they will be able to find permanent jobs. I also expected congratulations from that side for the fact that this money will go into direct job creation as opposed to having people draw benefits.
I consider it degrading for persons to have to stay at home and draw benefits. Instead of that, hopefully, we will have them out working. I would have hoped that the official opposition would have been at least honest enough to say that that is a more desirable stance than having an individual sit at home drawing benefits, which is a demoralizing process. After 35 meetings in committee, and after several days of debate in the House, it appears that there is no way that this reached the minds of the opposition. The only people who will probably realize this will be the people of Canada, and 1 suppose they are the ultimate judge. I am more than prepared, as a Liberal member of parliament, to go before the people of Canada next year and say that the Liberal party has a positive approach to unemployment, and that it is not putting out more money for unemployment insurance-


An hon. Member:: You created it.


Hugh Alan Anderson: -but putting out more money for the creation of jobs and the upgrading of skills.
In 1979-1980 the government employment strategy program will create employment for 638,000 individuals. This is far in excess of the 249,000 claimants who may be potentially prevented from establishing claims as a result of Bill C-14. That is a net gain, and surely it is a desirable gain when more Canadians will be working next year than are working this year. We hear in this House, day after day, about problems besetting this country, but what is not very often said is that, for example, in 1968 there were 7,514,000 Canadians working, and in May, 1978, we had 10,025,000 people working, which means an average number of jobs created per year under this government of 250,900, this during the toughest ten years in world history with regard to economics.
We have heard about the women and we have heard about the young, but what has not been said is that the percentage of population over 15 years of age has reached the highest employment level ever in our history. For example, in May,
Unemployment Insurance Act
1968, the percentage was 54.6, and in May, 1978, it was 57.1 per cent. The participation rate in 1958 was 57.1 per cent, and in May of 1978 it was 62.5 per cent. These are not unpleasant facts to bring up because they show that Canada has had a sustained growth over the years.
In the same period of time it is interesting to note that the Federal Republic of Germany, which is looked upon by many Canadians as a modern miracle and an example of hard work, growth and dedication, over the last eight years has had a negative growth. There are less people working in West Germany today than there were in 1970, but in Canada at the same time we have had an average growth of 250,000 people per year, in a population of less than 20 million, a very large growth ratio. However, do we ever hear anybody saying that this has been an era of sustained growth?
Instead, what we hear today from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is that in order to promote Canadian unity we should pay more money out in unemployment insurance benefits. If that is the Tory party's platform going into the next election, what will probably happen is what has happened over the last three elections.
I had the good fortune to receive a letter from the Conservative party today, and I would like to include some of it in my remarks. It is addressed to Hugh Anderson, member of parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa. It says, "I am sure that you are deeply concerned about the future of our country and recognize the need for a better government, a stronger economy and a new hope for our future. This is why I am writing to you today, to enlist your support for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada."


Walter David Baker: It is probably signed by Keith Davey.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Obviously the Conservative party has been putting up a brave fagade if they are enlisting the support of the Liberal Party of Canada in the upcoming federal election. Incidentally, this letter is signed by Robert L. Stanfield, and he concludes his letter by saying that, "as party leader in the past three elections I personally know that a party can come close and yet lose by a mere handful of votes. Let us not let this happen next time. Help close the gap with your personal contribution to the PC Canada Fund today."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: We are all aware that the Conservative party has been an error-prone party, but if they are counting on my help in the next election I am afraid they are going to lose it by another few votes again.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Walter David Baker: We count on you as one of our greatest assets.

December 22, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act


Hugh Alan Anderson: I felt very important today to the Conservatives.


An hon. Member:: You are doing great!


Hugh Alan Anderson: There has been some debate by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) regarding allocation of time and I think that all of us, no matter to which party we belong, would hope that the debate would go forward in a sane and intelligent manner so there would not have to be any allocation of time.
Let me quote from Hansard to show you the tenor of argument, and the psychology under which we have been operating and which has made it almost impossible to have a rational debate. As reported at page 2295 of Hansard for December 19, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said:
We realize there has to be restraint. We realize there has to be some restraint in the unemployment insurance program.
That obviously contradicts statements made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. We know they straddle both sides of the fence, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) so beautifully pointed out the other night, but let me continue.
The hon. member for St. John's West went on to say:
That is why we are going to vote against them. I would not vote for them, anyway. I have no intention of voting for anything brought into this House by the hon. gentlemen opposite, no matter what they bring in, because the source from which it comes is polluted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kempling:: That is right.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Obviously, by the applause from the other side, the pitty-pat handclappers are in agreement with what was said by the hon. member for St. John's West. In other words, he said, and I will paraphrase him, that regardless of what was brought in on Bill C-14, he was not going to vote it; he would not vote for anything. By the way, he also made one other interesting statement: "I would not come into the House". How can one enter a debate, a serious debate on Bill C-14, when a future cabinet minister, if they get in-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Now, you are talking.


An hon. Member:: That is as close as he will ever get.


Hugh Alan Anderson: A future cabinet minister among those who would aspire to be king.


Some hon. Members:: Ah!


Hugh Alan Anderson: Their aspirations have been the same for the last 15 years. The people of Canada have always put a banana peel under the rungs on the road to the climb for power. I suspect these same people will put another banana peel under their ascent to power-


An hon. Member:: Put it under his foot.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I suppose it would be fair to say that we are entering a debate on a subject that affects hundreds of thousands of people across Canada. We have some idea of the mentality of that party when it says, "It doesn't matter what you say, we are going to vote against it." It must be frustrating to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to have listened to 34 committee hearings and to have listened to the debate in this House, and then to have the hon. member for St. John's West stand up and say-


Walter David Baker: And then have to listen to you.


Hugh Alan Anderson: -regardless of what is said in this House, or what proposals are put forward, he is going to vote against them, and he will even walk out of the House.


An hon. Member:: Especially after he supported it at second reading.


Hugh Alan Anderson: There are very important clauses in Bill C-14. 1 believe that this House has studied this legislation in committee for a long period of time. But I, as a member of parliament from Vancouver Island, would rather see, if I had my druthers, the sort of development that I was able to announce on Monday in Nanaimo, where the federal government will be investing $ 12 million in the Duke Point project in conjunction with the province of British Columbia and with the Nanaimo Harbour Commission.
During the time of restraint the federal government has looked upon the creation of jobs in a positive manner. This particular project will draw approximately $150 million of private investment, with a contribution of $12 million from the federal government; $7 million from the provincial government, and $7 million from the Nanaimo Harbour Commission. This contribution of $150 million from the private sector will create 2,000 direct and indirect jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: In my opinion this is the kind of rational progress and rational industrial development for which this government is noted. I would hope that with the moneys made available through savings through the unemployment insurance program, that more jobs are created all across Canada, not only in the maritimes or in Quebec, but right across Canada from coast to coast. Surely that is what a federal government is all about, a government with concern for all the country, not for one particular region or one particular province.


An hon. Member:: Not if the Tory premiers have their way.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am very gratified that the federal government in its wisdom is able, during a time of restraint, to make available $12 million in order to help create 2,000 direct and indirect jobs. I congratulate the government on that strategy. I believe that by assisting the provinces, the municipalities or

December 22, 1978

other parties in this country, if we can stimulate private investment-and in this particular case it will be up to $150 million-then surely this is the way to go. The government of Canada in recent meetings have said, "It is the private sector that must create jobs, it is not the government." This is an example of where the private sector along with assistance from the federal and provincial governments, will have a tremendous impact that will directly affect the city of Nanaimo to the tune of 2,000 jobs.
There are several other things that perhaps do not get said, because when one talks about Bill C-14 or amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, one must take it in the context of what is happening throughout the entire economic sector of Canada. One cannot take it only in the context that this bill will be a reduction of funds to people who are unemployed in Canada. Instead one must ask the question, to what better use can we put those funds? I would suggest that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has taken the right step in attempting to break the unemployment cycle. Instead of putting more and more money into the program, as you put it into a beast with an unending appetite, you tend to break that cycle by having money go into more important areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand why hon. members opposite would try to deprive me of the few minutes that are remaining. Having just listened to the speech of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), I can understand why closure has been introduced. A few more speeches like that and not even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Maine) would vote for this bill. I am sure, when the hon. member speaks of his druthers, if the people of Comox-Alberni had their druthers, they would not send the hon. member here to make speeches like that.
There are only a few minutes remaining. Throughout this debate one important fact has been forgotten, that we are talking about the lives of people. This cruel bill will deprive 250,000 Canadians of the right to draw unemployment insurance. It will force a quarter million Canadians on to the welfare rolls of this country. There is nothing more can be said about this bad bill which was brought in by closure and forced through this House by closure. The final word on this iniquitous, unjust legislation will be left to the people of Canada when they vote this government out of office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being 3.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, December 20, 1978, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-14, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The question is on the amendment (Mr. Rae). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost. The question is upon the motion of Mr. Cullen. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we proceed with the recorded division at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.
Messrs.
Mazankowski	Railton
McCain	Rompkey
McCrossan	Rooney
McGrath	Roy
Mclsaac	(Timmins)
McKinnon	Sauve (Mrs.)
McRae	Savard
Milne	Schellenberger
Muir	Scott
Murta	(Hamilton-^
Nicholson (Miss)	Siddon
Nowlan	Stanfield
O'Connell	Stewart
Ostiguy	(Cochrane)
Ouellet	Stollery
Paproski	Tessier
Parent	Trudeau
Parker	Trudel
Patterson	Watson
Pearsall	Whelan
Penner	Whiteway
Philbrook	Woolliams
Pigott (Mrs.)	Yanakis
Pinard	Yewchuk
Portelance Prud'homme	Young-151.
(Division No. 32)
++YEAS



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Abbott	Bussi&res	CorriveauAllmand	Caccia	Cot6Anderson	Cafik	CullenAndres	Campagnolo (Mrs.)	Cyr(Lincoln)	Campbell (Miss)	DansonAppolloni (Mrs.)	(South Western Nova)	DaudlinBechard	Caron	DawsonBegin (Miss)	Chretien	De BaneBlaker	Clermont	DemersBlouin	Collenette	DionneBoulanger	Comtois	(NorthuBreau	Condon	MiramiiBuchanan	Corbin

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made earlier this date, the House will now revert to motions for the consideration of the motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethicr).]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That, when the House adjourns following the disposal of the third reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding on the said bill or the giving of Royal Assent to the said bill and any other bills then ready for royal assent:
That after the disposal of such proceedings or in the event the House does not meet for those purposes, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be, until January 23, 1979, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and That in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or Deputy Chairman of committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate therefore that the House will stand adjourned, the ordinary course under the provisions of this order, and presumably will await the consideration of the bill by the other place, following which it will be recalled by the Chair later this day or at some other time, depending on Their Honours in the other place, if the House moves to adjourn today, pending the call of the Chair for the purposes outlined in this adjournment order.
The first thing I wish to say to the House now is that it would give me great honour and pleasure to be able to receive members and their usual guests in Room 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That is the situation at the moment, subject only to a very important intervention by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth).


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of one of my favourite constituents who happens to live at the North Pole and goes by the name of Santa Claus, I wish everyone in the House here today, and all people in the land, a very happy Christmas, good health, and happiness in the new year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Ho, ho!


Mr. Speaker:: The House stands recessed until the call of the Chair.
At 4.22 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
Royal Assent


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 10.05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, without amendment.



ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
December 22, 1978 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 22nd day of December, at 10.05 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Honourable Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.-Chapter No. 7.
Bill C-33, an act to authorize the granting of an immediate annuity to the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Raymond Morand.-Chapter No. 8.

December 22, 1978
Royal Assent
Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act-Chapter No. 9.
Bill C-34, an act to amend the Criminal Code-Chapter No. 10.
Bill S-8, an act to revive J.H. Poitras & Son Ltd.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, January 23, 1979, at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.24 p.m. the House adjourned until 2 p.m., January 23, 1979, pursuant to special order made this day.

Tuesday, January 23, 1979