1978-12-19

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
FOURTH SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 27 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9, at 5 cents per copy or $3.00 per session
2251
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 19, 1978


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: 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 CPI released today shows an annual rate of inflation of 8.8 per cent, a situation that will get worse as we get into the winter months, with prices increasing in bread, pasta and produce, a fact which will weigh heavily on fixed and low income earners who have to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on food, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government's consumer subsidy on domestically consumed wheat be phased out over a period of three years, in order to minimize its impact on bread and pasta prices which will increase anywhere from 16 per cent to 20 per cent as of January 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion for debate at this time would require 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.
My motion is with regard to an important air navigation order known as the Aeronautical Communications Standards and Procedures Order relating to air safety and the Official Languages Act. After attempting for six weeks to get a report on this ANO, the minister informed me in writing on December 11 that for the period November 25, 1976, to July 23, 1978, 10,228 incidents of alleged violations of the order were reported.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Minister of Transport, on motions, explain to the House how this apparently irregular situation developed; what, if anything, is going to be done about the 10,000 plus incidents of alleged violations of the order and explain how he reconciles the development of this type of situation with his own duties and responsibilities under section 3(a) of the Aeronautics Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CROWSNEST PASS RATES-MEETING WITH SASKATCHEWAN- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Four months ago the Saskatchewan government offered to help pay the cost of extending the Crow rate to agricultural products processed in Saskatchewan if the federal government would guarantee the Crow rate for grain farmers and pay compensation directly to the railways, as recommended by the Hall commission report.
In view of the fact that the federal government has not yet met to discuss this plan with the Saskatchewan government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House request the Minister of Transport to stop stalling and to meet with the Saskatchewan government to reach agreement to implement the Saskatchewan Crow rate guarantee plan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


S O. 43 AIRPORTS COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
December 19, 1978
(1412)

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity regarding the closure of certain airport towers, commencing January 1, from midnight to six o'clock a.m. This will pose serious safety questions which have not been adequately addressed by the Minister of Transport.
In view of the Cranbrook tragedy-an airport without tower service-and in light of increasing night air cargo flights and Nighthawk flights by our principal airlines, requiring full navigational aids and tower services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Minister of Transport cancel immediately this directive and issue another directive ordering a full review of the implications to air safety implicit in these measures.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Canadian civil aviation inspectors have been without a contract since 1975, their income levels are now below military pilots, air traffic controllers and their equivalents in other countries, and in view of the fact that this highly skilled and important professional group is breaking up, as evidenced by the fact that they are now 15 per cent or more below strength, which has led to only 335 of more than 1,500 air regulation infractions in 1978 being processed, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Transport, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Labour take an immediate interest in this deteriorating situation, and that they resolve immediately the unjust remunerative levels of this important professional group of civil servants so that Canadian aviation practices be returned to their former prestigious and safe standard.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TELEVISION
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, according to Standing Order 43.
Considering that certain United States border television stations and several vocal and self-serving of our political counterparts in the United States continue to press for retaliatory action against the effects of Bill C-58 passed by this parliament, and considering that that legislation has produced an additional $9 million in much needed revenue to improve Canadian programming for Canadians, yet these several U.S. congressmen and broadcasters propose punitive retaliation of at least ten times the amount that is rightly being returned to Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne):
That this House reaffirms our commitment to Bill C-58 and urges the responsible majority of our congressional counterparts to discourage the noisy few from using field artillery to rabbit-hunt in their best friend's backyard.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), I move:
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to announce before Christmas that early in 1979 he will introduce legislation to provide prorata pensions for widows of veterans in those cases where the veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent, thus correcting an unfairness that has existed far too long.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 19, 1978


TRANSPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: 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 Prairie Rail Action Committee has gone far beyond the parameters recommended by Chief Justice Emmett Hall, and has dealt a most destructive blow to the prairie rail transportation system by recommending that 60 per cent of the 2,400 miles of rail line now included under temporary status be abandoned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House request that Fred Anderson, chairman of the Prairie Rail Action Committee, appear before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance why it is that he forecast at the beginning of this year that the real growth in the economy would be 5.5 per cent, that six months later he forecast 5 per cent, and in the recent budget he forecast 4.4 per cent, when it turns out that real growth is going to be 3.8 per cent.
Why is it that his forecasts are, and have been, so inaccurate? They are inaccurate in comparison with other forecasts made in the economy by private forecasters, other agencies and other government officials. Why are the forecasts of the Department of Finance and the Government of Canada so inaccurate?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I made a forecast of 5 per cent, not 5.5 per cent, in October, 1977. I changed it and said the growth would be about 4 per cent.
The problem of forecasting is the same all over the world. For example, in 1977-it was not a forecast-the United States administration said that growth in the first quarter was 5.2 per cent, but after three revisions they found out it was 7.7 per cent. Forecasting is a difficult business, and we are doing
Oral Questions
our best. I would point out that almost 4 per cent growth this year, is still 1.3 per cent more than last year.


James McPhail Gillies: Policy-making, under the best circumstances, is always difficult. If it is done on the basis of inaccurate forecasts, it will be wrong. I do not think anyone can argue that the economic policy of this country has not been very good, and one reason it has been poor is because of the forecasts. The Minister of Finance always rationalizes them away.
I am saying that in Canada, nine months ago, forecasts were far more accurate than those made in the minister's department. Why cannot the Department of Finance forecast activities in this economy more accurately, particularly when they have all the resources to do it and when, I presume, we end up having to make economic policy based on what turns out to be inaccurate information?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think I was in very good company last year when I forecast a growth of 5 per cent for Canada. The then president of the Conference Board, who is now a member on the other side, forecast a 5 per cent rate of growth for Canada.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I go back to the Minister of Finance. We have increasing inflation, a phenomenal problem in our balance of payments, a declining dollar and rising unemployment, with one million people out of work in a very, very rich country. I do not think anybody wants that to happen, but one of the reasons it is happening, presumably, is that the government is making its policy on the basis of poor economic forecasts.
What is the minister doing about that? Will he try to improve it? Is he not concerned about it? Has he any ideas about how we can make better forecasts and how we can get better information, so that we can have policy which will eradicate or help eliminate some of these dreadful economic problems we are facing? It is no answer for the Minister of Finance to pretend it does not happen. We have poor economic forecasts. What is he doing about it?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, before the budget I had consultations with many economists of this land, the national associations, and so on. Most of the forecasts for 1979 made at that time, pre-budget, were that the growth next year would be between 3 per cent and 4 per cent. In the budget I stimulated the economy to the tune of $1.8 billion. So with that, adding to the forecasts made before, I think to predict for next year that the growth will be between 4 per cent and 4.5 per cent is not being overoptimistic; it is quite realistic.

December 19, 1978
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


SUBSIDY ON DOMESTICALLY CONSUMED WHEAT-REQUEST WITHDRAWAL BE OVER THREE YEARS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do more with facts than with the forecasts of the Minister of Finance.
I want to ask the right hon. Prime Minister-indeed, I plead with him on behalf of low income earners in this country and people on fixed incomes, because he alone has the power to turn this back-will he now bring in a measure or a policy whereby the withdrawal of the consumer subsidy on domestically consumed wheat will be phased out over a period of three years? Otherwise, the consequences are that low income earners and fixed income earners in the country, who lean heavily on bread and pasta as a very important part of their diets, will be faced with substantial increases in the order of 15 per cent to 20 per cent.
As of January 1, the price of bread will rise by seven cents a loaf, the biggest over-all increase in the history of the country. The Prime Minister has the power to change that. I ask him, I plead with him, will he?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that very question when it was asked by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party some weeks ago. I indicated to him that the policy of the government is not to subsidize bread to all consumers, including the very rich and medium rich people. Our policy is to help those who need help. That is why we increased family allowances and that is why we increased old age pensions at the time we were phasing down this subsidy.
If the hon. member is interested in helping the consumer, I am surprised his party did not support the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he was trying to get support for delaying the increase of $1 a barrel in oil prices. That was a great occasion to help the consumer and to help industry in Canada


An hon. Member:: We did. You do not know what you are talking about.	[DOT]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the other side was very silent on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would commend the Prime Minister for what is happening if only he would do for bread prices what he is doing for energy prices, that is, phase in the world price of wheat so that it will not hit heavily on low income earners. I remind him that wage increases in Canada are running at 5.95 per cent, as opposed to the 8.8 per cent annual rate of inflation. This means that wage earners are falling behind.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the inflationary situation, produce prices will be rising. We know that the price of bread will rise by at least seven cents. Before the price of bread rises by seven cents per loaf as of January 1, will the Prime Minister bring in a measure whereby this can be phased in gradually over a period of three years, so as to minimize the impact on low income earners?


An hon. Member:: Question.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the Prime Minister has any compassion, surely he will answer that question in the affirmative.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I recognize that that is a repetition of the same question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Of course it is a repetition, and I make no apology for it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will repeat the same answer. The policy of the government is to help those in Canada who need help. It is not to subsidize everybody, which seems to be the Tory policy.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister: it is on the consumer price index. As the Prime Minister knows, wages went up by about 5.8 per cent last year and the increase in the cost of living was about 8.8 per cent. Therefore, there is a real loss in purchasing power for the average Canadian worker.
In light of some speculation that wage controls might be brought in, and in light of the Prime Minister's words on this at the first ministers' conference, can he assure us we will not see any wage controls in 1979, so that the Canadian worker will at least have a chance to catch up to the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this form of question really cannot be answered very simply. The hon. member recognizes, I am sure, that the real income of Canadians has gone up consistently over the past decade, including the present year. Therefore, workers, like all other Canadians, on average received more income this year than least year, in real terms, taking into account the rise in inflation. It is true that the cost of living has gone up faster than we had anticipated and, indeed, I believe faster than the labour movement anticipated.
The government has taken many occasions to congratulate the labour movement for the sense of restraint they have exercised. They realize-and I hope the hon. member realizes-that the increase in the cost of living came essentially from the lower value of the dollar and increased prices of imported food. Against this, the government cannot guarantee any class or any group of the population. Therefore, it is

December 19, 1978

normal in times like this that Canadians should exercise a measure of restraint.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could answer the direct question that 1 asked. There is some concern that in 1979 there will be reimplementation of the controls program that will specifically control wages. Because of the gap in the increase in wages compared to the increase in the cost of living, can the Prime Minister assure us there will be no implementation of wage controls until workers at least catch up to the increased cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in his previous question the hon. member referred to something I said at the first ministers' conference. I ask him to refer to that text where I was enjoining Canadians generally, and all governments in particular, to take certain measures to prevent inflation from again reaching a crisis state. I said if we ever reached a crisis state, there might be a need for controls.
We have not reached that state, and I do not anticipate our reaching it. I repeat, the labour movement and governments have shown a commendable measure of restraint. I am convinced, because of that, there will be no crisis situation. If there is no crisis situation, the government not only will not introduce controls, but cannot under the Supreme Court ruling.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Prime Minister said he is more concerned about people on low incomes, rather than subsidizing a specific product such as bread. We in this House have increased old age pensions and family allowances for low income people, and provinces like Ontario are increasing welfare payments.
The unemployment insurance bill before the House will cut back by 10 per cent the benefits paid to some of the lowest income people in this country. Considering the statement the Prime Minister made a few minutes ago, will he have the government reconsider its position and withdraw that bill which will hurt very many low income people in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously participating in the debate which is now before the House. The hon. member knows the government's arguments. It was a Liberal government that was the author of the Unemployment Insurance Act. History has shown that we have placed a very high priority on that particular act. The hon. member knows it is important for governments to review and to make sure that their measures are not abused, and that is the nature of the measure put before the House.
Oral Questions


REFERENDA
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Prime Minister. At a fund-raising dinner held in Toronto for the party in power, the Prime Minister is supposed to have said, according to newspaper reports, with regard to Bill C-9 concerning a public referendum in Canada, that if the bill is passed it would be used to cancel a Quebec majority vote in favour of separation from the rest of Canada. Could the Prime Minister tell us what he meant when he made that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is another example of a bill under consideration in the House for, I believe, only one day. If the hon. member did not take part in the debate or heard it he could read Hansard to learn what is the government's position. I stated, when I first spoke about the bill in the House a year and a half ago, that the Quebec government had decided to consult the people through a referendum and that the federal government is entitled to the same right.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. The Prime Minister said in the same speech that if Bill C-9 is passed, it would perhaps allow the federal government to hold a referendum before Quebec to see whether the majority of Canadians will take the provincial referendum into account. Could the Prime Minister tell us exactly what was the meaning of that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check because I am convinced that I did not say such things in Toronto, but if the member wants to send me the quotation, I will look into it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF SPORT FOR CUBA
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before continuing the question period, may I invite hon. members to join with me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor on an official visit to our country, the Minister of Sport for the People's Republic of Cuba, Jorge Garcia-Bongo.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 19, 1978
2256______________________________________
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


OVERCLASSIFICATION IN CERTAIN SECTORS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The public service classification study which was tabled yesterday indicated that as of April 1, 1976, the cost to the taxpayer of maladministration in this field was $43.6 million per year. Using up to date numbers of civil servants and salary information, a more accurate estimate would be $77 million a year.
What action has the minister initiated, and what action does he propose to take, to ensure that taxpayers get fair value for the millions of dollars we are spending-or wasting here- while seeing that those public servants who are the victims of this maladministration are not unduly penalized?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: To
answer the first part of the question, what we are doing in this study is this: there are roughly seven groupings which were identified as experiencing a particularly severe problem in this area, and there were seven departments which were identified as having an above average rate. We are working within these groupings and departments to see what can be done to tighten up and improve the classification procedures.
In addition, we are looking closely into this question of delegation to the departments which was decided on three or four years ago to see what changes could or should be made in the procedure. I might mention, of course, that this audit was initiated within Treasury Board because we felt some concern about just how effectively these delegated powers were being used and how effectively classification was being carried out. We are inquiring into that aspect very closely to see what can be done to tighten up the procedure.
As to the second part of the question concerning the employees involved, we would expect that some of these positions would be vacant, and if that is the case we should be able to downgrade them. In other cases we will consider the possibility of moving employees to other employment within the public service which is at the proper level for their qualifications, after which we could downgrade the positions. Also, we shall check whether the classification and audit which was done is correct-there has to be some verification. All these procedures, if followed carefully, should result in a minimum number of cases having to be red-circled.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board and his predecessor have had the study on national capital area classifications on their desks since April, 1976. I have a copy here. Compiled studies on the national capital area and non-national capital areas have been on their desks for several weeks or months.
On November 22, the minister's predecessor promised in this House during question period that there would be a detailed statement by the government regarding its actions. Will the minister make a statement in the House giving details

of what has been done, or table such details? The government has known about the problem for three years. It has had concrete information for over two years. What is being done?
Also, will the minister refer this report to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons so that we can look into the matter in some detail and be assured that the $77 million a year which is now being wasted will not be wasted any longer than is necessary?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I question the figure which the hon. member has used. As he has indicated, in the last couple of years he has moved the figure up from $46.3 million- which is certainly far in excess of what we consider acceptable-to $77 million.
As the hon. member is aware-I believe he was one of the questioners-there was considerable questioning in this regard in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates earlier this year when the deputy secretary for personnel policy was present. There was a fair amount of probing and discussion and, I think, a fairly forthcoming response to the concerns which were raised, and I suggest that that is probably a legitimate and sensible way to continue the process.


POST OFFICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. 1 have said on a number of occasions that this government is endeavouring to downgrade the monarchy. I need only point to what the Prime Minister said. He said he had no more use for the Queen than he had for snowshoeing or skiing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Three o'clock.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have never said any such thing, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: The denials come late, because he said that on a couple of occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When?


Mr. Dawson:: You are getting old.


John George Diefenbaker: The truth hurts. I want to ask the minister why, across this country today, in various post offices one is unable to purchase any stamp, either the 12-cent, the 14-cent or the 16-cent stamp, with the Queen's picture thereon. Why is this?
December 19, 1978


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to tell the right hon. gentleman that I have great respect for the Queen. I am a veteran. I fought for several years in England with the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lamontagne:: Having said that, I can assure the right hon. member that if there is any shortage of stamps bearing a picture of the Queen, it is strictly a question of accidental shortage and I am sure there is nothing in the Post Office which prevents any post office from selling these stamps. I will see that they have them in every post office across the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to the minister's wonderful record overseas. I will come a little closer to home. Why is it that on December 19, today-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, are there some loons loose? It is music to my ears to hear the suckers roar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I want to ask the minister a simple question. On this very date, neither in the House of Commons post office nor in the Senate post office can one purchase any stamps with the Queen's head thereon. Why is that? I asked specifically for them and I was told there were none. Was that coincidence?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the right hon. gentleman that the post office in the House of Commons is not under the jurisdiction of the Post Office Department: it is completely independent. If stamps or postal equipment are required, they have to request them. If they request them, I will see that the House of Commons post office gets them by tomorrow morning.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


NORTHERN PIPELINE
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that two Canadian companies, Stelco and Ipsco, have been selected to negotiate with Foothills to supply steel pipe for the Alaska pipeline. Does this mean that those companies were the lowest bidders, and does the Deputy Prime Minister feel that they would have a good chance of bidding successfully on the Alaska section of the pipeline?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we said often in the
Oral Questions
course of the debate on the creation of the Northern Pipeline Agency that Canadian firms could compete successfully for the supply of pipe on the Canadian portion of the line. We also maintained, despite the criticisms we received from the opposition-and today, of course, our judgment has been confirmed by the opening of these negotiations with the two Canadian companies for the supply of 1.5 millions tons of pipe-that we believe the competitive edge shown by these Canadians companies will be in play in securing business on the American portion of the line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as government House leader.
In light of public concern about the growth in the number of regulations in Canada which have some adverse effect-which was admitted by the first ministers at their conference last February-and having in mind a unanimous motion passed by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments dealing with this issue, will the Deputy Prime Minister consult with his counterparts, the other House leaders, with regard to consideration of a motion to give extended terms of reference to that committee in order to deal with this very important question?
I ask this question because of the fact that when this parliament grants delegated authority, it should retain some means of exercising supervision over the way that authority is utilized.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I read the report of the joint committee of which the hon. member is a co-chairman, and I noted the recommendations which were made and which now have been repeated by the hon. member.
I would like to undertake to raise the question of extending or widening the reference of the committee with other party representatives and with my colleagues with a view to meeting, if possible, the views of the standing committee.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


An hon. Member:: He is here. Wait for him.
80047-2 'h

December 19, 1978
Oral Questions


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, 1 was about to explain that 1 understood the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be delayed and I was going to address this question to the Prime Minister, but I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is now here. I have no doubt that he will find no difficulty in answering my question even though he did not receive the notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member would make it easier for the minister and for all of us if he would put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In light of the recent recognition by the United States of the People's Republic of China, and the reaction of the government of Taiwan and the statement made by the government of Taiwan that they will work to conquer communist tyrannical rule and its aggressive policy and never give up the sacred task of recovering the mainland, and in light of the fact that Canada supplied some time ago a research reactor which could be used for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon will the minister make a statement of the situation with Taiwan and nuclear weapons and undertake, if there is anything that Canada can do, to take steps to ensure that Canadian reactors and Canadian materials be not used by Taiwan for building up a nuclear weapon capability?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In order to give the hon. member a full answer, because of his unfailing courtesy-he has, indeed, given written notice of this question and my officials have looked into it-let me tell him that in 1969 we did sell a 40 megawatt nuclear research reactor, a small research reactor, and it has been under IAEA supervision and control ever since the ending of diplomatic relations between Canada and Taiwan.
We have made inquiries in the last 48 hours and my information is that there is nothing to suggest that that particular reactor will not continue to be under IAEA control. We are making further inquiries and I hope to give an additional answer later.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS TO ARGENTINA
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, this question also deals with nuclear reactors, but it has to do with the Argentine. The minister made a statement on December 14 to the effect that a quoted spokesman there was not a spokesman for the Argentine government on the matter, and that what they were doing in the Argentine was merely some kind of experimental arrangement.

It appears now that this gentleman, Admiral Madero, is in fact the president of the national atomic energy commission of the Argentine and that the tape, which is held by the Washington Post, indicates that he said they were going to produce a nuclear weapon and that, indeed, it will help to balance their arms race with Brazil.
Will the minister check the facts again, in view of this information, and take the necessary action to ensure that Canada will not co-operate in a venture which would be a threat to the peace and stability of South America?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, have asked me about this matter in the past, in so far as Canada is concerned I think it might be as well for me to read specifically what the situation is. It is quite short, if hon. members do not mind.
It states, first, that article V of the agreement between Canada and Argentina is specific in stating that all equipment, material, nuclear material and facilities subject to the agreement shall be used for peaceful purposes only and shall not be used for the development, manufacture or detonation of any nuclear explosive device; second, that the Argentinians may not reprocess any material subject to the agreement without seeking Canada's agreement; and third, in the event of noncompliance, Canada may suspend co-operation and may request that Argentina immediately cease to use any Canadian supplies.
In so far as the gentleman who was quoted is concerned, and the question as to whether or not he is the specific spokesman for the government, this is still a matter on which there is some difference of view, although it does appear that he is certainly working for the government in that sense of the word, but whether he is a spokesman for the government of Argentina, per se, and Argentina has endorsed his statements, we have still not determined officially.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, but first I would like to welcome her back from Florida. Since we are now back from space and down to earth, may I ask her this question with regard to the Clyne committee, or commission, the establishment of which she announced on November 30.
To eliminate the increasing suspicion that the Clyne committee will just rubber-stamp the Gamma report written by one of the committee members, Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, and the report of the CRAB which was chaired by Mr. Ouimet, has the minister reconsidered her position so that at least some publicity and public ventilation be given to representatives of industry who would like to give briefs before that committee in
*

December 19, 1978

the open, rather than behind closed doors, in view of the terms of reference of the committee which are to restructure the telecommunications industry in this country?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: The
suspicions about this committee, Mr. Speaker, seem to lie mainly in the hon. member's mind. I want to reassure the hon. member that it is included in the mandate of this committee that if they feel they have the need to do so, they should be talking to the people in the industry, be they cable operators, broadcasters or even CRTC commissioners.
I understand that having reviewed all the material they had to go through and the different items which they thought they would want to study, they have already asked representatives of industry to meet with them and discuss some of the issues.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the last part of the minister's answer because I, too, am aware of the fact that people who represent industry have been invited to come forward with briefs and, in fact, some individuals have been invited to give briefs. While I appreciate fully the practical impossibility of coming up with some substantive recommendations by February 1, does the minister not feel that there could be a better public discussion and a better stimulation of public debate- which the minister said she would like to see, in her press release of November 30-even within the limits of that timetable, if these people with briefs could come forward in public so that other representative groups could listen to what is said?
This could also help the Clyne committee make up its mind on recommendations to the minister with reference to the Gamma report and the CRAB report. Will the minister and this committee rely on other structural models for the telecommunications industry which have already been prepared by DOC officials and members of her department, and will those models be open to examination by people interested in this field?


Jeanne Sauvé: Many of the issues which will be studied by the committee have already been the object of a certain amount of public hearings mainly conducted by the CRTC, so that evidence will be used, obviously, by this committee.
I want to suggest to the hon. member that he should understand that once the committee has brought down its report-which timetable, incidentally, is the end of February-and although the hon. member thinks the deadline is impossible to meet, the committee is not saying it is impossible at this stage and they will try to meet it: it will be the basis of public debate on some of the issues which might require it.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, to whom I have given notice. I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the task force report on
Oral Questions
library service to the handicapped which was published in January, 1976, and also of the 36 recommendations contained in that report and of the branch of the National Library which was established to implement those recommendations.
I should like to know if the minister is aware of the work of that branch in implementing those recommendations to establish a co-ordinated service for the handicapped people of this country and, if so, does he agree with the decision to axe the program as of March 31 ?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for his kindness in giving me notice of the question. The answer to the first part of his question is, yes, I am aware of the matter which he has brought to our attention.
It is not a question of axing an existing program; it is a question of not being able to go forward at the present time with the implementation-which we hope to do in the near future-of a program which does flow, as he correctly said, from recommendations of the committee. One person has been brought on the staff of the National Library to consider ways in which these recommendations might be moved forward. It is now clear that the resources necessary to do so will not be available in the immediate future. There is, therefore, in that sense, not a continuing role for this person to play.
We do hope in the near future to be able to continue with the implemendation of the recommendations which were brought forward, recommendations which affect not only the federal but the provincial and municipal levels as well.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that this program affects 300,000 Canadians who suffer from sight disabilities. I am sure, also, the Secretary of State is aware that every social service ministry in every province of this country has made representations to him to save the existing program as it stands, as has the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
Will the Secretary of State not consider at least maintaining the rather meagre effort that has so far been made and maintain at least the service that is now in place?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the representations that have been made to me. As I said earlier, it is not a question of removing an existing program. We do attach importance to this and I hope we will be able to proceed with it quickly. But at the present time there is not a program; there is one person advising how we might reach the stage of implementing those proposals. It would still be my intention to do that, but I cannot promise the hon. member to be able to do it within the present financial year.

December 19, 1978
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In light of conversations I have had with CBC French network reporters and following a CBC program explaining that there seemed to be a lack of reporters for French information and that the air time was not sufficient to allow broadcasting of more elaborate information concerning French Canadians, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to communicate with the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in order to solve this problem?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to inform the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the representations made to me by hon. members and I will refer this one to him as soon as possible.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Two months ago I had occasion to put a question to the minister on behalf of the thousands of commuters in the Montreal area, urging him to intervene in a decision the Canadian National already seemed to have made at that time. Last week, the parliamentary secretary stated that, in view of the Gascon report, the minister had agreed to ask officially the CN president for a moratorium of one year and a drastic cut in the increases foreseen for users of commuter trains. Can the minister now tell us what the answer of the CN president was, the matter being urgent as January 1 will soon be here?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a reply from Canadian National but, as the hon. member says, following representations from several Liberal members of parliament I did say to the CN that I thought, in view of the Gascon report, they should consider postponing their reduction of service for another period of time, recognizing that in this area which is a provincial and municipal responsibility, such further period of time would likely be the last period of grace given for decisions by the province and the municipality with regard to the commuter train arrangement.


Roch La Salle: Can the minister at least promise to urge the CN to make a decision following the representations of the minister, as the January 1 deadline is drawing near, and can he say as well since he speaks of lower cuts-I believe the planned increases could have been as high as 50 per cent of current rates-whether he gave a figure to the CN, or can he at least assure us that the increase will not exceed the inflation rate foreseen by his own government?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that at this time because I do not have a reply from Canadian National. I expect it very soon. Obviously, we are working against a deadline date because the changes were to have taken effect on January 1.1 would like an answer almost at once.


POSSIBLE MERGER OF NHL WITH WHA-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, because there is a strong possibility that the National Hockey League and the World Hockey Association will merge, because three of the teams in the WHA are Canadian, and because having five Canadian teams in the new professional hockey association would certainly add to the prestige of Canada, can the Minister of State for Sports tell us whether she is in favour of Edmonton, Winnipeg and Quebec city entering teams in the NHL and whether she has taken steps in that regard?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish it were possible for me to give a pro answer to the hon. gentleman but, as he knows, we are talking about professional hockey which, of course, is big business and they will settle the matter amongst themselves without any involvement from amateur sport.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who will know that last night, in the debate on Bill C-14, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and the Liberal member for South Western Nova both opposed important elements of Bill C-14 now before the House.
In the course of an answer to my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-Dartmouth East, the member of parliament for South Western Nova said, "I am sure he realizes the final bill is not here". I wonder if the minister can tell the
December 19, 1978

House whether he is proposing or intending to bring in amendments to that bill which have not been presented to this House of Commons.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I was here last night during the course of the debate. The Leader of the Opposition did not share that opportunity. I believe what the hon. member was endeavouring to indicate was that we had not reached final reading stage of the bill, rather than the final bill.


An hon. Member:: That's not what she said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. If the Minister of Finance will allow the Minister of National Revenue to be a "cutting figure", I would ask him a question.


An hon. Member:: Very funny. I bet it took you an hour to dream that one up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the plans the Department of National Revenue has for closing down district taxation offices and replacing over-the-counter dealings in respect of income tax files by a Zenith line regional centre in places like Winnipeg, Shawinigan and Surrey, will the minister advise the House when this plan will be brought into effect and, specifically, what plans he is making or what he has in mind to protect the confidentiality of income tax information provided by taxpayers, with this new telephone-in system he is proposing in his department?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to commend the hon. member for his courage in asking a provocative question. It being the Christmas season, I will not even show a glint of steel.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I should point out to him that in respect of setting up district offices as central offices, such as in Surrey, Sudbury, Shawinigan and other centres, the purpose is not to remove all the district offices, as the hon. member suggests, but to provide decentralization of government services in order to bring the government in Ottawa closer to the people. This does not diminish the service; it enhances it.
As to the use of the telephone central system, I can assure the hon. member that not only will full confidentiality be afforded taxpayers, but it will be confidentiality exceeded only by conditions in my own office.
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk


An hon. Member:: Heaven help us!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is the most depressing answer I have ever heard. The information I have is that over-the-counter consultation which takes place in district offices will be phased out and the files moved to these regional offices.
Will the minister tell the House whether he intends to use social insurance numbers as the identifying number for telephone use by taxpayers in protecting confidentiality? In view of the fact that in each city across Canada there is, padlocked, a very elaborate computer system belonging to Loto Select, would the minister consider using that facility in order to save the department some money in the implementation of these regional offices?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for whatever impression the hon. member may have formed about computer facilities. I would say that the service which will be set up will look after the needs of the taxpayer to a much higher degree even than they are looked after today.
Approximately 80 per cent to 85 per cent of all the inquiries to the tax department are routine and are capable of answers which are informational in character. Some of these inquiries require the more detailed answer which is fed into the computer and therefore take more time, and inquiries of higher complexity may take as long as ten days to two weeks. This will not be changed.
As to the use of social insurance numbers, I know this is a constant preoccupation of the hon. member. He should know that under the Income Tax Act there are special provisions where SIN is used by law as, for example, in the filing of the annual income tax return. The hon. member may raise an objection to that situation, but that is the law. As to the other uses of SIN, if they take place, this will be done for the purpose of aiding the taxpayer and will have nothing whatsoever to do with any breach of confidentiality of the information provided by the taxpayer.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment with regard to the alleged question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). I would like to correct some of the things he stated and the write-up in the newspapers.
I did not meet with 30 Indians, only three. I did so to listen to their complaints and be helpful, and there was no confrontation. The meeting was very amiable and it was on a voluntary basis. The words alleged were taken totally out of context and

December 19, 1978
Ways and Means
were made in a rather jocular way. There was no insult intended, as was alleged by the hon. member.
I might add that if the Indians feel sensitive about what I said, then I apologize. They did not say anything at the time. I have already spoken to Mr. Nicholas today, and he seemed to be quite understanding of what was said and the whole situation. I am quite disappointed that the hon. member did not have the courtesy to contact me before rising in the House to speak on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


William Kenneth Robinson: He used the time of the House to make much ado about nothing and in order to pick up brownie points.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated yesterday, this kind of matter has very little basis in procedure and the response of the hon. parliamentary secretary closes the matter.


POINT OF ORDER
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, through your good offices I would like to reserve the right to raise at the earliest possible date a question of privilege arising out of last evening's debate. I have just now had the opportunity to review the remarks of my colleague from South Western Nova (Miss Campbell). When I left the chamber last evening, I had the very distinct impression that she had indicated the number of hours in which the official opposition had contributed toward the measure presently in front of us, together with certain slurring inferences with respect to the contribution of the opposition. I do not see these remarks or comments in today's Hansard, and I would like to reserve the right to check the electronic media and raise the matter at a later date.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion, and I request the designation of the order of the day so we may debate this motion. I also request the designation of the order of the day necessary for the consideration of the ways and means notice on the Excise Tax Act, tabled last November 16.


TABLING OF DRAFT REGULATIONS RESPECTING FOREIGN ECONOMIC BOYCOTT REQUESTS
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages the draft regulations respecting the reporting of information relating to the foreign economic boycott requests.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) would require unanimous consent for the introduction of this bill at this time. It is a bill to amend the Criminal Code. Does the hon. Solicitor General have the consent of the House to introduce the bill at this time?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with respect to this matter, and the minister certainly has the consent of our party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my party has agreed to the introduction and first reading of this bill at this time. Whether we proceed further will depend upon our examination of the bill after we receive it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: for leave to introduce Bill C-34, to amend the Criminal Code.


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

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 75C,
I wish to advise the House that the representatives of parties have been unable to reach agreement under Standing Order 75A or 75B on the allotment of time at report stage and third reading of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
Therefore, I wish to give notice that a minister will move at the next sitting of the House that one additional day be allocated to each of the said stages of the said bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am prepared to present my point of order tomorrow when this motion is made, if that is the preference of the Chair, or I would be willing to state now the reasons I raise the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has simply given notice of a motion today. It would probably be more appropriate if the hon. member has a point of order respecting these discussions to raise it tomorrow. It is very difficult for me to decide, however, without knowing the point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give more detail tomorrow, but because this is the first time in history-granted, the history of Section 75C is not yet a full ten years-that a motion under this standing order has been made to cover two stages in the proceedings of a bill, I suggest Your Honour look at the precedents respecting this matter.
My contention is that despite the wording of Standing Order 75C, it is hardly fair or proper to be discussing or moving curtailment of time on a stage, namely, third reading, that we have not yet reached. Who knows, Mr. Speaker, there might be some amendments to the bill at the report stage that would change the whole picture. At any rate, I am prepared to argue tomorrow, if you accept this as a caveat, that I question the right of the government to present a motion on Bill C-14 covering two stages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall certainly hear that point of order at the appropriate time, which 1 believe is tomorrow. My impression is that, as the hon. member has said, he would have to argue his point despite the language of the standing order. Without looking at it, my recollection is that the language of the standing order is "stage or stages" of any bill. It is open for the hon. member to raise that point and argue it, however. I think the appropriate time would be upon the introduction of that debate tomorrow.


QUESTIONS 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 questions will be answered today: Nos. 385, 470, 472, 474, 538 and 662.


Mr. Herbert: During each of the past five years, what amount of money available for use under federal programmes, was unused in the Province of Quebec?
Order Paper Questions


J. Judd Buchanan: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every program of each department which cost in manpower and time would be exorbitant or prohibitive.


Mr. Wise: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,793 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament, for what reason was $2,500 given to L.-J. Personnel of Ottawa in the fiscal year 1976-77 to write up position descriptions for the small farm development programme, bearing in mind that the programme was set up four years earlier in 1972, and was only funded to run until 1979?
2.	Was the Department of Agriculture's Personnel section asked to write up the position descriptions and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Program managers did not have staff resources to allocate toward writing position descriptions and arrangements were made to contract for these services with a firm with the necessary expertise for the following reasons:
(a)	The program was being developed over a period of time and positions were described and classified as required.
(b)	The organizational structure of the program administration was evolving at this time and, even though the program was scheduled to expire in 1979, it was necessary to prepare position descriptions that were consistent with the new organization.
2. No. It is the responsibility of program managers to write position descriptions for their organization.


Mr. Wise: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,793 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament, what is the layman's explanation of the purpose of the $21,792.77 contract given to Alan Ward of Wakefield "to restructure agriculture follows directly from technological progress and improved living standards to help farmers who are restructuring"?
2.	What were the conclusions or recommendations of the study?
3.	For what reason was this contract not given to the Agricultural Economics section of the Department of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Initiatives under the Small Farm Development Program (SFDP) were designed to assist small-scale low-income farmers to adjust to changing circumstances, including changing technology and demands for farm products. The primary purpose of this contract was to assess the need for changes in the program in the context of the extent and nature of the small-scale low-income farmer problem.
2. The principal conclusions and recommendations were:
(a) SFDP resources should be directed primarily towards an
estimated 51,000 full-time and 14,000 part-time low-income
farmers;

December 19, 1978
Order Paper Questions
(b)	The program should provide farm mangement services to assist low-income farmers to take a whole-farm approach to the development of their business and to take advantage of their unique objectives, capabilities and resources, within the framework of existing institutions and farm communities;
(c)	SFDP farm management counsellors should concentrate on farmers earning 50 per cent or more of their income from farming with total assets not greater than $150,000;
(d)	SFDP rural development counsellors should concentrate on rural residents with net family incomes below $6,000 and net worths below $50,000.
3. This study was contracted outside the Department of Agriculture because;
(a)	Staff resources were unavailable at the time to carry it out;
(b)	Non-governmental perspectives on policy and program alternatives were desired.


Mr. Wise: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,793 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament in which it was stated, that $20,000 was given to the Sibbald Group to "provide background information on the significance of the family farm in Canadian agriculture", what conclusions or recommendations were reached by the study?
2.	Was the Agricultural Economics section of the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Section of Statistics Canada asked to provide such background and, if not, for what reason?


Eugene Whelan: 1. This contract did not seek specific conclusions or recommendations from the contractor with respect to the significance of the family farm in Canadian agriculture. The first objective was to draw together information on the nature and extent of different types of farm units in different parts of Canada; the second objective was to provide information on the economic and social significance of the family farm. This work involved discussions with representatives of farm organizations, provincial governments and universities and a review and analysis of research in these areas.
2. This assignment entailed field work and research within a time-frame that was beyond the staff resources available within the department. While information from Statistics Canada was utilized, the scope and nature of the project was outside the services normally provided to other departments by Statistics Canada.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Will the Commission of Inquiry into Bilingual Air Traffic Control resume its hearings and, if so, on what date?
2.	What is the deadline for its final report?
3.	Does the government have a policy on bilingual air traffic control and, if so, what is such policy?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices and Transport Canada as follows: 1. The co-commissioners are considering holding final public hearings after the full report on the study conducted by the Department of Transport based on the use of an air traffic control electronic simulator is officially received. This is expected soon.
2.	According to order in council, PC 1976-1588, giving terms of reference for the co-commissioners, they "shall submit a final report with all reasonable dispatch and within ninety days of the receipt of the final results of the study based on the use of the air traffic control electronic simulator".
3.	Yes. This policy is to progressively expand the use of bilingual aeronautical communications in the province of Quebec, while respecting the existing levels of air safety.


Mr. Neil: 1.	How many persons are on staff in the office of the Special Representative of the Prime Minister for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories and where are they located?
2.	Since its inception, what are the amounts of the operating budgets for the office and what is the projected budget for the next fiscal year?
3.	Is the Honourable Bud Drury, Chairman of the National Capital Commission, paid a salary as the Prime Minister's Special Representative and, if so, in what amount?
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Privy Council):
1. Resources Building, Yellowknife	6
151 Sparks Street, Ottawa	5
2.	1 November 1977-31 March 1978	$87,000
1 April 1978-31 March 1979 Estimate $333,000
3.	No.


Yvon Pinard: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, since we have only two or three days left before the Christmas recess-I hope-I think the parliamentary secretary should do much better.
While I am on my feet, I would hope that this House would congratulate Diane Jones-Konihowski as the super woman athlete of the year. After all, Edmonton has again excelled.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly have no difficulty in understanding the relevancy of that last comment to the questions on the order paper. There must be one which relates to that achievement, I am sure.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will notice that we have today answered three questions in the name of Mr. Wise. I understand he is not wise.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



December 19, 1978



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-33, to authorize the granting of an immediate annuity to the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Raymond Morand, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce Bill C-33, an act to authorize the granting of an immediate annuity to the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Raymond Morand.
The purpose of introducing this piece of legislation is to allow Mr. Justice Morand to resign with an annuity from his position as a member of the high court of justice for Ontario and be appointed as ombudsman for the province of Ontario. This is done to accommodate the province and Mr. Justice Morand.
I have spoken to other House leaders and it is my understanding that there is a disposition to give unanimous consent to immediate passage of this bill through all three readings without debate. I might add that I wish to thank my colleagues opposite for their anticipated co-operation in this matter.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I should like to do in agreeing with this suggestion and giving consent is to congratulate the province of Ontario for being able to entice such a distinguished jurist to leave the bench and take over the very difficult position of ombudsman. I think the government of Ontario has chosen well and I am sure experience will prove this to be true.
The second thing I should like to say is that this bill is quite appropriate. Discussions have taken place on this matter and it is the position of our party to accommodate the appointment by having this bill go through the House today in all stages without further debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought the agreement was that there would be no debate.
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the parliamentary secretary did not want to mislead the House when he made those comments because there was unanimous consent to deal with the bill without debate. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, since this side of the House, especially the Social Credit Party of Canada, is not empowered to enforce Standing Order 75A, B or C, I would like, as proof that we are good Canadians, to co-operate with the government of another province, even the province of Ontario, which wants to get a good ombudsman by appointing a
Unemployment Insurance Act
magistrate as distinguished as Mr. Justice Morand. Under the circumstances, we will set an example for this parliament and all Canadians, because we are really seeking harmony; even if we could do some filibustering we will not do so. We will act as good Canadians and support that proposal to give Ontario the opportunity to appoint a fine ombudsman allowing its citizens through Mr. Justice Morand to obtain justice. We will thus give, Mr. Speaker, our unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the desire of the House would be to change the motion from a referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to a committee of the whole House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered. Mr. Cullen (for Mr. Lalonde) moves that Bill C-33, to authorize the granting of an immediate annuity to the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Raymond Morand, be now read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On Clause 1-Governor in Council may grant annuity
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, in the Christmas spirit, in passing this annuity and allowing Mr. Justice Morand to become the ombudsman of Ontario, I hope that we as parliamentarians will ask him to give consideration to the lady who is out in front of this building as one of his first acts. Some consideration should obviously be given to her by parliament. She has become rather a fixture here and I as one member would like to see that fixture removed and eliminated.
[ Translation]


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, concerning what the hon. member opposite has just said, I would simply tell him that the ombudsman will not have to intervene because the lady in question is in my office right now. I will take care of this case myself.

Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 18, consideration of Bill C-14, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing
[Stage Direction]
December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and motion No. 1 (Mr. Leggatt).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What happened to the understanding of yesterday that at this point we would debate the procedural acceptability of certain motions?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is quite right. I did not have any other indication from any of the proponents of those motions, but if any of them are now prepared to debate the procedural regularity of their motions, I would be glad to hear them.
In order, they would begin with motion No. 11 which I understand may be the subject of an application by the government for consent at some time during the course of the proceeding. Motion No. 12?

As regards motion No. 27 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie), I think it is only a matter of procedure.


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to discuss the procedure at any time the Chair will consider appropriate. However I would like to discuss it clearly because I am told that motions Nos. 11, 27 and 30 go beyond the scope of the bill. That is why hon. members will realize, when I have an opportunity to explain my amendment, that it does not go beyond the bill, but goes in the same direction and would prevent the gaps that would appear should clause 14 and part VIII of the act be adopted the way they stand now. I think they could lead to injustices against workers and unemployed people. That is why I moved that amendment. That is why I introduced this amendment.
Now, as to the procedural aspect, I shall wait until Your Honour permits me to elaborate further.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is certainly aware that motion No. 27 raises a number of procedural difficulties. The time has now come for the hon. member to support exclusively the procedural aspect of his motion.


Jacques Lavoie: Concerning this motion, Mr. Speaker, it is said that the purpose of this bill is to save money, which is understandable. The benefits are cut from 66% per cent to 60 per cent. I suggest that if an unemployed person is paid, say, $100 a week and receives unemployment insurance benefits, his or her hourly wages be set at $5 over a 20-hour work week. We are all aware of the Canada Works program. The Canadian government is generous but very often the funds handed over are not adequate. That is not the fault of the government. However, the assistance those projects give the people is considerable. The amendment is intended to require of the people that they work on those projects, and work their full 20 hours a week, or where 30 hours are required, 30 hours. There

might be other solutions as well; perhaps the minister could find something other than the Canada Works program. That seems logical to me. In that way, as I said in the House yesterday, instead of having unemployment insurance we would have employment insurance. That is the purpose of the amendment. I do not want to demolish the whole bill though, I realize this plays havoc with a good part of it. But I think that amendment is very logical, and if something else is wanted, if someone wants to move a subamendment, I am quite willing to discuss the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member understands full well, I am sure, that he is suggesting the addition of a clause 141. The motion reads as follows:
The said act is further amended-
Very strict limitations apply to any bill intended to amend existing legislation. One of those is very clear and stipulates that a motion can never amend the present statute, unless the pertinent sections are already now being amended or changed by the bill before the House.

The hon. member seeks the occasion to add a clause to the bill which in its very language indicates that the said act is further amended. It further amends the parent statute, and the language is an indication that the hon. member is seeking to go beyond the scope of an amending statute.
The hon. member will understand that the scope of an amending statute, as is Bill C-14, is limited to the clauses which it seeks to amend in its text. For the hon. member, as he is doing now, to seek to add another amendment which is not contained in the clauses of Bill C-14, and in addition which seeks to introduce a new concept, that is, the concept of requiring that every beneficiary or claimant shall first accept a direction by the minister to perform some kind of work or endeavour, is an idea which is not contained in the amending statute, Bill C-14.
In the first place, the hon. member is seeking to amend the act in a way in which it is not amended by Bill C-14. In the second place, and in any event, he is introducing a totally new concept, that of having to obey a direction of the minister before becoming a claimant. Therefore, I must conclude that the hon. member has gone beyond the scope of Bill C-14, and that motion No. 27 is out of order.
Motion No. 30 is in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan).


Mr. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, when Your Honour called motion No. 12 earlier, I did not realize I had to jump in at that point. I hope I will be allowed to speak to motion No. 12 for a second because there is a simple remedy to it.
As Mr. Speaker will no doubt have observed, the effects of motions Nos. 7 and 14 are the very same as motion No. 12. Our purpose in submitting motion No. 12 was to enable us to
December 19, 1978

discuss both clauses at the same time. In the view of my party, the two clauses are so interrelated as to be inseparable in terms of discussion. We support restraint, but we disagree with the method the government is using.
Your Honour can solve the problem quite readily by combining motions Nos. 7 and 14 for the purposes of discussion, even though they will be voted on separately. We find difficulty in discussing one without discussing the other at the same time, because in our view they are all part of the same package. When Your Honour was combining motions yesterday, you did not come up with that particular combination. Since in our view they are the crux of our proposals to modify this bill, I suggest they should be combined for the purpose of discussion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to supplement what the hon. member has said. Your Honour indeed ruled quite correctly, but as my colleague has indicated, there is a very simple solution, and that is that clause (d) of motion No. 12 be numbered separately as a separate amendment. Concomitantly, the rest of the clauses numerically change. In other words, clause (d) would become motion No. 13 and the rest of motion No. 12 would remain. Your Honour could then lump both together for purposes of debate, but they would remain separate motions in order stricly to adhere to the procedural problem which Your Honour presented when you made your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I get a different impression from the two presentations just made. The hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough, the proponent of motion No. 12, seeks to amend two clauses. He tells me that his amendment is contained in one way or another in motions Nos. 7 and 14. If I were to group, I have said that motions Nos. 7 and 6 should be debated together, motion No. 6 being, if I recall correctly, to delete the clause and motion No. 7 being to amend it.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we can take a moment and examine those two motions. The hon. member for York-Scarborough has told me that motion No. 7 could be grouped with motion No. 14. The purpose of his motion No. 12 would then have been accomplished. Do I understand that correctly?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I said that motion No. 14 should be debated and voted on separately. My suggestion to the House about the grouping and discussion of amendments is always a suggestion. It needs to be clarified by my understanding of the texture of the motion. If the House is agreed that motions Nos. 7 and 14 can be joined together for debate for the purpose of accomplishing all of the purposes the hon. member had in mind when he put motion No. 12 on the notice paper, that certainly is very agreeable to me.
Unemployment Insurance Act
It remains, however, that I cannot accept on procedural grounds the hon. member's motion No. 12. I am sure that does not put him in any difficulty because, if he is correct in his assessment, while he is discussing motions Nos. 7 and 14 he will have all the opportunity he wants to put forward the merits of what would have been an orderly amendment if it had been split in two pieces. Does that meet the accord of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: That being so, perhaps the House can take it as agreed that motion No. 14 can be taken together with motion No. 7, which I have already grouped with motion No. 6, so the three would be discussed together. Perhaps during the course of discussion we can determine the manner in which votes should be taken when we come to them. Motion No. 12 remains procedurally out of order.
Motion No. 30?


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on point of order with regard to the lumping together of motions Nos. 7 and 14. As far as I can gather, motion No. 7 deals with the deletion of clause 4. That is the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. His motion No. 14 looks at the implementation of a two-tier system dependent on whether a beneficiary has or does not have dependants. On the one hand, motion No. 7 is separate, having a certain intent, which is to kill clause 4 of the bill. Motion No. 14 has an entirely different thrust, which is to establish a two-tier structure.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seems to have a point that is well taken. Motions Nos. 6 and 7, in the names of two different members, seek to delete clause 4. Clearly they have to be grouped together both for debate and vote. Motion No. 14 may perhaps accomplish the same purpose as the hon. member for York-Scarborough had in mind in his motion No. 12. Obviously motion No. 14 relates to clause 5. I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt has a point that is well taken. There seems to be no orderly way in which they can be grouped. Motions Nos. 6 and 7 remain grouped.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely that they would have to be voted on separately. However, motions Nos. 6 and 7 deal with clause 4 which recommends a method of saving money. We are proposing a different method of saving money, bringing it in under clause 5. We feel it is part of the justification of our procedure, which is to eliminate the clause 4 suggestions and bring in additional suggestions under clause 5. That is why we wanted to discuss them together, because they form the kernel of our idea. We are asking that they be discussed together, not voted on together.


Mr. Speaker:: If I understand correctly, the hon. member for York-Scarborough is telling me that his motion No. 12 is out of order because it seeks to amend both clause 4 and clause 5. However, he will have the opportunity to make his remarks on either the grouping of motions Nos. 6 and 7 or on motion No. 14, both of which together would have somewhat the same

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
effect as he had intended in his own motion. Therefore his motion remains out of order. He will have the opportunity to address himself to the debate on motions Nos. 6 and 7, which have already been grouped, and in turn on motion No. 14 which remains in order.


Mr. Clarke:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Either Your Honour or I have missed the point the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) was making. The grouping of my motion No. 7 for discussion with motion No. 14 would achieve what the hon. member for York-Scarborough is trying to do. If Your Honour will look at motions Nos. 6 and 7, they are identical. Motions Nos. 12 and 14 are identical with the exception that motion No. 12 proposes to delete clauses 4 and 5, whereas motion No. 14 proposes to delete only clause 5 and substitute another therefor. It is true that the package we have in mind requires the discussion of motions Nos. 7 and 14 at the same time in order to make a sensible argument. The reason is that the proposals in motion No. 14 would override not only the proposals in clause 5 but those in clause 4. That is why the discussion should be held together, although the votes would obviously have to be separate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the answer to it is that discussion on motions Nos. 6 and 7, which are grouped together, will range over motion No. 14. I do not think that the rule of relevancy should be so tightly enforced in the House at any time that the hon. member would be prevented from indicating to the House, in his discussion of motion No. 7, for example, that he had certain proposals with respect to motion No. 14 that would have an effect on it. Similarly the hon. member for York-Scarborough, in participating in the discussion on motion No. 7, will, I am sure, have reference to his motion No.
12 which has now been ruled out of order, but does not prevent him from discussing or arguing the merits of the idea he had in mind. Therefore the discussion will be as I indicated yesterday. Motions Nos. 6 and 7, both of which have the intention of deleting clause 4, will be grouped together for discussion and vote. Motion No. 14 will be discussed separately. Motion No.
12 is out of order.
Motion No. 30?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the intention of motion No. 30 is also to tie in with my motion No. 14. I understand the problem Your Honour has raised. I also understand from committee proceedings that it was sympathetically received by the government and perhaps some action might be introduced by the government at some stage to achieve somewhat the same thing. I am not sure of the order, but if it were possible to shift the content of motion No. 30 and, instead of making it a separate clause, add it to another clause, we might seek to do that. I seek the advice of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated my reasons for holding that motion out of order. I have also indicated my reasons for holding that motion No. 11, which is a government amendment, is out of order. It may be that when the House comes to
[Mr. Speaker.)
conclude discussions on the report stage of the bill, depending on the success of the order tomorrow, the House may want to extend its consent to include these provisions in the bill. If the House wishes to do that upon consent, it may do so. I can only determine that on procedural grounds, as I think the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra understands, his motion is out of order. If he is able to secure agreement to introduce his motion, or obtain consent to have it form part of the bill through report stage and third reading, so much the better; but I have to indicate to him that on procedural grounds I must set the motion aside.
Motion No. 31?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of arguments to present with respect to your preliminary ruling as to the admissibility of my amendment to clause 16, which is motion No. 31 on the order paper. You were kind enough to term my approach to this amendment "imaginative". I would like to say that at this time of economic crisis in this country, with over a million people unable to find work, imaginative approaches are surely what are required.
I am not sure I can agree with your suggestion, sir, that unemployment rates are not determined in this House. This parliament, as I am sure you and all hon. members will agree, is the chief body for the formulation of economic policy which exists in this country, and the rate of unemployment is surely one of the most accurate indicators of our success in formulating economic policies. I can think of no better indication of this than the bill which is before us. If approved, it will take close to a billion dollars out of the hands of those in this country who most need income support and who would be the ones most likely to spend the money in order to live. That spending would, in turn, do much to stimulate our economy, and its loss will do much to reduce the spending power of the 250,000 people who will be denied benefits. As a corollary to that, the loss of that spending power will create even more unemployment in our industries.
I would also point out that the 4 per cent figure I have used is not a figure simply drawn out of the air. When the government, back in 1971, first brought in the bill which is now before us for amendment, one of its clauses committed the government to accepting financial responsiblity for the cost of all extended benefits when the unemployment rate in Canada rose above 4 per cent. At that time we were told that such a provision would act as an incentive to the government to keep unemployment below the 4 per cent level.
In bringing this legislation before us, the government has talked a great deal about the disincentives of the present unemployment insurance program-at least, as far as the government identifies them. All I am seeking to do here is to return some incentive to the government. Surely they would not argue that what is good for 250,000 unemployed Canadians is not also good for them. Indeed, in view of our present level of unemployment it would seem the government needs all the incentive it can get to do something about providing jobs.
December 19, 1978

Again, I return to the point that a trigger figure is not something totally foreign to our legislation.
Finally, allow me to touch on Your Elonour's point about the need for a specific time for legislation to come into effect. Last year we passed another amendment in the continuing series of unemployment insurance amendments when considering Bill C-27. That bill was due to come into effect upon proclamation. Yet to this very day, more than a year later, one clause of that legislation has still to be proclaimed. I refer, of course, to section 56, and while I hope it is never proclaimed, it seems to me there is a better argument to be made for having the government commit itself to a set of preconditions than for allowing it to make legislation and proclaim it completely at their whim.
To recapitulate, Mr. Speaker, this amendment gives the government a target toward which to work. It accepts the argument that the government, through its economic policies, is responsible for the level of unemployment, and it does set a time for proclamation, that time being when the goverment's economic policies have begun to be effective. I would also like to make the point that the amendment also goes far in tying our unemployment insurance program to our over-all economic performance, surely a step which no one in this House would argue is a backward one.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a very persuasive argument about the merits of his clause setting certain conditions precedent to the coming into force of the act. The difficulty lay not with the merit of his argument nor with whether some precondition should exist before the coming into force of the act. An act has to come into force at a certain time which is understood.
The hon. member refers to the fact that sections of other statutes have not come into force even though they were scheduled to come into force upon proclamation. Perhaps he might have indicated that some conditions might be precedent to the coming into force of this act by proclamation. I am not sure about that. But the fact is that the condition which he has described here is incapable of a certain moment at which all members of the House and all of the people in the country could be certain that the act could come into force.
The reasons are twofold. First, he has prescribed that the national unemployed rate would be a fixed rate for a certain period of time. He and his colleagues have argued rather vigorously in disagreement with the national unemployment rate as described by the government. The government has described the national unemployment rate at one level while he and his hon. friends, along with other members of the House, have argued that the national unemployment rate is in fact at a different level. Therefore there is no fixed rate at which the national unemployment rate is measured for the purpose of this clause, and there would certainly have to be an understanding that some set of figures, or some rule would be accepted as describing the national unemployment rate.
The difficulty is even greater. As I said yesterday, even if that could be agreed upon-which it cannot-the period is 12
Unemployment Insurance Act
months after the national unemployment rate has been at 4 per cent or less. The time at which that 12 months begins or ends is not fixed and is not described exactly. Therefore, on two counts, the moment cannot be fixed exactly. I have already said I do not want to deprive the hon. member of an imaginative approach to the coming into force of any statute but whatever formula or approach is used, it must lead to a fixed time which is understood by all. On those two counts, therefore, I say the motion fails to do that and so on procedural grounds, I have to set it aside.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to confirm your ruling that motions nos. 11, 12, 27, 30 and 31 are out of order on procedural grounds. I did say in the debate last night on clause 11 that it was introduced because I had undertaken to do so at the committee stage and I will, as you have suggested, seek unanimous consent. I think there may be unanimous consent for that. Similarly, I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) is trying to make some arrangement with motion No. 30. But we understand that motions 12, 27 and 31 have been described as out of order on procedural grounds.


Mr. Speaker:: The motions that in fact have been described as being out of order are the five I set aside yesterday; I am reaffirming that decision today. They are all set aside on procedural grounds. This returns us to the discussion on motion No. 1 from yesterday. At the time of the adjournment, the floor was held by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 fully understand the minister is anxious to have Bill C-14 passed by the House so that it be implemented as early as January 1. But I am a little surprised that some arrangements have been made. That happens sometimes not more at the level of the Department of Employment and Immigration than in other areas. Indeed they presume the legislation will be passed and give public servants the responsibility of making UIC offices across Canada aware of its provisions before the House and the Senate have actually agreed before royal assent. I think that is a shortcoming in our procedure which we should correct so that we no longer give the public the impression that we are here to debate and that decisions are made even before the votes are taken in the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, last night at the time of the adjournment I was commenting on some remarks made by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) who hesitated to accept a provision in this legislation because of some disparity in the evaluation of unemployment which may exist between different areas. I fully agree with him. I was surprised to hear him mention that rather worrying figure of 42 per cent unemployed in the north shore region.

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Mr. Speaker, that assertion by the hon. member for Charlevoix, and I am very pleased, knocked the bottom out of the thesis of some people who try to make the public believe, not only during election campaigns but in other circumstances, that a given region will never experience economic health if it does not elect members from the majority party. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong because the Canadian parliament is a responsible institution where, I am sure, all members co-operate in a constructive manner to help as much as possible the government meet its responsibilities, which consist in assuring all regions of the country equal opportunity for development in order that all workers find jobs and earn their living honourably, which would allow us to reduce considerably unemployment insurance problems, benefit problems, and all kinds of resulting difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder if the government is really willing to fight against unemployment or if it is not in fact fighting against the unemployed. This is not precisely the same. Fighting against unemployment involves taking the proper steps to ensure that in our country all levels of industries, businesses and farms will develop, so that our labour force, our workers, can find jobs and earn their living.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, in the last few years we have faced a major inflation and unemployment problem, and one has only to read the different budget speeches to realize that the government at every session, for instance in the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth parliaments, always tries to fight against inflation even at the risk of increasing unemployment.
In another Speech from the Throne, one can read that the government wants to put some emphasis on the fight against unemployment at the risk of increasing inflation. It was exactly the same thing in speeches following the budget statement, be it under Mr. Benson, then minister of finance, or Mr. Turner, or Mr. Macdonald or Mr. Chretien; it was always the same. The budget is designed to fight inflation. This has lasted long enough. Of course, it will increase unemployment, but unemployment is better than inflation. At other times the budget is designed to curb unemployment. Of course, it will increase inflation, but it is better to suffer from inflation than from unemployment. Mr. Speaker, we are getting nowhere this way. We keep doing the same thing without finding really good solutions.
In my remarks, I want to tell the government how much I hope it will finally present measures designed to promote positively the love of their work among workers so as to encourage them to accept jobs and give the best performance they can to earn a living and serve the country well.
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not the only one to find it unacceptable that after making workers take retraining and refresher courses, after making them satisfy all sorts of requirements so that they can qualify and be able to accept a job in the labour market, these people, regardless of their age

or responsibilities, after following religiously the advice of counsellors on their suitability for such and such line of work, after graduating from their course, can be asked by a prospective employer: Do you have any experience? Mr. Speaker, if I were 20 years old and if I told a prospective employer that I had just completed some sort of training course and this employer asked me if I had any experience, I think I would just slap him across the face. That is an insult. Someone says: I have just completed my studies, I have my diploma, I am ready to enter the work force, can you hire me, and is being asked if he or she has any experience. Mr. Speaker, if all those people who ask if the person looking for a job has any experience, if all those business executives, those departmental officials from whatever department and at whatever level of government, be it municipal, provincial or federal, had been asked the same question, not many of them would have been given a job. Everyone deserves a chance before being refused. The person has prepared him or herself. The government has made expenditures to help him acquire the skills needed for a particular type of work, a certain role, a trade, but if all employers refuse him or her the opportunity to work because of lack of experience, then he or she will never acquire the experience. The only experience that would then be acquired is that of rejection. That person will feel incapable of doing anything worth-while in this country and will say: I am now prepared to spend the rest of my life on welfare. Being a welfare recipient is not a vocation, Mr. Speaker. There are other things you can do in life. And that is where I would like once again to strongly suggest to the government, during the hard times we are going through, when the private sector cannot use all this manpower, all this youth, that the public autorities should take up their responsibilities by systematically organizing public works to build public facilities and things which are an absolute must for the population.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I see you are about to tell me that my allotted time has expired, I am willing to accept this, however I would like to suggest once again to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that, along with his colleagues, he should review once again this formula of guaranteed annual income that was put forward and was examined by the federal government and the provinces; this should be reconsidered and established as soon as possible, giving the opportunity to ensure that everybody has a minimum annual income, and leaving to each the hope to earn more by his work and thus ensuring for himself a better standard of living.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the first amendment to this bill is unlike the first amendment to the United States constitution, which gives the people of the United States free speech. We are obviously going to be denied that because of the imposition of the provisions of Standing Order 75C. The analogy I am making is a bad one, but the first amendment of a number of amendments which have been
December 19, 1978

put at the report stage of the bill gives us an opportunity to address ourselves to the bill in a general way.
I know Your Honour looks sceptical when I say that, and I am not unmindful of your intervention last night, but I think you will agree with me on reflection that if you read the provisions of the amendment now before the House, you will find that it does give us the same latitude as if we were in committee of the whole on clause 1 of the bill, which in and of itself is the same kind of free-wheeling debate as could take place at second reading or at third reading.
But this amendment at this time gives us an opportunity which is new, becuse we know as of today, as of the latest intervention by the minister, that there is to be an allocation of time, the imposition of Standing Order 75C, or closure. It is closure-a rose by any other name. We know that tomorrow the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) will stand in his place at three o'clock and he will move, under the provisions of Standing Order 75C, an allocation of time on this bill which will terminate this debate on the report stage and third reading stage as of a certain hour on a certain day.
No matter what we say or do, nothing can change that. All we can do is to voice our opposition. I think we always have to oppose the arbitrary use of closure, and we can do that within the provisions of the Standing Order for a period of two hours. We can make ten-minute interventions over a period of two hours, and I have no doubt that we will take full advantage of that two-hour debate to talk about the mismanagement of the business of the House which brought us to this unhappy impasse. So tomorrow, then, to all intents and purposes, will be lost to us as a day to discuss the report stage of this bill and some of the important amendments before us. I say "some of the amendments" because not all the amendments are important. Indeed, it can be argued that some of them are frivolous; but some of them are very important.
I think it is rather interesting that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the government House leader, was not here and did not do what is customarily done by the one who is responsible for the management of the House, and that is stand in his place and give notice of the motion which was given today by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Indeed, the President of the Privy Council was not in the House and you could almost read between the lines. You could almost hear the minister saying: You got yourself into this mess, Bud; now get yourself out of it because I will not do your dirty work for you. I could almost read that into what happened here in the House today.
The reason the President of the Privy Council would feel that way, being the good parliamentarian that he is and knowing the way the debate has been unfolding on this bill, is that he probably examined the record of the debate yesterday and found that not one government backbencher, not two government backbenchers, but three government backbenchers participated in this debate in addition to the minister. I suggest that the government has contributed to this debate as much as
Unemployment Insurance Act
any other party in the House. I have not made a head count of the NDP; perhaps they had four speakers. Certainly they had no more than four, and the government had four, but we had only one speaker until we saw what was happening. Then we said that obviously, if this is the way it is going to be, we are going to participate in this debate. If the government is going to allow its backbenchers to suck and blow at the same time, which is what they did yesterday because the three hon. members opposite who participated in the debate all spoke against the bill, then we can take part in the debate also.
The hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) did the most magnificent job of gobbling herself up whole-as my friend, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) would say, "gutted" herself up-because she voted for the bill in committee, and is on record as doing so since it was a recorded vote. Yesterday, she stood in her place and took her 20 minutes in this debate to express her opposition to this bill.
1 would defy any member of the House, including the minister, to read anything else into her speech except her great opposition to this bill.
If we go back a little bit, we will find the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe), who also spoke in opposition to the bill. All I can say for him is that he was not in the committee. I do not believe he participated in the committee and certainly he did not vote for the bill in the committee. Nevertheless, 1 do not know how he can reconcile his position as a junior member of the government with standing in his place in the House and opposing a bill sponsored by the government which he has taken an oath to serve. How can he reconcile that with his speech last night? That is for the hon. member and his own conscience.
It is well for us to take a look at what he said. He spoke about some of the provisions of the bill being commendable, and then he said:
-and I think that if this bill could be fairly applied for all Canadians I would not have any objection to support it.
Then he went on to state his objections to the bill and we have heard them over and over again. They are based on the 48 UI districts across the country and the fact that the provisions of the bill will apply inequitably, unfairly and unjustly. So it is right that we should be opposed to the bill. I will be watching very closely and very carefully to see how the hon. member votes when we get to third reading of the bill, and when we vote on some of the amendments dealing with the very objections that he raised. I suggest both to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and to the hon. member for South Western Nova, who is a former parliamentary secretary, that we will be watching them. It is too late for them to take the powder now because they are on the record as being opposed to this bill.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there was the third intervention yesterday. What can I say about the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie)?

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act


An hon. Member:: That he should take a walk.


James Aloysius McGrath: We have a term for it in Newfoundland. It is not parliamentary so I will not use it, but it has to do with the fish business. It is a part of the fish that has little or no value; it is useless. It could be used maybe for cat food as a protein supplement. I read the speech of the hon. member for Hochelaga and found that he also spoke against the bill. He said:
It is obvious that the government must cut expenses one way or another but, Mr. Speaker, I would not like to penalize people who are unemployed against their will and who have no other choice.
That could have been the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) speaking, it could have been me or any other member of the House, but, significantly, it was a supporter of the government. As we come to divisions on this bill and to amendments which address themselves to the very objections the hon. member raised, we will be very carefully watching the hon. member for Hochelaga vote on this bill.
I say to my good friends behind me who are making interjections that they do not have to worry about this side of the House. We have made it very clear that we intend to vote against this bill since it is now obvious that the government has no intention of dealing with our amendments. The position was put forward, and it has been a consistent one, by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), that if the government had accepted our amendments, then obviously we would have supported the bill. Now we know there is going to be closure and we may not even get to our amendments. Therefore, of course, we have no choice. I say to the hon. member for Nickel Belt and the hon. member from Toronto who is behind him, the hon. member for "Broadbent"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I say to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae)- "Broadbent" was close enough anyway-that he will have no doubt at all just exactly what our position is on this bill. We intend to make it very clear as the debate progresses. I am concerned that, as a consequence of what the minister has done, we may not get to some of the important amendments, including the amendment that stands in the name of my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, and the amendment that stands in the name of my colleague the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). Indeed, it is a fairly good bet we will not get to those amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will have to vote on them.


James Aloysius McGrath: We will have to vote on them certainly, but we will not have the opportunity of debating them and we will not have the opportunity of dealing with the inequities of this bill which were so dramatically, honestly and sincerely presented to the House last night by the hon. member for South Western Nova, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Hochelaga.
This bill is iniquitous. It is a bad bill, an unjust bill and an unfair bill. It is a bad bill, Mr. Speaker, and it is bad

legislation. This is a bill with which I find very few people agree. Okay, so the government are going to practice restraint; but are they going to practice restraint at the expense of the hon. member for Hochelaga and the hon. member for South Western Nova? I see the hon. member for Saint John Albert who is going to be most unjustly affected by this bill, yet all we ever get from him is his furious points of order. He never makes a positive contribution in this House.


Mr. Landers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to inform the House that the name of my riding changed about 15 years ago. Perhaps the hon. member's ideas about the riding are the same as they were when the riding had that name. The name of the riding is Saint John-Lancaster, not Saint John Albert.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that is consistent with the contributions the hon. member has made in this House since he has been here. I accept the correction. It is Saint John-Lancaster, and the hon. member had better learn to enjoy it because he does not have much longer to stand in this place and interrupt as the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers); come the next election he will be back doing whatever it was he was doing before he came here.
Perhaps there is still an outside chance, a remote possibility, that the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster may screw up his courage, stand in his place in this House and follow the good example set by the hon. member for South Western Nova and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, and speak out against this bill. He knows what it is going to do to his province. He knows what it is going to do to the unemployed people in his city. He knows that Saint John-Lancaster has one of the highest rates of urban unemployment anywhere in the country. He knows the 11.5 per cent triggering clause is going to exempt his area, and the people of Saint John are going to ask why they should be treated any different from the people on the north shore of New Brunswick. Why should the people on the north shore of New Brunswick have privileges in terms of qualifying for unemployment insurance which are denied those people in Saint John where the unemployment rate is 11 per cent? Let the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster explain that to his people.
We know the situation, and if we did not know it we heard the evidence given by the province. Indeed, we heard the proposal placed before the parliamentary committee by the province of New Brunswick. It was co-authored by the province of British Columbia and presented jointly by the provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Ontario. We know how they felt about the bill. I see the hon. member from the north shore of New Brunswick.


Mr. Breau:: From Gloucester.


James Aloysius McGrath: We have great admiration for him and I know he is going to say the same thing in the House that he says outside the House, and that is that this bill is an unfair, unjust and inequitable bill. I am awaiting the opportunity of listening to him because he always speaks eloquently, sincerely
December 19, 1978

and with great feeling and passion for the people he represents in this House, unlike his silent colleague, the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.
We know that the province of New Brunswick has said that if this bill passes in its present form its results will be the equivalent of the biggest industry in Saint John, New Brunswick, closing down. I do not know what the total income of the forest industry is, but I suggest there are not very many industries in New Brunswick that pay out $40 million a year. I believe that is the estimate of what New Brunswick will lose. That is $40 million a year put directly into the economy of the province of New Brunswick. Is it any wonder they took the unprecedented move of asking to appear before a standing committee of this House?
I wonder what the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster would say if the Irving companies in Saint John, or in New Brunswick, were to decide they were going to close down all their operations and move to the Bahamas or the United States. The hon. member would be up the next day on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, asking to adjourn this House. The impact of this bill will do exactly that to his province, yet he sits there mute. Shame! The hon. member does not do justice to the people who preceded him from the riding of Saint John-Lancaster.
If you look at the impact of the bill, Mr. Speaker, you will see how inequitable it is going to be. In Ontario it is going to affect 1.8 per cent of the claimants. In the province of New Brunswick it is going to affect 4.1 per cent of claimants. What is fair about that? In other words, an area where unemployment is the highest is an area that is going to be hardest hit by this bill. What could be more unfair? What could be more unjust than that kind of situation?
Surely if it is abuse the minister is after, there are abusers of the unemployment insurance scheme just as there are abusers of legal aid, just as there are abusers in the legal profession, and just as the medical profession abuses medicare. You will find abusers all over the place. This is not peculiar to unemployment insurance recipients.
I suggest that most of the abuses take place in parts of the country that will be the least hurt by this bill, namely, the most highly urbanized regions, paradoxically the regions of the country where unemployment is the lowest. All you have to do is go down the list. In the province of Alberta 1 per cent of the recipients of unemployment insurance will be affected by this bill, as opposed to 4.7 per cent of the recipients of unemployment insurance in the province of Newfoundland.
In addition, let us consider the special study which was commissioned by the minister's department into the hidden rate of unemployment. That study was put out by Statistics Canada, and we had to drag it out of them screaming. We knew it was under way and we placed questions on the order paper about it. Somebody arrived on Parliament Hill late Friday, like a thief in the night, and handed it in hoping nobody would notice it. Thank God somebody picked it up and as a result the government now knows what we have been saying for a long time, that the real rate of unemployment in
Unemployment Insurance Act
this country is much more severe. Indeed, it is about 25 per cent more severe than the government pretends.
We know that the higher the rate of unemployment, the greater the rate of hidden unemployment. In my own province of Newfoundland, for that month they identified, 25,000 people were shown as unemployed when in actual fact, according to the study, there were 35,000 additional people unemployed, bringing the total to 60,000. When the government was saying that one million people nationally were unemployed, the actual fact was that there were 1,300,000 people unemployed in that month of March. These are people who do not draw unemployment insurance-I refer to the additional 25 per cent-because they have been unemployed so long they have become discouraged workers and are no longer counted. They have to sit around waiting for seasonal jobs, and these will be cut out from under them because of the terms of unemployment insurance. There are no other jobs for which they can look. Those are the people who will be hurt by this bill, the discouraged workers, amounting to 250,000 people in March.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the previous speaker a while ago I was quite surprised to hear him say he is against the bill because most members of his party voted in favour of it in the House. Still I hope that all members of his party will eventually vote against this measure because in this party we are totally against it. That is why I take the opportunity of the debate on that amendment motion moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), motion No. 1, an amendment we would have liked to put forward ourselves, but we are pleased that the hon. member is doing it for us, the important thing being that the amendment is being discussed.
Mr. Speaker, maybe you will recall that we made few interventions at the second reading stage. As this legislation seemed to us so discriminatory and so ridiculous, we agreed to send it to committee to see which amendment the government or the minister would propose while it was there. We were quite disappointed when we noted that all amendments had been moved by opposition members, amendments which will die as all others, because the Liberal party has the majority. That is why today we feel obliged to deal with amendment No. 1, and we are doing now what we could have done at the second reading stage.

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Mr. Speaker, the minister says the main reason for introducing this bill is to fight unemployment insurance defrauders. Imagine. If the minister were, Father-I am sorry, I meant Mr. Speaker, and I see that when one talks about SINs, one always thinks of clergymen-if the minister were, Mr. Speaker, to go after all cheaters in all areas, tax cheaters because some people cheat the tax department and run after all those who file fraudulent tax returns, or cheating doctors, cheating lawyers, cheaters everywhere, he would not have enough time to uncover thieves everywhere.
I think it would be better to check our own backyard. I say that we are now unemployment insurance premium cheaters. We require that all workers pay unemployment insurance premiums and the government pockets that money and does not pay what it should after taking that unemployment insurance premium out of the worker's pay cheque to guarantee him protection if he runs out of work. I say the government is the greatest cheater if we want to talk about cheaters because it takes even more from workers to give them back half as much as before. Mr. Speaker, if that is not cheating-and I say that the cheating starts at a high level. Let us not be surprised that at a lower level there should be a little cheating because the example is set at the top. That is what must be denounced and I think the government should be generous enough to set things in order to give back rights to the unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, in his statement on November 9, 1978, the minister said that the primary purpose of the changes he was proposing was to reduce certain disincentives in the present unemployment insurance formula. A second reason given to hide the real one. In fact, it is to discourage frequent users who use unemployment insurance several times during a year. From now on those clients will have to meet more stringent eligibility criteria, except in areas where the unemployment rate is either 11.5 per cent or 22 per cent of the labour force or over. The cyclically unemployed and people outside those areas will have to work a maximum 20 weeks to qualify instead of the ten or 14 required of casual users. Mr. Speaker, certainly not one member in this House thought for a moment unemployment insurance was a work incentive.
It has always been my belief that unemployment insurance is an insurance policy to cover the loss of employment risk, the premiums for which are paid by the employer, the employee and the government who appointed a commission to administer that insurance, because this is a labour or group insurance of sorts. For this reason, I cannot accept that unemployment insurance benefits be compared to social welfare benefits.
The second aim, according to the minister, is to promote the desire to work among people who normally get more money from unemployment insurance than a steady job. But where it is impossible to find work, and this is particularly true of seasonal workers, how can they be expected to find work anywhere? This hides the profound lack of concern of the

government for poor Canadians since the average benefits provided by the Unemployment Insurance Commission rarely exceed $110 a week. The government can hardly blame unemployment insurance recipients if they want to get nearer the poverty line, even if it is at the expense of the state. This tactic suggests that this government is trying to gain political advantages at the expense of the poor and to supposedly promote employment on the backs of the unemployed. It would seem more humanitarian to increase the minimum wages or to promote the implementation of a guaranteed annual income than to force the beneficiaries to re-enter the labour market to seek badly paid jobs.
Is the government trying to hide its economic inability by passing legislation which penalizes mostly low wage earners? Can we expect anything else from a government which governs so unconcernedly and so badly that is has waited this long to introduce a bill which should have been debated several months ago? If the private sector followed the example of the government, it would be bankrupt within six months.
Does the government believe that you amend a bill simply by changing its title? The government should start by cutting back on extravagant expenses like the purchase of military airplanes at a cost of $2.5 billion and the fantastic expenses incurred for its travels around the world. This would provide the billions required to stimulate the economy.
The government wants to bolster the economy, and because of this, it is trying to find the necessary funds within the unemployment insurance program, as it did earlier with family allowances. We oppose the title of Bill C-14 because the new unemployment insurance legislation aims first of all at cutting off 250,000 people from the unemployment insurance lists. According to the figures, without seasonal adjustment, of Statistics Canada, there were 854,000 unemployed in Canada on October 20, 1978. We can therefore state that the Department of Manpower and Immigration wants to return 29 per cent of the present beneficiaries, or 250,000 unemployed, to the labour market when there are no jobs available.
Moreover, the commission wants to reduce weekly benefits by an avarage of 6% per cent. It is therefore useless to think about cost of living indexing for unemployment insurance benefits. Even though the yearly inflation rate reached 8.6 per cent in September 1978, unemployment insurance benefits will be reduced from 66% per cent to 60 per cent of insurable earnings. This means an effective reduction of 6% per cent.
From now on, the commission will require repayment of up to 30 per cent of benefits received from anyone who makes over $20,500 a year. This is a flagrant injustice and an incomprehensible deviation from the present unemployment insurance system. Once again, the principle of universality is put aside to get back a few dollars more. The wage earner who
December 19, 1978

makes $20,500 a year contributes generously to the unemployment insurance fund.
So when he claims unemployment benefits after losing his job, he must get the same guarantees as any other unemployment insurance recipient. It is unfair and discriminatory that this individual must return part of his benefits if he earns over $20,500 when he is reintegrated in the labour market.
The government evaluates at $1.5 billion its savings under the proposed changes. We should note that the savings made in unemployment insurance represent $1.5 billion or 60 per cent of total cuts. Obviously, the government justifies this accounting exercise by pointing out that the savings made in unemployment insurance will be reallocated to job creation programs, job training programs, and the reduction of the employer and employee contributions to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. However, those changes are beneficial to the employer and employee while their cost is mostly supported by unemployment insurance recipients and workers. Does this mean that Canadian workers subsidize 60 per cent of the cost of our economic recovery? We can really say that the unemployed are at their wits end.
The many changes made from time to time by this government to the unemployment insurance program are causing more and more hardships to the unemployed. For mysterious reasons, the government has declared war against the most unfortunate of our society. The family allowances bill was a good example of this. As concerns the unemployment insurance bill, it just confirms that tendency. What strikes us about this bill is the negative nature of those amendments. You can certainly support measures intended to make ineligible those who abuse the system, but when you see so many measures applied without distinction to the unemployed and the freeloaders it gives you cause for reflection.
The percentage of unemployed is much higher than the percentage of those who abuse the system. A study of the Economic Council of Canada maintains that four out of every five unemployed who draw unemployment benefits are jobless for reasons beyond their control. By reducing benefits rates from 66% per cent to 60 per cent of the average weekly insurable earnings the government unfairly penalizes those who are really unemployed as well as the freeloaders.
As a corollary to the last point, let us mention that in the case of the unemployed, that is, the person who really cannot find work, the cost of living is going up every year just as it does for the rest of us. But instead of providing compensation for the loss of income stemming from inflation, the government decides to reduce the rate of benefits. Bearing in mind the inflation factor, the unemployed person is now being doubly penalized.
In a statement published on September 1, 1978, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) explained, as follows, one of the prime objectives of the new amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I want to make sure, he
Unemployment Insurance Act
said, that the unemployment insurance program fully encourages Canadians to seek employment. Even if there is no work, they must find a job. With the new regulations going into force, about 240,000 recipients will therefore have to seek and find jobs. That truly is a strange goal, considering the fact that at the end of September there were 940,000 unemployed and, at the very same time, only 50,000 jobs were available in Canada.
How will the minister manage to convince 249,000 idle workers to apply for those 50,000 jobs? The proposal of the minister sounds quite like a magic trick. With this new bill the government is once again putting the plough before the oxen. Before initiating such drastic cutbacks in the unemployment insurance program, the government should try instead to stimulate the economy thereby creating employment because the creation of jobs is the surest way to lower the cost of unemployment insurance. However, I warn the government that it is not by doubling the number of bureaucrats that it is going to create new and productive jobs.
According to the government, one of the flaws of the present system has to do with the ease with which people can find a job and be again in a position to draw benefits. They see a chronic evil in that fact. Yet is it truly their fault if they cannot find a job and have to rely on unemployment insurance to survive? Unemployment insurance actually becomes a form of guaranteed annual income for a good many unemployed and the government seems to be opposed to this philosophy, yet it is showing itself rather receptive to the principle of a guaranteed annual income as such. The least that can be said is that this government is not very consistent or coherent in its way of thinking.
The government is claiming that it is more than ready to open a dialogue with the provinces. With regard to the amendments put forth with respect to the unemployment insurance bill, it has only been partly receptive to the recommendations submitted by the provinces. As a matter of fact the Minister of Employment and Immigration refused to comply with the expressed wishes of the provinces at the last federal-provincial meeting. These provinces were asking him to delay the implementation of the new changes and rather to wait for the release of a study on the impact these new changes might have on the various welfare agencies. If one decides to go ahead with the changes before learning of the content of the study, why then bother with ordering that study in the first place?
The unilateral approach was paramount in this case and the federal government keeps accepting the contributions of the workers while having the provinces pay for social welfare. These same 249,000 unemployment insurance beneficiaries who will be dropped off will not all be able to get a job as we have seen. Consequently, because we are not yet living in an era of guaranteed annual income, these same people will have

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
to turn to the welfare program and, therefore, the provinces will have to take over responsibilities assumed up to now by the federal government. Again today, Mr. Speaker, the House has before it Bill C-14, to amend the existing act. But we are aware that in reality it is the members of the commission, together with the minister, who will write the regulations, which will not require passage in the House and which will change the entire interpretation of the bill.
I have an example from my riding concerning farm workers. The original legislation treated these workers the same as all other industrial or commercial workers. However, under regulation 57 established by technocrats and the minister, farm workers must have worked a minimum of 25 days for a minimum wage of $250 to be eligible. I always thought that this was made on a voluntary basis. But I learned today from the minister that this is mandatory and that those 25 days must be worked under the same employer, which is worse, and which is not even mentioned in section 57 of the unemployment insurance regulations.
I say to the minister that this is misleading the workers in addition to making people believe this section is in the act. And I want to tell him that some officials mislead the workers by telling them it is in the act when it is only a common regulation. However, the minister, in reply to my question, said that this regulation had been suggested to him by the farmers' federations, but I must point out to him that after contacting some provincial associations, I can prove that when one or two associations agreed, the regulation became optional. When the minister made it mandatory, they were not consulted, even though a majority of them are opposed to section 57 in its present form.
I want to be honest and I want the government to be honest with all my fellow citizens. I swear that I will not stand seeing more than 100 of my fellow citizens, who have been working in Ontario for years picking fruits and vegetables, deprived of unemployment insurance benefits. When I think that for many years-


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


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to make my maiden address on one of the most serious areas of mismanagement of our economy, the unemployment insurance system. The deficit in this system will amount to almost one-fifth of the total government deficit this year. This deficit will arise from a combination of factors. By far the most important factor is the tragic mishandling of our economy over the last ten years, mishandling which has seen the aspirations of Canadians from coast to coast thwarted; mishandling which has seen our regional differences, both politically and economically, widened.

Another very important reason for the large deficit in the unemployment insurance plan is the terrible design of the plan itself. We on this side of the House have spoken often about redesigning the plan to cut abuses. We have spoken often about the need to bring deficits under control. We were speaking about restraint years before the deathbed repentance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Furthermore, by proper redesign much more money could be saved and far less hardship would be caused. However, I contend the proposed changes will not do the job, are poorly conceived, and will only serve to create hardships among many hundreds of thousands of victims of this government's mismanagement.
How did the current problems arise? There was a general feeling in the late 1960s that the benefits were too low under the plan and that some recipients of unemployment insurance benefits bordered precariously on impoverishment. After 30 years of working a little too well financially, the government introduced massive changes in the plan. It widened the scope of the benefits, increased the coverage, increased benefit amounts, increased the covered earnings, decreased the qualification period, and changed the method of financing. The 1971 changes were dramatic. They were almost breathtaking in scope. But history has proven that the 1971 changes were disastrous in design.
Recent public opinion polls show that a very high proportion of the population, usually over 80 per cent and most recently 88 per cent, believe that the unemployment insurance system is subject to widespread abuse. Just recently I joined the House after campaigning for the better part of a year, and I can confirm that this perception is very widely shared among the electorate. I made a point of asking people at coffee parties and public meetings why they believed the abuse was so widespread. The answer was shocking. Over a period of some three months, every single person I asked claimed that personally they knew someone who abused the system. They personally knew someone who had received benefits from the unemployment insurance system while having some other sort of cash income, or who had taken benefits from the unemployment insurance system while not seriously looking for work. The public's perception is that there has been and still is widespread abuse of the unemployment insurance plan.
What action has the government taken about this abuse? It has attempted to tinker several times with the concepts introduced in the 1971 bill. It has tried advertising campaigns to convince the Canadian public that the abuse is minimal. Also it tried advertising campaigns to convince the cheaters that somehow cheating is unpatriotic.
I am an actuary, and I am one of a handful of actuaries in Canada who has actually priced and designed income protection plans. This is an area which is loaded with pitfalls, an area where it has been demonstrated time and time again, in country after country, that when an income protection plan is not properly designed, widespread abuse of the plan will take place.
December 19, 1978

The evidence in Canada is overwhelming that widespread abuse has taken place. The public knows it; the statistics prove it. But let me try to put this abuse into perspective. My experience in design of private insurance reinforces the conclusions of actuarial and other economic studies of the unemployment insurance plan to suggest that about 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent of the working population is abusing the plan. This is about one out of six of the unemployed. It is the actual design itself of the plan which leads to this abuse.
My friends in the New Democratic Party probably would argue that my estimate of the amount of the abuse is too high. That is a point I could debate with them. However, whether my figures are too high or not, the basic fact remains that the vast bulk of the unemployed are legitimately unemployed. They are not cheaters. They are unemployed because of the ineptitude of this government. They are unemployed because there is not enough work available in the country.
This government is trying to conceal its own ineptitude by blaming the unemployed for its failures. In his address on August 1, the Prime Minister referred to those who chose not to work. Referring to the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance bill, federal spokesmen have used words such as, "UIC crackdown" and "weeding out the abusers". For the government to pretend that its current proposals for unemployment insurance will "weed out the abusers" is unethical and dishonest.
We on this side of the House recognize there must be changes in the unemployment insurance plan. There must be cuts, but they must be sensible and intelligent ones which curb abuse. Each of the proposed changes presented by the government does not distinguish in any way between honest and dishonest claimants. The changes proposed by the government represent no less than an attempt to ride to popularity on the backs of the unemployed whom this government is responsible for creating.
In his introductory statement to the House, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) stated that he tried to wield a scalpel instead of an axe. A scalpel is a precision instrument when wielded by a surgeon. However, a scalpel in the hands of a layman can result in cutting away the muscle rather than the tumor. A scalpel in the wrong hands can result in the victim bleeding to death through a series of painful cuts. At least the axe has the virtue of putting the victim out of his agony quickly.
The minister has stated that the prime objective of his proposals is to "reduce some of the disincentives to work which are present in the program". "Reduce the disincentives to work"-doesn't that just roll off your tongue nicely? What the minister means is that many thousands of families in desperate straits are going to have essential dollars removed from their incomes when there is no work available.
What the minister means is that in areas of high unemployment people who are unlucky enough to lose their job twice in a year can be cut off benefits. What the minister means is that
Unemployment Insurance Act
people returning to the work force after a period of absence must find 20 weeks of employment to be covered, work which may not be available because of the economic mismanagement of this government.
In order to eliminate the political problem of the public's perception of abuse within the unemployment insurance system, the minister appeals to the worst in the electorate. He appeals to the electorate to cut back all of the unemployed's benefits, knowing full well that the vast majority of the unemployed, at least five out of six, are unemployed because of this government's economic failures. He has thrust that scalpel into the gut of the unfortunate and is twisting it about.
The burden of the government's proposed changes falls very unevenly in this country. Going back ten years, we had regional disparities in this country. However, the rate of unemployment in the more fortunate provinces differed only by 2.9 per cent from the rate of unemployment in the less fortunate provinces. Today, Mr. Speaker, that difference has widened terribly. The difference between the unemployment rate in the more prosperous provinces and that of the less prosperous provinces was 7.9 per cent last year, nearly the 8.1 per cent average rate of unemployment across the country.
These proposed changes will fall most heavily on that area of the country that can least afford to bear it-the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. In his initial national election campaign, the Prime Minister committed our country to a national goal, the goal of eliminating, or at least significantly reducing, regional disparity. The Prime Minister talked about the just society. Where is the justice of these proposals? Where is the justice of exacting the largest penalties from the areas least able to afford it, the areas where the government's own failure is causing the problems?
I agree with the Minister of Employment and Immigration that the government needs to wield a scalpel instead of an axe. But the scalpel has to be in the hands of a surgeon to be of use, in the hands of someone with compassion, someone with understanding, someone committed to designing a workable plan, a fair plan, an equitable plan that will provide Canadians with the protection they deserve at a price they can afford.
Let us look at the basic premise underlying the current and the proposed plans. The government has tried to design an unemployment insurance plan which provides one level of benefits, 60 per cent of earnings, for Canadians making less than $12,500 regardless of their situation in life. I think it is obvious that any benefit which is high enough to be adequate for a family consisting of a husband, a wife and children with only a single wage earner will be more than adequate for a single wage earner with no dependants, and can even provide an incentive to exploit the plan with no financial loss to certain types of secondary wage earners. Consider a family supported by one wage earner, either a single parent family or a two parent family, where the wage earner earns $200 a week. Under the current plan the wage earner could, if unemployed, collect up to $133 per week.
I submit that few heads of families would find any inducement whatsoever to quit their jobs to take that sort of income

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
cut. In fact, I believe that the ministry's own statistics bear me out. Only about 14 per cent of the claimants of unemployment insurance are heads of families. However, consider for a moment the other extreme. Consider the case of a working mother whose husband is already at work and who has two children and makes the same $200 per week. In metropolitan Toronto that mother would probably have to pay someone about $50 per week to look after her children during the day. She would also have to pay at least $10 per week in transportation and miscellaneous expenses.
The point is that, even before taxes or fringe benefit costs are brought into consideration, the most such a person can earn is about $140 per week. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that $50 per week is probably not being paid to someone willing to give receipts for income tax purposes. I am sure you know that that is probably illegal, but it is also probably the fact of the situation. In any case, this means that such a working mother would actually pay taxes on that $200 per week and that her net take-home pay would actually be lower by working than what she could receive by quitting her job and going on unemployment insurance.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the majority of working mothers are ripping off the system or even that a large proportion are. In fact, I am suggesting just the opposite when you remember that the problem is restricted to about 1 'h per cent of the working population. The point is that the current plan is designed in such a way that it makes it profitable for certain people in the country to rip off the system.
If there is one thing that governments and insurance companies have learned over the years it is that when they present these opportunities to people, some people take them up on it. Those people can say to themselves, "Eve got the insurance, I've paid for it, the insurance company or the government has plenty of money and I'm entitled to it." Actuaries call it "anti-selection" or "moral hazard". The public just thinks of it as cheating. I submit that by definition there can be no single insurance amount which is adequate for a head of a family which is not so over-adequate for certain types of secondary wage earners as to cause widescale abuse of the plan. Similarly, there is no single level appropriate for people without dependants which will not cause hardship to single earner families.
What the government is doing in its proposal is to reduce the proportion of covered earnings from 67 per cent to 60 per cent for all earners. I submit this will cause considerable hardship to many sole wage earners who are unemployed and who are supporting families. That extra $13 lost a week over a period of weeks can just grind families down.
However, it is equally obvious that the $ 13 a week cut does not remove all the financial incentive from other categories of workers. It will still be possible for certain categories of secondary wage earners to benefit by being unemployed. When they can benefit, some will choose to benefit. The government will save some money with their cuts, but they will not significantly curb abuse.

The fundamental principle in designing income replacement plans is to ensure that benefits provided bear a proper relationship to the net income of the insured. I suggest that it is not a difficult job whatsoever to design benefits which vary by family status to provide just that sort of relationship to need.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health and Welfare-Progress in field of behavioural medicine; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Regional Economic Expansion-Development of northern Ontario; the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis)- Public Service-Cost of booklet circulated to employees.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
Item No. 8, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 9, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 10, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
December 19, 1978


MEASURE TO FIX DURATION AT FOUR YEARS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane) moved: that Bill C-212, respecting the duration of every House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the essence of this bill is to have fixed dates for our general elections. When I first introduced this bill in the last session, it was together with two other bills as a sort of package. The idea was that all of these measures could be debated at one time in our discussions on changes to the constitution. Unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity to go into that matter fully.
This bill is rather related to the others in that it would help to simplify the operation of this House. One of those bills had to do with the designation of a seat on Parliament Hill to be occupied by Mr. Speaker. The second one had to do with the automatic designation of seats for the leaders of the government and opposition. The third had to do with fixed dates for elections.
There is nothing new about this principle; several other members have brought it up in the past. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) had such a bill on the order paper on a number of occasions so that we might be able to put some order and planning into our work and, more important, so that the people of Canada might know exactly how long a government would be in office and precisely when a new administration would be taking over.
As hon. members are aware, the twenty-ninth parliament was a minority parliament; we did not know from one day to the next whether parliament would continue or not. Everyone at that time was very anxious that something be done about determining when elections would be held. Arguments came from both sides to the effect that the situation would be much more stable if there were fixed election dates, whether there was a minority government or not; the people would make a decision and we would stick by that decision. The way things are now, we are supposed to second guess the people. If the people decide they want to send one party or another here, that is their privilege; we ought not to turn around and say: Unless you give us "X" number of members we shall not be able to carry on as a government or as a properly formed House of Commons. My view is that we should be obliged, as representatives of the people, to go ahead and represent them in the way they have chosen.
Surveys were made at that time. I made some surveys with respect to simplifying the work of the House. One suggestion was that members might work here for three weeks and then be off for one week so that we could do work in our own constituencies. Everyone was ready to accept suggestions of that type, in particular that there should be a fixed term for parliament. Of course, as soon as the majority government came about in 1974 most people forgot about it. In recent
Duration of Sittings
months, however, I have received a little publicity in connection with this bill and as a result letters have reached me from all parts of the country. I have been on open line shows even in Vancouver-over the telephone from here, of course. People called in and I do not recall any single individual who disagreed with the idea of fixed election dates. They all stated unequivocally it is time we adopted some procedure like that.
On most occasions when we discuss matters of this sort it is said we are imitating the United States or adopting a republican form of government. People like to place labels on these things. I do not believe this would lead to a republican form of government at all. If it happened to suit our purposes and it is best for the people of Canada, there is no reason why we should not go ahead with it.
The bill itself states that the next general election will be on the first Monday of June of next year and subsequent elections would be held every four years thereafter, the new administration taking hold on July 1. But this measure differs from some of the other bills in this area in that it would include a kind of ceremonial sitting of the House of Commons on July 1 at which time the new administration would take over. It would be a ceremonial sitting at which the people would be able to participate. It would take place on Parliament Hill and it would include people from all parts of Canada and from all walks of life, people of various ethnic groups.
As part of the ceremony citizenship certificates could be given out. There are any number of things we could do. We could include some of our religious leaders to show we have not forgotten about the existence of a supreme being. As I say, there are any number of things which could be included in a ceremony of that kind. In this bill I am suggesting that such a ceremony should take place every year at the beginning of the new session. There would be four sessions but, of course, the most important ceremony would be that at the beginning of the new parliament.
It is unfortunate that whenever we want to get something done around here we invariably say we must use a non-partisan approach. In other words, if we want to do anything right let us forget about partisan politics. I agree there is too much partisanship generally. The very fact that people would make that remark about approaching a subject in a non-partisan way shows there is too much partisanship around here. If there were a four-year period during which everyone knew very well there was not going to be an election, perhaps we would get down to work and do business without always taking a politically partisan approach. This, in my view, would be one of the most important things to be gained by holding an election only at fixed dates every four years.
It is also unfortunate that most of the ideas that private members bring forward, such as this one, for example, are discussed only briefly during private members' hour and then forgotten, simply because they are talked out, as it were, and there is no opportunity for them to be discussed more fully in committee. Many members before me have described this as being a very poor approach. Many of the issues brought up during the private members' hour could well be sent to a
2280

December 19, 1978
Duration of Sittings
committee. I do not care what quarter of the House they come from, but it should be possible for them to go to a committee where they could be carefully considered. This does not mean they would be accepted; they could be modified, if need be, and brought into line, perhaps, with majority thinking. Then one day they could be brought back to the House for adoption in some form or other.
We do not do enough of this sort of thing and I believe it is unfortunate that most of the ideas put forward by private members are simply left to die on the order paper. Since I have been in this chamber, almost 11 years, a number of worth-while suggestions have been put forward by hon. members, including myself, but they were not adopted because of this system we use. It is a big mistake. We sometimes say the committees do not have enough work to keep them busy, that they should be sitting more often, dealing with matters in greater depth and adopting an investigative role. Despite this, we are reluctant to pass on some of these ideas which originate in the private members' hour to committes where they could be discussed more fully and perhaps improved. Undoubtedly the hour of six o'clock will come and someone will still be talking, but at least I put in my plea once again to those who look after government business that it is time to take a more serious look at this whole system and to include some of these private members' bills among the subjects discussed in committee. A number of them might then be incorporated in legislation. If not, at least the views expressed will have been aired. That is what the people of Canada sent us here to do and that is what they expect us to do.


Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this private members' bill I suppose I should begin by pointing out the agreement which we on this side of the House have with the author of this bill in that good ideas from all corners of the House are always acceptable. We are very interested in examining suggestions for improvements to the legislation of Canada whether emanating from private members or the government. That sentiment is obviously one which is shared not only by the author of this bill and by members on this side of the House but also, indeed, by the government. It is quite possible to say that all of the good ideas the government has had for the last ten years have come from this side of the House to begin with.
There are a number of things about this bill, however, which, once we get past the principle of being willing to examine any suggestion, occur to me. The first is that this bill purports to amend the British North America Act. I may have been labouring under some sort of delusion for the last 35 years, but it is my understanding that one of the greatest problems facing Canada today is the difficulty of amending the British North America Act.
We have been trying for close to 50 years to amend the British North America Act and we have been unable to agree on exactly how to do it. Here is a private member's bill from a distant corner of the House which purports in four or five

paragraphs to do it. I find that strange. I would not suggest that it is arrogant. I do not think any private members opposite are arrogant. Arrogance is a very special kind of disease, and the carriers opposite are restricted to a certain number of seats. However, if one sits too close to the carrier of a disease, sometimes the spores may be borne on the wind and one can be infected. I would not make that accusation; I merely suggest that it is possible in this case that the author of this bill may have got the idea that with a private member's bill he could do what the government of this country has been unable to do, despite all its efforts, for the past ten years.
In the explanatory notes there is the assertion that, and I quote:
The purpose of this bill is to fix at four years the duration of every House of Commons notwithstanding any successful "no confidence" motion. If a minority government suffered a defeat on what is traditionally accepted as a "no confidence" matter, there would be required the development of a convention of the constitution which would enable a government to carry on until the day fixed for a general election.
I remember a movie a few years ago entitled, I think, "Carry on Regardless," which it seems to me is what is being suggested here: carry on despite having lost the confidence of the House of Commons; carry on despite having been defeated.
In proposed section 50(3) of the act there is provision for a government to be defeated on a motion for the approval of its budgetary policy, a motion to concur in main estimates or a motion expressing lack of confidence, so perhaps that covers that objection; but it seems to me somewhat fundamental to our system of parliamentary democracy that one of the few protections the people of the country have is that, if the government is defeated in this chamber, it must resign and ask for a new mandate. It is verging on the outrageous to suggest that that be altered. One of the fundamental protections in our system is our ability to dismiss the government.
In another clause of the bill it is suggested that there be a ceremonial gathering, a pretty ceremony, once a year on or about July 1 at which there would be participation by representatives of the different walks of life and ethnic and religious communities in Canada. Surely it is not going too far to suggest that that is what we already have in this chamber. It is the entire purpose and foundation of this chamber that we be representative of the different walks of life and ethnic, religious, social, political and geographic communities in Canada. I would have no objection, in a ceremonial sense, to adding other representation to this body on one day of the year. I think it might be instructive, for example, to have our friends in the fourth estate come down from their special perch for a while, but I am not sure that would get directly at what the hon. member is suggesting in this bill.
The hon. member also suggested that perhaps there is too much partisanship. He suggested that the proof of that argument is that frequently people comment that there is too much partisanship. That reminds me of a duck flying through a cloud of birdshot and saying, "There is too much birdshot around here". The hunter does not object to the birdshot, just the bird, and he objects to it because it is aimed at him. That may be what has happened on the other side of this House.
December 19, 1978

Partisanship has its disadvantages from time to time. There is such a thing as being too partisan, I suppose, but it seems to me that partisan politics and the act of being partisan are fundamental protections. Partisanship is built into this chamber. This chamber is designed for partisanship. If there were no partisanship, this chamber would not function. Our benches are divided by two sword lengths, precisely because of the partisan history and development of this kind of chamber.
A reaction to too much partisanship is somewhat suspect. Over the past few months the government has received no partisanship from this side of the House, merely honest, objective criticism of its legislation and of what it is doing. We do not believe in being partisan or taking partisan advantage in this chamber. We save that for the hustings, which is its proper place. There are people in this House who on occasion take partisan advantage, and surely some of that must be allowed.
As to referring this bill to a committee, which is a possibility with any private member's bill, I agree with the general principle of referring private members' bills to committees for discussion, but I come back to my first point. At all the committees, special task forces, federal-provincial conferences and first ministers' conferences the only prime minister in recent history who has been able to get unanimity from the provinces is our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Prime Minister has been able, after much effort this summer, to get the provinces to agree on one thing, and it is a constitutional matter. Our Prime Minister has been able to get the provinces to agree that his approach to constitutional reform is wrong. The provinces are unanimous on that point.
That is a great achievement. It is not the achievement we need, but it is a great achievement. It is unique, and if we are to consider amending the British North America Act, which I think we need to do-and we may indeed need to do it in the area this bill addresses-I suggest that we turn our attention first to getting another kind of national unanimity, one which agrees with the Prime Minister. If we cannot get unanimity which agrees with this Prime Minister, perhaps we can get unanimity which would agree with a different prime minister.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the bill which the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) has put before us today to regulate parliament. As the hon. member says, it is the kind of bill which should go to committee. There should be some input from quite a number of sources, and surely we can come up with a better system than the one we have at the present time. I probably would disagree with some of the measures the hon. member has proposed, but I am sure that would be true no matter what bill was before us. Someone would see something wrong, and that is really why bills should be referred to committees.
I am particularly impressed by the hon. member's argument that the government should not have such cold feet that it cannot at least refer some bills to committees so that those committees can have input and recommendations might be tried out on the hustings, in the newspapers and in a number of
Duration of Sittings
fora besides committees. Surely in that way some solutions could be arrived at.
There has never been a better time to discuss this bill than right now. For the first time in a long while we are in a period of a delayed election. The election was planned first for last spring and all systems were go. The main thrust came last spring-although there had been small flurries before-when it was anticipated that an election would be called and everybody was prepared for it. It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister going round the country saying that he had spoken to many people and had found that they did not want an election. He said that elections cost money and that at this time we should not be spending money but rather getting on with the business of governing the country.
I say that if we are going to have a democratic process, if we are going to operate in the British tradition, it is normal to have an election periodically. The law under which we operate today is a very loose law which says roughly two things. It says, first, that we must have an election every five years at least, that an election must be called within a five-year period; and second, that there must be a sitting of parliament every year. That means that under that definition an election should be called in early July. But because we will have a session in January of 1979, an election need not be held in 1979. I suppose it could be delayed until September, 1979, or we could go even into the next year.


Herb Breau: Until December of 1979.


William Arnold Peters: There would be a session in 1979 and a session in 1980, so an election would still be called within the five-year period. That would make sense only in specific circumstances and if you decided to fit the rules to a given set of circumstances. However, it seems to me, as it does to the hon. member for Cochrane, that a much more sensible arrangement is to have an election called within a set period of time, I suggest a four-year period, and that the election be held on a set date. The day of the week might vary, or else the day of the week could be set in such and such a month. I think that there must be safeguards in any system, and therefore a method should be devised whereby an election could be called more often than in the set period of time. Also, there should be a possibility of lengthening the set period of time under certain circumstances such as a war or a revolution.


An hon. Member:: Or bad polls.


William Arnold Peters: No, not bad polls. I have a bill proposing the abolition of polls. I think that would be an awful way to run a country. We have been operating on the poll structure for too long. Mr. Gallup and our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have developed a great relationship. I do not think that should be the way to set the length of a parliament.
If we go back to the King-Bing issue-probably a bad example because the right decision was made but the public supported the wrong decision-there was an opportunity for
80047-3(4

December 19, 1978
Duration of Sittings
the Governor General to act by saying that, because the government was defeated, it did not necessarily mean an election should be called but that the opposition should be asked to form the government and be given the opportunity to do so. I believe there should be such a reasonable arrangement-and it would have to be a pretty formal arrangement- whereby the government could be changed in a four-year period without an election necessarily being called.
I am sure that if any member of parliament were asked now about an election being called, he would agree that we should have one and get it over with, whatever the result might be, but that some decision must be taken before long, because obviously this is a lame government and will continue to be so until an election is called.
We need another safeguard. In another bill I suggested the safeguard of a vote by 75 per cent of the members of the House on a motion put forward by 15 or 20 members stating that the House has now reached a stage at which it is desirable and beneficial to the nation to have a general election. If 75 per cent of the members supported such a motion, an election would be called, notwithstanding a set period of time in which elections are called.
The hon. member for Cochrane made mention of a ceremonial session in parliament. I have not much objection to that, but I certainly hope it would not rain on the day we decided to sit outside. In my area July 1 has been a rainy day for some time now; it has been a great time to get wet. Maybe that in itself would have an equalizing effect on the people attending the ceremonies.
I think there is something else we should do about parliament. Parliament in effect has failed in two ways. First, it has failed drastically because of some modifications we have made in our rules. We have lost control over the government's expenditure of money. We are in no position now to amend that expenditure. Quite often when the day comes that we have to pass the estimates, we pass items representing billions and billions of dollars in one motion without having scrutinized them, simply because the time has elapsed.
Therefore, we should look for a new system which would allow us some way of supervising the expenditures of the government in depth. I suggest that that be done by breaking each session of parliament into a number of sections. In one section we could discuss the expenditures of a set number of departments. We should do that in the House with all members in attendance until that scrutiny is completed. Then we would leave that for a period of time and continue with the other departments. We would be scrutinizing also the budgets for various programs within the departments to see whether or not they are still useful and whether or not they are overloaded with bureaucrats. I am sure there are departments, or branches within departments, or programs under departments, in which a number of bureaucrats are employed.
An illustration of that was given to me recently by my doctor who was treating a scientist in the civil service for a nervous breakdown. He was one of seven people who had been doing specific research in the department for a number of

years. When these seven Ph.D.s first started working in that branch of the department there were three secretaries assisting them. Now, in the latest cutback which the government started implementing, four of the scientists had been relieved of their duties but the 300 support staff working with the original seven scientists still remain. Not one of them received notice that they were being laid off. I am only relating this as an example of what MPs scrutinizing the expenditures of a department would come across.
No one who has looked in depth at our committee system would fail to agree that it was a total failure. This is a great way of getting an education from senior civil servants who can tell you anything they want in their own specific fields and you pretty well have to take their word because your expertise does not extend into those fields.
The second period that should be set aside would be for investigation. We should investigate new ideas and new things that perhaps parliament should consider. One of the things we should be looking at is the use of social security numbers. Do we want to have SINs and do we want those numbers to be used for the purposes of unemployment insurance, or do we want them to be used as numbers fed into a computer for financial purposes? Those are the things we should be looking at in depth. Members of parliament represent all the people in this country and should come here as representatives to investigate these things. When a conclusion is arrived at, it will probably bear some relation to the needs of the people and to what the people feel they can support.
The third period of that session would be designated for legislation. When we discuss legislation it should be here in the House in terms of how it affects the various ridings. Each of these periods would fit into the categories mentioned by the hon. member for Cochrane, and would fit his suggestion that there should be more independence in this House and less partisanship.
When we come here we come as representatives of an area. In northern Ontario we have less partisanship than exists in many other areas. We can quite easily get together on many matters that affect northern Ontario because our problems are the same throughout the area and the members are relatively representative of the people there. I am not sure that is true of other areas, but it is true of ours. If there were less partisanship and more attention paid to the ridings and the areas we represent, we would have much better legislation in this country.
The last period would be that period when members of parliament go back home to visit their constituents. It is very easy to get out of touch with the man in the street when you stay in these buildings. It is nice to talk about reducing unemployment insurance benefits by 10 per cent, but when you talk to Bill Smith who has a 10 per cent reduction to his unemployment insurance, he will damned well tell you how it affects him. It means he is 10 per cent short on his hydro bill, 10 per cent short on his rent, and 10 per cent short on his car
December 19, 1978

payments; he is 10 per cent short on everything, and he will tell you that. He is not going to suggest that over all we will save $1 billion by making these changes. He will tell you exactly how they affect him, and as his representative one should know this. There should be a period when you spend some time at home.
I do not want to go on at any great length, but I think this is a very important subject. In many ways we are not now representing our people. This government is bringing a referendum bill before the House. A lot of members here think we should have referendums on many subjects. If we have referen-dums we do not need parliament. Parliament is a place where we sit representing our constituents. Hopefully if hon. members have any brains of their own they can make decisions. If they do not make the right decisions they will get tossed out. If they do make the right decisions perhaps they will get re-elected. They should remember they are the representatives of the people they are representing. It is suggested that we should pass this bill on referendums and hold a referendum on this matter and on that matter.
I think it would behoove all members to send the subject matter of this motion to the committee. I am sure the committee would make changes. Every member here would likely have some worth-while proposition to suggest in respect of this bill. When we consider it over a period of time and send it back to the House, then perhaps we will have something that will help solve the problems which have developed here over the last three or four years and which have been highlighted by that crystal ball idea for calling the next general election, if there ever is to be one.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker) spoke a little while ago he suggested that perhaps on this side of the House we were filled with arrogance and this arrogance was transmitted around the House by spores on the wind. I can tell him that there is not only a little wind over here, there is a lot of hot air over there and it seems to me that the arrogance has spread across to that side as well. The hon. member for Eglinton made mention of birds and bird shot. Since coming to this House he made his maiden speech within two days, and has been like a bull in a china shop. I think that if the birds get bird shot it might be appropriate or fair for me to say that the bulls get bull shot.
You will be happy to note, Mr. Speaker, as will my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), that 80 per cent of the people in Canada seem to agree there should be a federal election every four years. When they were asked whether they would approve or disapprove of the suggestion that there should be a federal election as a mandatory thing every four years unless a defeat in the House of Commons required an earlier election, 80 per cent nationally approved.
It would seem to me, as expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane, and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), that there are many people in Canada who agree that there should be a federal election every four years. As a
Duration of Sittings
matter of fact just a month ago a man by the name of Harry Midgley wrote in the Edmonton Journal the following:
It should be compulsory to have the general election on a prescribed date. And it should be illegal to call a general election before that date, with the single exception that it should be obligatory for a general election to be called if the government of the day is defeated in the House on a vote of confidence.
Indeed, there should be a limitaion even with respect to the latter provision. It should be stipulated thatithere must be a dissolution and a general election following such a vote of no confidence-unless some other person or party is able to form a government that can command a vote of confidence in this House.
Under the present (not very ancient) system the right to decide when a general election shall be called is almost totally at the personal discretion of the prime minister or premier, subject only to the requirement that he must call the election within the span set by law as the maximum length of the life of a parliament or a legislature.
I submit this puts an enormous amount of power in the hands of any premier or Prime Minister. They already have a great deal of power under the workings of our modern parliamentary systems. Some say that the power to decide when a general election shall be held gives the party in power an unfair advantage over other parties. It enables the party in power to contrive situations, by the timing of legislation and announcements, or by other things like that to work up different issues, in which the atmosphere for electioneering could be especially favourable to the government. What is wrong with that? Why should a government go out and call an election when it knows it is going to be defeated? That just does not make sense. What we would be doing is giving all the advantage to the other side. This would be like saying that any time we wanted to make a decision as the government we should say no, let us not allow that because we really do not want to govern, we want to give that opportunity to the other side. I suggest that is just not a realistic stance.
Having a predictable and fixed date for an election would allow everybody to plan and prepare properly for the election. It would help to reduce the elements of uncertainty which tend to distort the democratic system at election time. It would help to ensure that our system of elections serves the interests of democracy.
Earlier, the hon. member mentioned some of the reasons why we should have fixed terms. There are two main reasons which I would like to dwell on at this time. One reason for advocating a subterm is that it would give individual members of parliament, especially the government backbenchers, a greater say in policy formulation.
With a set term the defeat of a piece of government legislation would not necessarily result in the defeat of the government, as custom would seem to dictate at the present, although that statement must be qualified in particular instances. Thus, a government backbencher would no longer necessarily be confronted with a choice of either voting for a piece of legislation that comes up, although he probably agrees with 90 per cent of the legislation put forth by his government because he has had a chance to discuss it in caucus, in committee, and even with special groups who may present briefs. In such a situation the backbencher would be listened to

December 19, 1978
Duration of Sittings
and, in short, there would be no free votes. In this kind of situation the government would be compelled to pay much greater attention to the views of this caucus and to ensure that those views were reflected in the legislation, if it were to be assured of passage.
Opposition influence would also increase because, if their arguments for change in legislation were to convince a number of government backbenchers, the legislation would again be in jeopardy. They would have to have very cogent arguments to convince all members in this House that their suggestions were better than those being put forth by the government in power. The government would have to pay some attention to opposition arguments, and the opposition, with a real chance to influence the course of events, would have to take greater pains to make their arguments responsible and convincing. Debate in the House would become more meaningful and less of a ritual.
The second reason for advocating a set term in parliament is very closely related to the one I have just mentioned, the fact that there would be no more free votes, and debates in the House would become more meaningful. Such a situation would mean that a debate was once again a drama. The outcome would no longer always be known in advance. Debate would once again be genuinely worth the attention of the news media.
It was mentioned earlier in the House that the news media is the fourth estate. I believe it was the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) who mentioned that over the years the opposition of the House has not been parties on the other side of the House, but that the opposition has been the press gallery, that they are the ones who have carried the arguments to the government, and any changes which have come about were because of the pressure which they have applied. If the opposition were truly interested in not only having a say but in changing the minds of the government, then their arguments should become more meaningful. In other words, news media coverage would serve to focus public attention upon developments in the House.
Just why this change is so important to the democratic process is somewhat difficult to explain, but let me take a stab at it. Parliament serves the purpose of focusing public attention upon matters of concern and of defining and delineating the considerations and the options involved. In so doing, parliament assists the public in coming to intelligent conclusions about the actions of government and helps individual members of the public to determine their own position on questions of import. The better media coverage, the more effective is this wholly desirable process. But beyond that, improved media coverage of improved parliamentary debate would mean a more rapid and more effective focusing of public opinion attention upon an issue, with the consequence that public opinion would more readily affect government actions.
Votes in the House are no longer the important control on the actions of the executive; rather, appeals by the opposition to the electorate are the important control. Even with a set-term parliament, this would remain the case. The only real

sanction, the only real control on government action now is the prospect of defeat in the next election. With a majority government and the well established pattern of voting solidly by party-a pattern which a set-term parliament would soften but not end-votes are virtually meaningless and are useless as a means of effecting parliamentary control. Thus, what is important in the functioning of parliament is the quality of the discussion conducted, and that the discussion be focused. What is important in the functioning of parliament is that its discussions be heard by the public, and the news media attention would assure that they were.
When we go out on the hustings every four years, or, as in this case, five years, we wage election campaigns. The election campaigns in Britain, for example, are quite short. If my memory serves me correctly, they are three weeks. Here in Canada election campaigns stretch out as long as ten weeks. I submit that these campaigns are too long and too costly. They cost the Canadian taxpayer because contributions to political parties, which could run as high as $25,000 to $30,000, can be claimed as a tax deduction.
It is true that politicians by and large like to go from door to door talking to the people, like the handshakes at five o'clock in the morning at the plant gates, and like assisting at the candidates' night so they can stand up and spout off in every direction about the ills of the country. I suggest that what they do most of all at that candidates' night is to underscore their own biases, rather than what people on the street really believe, as the hon. member for Timiskaming said. Most people make up their minds within two weeks after the campaign is under way. Some people will vote for party, some for the leader, and some for the individual candidate. If we only had the right combination of what this means in terms of winning elections, probably all members in this House could sit here for as long as they chose.
The people of Canada are much more intelligent than just to accept a handshake and a smile. Notwithstanding the fact that we do have long campaigns, we would better serve our constituents if we were limited to a set period of three or four weeks in which there would be extensive campaigning consolidated in that time, so that in the end the election could be made without a drawn-out theatrical production.
I mentioned earlier the power that prime ministers and premiers have in calling an election. The question of whether it is the prime minister or the cabinet collectively which makes the substantive decision upon the timing of a general election seems to me to be of peripheral importance. The real issue, as I see it, is the extent to which the power to dissolve constitutes a major advantage for the government party vis-a-vis the opposition parties. It has been my intention, not to assert that no advantages accrue from such electoral discretion, but to try to demonstrate that the case of the proponents of the thesis of prime ministerial power in this particular instance is overstated and that it takes insufficient account of the ever-present constraints and limitations, and finally that there is too much based on the precedents of the 1950s and 1960s which have not subsequently proved as typical as was originally assumed.
December 19, 1978

I do not wish to deny the obvious fact that the government has certain advantages in being able to choose the date of the election. There may be organizational benefits in terms of even the most limited advance warning given to the government party machine which could be significant in a kind of close election because they would have the advantage of having their troops organized.
The effect of the local party organization is to pull out the maximum number of potential supporters who might otherwise have abstained, not to make converts. The greater volatility of the electorate in recent years indicates that the campaign proper may be of more importance in converting voters than had previously been thought. If so, it is likely to make the capacity to determine issues upon which an electorate is fought more important than organizational factors.
Prime ministers have great difficulty in concentrating campaign attention on the issues they themselves wish to emphasize. Media coverage may in practice give the advantage to opposition parties. A point in fact occurred in the last election. When the campaign started, wage and price controls were brought out but this was not the major issue as the campaign went on. Then we saw that as it developed in the campaign it became a very major factor.
I do not want to talk this bill out, Mr. Speaker. I believe we should, in many instances, consider having a fixed election date of four years. I should like to give my support to my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should not like my colleague from Cochrane to think that I feel the House should not pass his bill or, as we say, that the House should kill his bill. But I understand that this is not the question tonight; we are here to deal with it and no one has suggested that it should be referred to the committee for well-known reasons.
Just the same, I should like to congratulate him on the fine remarks and the good points he has made. I should like to congratulate also the two previous speakers as well as the parliamentary secretary. It is quite unusual to hear a government member develop points which we have brought to the attention of the House on a number of occasions, because I remember that our former leader, Mr. Real Caouette, had raised this matter both in the House and during past election campaigns. It is even better to find that government members share those views.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is time that Canada, a highly mature country, amended its constitution or, even better, included in its new constitution provisions calling for elections on fixed dates.
It would prevent the prime minister, whoever he is, from playing with the date of the election, from playing with the
Duration of Sittings
people's nerves, and often the speculators in the stock exchange from advancing things and making undue profits. Furthermore, it would also prevent the mass media from speculating on all the activities of the prime minister, whether he walked across Wellington Street, or held a press conference or went to see the Governor General. In any event, an election has been announced every season for two years; it is like Ember days in the past when we knew in advance that it would occur four times a year.
I think it is time to rely on the maturity of the Canadian people and to stop playing with Gallup polls, whether they gallop or not, whether they trot or walk, with polls of all kinds which are sometimes without rhyme or reason but which make it possible to abuse the population. And there are people who rely on them.
I think this should be prohibited, and I am very serious about it. Provided an election is decided those polls should be left aside and the population should decide itself who will be reelected and who will form the next parliament. This is how it should work if we really want to have a strong and lasting democracy. I also think that we all agree that whatever government, provided it is honest, should never be defeated on a question or on a bill. It is the best way to leave all hon. members a very personal responsibility. Every member should be responsible for his vote and his position. If at a certain time parliament as a whole is not satisfied with the executive, then it will be possible to introduce a non-confidence motion, and if it is passed by the majority, an election will have to be held.
To my mind, the parliamentary secretary was quite right when he said that this would bring more responsibility and objectivity to our deliberations, while reducing the time spent on procedure. We would thus try to reach our goal as quickly as possible, and the Canadian people would be better served.
As an added bonus, the cost of administration of the House of Commons may also be reduced. At this point, the committee is trying to find means to improve services at lesser costs. I think that would be a good way of reducing administrative costs; there again, we would be serving the Canadian people better.
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, I feel that we are definitely right in bringing pressure to bear in order to achieve the objectives of Bill C-212. Now, if we can manage to agree, here, in the House, on this matter, we shall be happy to tell the public that we are responsible people, that we are giving our country a new constitution. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I should like this bill to be passed immediately.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time remaining, about one minute, I should like-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act


An hon. Member:: Let it go to committee.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-14, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and motion No. 1 (Mr. Leggatt).
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, my party feels that people with dependants for income tax purposes should continue to be covered for the two-thirds of earnings for which they are currently insured. Any lower rate will cause hardship. However, we believe that Canadians who do not have dependants have higher proportionate disposable incomes and should be insured for a lower proportion. We feel that 50 per cent of earnings is about the level both to provide adequate protection and not to provide an incentive toward anti-selection. The benefits would be related to need, and the opportunities for abuse of the plan would be dramatically reduced. This would be an intelligent restraint, the restraint of the deft hand of the surgeon.
In its current amendments the government is proposing to penalize all individuals who are unemployed and who repeat without adequate intervening work records in areas of less than 11.5 per cent unemployment. Finally, we know the current Liberal full employment definition for this country. In my opinion this change will almost exclusively affect the legitimately unemployed and may even deter unemployed persons from taking temporary employment to get off claim. Those who control their own unemployment will just work a little longer to ensure that they meet the higher requirements. Those who cannot get work, because the economy is so bad in their areas that work is not available, may be forced onto welfare. We have already heard from three Liberals opposite who also

feel that this particular provision will cause hardship in their areas.
If we want to go after abusers, let us go after abusers directly. Let us go after people who quit their jobs without just cause. Let us come down on employers who do not state the real reasons for job termination, but for goodness sake, let us not ride on the backs of those who are legitimately unemployed.
In my opinion, the government should not be penalizing repeaters, it should be giving consideration to two different types of amendments with regard to quitters. It should be significantly lengthening the waiting period for people who quit their jobs, such as from six weeks to 12 weeks. Furthermore, it should consider paying a reduced level of benefits to people who quit. Alternatively, it should set some minimum period of work record before quitters are covered for benefits at all.
In summary, the parliament of this country has two obligations in designing an unemployment insurance plan. It should see that the plan is economically sound, and it should see that the plan is socially just. The government, in my opinion, is not reaching toward either of these objectives. It is trying to defuse a potentially embarrassing political situation by convincing the average voter that somehow it is cracking down on abusers, while the reality of the situation is that the crackdown is far harder on the legitimately unemployed. The crackdown, or so-called crackdown, will probably affect five or six times as many legitimately unemployed as abusers. The so-called crackdown is going to have the maximum impact in the areas of least economic advantage in our country, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.
If my experience in private industry is any gauge, the abuses are most likely to be taking place in central and western Canada, in the middle class and upper middle class income families where the opportunities to cheat for secondary wage earners are largest.
A recent ex-deputy minister of finance has described our current unemployment insurance system as the major impediment to our economic recovery. The current system is causing a breakdown of morals because some people really are better off quitting than working, and they are taking advantage of it. It is causing a tremendous loss of productivity because of the increased rate of job turnover. It is causing large financial deficits, which are a hemorrhage upon the future health of our country. The plan is crying out for revision, crying out for intelligent revision, not the hamhanded, misguided efforts that we see in the government's proposals.
With a properly redesigned unemployment insurance system, we could use the savings to create the jobs Canadians want, to eliminate the unconscionable regional disparities this government has developed. We need to use our wits to pay people to work, rather than not to work.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) should be ashamed to present these proposals which ride on
December 19, 1978

the backs of the unemployed that his government has created. His caucus colleagues should be ashamed to see him present the proposals to parliament. However, given the demonstrated level of economic incompetence of this government and the demonstrated chutzpah of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), it may be that this government has no shame. It may be this government really believes that the only thing wrong with this economy is that some people are choosing not to work.
What is not working in this country is the current government. We in the opposition cannot allow this injustice to be perpetrated on those areas of the country with the highest rates of unemployment, without a fight. We have an obligation to try to get this ill-conceived design amended before it can be inflicted upon the Canadian people. The minister said, when he moved to tighten the unemployment insurance program, he well expected criticism. He also said that informed criticism, which is sensitive to the views of Canadians, is the lifeblood of parliament, and he welcomed this sort of constructive criticism. He also asked the House to listen to the Canadian people who are angry at the abuse of the current plan. The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, will be truly angry if we tinker with this plan again and do not cut the abuse.

Mir. Rene Matte (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, the discussion on the motion now before us concerning Bill C-14 is further evidence how difficult it is to co-ordinate a consistent and efficient action when the basic problem is overlooked. So we are now discussing a piece of legislation and related amendments the purpose of which is to reduce the expenditures related to unemployment insurance benefits. If our society had developed normally, that is if legislators had been able to introduce bills designed to actually enable each citizen to earn a decent living and enjoy a minimum of well-being and even of comfort, we would not have to deal with cuts in unemployment insurance benefits. But since we have not yet managed to find means to enable every worker, every unskilled labourer, every able-bodied citizen in this country to work and thus earn a decent living proudly and with dignity, Mr. Speaker, it seems we shall always be discussing false problems. I can easily appreciate the difficulties facing the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), but I am not prepared to accept his method to curb alleged abuses with respect to unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, it is very important in this House that at least one member should tackle the root of the problems. What we should be discussing now is the reasons why a country as vast as Canada, endowed with so many resources, where labour should be at a premium has to contend with such a high unemployment rate, and our inability to create jobs for all willing blue and white collar workers. This is outrageous. One of these days, we shall have to deal squarely with this issue and find ways and means to put an end to the scourge of unemployment, once for all.
Mr. Speaker, as we discuss a cutback in unemployment benefits and the prevention of abuse by unemployment insur-
Unemployment Insurance Act
ance recipients we realize that this government continues to follow a financial and economic course which is alien to the financial interests of our country and indirectly, or even directly the Canadian workers' interests. Moreover, when the government unashamedly admits to the need for massive imports of certain products and consumer goods that we could easily produce ourselves, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that unless we can solve this basic problem, we shall always go around in a vicious circle of increasing unemployment with no solution in sight. We are being unfair to the honest worker who, has to suffer not only the loss of his job, but the source of income he used to rely on in these circumstances. This is a point we should always bear in mind, and although all over the world modern society is now facing the same problems, we should not let our country and our parliament use this as an excuse to evade the problems. Instead we should invest more time searching for solutions. Among those cuts announced a few months ago, the effects of which have been experienced for some time and will continue to be felt in the days and weeks ahead, I note some rather painful examples in my constituency. For example, in the small town of Parent, a remote village in the northern part of the riding of Champlain where a meteorological station was manned by five employees, under its arbitrary reductions, the government has laid off those people. We wonder to what extent savings are made when figures prove easily that not only will there be no savings but that it is meant to ridicule the public. However, if the disastrous condition of the unemployed is worsened by the reduction of the benefits to which they are entitled, Mr. Speaker, we will soon find ourselves in a dilemma which can only increase our social problems and the economic difficulties which have literally overwhelmed us for some years. Therefore, the government should at least accept to come up with a close study and investigation of the situation so that-by basing its reflection on fundamental principles-it will be in a position to radically change the purpose of our legislation and that instead of guaranteeing a right to unemployment to the people of Canada, it guarantees them a right to work, a right to earn a minimum decent income. Mr. Speaker, we would have gone a long way toward that goal and we would be interested in collaborating very closely to develop a new formula that would be most appropriate for all workers of this country. But not only do we not study the basic principles on which to rely but on the contrary palliatives, emergency remedies, short-term solutions are being resorted to, in order to resolve major problems which will still be there next year or the year after in all their magnitude. That is what I have noticed for years, Mr. Speaker, and it is deplorable to see that as representatives having been democratically elected by the citizens of that country we are unable to find the appropriate solutions. And sometimes I wonder where that is going to lead us to, how long we are going to go on like this and let the situation deteriorate to a point where within a few generations we will be faced with a real catastrophe.
2288

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
Citizens are entitled to a number of rights and certainly to that of earning an income through their work. Mr. Speaker, instead of giving unemployment insurance to individuals, we should see that they are given the possibility to produce either goods or services; and to suggest that in a country like ours it is impossible to achieve such a goal, that there is not something to be done, that there is not a need for a service however little it may be, Mr. Speaker, that is simply denying evident facts.
We do not insist enough on this basic principle, the individual's right to work and to earn a decent living. Even if there was no work available we agree that all citizens are entitled to an income. Even if we claimed to save a few millions by passing these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Mr. Speaker, we would miscalculate or shift the real problem because should we be asking ourselves whether the benefits should be reduced or not? The basic question we should ask ourselves is this: what are the needs of a laid-off worker who must survive just the same. There is no need to ask ourselves if he is entitled to the benefits or not. Obviously, he is since he must stay alive and meet his needs and those of his family if he has dependants. This is why to tamper with the insurance benefits, Mr. Speaker, is like tampering with the individual's needs, and that is not good enough.
How can it be that one, two or three years ago it was considered that these needs were at a specific level and that today we decide that they are no longer the same? That is ludicrous, Mr. Speaker. That is why this bill falls far short even though it may be inspired by good intentions, namely to end or at least reduce abuses, to give people incentive to work, despite the fact that this administration cannot find work. Instead of taking indirect and unproductive action to force peoples to find work, why not take the necessary action to encourage job creation? Apparently, this will be done afterwards. Why not do it beforehand? Indeed, if the government could find a way to create thousands of jobs in the country, then, Mr. Speaker, we would not have to talk of unemployment because everybody would be working. That would be a positive step. That would show respect for human pride and dignity. That would show consideration for the individual. But the government is always going backwards. It is convinced that the unemployment rate will at best remain the same in the coming year, and I am sure the minister will agree and admit that it is the government's foregone conclusion that the unemployment rate will not go down.
Therefore how can one suggest that this bill will encourage idle workers to seek employment when the minister is certain there is no possibility of creating more jobs? That is unadulterated nonsense. And that is why we are studying false problems and we have lost sight of the real ones. What we should be doing here in the House is discussing how we could possibly create jobs. And to show you how easily this could be

done, I can indicate a few ways to go about it. How to create jobs? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the whole government simply have to decide that not a single pair of shoes will be imported into this country as long as Canadian manufacturers have not sold all their inventory and as long as they do not have enough orders to supply every Canadian with shoes. That would solve a problem. Recently the minister responsible for the Canadian Dairy Commission told the Canadian Federation of Industrial Milk Producers that before long there will be massive imports of dairy products like butter and cheese because it costs less to produce butter in New Zealand or Australia. The least I can say is that it is inconsistent, illogical and nonsensical. How can we solve our unemployment problems if we continue to have only one kind of balance in the government, namely asking if we can produce at a cheaper price what can be produced elsewhere, and if it is produced at a cheaper price elsewhere, then we shut down and import. As long as we have that policy it is clear that unemployment will always be going up. Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that we should import footwear, shirts, clothes or anything like that when we have workers ready to produce as much as all Canadians will ever need.
It is unacceptable that we should import butter. It is also unacceptable that we should import anything this country can produce and anything it can potentially do. And then I say Canada would be short of manpower. Our country is so big and the potential so great that I am sure 24 million Canadians would not be enough to meet the demand if we just implemented policies to produce at home what we need. Those are policies that would solve the unemployment problem but when we know that the government will continue to set quotas to import products for domestic consumption, will continue to justify, to urge farmers to produce less milk on the pretence that we will import butter because it costs less abroad, as long as there will be imbeciles telling us things which look mathematically true but which do not make any sense in practice, well, Mr. Speaker, we will always continue to be a relatively poor people amid extraordinary abundance.
This is why I denounce the harshness of those changes which cause hardships to the individual who already faces the problem of having lost his job. If anyone should be left alone it is him. He is not to blame. During the 40 hours he works every week he does not have time to think about the administrative measures that should be applied to deal with those problems.
Mr. Speaker, that is our responsibility. This is why I say that in light of the motion before us, and I conclude with these words, it is obvious that until we solve basic problems we should not penalize unemployment insurance recipients, and consequently I am entirely against this bill and in favour of the motion before us.
December 19, 1978


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to present to the House the views of the official opposition as they have been outlined by speakers from this side of the House. The minister served notice today that, he would be moving a time allocation motion tomorrow. It therefore becomes imperative, considering the number of amendments on the order paper, that Your Honour give us some latitude with respect to dealing with the motions which are on the order paper and not restrict our comments specifically to the first one.
As members who came here in 1972, and those who were here previously in 1971, know, no topic has created greater controversy than the unemployment insurance bill of 1971 and the amendments thereto. It seems that every year or so amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act give occasion to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to study unemployment insurance. Those who have been regular members of that committee, as well as departmental officials, have sat through interminable hours looking at legislation, the unemployment insurance system-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: And each other.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -and each other, as the minister says, and hopefully some light has been shed on the situation which now confronts us. Despite the differing opinions which exist with regard to unemployment insurance, it must be said that on balance committee members were sincere in the views they held and expressed. I know that the committee experience was advantageous to the process, at least to the discussion of Bill C-14. I am not always sure about that when it comes to the examination of estimates, but I think that has been the case with Bill C-14.
Members generally would have to say that opinions on the unemployment insurance program fall into two categories. First, some members of parliament and some members of the public generally look upon the Unemployment Insurance Commission as having a responsibility to administer an unemployment insurance plan, and to them the emphasis is on insurance. Others look at the Unemployment Insurance Commission-especially since the 1971 act-and say that insurance principles cannot apply to the same degree as transfer payments or individual transfer payments.
Some people would even go so far as to say that unemployment insurance is a major part of a public move toward a guaranteed annual income. Whatever the case, I think what is imperative to most Candians is that unemployment insurance policy should do a number of things. First, obviously it should insure people against unemployment during periods of time between jobs. It should insure people who are legitimately unemployed and who are looking for work but cannot find it. I do not think there is too much argument about that, regardless of the views held as to what the program should do in addition.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Second, I think there is a widespread feeling that the program is being abused. There is the attitude that there is widespread abuse, and this is one reason why people feel that unemployment insurance policy must be seriously revamped. All of us hear about abuse taking place.
Third, I think it is generally agreed that the total amount of spending on the unemployment insurance program is too high. It is now running in excess of $4 billion. That is a very substantial part of Canada's total national expenditures.
I would like to add a fourth dimension which I believe unemployment insurance policy should reflect. Emphasis should be placed on using funds which are now used for unemployment insurance payments for skill creation and in positive, productive undertakings such as job creation. Those funds should not be used just for pay-outs. I know there is controversy, about that, but if we are ever going to get ourselves out of the chronic unemployment we now experience, we will have to spend more time on and give more consideration to using some of the funds which are now expended on unemployment insurance benefits for job creation or employment incentives.
My comments are based primarily on those thoughts and on how we can make employment an incentive rather than looking at the disincentives which are inherent in our unemployment insurance policy.
The minister proposes to reduce the amount of insured benefits from two-thirds to 60 per cent, approximately a 10 per cent reduction. By his own calculations the minister feels that this will result in a saving of approximately $910 million. In the committee we proposed that the bill be amended.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Buy him a shovel.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Stick to the amendment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Members of the NDP are particularly jumpy tonight. I do not know why.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They all get jumpy at Christmas time because they are a bunch of hypocrites.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I suggest that they listen. If they did, even I have hope that they might learn something.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I don't.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There are various figures dealing with heads of families who have dependants. I think a figure of 14 per cent or 15 per cent is generally accepted as the percentage of heads of families who have dependent children and who draw unemployment insurance benefits, but if we expand that definition to include not just children but also dependent spouses and dependent parents, the figure is about 25 per cent or 26 per cent. For my purposes tonight I will use the figure of approximately 25 per cent. Approximately 25 per cent of unemployment insurance benefit recipients are persons who have obligations, as family heads, for dependants. I think it stands to reason that the blame for abuse and high costs does not lie
2290

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
with this group and that a justifiable case can be made for a benefit structure which would allow this group to receive 66 per cent or two-thirds of insured earnings to maintain family incomes. That is the way the act now stands. This group, as well as everybody else, gets two-thirds.


William Arnold Peters: I am glad you learned that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The hon. member says he is glad I have learned that. We proposed that in committee. There were approximately 35 meetings. I do not know where the hon. member was. I know he was there some of the time, but if he thinks this is new this evening and this is new to me, he is again badly mistaken, but we take that for granted on this side.
It has been our purpose in the amendment that this group be protected. As to the other 75 per cent, those with minimum attachments to the labour force, or seasonal workers who do not have responsibilities for dependants, it has been our proposal that their insured benefits be reduced to 50 per cent. If this plan were adopted, I think we would fulfil many of the objectives that I expressed already at the beginning of my remarks, namely, first, that the savings under this proposal, along with increased penalties for those who quit voluntarily, be increased to a higher extent than proposed in Bill C-14. Second, it would maintain the income benefits to that group of people who need it most, namely, those with dependants, and third, it would bring more into line the benefits to those who either have another income to fall back on or who do not have responsibilities to dependants as does the first group.
If one analyses that proposal, one finds it follows the criteria of reducing abuse and of bringing in restraint and maintaining income for those who need it most. The minister has rejected that proposal for a number of reasons. This proposal does not originate with me and I am not trying to take credit for it. Credit for it is owed to the hon. member who preceded me, and this House is indebted to him. He is a new member, and the manner in which he has conducted himself in committee and here today shows that he has a very well founded understanding of the Unemployment Insurance Act and its administration, in fact well beyond that, I would suggest, of almost any member in the House of Commons.
The proposal was made by our party and opposed by the minister and supporters of the government. I suggest to supporters of the government that they look at the proposal very carefully, and I suggest also to members from Atlantic Canada where unemployment is highest that they look seriously at whether the proposal would not meet the objectives which, as they have already stated, they want to meet, and whether it would not preserve the income of their constituents who are faced with chronic unemployment, because the proposal in Bill C-14 will not do that to the same degree that this proposal will.
The minister also said that this proposal would be difficult administratively. This difficulty might be due simply to the fact that it is being brought in now in the last hours of this

year and because the government wants to bring in this program as of January, 1979, when it simply does not have enough time to bring in the administrative follow-up as such. That could be a valid argument, but the fact is, and I had it on fairly good evidence, that the minister had this proposal from his officials, or a derivative thereof, that it was examined by the department and was considered to have validity, and then it was rejected because, for instance, it would be more unfair toward women in the labour force. That has been one argument that has been placed in opposition to this proposal.
If one would take a look at the amendment we have proposed, one would find that it is not discriminatory in that sense, that we have allowed the option either for the male or the female head of a given household to determine who will claim the dependants, and it is within the family that it can be decided. The same thing happens when one files income tax. It does not follow automatically that the male spouse claims the children as dependants for income tax purposes; it could just as well be the mother. This proposal does the same thing. So I suggest that one of the major arguments that has been used against the proposal has been reduced to some degree. I admit, and I think every member of the House would admit, that it does not reduce it totally. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot reduce the adverse affects of this program as you cut back unemployment insurance for any group because, as you cut back the program, some groups will be adversely affected in the sense of income maintenance.
This proposal was also endorsed by the provinces. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his speech yesterday evening in Toronto as well as at other times, has argued that we are the lackeys of the provinces. I do not accept that charge. I would rather look at the provinces as being partners in Confederation than as being in confrontation with the central government. What is interesting is that when the provinces came before the committee we had provinces with a Conservative government as well as provinces with a Liberal government, an NDP government or, in the case of British Columbia, a Social Credit government, which endorsed the principles as outlined by this party. In fact, I must say that my own province was the one province that had the greatest reservations about the proposal. What it was interested in was whether our proposal would move further away from the insurance principles, a process which they did not welcome. So discussions have been undertaken in an effort to explain the proposal.
This proposal would have brought in savings of approximately $1 billion for the first full year that this program would be in effect. This would have been an increased saving in the order of $ 100 million more than the government has proposed, and yet it was acceptable to the provinces. The provinces were saying: yes, we are in favour of restraint, yes, we must cut back, but let us cut back in the areas of abuse. This is something the government has decided not to do but rather to go across the board and reduce the benefits for everyone. I suggest, if opponents of our proposal say that it is unfair to certain groups, that a broad approach across the whole ambit of those who receive benefits is more unfair, because in no way
December 19, 1978

does it reflect the financial necessity or financial obligations these people have.
As I said, it was recommended by us, by the provinces, and by officials in the minister's own department. In fact, even in speaking to organizations which are supporting the minister's bill, we found support for our proposal. I suggest that what they are supporting are the principles outlined earlier in my remarks rather than the bill specifically. They will endorse the bill if it meets those objectives, but at no time did they say they were not willing to accept a different proposal which would be more equitable.
I will just give one example, if I might, to prove that point, that is, the Canadian Construction Association. While supporting the proposal they said very clearly that if the proposal could be worked in a more equitable way, such as we proposed, that would be favourable. In fact in some conversations members of the Canadian Construction Association even suggested that the bill was so wrong it should be withdrawn, and following the election a government with a new mandate should look at the entire program and bring unemployment insurance more in line with insurance principles.
The fact of the matter is that our proposal meets the criteria the minister has placed as the objectives of Bill C-14. While I believe the proposal has merit, we want to speak about unemployment insurance and other types of insurance, because experience rating is an established principle used by insurance companies. It involves a system whereby a higher premium is charged for equal coverage, or the same premium is charged but very frequently lower coverage is received by those people in lower categories where the possibility of receiving benefits is higher. I suggest the group we have identified, namely, those without dependants, have a higher risk. They are more likely to be receiving benefits than the 25 per cent group with dependants simply because it does not make economic sense for them to go on unemployment insurance and lose the salaries they might be able to earn. The other factor is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent that the hon. member should conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), deal with one specific aspect of the bill, an aspect about which this party as well has great concern, but perhaps from a different perspective. It has been difficult to try to figure out where my colleagues to the right in the Conservative party are in respect of this bill.


An hon. Member:: They are all over.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On the road to Damascus I suspect there has been a sudden conversion over there. We have listened to this debate quite carefully. I see my friend and colleague in the front benches, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), is delighted and happy, and I suspect that somewhere down the line he has won a minor victory. I have this feeling somehow that the hon. member for St. John's East has brought that Tory party kicking and screaming into the nineteenth century. I am absolutely delighted, as are other colleagues of my party, to see this change on the part of Tory members, particularly those who come from the British Columbia area and the Toronto area who have been until now in the eighteenth century in respect of this bill. I think it is to the great credit of that great Conservative Party of Canada that some of its hon. members still listen from time to time to their more progressive colleagues.


An hon. Member:: And then there is Crosbie.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, there are wonderful blue Tories and wonderful red Tories, and there are a lot of suppositories from time to time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It must be a great party.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am hopeful that there will not be a great rush to the medical clinics in Ottawa because there are a lot of guys who have been trying to straddle this issue, and I suspect there could be a lot of hernias in the Conservative party before this debate is over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In any event, we certainly welcome them to the cause. We welcome their participation in the debate tonight because we think this has been a remarkable progression. I hate to go back into the record, but I see my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). He has said some rather remarkable things about this bill and I will deal with some of them later.
I would like to deal first of all with the proposal set forth by the hon. member for Provencher. He finds it is unacceptable to cut back to merely 60 per cent under this bill. He says we have not cut back enough, we have to cut back to 50 per cent, particularly for women who are on unemployment insurance. I noticed he did not use the word "women", but if you look at his figures and statistics you will see there is no question but that he is referring in his speech to women. Let us not fool around and complicate this with that stuff about who is dependent and who is not. He says we have to cut that 66% benefit back to 50 per cent for women, and his reason is that when there are two earners in the family that is just too much. After all, the poor often get away with so much in this country and we have to cut these benefits back. He says they have been ungrateful, and they even vote NDP or Liberal on rare occasions, when they get a little sense.

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
The facts are that under our system we have encouraged women to go to work, and we have encouraged people to purchase homes with high mortgage rates that cannot be supported without two incomes in a family. When you try to distinguish between the male earner and the female earner you are doing a disservice to the total society, because we have in fact said under this system "Get out and buy your house and contribute to the economy, keep the builders going, get your $50,000 mortgage and make it even higher. This is Never Never Land, fellow, and you will always be able to pay it off. Don't worry about the size of that mortgage."
I am glad I have the attention of the minister. There are rare occasions when he listens in this House, and I am pleased to see him listening this evening.


An hon. Member:: That is not true and you know it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We have encouraged families right across this country to commit themselves to amounts of money they can ill afford to pay without the backing of this unemployment insurance scheme. What is happening? The fact is that the lord who gaveth unemployment insurance is the lord who now taketh that unemployment insurance away.
Some suggest that there is no contribution to the economy through unemployment insurance. The effect of reducing unemployment insurance payments, particularly to women, is to restrain this economy even more than it is, now. My friend, the hon. member for Provencher, talks about the $4 billion, this terrible deficit. We could put that $4 billion back into the economy and create another $1 billion probably in tax revenue. A government that thinks you can restrain this economy into prosperity is a government with the same kind of Milton Freidman philosophy that the governments in the west are starting to buy and learn by experience is not good because conditions get worse and worse and worse.


An hon. Member:: Like Sterling Lyon.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Sterling Lyon is a classic example of one who accepts that kind of idea; what Tommy Douglas used to call the "trickle down theory." If you put enough in at the top for the big guys there will be enough so that some will trickle down to the fellow at the bottom and he will have a tiny bit of purchasing power to keep the economy going. It just does not work that way. You have to put that purchasing power in at the bottom of the economic scale.
When you talk about this legislation you have to talk about it in terms of its impact on the economy. What is the impact this legislation before us will have on the economy? We are in a society which has chronic unemployment and it is going to get worse on the simple basis that the private sector is in the business of putting people out of work. It has to be in that business in order to compete on a world scale. The private sector has to be technologically effective, and as long as we say, as my Conservative friends certainly do, that we should leave this problem to the private sector and it will solve it, the deeper in the mire we are going to get.

The principle behind the changes in this bill relates to that kind of Freidman philosophy of getting out of transfer payments and reducing the capacity of people to buy goods that we can produce in our society.
I just toured, in my riding, one of the largest lumber mills in the world, Fraser Mills. A very progressive firm called Crown Zellerbach is rebuilding that entire mill at a cost of $56 million. I asked them how many jobs they thought they would create. They told me that they would be reducing the level of employment by 200 people, that at one time there were 3,000 people working in that mill, but now machinery is replacing some of them. We cannot continue to follow the silly logic in this House that if we let the private sector alone it will create employment. They are in the business of creating unemployment, and it is only natural. I do not blame the private sector, because it is logical.
When we abandon the public sector to create employment, as this government continues to do, and as my Conservative friends would do, it merely increases the problem. Then everybody sits here and wonders how it happened.
It is interesting to look at the reasons which brought the minister to his conclusion that there was too much abuse in the unemployment insurance program and that they had to cut back. A questionnaire was circulated. The vast majority of the people who were asked the question came to the conclusion that there was substantial abuse of the unemployment insurance program. Many people in this House have said that they have heard of some abuse. The problem is that the government has asked the wrong question. The question which should have been asked was, "Do you believe there is abuse in unemployment insurance, by income tax payers and by corporations?" For example, "Do you believe that Shell Oil pays its fair share of the taxes?" If the government had asked those questions it would have received "yes" answers to all of them, and out of all those yes answers it would have started to deal with this particular problem.
I agree with my friends in the Conservative party that we cannot continue to live with giant deficits and that there has to be an end. The only way to deal with it is to tax the people who are capable of reducing the deficit. However, the government seems to be afraid to tax those people, and my Conservative friends are all for deducting mortgage interest to give a tremendous tax boon to home-owners in Canada. But they will not tax that house when it is sold. They feel that it would be too unpopular. It would be more honest if they would talk about an interest deduction and capital gains tax. Then I would say that there is some fairness in their proposal, that somewhere down the road there will be new revenues coming in to handle this deficit. However, my colleagues in the Conservative party are straddling the fence and getting hernias trying to figure it all out.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: At least we didn't get impaled.
December 19, 1978


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Hang on, I think that you just might. I am glad the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said that he did not get a hernia. I would like to point out to hon. members what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said in his speech, as resported at page 991 of Hansard, November 9, 1978:
Another thing which the minister did not do was attack the basic problem. In the abuses and overspending of the unemployment insurance account, the basic problem is payments made to people who quit their jobs because they would rather go on unemployment insurance-
That does not sound very much like the hon. member for St. John's East. He goes on:
The reduction of the payment rate to 60 per cent from two-thirds has not changed. It has the same effective date of January 1. But the government seems to have overlooked in that reduction that for some people two-thirds of the wage is closer to a necessity, and 60 per cent to some at the other end of the scale is still more than adequate for an amount to be paid for not working.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the real Tory philosophy, and if they have the courage of their convictions they will vote with the government on this bill, in accordance with that well expressed, right wing, Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley philosophy.
At another point in his speech the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra says:
Given the climate of restraint, Canadians were looking forward to the minister's statement on September 1; people were probably quite pleased to think the government was moving to cut down the unemployment insurance deficit-
On the same day as the minister made his statement I made a response for this party in which I noted that in our view the measures proposed by the minister were a step in the right direction.
I suspect that my colleague from Vancouver Quadra did not think that they had gone far enough. I will wait and see how he votes on the bill and how the rest of the Conservative party votes on the bill. I suspect that their heart is not quite in this one. I can see a few members whom I would put in the red Tory category, who have fought and won a good fight, and they are happy and smiling tonight. I am pleased to see that.
This particular subject is treated as though it were impossible to provide full employment. Even a country as capitalistic as the United States has had the courage to propose full employment legislation. It was proposed by the late Senator Humphrey, and it still sits before Congress. Nevertheless, there is some hope and a realization there that the public sector must be used to create employment. Where is the bill before this House which suggests we need full employment? Where is the courage of the government which says we are willing to use the fiscal tools in order to guarantee employment? One thing we all know in this House is that a man who comes to pick up his unemployment cheque should not get it, instead he should get a job. However, how can this man get a job when there are 17 other people looking for the same job?
This government simply does not have the will to sit down and plan this economy for full employment. The problems in this House which spin off into our criminal justice legislation and the great social problems of this country are directly related because a significant section of the population is told,
Unemployment Insurance Act
"We don't want you. We don't have a job for you. We have no use for you, so forget it. Here is a hand-out." That hand-out will take the form of welfare or unemployment insurance.
There has been so much talk about abuses of the unemployment insurance program. The way to stop that would be for the government simply to say that, "you are guaranteed a job." There is much work to do in this country. There are literally hundreds of thousands of things that need to be done and which the private sector cannot do because it is not geared up to handle the job, or it is not profitable for it. The consumer spin-off from such a program would begin to reduce the deficit everybody talks about, because it generates extra revenue, which in turn has an impact on the economy.
I can understand the government feeling that it is in a corner. I can understand it saying, "We have borrowed the last buck and we don't want to borrow any more from the moneylenders in New York." This policy, however, will only further increase that deficit. It cannot attack that deficit with the Friedman restraint policy. Revenues must be generated within society to pay that tax and, most importantly, it must be done by taxing those who are capable of paying it.
I am sure we have all received letters in the last few days from small businessmen who are upset because of that change in the budget which tells them that they no longer have the tax loophole where they could incorporate as a small company. I say that those people should pay the same rate of tax as everybody else in this country. That measure was designed for small entrepreneurial businesses, not for professional people such as doctors or lawyers. People are constantly telling us, particularly middle class people, that others do not want to work. They say, "Look at the farms. There are all kinds of jobs out there. They could pick corn in the summer. What do they mean saying there are no jobs?"
I have a solution, Mr. Speaker. We need the doctor-lawyer volunteer farm brigade. Instead of flying to Hawaii and complaining about the loafers in Canada no longer doing a job every summer, let us take those doctors and lawyers, and members of parliament, to pick the fruit one summer. It would do us all good. Those doctors and lawyers are the ones who get heart conditions and are in terrible shape. We should get them all together and say, "Do not go to Florida or Hawaii. Let us all go out and bring in the produce of this country." Then we would not blame the poor farm worker for not wanting his miserable little minimum wage or his few cents per pound on the peas, carrots and strawberries. It would make a lot of farmers happy because they would love to see doctors, lawyers, MPs and everybody else get their hands a little dirty and have some fun in the sun. Instead of having them griping we could put them to work on a volunteer basis. I think this is a suggestion that needs very serious consideration, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Check it out with CUPE.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My hon. friend says check it out with CUPE. I have talked to CUPE about this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
CUPE is not happy with it in some areas. I do not care whether CUPE is happy or unhappy with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I happen to think that in a full employment economy and full employment society everybody works, including CUPE.


Mr. Crosbie:: Now you are in the "soupie".


An hon. Member:: What about the CLC?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I know my friends in that very effective and active union CUPE, will understand that those were somewhat facetious remarks. The members of CUPE are second to none, I think, in terms of their own working capacity in this country.
Let us go back to the position of the provinces which my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, raised in his initial remarks, which were to the effect that there has been provincial opposition to these changes and that it is merited.
The province of British Columbia estimates that from $35 to $40 million will be spent in addition to the present welfare costs when these changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act go through. What is happening, in fact, is that we are not tightening up on unemployment insurance; we are just taking people off one form of social insurance and placing them on another form of social insurance. I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head, and I would be very pleased if he were to rise in his place and correct me.


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


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) permit a question?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It would need the unanimous consent of the House since the hon. member for New Westminster has exhausted his time. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Provencher.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief. I should like to ask the hon. member for New Westminster-


Mike Landers: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there was not unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There was not unanimous consent. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is a very unfortunate time to speak in the House tonight because my brains have been scrambled-


An hon. Member:: Again?


John Carnell Crosbie: -by the unalterable trash we have just listened to from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
These gentlemen to my left are experts in dividing up what somebody else creates. If we had ever heard of them creating something, expanding our gross national product, creating some more wealth for the people of Canada to enjoy, I would be the first to congratulate them. They sit on our left and all we hear are motions under Standing Order 43, and questions, and "increase this", "expand that", "pay more here", "pay more there", but never a word about how the people of Canada are going to meet this-the taxpayers of Canada, the people out there working, the people who are creating wealth.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Compare Newfoundland to Saskatchewan.


John Carnell Crosbie: The crowd to my left reminds me of Ernest Hemingway's book, "The Sun also Rises", only in their case the dough never rises. There is never any expansion in the gross national product with this crowd. They just want to divide up what the rest of us have created.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Look at Saskatchewan.


John Carnell Crosbie: Did Saskatchewan originate the potash mines? No. They nationalized them and took them over from somebody else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want to be too severe with them tonight, Mr. Speaker, because they are a forlorn group of gypsies. Anyone who looks at them impartially tonight will see that they are a small scattered remnant that, after the next election, will not even be a rim. They have had it. They are the party of nicely decent perceptions. They are the only ones who have those nice, decent perceptions. They are the only ones whose hearts bleed when anybody is unfortunate, that little group to my left. They are squawking and quawking and croaking and quacking away while the rest of us cruel, heartless beasts, go on running the country without them. We are going to go on without them for the next hundred years.
I want to refer to something that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) said when he opened the debate in this House on November 9. I refer to Hansard for November 9. The minister made a savage attack on the gentleman who has just been appointed as chairman of Air Canada. He made a savage attack on the government's proposals and records since 1971, because this whole trouble started in 1971, led by the Hon. Bryce Mackasey who at that

December 19, 1978

time was leading the government. Amendments were made and the new Unemployment Insurance Act was brought in which contained the seeds of its own extravagance. For the last eight years the government has been backing away from that-backpeddling. All this seems years and years ago as this dying, decrepit government creeps warily on its way toward the next election.
As reported at page 983 of Hansard for November 9, the minister said:
The government has decided, as one of the major features of its revision of priorities, to recommend changes to the unemployment insurance program-
You might think this group opposite was going to change something somebody else brought in, but no, they are recommending changes to the unemployment insurance program that they brought in themselves eight years ago.
The minister continued:
-coupled with a significant redirection of its employment strategy.
Surely if that is what the minister is doing, it is contrary to what he and his predecessors had been doing since 1971.
He went on to say there were twofold changes and outlined them as follows:
First, we want to reduce some of the disincentives to work which are present in the program-
Mr. Speaker, if there are disincentives to work in the program, they must have been introduced by the government opposite in 1971.
He also said:
Second, we want to encourage workers to establish more stable work patterns and develop longer attachments to the active work force, thereby reducing their dependency on unemployment insurance.
In other words, the government's legislation for the last seven years encouraged workers not to establish stable work patterns or long attachments to the active work force, and caused them to become dependent on unemployment insurance. That is the reason the minister gave for introducing these changes.
The government should resign, having admitted these fantastic mistakes in the unemployment insurance program which they have imposed on the people of Canada since 1971. Coming at this late date, they should have the good decency to resign and at least go to the people on these proposals. They should not shoot down to Florida as soon as they get this House closured in the next few days, or wherever they are going to go to forget their sins of the last eight years.
Is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it is Bryce Mackasey, sucking his thumb, flying across Canada as chairman of Air Canada. That is what is going on. It is not the unemployed sucking their thumbs wondering where they are going to go to look for a job in Canada, or staying in Newfoundland and Cape Breton and not wanting to move for a job. It is Bryce Mackasey. It is "Be Nice to Bryce" week. Despite this incredible record that the government is trying to correct since November 9, it is "Heave Bryce into the ranks of the safety, secure-cast the dice for Bryce-be nice to Bryce-give the crud to Bud." While
Unemployment Insurance Act
Bryce is chairman of Air Canada, the minister is here trying to put this crud across. He has my sympathy, Mr. Speaker, in this task he has undertaken. I hope that some day he flies somewhere too.


An hon. Member:: To hear Crosbie?


John Carnell Crosbie: To hear St. Pierre.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we all realize, except for the gentlemen on our left, that there has to be some restraint. A $12 billion-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Do not forget the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is all heart. I mean, he is a gentleman. Every time one looks at him, one will see his heart pulsing. I am trying to adopt some of that heart of his in St. John's West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: This cackling to my left is interrupting my train of thought. A $12 billion deficit this year would be the equivalent in the United States of $120 billion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It sounds like a Tory government.


John Carnell Crosbie: We realize that there has to be restraint. We realize that there has to be some restraint in the unemployment insurance program, but we do not see why the restraint has to be so bent and crooked and swizzling a restraint as the government has proposed in its amendments. 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. Therefore, I would not support it anyway. I would not come into the House. But we have a better proposal.
We say, "All right, there is a $2 billion deficit this year in the unemployment insurance account. Don't tell us that this is self-insured, that it is an insurance program when over one half of it has to be contributed by the general taxpayers." It is not insurance. The $2 billion deficit has got to be reduced. So, we have suggested ways this could be done in line with what the provinces have suggested, to cause the least damage to people who have been led to expect so much by hon. gentlemen opposite. They do not want that. They want to step on the backs of the people of the Atlantic provinces and the people in Newfoundland, and to do it in a manner which would be most unfair to people whom they have led along the garden path for seven years now. They have given them these benefits for seven years, yet they want to turn around and snatch them away by passing this legislation; not in some more humane way as we are suggesting, but simply by saying that new entrants to the labour force are going to have to work for 20 weeks before they are entitled to unemployment insurance at all, knowing that in a place like Newfoundland, to try to get work for five months is a near impossibility for many of our people. Or,

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
somebody who goes back into the labour force after two years has got to work for 20 weeks before he can get unemployment insurance, and so on and so forth.
Then, because of the battering they took-I presume that members in the Liberal caucus who come from Atlantic Canada spoke up for the people of Atlantic Canada-they made a little change in that so that if there is unemployment of 11.5 per cent, it would save some of the worst excesses that they propose in their original legislation. There is not a principle among the whole lot opposite. There is not even an isosceles triangle, much less a principle. They should be ashamed to ask this House and to introduce a closure motion in this House for what they are proposing here.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A lot of squares.


John Carnell Crosbie: I just want to mention Newfoundland simply because I come from there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want Mr. Speaker to get the idea, just because we have heavy unemployment, that we are finished in Newfoundland. We are starting to come up from underneath the Liberal penumbra, this burden that has been on our shoulders since 1963.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is why they are voting NDP.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, every province has a number of people who want to commit hara-kiri and might vote for the NDP, but I do not think they will find too many in Newfoundland.
The changes suggested by the hon. gentlemen opposite would take $26 million out of Newfoundland next year, the provisons with respect to new entrants requiring 20 weeks of work instead of, at the present time, ten weeks of work. It would cost the people of Newfoundland $26 million. It would cost our economy. The reduction in the benefit rate from 66% per cent to 60 per cent would cost another $26 million. Had the government gone ahead with its original proposal, we would have lost another $50 million in connection with the proposals which now no longer apply to us, simply because we have in excess of 11.5 per cent unemployment in Newfoundland.
Imagine suggesting that legislation be passed which will penalize a province if it manages to get its unemployment rate below 11.5 per cent. I mean, that takes genius. That takes Liberal genius to try to give us an incentive in Newfoundland for never decreasing its unemployment rate below 11.5 per cent, because if we do we are going to be cruelly crucified by the legislation passed by hon. gentlemen opposite. That is taking away the old work disincentive. We have got to examine the statistics every month now to make sure that she does not go below 11.5. This is a brilliant, audacious amendment that was brought in by hon. gentlemen opposite because they thought they were going to lose the votes of all their members from Atlantic Canada.
This is not the government. This is a bunch of survivors trying to cling together in a rough sea somehow to get beyond the shoals of the next election. This is not governing the country. This is not facing the problems of the country. This is the worst kind of mugwumpery. Even the NDP would not stoop so low.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Do not count on it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A red Tory.


John Carnell Crosbie: Having heard the hon. gentleman, perhaps I had better change that. Yes, they would, Mr. Speaker.
In 1977 we received in Newfoundland $216 million in unemployment insurance. This year the estimate is that it may be $250 million. We do not want to receive this. We want some job creation. The minister says that he is going to save some money with these amendments which he is going to put into job creation. I was down in my district this Saturday, Fox Harbour, and 23 men working-I am sorry, it was on Monday, not Saturday. There were 23 men working in the pelting rain in a gale of 60 miles an hour putting in the sewage system in Fox harbour because of one of the minister's Canada Works projects. Down there I call it my Canada Works projects, but today I will include the minister. These people want to work. They want work.
Anybody who is willing to go out in a 60-mile an hour wind, in a howling gale and a rain storm, to work for the lowly pittance which they are paid in Canada Works in Newfoundland, where we do not even get as much in Newfoundland as they get on the mainland, wants to work. These people want to work. They are not shirkers. But we have got to give them something to work at.
I have been here now for almost two years. I have been in this House for just over two years. For the whole two years I have been trying to get a synchrolift installed in the federally-owned drydock in St. John's, which is going to create 200 permanent jobs. You know, I cannot get it because of the pusillanimous cowardice on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) who does not run his department. He is afraid to cross the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), who himself is afraid to cross the workers in the shipyard in Marystown who are complaining that if the workers in the shipyard in St. John's get some assistance for the synchrolift, they might lose some business in the future. Therefore, he has told the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce not to do it.
Now I have got to throw myself at the feet and at the mercy of the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras), "super Andras", to see if we can get the $8 million for this synchrolift to create 200 permanent jobs. That is what makes this all inconsistent. The 200 jobs could be created with a loan of $8 million, which the government will get back. Yet I have had to go month after month purely for political reasons trying to get that employment

December 19, 1978

created down in Newfoundland in a drydock which is owned by the government.
So, do not have the government believe that we are going to accept their protestations that the few dollars they save in these amendments are going to create employment. It is all politics. Unfortunately it is not the politics of creating jobs in a member's district, a member who might get some credit if a synchrolift went in the dockyard down in St. John's. That is the kind of thing we are up against with this government.
Job creation is what we want. In Newfoundland we have a population of 563,000. Our total personal income was $2,767 million in 1977. So, we can ill afford to lose $50 million. It is a major loss. We would lose something even if our own amendments are carried here. But the hon. member for St. John's East and I are prepared to support the amendments which this side of the House is putting forward because we realize this country cannot survive with the huge kind of deficits it had in recent years. We realize something has to be done.
There are some abuses in the unemployment insurance system. Therefore we are prepared to see our province get a bit less and support that, but not in the inconsistent, irrational, cruel, unfeeling way which has been put forward by the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has been given a chance now to make a much better adjustment. It is supported by all the provinces and by the official opposition, but not supported by that flotilla to my left which will not be floating in here after the next election. No, they will support nothing. They are for spending. Lash it out until kingdom come. They are not worried about deficits. They are not worried about economic development. They are not worried about creating jobs. They are just squawkers here wanting to spend more and more every day. They want to spend. They have no sense of responsibility whatsoever, not even the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
In our province we had an unemployment rate of 15.9 per cent. In 1976 it averaged 13.6 per cent, in 1977, 15.9 per cent, and this year at the moment it is 16.5 per cent adjusted. Imagine, one province in the country has 16.5 per cent unemployment. Alberta has 4.5 per cent, Saskatchewan has 4.6 per cent. Youth unemployment-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Socialism.


John Carnell Crosbie: Potash and other forms of ash. Newfoundland, youth unemployment, 23.5 per cent; Saskatchewan, 11.3 per cent.
I think it was a famous American who said the nation cannot survive half slave and half free. Perhaps it was Abraham Lincoln, a tall gentleman with a beard, and not George Lincoln Rockefeller. He said a nation cannot survive half slave and half free. That is what this nation is. The half from Quebec to Newfoundland is half slave, and the other half from Ontario to British Columbia is half free. The whole set-up is half assed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Unemployment Insurance Act


John Carnell Crosbie: You cannot be half slave, half free, and half assed. This problem must be overcome, the problem of the waste of human resources in this country from the Quebec border to Newfoundland, the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec.
What are the hon. gentlemen opposite going to do about it? Absolutely nothing. They have been in power since 1963. They do not have the tools and they cannot overcome the problem. All they can do is bring in suggestions to save money on unemployment, money that should not have been spent in the first place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what you would do.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not going to tell you tonight what we would do. I am telling you now what we propose to do with unemployment insurance. When we take over office later in 1979-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The election has to be called in 1979. We will be introducing amendments such as those which have been proposed by the brilliant member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). The hon. gentleman will have two tears in his eyes on election night, that is the two-tier system.
We know these are not simple problems. We are not saying tonight that gentlemen opposite should have created full employment last year or full employment this year. I know they cannot do it. I know the labour force is increasing rapidly in Canada. I am not a dumb-dumb.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Withdraw.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not like the hon. gentlemen to my left, dumb-dumbs or completely irresponsible. They are one or the other. I have been in a government. I know that we have an increasing female participation rate. There is no reason why we should not have it. We should have more women in the work force if they want to work. We all know there are these causes, that the labour force is expanding so rapidly it is hard to keep up with creating enough jobs and employment.
There will be the same problem for the next government, us. That is why I am tender tonight toward the government. I realize that the problem will be ours in three to six months' time. We will make a better fist of it than members opposite. We know there are no easy answers. However, the answer is not to come in with half thought out excuses for amendments because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to Morocco.
I do not know what happened to the Prime Minister in Morocco. Somebody got to him. He really put it to him. I do not know who it was, but it gave the Prime Minister an awful shock. When he came back to Canada, the poor old Minister of Employment and Immigration had to come up with all of these brilliant amendments. He might as well admit he has

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
made a grave error, and adopt the suggestions made by the actuarial member from York-Scarborough. He was not supposed to be here, but he is.
I want to remind hon. members to my left of something. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) should close his mouth and take this in. His great hero Khrushchev, I said this last week but the hon. member was not here, said "Economics is a subject which does not greatly respect one's wishes." They certainly are not respecting the wishes of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Another gentleman, Mr. McWilliams, said, and I quote myself again, "Under a planned economy, everything is included in the plan except economy." That is what has happened with the hon. gentleman there.
I have a telegram from the United Church of Canada-


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Nevertheless he may continue-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nobody would say no to the United Church of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is to delete clause 1.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If you can hold your delight for a couple of moments, I would like to speak to clause 1. I do not know when I will get to it because I have some other things I want to say. They relate to the principles, for whatever they are worth, behind this legislation which embody clause 1 and all the other clauses in this bill. We wish we could delete the whole bill.
The whole principle of taxing back under clause 1, and clause 14 that relates to it, flies in the face of any principle of taxation according to ability to pay, and avoiding double taxation. If this were done to private enterprise or a professional person, screams would come from the government benches and Tory benches which would be heard from ocean to ocean.
A construction worker in James Bay or an oil worker in the Beaufort Sea might earn during seven or eight months of the year $17,000 or $18,000 and pay the maximum premiums for unemployment insurance, and I use the word insurance advisedly. He might collect another couple of thousand dollars in benefits. That worker would pay income tax on his earned income and his unemployment insurance benefits, plus pay "tax back" of as much as 30 per cent or more of the benefits he received on which he already paid income tax. Anybody who would try to foist that kind of clause on this place should have his head examined. These are not the kind of people that the minister classifies as those who sit around sucking their thumbs.
Unemployment is costing this country $8 billion. It is costing $4 billion in unemployment insurance payments and another $4 billion in lost tax revenue, lost production, and increased welfare payments.
The government is implementing Tory policy of restraint and cutting back. My colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and all of us in this party have been saying for many months that you cannot restrain yourselves and cut back into full employment. You cannot restrain and cut back to a prosperous and full productive economy.
Surely it would make more sense to enlarge a deficit for the short term, one or two years, by spending some of that $8 billion that unemployment is costing us. It should be invested in the people of this country, in assets for our country that will create employment in areas where it is desperately needed.
I listened to my good friends from the Atlantic provinces, particularly my two colleagues from St. John's. While they said we need to have restraint regarding unemployment payouts, they did not provide any kind of alternative to take the place of that restraint which would put people to work. They cannot have it both ways.
The two-tier system which the Tories yack about is even more iniquitous than what the minister is proposing. I hope that when those two members return to Newfoundland they will explain to the people there what a Tory two-tier system will mean to the workers of that province.
The government proposes to reduce benefits from 66% per cent to 60 per cent. That is bad enough. The Tories say they would leave it at two-thirds for beneficiaries with dependants, but single beneficiaries would be reduced to 50 per cent. I hope the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) will seek out the single unemployed in St. John's and explain this to those who are at a pitiful minimum wage under a Tory government in Newfoundland. They can pay their board and room with that. I am sure they will go out of their way to find the single beneficiaries in St. John's and explain the two-tier system to them.
Members to my right and members who support the government tell us they worry about the deficit and that we have to show restraint. I find it passing strange that in the provinces blessed with Tory governments-


An hon. Member:: Blessed?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -the per capita debt is highest. I want to tell the hon. member for St. John's West that what they are going through now is what we went through in Saskatchewan. We took a kick in the head for some 50 years under Liberal and Conservative governments. We were at the bottom of the totem pole.


An hon. Member:: You have a deficit.

December 19, 1978


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We have surpluses in good times and in difficult times we have deficits. There is a reason for that. We did it in the days of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and we are doing it now under Premier Blakeney. You invest when things are at their worst, when the economy is slumping. That is the time to invest for the public good.
The per capita debt in Saskatchewa is $985. In Ontario, it is something like $2,100. Hon. members should realize that we paid as we went, and our people are working.
Manitoba has the unenviable record of experiencing the highest increase in unemployment in the past year of any province, beating Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The increase in the last year has been 35 per cent. That is their restraint. That is their cutbacks. That is their Proposition 13 mentality. It is not public dollars but private dollars that have got their people into the mess they are in. We have had Culver Tories and we have had Lyon Tories, as well as suppositories, such as my hon. friend from New Westminster talked about. A Tory is a Tory is a Tory, and that did not come by chance.
The minister spoke about people being prepared to move to find work. Mr. Speaker, people will move to work if there is work to move to. I did it when I was 17; the only reason I was able to move though was because there had to be a war to put everybody to work in munitions production or the shipyards. I went berrypicking, I joined a threshing crew. I worked in the shipyards. I paid unemployment insurance premiums but never got to use any benefits-I could have done so, but I joined up. I wanted to work, and the whole country wants to work.
The government ought to be bringing down another budget-the last half dozen they have given us were next to worthless. We need a budget which invests billions of dollars in what the country needs to put people to work. We need a minimum of a billion dollars a year invested in the transportation system. We need another additional billion invested in housing.
We need a municipal capital development fund of $3 billion or $4 billion from which municipalities can borrow at less than the bank rate, with the nation as a whole picking up the additional interest cost. The municipalities know what has to be done in their communities, whether they are little villages or the largest metropolitan centres in the country. We can do something about unemployment and pollution at the same time. We could say to the municipalities: you have the use of a fund at less than the bank rate with which to provide, for example, tertiary sewage treatment in every city in Canada with a population of over 5,000. Imagine the number of people who would be put to work manufacturing, assembling and operating projects of that sort. As I say, something could be done about pollution and employment at the same time while improving the well-being of our society.
Then again, instead of building 200,000 housing units a year we might invest in 500,000 units a year, putting people to work and reducing the cost of housing at the same time. Some of the financing for all this could be provided by those who are not paying their fair share of taxation and should be doing so.
Unemployment Insurance Act
In addition to the $8 billion that unemployment is costing our economy this year there are another $8 billion lying on the books of the Government of Canada in the form of deferred taxes. Whatever argument might be advanced in favour of deferring taxes owed by corporations it would surely be reasonable and fair if those companies paid a modest rate of interest on those taxes, because those taxes will never be paid. A rate of interest of, say, 9 per cent, lower than anybody else in Canada can get, would provide another $700 million a year in revenue for investment in the kind of job creation I have described.
This double taxation principle in clause 1, even though it is a relatively high income earner, flies in the face of anything that is fair and reasonable. The minister could not get away with it if he tried that system on the financial institutions or on any other part of the corporate sector. Neither the Grits nor the Tories would even contemplate it. But they will do it to somebody who has to rely on wages.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) made a speech worthy of someone who is upset by this legislation, and I hope he shows his feelings with his vote. He made a good speech though I suspect it was operation SLBS-"Save Lapointe's Backside." He wants the government to take another look at this. He talks about unemployment in his riding running at between 23 per cent and 26 per cent. How he can sit over there in almost the same row as the minister who is sponsoring this legislation, is beyond me. I hope he will put his vote where his mouth is. And I hope the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) and a number of other members from that side of the House who feel the same way will do so too.
It is important, also, when you ask people to make sacrifices and exercise restraint, that it should apply to all, not just to salary and wage earners. No one section of the population should be asked to carry the load by themselves. I think of the crude and unconscionable returns which are expected and obtained by the corporate sector-one would not mind so much if this money, or a large part of it, were reinvested in job creation. I have not heard the government or the official opposition suggest to shareholders in the corporate sector that they should show some restraint, take smaller dividends or take half the dividends they expect and invest surplus revenue in their country instead of putting it into their own fat pocketbooks. I did not hear the government or the official opposition ask financial institutions to stop the unconscionable record 26 per cent increase in profits over the past year. I have not heard them say that there should be restraint or cutbacks there. There has been no requirement on the part of shareholders or executives to cut back and to invest in employment or in the people of our nation.
To try to reduce government deficits at the expense of wage and salary earners is unconscionable. That should be beyond the conscience, the decency, and the morals which are in the hearts and minds of the Liberal and Conservative parties.

December 19, 1978
Unemployment Insurance Act
They cannot ask just one part of the nation to chip in, and allow the other part of the nation to go blithely on its way, getting all it can get. We need a 180-degree turn from the traditional and conventional wisdom of so-called private enterprise governments.
I do not ask the government to copy, imitate, or even pay attention to what we socialists are saying. I ask the government to take a leaf out of the book of private enterprise governments in a number of other countries. We cannot copy exactly what governments in other countries do. We must proceed according to our climate, geography, and economic situation. Only in this country and in the country to the south of us do we still cling to nineteenth century solutions and ideas in dealing with something which is entirely new in the economic history of mankind.
Clause 1 needs to be deleted. As a consequence, clause 14 should be deleted. The whole bill needs to be withdrawn. After January 23 the government should come back to us with a rewritten bill which would do some of the things we have been talking about. We can do it. The people and the wealth are there. They need to be challenged and mobilized. They need to be asked and directed. They need leadership in doing all the things which need to be done. That would do much to reduce deficits. It would do more to reduce our debt than any of the solutions proposed by the government and the official opposition. Can they not learn lessons from the histories of their own parties and of our country, let alone of other countries?
Surely by now the lessons of the 1890s to the 1960s should have told the government and the official opposition that we must make fundamental changes in managing our economy. This cannot be done just by the government, but the government has to lead. These changes require business, the trade union movement, the farm sector, the provinces and the municipalities to mount a massive effort under the leadership of a national government which is truly national. Unless and until we are prepared to make changes, we will continue to chop away at those who not only are not causing inflation and deficits but who instead are its first victims.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to when I have one minute left.
Unless and until investments are made, even with the knowledge that in the short run there would be deficit increases, we are not going to get out of the unemployment mess we are in, and our economy will not grow at a rate that is reasonable and proper, even if things are tough, comparatively speaking, in the rest of the world. That surely has to be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to bring my contribution to the discussion of the important bill before the House tonight. Having come to this House but a short time ago, I still had a few illusions: I thought that the federal Liberal party might perhaps have been touched by the hand of God. But I was sadly disappointed on nothing, since my election to this House, that it has brought in nothing but legislation that penalizes the disadvantaged.
The legislation we are discussing this evening will bring hardship upon several ridings of Canada, my own included. In my area, which depends mostly on soft sectors such as forestry and furniture, the rate of unemployment is rather high. Every week people come to my office complaining about the unemployment insurance program. The new amendments to the act will restrict access to benefits even further. And yet credits allotted to Canada Works projects by the same department were reduced to $800,000 this year.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on November 2 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) what progress in the field of behavioural medicine, the dream child of the previous minister, she could report. The minister's answer indicated an 8 per cent reduction in hospitalization between 1971 and 1975. That was a period in which there was the promotion of good health. I want to state that I am definitely in favour of preventive medicine and the keeping of records which show that we are on the right path.
The paths of the 1920s, the 1940s and the 1950s have come to an end because in those years we were dealing with the prevention of acute disease. The period from 1971 to 1975 was a period in which, as I said, there was the promotion of good health. Since statistics were compiled in those years, I would like to know in what areas we were most successful and between which guidelines we were operating. I would like to know what diseases were prevented by the specific measures which were taken. I would like to know what those specific measures were, as well as figures relating to the decrease in morbidity as well as figures relating to mortality.
December 19, 1978

Between 1973 and 1976 there was a 24 per cent reduction in the number of motor vehicle accidents, This was before seat belt legislation was in effect in Ontario or Quebec and, I believe, before speed limits were reduced. It was also before many highways were divided by median strips. Previously highways proved to be suicide areas. There was a very high accident rate. I would like to know specifically what was the cause of the 24 per cent reduction. If we could be more specific on those points, we might further increase this drop.
Pedestrians crossing streets should wear clothing that stands out, and not dodge traffic when they should be waiting for a light change or a clear road. That goes without saying. In this particular department, prevention does not work all that well. Traffic related accidents went up 14.2 per cent in 1977, and the total number of accidents without injury went up 3 per cent. That is where you have fenders banged up, and things like that. Also, most drivers who had those accidents were young people up to 30 years of age. Something should be done to see whether prevention is practised in that area, if these young people are well equipped, if they have the knowledge and ability, the proper training and sense of responsibility to be in charge of a motor car.
This is not the whole answer. Looking again at the statistics, we find that in December of 1977, as compared with December of the previous year, there was a 24 per cent decrease. Then we find an increase in motorcycle accidents. What has been done in that respect to prevent those accidents? Also, snowmobile accidents are on the increase. We understand that this is a drinking-driving problem, a problem similar to the one we have with cars.
Now let us look at the geriatric problem. The minister said there was a decrease of 3 per cent in coronary artery disease. According to one report, this has continued since 1961. The minister has taken the figures from 1973 to 1976 and, very wisely, added that they were only indicators. Cardiovascular cerebral disease has increased because we are an aging population. That is one reason for it. Arteriosclerosis increases with age, therefore it follows that we will have more vascular accidents. Where do we start to prevent cardiovascular disease? The previous minister gave a very fine paper in Vancouver on this subject, but offered no real solutions to it at the time.
Going back over the records we find that during the Korean war autopsies were done on young fellows between the ages of 20 and 30 and that half of them showed evidence of coronary disease. Is exercise to be prescribed for the duration of our life?
Can the North American concept of the big meal at night, with a pleasant cocktail or wine, be broken? Do we really know about prevention of the development of hereditary traits, diet and exercise? This is why we need to be far more specific in our guidelines. Then we have to take steps for prevention.
We need to check people for blood pressure, for cardiovascular disease. We need regular clinical exams which should not
Adjournment Debate
be done by machines or computers. We need doctors who will look at those cases from a clinical point of view and prescribe for them. I ask: can a lot more be done in prevention and research, and can we cut the charge bill? As a result of that, morbidity and mortality will be cut, and that will be worthwhile. We have to sort out those things. Should we not start our geriatric plan for coronary disease and cardiovascular back at the pediatric age?


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has indicated his great concern, as he usually does, about the whole question of geriatrics. I would point out to him that in response to his question of December 14, 1978, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said that the new bureau on aging, which is starting operations in the Department of National Health and Welfare, will also include geriatrics. I am quite sure the hon. member is very pleased to have that good news.
His question appears to be much more comprehensive than was previously the case when the question was first posed. However, I wish to amplify the response to the question about progress in behavioural medicine posed by the hon. member for Simcoe North on November 2, 1978.
The recent reorganization of the Department of National Health and Welfare indicates the extent to which emphasis is being placed on a positive approach to health. The new health services and promotion branch brings together a number of health promotion activities which have been developed throughout the department. This change was made in the midst of our general reduction in staff years and operating expenditures, and offers a greater concentration of effort in a more efficient manner.
Among our initiatives is "Operation Lifestyle", which uses a variety of social marketing techniques to encourage Canadians to assume greater responsibility for behaviour related to health.
"Dialogue on Drinking" is another program sponsored by federal and provincial agencies, and is aimed at establishing a social climate in which irresponsible drinking becomes less acceptable.
The fitness and amateur sports branch promotes organized athletic activities and encourages fitness programs for individuals. "Participaction", the "Fit Kit" employee fitness program, and the Canadian fitness award for deserving children have become household words.
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization suggests schedules for routine immunization of children and provides seasonal advice for influenza vaccination.
Under the leadership of the environmental health directorate many agencies, both in government and industry, are looking at the impact on the environment of our industrial

December 19, 1978
Adjournment Debate
society, and attempting to minimize negative consequences of future urban and industrial development.
The Department of Labour's new Canadian centre for occupational health and safety will be the federal focal point for work toward improvement of conditions relative to health and safety in the work place.
Of course, the provinces and the professional and private agencies play an essential role in health promotion. Co-operative activity is guided by a new federal-provincial advisory committee in this area. Examples of provincial approaches which parallel those at the federal level are "Action B.C." and the Saskatchewan "Feeling Good" programs. Other provinces have similar trusts. The success of provincial traffic safety programs has been widely acclaimed.
In all these activities the key to success is giving each individual a sense of responsibility for his or her health.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words tonight regarding a question I put to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) a few days ago concerning a rural development agreement for Northern Ontario. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, there was a forestry agreement signed between the province of Ontario and the federal government a couple of weeks ago, which is designed to bring that industry to its full potential. There has also been an indication from the minister that there would be a rural development agreement signed as well.
This is very significant because the ARDA agreement, which has been in effect for the past few years, has had very significant benefits for many areas in northern Ontario, like the Algoma-Manitoulin area. Programs such as the farm enlargement program have been carried out under this, and at least in the Manitoulin area some 70 farms were purchased and assistance has been given to young farmers to expand their operations, bringing them to more economic sizes. Some four large community pastures were established to provide more pasturing for the beef industry there, and something like 27,000 or 30,000 acres in total have been purchased in relation to the farm enlargement program and the community pasture program, and this has been combined with improved herd sires to upgrade the beef industry. As well, co-operative livestock sales have been established at Thessalon and at Little Current, with some assistance from ARDA.
There has been the development as well of two meat packing plants, one at Bruce Mines and one at Spring Bay on Manitoulin Island. There has also been an improvement under the program so that farmers cannot only market through this co-operative sales mechanism, but as well can have meat processed in these plants. It also provided assistance for farm drainage training programs such as the business of farming courses.
A fish packing plant was constructed with ARDA assistance at Mamainse Point north of Sault Ste. Marie on Lake Superior. Likewise, the tourist industry has also benefited from this program which has provided waterfront property for communities like Meldrum Bay, Gore Bay, Kagawong, Little Current and Manitowaning. Also, a number of community trailer camps have been constructed at Gore Bay, Garden River and Meldrum Bay. These camp grounds are providing tourist facilities for those communities. There are also the community parks in Johnson Township and Bridal Vail Falls which have been constructed under the ARDA program.
I am providing this information as background because I want the minister to be aware of how important this program has been in our area over the past few years. It is easy after these activities have been carried out to forget how important they are.
I would like to pay tribute to one person, Mr. Joe Brown, the rural development officer in the area from 1967 to 1974. His territory included not only the Manitoulin Algoma area, but also northern Ontario. Later on he had six counsellors working with him. He did a great deal to make this program a success, and had the ability to take a good idea and work with governments and with the people. He had some spectacular achievements with regard to ARDA projects.
What we must look at as the minister signs this new agreement with the province of Ontario are the really worthwhile projects which have been carried out under ARDA and which still have some life left in them. We should retain the best parts of that program where there is still work to be carried out. I would like to see a multimillion dollar, five-year rural development agreement with the province of Ontario. The minister has indicated that it would be signed before the end of this fiscal year.
This program should feature aspects relating to helping young people get started in agriculture, provide for more expanded and diversified production, assist in the tourist industry to provide improved facilities and develop that industry in northern Ontario, which has so much potential.
I think there should be a manufacturing component in this program to provide for diversification and processing in our manufacturing industries to process further our basic resources in northern Ontario, such as agriculture, mining, and forestry.
It seems to me that there should be consultation with the members of parliament from northern Ontario and with the people of the area to ensure that this program is all encompassing and meets our needs to develop fully our natural resources which I have mentioned. Only in this way can we reach our full potential and develop the resources which we have at this time.


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can fully understand and appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) because he is certainly one of the most dedicated members in this House when it comes to the con-

December 19, 1978

cerns and affairs of his constituency. He always speaks out when he thinks the government is neglecting his area of Ontario. That is his right and duty, and he deserves full credit for it.
As the hon. member stated, the Agricultural and Rural Development Act has done much good in many areas of Ontario. It has been one of the main tools of rural development in that province since 1962. He outlined in much detail the various programs, but when we realize that the federal government has spent almost $75 million through ARDA in the province of Ontario since 1962, that sort of speaks for itself. No matter how good programs may seem, there is always a time and a method to improve them.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has taken the view that a new approach to agricultural and rural development assistance in Ontario is needed. DREE considers that proposals of a regional character rather than direct on-farm measures would likely improve the foundation for development in all the resource areas. An example of that approach is the recently signed new forests in eastern Ontario amendment.
I would like to give the hon. member as much information as I can in the very limited time available, and first speak about the meeting which my minister had with ministers in the Ontario government who are responsible for the general development agreement. There was substantial agreement among the ministers that priority should be given to the needs of eastern Ontario where much of the ARDA effort has been concentrated, and the minister does believe there is considerable compatibility between some of the ARDA thrusts and what might be done under a more comprehensive approach in a new GDA subsidiary agreement.
I am very happy to advise the hon. member for Algoma that the work of developing a new agreement is now in progress and well under way. DREE is looking toward an integrated approach which assesses the opportunities in all resource sectors. There seems to be the possibility of joint incentive assistance to resource based industries in addition to the Regional Development Incentives Act, which applies in this part of the province.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, discussions are definitely under way between DREE officials in the province of Ontario region and the province of Ontario itself on these new initiatives which bear upon economic development in both eastern and northern Ontario. While it is quite impossible to provide the hon. member with an assurance that all past programs will be incorporated in new agreements, the planning will include a full examination of what has been done and what might and should fit into a more comprehensive framework of rural development.
Adjournment Debate


PUBLIC SERVICE-COST OF BOOKLET CIRCULATED TO EMPLOYEES
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on December 14 of this year, as reported at page 2014 of Hansard, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan), a question concerning the distribution of a booklet entitled "Proposed Changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act". I have a copy in my hand, and it has been distributed, I am told, through the personnel departments of the Government of Canada to as many employees as possible.
The distribution of this booklet brought a criticism from the staff associations to the effect that the employer was taking advantage of the employer's position officially, to distribute one side of the case concerning the amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that earlier this year the government introduced Bill C-28 which proposed a number of changes to the act which were, I would say, the sequel of the first ministers' conference held in February. At the conference there was a general agreement between the heads of government of all the provinces of Canada and the federal government that, as a general principle through the de-control period, wages in the public sector should not lead outside employment.
The concern that many of us have is the escalating situation where the staff associations are attacking government on one side and the government now appears to be replying. I am happy to note that the tone of the government document is moderate. The tone of a document now being distributed by staff associations is not moderate, however. The document entitled "The Truth About Bill C-22", a copy of which I also have in my hand, is being distributed. What gives many of us in the area a great deal of concern is the general tone that appears to be developing.
When Bill C-22 to amend Bill C-28 was given first reading this fall, an article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of November 22. The vice president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr. Bill Doherty, said that it was not that bad a bill. Bill C-28 was bad, but he is reported as saying the following:
-the union which waged a massive lobbying campaign against the legislation's predecessor, Bill C-28, will likely meet with the government to discuss the ramifications of the new, modified bill.
It continues:
-the union has never been against comparing public service contracts to those given by "good" employers in the private sector.
The tone seems to have become progressively worse. I should like to refer to a news release issued by the Public Service Alliance of Canada on December 14, 1978. In part it describes:
-Bill C-22 as "a tragic and stupid mistake".
It continues:
"Rather, it is political scapegoating at its worst, designed to serve certain political interests and commitments."

December 19, 1978
Adjournment Debate
With reference to distribution of the document entitled "Proposed Changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act", the news release indicated the following:
It said Treasury Board "seeks to sell Bill C-22 by inference, omission, distortion and misrepresentation".
I have many good friends in the staff associations. I should like to tell them that they are not helping by this kind of attack.
I should like to refer to the document entitled: "The Truth About Bill C-22". It reads in part as follows:
For example, comparisons would not be made with municipal and provincial public employees who do similar work, but solely with workers employed by profit-making organizations.
That is simply not true. Outside employment generally will be the standard. This will be developed by the new research bureau which now will be directed by an independent board, half of its representation coming from the employers and half from the employees.
The case which unions will be making is impaired by intemperate remarks and statements such as those attributed to the president of the Public Service Alliance, Mr. Stewart. I just cannot help but call to the attention of staff associations that Bill C-22 will have full and complete debate when it receives second reading in the House. Then it will be referred to committee. There will be every opportunity for spokesmen of employees and staff associations to appear and give their points of view. If there is reason to believe, as has been asserted, that comparisons will not be made with municipal and provincial public employees, then let us look at the clauses in the bill. If amendments have to be made, they can be made.
There have been substantial changes to Bill C-28, for example, the exclusions for over $33,500. That is out of the new bill now. This can be accomplished only when there is an atmosphere on both sides of moderation, willingness to meet, and willingness to consult.
I cannot help but observe at this stage that this session cannot have that long a life. We will adjourn shortly, after dealing with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. In the new year we will deal with Bill C-12, the indexing of pensions. That will take a while. There is a heavy legislative agenda. I would think there is a high probability that parliament perhaps will be prorogued shortly after Easter or thereabouts. We are looking at something like 12 weeks or 13 weeks of House sittings in 1979. It will be a very tight schedule if Bill C-22 is to be enacted.
If Bill C-22 is to be considered on its merits, I trust and hope that spokesmen for the staff associations, in a spirit of very careful research and the exercise of good, considered judgment, will make preparations to appear before the committee in order to give us the benefit of their views. I am prepared to listen as are many other people in the House. Only
if they follow that route will they have the kind of legislation they want to see on the books.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) has demonstrated once again his unfailing interest in those subjects which affect his constituents greatly, and his vigilance in bringing these concerns to the attention of the government and parliament. I will not reply by debating with him the merits of Bill C-22, but rather reply to the original question he raised in the House as to the cost of the booklet which was distributed to all public servants.
He inquired first about the cost of this publication. Based on cost estimates from the Department of Supply and Services, the minister advised him on Thursday, December 14 last, that the unit cost was in the vicinity of nine cents per copy. I am pleased to note that the final cost may in fact be lower than this estimate. I am informed by the Department of Supply and Services that the actual cost will be $24,950.60, representing a unit cost of seven cents per copy. This includes printing and distribution costs, plus a service fee, that are being charged by the Department of Supply and Services. Bulk quantities were supplied directly to departments, which in turn were responsible for their distribution within their organizations.
Hon. members will recall the extensive campaign waged by public sector unions against the predecessor to Bill C-22, namely, Bill C-28. Public service unions prepared briefs on Bill C-28 and distributed them to their members. They referred to Bill C-28 in the newspapers and other publications.
My colleagues and I, as well as members of departmental management, heard many concerns from employees concerning the fact that the employer was not explaining the bill and its rationale to employees. The government decided that when a successor bill to Bill C-28 was introduced, an effort should be made to inform employees on the provisions of the bill. This booklet is the result of that effort.
The hon. member mentioned, and rightly so, that when this bill comes before the House of Commons there will be a full debate. Witnesses will be asked to appear before the committee. The Public Service Alliance and other unions in the public service will be free to come forward and answer questions and testify before the committee. I believe the government has acted rightly. I am sure those employees who read this booklet will be happy that the government has prepared it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
m

Wednesday, December 20, 1978