1980-06-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that many sheep owners in the maritime provinces are losing sheep to two contagious diseases, enzootic abortion and pulmonary adenomatosis, and in view of the fact that all the affected sheep were purchased from, or have been in contact with sheep from two government-run importation groups who kept the sheep in quarantine for three years, and it is only after the sheep have been dispersed to the Canadian public that these diseases have been confirmed, and in view of the fact that the same virus that causes enzootic abortion in sheep causes it in cattle, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this House instruct the Minister of Agriculture to immediately launch a full scale investigation into this matter so that farmers who purchase sheep for the purpose of improving their stocks will be protected from purchasing diseased sheep and compensated for those already purchased.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SALE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA WINES ON AIR CANADA FLIGHTS AND IN PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to urge the unanimous support of the House on a matter of importance and pride to citizens of British Columbia.
In recognition of the recent wine critics' acclaim of Penticton's Casabello Fleur de Blanc wine, and in recognition of the fact that other superb wines vinted from specially selected sunny Okanagan grapes are available from wineries of British
Columbia, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That these superb British Columbia wines be served on Air Canada flights and in the parliamentary dining room as a means of furthering better east-west relations within Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Pierre said "No".


SEVENTY-SECOND BIRTHDAY OF HON. STANLEY KNOWLES- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Considering that today is the seventy-second birthday of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -I assure hon. members he had nothing to do with this motion-and in view of his 34 years of distinguished service not only to this House and to his constituency but to all Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), who named the hon. member to the Privy Council last fall:
That this House congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on his seventy-second birthday today, for his years of service, and asserts that we look forward to at least another 34 years of devotion, decency and dedication.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of truly urgent and pressing necessity concerning the pending and

June 18, 1980
unnecessary bankruptcy of a successful Canadian trading firm employing 11 people in Montreal and 28 people in Vancouver.
Because of the inability of the Department of Supply and Services to honour a firm contract it made with the transportation contractors for the carriage of aid wheat from west coast Canadian ports to Bangladesh, all because of a bureaucratic entanglement involving the Department of Supply and Services, CIDA, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Department of Justice, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Win-nipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the minister responsible for CIDA, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Supply and Services and, if necessary, the President of the Treasury Board, call an emergency meeting with their officials and out of that meeting give an assurance to Maritime Agencies Ltd. that past due damages in excess of $450,000, and a commitment to Maritime Agencies Ltd. on substantiated costs due to lack of grain being delivered to the port on present contracts, will be forthcoming immediately, in order to prevent an unnecessary bankruptcy with loss of jobs and subsequent action against the Crown by creditors.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Given the fact that due to environmental pollution, sports fishermen are being warned not to eat the fish they catch out of certain lakes and river systems, that aside from this problem certain lakes and other bodies of water are being stripped of all aquatic life by acid rain, and because of the detrimental effect this will have on the tourist industry of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That this House urge the minister responsible to do all he can in ongoing discussions with American authorities to impress upon them our deep concern in this regard and to urge them most strenuously to take all proper action to avoid the proliferation of this problem.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact the Canadian government is actively negotiating international tax treaties with dozens of countries throughout the world, while the negotiation of social security agreements with many countries flounder for lack of clear government commitment and priority, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky):
That this House urges the government to make the signing of international social security agreements a top priority, in order that Canadian citizens and the parents of Canadian citizens are not prejudiced from being reunited with their families by the lack of such agreements.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INQUIRY THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, regarding a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Announcements appearing on the financial pages of major Canadian newspapers indicate that the former leader of the socialist New Democratic Party, the Hon. Tommy Douglas, has joined the board of directors of the capitalist Husky Oil company. In view of the fact he has become a "Texas buccaneer" and a "corporate welfare bum", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the words of that popular and well-known union song be amended to read:
"The working class can damn my brass,
But I've got the job with Husky Gas."


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Senator Perrault stated that the Canadian government is
June 18, 1980

committed to "massive involvement" in the proposed sale of coal from northeastern British Columbia to Japanese interests, and whereas this coal deal would be one of the biggest sell-outs in Canadian history, this being the first time Canadian taxpayers would be actually subsidizing the export of non-renewable energy resources, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Elovdebo):
That this House condemns the government, and Senator Perrault in particular, for assisting the government of British Columbia in this shortsighted policy, and instructs the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to hold immediate public hearings on the financial implications of the deal.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOFT DRUGS
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the Department of National Defence expended $74,990 on studies related to marijuana, and whereas the departments of Justice, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Agriculture, and the Environment indicated no expenditures for such studies in the last five years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That this House direct all ministers to table forthwith copies of all studies in the possession of their ministries related to marijuana, so members can study and consider them before pending legislation on the subject is introduced in the House.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Oral Questions
Since the leaders of the Haitian assistance service in Montreal fear that among the approximately 2,000 Haitians who are in Quebec illegally, a few could do something desperate to avoid deportation to their country of origin, the leaders of the assistance service feel that the screening by immigration officers at Dorval and Mirabel amounts to a form of persecution and racism towards those Haitians, following an official request made to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) for the sake of human dignity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the House unanimously invite the appropriate minister to meet with the leaders of the Haitian assistance service to assess the complaints the leaders have formulated and to make the necessary changes for the good reputation of
Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister of state for social development policy. The minister will know that the inflation rate in Canada is now at about 9.4 per cent. He will also know that yesterday Statistics Canada indicated we were beginning a cyclical downturn and would be experiencing an economic recession in this country. Indeed, it is being said, as the minister is aware, that both the United States and Canada are headed for a double-digit situation in respect of all three fundamental economic areas-unemployment, interest rates and inflation.
In the midst of all that, what gives me great concern-and this relates to my question-and what gives great concern to many Canadians is the announcement by the Minister of Finance that he wishes to de-index income tax rates. The minister for social development policy well knows the devastating effect that de-indexing of income tax will have on low-income Canadians. I would ask the minister whether he has any initiatives at all he would like to bring to bear so that Canadians will continue to have protection with regard to income tax.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I think the

June 18, 1980
Oral Questions
question asked by the hon. member relates to matters concerning the budget. I do think that the Minister of Finance, when he presents a budget, will be dealing with this problem. The indexing does exist today, and when we have a budget we will know what will happen.
I do not know the intention of the Minister of Finance with regard to these things, but I will take the comments of the hon. member to the minister and when we have a discussion on this 1 will raise the matter.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has made quite clear what he intends to do: he wants to consider the question of de-indexing income taxes. My question to this minister relates to his understanding. I know he understands the effect this will have on Canadians: indeed, for those who earn $10,000 a year the effect will be a loss of $156 each year, amounting to $896 over five years, at current rates. This will be money right out of their pockets and it will result in their inability to provide food and clothing.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


David Edward Crombie: That is my concern. The reason I ask the question of the minister is the fact that this would mean-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The first question was rather long and I accepted it, but the hon. member's second question must be shorter.


David Edward Crombie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is simply this: what initiatives will the minister be taking this session to deal with the economic circumstances in which Canadians will find themselves over the next six months-a situation which Statistics Canada has indicated we are beginning to experience already?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, first I must say that the first part of the question is purely hypothetical. A possible budgetary change is under discussion and I am unable to comment on it before the Minister of Finance makes a decision in that area.
About the economic policy in general, the second part of the question, the Minister of Finance dealt with that subject yesterday and 1 have nothing to add to what he has already told the House.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be requesting, I am sure, the view of the Minister of Social Development. Will the minister give this House the assurance that he will maintain the protection which Canadians of moderate means now have, and not support any move to de-index income tax rates which will have that kind of effect on low-income Canadians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House have always been anxious to maintain for Canadians a tax system which is as fair as possible. This concern has been with the government for a great many years past and will remain so for a great many years to come. After the budget has been made public, the hon. member will be able to pass judgment.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. 1 am concerned, as are my colleagues, about the latest statistics which show that 431,000 young people under the age of 25 are out of work. This amounts to 44 per cent of all those people unemployed in Canada.
What is the minister doing specifically to alleviate this national disgrace? What policy course, if any, is he following in that obviously uncaring government which thinks it is safely ensconced over there for four years?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a concern which we all share. I do not think any party in this House has shown more concern over the years than we have for the problems of young people.
As the hon. member will know, we have had an opportunity to discuss this matter at some length in Parliament over the past three weeks. The government has announced a number of special measures which are designed to bring young people into the marketplace and to give them the skills and training they need in order to provide them with proper employment.
At the same time, the government has also introduced a major summer employment program. The figures referred to by the hon. member do not take into account this program, because it is just now coming into effect. We cannot solve all the problems of young people through direct government intervention; we must rely upon the workings of the private sector. However, this matter is a major priority of the government and it will continue to be a major priority.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, all the plans and all the programs which the government has brought into effect are strictly of a band-aid nature. Is the minister actively urging the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to get on with the program of self-sufficiency in energy in this country so that we can create permanent jobs for our young people in all provinces of Canada with our money, instead of creating jobs in Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iraq?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the hon. member that I spent a full day yesterday meeting with representatives of the oil industry in the province of
June 18, 1980

Alberta. We discussed the kind of employment prospects which we will be developing in that province, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The assessment which was made was that there would be a substantial demand for new employment, and that one of the things we must do now is work out co-operative measures between the industry, provincial governments and our government to make sure that we are able to provide the skilled labour which will be in substantial demand.
Those commitments and those plans are already in progress and the capital investments are already proceeding with a great deal of effectiveness.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORMER PREMIER OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Madam Speaker:: I am sure that all members of this House will want to greet a former premier of the province of Newfoundland who is in our gallery, the Hon. J. R. Smallwood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATURAL RESOURCES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. He will remember that in 1974 he made a commitment on the question of ownership of Canadian resources. He said:
-that major new projects in the natural resources field should have at least 50 per cent and preferably 60 per cent Canadian equity ownership.
Almost two years ago today I asked him if the government stood by that policy, and his answer was yes. During the recent election campaign the Prime Minister took a similar approach. 1 should like to ask him today if that is still goverment policy.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Madam Speaker, this is still our objective. I had occasion the last time I answered the question, and again during the election campaign, to indicate what we had done and would continue to do, particularly in the matter of energy resources.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the commitment was not for a future objective. In 1974, in Sault Ste Marie, the Prime Minister said that all future development projects would have "50 per cent and preferably 60 per cent Canadian equity ownership". That is a commitment that applies the next day- to all future projects.
In this light, since the government said it was going to do that, how can the Prime Minister justify the present position it is taking on what is probably the most important energy
Oral Questions
development project in Canadian history, namely, the development of tar sands in which the Alsands project will be 80 per cent foreign-owned, and the Cold Lake project which will be 100 per cent foreign-owned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member when he suggests that "future" means tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Does it mean yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Even the members of the NDP have often argued that for them the future was some way in the distance, not necessarily tomorrow. That is the reality. I indicated the intention of the government to work in this direction. I have pointed out many times with statistics that we had in the past decade reduced the level of foreign ownership in the petroleum area from something like 90 per cent to 70 per cent. We want to continue to work in that direction.
The Canadian government's investment in the oil sands project, of something under $1 million, is an attempt to increase Canadian ownership. I never thought that overnight we could turn massive foreign ownership in petroleum, of the order of some 90 per cent, to 60 per cent. The hon. member suggests we try it. The way to do that would either be to expropriate without compensation, which is not the approach of this government, or to massively borrow to buy out the foreign investment. The House knows that at this time we do not want to increase the debt to that extent.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is confusing two points, although at this point I will say perhaps not deliberately. I should like clarification. The commitment that was made in 1974 was that all future projects be at least 50 per cent Canadian control-not that in the immediate future all the industry would be 50 to 60 per cent Canadian controlled.
Therefore, if the commitment was for all future projects to be 50 to 60 per cent Canadian controlled, I should like to repeat the point about the development of the tar sands: why is the Government of Canada now selling out our future energy resources is this key field, particularly when we have Petro-Canada that could be doing the job for us?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, Petro-Canada could only do that job if it had the resources to do the job. The federal government has increased those resources considerably over the past two or three years. It has permitted Petro-Canada to buy into one of the major foreign nationals, and to place Petro-Canada and Canadian shareholders now amongst the top ten, which was not the case before Petro-Canada.
What I am saying is that for Petro-Canada to do the job which might be desirable and which, hopefully, will take place in the future, of increasing Canadian ownership even further, it would need billions of dollars more to be put in its hands through the Canadian taxpayer.


An hon. Member:: Go to the capital market.

June 18, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That means increasing massively our borrowing, and at this particular time the government has judged-


An hon. Member:: It is a good investment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Double-tracking first!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think this is turning into a debate. If hon. members want to ask supplementary questions, I will attempt to answer them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, may I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance? Four months ago today, the public of Canada elected this government and we have been looking forward to the announcement of policies for stimulating the economy, to create jobs, to provide aid to alleviate cost of living problems besetting wage earners and to provide help to home owners faced with the loss of homes as a result of high mortgage rates.
We wanted to know what this government could contribute to the renewed health of this rich but bureaucratically-strangled nation. What we did not want was the formal announcement by the Minister of Finance, yesterday, of a recession for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member going to put his question now?


James Gordon Gilchrist: Will the Prime Minister now admit that the Conservative plan to help home owners and prospective home owners by a mortgage tax credit was the kind of action needed, and will he respond positively-


An hon. Member:: No.


James Gordon Gilchrist: -to the Ontario government's offer of $500, matched by a federal $500 to mortgage holders hard-pressed to keep their homes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that the government should stimulate the economy. Through hearing the Minister of Finance yesterday, I would remind the House that in this
very year the government is stimulating the economy to the extent of a $14 billion deficit. That is stimulus indeed.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Statistics Canada tell us today that unemployment is 7.8 per cent. Perhaps a more human way of saying that is that about 900,000 of our fellow Canadians are looking for work, without success. I think it is the highest rate in the industrialized western world.
My question is this: how will the minister's $137 million plan seriously help Canadians looking for work in this fiscal year? If it will not help, what plans does the minister have to change the proposed plan?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, to begin with, the unemployment rate, which gives us all a good deal of concern, is not one that is solely an experience of this country. It is something that is affecting all industrialized countries, because we are dealing with the same conditions such as inflationary prices of oil and energy around the world. Downturns in economic growth are being faced by every country. I would point out to the hon. member that in the last report in the United States the unemployment rate exceeded substantially the rate we are experiencing in Canada, and we are obviously affected by that.
As far as how our programs will affect the situation, the programs speak for themselves. Those employment-creation programs announced June 2 are designed to try to provide job opportunities for tens of thousands of Canadians who will be entering the workplace this summer and fall. The program is being targeted particularly on those who have most difficulty in the workplace. We are using our scarce resources to help those most in need. That is a commitment of this government.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the minister said in a press conference on April 24:
I believe that, as far as possible, employment programs should do more than just create employment. They should also seek to further other government objectives.
In light of the changing scene in the economy, would the minister now tell us what other government objectives he had in mind?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, that statement referred to the fact that we wanted to use our employment programs to help other objectives such as energy conservation, the promotion of additional research and development, the promotion of better access to the workplace for women and native people. Again, the programs that we put forward and announced are designed to do exactly that.
June 18, 1980

The new technology program will provide work opportunities in areas of research and development. The additional training programs for native people will open up access. The incentive wage subsidy for women to move into the non-traditional work roles is designed to fulfil the general and social economic conditions of the government, and at the same time to provide a general basis for employment within the public sector.


FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given the fact that 400,000 of the 900,000 unemployed are women, and given the statement made by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women this month in which it was indicated that only 33 per cent of the full-time trainees in the government's institutional programs, and 29 per cent among other industrial trainees and only 3 per cent of the apprenticeship training opportunities were given to women, what steps if any does the minister intend to take to provide a better balance in the funding of the recently announced employment strategy which is soon to be debated as a result of the occupational training guide?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I would remind him that the employment package that we announced does include an experimental program to provide incentives to employers to bring women into the non-traditional fields. As I announced in the House, if that program turns out to be a success, then we would add substantial funds to it. But we want to test out that particular formula to see if it does provide the incentive that is required. At the same time, we introduced the community services program which is designed to provide support services in the community field. Again, this will enable more women to come into the work force.
Finally, as we said in the throne speech, we intend to take action in the area of Affirmative Action programs to provide for a lowering of barriers that now face women as they try to get into the workplace. This lowering of barriers will give them more equal opportunity. We are trying to move on several fronts. 1 met with the Advisory Council to explain those programs. There was a very good discussion and 1 received a good hearing from the council on these programs.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, in the same statement the council indicates that many women are unable to participate in training courses because of the inadequate dependant care allowances for trainees: this is $10 per week per child. Is the minister giving consideration to increasing that allowance so women can participate in the training programs in the same way as men?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have established a major procedure of review to look at the entire spectrum of employment and training pro-
Oral Questions
grams. Certainly, one of our major objectives in that review will be to examine how we can improve our training programs, particularly in the industrial area. That also includes the provision of better support services so that women and minority groups can come into the work force in a more open and accessible fashion.
We have indicated that that review will take a matter of three or four months. Hopefully, at the end of this year or the beginning of next we will be able to present a white paper to Parliament to explain these programs. It will be something on which we can then base an entire package of programs, rather than taking ad hoc, piecemeal measures.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. During yesterday's meeting of the transport committee, I pointed out to him a decision reported to have been made by Air Canada to build at Malton airport a hangar which would be used for the maintenance of Air Canada's new fleet of aircraft. It is a well known fact that the maintenance of Air Canada aircraft is being carried out at Dorval airport. Could the minister assure us that Montreal employees in general and in particular those in Dorval will not be affected by the future changes contemplated by Air Canada.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, following the very relevant question which the hon. member for Gamelin put to me yesterday in the House, this morning I contacted Air Canada officials who confirmed that the Dorval facilities will be expanded. The maintenance of the DC-8s and DC-9s will continue to be carried out there. The maintenance of the L-lOlls which will be put in operation next February will also be carried out there. Such will be the case of the Boeing 767s in 1982. The number of jobs at Dorval keeps on increasing. From July 1979 to date, some 542 people have been hired and 75 more are likely to be hired before the end of the year. Moreover, I am pleased to report that similar increases at Winnipeg and Malton airports will meet other needs.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration

June 18, 1980
Oral Questions
who is also the minister responsible for the status of women. 1 wish to pursue the questioning which has just taken place and press the minister in terms of last Wednesday's with meeting the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
While the meeting was a friendly one, the council was very critical of the minister's programs for women's training, especially as they failed to meet the needs of older women and women with children, stating that these two groups were virtually ignored. 1 wonder if the minister has had time to reflect on these specific criticisms, and in light of today's government announcement that the depression is upon us, what specific direction will he take in the programs that he has indicated he will be announcing to assist older women and women with children?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what announcement the hon. member is referring to, but I can tell him that as a result of the discussions we had with the Advisory Council we have, as part of the review procedure, established a very specific group to look at the problems raised relating to women's needs, particularly those of older women.	.
As I indicated to the Advisory Council at the time, it is my intention to try not to bring in single, individual programs to respond to those issues but, in order to provide for a proper comprehension of the entire employment needs of women, to establish a comprehensive program. It would be much better to do it jointly, rather than in an ad hoc way. That will be part of our plan in this review procedure so that Parliament will be able to consider by next fall.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that the Advisory Council was addressing the minister's employment strategy which was introduced in this House, and they were making specific comments on its failure to meet these two areas-older women and women with children. Their comments were that it will do little more than any earlier programs and strategies.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that, especially on second questions, their questions must be brief and as much as possible supplementary.


Walter Franklin McLean: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is: will the minister accept the council's recommendation that minimum participation rates for women be established before the initiation of any employment programs? Will he introduce quotas?


Lloyd Axworthy: No, Madam Speaker, I will not introduce quotas. That is not the way to proceed. The best way to proceed is to provide guidelines for the counselling, employment and training of women. Once you begin setting quotas, you begin a system of reverse discrimination. What we must do in these types of programs is establish the kind of opportunities that are not there presently.
As I indicated to the Advisory Council-and the hon. member was at the meeting-the community services program that we established is designed to do exactly what they recommend, that is, to provide for additional support in the child care area and provide for opportunities for older women to come into the work force for the first time. If the program works as we think it will and as it is designed to do, we will then be able to expand the program and build upon it. However, these programs are introduced in order to test certain ideas. Once those ideas are confirmed, we will be able to build upon them.


HOUSING
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of housing. Figures the minister released yesterday show that effectively private sector rental housing starts ground to a stop in Canada and we now have vacancy rates below 1 per cent in some of our major centres. The minister yesterday indicated that his response to that problem would be to increase the non-profit and co-op program by 5,000 units for approval this year.
Can the minister tell this House whether that is the entire program of the federal government for this year to help the rental housing sector, when rates are as low as they are?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as hit upon by a number of people today, the response of this government is to achieve a number of things with our very limited budget in view of the large deficit. Our answer to the problem of areas of tight rental markets is to target our response to those particular areas.
We well appreciate that in a number of areas across the country the situation is quite tight. We feel, with some confidence, that with the input of all members of this House and the officials of the corporation, the response of the 5,000 units tailored to those areas which are particularly tight-and I know this from representations made from the opposite side- should be and would be a welcome relief to a number of communities. We think it is a modest relief, but such that it will indeed be welcome in many areas.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I well remember the minister in the previous incarnation commenting upon speeches like that as being inadequate. May I direct the following supplementary to the minister. Will the minister now face one small fact about a mortgage deductibility scheme, that is, that what it does do above all else is encourage those tenants who wish to own to move out of apartments and own them? Will he face the fact that such a scheme would go much further to creating an increase in vacancies in rental housing in this country than an additional drop in the bucket of 5,000 units approved by his ministry?
June 18, 1980


Paul James Cosgrove: No, Madam Speaker, I would not agree with that proposition. Nor do I agree that the problem he has identified is a priority that is shared by most Canadians. This government said in the election campaign that we would target our response to those most in need. For example, the other program announced yesterday was directed to people of moderate income who had to rehabilitate their homes. It was to assist them in their home ownership, but in conditions that made living worth while. That is why we announced an increase in the eligibility of those people who would qualify to take government grants to rehabilitate homes, and thus to assist with employment in the housing industry.


CONVENTION CENTRES
Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker,
1 would like to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As one of the representatives of metropolitan Toronto, I was delighted to hear the minister's announcement of financial assistance to the development of the convention centre in that city. However, the provincial minister of industry and tourism responded to the announcement by stating his preference for the assistance program offered by the Clark government. Will the minister comment on any differences which might exist between this offer and that of his predecessor?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, unlike the previous questioner, I have an unplanted question for the Minister of State for Social Development. In view of the dire economic forecasts for the country in the coming year from Statistics Canada and other bodies like the Conference Board, and in view of the fact that in times of recession, spending on environmental matters tends to be among the first to be reduced by successive Liberal governments, will the minister assure the House that the federal government will
Oral Questions
allocate the funds required to confront the serious environmental problems plaguing all Canadians?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I think the question was addressed to the Minister of State for Social Development. As the minister responsible for the environment, I want to assure the hon. member-as I explained to him both in committees of the House and in private-this government is determined to meet the needs of the country in relation to the environment. We are seeking a variety of ways of strengthening our efforts in that area.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Houdaille Industries Ltd. recently announced its intention to close its Canadian auto parts operation in Oshawa, laying off 283 workers, many with over 30 years' experience. This company received a three-quarter million dollar Industry, Trade and Commerce grant and has been recently purchased by a U.S. corporation which was approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
Will the minister please inquire as to why the Foreign Investment Review Agency approved this takeover, when only months later the entire Canadian operation was closed down despite its being one of the most modern, efficient plants in North America?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have already asked for a full report from the Foreign Investment Review Agency about the undertakings obtained as a result of approving the takeover and the implications for these undertakings of this announcement.
In addition, I met yesterday with representatives of the workers at Houdaille Industries, and I am meeting this afternoon with representatives of the company to see what can be done to enable this plant to continue operating.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, Canada has a $4 billion deficit in auto parts. General Motors Oshawa operation imports its steel and aluminum bumpers from the United States, while just down the street Houdaille is about to close down.
Will the minister call in the executives of General Motors and demand to know why this preference is being given to foreign suppliers, when Houdaille makes superior bumpers just around the corner?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I understand that Houdaille Industries has been making a larger bumper of a kind not

June 18, 1980
Oral Questions
being used by General Motors, but I have already instructed my staff to be in touch with the purchasing executives of General Motors to pursue this very question.


FEDERAL FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA COALFIELDS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night, in the other place, the B.C. representative in cabinet admitted that, contrary to the perception of our colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way, little or no federal government funds will be advanced for the development of B.C. northeast coalfields on terms acceptable to the B.C. government.
Since the government of B.C. has decided to finance the construction of the $300 million railway spur with revenue from natural gas exports, could the Prime Minister assure the House that Ottawa will not seek to preempt this revenue source and thus jeopardize thousands of new jobs in B.C.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the contribution of the federal government to the development of the northeast coal area of British Columbia is going to be in the form mainly of-


Mr. Clark:: Talk.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -taking the responsibility for the through-put rate at the port of Prince Rupert. In order to do that, the federal government will construct the facilities at a price which will be close to $35 million. The federal government has also given a fixed rate to the companies so that they will be in a position to negotiate with the Japanese instantaneously.
There will be another indirect federal contribution in the sense that CN will have to improve the quality of the main line in order to make transportation possible, which is going to be an important investment for CN.


OIL PRICING FORMULA FOR ALL OF CANADA
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is at a meeting today presumably hammering out an oil pricing formula for all Canadians. The previous pricing mechanism in Canada made it possible for certain parts of Canada to get oil at one price, whereas many northerners were paying double the price paid in eastern Canada where oil is being subsidized.
I can give the Prime Minister an example. At Wollaston Lake, in Saskatchewan, the price is 30 cents per litre, compared with 16.5 cents in Montreal and Ottawa. In gallons, that is 75 cents in Ottawa and Montreal, compared with $1.36. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell me whether in any
formula which will evolve from these discussions northerners will be taken into consideration so that they, too, will benefit from any subsidizing program, averaging program, blending program or whatever program evolves, and whether they will get oil at the same price as the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member is asking a question which is indeed important in terms of the higher cost of living to be borne by people in parts of the country other than the more populated parts of Canada. That is a question which has interested all governments.
There are special arrangements, but we do not expect that every commodity in every part of the country would be sold at the same price, whether it be gasoline at the pump, bread, wheat or anything else. There is always the cost of transportation which makes a difference, and that applies to petroleum and every other commodity in Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the present and pending unemployment in automobile and truck factories and machinery factories in eastern Canada, would the minister consider making a partial payment from the western grain stabilization plan soon this summer, to help alleviate this unemployment problem in the east and so that we in the west can get enough money from the program from last year to help these fellows get back to work?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I will consider the hon. member's recommendation and discuss it with my colleagues who are also involved with the program.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I am sure the minister has heard of the motion moved last week under
June 18, 1980

Standing Order 43 concerning the Vancouver fireboat situation.
1 want to ask the minister if he is aware that the fireboat service will be cut off at the end of this year unless funds additional to those provided by the city of Vancouver are found. Is it the intention of the government to provide funds for the fireboat in the Vancouver harbour? If not, how will the minister see to the protection of federal government assets which are located in the port of Vancouver?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the position of the National Harbours Board, which is the party involved in this debate, is that the municipality must provide these services. The National Harbours Board pays grants in lieu of taxes for that purpose, among others. This view is shared by a great number of people at the port of Vancouver, so we stand on that as being reasonable.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a letter written on January 25, 1980, the chairman of the Federal Committee on Pesticides stated, and I quote: "The validity of all studies carried out by Industrial Biotest Laboratories of Northbrook, Illinois, remains in doubt". He further stated that "government officials found serious problems which were not identified or reported."
In light of the fact that over 90 chemicals and pesticides tested by this company are now in common use across the country, and in light of the fact that these materials may pose a serious threat to the health of Canadians, would the minister explain, after three years of study, what the defects in these chemicals and pesticides are and what are the health hazards; and is she prepared to make public the list of the chemicals involved and their particular health hazards?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I take for granted that the House will permit me to use written notes to make sure I give precise information on this very complex subject. Incidentally, I am also preparing a press release-I am working on it today-to inform the public on the state of the matter.
The situation is partly as the hon. member said, namely, that many pesticides, about 100, were tested for safety both by us and by Americans in a laboratory called Industrial Biotest Laboratories, and the tests were judged invalid. The job of validating all the tests is very long and I must inform hon. members that to complete the job will take another four years.
We have already found that eight of the 100 pesticides have been assessed as free of further concerns. The information presented to me as Minister of National Health and Welfare is such right now that I have no evidence today, based on all the work done-but incomplete-of serious negative effects on
Oral Questions
people. It is quite a complicated situation for a minister to make a decision on as to recommending to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, a ban or no ban at this point in time on these pesticides. I will give further information in the form of a press release to everybody in Canada. I think that is the best channel we have. Then we can continue the discussion.
 * *



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, a moment ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated that the government's goal was to use "its scarce revenues to help those most in need." I wonder if the minister will tell the House of Commons how that goal is advanced by a proposal to de-index the personal income tax.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition has already had more than a complete answer from other ministers of the Crown to exactly the same question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My supplementary question is to the Minister of State for Social Develoment. We have now been told by the Minister of Finance that he might, or might not, introduce- but he is at least seriously considering-de-indexation of the personal income tax system, which would increase taxes for Canadians earning $10,000 a year by 180 per cent over five years.
The Minister of State for Social Development says he has not been consulted on this matter, that it is of no concern to him. Obviously it is of concern to him. My question to the minister is this. Since the Minister of Finance has indicated that he is considering a proposal which would increase by 180 per cent personal income taxes by Canadians in the lowest taxable bracket in the country, is the Minister of State for Social Development now making contingency plans which would help those Canadians whom the Minister of Finance proposes to hurt, and will the Minister of State for Social Development tell the House of Commons, either now or on motions this week, what the contingency plans are?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I said in a previous answer that this matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition will get an answer to his question on the evening of the budget speech. He should wait until then.

June 18, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Korchinski



POINT OF ORDER

[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CALURA
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. I would be grateful if the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), would clear up what appears to be an ambiguity. That is to say, we have two part-time ministers responsible for Statistics Canada, and also for the federal government's economic and industrial statistics. The order in council to which I am referring is dated June 13, 1980, and it refers to the responsibility of the Minister of Supply and Services and also designates him to have responsibilities under the Financial Administration Act. But, as the House knows, a very important part of Statistics Canada is the tabulation of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, known as CALURA. It appears that the Minister of Supply and Services who is responsible for Statistics Canada has his authority under the Statistics Act, but there is some question in my mind, and perhaps in the minds of other members, as to who is responsible for CALURA reports.
I am wondering whether the House leader, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Supply and Services, or someone, could enlighten the House, myself in particular, as to who is officially responsible for CALURA. Does anyone know?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the authorization that I have received includes responsibility for CALURA.



PRIVILEGE


Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege. It is with the deepest regret that I have to rise in my place concerning my inability to pose a supplementary question. Your Honour knows that last week my office telephoned your office with the intention of notifying you that 1 had a question which 1 wanted to pose. I have waited for four days, rising like a yoyo in my seat, and finally I was informed that 1 was on some sort of a preferred list. 1 did not realize that there were different categories of members in the House, that there was a first level, second level, or a third level of members.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Stanley James Korchinski: The point is that I have a very serious question to pose which I consider must be taken up on behalf of my constituents. My constituents have no one else to go to but, rightly or wrongly, they chose me. They chose me for 22 years, not because I sat in my seat not being able to pose a question, but because I did work.
Perhaps there is some sort of a working arrangement between I do not know who and the Chair. If that is the case, then I would like to know why it is that a senior member cannot rise in his place and be given equal time to that given to another member who is allowed to pose supplementary questions. It does not matter whether they are on the front benches or in a circular firing squad, whatever it is, the point is that as a member I represent 50,000 or 60,000 people and occasionally I have a question to ask of a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Stanley James Korchinski: On another occasion I rose to ask a question and I was recognized, but again only for one question. I sat patiently. I went through this all through the last session. I was only allowed a few questions. I went to see the previous speaker on two occasions in his office and I wondered what was going on, what was wrong with the way my questions were phrased, or why it was that the representative of Mackenzie was not allowed to be heard.
1 sat here patiently, hoping I would not have to bring this matter up publicly. 1 regret, Madam Speaker, having to rise now but I do not intend to sit here for four years waiting for somebody to pull a string. I am not in the habit of being a puppet, and I do not intend to be that at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The time has come for me to lay down some of the facts, and I do have the facts because I keep very careful statistics of how many backbenchers I recognize, how many frontbenchers, how many members of the Conservative party, of the NDP, and of the Liberals. I study them every day because, the next day, if something had happened to create some sort of imbalance, I want to correct it immediately. As 1 said before, I apply instant justice in the House, and instant justice sometimes has to be revised. If I find that the balance has been tilted to one side or the other, I try to correct it immediately the next day. Thus, I have before me every morning the statistics of the question period of the day before, and they make a mockery of statements that have been made to the effect that backbenchers are not recognized because I do not know their names. For your information, I know all your names now and all your constituencies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) said that he has risen like a yoyo for three or four days, but I have to tell him that he is not the only one.
I do feel sorry for those who have to rise constantly but do not manage to get on the list which I make. Therefore, the hon. member must be patient because every member in the House wants to be recognized on questions of national interest, or even questions concerning his constituency. I try to be fair, and 1 could bring out the statistics regarding the hon. member so as to find out whether he has been recognized less than the others. But I do not think so.
June 18, 1980

Today I did not allow the hon. member a supplementary question, but there again he was not singled out. I did warn hon. members the other day that perhaps one way of allowing more hon. members to be recognized during the question period would be at some time, at the end of the question period, to stop allowing supplementaries. That is what I have done today, and the result was that more members were able to put their questions during the question period.
I have to study what is the meaning of supplementary. I do not think all the supplementaries put are supplementary to the first question asked. 1 will look into that matter as I go on learning my job to see whether or not I should allow questions that are not really supplementary. Perhaps that will also give more hon. members a chance to ask questions during the question period.
So that is my policy. Perhaps it is not perfect every day, but 1 do try to correct it as I go along.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MR. SCOTT (VICTORIA-HALIBURTON)-BLOOD DONOR CLINIC CONGRATULATIONS

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, I rise with great pride in my heart, and I think you will share this feeling with me and other members of the House in this question of privilege. I would have liked to have put it in a motion under Standing Order 43. Last week when the House of Commons staff on Parliament Hill held a blood donor's clinic, a record high was reached, and probably that was a result of arrangements made by you, Madam Speaker, by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and also by Sergeant Bob Davis of our security staff.
Last week there were 333 donors who gave blood at the blood donor's clinic, of whom 172 were new donors. People are very proud of this, I am very proud of this, and I am sure we all share in it. Perhaps 1 shouldn't take this time of the House, but I should like to congratulate those people responsible for taking time out to give blood so that others may live. Also I want to thank those people who were involved in the organization of the clinic as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Of course this is not a question of privilege, but it is a marvellous thing to have on our record. I am sure we want to congratulate all those people who have given of their blood.
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, 1 also extend my congratulations as Minister of National Health for the outstanding work done in connection with the blood clinic. Madam Speaker, it may have looked like I misinformed the House earlier.
Introduction of Bills

(Later)



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Monique Bégin: On the question of pesticides, because of its particular importance to the health of Canadians, I should like to explain that 12 more months are required to finish assessing the studies produced by the American laboratory I named in my answer. Separate from that, another four years are needed to cope with the studies for which the data will have been judged invalid. 1 want to put the whole question in the proper perspective.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Beatty.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-603, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (discrimination as to age or physical handicap or health).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Madam Speaker, a sub-objective of the Public Service Commission is to ensure that physically and mentally handicapped persons are given effective equality of opportunity to compete for positions in the public service.
The purpose of this bill is to incorporate in the Public Service Act, as an example to the private sector, the grounds of physical handicap and health under which the Public Service Commission shall not discriminate in prescribing selection standards.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
June 18, 1980
Order Paper Questions

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Sainte-Marie) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-604, to change the name of the electoral district of Sainte-Marie.


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

Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-605, to change the name of the electoral district of Mercier.


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

[Stage Direction]
1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many Ministerial permits for admission to Canada were issued by the Minister of Employment and Immigration in each of the past five years, and what was the total number issued during this period?
2.	What were the first five countries of origin insofar as the largest numbers were concerned and how many came from each country?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	Total21,202	11,281	10,555	17,121	9,104	69,263April 10 *-	-December 31, 1978	1979	USA	2,547	USA	2,1 17Jamaica	845	Jamaica	444Hong Kong	649	Haiti	410Guyana	511	Chile	395England	507	India	364
* Statistics giving countries of last permanent residence have been available only since the introduction of the new Immigration Act and Regulations on April 10, 1978.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-35, an act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act.


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

Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act respecting the national anthem of Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 88, 197, 231, 268, 383 to 389 inclusive, 401, 730, 818 and 895.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Pierre De Bané: I am informed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation that the response is as follows:
Year Ending	Year Ending
March 31, 1978	March 31, 1979
Coal	Industrial	Coal	Industrial(Division Development Division	Division	Development Division$	$	$	$1. Total Revenue	87,941,249	4,004,769	119,831,985	4,466,136Loss for the year	11,459,526	8,493,038	12,563,739	6,455,4192. (a)	2,034,000	-	2,035,000	-(b) Loans	-	-	Advances-Working	Capital*	10,000,000	-	13,000,000	-Guarantees	-	-	(c) Investment for:	Capital	14,476,000	2,580,000	26,105,000	2,270,000Operating Losses	17,578,000	4,760,000	10,726,000	5,042,000Mining Loss of	Prior Years	4,398,000	-	-	-
* The government provides working capital advances to a maximum of $25 million to the coal division, based on its working capital requirements. The amount of these advances, held by the corporation, fluctuates during the year. The balances shown are at the year end, March 31, in each case.
June 18, 1980


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of Regional Economic Expansion's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Pierre De Bané: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) 1,722 (b) 126.


Mr. Herbert: Will a unilingua! French-speaking spouse of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee who moves to Prince Edward Island lose any unemployment insurance benefits because of the inability of that person to speak the English language?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: A claimant does not lose the right to unemployment insurance benefit by the mere fact of not speaking the language of the majority of the population in the area where he or she resides. What has to be determined is the person's availability, taking into account all the factors affecting it, including local labour market conditions. For example, a unilingual French person could quite conceivably work in an English-speaking environment, if the work required little or no knowledge of English.
It is the guiding principle that is at issue here. Each case must be studied separately, in the light of the facts, by the local benefit entitlement officers.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 383j- Mr. Herbert:
1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Texasgulf Inc.?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?
Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Ventek Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?

Question No. 385-Mr. Herbert:
1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of AES Data Systems Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 386-Mr. Herbert:
1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of CDC Data Systems Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?

Question No. 387-Mr. Herbert:
1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of CDC Life Sciences Inc.?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?

Question No. 388-Mr. Herbert:
1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Petrosar Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?

Question No. 389-Mr. Herbert:
1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of CDC Oil & Gas Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?

Question No. 401-Mr. Herbert:
1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of the Canada Development Corporation?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1. In
response to questions 383-389 and question 401 concerning the Canada Development Corporation and its subsidiaries, it should be noted that the Canada Development Corporation is a private sector corporation in which the Government of Canada, along with some 18,000 other shareholders, holds an equity interest. Canada Development Corporation is neither a crown corporation nor an agent of Her Majesty. The government does not have any official knowledge of the corporation or its subsidiaries not available to the public. To assist the hon. member, the 1978 Annual Report of the Corporation, which is obtainable from the secretary of the company, Suite 2272, 200 Granville Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1S4 shows results for the subsidiaries as follows:
Year ended December 31 1977	1978
($ millions)
			Net		Net
Revenues	Income	Revenues	IncomeQuestion	383-Texasgulf Inc.	$491.1	$46.3	$ 608.9	$50.1Question	384-Ventek Ltd.	-	-	8.2	.5Question	385-AES Data Systems Ltd.	-	-	34.4	.9Question	386-CDC Data Systems Ltd.	-	-	44.6	1.3
June 18, 1980
Order Paper Questions Question 387-CDC Life Sciences
Inc.	109.2	(L3)	139.8	4.1Question 388-Petrosar Limited	-	40.1	(.8)Question 389-CDC Oil & Gas Ltd. Question 401-Canada Development	35.3	12.2	43.2	11.8Corporation (consolidated basis)	724.1	23.8	1,305.9	36.42.	Information concerning (a) direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on any of these legal entities; (b) loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to these companies; and (c) investment by the government in these companies is published in the Public Accounts of Canada and is equally accessible to the hon. member.


Mr. Blenkarn;: 1.	Can government annuities be purchased from the government and, if not. will the annuities branch be wound down and, if so, how long before this can be done?
2.	How many employees are employed in the annuities branch?
3.	Is the government contemplating paying to annuitants an interest rate equal to the interest rate presently paid on Canada Savings Bonds and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Docs the report of the annuities branch relate to the recruiting and the training of staff and, if so, for what reason, if the service will eventually no longer exist?
5.	Is the annuities branch being moved to Bathurst, New Brunswick and, if so, for what reason, if the branch will eventually disappear?
6.	What is the total cost of administering the annuities branch including salaries paid to those doing the administrative work?
Elon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration): 1. Canadian government annuities are no longer being sold. As indicated in the annual report for 1978-79, however, the annuities branch is still administering the contracts of some 115,200 persons now receiving payments; additionally, some 102,980 certificates under group pension plans are still to come under payment to participants in those plans; and a further 38,369 individual annuity contracts are yet to mature. On this basis, it is estimated that the branch's workload will increase until the early 1990s. The last deferred annuity may go into payment as late as 2035. There is therefore no intention to 'wind down' the branch at the present time.
2.	At 31 March 1980 the branch had 114 employees in Ottawa and 64 employees in Bathurst, or a total of 178. The number employed is somewhat higher than usual, because of the overlap necessary to maintain continuity of operations as the Bathurst staff is built up and the Ottawa staff is run down. The 1981-82 level should be 109, almost wholly in Bathurst.
3.	In the autumn of 1979, a review of the interest rate situation as it affected the annuities program was undertaken by the officials responsible in the departments concerned, to see if the rate of interest paid in the administration of annuities contracts should be altered under the provisions of subsection 3(2) of the Government Annuities Improvement Act of 1975. The review is now complete, and it has been decided that no change in the interest rate paid in respect of these contracts
will be made at this time. The review involved extensive interdepartmental consultations. The government regards government annuities as but one of a broad range of fixed contractual obligations into which it has entered. To grant special concessions at this time to the holders of government annuities, financed from general revenue, would raise questions of equity vis-a-vis other investors who have been equally affected by rising interest rates. The present situation is not to be compared with that which prevailed in 1975, when the rate was raised to 7 per cent. The 1975 initiative should be seen as the correction of a completely anomalous situation which had developed over many years, and not as the first in a series of periodic adjustments to correct the adverse effects of fluctuations in interest rates. In fact, in the entire period from 1908 to 1975, annuitants were bound by the rates prevailing at the time they contracted with the government, some rates being as low as 3 per cent, and this despite the sharp increase in rates in the 1960s. To undertake a continuing series of adjustments would offer holders of government annuities privileges, financed from taxpayers' moneys, which are not available to those who have invested in other comparable financial instruments. Such a policy would call into question the binding nature of contractual arrangements of the federal government and, if broadly extended, could ultimately lead to serious disruptions in capital markets.
4.	Since (as explained in (1)) the operations of the branch must continue for many years to come, replacement of employees who leave must also continue. The relocation, to Bathurst has, moreover, required considerable restaffing and retraining of the branch, since no Ottawa employee has elected to move to Bathurst.
5.	Yes. The relocation is part of the general program of decentralization of selected units of the public service from Ottawa. As explained in (1), the branch will continue to exist for many years.
6.	Administrative expenses for the fiscal year ending on 31 March 1979, were: $3,062,536. This figure reflects certain one-time expenses incurred in connection with the move to Bathurst. The corresponding 1977/78 figure, of $2,481,940, probably more nearly represents a normal year for the branch.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Post Office Department?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: None.


Mr. Howie: On January 1 (a) 1979 (b) 1980, how many PMQ units at CFB Gagetown were (i) unoccupied (ii) occupied by non-military personnel or their dependents?
June 18, 1980


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: (a)	(i)	480
(ii) 116.
(b)	(i)	550
(ii) 112.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 5?
AUTOMOTIVE AGREEMENT Motion No. 5-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all orders in council since 1965 relative to the remission of duties under the Automotive Agreement.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the documents requested by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) are very voluminous and would require a lot of time and a lot of public funds to prepare. So I would ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil to withdraw his motion.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Unemployment Insurance Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-3, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Madam Speaker, in introducing Bill C-3, first I should like to point out that this bill is not an ambition to change in any substantial way the major direction of the unemployment insurance program. Basically it is designed to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act in two very simple ways to respond to some very immediate problems. The first provision is to extend the variable entrance requirements for a further 18 months, and the second provision is to alter the funding arrangements under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I recognize that the question of unemployment insurance is one that has occupied a great deal of time in the House over the years. If we took a measurement, I suspect we would find that there is no area of public policy which has occupied more time in Hansard than that particular issue.
I think it is important that we do consider the relevancy and the importance of unemployment insurance as it applies to the changing employment conditions in this country as they will take place in the 1980s. As we have indicated previously in this House, we do intend to make a full review of the unemployment insurance program, a review which was started under both njy predecessors, the hon. Mr. Cullen and the Hon. R. Atkey. We hope to complete that process by this fall so a paper can be presented to Parliament for consideration.
I would suggest to hon. members that they will have more than a full opportunity to discuss the many concerns they will have relating to the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and to present their cases, when the white paper, the green paper, the orange paper, whichever colour it happens to be, is presented to Parliament.
What we have in this bill does not represent major changes in policy, but very necessary and expedient alterations in order to maintain the continuity of the present act. Perhaps the one thing that is most important to members, and the one that we should spend some time on, retracing the history of it, is the proposal to refinance the benefit portions of the unemployment insurance program, as contained in Bill C-3. It is important to take a few minutes to look at the evolution of the financing of this act in order to understand the context in which these present amendments are being introduced.
Before the 1971 changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act the program was financed by means of equal contributions

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
by employers and employees of approximately 40 per cent each. The federal government contributed 20 per cent of the over-all cost of unemployment insurance benefits at that point in time.
In the 1971 legislation these financial provisions were modified as part of the over-all revision of the benefit structure. That is something my colleague before me was very much instrumental in bringing about. The private sector under the 1971 amendments financed a share of the initial regular benefits up to the point where the unemployment rate reached 4 per cent. Beyond that the government picked up the cost of benefits, beyond the 4 per cent rate. In addition, the government assumed full responsibility for the other two phases of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the labour force extended benefits and the regional extended benefits. Administrative costs were charged against the premium account of unemployment insurance.
In 1976 that formula was changed to replace the 4 per cent unemployment rate by an eight-year moving average of national unemployment rates. In 1978 this eight-year formula for financing the first phase was extended to cover also the second phase of benefits, the labour extended phase of the program. Previously this phase had been totally financed by the general revenues of the Government of Canada.
The current situation, therefore, we now find ourselves in is that the government pays the full cost of the regional extended benefits, and shares with employers and employees the cost of both the initial regular benefits and the labour force extended benefits. Thus the total government share of the cost of the program in 1979 was 31 per cent.
Under the financing amendment that is being put forward in Bill C-3, the government will continue to bear the full cost of the regional extended benefits, while the private sector through its premium contributions will pay for the initial regular benefits and the labour force extended benefits of the program.
There is, I believe, an important principle underlying this formula, and that is that the first two phases of unemployment insurance benefits are those which are based on the insurance principle, a principle that goes back to the original concept of the Unemployment Insurance Act, namely, a voluntary insurance program to deal with short-term unemployment problems. It is important to recognize that principle because, in terms of the over-all direction of the review, the restoration of the idea, or the insurance concept or principle, is a very important guideline to use in any proposal or direction we would want to follow.
If the change in this financing formula is approved by Parliament and is effective as of July 1, 1980, it will mean the Government of Canada will save some $378 million in direct government expenditures, a saving that I think members of this House will recognize as very important in this time of very severe restraints on government funds available for other programs. As a result, the government's share of the cost of unemployment insurance benefits will be reduced to about 20 per cent. It should be noted that this formula, this figure, or
this percentage point, is in line with the 1971 position in respect of unemployment insurance.
I should also remind members of the House that the review or revision of the financing formula is also in line with changes made previously for charging the costs of job referral and employment services to the unemployment insurance premium account effective as of April 1, 1980. The additional administrative charges under these amendments to the regulations total some $246 million in the current fiscal year.
The reason for that change, as hon. members will recall, is that in 1977 Parliament approved the integration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission under the Department of Manpower and Immigration. That legislative change brought in the Unemployment Insurance Commission with full responsibility for the National Employment Service. That integration of the two operating parts of the department is now nearing completion, and it means, through integration, that we hope to be able to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in the ability of placing people and providing job referral service for the private sector.
The integration of the employment and insurance services is further strengthened by a program introducing online computer systems in our major employment and insurance offices across Canada.
One of these computer systems will provide faster and easier access to job vacancies for those looking for work, and will enable employers to draw upon a much wider labour pool for their jobs and employment requirements. The other on-line computer service we are introducing will enable insurance agents to provide claimants with much quicker and more up-to-date service on their claims. Needless to say, it will also provide the commission with the ability to provide a much higher degree of quality control of those claims, and we will be able to cut down on some of the problems that were posed to us in the Auditor General's report last fall.
Both these systems are now in limited use, but we are continuing the planned expanded operations beginning this year, and continuing into the mid-1980s.
We have also established a computerized national job bank to provide national exposure to jobs which cannot be filled from a local base.
With these changes in the operation of the commission, the integration plus the introduction of the new computerized service, it is logical that the costs of the employment services, as well as the unemployment insurance program administrative costs, be charged to the premiun account, because we are in effect providing a basic, necessary and essential service to the private sector. These services, 1 can attest to members of this House, are of substantial benefit to both employers and employees. If they were not provided by the commission, other and substantially more costly arrangements would have to be made by companies and private individuals. These considerations, therefore, buttress and reinforce the appropriateness of a financial contribution from the private sector to the administrative costs of the employment service.
June 18, 1980

It is also important to point out to members of the House that these proposals for the refinancing of the unemployment insurance program and the regulatory change as it applies to administrative cost, are unchanged from those that were proposed by the previous government last December. However, there is one significant change from the approach of the previous administration, and that is that we will not in this calendar year increase premiums to cover the cost. We have decided that no such increase is required for 1980.
The second aspect of the amendments under this bill is the proposed changes to extend the current variable entrance requirement of ten weeks to 14 weeks beyond December, 1980. It will be remembered that as a result of Bill C-27 the variable entrance requirement provision took effect in December, 1977, for a period of 36 months. If no contrary action is taken, the entrance requirement will become a flat, fixed, 14-week requirement across all regions as of December, 1980. Therefore I am requesting Parliament to extend the variable entrance requirement for a further 18 months to June, 1982. [Translation]
Of course, I am fully aware of the concerns expressed by a number of members about matters directly related to the variable entrance requirement. I wish to point out that we have almost completed our review of steps aimed at alleviating problems caused by economic areas in determining the entrance requirement. Hon. members will then be in a position to assess those proposals.
As all hon. members know, the issue of the most appropriate entrance requirement for the UI program is difficult and contentious. It would be premature to take decisions in this area for the longer term without seriously examining other basic aspects of program objectives and design. Consequently,
I am proposing to undertake a review of the fundamentals of the UI program. I will have more to say about the nature and content of that review in a few moments.

I should now like to outline my intentions with respect to one final area within the changes contemplated within the unemployment insurance program, and it is a regulatory change affecting minimum insurability. Before 1979 this insurability was determined by a specified amount of weekly earnings. In 1978 the amount was in fact one-fifth of the maximum weekly insurable earnings. This arrangement was criticized on the grounds that the insurability was extended to those who worked for relatively few hours, but was denied to those who worked long hours at relatively low wage rates.
Consequently an amendment was put into effect in January, 1979. The 1979 regulation changes provided for a minimum of 20 hours a week for employees on a time worked or fixed salary basis and 30 per cent of maximal insurable earnings for others. While this change solved one problem, it created several others which call for remedial action. The amended regulation has had a negative effect on particular categories of
Unemployment Insurance Act
workers, especially women. Indeed many women who are in permanent part-time employment have been denied insurance protection under that 1979 change.
The significance of part-time work for women is illustrated by the fact that one out of every four women in this country is a part-time worker, whereas only one out of 17 men is a part-time worker. Therefore the onus of part-time work and the lack of insurance coverage under it obviously fall most heavily upon women in our society, and I think it is important that we provide some correction to that problem.
I have examined a number of options for changes in the current regulations. The best solution that we have been able to devise in terms of equitable treatment of workers and the provision of adequate coverage of part-time employment would be to determine minimum insurability on the basis of either hours or weekly earnings. Specifically, therefore, I am proposing that an individual who earns either one-fifth of the maximum weekly insurable earnings or works 15 hours a week would be eligible for coverage and benefits under the unemployment insurance program. I should emphasize that these are regulatory changes that can be made under the existing provisions of the act.
When fully implemented, the effect of this change would be to extend unemployment insurance coverage to approximately 300,000 workers at an annual additional cost of $100 million, of which $75 million will be charged to the premium account and $25 million will be charged to the federal government. The earliest practical date for changing the regulation is January 1, 1981, since earlier implementation would cause serious administrative difficulties for employers and Revenue Canada.
In the short time that I have been the Minister of Employment and Immigration, a spectrum of interrelated and conflicting views about unemployment insurance have been brought to my attention. I concluded, therefore, that it is time for substantive changes in the design of the program and that they should take place as soon as possible. At the same time it would have been irresponsible to have attempted to bring about that kind of change without taking the opportunity to review and assess the large amounts of material, submissions, briefs and proposals which have been collected by my predecessors, the hon. member for Sarnia and Mr. Atkey during their terms of office.
During this time a large number of valuable assessments and analyses of the programs were undertaken, and they are now in the possession of the department. It is our intention to take that large volume of material and to distill it down into a succinct and simple series of proposals which can be presented in a paper which can be examined by a committee of this House and which can then receive further review by the private sector.
However, I should say that certain positions taken by the previous Conservative government relating to its own review have caused me particular difficulty and, therefore, they will not be included as part of the terms of reference. In particular I refer to the attempt by that government to introduce that

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
examination of the two-tier benefit structure which, I believe, would have a severe discriminatory effect upon women. That study will not be included as part of the examinations and proposals for review. Moreover, many of the other proposals would have contributed significantly to the increased complexity of the program, despite the fact that one of the major objectives of a review of unemployment insurance should be to streamline and simplify the act to facilitate its administration and its public understanding.
Therefore I instructed the officials of the employment and immigration department to prepare terms of reference for a review of unemployment insurance which will be carried out by a special task force over the next several months. Once this task force, as I have said, has been able to compile and distill that material, we will then present the findings by means of a paper which can be examined by Parliament and, through a parliamentary committee, which can be given further extensive review by the private sector. That does not mean that we will exclude any representations made to us during that period of time, but we do feel that we have a wide spectrum of material from a wide variety of sources which will enable us to carry out the examination that we require.
Among the tasks to be undertaken in this review is the clarification of the insurance elements of the program and the confirmation of the important role that the unemployment insurance program will continue to play now and in the future. At the same time we must also ask ourselves whether or not other programs could respond more effectively to some of the needs which, for a variety of reasons, are presently being carried out by the unemployment insurance program.
As hon. members will know, our government is intending to organize a major conference on pensions in the fall. We are also undertaking major examinations of the social security programs. It is in the context of that ongoing assessment by the government of a number of service programs that the unemployment insurance capacity and ability must be measured. It will also be very important to take into account the initiatives which we are presently examining in the area of industrial adjustment.
Members of the House will recognize that in the discussions and debate so far concerning the serious problems of the automobile industry and some of the dislocations which will be experienced by certain industrial sectors as a consequence of the major changes in the tariff laws of this country, there will be requirements for readjustment. We are presently examining these questions with certain trade unions and employers to see what the best procedure would be and how it should relate to the over-all program of unemployment insurance.
Among other items to be included in the review are the streamlining and simplification of the benefit entitlement and qualifying provisions including those relating to regular and special benefits for sickness, maternity, and retirement; the role and impact of regional extended benefits; the use of unemployment rates in the determination of UI benefit entitlement; the treatment of those who voluntarily quit their jobs without just cause; the coverage of and benefits for workers in highly seasonal occupations, and the impact of the unemployment insurance program on income distribution and redistribution. Madam Speaker, I should add as well the major importance we put upon examining the whole question of economic boundaries used for the allocation of benefits, and the need to provide for a serious review and reform of that area of the act.
I shall make available to members of the House the detailed terms of reference covering these and other matters as soon as they are completed, which I hope will be within a very few weeks.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to underline the importance of the review which I am announcing today and the direction in which we want to go which will be a matter of substantial importance to all members of the House. Unemployment insurance is one of the foundation programs that underlies the protection of workers in this country. We will want to ensure that employees and employers and all other interested groups are given a full opportunity to be heard and to be represented with their views.
It is our intention to use Parliament as the forum within which that representation and consultation can take place. I would urge members to work with us in the examination of the unemployment insurance program as the review proceeds and as that paper is produced and, at the same time, through their own contacts and through discussions in their constituencies, to begin developing assessments in their regions.
I would remind hon. members that the review lies ahead and that the bill does not concern the review itself. Rather, it is very simply directed toward the specific objective of an examination of the variable entrance requirement so that that particular program can be extended while more major and fundamental changes are taking place. It will also provide for a refinancing of the program both to assist in the support of government financing and in restoring the basic essence of the insurance principle to the program.
With those short comments, Mr. Speaker, I would urge hon. members to approve the measure. There will be a full opportunity at the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to examine the bill in detail. I hope hon. members will give speedy passage to this bill on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin with a point of order. In the minister's speech he made two announcements, one regarding regulatory change as it affects part-time workers, and the second about the creation of a task force. Would it be in order to have a brief question period about those two announcements before we proceed with debate on Bill C-3?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) suggests a brief question period and asks whether that is in order. It would be
June 18, 1980

in order if he sought and acquired the unanimous consent of the House, but not otherwise.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Would the minister be agreeable to just a few brief questions regarding those two announcements, the provision of regulatory change and the appointment of a task force?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is not a question of whether the minister is agreeable. The Chair does not establish rules on a personal basis. The will of the members is reflected in the standing orders but, from time to time, members may want to change the manner of proceeding, and that is agreeable as long as it is unanimous. It may be that the minister is prepared to answer questions, but 1 could not permit him to do so unless the hon. member sought and acquired the unanimous consent of the House.


David Michael Collenette: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 have not discussed this with the minister, but had he chosen to make a statement at three o'clock in the usual way during routine proceedings, he would have done so, and questions could have followed. I suggest to the hon. member that he will have adequate opportunity to question the minister and his officials when this bill goes to committee. There may be a disposition at the end of his speech for the minister to answer a question, as is done from time to time. I think it would be setting a dangerous precedent, however, if we transferred the work of the standing committees into this place when we are discussing the broad principles of the bill on second reading. This bill will not be going to Committee of the Whole but to the standing committee, where there will be ample opportunity for the hon. member to cross-examine the minister and his officials.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I might begin by pointing out that we are already two and one half months into this Parliament and the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration has yet to meet, other than for purposes of organization. Our opportunity to question the minister regarding his estimates and his bills has been severely limited as a result. I would urge the government House leader and the party opposite to get on with holding these meetings so that we can get the information we require.


David Michael Collenette: You are a member of the steering committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. I am not a member of the steering committee.


David Michael Collenette: You should be if you are interested.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We are here today to give second reading to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. This is the eighth time since 1971 that the government has brought forward an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which I think points to the fact that the bill is not exactly a shining star but might be referred to as a tarnished star. It requires constant change because it was badly drafted in the first instance and its continued use gives the minister,
Unemployment Insurance Act
his departmental officials, and the Canadian public, considerable difficulty.
The bill was drafted by the previous government in the Thirty-first Parliament. As the minister has said, it addresses itself to two basic principles. The official opposition would agree with those principles at this point but, nevertheless, I should like to review them for just a second.
The bill extends to June, 1982, the variable entrance requirements. What that means in the case of some Canadians who may be less familiar with the language than are members of this House, is that in the high unemployment regions of this country one is required to work for as little as ten weeks before becoming eligible for benefits from the unemployment insurance fund, while in other areas the minimum is 14 weeks. 1 think some other members on this side of the House will address themselves to the difficulty this causes in their ridings.
Whether or not difficulties are caused by this provision, it has become increasingly clear that, as a result of the economic policy set by the government opposite, we have had a decade in which to begin to correct the regional unemployment imbalances in this country, yet in the year 1980 we are no further ahead than a decade ago and in many instances we are further behind.
The variable entrance requirement is a humane provision and is designed to help those who need help most. Members on this side of the House are consistently committed to that principle. On this side of the House we believe that social policy should be directed toward those who need the help of that policy the most. Therefore we are prepared to support the extension of that principle until June, 1982.
As an aside, I might point out that that is the clearest indication, despite repeated questioning in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-19, from this minister that he expects a high unemployment rate to continue through at least until June, 1982. If the minister opposite felt that there was going to be some kind of dramatic turn-around, he would not have asked us for this longer term extension of the variable entrance requirement provision.
The second aspect of Bill C-3 is, as the minister says, taking the money, taking the benefits or the premiums paid in and the obligations or the benefits which are paid out and taking those out of general revenue and moving them back into a readily identifiable insurance fund. That was an idea which members of the Conservative party came up with, and is a measure which we fully support. If we are going to call this an unemployment insurance fund, then I think there should be a recognizable fund. The value of such a recognizable fund is that Canadians can look at that fund and they can tell whether or not that fund is in or out of balance. They can tell what their premiums are doing in relation to that fund. They can tell what the benefits are costing, and Canadians can decide whether or not it is in or out of balance, and what should be done about it. In a sense, it corrects one of the chronic habits of the party opposite, that of flimflam. This change in the law

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
will reduce the degree of flimflam. To that extent, 1 think Canadians will be the richer.
These two fairly simple and fairly quick changes will make the existing measure slightly better. However, we would like to emphasize that much remains to be done. The minister has indicated that he will appoint a special task force, that he will invite the participation of parliamentarians in the work of that task force. When I have had a better chance to check Hansard, I think that I will discover that at the same time he invites that participation-that he says that all Canadians should be involved, that there should be discussion-he rules out discussion on two or three of the aspects which require examination. We on this side of the House are convinced that they should be part of that discussion package. It is not good to hear on the one hand the kind of rhetoric which suggests participation and, on the other hand, to hear the specific details which restrict participation. I can assure the minister opposite that we will do our best to make sure that, to whatever extent he allows us to participate in that discussion, we broaden the terms of reference to include all of those items which we believe should be discussed.
Given that as background, I think it might be wise to take a minute or two to examine why we need and why we have such concern about an unemployment insurance program and fund. I agree with the minister opposite that this is a very important piece of social legislation.
Just before coming into the House I checked the figures and found that there are somewhere between 800,000 and 900,000 Canadians who are drawing benefits from this fund today. That figure is getting close to 8 per cent of the work force. Any piece of legislation that affects that many Canadians, families and dependants, is an important piece of legislation. But at the same time the very fact that this piece of legislation is important also addresses itself to the fact that we have a tremendous and growing unemployment problem in this country.
I have travelled this nation from coast to coast and I have done research work with the unemployed in this country. It is my conviction that a very large percentage of the unemployed in Canada-a very large percentage of those who draw unemployment insurance benefits-would rather work than be forced into the situation where they could not work because there was no work available.
We have said to the minister opposite on more than one occasion in the second reading debate on Bill C-19 and, in particular, in the Committee of the Whole procedure we asked the minister and suggested to him repeatedly that he has a kind of residual ministry. In other words, he picks up the problems that are caused by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and caused by other ministers in his government. We have suggested that he should be fighting for the unemployed in this country and quarrelling with the other ministers of the Crown by pushing them, and by getting them to do things that need doing in Canada. May I remind the minister of two or three of those.
Freedom of speech in this House was denied by a closure bill when we were debating the issue of borrowing $12 billion. We object, for many reasons, to the federal government borrowing that sum of money. As a previous government, we were reducing that figure. The figure would have been two-thirds the amount of what this government intends to borrow in this fiscal year.
The federal government is borrowing close to one-third of the money which is borrowed in this country. Money is borrowed on the basis of an auction market. When the federal government tries to buy money, it drives interest rates up. As a result, it makes the cost of purchasing a home more expensive, a car more expensive, and furniture more expensive. And yet the cost of money which goes up because of the federal government borrowing is the primary factor in the weakness of the Canadian economy, the lack of jobs existing in this country today and the lack of jobs which has existed for close to a decade.
No matter how often we bring up that subject or how forcefully we attempt to bring it up, hon. members opposite smile and take the easy political way out, and borrow more money tomorrow and make the situation worse.
On this side of the House we have said that a small expenditure relative to the better than $60 billion which this government intends to spend-a small portion of the $12 billion which it intends to borrow-a small portion of that should be dedicated to the housing industry. If we could put the building of 100,000 houses back on stream which this economy has lost this year-an expenditure of close to $100 million-we would create employment for 150,000 people as well as the housing units which this country needs.
On this side of the House we feel that it is always a tragedy when there are so many skilled people and dedicated Canadians who would like to work, but who through the actions of the government opposite are not allowed to work because the government is dedicated to the easy political solution rather than the long-term solid solution for the Canadian economy.
In the budget which members on that side of the House along with the NDP defeated in this House of Commons in December last, there were provisions for assistance to the fishing industry. They were designed to create jobs in the building of vessels. They were designed to create jobs for fishermen and jobs for those who work in the processing plants where the fish is canned and made available for the tables of Canadians. Those measures were eliminated by the Minister of Finance and they have not been replaced. The mortgage deductibility provisions designed to help housing were eliminated by the Minister of Finance and members opposite. Those measures have not been replaced and housing jobs are being lost.
I come from a region of this country, being the member for Calgary West, where the oil industry is a major industry, both in my city and province. I have begun to hear rumblings that, for the first time since 1975, there are drilling rigs which exist
June 18, 1980

in this country that are sitting idle. I have sat in this Elouse and heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) tell us, "All is well. We won't have rationing. Those megaprojects, the security of oil from the oil sands, will occur. Price is not important."
That is absolute nonsense. That industry is worldwide. It is an industry unlike any other with which I am familiar. That is because the three major elements of that industry are mobile. The people are mobile and can go anywhere in the world. The drilling rigs are designed to be mobile so that they can work in muskeg and the oceans, and therefore can go anywhere in the world.
In the absence of a reasonable policy affecting that industry,
I suggest to this House that that industry will for the most part leave this country. When it does, our dependence on unstable foreign sources of supply will increase. Our balance of payments will be in a more difficult position. The value of our currency will continue to fall and our unemployment rates will rise.
Anybody who ignores the reality of what I have just stated is inviting this country on a fairly long road toward increasing disaster. A country with the potential of the people and the resources that we have which heads toward a disaster is something that no thinking Canadian should tolerate. There is no logical reason for it. It is a consequence of political expediency dominating rational thought and rational action. As long as I am a member of this House and this party exists in this House, we will continue to fight to reduce the incidence of political expediency and increase the incidence of rational thought. The problems of this country require us to do no less.
As I sat here today, I looked at the unemployment insurance program. On the basis of a previous press release I knew the minister would stand in this House and tell us that the unemployment insurance fund would be in surplus and, therefore, premiums did not have to be increased. The minister used the rhetoric and said that he believes in the insurance principle. Well, one of the principles of an insurance fund that is really dominant, whether we are talking about house insurance or car insurance, is that we pay in premiums today because we know that somewhere down the road there will be a rainy day. That is what insurance is for, protection against that rainy day.
Under our government, that fund was left in surplus. However, it is a tiny surplus. The kind of unemployment rates which are projected by the private forecasters in this country suggest that that surplus will not last for any extended period of time. I thought, what will be the policy response of members opposite when that fund runs dry, when the claims are greater than the money that is in there to pay the claims? What will they do?
A rational man would say there would be three options. First, we could increase the premiums. The workers would pay and that would be a penalty on the workers. Second, we could decrease the benefits, and that is a penalty which the unemployed would have to suffer. Third, we could borrow more money. Nobody that you can touch or feel has to pay, but the
Unemployment Insurance Act
whole society has to pay through increased interest rates and long-term debt which our children will have to pay.
When that happens, with that government opposite, will there be any question in the mind of any Canadian as to the option they are likely to prefer? None whatsoever. Clearly and consistently the option taken by that side of the House is to increase borrowing, not to help Canadians realize the relationship between costs and benefits, but simply to increase borrowing to hide, to take the problem of today and transfer it to the generation of tomorrow instead of facing up to it now. That is what will happen.
I wonder if the minister will consider in his task force and review inviting dialogue on what will be the proper policy response when and if the economic policies of his government cause the unemployment rolls to grow so much that the fund is out of balance. Certainly members on this side would like to make suggestions for positive economic change and to participate in that kind of dialogue.
I would like to raise just a few other matters for the minister's consideration. He told us today that the terms of reference for that task force are not complete. Hopefully the debate on Bill C-3 and the second reading stage will allow the minister to open his ears wide and listen to the positive suggestions as they come from any side of the House, and perhaps utilize some of them in the drafting of those terms of reference.
We support the need for a complete review of the unemployment insurance fund. One of the items which should be addressed in terms of its philosophy is whether the existence of such a fund and one's participation in it is a right or a privilege. From that decision flows a number of others, but it is fundamental. There must be some sense of philosophical underpinning to a piece of social legislation of this importance. Is the existence of this fund and this program a right or a privilege?
The minister has already indicated, and we support the fact, that there should be a review of the regulations as they affect those who voluntarily quit a job or whose job is terminated because of misconduct. I would like to think that some day the minister might make the data which he has on that issue available to the members of this House so that we can study it as well as he, and perhaps sometimes take a different interpretation of that data.
As I understand some of the rumours which float around, there is some indication that those who voluntarily quit or are dismissed for misconduct draw benefits for longer periods of time on average than those whose jobs are terminated due to other factors. If that is true and if the data supports that, we would like to know. If the data does not support it, we would like to know that also. The minister has such data in his possession, and I think it is time that reports of that nature were tabled in the House of Commons so that all Canadians, including hon. members on this side of the House, could have access to such data.
2238

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
Not 20 or 30 minutes ago the minister stood in this House and indicated that he absolutely would not consider what he referred to as a two-tier benefit system. I ask the minister to reconsider for just one moment. If the minister believes what he said in another part of his statement, that in fact this should be an insurance fund, then I suggest to him that one of the common characteristics of insurance of any kind is that premiums relate to the possibility of benefits. If one has a very expensive car, one pays an increased premium, but if that car is wrecked one gets an increased benefit. The same is true of houses and of insurance generally. What we were examining when we were the government was the fact that with the inflation rates which the minister's government has caused in the last decade in Canada there is an increased need for income which does relate to the number of dependants one has, whether we are talking about a wife or a husband and children, or whether we are talking about parents, handicapped nieces or daughters.
If you have a job today and you have a family, you have a unit of some kind which is dependent on the income from that job. When that job disappears and you are unemployed, then it is not just you whose income suffers but it is also the incomes of all those who are supported by you. They suffer as well, and it seems to me that the minister could at least invite some sense of dialogue on whether this fund should have its premium rates and benefit rates based upon income need and upon whether one is supporting several people or supporting oneself.
I have children of my own. They are young adults, really. They are out working in the work force. The cost of living for them is not as great as it would be if they were out of our home and living on their own. It is true also that their income is not as great, and it seems to me that unemployment insurance for them could involve a lower premium and a lower benefit.
A family man with eight or ten people to support should be able to pay a higher premium and receive a higher benefit. To deny that basic principle is to suggest that the minister is not telling us the truth when he tells us that he believes in an insurance fund. That is all right too, but I wish we could have it clear as we engage in his task force and in this dialogue.
I would like to suggest three or four other things, and then I will pass the podium on to other members of this House. I think it is time we examined the variable entrance requirement. The extension the minister has asked for today will take us through to June of 1982. That gives us sufficient time to look at the wisdom of the variable entrance requirement. In the constitutional debate there are many members of this House who have decried the fact that provincial governments are setting up barriers to employment. They are making provincial policies which give preference to buying from provincial firms. They are making the mobility of people difficult, and I suggest that the variable entrance requirement utilizes the the same kind of mentality. Yes, today it has a useful and needed social purpose, but it in itself is a barrier to labour mobility. If there are two or three fundamental principles on which this nation should be based, I would certainly think that
the federal government should take a very solid leadership role in making it possible for goods, services and manpower to move freely from coast to coast and from north to south. If we are one nation, surely that must be one of the principles upon which this nation is based, and in that context the variable entrance requirement is a clause in a piece of legislation which bears examination, and not too long from now.
I was interested in the fact that the minister has moved, by regulation, to change the picture of our unemployment insurance fund in the direction of inclusion of more part-time workers. I am disappointed that the minister did not see fit to make a statement at three o'clock this afternoon about that significant change and thus open the floor to at least a brief question period in which we could have discovered some of the details of that and have had a more adequate chance to respond to that provision. It seems to me to leave several questions hanging. The minister might choose to put out a press statement or in some other way to communicate and answer questions about that part-time provision. However, can an employee, who will now be eligible if he works 15 hours a week rather than 20, work ten hours for one firm and five for another, or are those 15 all to be spent working for one firm? That is one question. After the minister's announcement this afternoon Canadians out there will be confused.
In his statement the minister just told us that he wants to eliminate confusion. Perhaps it is time for the minister or perhaps a speaker from the other side of the House to speak briefly, but it is time to address that question. Will that apply to a single employer or can multiple employers be involved?
The minister threw some numbers at us. He said this will amount to a $100 million expenditure in the next fiscal year, and he anticipates that $75 million of that will come out of the fund itself and $25 million will have to be contributed by government. Where did those numbers come from? Where are the increased benefits? It is possible that the fund may grow by $150 million and the benefits by $75 million, in which case the minister is very cleverly increasing the funding and doing so by riding on the backs of part-time workers and women in this nation whom he so clearly indicates so often he desires to help and protect. We need an answer to that kind of question before we can decide whether the minister has invented a new way of ripping off the women of the world or benefiting the women of the world. In the absence of that data we on this side of the House cannot tell.
If the minister has made this decision to include part-time workers in this way, I ask again whether he will make the data on which he based that decision available to hon. members on this side of the House so that we can see it and draw our own conclusions.
I would like to move on to the last two or three items. In his statement on employment creation and in the background paper the minister has given us some indication that unemployment insurance funds are being experimented with on a very small scale in different parts of the country. Again I would like to see the data that those experiments are producing, but 1 would also like the minister to include clearly in his
June 18, 1980

terms of reference an examination of the issue of the alternate use of funds payable as benefits out of the unemployment insurance fund. It is possible that society would mandate and the beneficiaries of the fund would like the opportunity to use that benefit period to involve themselves in job training and in the creation of work which would benefit the community in some way.
My personal experience from coast to coast suggests that Canadians do aspire to getting ahead in the world, they want to progress. If there comes a time when their job disappears and they are eligible for unemployment insurance, there would be a lot of backing for a principle which encourages people during that period of time to do something socially useful by creating useful work, or to do something in the way of getting increased personal training which would increase their chances of employment and the possibility of contributing to society. 1 hope that this issue is one that will be clearly highlighted in the terms of reference which the minister has promised to produce.
Another issue which I do not believe he mentioned is the principle of allowable earnings. I should like to recount briefly a small personal experience. Some six years ago I was in a small community in the maritime region where I stayed in a small motel. On the day that I arrived, the storm door in that motel was swinging in the breeze. I stayed in the motel for a week. As the week progressed, that storm door chewed up the door frame. Eventually it started to damage the inner door.
I went to the owner of that motel and asked him why he did not repair the door at the beginning of the week, before it got worse. He said, "You have not looked out the front door. Right across the street is the unemployment insurance office. If any carpenter were to come and give me one or two hours of his time to fix my door, he would have to wait two or three weeks to become eligible again for unemployment insurance. The carpenters in this town have a family to support and cannot afford to work for one or two hours and have to give up three weeks of benefits." That is the principle involved in the allowable earnings provision. There is a penalty for unemployed people in this country who are drawing benefits and who take some work for a brief period. That provision should be changed as quickly as possible, and I hope this will be highlighted by the minister's task force.
Last, but perhaps not least, as I understand this complex act which has been amended many times, is the matter of the penalty provision for employers. We talk a lot in this society about the individuals who rip off the fund and about controlling them. We have penalties for those who lay false claims and who take benefits to which they are not entitled. But where do we examine the issue of employers who fabricate information and who keep the work force together by inflating potential earnings? Where in this review are we going to examine the issue of such employers? Because the suspicion has existed, ever since the Auditor General's report came out stating that there were $300 million in overpayments last year
Unemployment Insurance Act
out of this fund, illegal overpayments, that those overpayments were caused in a systematic way as a result of information provided by employers.
Every employer in this country is now accused and guilty by association simply because he is an employer. All of us in this House know that not all employers are guilty of this, that it is possible that there are a few employers in this country who are responsible. I hope that the minister's task force will highlight that issue and that the terms of reference will permit the task force to engage in a full and complete discussion of that principle.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the intent of this bill is to extend to January, 1982, the existing variable entrance requirement for the unemployment insurance program, that is, the number of weeks a claimant must pay into unemployment insurance before he is eligible for benefits. The number of required weeks varies with the regional rate of unemployment, so that a worker in an area of high unemployment of 9 per cent or over could qualify for benefits with ten weeks insurable employment, whereas a claimant who works in an area of relatively low unemployment, a rate of 6 per cent or less, would be required to pay into unemployment insurance for 14 weeks.
In July of 1977 Bill C-27 was passed, which increased the entrance requirement from eight weeks for all areas to the variable of ten to 14 weeks requirement.
In 1978, under Bill C-14, the Unemployment Insurance Act was further amended to eliminate the variable entrance requirement for all areas by December, 1980, setting it at a uniform 14 weeks of UI contributions in order to qualify for benefits.
The extension of the variable entrance requirements with which we are dealing today is, I believe, in response to protests that the 14-week requirement would be highly discriminatory and would eliminate many workers from any income protection under the unemployment insurance program. Seasonal workers, whether employed in the tourist industry of Prince Edward Island, in the fishing industry of the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, or farmers in any part of Canada, would have been largely ineligible for benefits under this provision.
It is also the intent of this bill to shift to the private sector, that is, to the premium payers, the government's financial responsibility of sharing the costs of unemployment insurance. Bill C-3 will take the government out of this cost-sharing by eliminating the threshold rate which is an eight-year moving average of unemployment rates above which the government pays the costs of benefits. According to the government's figures, this shift is expected to cost Canadians an additional $378 million in the fiscal year 1980-81.
Under the proposed amendment, the government will continue to pay only for regional extended benefits. The initial and extended labour force phases of unemployment insurance will be paid entirely through employer-employee premiums.
At present all special benefit phases, that is, sickness, maternity leave, etc., are financed entirely through the premium

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
account, as are all administrative costs relating to the unemployment insurance program. As a result of an order in council announced by the minister on April 3, 1980, the administrative costs of the national employment service estimated at $246 million this year, will also be a charge against premiums.
Historically, unemployment insurance has been financed from two sources; first, the premium account into which employer-employee premiums are deposited and, second, advances from the Government of Canada.
When the government passed the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1971, it predicated the legislation on an average 4 per cent rate of unemployment throughout the decade. Benefit costs of unemployment insurance up to the rate of 4 per cent unemployment were to be paid by employer-employee premiums. Costs that resulted from a rate higher than 4 per cent were to be recovered from the Government of Canada.
I see that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) is in his seat. He was minister at the time when the act was originated and introduced to Parliament. He must be squirming in his seat when he sees what this government is doing to the legislation, which was extremely progressive when it was introduced to Parliament, and what that party has done to the legislation since that time.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: The act required that when the premiums collected were higher than the benefits they were intended to cover, the premium rates would be lowered. Instead of this, the government increased premium rates over the years, changing the legislation and increasing the premium costs to cover program costs the government was originally supposed to cover.
In 1971 the Unemployment Insurance Act passed and unemployment was forecast at 4 per cent throughout the decade. Benefit costs of up to a 4 per cent rate of unemployment were to be paid from premiums, with the government to pay for benefits above that level in recognition of the government's responsibility to ensure adequate employment. In 1975, under Bill C-69, the rate at which government contributions helped to pay for initial benefits rose from 4 per cent and was changed to an eight-year moving average of unemployment rates. In 1977 Bill C-27 eliminated the two extended benefit phases for which the government and not premium payers were previously responsible for paying. In 1978, under Bill C-14, the government again shifted the cost of the extended phase of benefits to premium payers at a cost to Canadian workers of some $400 million.
In the 1979-1980 Conservative budget all benefits except regional extended benefits would have been financed by employer-employee premiums and the administrative costs of job referral and employment services also would have been financed by premiums. Under the Conservative budget the
premiums would have been increased to cover increased costs. This announcement was made by the Conservative government on December 11, 1979, and the premium increases were rescinded on December 19, 1979, when the Conservative government found they were vulnerable to voter backlash in an election campaign. These are the same changes this government is making with Bill C-3, only they have announced that premiums will not increase in 1980 over 1979. But what the government and the minister do not talk about, or even mention, is what will happen to premiums in 1981 or in future years when the present surplus is expended.
The shift from the government side of the ledger to the premium payers is rationalized by government officials as a shift from the income transfers aspect to some insurance principles. The fact that unemployment insurance was set up originally to protect workers against the risks inherent in an economic system over which they had little control, and the fact that the government has the ability and responsibility to influence the working of the economy to ensure full employment, are ignored in this kind of thinking.
When Bill C-14 was passed in December, 1978, the Liberals touted it as a measure to save $580 million. In fact the savings were $180 million or less; the other $400 million was merely a transfer of costs from the federal account to the premium account. From the early seventies on, when the government contribution to unemployment insurance payout was 53 per cent, the government's share has since declined to 38 per cent after the 1977 amendments and to something today which is well below that after the 1978 amendments. The intent of this legislation is to reduce it even further, to less than 20 per cent of the government costs.
The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission projects the total unemployment insurance program costs for 1981-1982 to be in the area of $5.2 billion, while government contributions are projected at $951 million. The government line in bringing forward these kinds of programs is that they are improving the unemployment insurance program with better program equity and cost effectiveness. In fact the government is destroying the vested interest it has in ensuring full employment and is shifting the additional costs to those who are still employed.
Unemployment traditionally has been defined in several categories: (a) seasonal, which covers fishing, tourism, etc.; (b) frictional, which is short-term, resulting from workers moving into the labour force or from job to job; (c) cyclical, which includes idle workers and idle machines as a result of low demand; (d) structural, resulting from skill or geographical mismatching.
With the rise in the unemployment rate over the 1970s, we now have to deal with the new definition of insurance-induced unemployment, supposedly provoked by misguided generosity which encourages some workers to collect unemployment insurance instead of taking available jobs. This definition has been used consistently by government officials who rationalize changes to the unemployment insurance scheme by talking about people who rip off the system by making unemployment
June 18, 1980

a way of life, or who want to change the system to remove disincentives to work. This tactic is reminiscent of the way in which the war on poverty became the war on the poor in the 1960s. Today we witness the problem of unemployment becoming the problem of the unemployed. These arguments do nothing to address the problem of unemployment which stands officially, as of May, 1980, at 7.8 per cent, or 904,000 people unemployed. When we take a look at the hidden unemployed, the real jobless rate is somewhere in the area of 11.7 per cent, or 1,411,000 Canadians out of work.
A government committed to reducing unemployment in this country could quite easily set targets for lower rates, as was done in the United States with the Humphrey-Hawkins bill passed in October, 1978. This bill endeavoured to establish opportunity for work as a basic right and set a target of 4 per cent unemployment by 1983 in the United States. Instead of doing something like that, the Canadian government decided that full employment is now double the figure which the Economic Council set at 3 per cent in the 1960s. The Economic Council of Canada in "Two Cheers for the Eighties" set the equilibrium unemployment rate at 6 per cent. In economic terms this is the rate of unemployment that can be maintained without creating inflationary pressure in the labour market. From the point of view of policymaking, these rates are enormously important in so far as at least the government uses them as targets. In effect these rates determine the degree of goverment commitment to policies which encourage the growth of employment. Since the government is eliminating its vested interest in maintaining low levels of unemployment in this country, it appears that the government has simply thrown up its hands and no longer knows what to do.
During the 1980 election campaign, members of the NDP called for the introduction of a full employment bill which would set targets for reducing unemployment to 6 per cent by 1982 and to 4 per cent by 1984. It is important to note in this connection that for every one job created in producing a resource, another six jobs are created in processing it, and yet these are the same jobs we have been exporting from Canada for years.
Unemployment and the costs of unemployment now amount to something in the order of $5 billion annually in lost production, goods and services. It costs us an additional $1 billion a year in lost federal tax revenues, and it costs us a further $5 billion per year in unemployment insurance payouts. It should also be pointed out that a Conference Board study in 1976 showed that for every 1 per cent drop in the rate of unemployment, unemployment insurance pay-outs would be reduced by some $500 million annually.
In the press release in which the minister announced Bill C-3, he also announced the government's intention to right part of the wrong his government had inflicted on part-time workers under the unemployment insurance program when the government previously amended the Unemployment Insurance Act. According to this press release, the government intends to
Unemployment Insurance Act
introduce regulating changes to be effective in January, 1981, which would change the minimum insurability requirements from 20 hours per week to 15 hours per week, or 20 per cent of maximum insurable earnings.
The minister in that press release cited this move as an improvement that would eliminate charges that the existing rule discriminates against women who make up 71 per cent of the part-time labour force. About 42,000 part-time workers lost their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits in December, 1978, when Parliament passed legislation disqualifying those who work fewer than 20 hours a week.
According to the minister of manpower and immigration at that time the change was part of a package of cutbacks designed to reduce payments from the unemployment insurance funds, to the tune of $1 billion annually. The estimated cost to part-time workers on an annual basis at that time was some $60 million. The present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who is also the minister responsible for the status of women, likes to put himself forward as the champion of women's rights, and somewhat of a liberal reformer in this area. From what I have seen of the minister's actions since 1 came into this House, there is certainly very little to justify those claims. In fact, for all the verbiage he has gone through, he is no better and no worse than his predecessors in that portfolio.


An hon. Member:: He is no worse?


Neil Young: He is about the same. The minister follows the Liberal tradition of giving close attention when listening to the problems of women, but the end result when it comes to doing anything is the traditional pat on the head, but nothing of substance ever comes forward.
Some 20 per cent of working women are employed on a part-time basis in Canada as compared to 6 per cent of men who work part-time. Most of these women work part-time, not because they want to, but simply because there are not enough full-time jobs available.
Not too long ago the Social Planning Council of metropolitan Toronto published a document entitled "The Problem Is Jobs ... Not People". It was a response to proposed revisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act by the then government which was formed by the same party in government today.


An hon. Member:: The problem is Liberals.


Neil Young: Right. Even though the figures may have changed somewhat, and are probably worse today than they were even then, I think these figures are still worthy of some attention. The Social Planning Council document said at that time in Toronto alone there were nearly 15 job hunters for every job vacancy, and 45 per cent of those job hunters were women, yet only 36.8 per cent of unemployment insurance claimants in Toronto were female because women actually under-use the system and are hesitant to claim benefits even though those benefits are rightfully theirs.

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
In addition, I want to tell the minister it is not only women and young people who are forced to be part-time workers today. Because of the high interest rate policies of this government and the resulting cutbacks in the construction industry, many construction workers are now employed part-time. The minister must be aware of this, and he must also know that the measures he is proposing in these amendments are misdirected and perpetuate further the injustices to our employed and unemployed, and do nothing to treat the root cause of the problem.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't care.


Neil Young: He doesn't care. The solution to the problems of unemployment will not be found in this government continuing to blame the unemployed for their own unemployment, or by shifting the costs of unemployment on to the backs of people who are fortunate enough to continue to be employed. The problems of unemployment will not go away by government officials distorting the facts about people who claim unemployment insurance benefits, or by continuing the myth that there is wholesale abuse of the system.
1 picked up a newspaper the other day and saw that we are again about to be swamped with more horror stories on unemployment insurance abuse. In that paper there is an advertisement, inserted by the minister's department, and in huge black type it says: "A new way to detect Unemployment Insurance abuse". Generally speaking, in the text of this particular advertisement there is very little that is actually offensive, except that the average person probably took a look at that heading and came away thoroughly convinced the problems of unemployment insurance are somewhat synonymous again with people ripping off the system, when in fact the government's own figures show and prove, and I believe I am correct, that something just over 1 per cent of all claimants who collect unemployment insurance actually abuse the system. I think the hon. member for Lincoln would agree with me in that analysis of what happens under the unemployment insurance program. However, a substantial number of readers would not be left with that impression after looking at that heading. Whether or not that is intentional, the effect is to discredit the victims of unemployment, and is not justified by the facts, nor is this strategy used by the commission at all recent.
In the report I spoke about earlier from the Social Planning Council of metropolitan Toronto, they also found at that time that this same pattern the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Employment and Immigration are following today has been in existence for at least the last three or four years. I rather suspect, based on my experience before coming to this House, that the pressure which is applied on people drawing unemployment insurance was really created by the Conservative party in this House after 1972 when it created so much pressure on commission officials they started wholesale cutting off of people claiming benefits which were rightfully theirs, and in fact stigmatized people who found
themselves unemployed with no other source of income except unemployment insurance benefits.
For the education of the minister, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record the findings of the Social Planning Council of metropolitan Toronto in the statement released at that time headed "The Problem is Jobs . . . Not People". That Social Planning Council said-


An hon. Member:: You had better wake up the minister first.


Neil Young: If he reads it in Hansard it will educate him equally as well as listening to me. That council said:
There is a pattern of citing individual cases of abuse and representing them as the universe. This is improper and irresponsible. Abuse is a relatively small problem for not only unemployment insurance but all income security programs. We do not assume all parents are child abusers or all taxpayers arc tax abusers. We should not assume all the unemployed are insurance abusers. There is evidence that the limits of acceptability in controlling abuse have been far exceeded. The administration of unemployment insurance requires more socially acceptable forms of efficiency controls and an orientation that does not blame the victims of unemployment for their situation.
Unemployment insurance is an income security program conditioned upon unemployment. As such it has important implications for family and child welfare. Cutbacks in the levels and access to unemployment insurance are unjustified attempts to punish all of the unemployed who are collecting benefits.
On that statement, Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly agree.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Who wrote it?


Neil Young: The Social Planning Council of metropolitan Toronto. I would be happy to provide the hon. member with a copy if it would be beneficial to him.
Attempts to refinance the unemployment insurance program through more extensive employer-employee contributions are both attempts to finance a social program through a regressive form of taxation, and an abrogation by the government of its legitimate responsibility for unemployment and its causes. Structural and seasonal unemployment results not from the normal operation of the employer-employee relationship, but from economic forces which the federal government has a responsibility to control.
The unemployment insurance system introduced in 1971 recognized the government's responsibility for the costs of unemployment by underwriting the costs of initial benefits resulting from an unemployment rate of over 4 per cent. That measure made it clear that the government was responsible for controlling unemployment, and it provided an incentive for the government to keep the unemployment rate down. Now the government is completely abrogating its responsibility. Unemployment insurance is seen by this government as a substitute for job-creation measures, and to follow such a policy, in my view, is to court disaster.
No unemployment insurance scheme can withstand the pressures created by massive and sustained unemployment, nor should it be expected .to. The shell game that this government and that party continually play with unemployment, the cost of unemployment and, the people of Canada, is really quite shameful. Unemployment insurance is social insurance. It
June 18, 1980

cannot be weighted against the insurance principles that are used in the commercial insurance industry, which is profit motivated. In addition, commercial insurance is voluntary whereas unemployment insurance is compulsory, and even to expect them to operate in the same fashion displays a real lack of appreciation for the worth of social programs and commitment to make them work for those in need.
Continually running away from the problems of unemployment or shifting the costs of unemployment onto Canadian wage earners will not do anything to solve the fundamental problems which are creating the crisis we find ourselves in today. The government knows or should know, as it has been told often enough, that we are suffering from some very basic structural weaknesses in the Canadian economy which, if not corrected, and if not taken hold of quickly will put us in an even worse mess than we are in today.
I look forward to the time when we will not have to be concerned with legislation that provides for programs like unemployment insurance, to times when government will have recognized, and will have been sensitive enough to recognize, that people's needs cannot and will not be met through the mish-mash of costly social security programs that exist in our country today. I look forward to the day when it is finally recognized that the Liberals and Tories with their piecemeal programs are costing the working people of Canada the right to a decent life for themselves and future generations to come.
I look forward to the day when the great potential of our country is used and developed in the interests of Canada, rather than the continual abuse of that potential by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. I have no doubt at all that day is coming and that Canada and Canadians will be the better for it, when they realize the mess those two parties have created in our country. We in this party oppose the measures proposed in this bill and we strongly urge the government to begin attacking unemployment rather than attacking Canada's unemployed.
In the throne speech the minister made some grand pronouncements about bringing forward long-term employment strategies. To date, the progams which the minister has brought forward are pure tokenism and will do nothing in the long range to cure the unemployment crisis which we face in this country. What we in this party are waiting anxiously to see is the day when that minister finally carries through with the promise that he made to the unemployed people in Canada, and come forward with policies which go toward creating useful job-creation programs to get the unemployed in this country back to work.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend a great deal of time talking about this bill on second reading. I want to compliment the minister for not waiting for a total review of the program before taking this particular initiative. I think that the minister has taken the appropriate action. I also want to compliment him for the changes which were made to a regulation which I, in fact, brought in when I had the honour to serve as the minister of that particular portfolio.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I was somewhat surprised by the stand taken by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) who indicated that on eight occasions legislation had been brought forward with regard to unemployment insurance. The fact is that we are in a changing economy and therefore changes must be made. The government's initiative to make the changes at the time they were made should be welcomed because they were, in fact, necessary.
The hon. member also bemoans the fact that the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration has not met. I would suggest that there is a certain amount of mea culpa on the part of the hon. member because since he is a member of that committee, I wonder how many times he has approached the chairman and asked for a meeting. After all, the members on the committee control when that committee meets and how often. Had we not spent so much time in the House dealing with Bill C-19, due in a large measure to the interventions of the hon. member for Calgary West, there would have been more time available for the minister to appear before the standing committee to answer the kinds of questions that he and other hon. members may wish to put.
The area in which I would like to compliment the minister for having made changes is the 20-hour week measure which worked to the disadvantage of temporary workers. At the time that measure was introduced, as the minister has indicated, the government was attempting to bring a sense of equity into the position whereby people who were earning small amounts of money per hour or were having to work longer hours in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits-yet those at the higher end of the wage scale could qualify for UI benefits by working for a few hours-would be protected. We thought that this measure would introduce some equity into the system as it affected the people who would qualify for unemployment insurance. One of the things that occurred was that it was abused by employers.
During the time that I did not serve as a member of Parliament, from the spring of 1979 to February, 1980, I had occasion to meet with part-time workers and union leaders and to spend a good deal of time looking at government legislation and its resultant impact on various areas. As a result of those meetings, particularly with the union leaders, one of the first things that I did when I came back to the House was to write to the minister and indicate that the 20-hour per week was being abused by employers, that the legislation should be changed, and that I hoped we would come up with some equitable arrangement which would not be detrimental to the people at the low end of the wage scale. The suggestion of one-fifth of the maximum earnings or the 15 hours is a step in the right direction, and I compliment the minister for taking that particular action.
This bill deals primarily with two areas, the first of which is the extension of the variable entrance requirement. Although the hon. member for Calgary West attacked the idea of the variable entrance requirement, he had to concede that perhaps

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
it was socially necessary at the present time. In different areas of this country there are different levels of unemployment or employment and, because of that, the variable entrance requirement has met a particular need. The people in those areas where it is difficult to get a job or difficult to get another job if one is laid off, will be able to qualify with ten weeks of work. People in areas such as the one I represent, where there is comparatively low unemployment, will be required to work 14 weeks before qualifying for unemployment insurance. I think that is appropriate.
It is even more appropriate that the minister took the initiative of extending the variable entrance requirement rather than simply relying on the act which would have required a 14-week entrance requirement right across the board. As the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) indicated, this would work to the detriment of people in places like Prince Edward Island where they would find it difficult to get work for the number of weeks required in order to qualify for benefits. It could have happened that people who could least afford it could have been cut off from benefits, so I compliment the minister for extending the period.
I am pleased to see that the minister will embark on an extensive review of unemployment insurance. A vast amount of information is available as a result of studies which have been carried out, and 1 know that the minister will make that available to the public. In the past we have made information available when unemployment insurance legislation was being discussed so that people who wanted to be critical could at least be critical in a constructive manner, through knowing the facts. I welcome the minister's initiative in indicating that the review will take place.
1 am particularly pleased that the minister has abandoned even considering the Conservative party's idea for a two-tier system. The hon. member for Calgary West spoke of something impacting more on women than on men in the work force, but if there is anything calculated to impact on women more than a two-tier system, I have yet to see it. I think the hon. member should consider what the results of a two-tier system would be. It probably was not implemented when his party took power, although they had talked so bravely and loudly about the two-tier system when they were in opposition, because they saw the difficulties with it.
1 would remind the minister that a surprising amount of help is available from people who have the time to do research in other areas. Two writers in particular come to mind, although when I was minister I did not always agree with their conclusions and sometimes thought their research was suspect. Mr. Leonard Shifrin and Mr. Richard Gwyn are two writers with whom I did not always agree, but I always read their articles because I thought they had done the necessary research. A great deal of help is available from writers who specialize in particular subjects. I am sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and others interested in energy read Jeff Carruthers' columns. I would recommend to the minister that he read a certain group of writers because they have done the research and express a point of
view. They may not always be right or fair, but I think it is worth while reading their columns.
When the minister referred to some of the areas that the intensive review would examine, he did not mention vacation pay. When I was minister I was able to make changes to ensure that separation pay would no longer be considered as income as this had the effect of delaying the payment of unemployment insurance. The same is probably more true of vacation pay. People earn vacation pay when they are working, not when they are on vacation. If they are laid off and then take their vacation pay, however, there is a certain delay before they can collect unemployment insurance because the vacation pay is computed into the income they receive after being laid off.
It is appropriate that vacation pay should not be counted as income when one considers how easy it makes the possibility of "diddling" the system. Some unions have taken the initiative of working hand in glove with the employer and trust companies and have arranged that employees take the pay on a regular weekly basis. The money is put into a trust fund while the employee is working and then, if he is laid off, the vacation pay is no longer payable to him and so he is able to collect his unemployment insurance more quickly.
Only 33 per cent of workers in Canada have some form of union membership, so it is the people who cannot organize who suffer. I do not know what the cost of this measure would be although I have heard figures of $90 million and $130 million.
I feel strongly, however, that vacation pay earned while working should not be considered as income after an individual is laid off.
Another difficult decision facing the minister is how to weigh prompt service to those entitled to unemployment insurance against the control mechanism. Although the hon. member for Beaches spoke somewhat critically of a particular advertisement, I think the Unemployment Insurance Commission was trying to warn people that they were bringing in more control. Anyone who reads the report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission or the committee reports will realize that the commission is vitally concerned with control. They are also concerned with the fact that those people who are drawing unemployment insurance need it just as quickly as it is possible to get it.
The minister is going to have a difficult time determining just what the correct balance is as did a series of ministers before him. He must always be aware that people need this money and need it quickly. It is taxpayers' money, however, and control mechanisms must be built into the system.
There have been comments about the lack of new jobs in the economy, but the fact is that in excess of 250,000 new jobs have been created annually in recent years. The minister either has entered into or will enter into agreements with the provinces under the Adult Occupational Training Act. It is a very effective program which involves hundreds of millions of dollars and the close co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. It provides for the training of young people so that they will be ready to take jobs in the economy as they
June 18, 1980

arrive. To suggest that jobs are not being created is not correct.
The area of apprenticeship is one in which there could be improvement. Although this is an area of education which primarily comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, the programs could be improved by additional funding.
The facts are that hundreds of millions of dollars are available for the creation of new jobs and that young people are being trained for the work force. This is more than tokenism.
1 welcome the minister's initiative in bringing the bill forward at this time and. I am particularly pleased with the changes to the regulations. I commend to his attention the views I have expressed about the difficulties of balancing service with control, and I say, with respect, that something should be done about vacation pay.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a few moments about the very important extension of the principle of the variable entrance requirements to the province of New Brunswick. There are some areas where this important principle could be improved and, after a few brief remarks, I shall make some recommendations to the minister on how to bring about this improvement.
The variable entrance requirements extended to June, 1982, by this bill confer a benefit on the province of New Brunswick. The benefit is measured with respect to the areas where the ten-week rule applies. Our experience has shown that the increase in demand for social service benefits in these areas has been less dramatic than in areas where the 14-week rule applies. This has resulted in a smaller drain on the funds that are available for social service benefits in the province of New Brunswick.
People who live in the areas where the ten-week rule applies receive the benefit of having greater assistance available to them sooner for the sustenance of their families and the provision of necessities. When people find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to rely on unemployment insurance benefits, I think it is important that those benefits should be conferred upon them as efficiently and as promptly as possible.
New Brunswick has a resource-based economy which is punctuated by seasonal employment and by industrialization that has advanced in recent years quite dramatically, but still does not fully challenge the capability of the labour force. Federal government policies enacted in the national interest have an immediate impact on New Brunswick because of its resource-based economy. Policies related to restraint, while necessary, as well as policies that restrict credit and policies that impose tight money, have negative effects on the economy of New Brunswick, and that economy is very slow to recover from them. Consequently, the variable entrance requirements
Unemployment Insurance Act
are very necessary and an important measure for that province.
Many people who do not receive this benefit are treated unjustly in New Brunswick, because the method of identifying areas to receive the benefits of the variable entrance requirements fracture and divide the areas of high unemployment along administrative rather than economic lines. As an example, in the county of Madawaska, a work force composed of women travels to the county of Restigouche to assist in harvesting crops, in particular picking potatoes in the hot sun. This is done for very little pay. These women do not receive the benefit of the ten-week entrance requirement, while their co-workers who come from Restigouche county do receive that benefit. These people are very hard working. They travel not only to Restigouche county, but also to Ontario where they have engaged in picking tomatoes. Because they happen to live in Madawaska county, they have to meet the 14-week rule while their co-workers who live in Restigouche county have only the ten-week rule to meet. This is a division that is based upon administrative difficulties in the department, the location of unemployment insurance offices and districts, and not upon an economic basis.
In the Doaktown area in central New Brunswick we have great activity in lumber mills, lumber yards, and in woods work. Workers in these plants and places working side by side whose kids go to the same schools, who worship in the same churches and buy their groceries in the same country store, are treated differently. The workers who live in Northumberland county have to meet the ten-week rule. But those who live in the same general community with the same economic conditions, but who are on the York county side of the line, have the 14-week rule to meet. This is a basic unfairness.
Again, in terms of time, fishermen in our fishing villages along the coast may enter the program under the ten-week rule. But because that fishing village might be located in the same district as one of our principal cities, in a month's time an increase in employment in the city may change the statistics with no real change in the village or the economy of the village. This can find the son of the fisherman having to meet the 14-week rule. So we have a division in the same family in the same house.
This is the type of hardship which is created by this artificial type of zoning within the province. I am speaking about the need for more flexibility in drawing the guidelines, and relating them to economic factors rather than administrative ones.
My recommendation to the minister, and I make it most sincerely, is that he ask his senior staff to address the question of a better method of identifying the economic areas to which the variable entrance requirements will apply. I am certainly prepared to give him any assistance I can and I believe the minister of social services for the province of New Brunswick will only to be too glad to share his records also.
My first recommendation, therefore, is that we address this problem of zoning and attempt to identify the economic pockets of high unemployment more reliably.

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
Second, if it is really a complex and difficult problem fraught with insurmountable obstacles for his department, I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to identifying the whole province with the most favourable provisions in those cases where the province is small. Already major parts of the province are identified, and this would not be a very extensive development.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-3 before us today is to extend the application of the variable entrance requirement for unemployment insurance benefits. So this bill proposes to keep in force until June, 1982, the present requirement under which claimants must have accumulated between ten and 14 weeks of employment to qualify for benefits.
Under the variable entrance requirement, people living in areas where the rate of unemployment is high need a lesser number of weeks of insurable employment to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits than people living in areas with a low rate of unemployment. For example, when the rate of unemployment is 6 per cent or less, claimants need 14 weeks of work. When the rate of unemployment is above 9 per cent, they need only ten weeks of work. So unless Bill C-3 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act is passed, the variable entrance requirement will become a fixed requirement of 14 weeks as early as December, 1980.
If, on the one hand, the qualification requirements for unemployment insurance benefits must not encourage unstable work patterns and encourage workers to remain unemployed, a fixed entrance requirement of 14 weeks would, on the other hand, have very different effects in the various parts of the country. It would affect a much greater proportion of workers in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces than in the prairies. In addition, under a fixed requirement, re-entrants-people who have drawn unemployment insurance benefits during the year-would need to have between 14 and 20 weeks of employment rather than between ten and 16 to qualify for benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the economic situation in Canada generally is difficult. What about the effects on a territory like the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspe Peninsula, Rimouski and Temis-couata where the rate of unemployment generally varies between 15 per cent and 30 per cent? Despite the good will and a real desire to work, our labour force cannot have steady employment. The socio-economic reality in that territory is creating a lot of seasonal jobs that we are trying to turn into permanent jobs through economic development policies but we do not always get the result we are hoping for. Our region is far from the large centres and therefore from the marketplaces. Moreover, there is already a major movement of the population away from the area because we cannot create enough permanent jobs to keep our workers, especially the young people who join the labour market.
If, in addition to this, we create an even more difficult situation by restricting eligibility for unemployment insurance by considering Canada as a whole as an economic region, again I say that this will be unfair to many Canadians who work at least periodically when they are able to do so, and it is certainly not because our labour force is lazy that our unemployment rates are scandalous. Mr. Speaker, I shall therefore have to vote for Bill C-3, even though a large proportion of the population of Rimouski and Temiscouata still suffers from Bill C-14 passed in 1978. At that time, a poor description of economic zones greatly disadvantaged thousands of workers. It is simply unthinkable to consider the unemployment of a constituency like Rimouski and Temiscouata with the Quebec economic region, and I find it unacceptable that the people of my riding will again be disadvantaged.
Even though Bill C-3 does not solve all my problems, the situation of the people of my constituency would worsen if this bill were not passed. Their already difficult situation would further deteriorate. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker-and I would like to call on the solidarity and the support of my colleagues-that the workers of Rimouski and Temiscouata will be considered fairly as concerns eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits according to the economic capacity of the region to provide permanent employment.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer that the money of Canadian taxpayers be used to create jobs and to eliminate the social plight of unemployment, but we have to be realistic and recognize that some of our workers do not have the opportunity to find stable employment and that society must try to help them get through this difficult period. I have noted that the minister has stated his intention to publish relatively soon a white paper on the issue of unemployment insurance. I invite all my fellow citizens to welcome this document and to take positive steps so that unemployment insurance, which must be considered a major economic subject, will meet effectively and fairly the needs of the workers temporarily without a job. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the minister of my fullest co-operation, and I would like to remind him once again about the hardships suffered by the people of my constituency when they must be included in an economic area as large as that of Grand Portage, which includes the economic area of Quebec, which is quite dissimilar and cannot be compared to it.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate regarding Bill C-3, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The question of entitlement to benefits has been rather hazy in the past and I hope this act will move toward clarifying many questions Canadians have regarding unemployment insurance.
First of all I would like the record to show that I consider unemployment insurance as an insurance, not a welfare, pro-
June 18, 1980

gram. Unemployment insurance should be available to Canadians who are available for work. A person who is available to work, and chooses not to, should not be entitled to benefits. Unfortunately the vast majority of Canadians who are forced to collect do so through no fault of their own and would want nothing better than a job to go to in the morning. The past performance of the Liberal government has shown that it is becoming more and more difficult for Canadians to retain their jobs. This mismanagement of past Trudeau governments has discouraged growth in Canada.
In the last Parliament I had the opportunity to sit on the other side of the House with a government that saw that the backbone and the future of this country are with our small business community. If the climate is correctly set by the government, small business will flourish in this country, and fewer Canadians will be forced to collect unemployment insurance.
1 would now like to point out some deficiencies in how the unemployment insurance program is operated at the present time. I am sure that many members in this House have had constituents who have received UIC benefits and then had to repay all, or a portion of the benefits they have received, back to the Unemployment Insurance Commission because of some error made by the commission. After receiving benefits for a number of weeks, the commission informs the recipient that he or she did not qualify for the benefits and that the money must be repaid. The average person who is collecting UIC is not in a position to repay the commission what he has already received and spent. Assuming errors will occur from time to time, perhaps some provisions could be written into the bill to protect the claimant from repaying when an overpayment has been made, provided the claimant has brought forward all the relevant documents when the claim is being processed.
There have been numerous changes to the program over the years which have drastically changed the rules for qualification. Many of the errors in processing have been made because even employees of the commission are unsure of the regulations from one day to the next. A person who qualified for benefits last year may not qualify this year, but the commission employee may not know the change in regulations. Surely the UIC regulations could be simplified so that even employees of the commission could understand them.
Another deficiency in the UIC program is that in some instances the employee is discouraged from working. In my own riding of Malpeque last fall, a number of constituents who worked for 13 weeks were able to collect, and a number of constituents who worked at the same location and for the same employer were kept on for an additional two weeks for a total of 15 and found that when they filed they were ineligible and would not be receiving any benefits at all. I find this totally unacceptable, that a person who works for 15 weeks cannot collect while a person who works for 13 for the same employer, doing the same job, can. There is something wrong with the system.
I would like to inform this House of the explanation 1 received from the local office of the Unemployment Insurance
Unemployment Insurance Act
Commission in Prince Edward Island. The number of work weeks necessary before a person can file a claim is determined by the unemployment rate in the area the person makes the claim. Because it would be very difficult to determine the unemployment rate for any given day, the commission uses the unemployment rate for the area three months earlier than the time the person files his or her claim. If the unemployment is high, the number of work weeks necessary is lower than if the unemployment is low. What can happen is that unemployment rates change with the seasons.
The person who worked for 13 weeks in this case was judged at the end of August when the unemployment rate was high, and it was deemed that only 13 weeks work would be necessary in order to qualify for a claim. The person who worked 15 weeks, two weeks more than the person who worked 13, was judged in mid-September after the unemployment rate had been lowered. The result of all this was that this person had to have worked 16 weeks in order to qualify. This person received nothing. The person who had worked two weeks longer than an employee at the same place was a conscientious worker and worked two extra weeks. If he had been laid off with the others, he could have claimed and received benefits. Because this person worked the two extra weeks, he was penalized by the system.
It is extremely difficult to explain to this person the fairness of the unemployment insurance program. It is impossible to explain to that person that the system is fair, and I agree with that person that some changes have to be made. As one of Canada's 282 elected legislators, I feel that somehow we in the House have let that person down. Surely our purpose as members in this House is to draft legislation which is fair to all Canadians. Before the bill is passed I hope we will be able to say that it is a fair and just bill.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the inequities which have been pointed out in the act as it has existed, and the eligibility or ineligibility of individuals to benefit from the intentions of the act as it now stands, are things which I hope the minister will take into very serious consideration. This bill has a multitude of impacts upon the various programs which are under the minister's direction, one of which is that the rate of employment may indicate to those who assign public moneys and make-work projects how much money should be spent in a particular constituency.
I want to draw to the minister's attention the fact that a constituency such as mine, which happens to be largely villages, rural, and small towns, is rated not by the actual employment within the constituency itself but is rated for allocation of funds for make-work programs by the impact of employment in the cities of Fredericton and Saint John. There have been times in the last ten years when the city of Saint John has been considered to be almost overemployed. As a result of the statistics emanating from Saint John, the constituency of Carleton-Charlotte, which is next door on the west, has been denied the proper number of make-work programs

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
such as Canada Works, Young Canada Works, and the various other government programs which create employment for seasonal workers and summer workers particularly. This has militated against my constituency ever since this method of appraising the unemployment rate in my constituency has been in place.
As the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) pointed out, it has also pitted one community against the other. As the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) pointed out, if one worked in community A one might be eligible for unemployment insurance in community A. However, if perchance you lived in community B ten miles away, you might find that you have not in fact worked long enough beside your fellow man to be eligible for unemployment insurance. This is just absolutely inequitable, unfair, and needs reconsideration with regard to the eligibility of an area with respect to how much Canada Works money, how much Young Canada Works money, and how much make-work money from other projects can be made available to a constituency or a community.
As the hon. member for York-Sunbury mentioned, I happen to have a number of fishing communities in my constituency, but their eligibility is not assessed entirely by "how long did they fish'' but, rather by "what is the estimate of the departmental statistician as to their eligibility", and that does not work. It is just not fair play to those communities.
The Auditor General suggested that there was a multitude of ineligible claims, amounting to $300 million, and I am going to tell the House from where one of those came. There happens to be a veteran of World War II in my constituency who is about 64 years of age and who worked for a farmer. He worked in two capacities, one as a farmer, and also for that farmer when he was constructing a house. He was considered eligible for unemployment insurance by all the regulatory bodies within the department until eventually it went to National Revenue. National Revenue came back to this poor fellow and said that somebody down the ladder made a mistake. He had drawn almost $1,200 which he has to pay back. I want to tell the minister that that man does not have and is not apt to be able to get $1,200 to repay.
This man has now been pushed into the courts by a change of interpretation of the regulations at a different level of government, I am advised that it is not the Department of Employment and Immigration which changed it but the Department of National Revenue. There is a conflict between the interpretation of the rules. This is militating against the fellow who needs unemployment insurance, and I can find no way to resolve this man's problem. These are things which I think the minister must consider with great care.
There are those in my area who would like to stay in the constituency of Carleton-Charlotte but, by virtue of the new interpretation of the unemployment insurance regulations, they can no longer get by with seasonal work. The seasonal worker is now leaving the community, and I have not been able to figure out, if this flow continues, just how long it will be possible to continue the seasonal operations of farming, fishing and forestry, which are the backbone of Carleton-Charlotte.
When unemployment insurance was introduced in the House, it was not intended that it should be instead of work. It was intended that those who could not get work in the communities in which they resided should have some help.
I point out to the House that there is another inequity in this structure which has again militated against rural communities, and I am sure that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), who is looking at me in a rather critical way as usual, will support my statement.


Mr. LeBlanc:: I am looking at you in a friendly way.


Fred Alward McCain: Good. I will probably need that friendship before we are through. It is a fact that if one lives in Toronto, Ottawa, or in other areas, there are commuter services which transport applicants for work to the centres in which work exists. I am sure there are people working in this city who travel by bus ten, 20 and sometimes 30 miles. They are therefore able to get to work, but if an unemployed individual who does not own a car lives 20 miles from an opportunity to work in rural Canada, that person is not eligible for unemployment insurance, even though he may be living in the home which he owns. It has been established-I am not sure just what it is-that if there is work within 25 to 35 miles of where you reside, you are not eligible for unemployment insurance.
These are inequities which were never intended, but they are the frugalities which have crept in because of a group of people who are administering this act and who are absolutely unaware of how the rest of Canada lives. It seems to me that some top person in the department drew the regulation and passed it down the line without having any knowledge of its impact or consequence.
I wish the minister would be concerned about these matters. I wish he would express some concern, show some interest, change the administration of this act and change some of the regulations because of the over-all consequence to seasonal workers, make-work projects and allocations to various constituencies. The hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote) was saying some of the same things 1 am trying to say. If that worker is seasonal and if there is work within a certain range, then with or without transportation, this means that no compensation through unemployment insurance is available.
I hope that the minister will take quite seriously the things that I am saying and give consideration to the requirements of rural Canada and of seasonally employed Canadians, and take the necessary steps to ensure that just because there have been some people who have tried to beat the system, those who have tried to act within it, and have been interpreted by the local office of the Canada employment service as having lived within it, should not be punished for having applied, been accepted, and having legally drawn money, and then be asked to pay it back, as my veteran has been asked to do. I hope there can be some recourse, I hope there can be a change in the tender hearted mercies of the minister and that he will correct the problems in Malpeque, Rimouski, York-Sunbury,
June 18, 1980

and Carleton-Charlotte. We cannot have people in neighbouring communities, whether it be in Westmorland-Kent, York-Sunbury, or Carleton-Charlotte, having ineligibility forced upon them, not by the employment within their own community but by the level of employment in the city of Fredericton or the city of Saint John.
That is the position in which I find myself as the member for Carleton-Charlotte. I put it to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at it. Let us be a little more mobile than we have been, a little more susceptible to the needs of Canadians than the minister has shown himself to be when he turned down the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded when they asked for a grant under Young Canada Works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks this evening by touching on a few areas that have been of some concern to me and to many of the people with whom I have worked for some time.
We oppose the bill, largely because of what we find to be an increasing inequity in terms of the payment of the cost of this very important and vital program. But later on in my remarks I want to deal with that issue a little more because what we have is a program in which the people who have the least end up paying the most to get less benefits than do others. That seems to us to turn the tables completely on what any social service or social insurance program should attempt to do.
One of the things 1 want to mention this evening has to do with some of the administrative and regulatory decisions which take place from time to time under the act. The first item is something with which we began to run into trouble one or two years ago. We used to have the practice, in many industrial operations, that when there was a lay-off, arrangements would be made within that plant so that the senior person could choose to take that lay-off and allow the junior employee to continue working. I think that to many people, at least in the labour force, it is a good thing to have happen, for a variety of reasons, including perhaps some economic savings to the program itself.
Why should it matter to the government who is laid off? If a company with 400 employees is going to lay off 200, why should it necessarily be the junior people, so far as the government is concerned, who have to go on unemployment insurance? Very often what happens is that you find employees who are 50, 60 and 65 years of age, old-timers in the lumber industry who have been around since the days when they were pushing lumber onto carts pulled by horses, working at the hardest and toughest jobs in those operations, and young people who would be much happier to continue working because many of them have recently come into the labour force.
Surely it is in our interest to let young people who are moving into the labour force have the best experience possible and find that they can work continuously and build up some experience and realize what it is to work. Goodness knows,
Unemployment Insurance Act
there is enough complaining about young people who are not turned on to the work ethic nowadays. So we should make some provision and show some flexibility to allow those who are young and most able to work to continue working, while the older, more experienced workers are allowed, if they so choose, to take the place of the younger employees and go on unemployment insurance.
It also fits one of the other social goals about which we spoke, that as people approach their retirement age they should be allowed time to get used to it, to phase it in. Why not, when it is not an increased cost to the program or to the taxpayer, allow those older employees to take that opportunity? But for some unforeseen reason, the bureaucracy within the commission within the past year or two has started to become very rigid. We are at a loss to understand why. If the commission is concerned with having those who are unemployed getting other jobs, those with seniority very often have more skills and more abilities, can be placed more easily than those who have just entered the labour force who are very often unskilled workers. It seems self-defeating as well as socially unjust to force that kind of change.
Another area on which I wanted to touch has to do with job search requirements which vary in a regulatory way or for administrative reasons from place to place. In order that someone who is unemployed can continue to collect his benefits, job search requirements are enforced too often when unemployment is too high and at unrealistic levels to expect much success to come from those sometimes very thorough job searches, especially during short duration unemployment when it is very often unreasonable to expect anyone, for some of the reasons that have been suggested earlier, to accept the shortterm work when they might find their benefits cut off from time to time.
Suggestions keep coming forward that signed notes from prospective employers be obtained. In my view, they are rather stupid and unrealistic suggestions. We had an experience in Trail, B.C., about a year and a half ago where we had to take some action to prove, both to the local business community and to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, that it was not realistic. We took steps to make sure that pressure came forth from the people, particularly in that small business community, to tell the government and the commission to quit.
What happened was nothing out of the ordinary. The same people who were going around from employer to employer, drawing up their lists of calls for jobs, were doing it as before but they began doing it together. They drove the people in that business community bonkers in the middle of the business day when 30 people at the same time converged and insisted on applying for a job and obtaining a written note. It really seems rather silly and degrading for adults to be forced to do that sort of thing rather than to do what they used to be able to do, simply draw up a list after making their phone calls. In rural areas it often does not make economic sense for somebody without a job to go from place to place getting a handwritten note from a prospective employer saying "He has been here and he asked for a job but I did not have one to give him.'' But

June 18, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
when 25 or 30 people started doing it at once and disrupted the business day, the message got through.
Why should people be forced into that sort of situation in order to make a point that should have been obvious with many of the kinds of arguments that were presented, both through the elected members and through officials of the commission on the spot, many times? But that sort of thing continues in many areas and there really does not seem to be much point to it. It wastes a lot of time, energy and money on behalf of people who simply do not have the money to spend, because they have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own.
I should like to refer to another situation which exists from time to time but hopefully is not too widespread. It may result from some over-enthusiasm when there is a drive on the part of government to cut back on expenditures and to attempt, as is sometimes suspected, to remove many people from the rolls. 1 am referring to a situation which occurred in the city of New Westminster in the fall of 1977 that was particularly gross. I should like to draw it to the attention of the minister because this kind of thing happens. It seems that the forms get more complex every year. There is a profusion of paper and various trick questions are floating all over the place.
Of course one of the standard questions has always been: "What rate of pay do you expect when you go out and apply for work? What rate of pay will you accept?" If a prospective job applicant wants to be safe and not be put into the danger of being cut off from benefits or never being allowed to collect them in the first place, he must answer this very standard question by saying, "the prevailing rate". If he sets any rate in his answer, very often the axe comes down and he does not get the benefits. One should say, "the prevailing rate", no matter how many times one is asked the question. One should come back with the same answer whether it is asked 100 or 200 times. Sometimes it is almost that ridiculous.
In the case in question, a young jobless woodworker went into the UIC office in New Westminster. He was asked this question innumerable times by the official. I suppose the questioner finally got tired and asked him, "What was the rate of pay at the last job in which you worked?" The young man told him, and he watched as the official of the commission wrote that answer into the blank following the question he had been trying to get answered for some time. None of us, least of all myself, will suggest that there are ogres working in this department who have a blood lust to cut people off UIC. But there is some kind of pressure on people when public servants, who are normally very conscientious, feel somehow driven into that kind of situation.
If this young woodworker had been an employee who was not aware of how the system worked, very likely he would never have received the benefits. He happened to realize something about his own rights. He went to the business agent of his local union and there was a little hell to pay, quite understandably. I hope that sort of thing does not happen
often, but we wonder just how many cases there are which perhaps are not that bad. I am thinking of cases which happen from time to time that we do not hear about. There are many, many people not at all aware of their rights for every one who realizes he or she can stand up and demand some recognition and justice.
From my own experience in being in lunchrooms over a number of years, in the federal sphere I do not think there is an institution which is perhaps more despised and hated in the country, with the possible exception of the compensation boards in the provinces. Both those institutions are presumably set up to assist people who are in need and thrown out of the workplace through no fault of their own. It is a shame those attitudes prevail, but something symbolic must be done from time to time. There should be some very clear statements and directives which people on the outside hear, if working people are to begin to renew their faith in government processes and in departments that are hopefully set up to help them in those circumstances. Certainly we would be far better served to do that than to have the profusion of advertisements to which the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) referred a few moments ago. I am referring to the advertisements which only lead to increasing the backlash which seems all too ready to surface in times of high unemployment.
While I am on that topic, I should like to refer to another matter which is of great concern. It always surprises me that conservatives of Liberal or Tory stripe-I realize that not all people in both parties are conservatives and that there are some reasonably progressive people among both-can go out of their way from time to time to create backlashes. Particularly it is appropriate to some of my friends to my right who over the last three, four, five or six years have gone out and created a backlash. Then when governments of whatever stripe respond to that backlash, they make a career out of complaining about the results. That sticks in my craw, and it sticks in the craw of a lot of people with whom I have worked. It does not increase respect for the political and democratic process, nor of the people within it. We could do with a lot less of it. I do not want to dwell on that, but I hope some people will take it to heart, not as a castigation but just to think before we give such enthusiastic publicity or go on extravaganzas of complaining about the abuses which take place.
If I may I think I will call it six o'clock, because I want to change tack tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before calling it six o'clock I want to apologize to the hon. member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Gendron). My understanding is that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) has asked to call it six o'clock and wishes to continue his speech tomorrow.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 18, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In order to complete what I was about to say, as members know, ordinarily the Chair alternates between hon. members on either side. I did not notice the hon. member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup was seeking the floor, so following the hon. member for
Unemployment Insurance Act
Kootenay West tomorrow the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 19, 1980