1982-02-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Within the past two months two committees of Parliament, one from this House and one from the other place, presented separate reports on the status of Canada's regular and reserve military forces. Both reports provided in some detail the need to strengthen and improve immediately the military, which is undermanned, ill-equipped, underfunded, and lacking in planning and direction. In light of the fact that the decline of the military over past years is the direct result of deliberate neglect by this government, and that both reports urge the government to give priority attention to our defence forces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Prime Minister order the Minister of National Defence to prepare and table a new white paper on defence as soon as possible and that the Prime Minister publicly and immediately announce his commitment to the enhancement of the status, capability and role of the regular and reserve forces in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I am moving a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 that I hope and assume will be agreed to by members on all sides. Considering that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well on the road to recovery and
today, for the first time in months, is able to watch the proceedings of the House of Commons from his home, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House congratulates Stanley Knowles on his remarkable recuperative abilities and wishes him a speedy return to his seat in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas there is an immediate need in Canada for a quarter of a million new housing units, and whereas the outlook for 1982 is the worst in 20 years, with starts of only 150,000 being forecast, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House demands an immediate reversal of the Liberal government's policy of forcing Canadians to go homeless while workers in the construction and forest industries go unemployed.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISASTERS
Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of great tragedy to the people of Newfoundland. It is not yet known if there are survivors from the Ocean Ranger drilling rig operating off the coast of Newfoundland. However, I have been assured by the authorities in charge that all rescue efforts
14986

February 15, 1982
that can be undertaken are presently being carried out. I am certain that all hon. members will want to support the following resolution. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House extend its deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who lost their lives on the Ocean Ranger drill rig operating off the coast of Newfoundland, and assure them that our thoughts and prayers are with them in this time of deep personal tragedy.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, the garment clothing rental industry employs approximately 10,000 Canadians across Canada. One feature in the recent budget hits the industry especially hard by forcing it to depreciate its rental clothing over a two-year rather than one-year period which it is doing at present. The industry experience is that rental clothing is extinguished or worn out after a year. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the government reconsider the employment consequences of the tax measure in issue for an important industry before putting it into law.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, protests against the federal budget have sprung up all over the country and have taken many forms, even the form of a letter signed by two ministers of the Crown. This afternoon another protest will take place here in Ottawa and this one will take a particularly appropriate form. Taxes due to the government for this month will be delivered personally to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) from the back of a donkey.
I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Bramp-ton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House indicate its support for the business people and citizens involved with Operation Tax Ride for demonstrating today their disgust with the federal budget-a disaster for business and the ordinary citizen alike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the totally unnecessary exercise which has now commenced and which will increase the total membership of this House by 30 members to 312 by the general election at the end of this present decade. Projecting the present formula, we could well have 345 members by 1991, 382 members by 2001, 423 by 2011, 468 by 2021, 518 by 2031, and so on to infinity. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the members of the government and, indeed, all members of this House indulge in sober second thought over decennial redistribution and the need for it and instead turn their attention to complete electoral and representation reform which would include freezing the present membership of the House of Commons at 282 and at the same time explore ways and means whereby an elected Senate could be more representative and thereby more effective.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in light of the almost unanimous opposition to most of the recommendations in the Pearse report on the Pacific fisheries industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That this House provide a reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to enable that committee to examine that report and to call witnesses in connection with it.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
February 15, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE OVER OFFSHORE RESOURCES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is sadly ironic that only a few days after the breakdown of Newfound-land-Ottawa negotiations over the management, control and jurisdiction of Hibernia offshore oil, we now see tragedy in the apparent sinking of the Mobil Oil rig Ocean Ranger in cruel seas 175 miles east of St. John's, Newfoundland. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revel-stoke (Mr. Parker):
That in order for people not to be at risk because of government jurisdictional disputes, and in order not to repeat the economic consequences of another Albcrta-Ottawa type delay, and in view of the fact that the same problem has recently heated up on the west coast off British Columbia, this House urge an early meeting of Premiers Peckford, Buchanan and Bennett with the Prime Minister to negotiate in the spirit of co-operative federalism and end this dangerous dispute.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this
motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I have given the Minister of Transport notice of my question. Would the minister please give us an up-to-date status report on the Hibernia tragedy?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the news I have is as of eleven o'clock this morning. The situation was that there was no sign of the rig. Eighty-four persons were not accounted for. Some were seen, apparently, in the water, but it is not known if they are still alive. On the scene there is an Aurora aircraft and two offshore supply vessels. Two other vessels are on the way, and so on. One coastguard ship, the Humphrey Gilbert, is there. Two national defence helicopters are operating from adjacent drill rigs. Two lifeboats have been spotted, one capsized and one submerged,
Oral Questions
and one partially collapsed life raft has been seen. That was the situation as of eleven o'clock.
An investigation is already under way. A fact-finding preliminary inquiry team is there. It is made up of officials from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and Transport Canada. Jointly this afternoon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I will be announcing a formal commission of inquiry into this very sad matter.


REFUSAL TO BUILD HELICOPTER PAD
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for that information, tragic though it is. In view of the last part of his answer perhaps the minister would confirm that as part of the investigation and the formal inquiry it will be determined why the Virgin Rocks project, submitted over two years ago by the regional managers and the coast guard director of Newfoundland, for the establishment of a safety fuelled light station, a heli-pad and a medical supply station, was turned down by the minister's department because it was too "futuristic", notwithstanding the fact that there is such a safety heli-pad in the North Sea?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, when an accident like this takes place, there is a lot of hindsight. I will look into this particular matter. Each time there is an inquiry, such an inquiry leads to a number of recommendations and, as far as the Department of Transport is concerned, there is a formal response to each recommendation made. If the matter raised by my hon. friend was the object of a recommendation from an inquiry, judge or otherwise, I am sure a response was provided at that time. I will look into this and make sure the hon. member is made aware of the reasons why action along the line he has indicated was not taken.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON REASONS FOR REFUSAL
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, just so that we are very clear, there has never been a formal inquiry on the Virgin Rocks project. The project emanated from within the department. There was a recommendation from the Newfoundland Coast Guard to officials in Ottawa, and I am informed the recommendation was turned down by the ministry on October 2, 1980.
Would the minister please report back to the House even before there is some official inquiry into this tragedy as to the reasons why this recommendation for a heli-pad and medical supply station on the Virgin Rocks, which is half way between St. John's and the Hibernia-and recommended just for the prevention of loss from such a tragedy as this-was in fact turned down?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do so, Madam Speaker. I was just trying to make the point that every time there is an accident of this kind-we all truly regret it-people have ideas about what should have been done to

February 15, 1982
Oral Questions
prevent it. These ideas are studied, and answers are provided. There are budget considerations, and some ideas are not considered acceptable, again from that point of view. I will look into this and make sure my hon. friend receives the full explanation he is seeking.


ALARM SOUNDED ONE WEEK PRIOR TO SINKING
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. There are press reports today that the alarm on the Ocean Ranger was sounded last week because the rig was listing 15 degrees. Indeed, the order was given to abandon ship. In view of the tragic loss of life and the fact that the "unsinkable" Ocean Ranger has in fact sunk, has the minister's department investigated that alarm and its cause, and is he now able to report to the House?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am informed that an inspector from the Canada Oil and Gas Act land administration did inspect the platform in the last two weeks. I do not have a copy of that report and I cannot give any particular information in that respect.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, although the minister did not give an undertaking, I presume he will report to the House.


POSSIBLE DEPLOYMENT OF FIXED WING AIRCRAFT IN NEWFOUNDLAND BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Whilst it is too early to come to any conclusions on this tragedy, which we all regret very much, nevertheless I must avail myself of this opportunity to remind the minister that he has recommendations from within his department for greater deployment of fixed wing aircraft within the Atlantic provinces, and specifically that they be based in Gander in order to respond to situations that may develop in the offshore. I am not in a position to say whether that was a factor or not. I merely want to ask the minister if the government has made any decision with respect to the deployment of fixed wing aircraft in the northwest Atlantic, specifically Newfoundland, so that they can respond with minimum lead time and effect rescue which would, of course, ultimately be carried out by helicopter.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I am well aware of the recommendations mentioned by the hon. member and we have taken them into consideration. No decision has been made yet on the question of positioning fixed wing aircraft in Newfoundland. I know the hon. member's concern about what has just happened and what could happen in Newfoundland coastal waters.
I was aware of this accident very early this morning and I would like to stress the fact that there is no question of a lack
of resources in this case. We must take into consideration that this happened about 200 kilometres from the coast, in 50-foot seas, and in weather conditions that meant that even our best aircraft and our best resources could not be of help.
I will take the comments of the hon. member into consideration and see what we can do in the future.


JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour which pertains to the same subject. As the minister is aware, early this morning the drill rig Ocean Ranger was heavily damaged in a storm, with an unknown number of lives being lost. This afternoon we have heard a jurisdictional dispute over the responsibility of various departments.
Could the minister tell the House whether the drill rig fell under the jurisdiction of the federal or provincial government in terms of occupational health and safety, and could he tell us specifically if federal inspectors regularly visit these rigs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Where is the Minister of Labour?


Marc Lalonde: The responsibility in this regard belongs to the federal government, the federal Parliament. Indeed, as I indicated previously, an inspector visited that rig recently.


Mr. Benjamin:: Which department?


INQUIRY RESPECTING SAFETY REGULATIONS
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, we had an accident at Christmastime which is under investigation. Now we have another serious accident. I think it is time this House was told where the jurisdiction lies. We are talking about the lives of individual workers.
I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources what department has jurisdiction and what kind of safety regulations are in place to ensure that lives are not lost at sea.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is great concern about an incident like this-indeed, a tragedy like this. I should like to refer my friend to the Canada Oil and Gas drilling regulations that are in effect at the present time. When Bill C-48 is proclaimed the responsibilities provided by that act will be fully applied.
February 15, 1982


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it relates to one of the government's white elephants, namely, Mirabel International Airport. Mirabel has three times as many employees as Calgary International Airport, yet Mirabel handles only one third the number of passengers that Calgary does. Could the minister tell us whether Mirabel is overstaffed or whether Calgary International Airport is understaffed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have not made a study of that question in depth. I am quite sure that Mirabel has justification for the number of staff employed there. I am quite sure that Calgary is in a similar situation. Again, I have not done an in-depth analysis of the factors.


POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF SERVICES FROM DORVAL
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my brief supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is an announcement about transferring any air services in the near future from Dorval to Mirabel contemplated soon?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, indeed this question is being studied at the moment.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport respecting the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Robert Bandeen as president of CNR. Mr. Bandeen's sudden departure has resulted in speculation about the reasons; some say that there was a dispute with the board of directors of CNR. Does the minister know the real reason for Dr. Bandeen's resignation? Was it related to his endorsement of the $50 million investment in the ill-fated CAST shipping group, which is now in financial difficulty? Will the minister tell the House why such a high profile public servant would quit so unexpectedly?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, when Dr. Bandeen resigned he issued a communique-and I will be glad to send a copy to my hon. friend-in which he explained that after some seven or eight years directing CN he was looking for other challenges. I have no reason to doubt that this was the reason.
Oral Questions


ASSISTANCE TO CAST SHIPPING GROUP
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I asked the minister whether he knew the real reason, not simply the ones which have been stated. I want to ask him about the CAST shipping group and what has been happening in the last few weeks with respect to that ill-fated company. The minister must know that CAST has been refused credit by CNR and is now appealing for help from international bankers. He certainly knows that $50 million in public funds has been invested in this organization through the Canadian National Railways, notwithstanding that it was characterized as a "James Bond" type of operation. Will the government and CNR continue to support the CAST shipping group and to provide assistance, since I understand that Dr. Bandeen and other officers of CNR are now in Europe investigating the possibility of providing further financial assistance to this organization?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker. Indeed there are difficulties related in the press with respect to the CAST company. As my hon. friend has said, CN has an interest in the company. At the moment the board of CN is fully in charge of the matter, is treating it as a commercial one, and is trying to protect or safeguard its interests and investment in CAST and also the benefits which Canada as a whole and CN in particular have gathered from their association with CAST.


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Minister of State for Economic Development said some time ago that if a country comes to Canada wanting to buy iron, we do not try to sell that country steel. Another bit of economic wisdom was uttered on the weekend by the same minister when he said that the Liberal government is no longer concerned that Canadians are seen as "hewers of wood and drawers of water". In this context he said that the Liberals will continue to try to sell off our resources. Considering that there was a deficit of $21 billion in our manufacturing trade last year, representing some 200,000 Canadian jobs if the manufacturing had been done here, will the minister now confirm that Senator Olson has replaced his, the minister's industrial strategy, with the old Liberal policy of resource sell-offs?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I understand it is Senator Olson's view that the quotations attributed to him in recent press reports were incomplete and taken out of context.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 15, 1982
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As our economic development framework document tabled last November made clear, industrial development continues to be one of our very important priorities, both with respect to building our industrial strength on our resource strength and to developing international competitiveness in other areas of manufacturing activity where we are already achieving or have the capacity to achieve world leadership.


DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCE MEGAPROJECTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his recorded announcement, but let him tell that to the 230,000 workers who have been laid off in the manufacturing sector in recent months.
Considering that the cost of creating one job in resource megaprojects is ten times higher than the creation of one job in manufacturing, and that the Prime Minister has always been critical of suggestions coming from this side of the House as being quick-fix solutions, would the minister answer the following question? Considering these megaprojects produce only temporary construction jobs but do ensure the rapid depletion of our resources, will he admit that the federal government is now trying to bail itself out of a serious balance of payments situation by a quick-fix resource sellout?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not accept or agree with the premise of my hon. friend's question. We are certainly trying and in fact we are successfully working to build up our exports in many areas of high technology. For example, the aerospace sector has exports in the area of 90 per cent of our production of over $3 billion in an industry with 42,000 people. At the same time resource projects offer tremendous opportunities for manufacturing activities. For example, equipment, machinery and engineering involve tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing in our existing industrial base in areas like Ontario and Quebec, as well as in many other parts of Canada.


Mr. Siddon:: It has not happened over the last ten years.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Through our program of ensuring the maximum competitive opportunity from these industrial spin-offs, we want to make sure that Canadians in fact have the benefits in manufacturing through resource development. Resource development is very much a building block for industrial development according to our own policy, approach and action.


MANUFACTURE OF MINING EQUIPMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the recorded announcement, part two. The minister has said, and I listened with care, that the government is taking steps to ensure that we get the manufacturing benefits relating to our resource sales. Everyone who has studied the situation knows that this is totally false. Canada is the third largest producer of minerals in the world, yet in this
sector we have a $1.3 billion deficit in mining machinery which is costing us 13,000 manufacturing jobs. If we were producing the machinery here in Canada to do the work in our mines, we would have those jobs. Instead of going the old route, the quick-fix route of selling off our resources in these megaprojects, why does the government not use a little imagination to ensure that these manufacturing jobs to build mining equipment are kept here in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has identified a problem.


An hon. Member:: You.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As usual, he has no solution. On the other hand we have been working not simply to identify the problem but to develop practical solutions. Last year when we brought together the major mining companies and Canadian manufacturers through the "opportunities in mining conference" we began a process to produce much more of the mining equipment here in Canada. In addition, through the office of industrial and regional benefits and its connected policy, we will do more than we have done in the past-


Mr. Nielsen:: I hope so.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -to ensure that the mining equipment is made in Canada by Canadian workers for our own resource projects.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In addition, we are already taking tangible and practical steps to improve our resource upgrading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: For example, there was the announcement last fall of federal support making possible the building of the zinc smelter in New Brunswick.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: That was a recorded announcement.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is a 1979 speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Indications in the press are to the effect that the hearings on the Crow rate chaired by Dr. Gilson will be held in camera. The minister must be aware that the Crow rate issue is the most important issue that producers
February 15, 1982

in western Canada have faced in their entire history. If these hearings are held in camera and the public is not entitled to hear the representations of the railway companies, the elevator companies, farm organizations and others, this will cast a cloud of suspicion over the whole process.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope so.


Douglas Charles Neil: Will the minister undertake to ensure that these hearings to be chaired by Dr. Gilson will be held in public?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the reason why the discussions that Mr. Gilson will have-


Mr. Epp:: Dr. Gilson.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Sorry, Dr. Gilson. The reason the discussions that Dr. Gilson will have with the farm leaders will be in camera is simply that the discussions on western transportation and the Crowsnest Pass rate, in particular, have been held in public for many years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: it is the unanimous view of people consulted on this subject that the time has come now-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not of Dr. Gilson.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member does not agree with me, but, I repeat, it is the nearly unanimous view that the time has come now for "negotiation on the subject".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is what members of the different pools have been voting on for some time now. The pool representatives have said that if the government is willing to express its view on a number of subjects, they would negotiate with the government. The time has come now-and this is nearly a unanimous view-to negotiate, and this is what Dr. Gilson is going to do.


REQUEST THAT NEGOTIATOR'S TERMS OF REFERENCE BE TABLED
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the minister that the negotiations are vital to the producers of western Canada. It is important that they know what representations are being made by the government and by all the other organizations. It is vital that there be no cloud of suspicion over these hearings. However, is the minister prepared at this time to table the terms of reference under which Dr. Gilson will be operating?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, each gentleman or lady who will be at the negotiating table will be elected by the group he or she represents. I do not intend to debate with them the democratic process exercised in farm communities or organizations. Each one of them is elected and the process is very democratic.
Oral Questions
As to the hon. member's question as to whether I will table the terms of reference, yes, Madam Speaker, I will as soon as I can.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to repeat a question of which he took notice on Friday, and now address it to the Solicitor General. In my question I referred to an article that appeared in the Edmonton Journal on February 4, filed by the Edmonton Journal's Ottawa correspondent, Paul Jackson. Will the Solicitor General release immediately the documentation the RCMP defence counsel requested which is essential for a fair and full trial for the 17 RCMP officers who are charged in the Quebec courts?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have personally reviewed all the documents for which requests had been made. These documents were all available to the McDonald commission under the terms of reference of its order in council. The procedure being followed by me in relation to them is that all of the documents that were made public during the course of that commission, or in its report, on the grounds that national security would not be affected by their release, are being made public. Those that were not so declassified will be the subject of my direction that they not be made public before a judicial proceeding on the grounds of national security.


REASONS FOR REFUSAL TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, I must say that I do have some sympathy for the present minister since he was not directly involved at the time when the RCMP were instructed to investigate separatism in Quebec. However, in view of the fact that two former RCMP security service officers have indicated they were pressured to get involved in probing separatism in Quebec by his Liberal government, is the reason for the Solicitor General's refusal to release the documentation simply a cover-up for his government's illegal activity; and, secondly, would the Solicitor General indicate whether the two former security service chiefs are correct in their accusations that they were instructed directly by the Prime Minister, or his ministerial colleagues, to get more involved in probing Quebec separatism, whether by legal or illegal means?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Hon. members are aware that the McDonald commission was established specifically to deal with allegations of that sort and it had a wide-ranging and very lengthy period of investigation in which

February IS, 1982
Oral Questions
unprecedented access was given to it by this government and the Clark government to review all Privy Council minutes, documents in the possession of the RCMP, to examine witnesses, and ask questions, subject to their terms of reference. An investigation was conducted and a report prepared.
Now, the hon. member has made allegations about illegal acts committed by the government. No such acts were found to have been committed by members of the government, in the findings of the McDonald commission. References were made to certain acts which should be referred to the attorneys general, including the Attorney General of Quebec, for investigation and possible laying of charges. Charges have been laid and documents which the commission released and made public will be submitted to the court, but others which are irrelevant, which deal with confidences of the cabinet and matters of national security, and which were accessible to the McDonald commission, will not be made public for the purposes of this court procedure.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER WAIVE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, out of a sense of decency would the Solicitor General waive Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, it is not a matter of a sense of decency; it is a matter of the contents of these documents and the possible prejudice which could result to the national security of Canada by making such documents public.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if she continues to support the federal budget, whether or not she thinks the health care of Canadians will get better or worse in light of the cutback of $4.5 billion in funding to the provinces? Does she think that will help or hurt health care in Canada?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to confirm to the hon. member that I am very pleased with the budget attributed by the Minister of Finance to medicare. Over each of the next five years this will increase on average by, I think, 13.4 per cent, which is in excess of inflation. Because of that I am not going to have to negotiate financial payments to the provinces and I will be able to concentrate on strengthening medicare. As I said, we will be paying to Alberta, like every other province, sums of money which will increase on average by about 13 per cent year over year, which is excellent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S POSITION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, if accessibility to the health care system is adversely affected, either through the creation of longer waiting lists for things like heart bypasses, or through the intrusion of major user fees, will the minister join with us in opposing the budget at that point, or will she be prepared to resign in protest over the real effect of this budget on the health care of Canadians?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I must say I would regret it very much if some provincial governments were to punish the health of Canadians by cutting funds from their provincial health budgets. There is no way they can blame selection of their own provincial priorities on the federal health payments they receive. As I explained, the moneys we pay for health care, which will increase over each of the next five years as they have in the past, must go to health. Our new technique of block funding has the advantage of respecting local priorities, and I hope it will not have the disadvantage of provinces decreasing their share of the health budget.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Considering the case of Salvadoran journalist Victor Manuel Regalado, who is now under detention in Montreal after a security certificate, signed by the minister and his colleague at Immigration and leading to deportation from Canada, was issued under Section 39 of the Immigration Act, while neither Mr. Regalado, nor his lawyer, nor the adjudicators of the Department of Immigration are aware of the charge, which considerably reduces his chances of defending himself, could the minister inform the House whether he intends to implement soon one of the recommendations made by the McDonald commission, namely, to create a security appeal commission that would automatically review all security certificates issued under Section 39 of the Immigration Act?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I regret there is not at the present time a system for reviewing decisions made in this area, and that I hope soon to be tabling in the House, after discussion in cabinet, a system for external control and review of decisions made with respect to national security.
February 15, 1982


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if I can catch his attention for a second. In light of the fact that there is absolutely no action being taken now in the Niagara area of upstate New York on the Love Canal, Hyde Park, the 102nd Street dump or the S site dump of Hooker Chemical, and in view of the fact that such dangerous chemicals as mirex, PCBs and dioxin are entering our water supplies because of American inaction, and since the minister and his department have on ten separate occasions in recent months exchanged diplomatic notes with the U.S. State Department in this regard with absolutely no effect, will the minister inform this House that he will arrange a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State on this matter and make not only the conclusions of such meeting public but also his proposals?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. gentleman's question indicates, this is a matter in which the facts are somewhat complicated and the degree of co-operation we have been receiving is somewhat less than we want. We are of course meeting with the EPA and trying to arrange meetings with the appropriate American officials. I do not believe at the present time the Secretary of State would be the appropriate American official, but I want to assure the hon. member that this is a matter we take very seriously and we will be pressing it with the American authorities.


NATURE OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, the minister's observations are interesting to hear in light of a 70 per cent cut in the EPA budget, and the minister has yet to appoint a Canadian chairman to the 1JC. The Minister of the Environment has refused to meet with the New York State assemblymen, although we met with them last week and were the first Canadian politicians to do so.
Dr. Beverly Paigen of the New York State Health Department said yesterday that the release of chemicals from the Hooker chemical dumps and others into the Niagara River is in fact endangering Canadian lives now. In light of that, will the minister at least consider asking the U.S. Secretary of State, General Haig, to involve the U.S. military in this matter, since 50 per cent of the scientists in the United States work for the U.S. military? Will he at least ask General Haig, as this may be an area where he has some influence, at least to go into Niagara and to contain those sites which are now, today, endangering Canadian water supplies?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman
Oral Questions
knows that the work of the IJC has not been hampered by the fact that we do not as yet have a permanent chairman on the Canadian side. We have an acting chairman, and the work of that committee is proceeding in the normal way. We have asked the American government not to allow any more pollutants to proceed into the Niagara River until such time as the sewage treatment plant is repaired. 1 want to assure the hon. member again that we will continue and broaden our representations.


LOTTERIES
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who is responsible for amateur sports. Last December the minister asked committee to approve expenditures of over half a million dollars in order to set up his betting program on sports games. At that time he promised to give a breakdown of how that money was spent. He was once again reminded in January, but we still have not received it. When can we expect a breakdown on how he spent that half million dollars in setting up his betting program?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, 1 presume that the hon. member, by mentioning a betting program, is referring to the proposed sports pool, for which 1 hope legislation will be introduced in the not distant future, here in the House.


An hon. Member:: Is that like the wheat pool?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is not betting?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. member opposite says, "It is not betting, Gerry".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is it not?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to respond to what the hon. member says by pointing out that it is quite a different matter to buy a sports pool ticket, such as a soccer pool ticket in England, where one uses one's knowledge of the sport to indicate the exact scores of a great number of games.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is quite a different matter from betting on one individual game, particularly when the amount of money involved is $1. However, coming back to the hon. member's question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -the funds which have been advanced have been used in determining the form of the Crown corporation which will operate the sports pool, and in the general preparations. I would suggest to the hon. member that it would be

February IS, 1982
Oral Questions
appropriate to give him a breakdown of those funds at the time the legislation comes before the House, which should be in the immediate future.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, we were examining estimates at the time. I think that a breakdown of those estimates should be given as a matter of courtesy, and it is the responsibility of the minister to give them. I want to ask the minister what is he trying to hide. Where is he spending that money? Obviously, if he is asking for approval, he should be telling us where he is spending that money. What is the minister trying to hide?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is hard up for a question today. I am not trying to hide anything at all.


John Horton McDermid: You promised to get it for me for two months!


Gerald Augustine Regan: However, I will attempt to remedy the concern of the hon. member by giving him the statistics now, and in advance of the consideration of the bill, if he so wishes.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question through you to the minister responsible for CMHC. 1 would ask him to confirm press reports which state that CMHC will, in fact, renew any mortgages which it may hold on premises which have been insulated with the UFFI-type insulation.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to confirm that statement on an earlier occasion in this House. Of course CMHC, as the manager for the insurer of the mortgage holders, stands behind to insure those holders who provide insurance in the cases which the hon. gentleman has just mentioned.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, that answer is as ambigious or as lacking in definition as the press announcement which I read, and that is why I asked the question. The other day a constituent of mine approached me and stated that his friendly bank would not renew his mortgage. He asked how he could come under the CMHC mortgage system.
Will the government advise us what progress it has made in negotiations with other financial institutions which do undertake mortgages? Will the CMHC add, to its state of guarantees, those mortgages of other institutions which are related to houses containing UFFI? Would the government not consider this to be a responsible move with regard to those householders who have now used a government-authorized material to build sickness chambers for themselves?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, apart from the message in the last part of the question, I must admit that I do not follow the hon. gentleman's original question. He has some difficulty with the press release. If he would like some specifics on the position of the CMHC-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That's what he is asking for.


Paul James Cosgrove: -with regard to the press release, I would be happy to meet with the hon. gentlemen to explain it.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
Fred Alward McCain: The question is very simple, Madam Speaker. Will CMHC continue to guarantee its mortgages on premises which have been insulated with UFFI? Has the government had any success, and has it tried to have success when dealing with other financial institutions which may have mortgages on UFFI premises? Does the government feel it has any responsibility whatsoever with regard to this matter, either through the Crown corporation or by exerting pressure upon private financial institutions?


Walter David Baker: Simple. Now try it!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I believe that I answered the first part of the question in direct response to the first question asked. Concerning the last question, the government has indicated its position through the position adopted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, although the government has no legal responsibility. The government, in a humane way, has taken the responsibility on behalf of taxpayers of Canada, and has set aside over $100 million to respond to the predicament of Canadians who are concerned about UFFI insulation in their homes.


DETAILS OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, following up on my colleague's line of questioning, I would like to ask the minister responsible for housing a question. Where institutions other than CMHC have mortgaged premises with UFFI, we are concerned that our constituents are now finding that these lending institutions will not renew their mortgages. Therefore, Canadians who relied on the CMHC guarantee of this product now find that they cannot refinance their mortgages with the same institutions. Has the government taken any action to help these constituents, these mortgagors, who now find they cannot renew their mortages?


John Horton McDermid: Now do you understand?
February 15, 1982


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the hon. member, the former housing critic for the official opposition in this chamber, must know, without my telling him, that CMHC is not in the business of direct insurance or direct lending.


An hon. Member:: That's not the question.


Paul James Cosgrove: It is in the business of insuring other lenders who provide other money. As I have indicated, some lenders do provide mortgage funds, and some do not.


An hon. Member:: What about penalty?


Paul James Cosgrove: We have taken advantage of suggesting companies to those people who have not been able to find available funds. We have given the names of other companies which are providing mortgage funds.


Madam Speaker:: A single question for the hon. member for Regina East.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. As the minister knows, the Native Friendship Centres which operate in many cities across Canada comprise one of the most successful programs of Indian and Metis people. Funding for the centres is arranged, in part, through a five-year agreement with the federal government. I want to ask the minister why he has so far refused, since becoming the Secretary of State, to meet with representatives from the National Association of Friendship Centres. I would like to know if he is willing to meet with them and to begin the negotiations for a new agreement.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I want to express my agreement with the hon. member that the Friendship Centres have provided very, very important assistance to native people moving into our urban areas, and that the program of the government in support of those Friendship Centres over the past five years, on the whole, has been one of our most successful programs. I only want to say to the hon. member that my department is reviewing the program in relation to any way there could be improvements in any succeeding programs. When we come to conclusions as a result of that study, we will certainly be communicating a proposed course of action to representatives of the native people so we can hear their comments in advance of taking any firm decision.
Point of Order-Mr. McGrath


DISASTERS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I understand that inspectors from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources visited the Ocean Ranger twice in the last month to investigate a ballast problem. Will the minister indicate whether that is the case? If it was the case, will he indicate to the House what those inspectors reported?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm whether there was a visit twice in the last two months. As I indicated, I am informed that an inspector was there in the last two weeks. I will certainly inquire as to the content of the report, if there was a written report or a report of any kind. I will be very happy to inform the Leader of the Opposition.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I have a question of privilege arising out of the question period. The minister half announced an inquiry into the Hibernia disaster. I say half announced because he said he would announce an inquiry at a press conference. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) indicated that there may be a report with respect to a federal inspection of the Ocean Ranger.
My question of privilege is twofold. First, the announcement of an inquiry should be made in this House. It is our privilege to hear that announcement and to comment on it, rather than have it announced at a press conference. Second-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That point does not constitute a question of privilege. If the hon. member wants to debate the question, that is perfectly legitimate, but he cannot do it after the question period by asking to be recognized on a question of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on virtually the same subject. What could be happening here today is contributing to disorder. There is provision made in our Standing Orders for ministerial statements. Today we were given a half commitment that there will be an inquiry announced into the tragedy surrounding the sinking of the Ocean Ranger and that this inquiry will be announced outside the House at a press conference. That creates disorder-not privilege, disorder.
I do not know, Madam Speaker, if you would permit me to do so, but if you would I would ask the Minister of Energy,

February 15, 1982
Business of the House
Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) whether they intend to announce, under the provisions of that part of the Standing Orders dealing with statements by ministers, that there is to be an inquiry into this tragedy, and what are the terms of the inquiry.


Madam Speaker:: I would like to allow the hon. member to ask all of these questions if the rules allowed, but the matter of making a statement is the prerogative of the minister. It is his decision. Even though the Chair might like to, it cannot force a minister to make a statement. The point of order has been expressed. The minister may take it into account or not. That is his privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May 1 put a question to the government House leader on House business? On Thursday last, as reported at page 14896 of Hansard, the government House leader indicated that today we would be considering Bill C-78, amendments to the Canada Labour Code, that on Tuesday we would start debating Bill C-93, the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, and that the opposition day which had been scheduled for last Friday, February 12, would be postponed until "Friday of next week", which is this coming Friday, February 19.
May I ask the government House leader whether there have been any changes or are there any intended changes with respect to those items forecast for this week's business. At the same time could he indicate what the business for Wednesday and Thursday will be?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, as far as the business for today is concerned, we shall be considering Bill C-78. Tomorrow we shall proceed with the borrowing authority bill. I believe the bill is referred to in Hansard as Bill C-91, but I have been told this should be C-93. In any case, a description of the bill was given last week, and the bill to be considered tomorrow is the bill giving the government authority to borrow certain sums of money. We are, of course, waiting for your ruling, and we assume it will be handed down in due time. Otherwise, we shall advise the House accordingly. For the remainder of the week, we intend to continue with Bill C-93, and Friday will be an official opposition day, unless otherwise stated.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am sure you will have been informed that, pursuant to the notice standing on today's Order Paper designating next Friday as our allotted day, I have again filed a notice of motion in the precise terms as notice was filed last Thursday. I hope it will be published on
tomorrow's Order Paper. It was again absent this morning, I assume because the Chair's ruling is outstanding. I express the hope that all of the government members and all of the New Democratic members will be here for that allotted day next Friday and will vote on the question.
[ Translation)


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I just said, Friday will be an official opposition day, unless otherwise indicated. Now, as my colleague has said that he hopes to see as many members as possible in the House, we could accommodate him by shifting the opposition day to Wednesday or Thursday. I shall advise him if there is a possibility of doing so.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the Conservative House leader that provided they keep their act together and we know clearly in whose name the opposition day is, there will be no problem at all in having the New Democratic members turn out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It is obvious the party to my right had problems counting numbers to maintain a government. Let us see if they have the same problem counting numbers to bring one down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you running for the Science Council?


POINTS OF ORDER
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning a very serious accident off the coast of Newfoundland. As Your Honour knows, by unanimous agreement the House can revert to questions for one question that has been raised by a member of the Conservative Party and by a member of the New Democratic Party.
If we can get unanimous agreement now, we would like the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to tell us whether there is to be an announcement this afternoon establishing a formal inquiry and whether the terms of that inquiry will be laid out. More specifically, if that is the case, will he tell us why he is not making that announcement in the House of Commons?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if I understood correctly, we would be happy to support the proposal that we revert at any time today by consent to allow the minister to make a statement on motions so that that information could be given to the House first.
February 15, 1982


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has just told me there will be no announcement today. Under the circumstances, there is no problem.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to questions?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I should like to make it clear that everything that had to be said on the subject has been said in the House today, so that there is no need for us to agree with the request made by the official opposition.


Madam Speaker:: If I understand correctly, there is not unanimous consent.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) saying that there will not be a statement made outside the House by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) before there is a statement in the House?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I said quite clearly that there was nothing more to add to what has been said in the House. I think my answer speaks for itself. It can be readily understood.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am sorry; this speaks directly to the rights of the House of Commons to be the place in which public policy is announced, and I am afraid that what the President of the Privy Council has said has left some ambiguity, whether intentional or not. When a statement is made by a minister with respect to a public inquiry, will that statement be made in the House of Commons or will it be made outside the House of Commons?
translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that when statements are to be made in the House at the time set for statements by ministers, we always have the common courtesy to inform the opposition in advance, and where feasible, and this has practically always been the rule, a copy of the statement is given to opposition parties. Since we have not advised them of our intention of making a statement on the subject in the House today, in addition to what has already been said, it is therefore clear that we do not intend to do so today, and it seems to me one could hardly be more specific than that.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, on a separate point of order, at the end of the question period the hon. Leader of the Opposition put a very pertinent question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with reference to the federal inspectors' report on the very rig that sank, a report that was supposed to be made a short time ago. After listening to the minister's answer. I thought he was about to announce to the House that he would at least make that report public, but it was unclear as to when he would do that. I do not have the blues, so I wonder if I might ask on the point of order whether the government intends to announce this.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is not possible to do this on a point of order. The hon. member knows that he is simply prolonging the question period. The question period is finished.
I cannot allow questions of that nature.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I would also like to follow that up on a point of order, because I do not believe that we have identified this afternoon who is responsible for the health and safety of these workers. The minister has not yet clarified whether it is his government. Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources telling hon. members on this side of the House that, as far as energy is concerned, it has responsibility over health and safety-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is debating the question again. I cannot hear that.


MR. NIELSEN-PRINTING IN ORDER PAPER OF FILED OPPOSITION MOTION-RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER
Madam Speaker:: I would like to rule on the point of order which was brought up last Friday by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). His point of order was that the notice filed by him in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a) did not appear on the notice paper of Friday, February 12, 1982.
Before dealing with this point, I should like to clarify certain references made to the Order Paper by the hon. member in his submission on Friday last. The hon. member alleges that the government, merely by verbal announcement, has altered an item appearing on the Order Paper. I respectfully submit to the hon. member that the government does not alter the Order Paper. Only decisions by the House can have that effect. On the other hand, the notice paper is made up of notices given by members of the House in accordance with the Standing Orders. The production of these papers is under the direction of the Clerk of the House.
Reference was made to page 2 of the Order Paper which is entitled "Projected Weekly Order of Business". Although it is not an official part of the Order Paper, it is inserted for the information and the convenience of hon. members. The same is true of the notes projecting dates for allotted days when announced or a note placed under a particular government order or private member's item of business. They are there for the guidance of hon. members. In this instance, the note

February 15, 1982
Petitions
projecting the third allotted day in this supply period was changed following the decision of the Chair on Thursday last.
The other point I would like to deal with is the allegation of the hon. member that the notice filed in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should have been printed on Friday's notice paper, since Friday, February 12, had been designated as an allotted day. As hon. members are aware, the government House leader indicated that February 12 would not be an allotted day and that instead Friday, February 19, would be the third allotted day in this supply period.
I need not remind hon. members of the discussion that took place on Thursday on this particular matter when I indicated to the House that, in accordance with Standing Order 18(2), government orders are called and considered as the government determines. Consequently, Friday, February 12 not being an allotted day, the notice paper did not reflect the text of the right hon. member's motion, nor the text of another motion received from the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).
In his argument, the hon. member for Yukon suggested that, since the notice had not been withdrawn, the text of the motion should have been printed on the notice paper. I am in full agreement with the hon. member that the text of both notices, despite the fact that one was dated and one was not, should have appeared on the notice paper under the appropriate heading and I have directed the Clerk of the House to see to it that they are indeed printed on tomorrow's notice paper.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour of tabling in the House of Commons, in both official languages, the annual report of Metric Commission Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981.


PETITION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition on behalf of 754 concerned residents of Orillia and its surrounding area in Ontario. They ask that Sanchia, Kimberley, and Jacqueline Dougan, who are presently visiting Mrs. Dougan's mother and brother in Orillia, be allowed to remain in Canada as landed immigrants on humanitarian grounds. They are concerned that if the Dougans are deported back to Northern Ireland, it will be under threat of certain death.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,795, 3,027 and 3,215.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Were the airport vehicle parking fees regulations amended to increase the tariff rates for automobile parking effective July 1, 1981 at the (a) Calgary (b) Ottawa (c) Regina (d) Saskatoon (e) Gander (0 Halifax (g) Toronto (h) Vancouver (/') Edmonton (j) Winnipeg (k) Quebec (I) Charlottetown (m) Mirabel (n) Dorval airports?
2.	In each case, for each airport (a) what is the anticipated revenue from the vehicle parking tariffs for (i) July I to December 31, 1981 (ii) 1982 (b) what was the (i) anticipated (ii) actual revenue accruing from the fees for each year from 1978 to June 30, 1981?
3.	What is the average rate of increase of the parking fees (a) across the board (b) for each category of fees set in the regulations?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The Airport Vehicle Parking Fees Regulations were amended to increase the tariff rates for parking, effective July 1, 1981, at Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Quebec and Dorval airports. Tariff rates were not increased at Ottawa, Gander, Halifax, Toronto, Charlottetown and Mirabel airports.
2(a), (i) and (ii) For each airport, the anticipated revenue in thousands of dollars is as follows:
July 1-Dec. 31	,1981	FY 1981/82Charlottetown	15.4	30.8Halifax	303.3	583.4Gander	6.6	11.5Dorval	2625.0	3500.0Mirabel	683.5	1367.0Quebec	220.0	440.0Ottawa	490.7	981.4Toronto	5480.5	11162.5Regina	112.5	225.0Saskatoon	164.4	328.8Winnipeg	445.0	890.0Calgary	1162.5	2755.0Edmonton	1022.2	2500.0Vancouver	2080.0	3660.22(b), (i) For each	year from 1978	to June	30, 1981, the
anticipated revenue was:
February IS, 1982

Order Paper Questions
sooo.
					April/June
1977/78	1978/79	1979/80	1980/81	1981 (3 mos)Charlottetown	12.5	10.2	13.8	26.0	5.4Halifax	404.0	500.8	517.9	517.1	119.0Gander	11.0	11.4	7.1	4.8	2.3Dorval	2235.0	2503.3	3097.0	3400.0	714.0Mirabel	1604.4	1743.0	1717.5	1842.2	278.9Quebec	185.0	196.0	296.3	299.4	89.8Ottawa	555.2	672.1	763.7	829.5	200.2Toronto	5900.0	7114.0	7858.5	9418.0*	2,236.1Regina	136.0	159.2	195.0	232.4	45.9Saskatoon	128.0	165.0	196.4	231.0	67.1Winnipeg	545.0	656.8	741.3	802.5	181.6Calgary	1420.0	1030.0	1982.1	1955.0	562.0Edmonton	662.0	670.0	751.2	1410.2	510.0Vancouver	3200.0+	2316.8	2491.0	2973.0	746.72(b), (ii) For each year from	1978 to June 30,	1981, the	actual revenue was:	$000.	April/Junc1977/78	1978/79	1979/80	1980/81	1981 (3 mosCharlottetown	11.1	12.6	16.4	30.4	4.6Halifax	387.5	408.2	498.5	576.6	87.8Gander	6.4	Nil	10.4	10.0	6.0Dorval	2574.4	2737.4	2888.8	3010.2	554.4Mirabel	1713.2	1807.1	1602.3	1625.2	343.3Quebec	165.7	277.5	320.6	415.8	98.8Ottawa	619.0	700.1	766.2	854.2	218.4Toronto	6557.7	7307.1	8460.7	8157.9**	2366.5Regina Saskatoon	153.9 156.2	181.2 190.6	199.7 220.2	217.1 282.6	62.2 56.7Winnipeg	642.1	706.6	738.2	722.9	143.6Calgary	1074.5	1791.9	2156.6	2268.7	560.1Edmonton	640.9	841.7	1204.4	1645.6	384.3Vancouver	2048.2	2323.6	2757.0	3196.7	731.7
+ This forecast was overestimated.
* The forecast was estimated on the basis of passenger volume only.
[DOT][DOT]The actual revenue was lower than 1979/80 due to lower passenger volume and new competition from off-airport operations (park and fly).
3. The average rate of increase of the parking fees (a) across the board is 24.4 per cent and (b) for (i) metered parking is 8.7 per cent, (ii) short-term parking lot is 20 per cent, (iii) an unattended lot controlled by automatic devices is 46.1 per cent, (iv) at a parking structure of building at which the services of an attendant are provided is 33.6 per cent, and (vi) an area designated by the Department of Transport as a remote public parking lot is 30 per cent.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government intend to carry out experiments with nuclear radiation on dogs that would induce retching and vomiting and, if so (a) what are all the reasons for the experiments and what is the name and job designation of the highest-ranking person authorizing the experiments (b) will the treatment result in the dogs dying an agonizing death?
2.	Does the government have a policy of humane treatment to animals and, if so, how does it justify the experiments?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. See response to question
No. 3,273 answered on December 17, 1981, and published in Hansard No. 279, page 14,164.


Mr. Beatty: Did any cabinet minister, while holding a portfolio, directly or indirectly receive loans from the Farm Credit Corporation and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) what was the value of the loan (c) on what date was the loan (i) made (ii) repaid?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Farm Credit Corporation advises that since the opening of the first session of the Thirtieth Parliament:
(a), (b), (c), (i), (ii) None. Records on loans are retained for the duration of each loan plus an additional Five-year period.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,520 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed that question No. 3,520 be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fretz: What forms of economic and technical assistance programs and what forms of aid, expressed in millions of dollars, were disbursed through CIDA, IDRC, the Department of External Affairs and/or any other department to (a) Indonesia (b) Nepal (c) Sri Lanka (d) China (e) Ivory Coast (f) Nigeria (g) Tanzania (h) Ghana in the fiscal year (i) 1978-79 (ii) 1979-80 (iii) 1980-81?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 14, 1981, consideration of Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Madam Speaker:: As the hon. members are aware, there are on the Order Paper 23 motions at the report stage of Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. I have examined the first ten motions and I plan on grouping them as follows. Motions numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 should be grouped for debate with a vote on motion No. 1 disposing of motions numbered 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Motion No. 10 should be voted on separately. Motions numbered 3 and 4 should be debated together but voted on separately. Motion No. 9 should be debated and voted upon separately. If hon. members are
agreeable the Chair will now proceed to propose to the House motions numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 29 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Board may, by order, desig-".
Motion No. 2
February 12, 1982-That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 33 and 34 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"ally pursuant to subsection (1) if the Board is statisfied that".
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 9 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"subsection (1) if the Board is".
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"the period so specified, the Board makes a continuation order continu-". Motion No. 7
That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 36 and 37 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"before the expiry of that one year, the Board makes a continuation order". Motion No. 8
That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 41 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(7) Where the Board has".


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 4
(a)	by striking out lines 13 to 15 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"five members."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 18 at page 4 the following:
"(3) One member of the Board shall be appointed after consultation with such organizations representative of employees as the minister deems appropriate and shall be a representative of employees and another member of the Board shall be appointed after consultation with such organizations representative of employers as the minister deems appropriate and shall be a representative of employers."; and
(c)	by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.
He said: Madam Speaker, I should like to report that this bill-the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act-has received careful and detailed scrutiny in the committee, and there has been very active participation on the part of all interested members. In fact, Members of Parliament from all sides of the House co-operated in suggesting ways by which the bill could be improved and, indeed, many suggestions have been incorporated into the current legislative proposal before us today.
February 15, 1982

At it stands now, the bill will be even more effective in alleviating hardships experienced by all workers affected by lay-offs in industries and communities designated under the industrial labour adjustment program. For instance, I should like to thank the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) for his suggestion that the definition of industrial restructuring include technological change. I also appreciate the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that we should amend Clause 4 to ensure that the five members of the Labour Adjustment Review Board include one member from labour and one from management. I also welcome the recommendation that the Labour Adjustment Review Board should not have the power to impose penalties on people who make false or misleading statements in order to meet the eligibility requirements for benefits. This is an eminently reasonable suggestion. A penalty should only be imposed by a court, and therefore the committee removed this power from Section 18.
While the board retains the power under Section 18 to revoke an employee's certification for benefits, the fairness of the provision is strengthened now that it allows the employee 30 days to appeal against the revocation of a certificate.
Another change of the utmost importance is the amendments to Clause 23. This clause authorizes an officer of the board to enter premises to inspect in order to determine a firm's eligibility. The recommendation draws a clear distinction between a private dwelling and other buildings so as to restrict inspections to commercial and industrial locations and to ensure that an officer can enter only with the authorization of the minister on a case by case basis. 1 thank the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) for raising this issue.

Further on, Mr. Speaker, in order to tighten responsibility for administering the act, Clause 30 has been amended to provide that the minister shall report to Parliament on a quarterly instead of an annual basis.
The role of joint planning committees has been expanded in an amendment to Clause 31. The objective of those committees is now to eliminate the need for terminating employment instead of merely minimizing the consequences.
In addition to the changes made in committee, there are further amendments 1 should like to consider with you today. Five are aimed at improving the French version of the bill. There is Clause 3, and then paragraph 3 of Clause 12 and Clause 18.

There are also amendments intended to improve the English version-two in Clause 4, one in Clause 25, and a proposal to improve the syntax of an amendment accepted in committee is suggested for Clause 29.
Others are of more substance. One amendment proposed by committee members is a clarification of Clause 16 which will ensure that the pre-retirement benefit under the bill is over
Labour Adjustment Benefits
and above worker compensation benefits or other disability payments. In other words, no such deductions will be made from benefits. I am particularly grateful to the hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for his having forcefully raised this point in committee.
A second important amendment will provide that where for good cause, such as absence or worker's compensation, an employee has not obtained the full minimum of 1,000 hours of work in any year, he or she may still be deemed to be in compliance with the requirement and will be eligible for the benefit. Here I am particularly grateful for the brief submitted by people from the eastern townships and to several members of the committee, including the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance), the hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois).
The committee also expressed a concern that people currently receiving adjustment assistance benefits should continue to receive the same level of benefits under the proposed legislation they are receiving now. I understand their concern and fully support the principle. Therefore, I recommend the draft amendment to Clause 34, which reflects in good part the interventions made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.
I also recognize the concern of hon. members that the bill provide for retroactive designations, and so propose that Clause 4 be amended accordingly.

In concluding, I am most appreciative of the work done by the members of this committee, who have given so generously of their time and attention and have helped to improve this very urgent and necessary legislation.

I thank hon. members of all parties and seek their support for the speedy passage of this needed legislation.
Mir. Joe Reid (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House will agree, it comes as a bit of a surprise that we are addressing ourselves to Bill C-78 today. It is a bill which will provide some measure of support to laid-off workers and, goodness knows, under the conditions which exist today any help is better than what most of them are receiving presently.
This bill was given first reading on June 29, 1981, second reading on November 6, 1981, and two weeks ago was still in committee. All of a sudden it has assumed great importance and, goodness knows, any bill which relates to over one million unemployed is worthy of urgent consideration. But that situation has existed for some time, Mr. Speaker. No matter that the announcement was made that the printed copies of the amended bill were not available, no matter that there was no previous notice of the consideration that must be given to this bill so that members could take it back to their constituents and the people affected, the bill has come forward to take the place of a regularly and duly allotted day. In order to avoid embarrassment, established rules of procedure were thwarted

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
and, with over one million people unemployed, this would be the bill that would justify another of the government's highly questionable tactics.
By showing such contempt for the parliamentary system, such little regard for the right of members to know in advance the subject matter of debate and by resorting to arbitrary and even underhanded methods in altering the agreed upon agenda of this House, the government is showing a disregard for the thoughts, feelings and opinions of the Canadian people.
In these days of plant closings and record high unemployment, this is an important bill, a serious bill, a bill that acknowledges, even if it does not remedy, the grave unemployment situation that exists in the country. Surely with over one million people unemployed the government might have wished to have every effort brought to bear on improving Bill C-78 so that it could be the best possible bill as it relates to what is happening in our labour market today. Surely such a bill should not be the object of a political football game.
Obviously the government had no wish or desire to listen. It was politically expedient to introduce the bill today. If the government has no respect for the opposition and is going to deny the opposition an opportunity to do its homework and consult with constituents in order to prepare for debate, then this House and our system of government has no place in the scheme of things. The people of Canada, I can assure you, will think otherwise. Bill C-78 is a very serious and important bill.
I am sorry that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) is not in the House to listen to the official response to this bill, Mr. Speaker. During committee consideration of the bill he did show some degree of flexibility and inclination to accept and adopt recommendations from members of the opposition. He spoke of the necessity for progressive labour legislation, and because of this was prepared to accept some of the changes that are now proposed. He, too, must have some regrets that Bill C-78 is treated in such a cavalier, shoddy fashion. I rather suspect, unless I have completely misjudged the minister, that he is aware that Bill C-78 is not going to receive the thoughtful consideration it deserves.
The minister introduced some important amendments but these have been available for consideration for less than two weeks. The amendments warrant further consideration. We want to assure the minister of speedy passage but would point out that further co-operation and flexibility will be necessary. That opportunity has been denied by the minister and the government and this will be to the detriment of the bill and the laid-off workers it is intended to serve.
The riding of St. Catharines-a city I am proud to represent in this House-is particularly affected by this legislation. Just today the largest employer in the community, General Motors, announced a further lay-off of 2,400 or 2,600 workers. The economic effect of that lay-off is serious enough, but the social and human impact is tragic. It is simply one of a series of such lay-offs that have been going on for several months. Over all, on a percentage basis, the St. Catharines-Niagara region leads the country in unemployment. Literally tens of thousands of workers left the area in 1981 to find jobs elsewhere.
While there is no question that the group hardest hit by unemployment is the youth of this country, with other members of this House I am deeply concerned by the growing numbers of people over the age of 50 who, for the first time in their lives, are suddenly out of work. These people have lived in the community, shared its economic and social benefits and woes, have established family units, and now what are these more senior among us to do?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. It has just been brought to my attention that the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) made reference to the fact that I was not in the House a few moments ago. I left for a couple of minutes and 1 should like to bring to his attention that I am back.


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the return of the hon. minister after the comment was made.
I had just mentioned that thousands of the people on lay-off have established themselves in their communities and are now over 50 years of age. What are these senior people to do? Most available jobs-and they are few-are not for those over 50. Retraining is not attractive to them and is barely available even if it were attractive.
I want to bring to the attention of the House another instance in my community. For some months I have been trying to assist employees of Lightning Fastener Company in the city of St. Catharines. The plant was closed and employment terminated. The employees have not only had to endure the loss of a job but have encountered red tape and problem after problem when trying to find alternate employment before their unemployment insurance or severance pay ran out. For some, all this has been compounded by the November 12 budget which swooped down and taxed severance pay. They, and members on this side of the House, are continuing to fight that proposal.
I could cite further examples but the point is that we are not only faced with an unemployment problem, but for the first time since the thirties, that other depression, we are seeing the unemployment problem catch up with the more senior employee, the person over 50 years of age.
Bill C-78 is a limited though welcome response to this growing problem. I should like to outline briefly how this proposed legislation would work and offer some comments on how it could be improved.
One of our greatest concerns is that the bill will become bogged down in bureaucracy. This must be guarded against if the plan is to work at all. When a worker is laid off, the normal procedure is for him or her to apply for unemployment insurance benefits.
May 1 digress for just a moment, Mr. Speaker. The inability of the different departments of government to cope with the process is becoming evident again. The biggest boner of all was the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island and the insistence that the Pension Commission go along with it. As everyone in the house knows, that has
February 15, 1982

resulted in unconscionable delays in the processing of veterans' claims.
Lay-offs continue in great numbers and in industries which the government was able to forecast. Again I use the automobile industry as an example. Applications for unemployment insurance are being processed through local unemployment insurance offices and then forwarded to Belleville for card clearance entitlement. Unemployment insurance officials are already working overtime, not only during weekdays but on weekends as well. Some of them are publicly complaining about continued stress and pressure in the system, but the important point is that the commission is not geared, as it should be, to process claims of unemployed people with any degree of reasonable efficiency or expediency. Cards of entitlement have not yet been received in the community of St. Catharines for lay-offs which occurred as late as January 10, and thousands more workers have been laid off since that date. A backlog of hardship and suffering is being borne by terminated and unemployed workers whom the Unemployment Insurance Commission is supposed to assist.
1 should like to return to the problems which in my view exist in the bill. If an unemployed worker qualifies for insurance, it becomes a mutual problem between him and the government, through the unemployment insurance agency, to find new employment. Apart from simply finding the worker a new job, the Unemployment Insurance Commission now has the responsibility, as it should have had before, to try three additional avenues-retraining, mobility grants and/or a portable wage structure arrangement. Should all these avenues fail to produce new employment, individuals are faced with the prospect of unemployment insurance benefits expiring and of no other income being available except welfare. Indeed it is frightening; it is even a humiliating experience for a senior person to endure. It is not the fault of the worker. He is not responsible for the government's high interest rate policy or its disastrous budget. It is not the fault of the worker that the government has failed to do what the nation expected it to do-to provide some forward planning and to develop an industrial strategy which would keep people working.
Bill C-78 recognizes this deficiency in government by taking into account an additional avenue of approach. After all else has failed, the worker will be given an early retirement. In order to accomplish this, the legislation proposes the establishment of a Labour Adjustment Review Board which has all the appearances of being totally unnecessary and unjustified. With a little more refinement and time, the board might have been eliminated from the bill, but it is still with us. Its chore will be to investigate lay-offs which the Unemployment Insurance Commission went through earlier and to determine whether or not unemployed workers qualify under the provisions of Bill C-78, with which I will deal in a minute. As the unemployed person reaches the end of his or her unemployment insurance benefits and is still without job prospect, the commission would draw the case to the attention of the board which would then decide whether or not the lay-off is within an industry desig-
Labour Adjustment Benefits
nated under the provisions of the act and whether the individual qualifies for benefits under the act.
Let us assume that the lay-off and the individual both qualify. The board would then recommend that the individual be placed on early retirement, and it would be up to the UIC to implement the decision or investigate further. Assuming all goes well, the individual would be placed on early retirement and paid a pension up to a maximum amount of $210 per week, indexed to the consumer price index, which pension would continue as long as the employee is under age 65.
From time to time my daughter accuses me of being less than clear when explaining how bureaucracy works. Despite my deliberate efforts to set out clearly and specifically how the program will work, it is obvious that it is mired in red tape and bureaucracy, which of necessity reduces its effectiveness. Under the legislation an applicant must be 54 years of age and have worked for at least ten of the last 15 years and for at least 1.000 hours in each of the ten years.
I listened to the presentation of the minister a few moments ago. He indicated that there will be some flexibility. This arose only as a result of representations made in committee. Such flexibility in terms of 1,000 hours per year is a necessity. A 54-year-old person with a family and with such a record of service should not be subjected to endless applications, interviews and investigations, to satisfy the government's unrepentant obsession with red tape and bureaucracy. He has already endured a tragedy-the loss of his job. He has already spent a frustrating year or more under the guidance of UIC attempting to find an alternate form of employment and going through the alternative avenues to which he is now subjected. Once that is done, with cap in hand he goes to another bureaucrat in some other commission or board to ask for further assistance, whether he qualifies under the act or will receive welfare. We submit that this is a totally unnecessary and degrading step which the bill could eliminate without any loss of substance.
We raised this point in committee and we were assured by the Minister of Labour and his deputy minister that our fears were groundless. They said that it will not be bureaucratic, that it will work as smoothly and efficiently as they promised. Time will tell on that score, but as the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) pointed out a number of times, as Members of Parliament we will be very busy explaining how the program will work and writing letters to the UIC, to the board and to the minister showing where the system will bog down in bureaucracy. With lay-offs of over 2,000 at a time becoming all too common, there will be many letters and telephone calls.
I should like to return to the many "ifs" which I raised earlier and to start with the first step. What happens to a laid-off worker when he or she has finally made it through the red tape involved in obtaining unemployment insurance? Earlier this week two representatives of the senior citizens, "Action Now" association met with a number of Conservative Members of Parliament. They stated flatly that if one was over 45 years of age, one should not go to the Unemployment

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
Insurance Commission for assistance. One representative pointed out that she was told not to bother, and she was over 45 years of age. In view of this, how can we treat seriously the ability of UIC to find answers? Even if Manpower was prepared to assist, what older worker with a home would be prepared to take advantage of the mobility grant? Homes are virtually unsaleable. The renting of a new home is impractical. Mobility is fine for those free to move.
Therefore, avenue number one; that is, Manpower finding a person a job, is a pretty remote possibility. Avenue number two is a mobility grant; that is impractical. Avenue number three, which is retraining, is just as elusive. What job retraining is there, Mr. Speaker? In St. Catharines and across Canada the task force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s reported that training programs are merely stopgap measures to get people off the unemployment rolls. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) himself admitted that the courses and curriculum offered under the adult occupational training programs have become "increasingly irrelevant to the job demands in Canada". That being the case, why dangle the opportunity before these senior citizens? It is time the government became aware of the fact that we have a skilled labour crisis on our hands. The minister's speeches and press releases will be of little comfort in the next election. He will not be in this House, so we can tell him "We told you so".
The last avenue, and I will be very brief about this, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think the Chair is obligated to seek the unanimous consent of other hon. members. The time for the hon. member for St. Catharines expired a few minutes ago. Would hon. members give unanimous consent so that the hon. member may conclude his speech in the next two minutes or so?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: I want to thank my colleagues for granting me this extension of time. A further avenue which this bill addresses is that of the portable wage subsidy. However, I want to draw to the attention of hon. members that as of December 31, 1981, only 318 job vouchers were issued and that, in the face of the great number of lay-offs with which we have confronted ourselves, is a very small number.
Step two of the bill comes after the unemployment commission has gone through the alternate avenues, which is part of its responsibility. Then the case of the unemployed senior citizen is referred to the Labour Adjustment Review Board. This board is made up of five members, all appointed by the minister. This board again investigates the lay-off of the individual and questions the qualifications and what the individual has done. Not only that, the individual must be one of 50. I sometimes question why a senior citizen should be one of 50, or 10 per cent of the work force, before he is entitled to this kind of assistance. If I am out of a job and over the age
limit, surely the benefits of this bill should be made available to me as well as to a larger group force by a bigger employer.
The significant economic adjustment must be by reason of either import competition or industrial restructuring pursuant to the provisions of the act. Import competition is clear but the act does not make clear what industrial restructuring is because the qualifier is that this must be pursuant to a policy or a program of the government. Industrial restructuring includes technological change, but how is one to discern between a technological change undertaken for strictly business purposes or that undertaken because of a government program or policy that encourages such change?
Although I have a number of complaints and questions with respect to this bill, I want to confine my concluding remarks to the flexibility to which the minister referred and which becomes necessary in the qualifications of a worker for the benefits of this bill. I have already referred to the rigidity of the 1,000 hours per year requirement. This, I anticipate, will be altered. At first glance it seems reasonable enough but there are too many other contingencies involved. The second one has to do with the length of time, namely, the ten of 15 years that one must be in the work force. The Canadian Labour Congress pointed out that the average job tenure in Canada is between seven and eight years, not ten. Some change or alteration might be made to this provision as well.
My third point is related to pensions. We still have a pension system in this country which runs the gamut from an old medieval system to a progressive one. This legislation brings out the worst in both. There is no protection to the senior citizen's pension, whether or not he has to pay into it in the future, whether he is entitled to what he has received, or indeed what pension protection he might get under the bill.
Finally, we have to recognize the limitations of Bill C-78. In committee the Minister of Labour told us that Bill C-78 was limited in scope and in application. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association told us that Bill C-78 was largely impractical. The United Steelworkers of America told us it was not adequate. There can be no question about this when the government's program over the next three years is to allocate funds up to $10.4 million for laid-off workers. But the federal government will spend an equivalent amount in amenities and entertainment over the same period.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I participate in the report stage of Bill C-78. Not all of my comments will be laudatory. My colleagues and myself see a number of grave failings, particularly in the first half of the bill which deals with the benefits and restrictions and to whom those very limited benefits will be paid.
First, I want to thank other members who served on the committee. I want to thank the minister for the degree of flexibility shown during the consideration of a number of amendments. Of course, we did not get anything like what we wanted, but some progress was achieved. I have been told by other colleagues of mine who have been in this place longer
February 15, 1982

than 1 that the procedures, easy exchanges and some of the positive results that took place in the committee, if not without precedent, were at least of a nature not seen all that often within the committee structure. In a number of instances, I found the committee exchanges to be an extremely satisfying experience. For the first time in my two years in this Flouse I felt that a positive and actually perceivable contribution was made. I see the government has left in the bill some of the changes that were made in committee and has not tampered with them. For that I am very thankful.
Having said that, I must address some of the bills' obvious limitations. In many of the minister's answers, both at second reading and in committee, he made it clear that the bill itself is very limited. On January 28 in committee the minister said to the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) that there was a failure to realize that this bill is not a bill to create jobs but to provide a certain minimum of income to older workers in certain communities. What we have, apart from the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, which is the latter half of the bill, is a bill to provide benefits to some categories of people in some areas of Canada, and those areas of Canada will be chosen strictly at the discretion of the minister within the rather too narrowly defined limits proposed in the bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with over one million unemployed at last count, and while we welcome benefits for relatively few of them, especially some older Canadians who may benefit in a concrete way from the provisions in this bill, we are profoundly disturbed at the further balkanization of the unemployment insurance system which will be an inevitable result of this legislation. When we alter a program which was initially universal in its application, simply depending on whether or not someone had been unemployed for a period of time and had contributed to the work force, there is a concern that the divisions this may cause will split region from region, industry from industry, resource areas from manufacturing areas, and the young from the old. Slowly but surely we see in the first half of this bill the dismantling of the national unemployment insurance system and its replacement with a patchwork of individual schemes which, while they are fine in themselves, when taken in isolation, will play off one group of workers against another, and one region of Canada against another.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, and I think I speak for almost all members, we have had enough of that kind of emotion and division without giving more room for those suspicions to grow. As a member from a resource area of western Canada-and many of my caucus colleagues are also from resource areas-I feel those very real attitudes among some of our constituents very strongly and hesitate to see anything else take place which will add to those suspicions and add fuel to the flames. Perhaps "flames" is too strong a word; I think "sparks" is probably a better description at this stage; but we should take them seriously in an attempt to avoid further fanning of them when we can do so without great difficulty.
Labour Adjustment Benefits
These suspicions may arise particularly when the designations will be chosen politically by the minister alone. Of course, we would never suggest that a minister of the Crown would be partisan in his designation of these areas.


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I would be the last person to suggest that of the new Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) who is so conscientious. However, we live in a political system and many people will be very suspicious of a bill containing so many grounds to believe that may be done. It has been said that the designated areas which will fall within the ambit of this bill are, with one sole exception, within a constituency represented by the governing party. Now, maybe that is simply an accident, that the Liberal party represents those areas of the country which have failed economically more than many others. Perhaps there is a message in that somewhere, because I do not know which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
How many people, Mr. Speaker, will actually benefit and where will they be? When this concept first arose approximately a year ago there were five areas considered for designation. It then became eight, and I believe it may now be ten. How many people within even those designated areas are actually going to benefit? We have a submission from both the United Steelworkers and the regional development council from eastern Quebec that in the area of Schefferville, Sept-Iles and Port Cartier only 35 out of over 900 people were actually receiving benefits and would be covered retroactively, I assume, by this legislation. While we realize this is limited, I wonder whether people will realize how limited it is intended to be.
In so far as the age restrictions are concerned, Mr. Speaker, employees must be 54 years old or over in order to receive what is sometimes referred to as the early retirement benefit, with ten years employment. While that is understandable for people who are engaged particularly in heavy manufacturing and resource industries, anyone who is unemployed regardless of whether he or she lives in a designated region or not, it is just as much a crisis for a person in that category to be unemployed, regardless of the nature of his or her work. Setting this restriction in place in the legislation makes us wonder whether or not family allowances and old age pensions are one day going to be decided by area designation. Where does the principle of balkanization stop once you begin to put it into practice? Again, we regret that the unemployment insurance system, which was designed and improved significantly over the years, is now beginning, perhaps for the best of motives, to break down the principle of universality through the balkanization of social and economic services provided by the federal government.
There is reference within this bill, industry by industry, to the designation of an area due to problems arising from import competition. When we think of that, Mr. Speaker, especially with hearings taking place next month in Portland, Oregon, and the possibility that tariffs may be imposed against one of our major industries, the forest industry, why can this bill not

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
be reworded in such a way that industries facing dislocation, if that is the term, as a result of export competition can be helped in the same way as those in the manufacturing sector?
There are a number of issues related to that which I and my colleagues will raise in clause by clause consideration, but I should like to say a few words now about the Labour Code amendments in the second half of the bill. It is here, Mr. Speaker, I think I feel the greatest sense of accomplishment, not only for myself but for my colleagues, as to what was achieved in committee. I do not say that in a partisan way because I believe it applies to members of all parties. We were able to achieve some changes so that at least some of the structures, such as the joint committees established under this legislation, having been given warning of the change to 16 weeks for advance notice, will be able to do a more effective job. I say this because we eliminated from the original bill some of the provisions which would have prevented those committees from looking a little beyond trying to find new jobs for people to see if something could not be done to review the initial decision to close down, lay off or terminate. By this I mean using the time afforded by this more adequate notice in order to put new mechanisms and initiatives in place so that those lay-offs and terminations may in fact need not take place. In committee we eliminated those sections which restricted the joint committees from even considering that option. We then put positive amendments in place which suggested that they do look at those more positive options for saving the jobs or altering the form of the jobs.
We hope that during the amendment process the House will correct one of the weaknesses which we still see remaining. We do have one amendment which will deal with it. We suggest that those joint committees and the officials working in conjunction with them be allowed access to the information required in order to carry out the duties with which they are charged under the legislation. What is the point of telling people that they can review a decision, that they can develop adjustment programs to change that decision, and that they can create new jobs or maintain jobs, if we do not even allow them to get into the area of asking for, not to mention demanding, the financial and economic information from the employer, whether public or private, which anyone would need in order to make a rational judgment of what should follow? Once we have accepted one premise, we must surely consider the other, and we must seriously consider it.
We have a number of amendments, comprising 13 in all, I believe. They are standing in my name on behalf of my colleagues. I would ask that the minister and the House give careful consideration to all of them. One in particular arose from the brief submitted by the Regional Development Council from eastern Quebec. I believe it was also raised within the steelworkers' brief, and perhaps one or two others. It dealt with the averaging of hours rather than insisting that there be a definite minimum of 1,000 paid hours per year. We have not chosen to alter the current wording within the bill to denote averaging.
I do not believe it was ever the intent of hon. members of the House or the intent of the minister that people who have lost some of their 1,000 hours in a given year should be disregarded. These people may have been on disability insurance, on workmen's compensation, on sick benefits, or some type of leave of absence which was authorized by their employers. We do not believe it was ever the intent that anyone in that category should be disregarded simply because they did not have what could be narrowly defined as 1,000 paid hours. If the House and the government would seriously consider that amendment, I believe we would find that all hon. members of goodwill would resolve one of the questions which was raised by a number of the delegations before the committee.
In concluding, I would say we have mixed feelings about the bill, but that is the case concerning any human endeavour. I do want to say again that within the committee we did feel there was a genuine attempt on the part of all parties to come to some kind of an agreement. Whether we end up with the unanimous opinion of this House or not when we get to the end of the road on this piece of legislation, I believe there will have been a positive contribution by all parties. I hope that consideration of the amendments put forward by our party and the government will be equally generous and understanding. Again, regardless of the final outcome of our various decisions, I hope we will produce what will be of maximum benefit to the maximum number of people. I hope there will be flexibility so that whoever may comprise the Government of Canada in the course of time may be able to bring the maximum amount of justice to the maximum number of Canadians.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We undertake to do that.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code.
On December 14 of last year, the House ordered Bill C-78 referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, whose meetings I had the honour of chairing. I should like to thank my committee colleagues who showed their co-operation throughout consideration of the bill and with whose support the committee was able to establish a working schedule under which all interested groups were able to appear before the committee. I also wish to thank all witnesses, groups and associations that appeared before the committee. To their credit, committee members sat through long sessions during which they questioned witnesses, absorbed the information provided and obtained a better understanding of the implications of the bill before the committee. All my colleagues, I am sure, found the representations made by witnesses appearing before the committee very useful. In fact, a number of recommendations made before the committee were instrumental in bringing about vital changes in the initial bill. Thus, the bill before the House today has been improved as a result of amendments made and passed in committee.
February 15, 1982

Congratulations should, of course, go to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), who has shown that his main concern is to provide fair treatment for all persons affected by the bill. He collaborated with us on several occasions when a decision had to be made on amendments proposed by various members of the committee. The minister promised us that certain amendments that committee members could not move in committee would be moved by the minister at the report stage. He has kept his word, I am happy to say, and I also note that major changes were made in Clause 12(b) with respect to qualification for benefits. A brief submitted by the eastern townships regional development board drew the attention of committee members to a major shortcoming in the present definition of Bill C-78 with respect to qualification for benefits.
I believe previous speakers also raised the problem regarding the annual average of 1,000 hours of employment, which would mean that an employee who during the last ten years had worked 1,000 hours per year, totalling 10,000 hours in the industry, could qualify for benefits, but an employee who had worked an average 2,000 hours per year during the last ten years and, for reasons beyond his control, had been unable to work during one of those years, would not qualify, although he had worked a total of 18,000 hours during those ten years. Fortunately, the minister accepted the representations made to him in committee. Today, he is bringing in an amendment to correct this deficiency in the bill, and the committee certainly deserves much of the credit for this major change.
In committee, there was some concern about people who were already drawing benefits under an existing program also included in the bill. These are former workers in the textile and footwear industries. The benefits they are receiving would not be indexed as provided in the bill until benefit recipients under the new program were receiving the same amount. This section of the bill was discussed at length in committee, and if 1 understood the minister correctly, he was to change clause 34 so as to remove this inequity. 1 therefore share the concern shown by several committee members with respect to those already receiving benefits and, once more, I am pleased to see that the minister is making the required changes.
The Labour Adjustment Benefits Program is only one aspect of the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program which is available to communities and cabinet-designated industrial sectors, and which offers various labour adjustment measures and industrial incentives. In addition, the government paid particular attention to those industries which are experiencing economic difficulties-textiles, for instance-and among other things created the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission also implements a whole series of labour adjustment measures with respect to mobility, increased proficiency and job creation.
The program will help workers aged 54 to 65 who can hardly be expected to relocate and who are not directly
Labour Adjustment Benefits
concerned by other labour adjustment measures. Generally speaking, those people are not highly qualified and not in great demand, not to mention the fact that they do find it hard to get back into the labour force. In cases of serious difficulties, people over 50 who have worked very long years in the sector involved may be entitled to benefits.
Some hon. members seem to fear that anyone receiving benefits will have no incentive to return to work. Well, since only 60 cents will be deducted from the benefits for each dollar earned during the implementation of this program, those people can continue to work without fear of having their benefits cut off. In addition, should they hold a permanent job during the implementation of the program they do not lose their entitlement to adjustment benefits. Finally, every six months the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission will review employment opportunities with the recipients. Mr. Speaker, so far no one can be accused of dragging his feet with respect to the adoption of this bill and I hope the House will pass it soon so that the many workers now experiencing hardships will be able to benefit from this worth-while measure.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the report stage of Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. May I say at the outset that I thoroughly enjoyed my work on the committee. My colleague from Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and other colleagues participated in the work of the committee which was very beneficial.
I was concerned when the committee met last December. A few members of the government wished to ram this bill through in the remaining three or four days before the Christmas recess. After a great deal of discussion among members from all sides of the House, including the chairman who just participated in this debate, it was decided it would only be fair to allow those interested to make representations and suggestions to the committee with regard to the bill. Of course, this came about.
I must say that we had some spirited meetings. I am sure the minister and all those who participated will agree it was a very worth-while exercise. There were some tremendous representations from many interested groups, labour unions, employer groups and individuals interested in the bill.
This is an important bill. The problem is that it affects so few people. Once this bill passes, if my figures are correct, it will probably affect only some 800 people in Canada. That is all we are talking about at the present time.
I gather from what my colleague in the New Democratic Party stated that all designated areas under this bill so far are Liberal ridings, with the exception of one. That riding belongs to the NDP. I have no criticism of that. I feel that every area designated to date is indeed in need of this type of help; there

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
is no question about that. The only criticism I might have is the political taste of the people who live in those designated areas. They might look at another political party the next time around, one which will hopefully get this economy going again and provide meaningful jobs that will last for a long period of time.
The 800 people who will benefit from this act must be over the age of 54, have no hope whatsoever of finding employment and meet other criteria, which I will not go into in great detail today. I would, however, like to discuss a couple of matters which still concern me about this bill.
In one of the motions we are debating today, the NDP suggests that it should be the labour adjustment board which designates industries. We do not support that amendment. If an area is to be designated, it should be designated by the politician who is directly answerable to the people. A board hidden somewhere in the bureaucracy should not make those designations because it is answerable only to the minister. If the government makes these decisions, it is answerable to the people. Therefore, we feel very strongly that that amendment should not be approved by the House. The power should remain with cabinet to designate those areas and industries. The accountability is to Parliament and the people of Canada. The other motions we are debating are primarily motions by the NDP with regard to changing the responsibility for designation from cabinet to the Labour Adjustment Review Board.
There is something which concerns me about this bill that I have expressed many times. The minister and deputy minister assure me that it is not going to happen, but I am still not convinced. My concern is that the bureaucracy is involved in this. We have a cabinet which makes a decision as to what area or industry is designated so that the individuals who qualify will get the benefit of this bill. A board has been established. Its members are appointed by the minister. We assume he will take care of some of his Liberal friends. We were told in committee that the board will be made up of public servants. There has been an amendment to provide for an employee and employer representative. I congratulate the government on that; it is very important. The other three will be appointed by the minister.
We are assured that this will be a board of public servants and that it will not cost the taxpayer any money. We know that is not true. When a board is set up, no matter whether it is composed of public servants or not, the men or women on that board receive some remuneration. Therefore, it will cost the taxpayer something. To say it will not is a fallacy. The people should not be misled on that point.
The board then makes certain decisions or designations. It decides whether this or that person or this or that industry qualifies. It goes through the application and makes its decision. It then goes to the Unemployment Insurance Commission which goes through the application, decides whether the person qualifies or not and how the benefits will be doled out.
I hope a little later on someone on the government side will give a clear explanation of the need for that board and, once the designation is made by cabinet, why the work cannot be
done by bureaucrats within the Unemployment Insurance Commission, thereby eliminating that separate body. To me, it sounds like a tremendous amount of bureaucracy which in my opinion is not required. We must remember that we are talking about an individual who is over the age of 54 and has exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits. He has no hope of obtaining employment and is concerned about how he will live. He has paid for his home and would like to stay there, he could not sell it anyway because his town is a one-industry town and no one is moving in there. Therefore, the real estate market is depressed.
He will now have to make all these other applications. It is fine that the union can apply on his behalf so he will not have to do this individually, as the minister would say, but it is still another layer of bureaucracy, another set of applications and papers which I personally feel is unnecessary. I suggest that all this could be amalgamated with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The deputy minister and the minister have assured me in committee that it is not a bureaucratic mess and will work fine. I have heard this said many times and that I should not worry about it. Despite the assurance of the minister I am still fearful of the bureaucracy that is involved.
We on this side will be supporting many of the government amendments, including the retroactivity of the application of the act. Presently there is a great concern for those people living in these designated areas who do not have very bright prospects of moving to new jobs or finding employment in their designated area.
We are concerned about the New Democratic Party amendments which would broaden the powers of the Labour Adjustment Reviews Board. These amendments will give it powers which are outside its jurisdiction. The NDP would like the board to have the authority to conduct investigations and require employers to open their books on demand. Of course, this is an indication of more government involvement which we feel is unnecessary. We will oppose that type of amendment.
We have not yet decided upon our reaction to Motion No. 14 respecting Clause 12, which deals with eligibility requirements and what constitutes 1,000 work hours per year. The suggestion is that if the employee is absent due to illness, a leave of absence with employer consent during the year that illness occurs would still be considered as an average work year. I will be interested to hear what my colleagues, the NDP and the government have to say on this subject. The government has indicated that the terminology used in their amendment concerning exceptions and special circumstances might satisfy the NDP amendment and make it unnecessary. However, we will have to study this particular question carefully.
This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker, and we do not want to delay it unduly. Although it affects only 800 Canadians at the present time, with the advent of lay-offs and industry shut-downs in Canada it is obvious there will be other designated areas and other designated industries to be considered.
February 15, 1982

The minister in the other place stated at a Liberal gathering out west on the weekend that the government will give up on certain industries and pay special attention to the resource and high technology industries. It will forget about some of the other industries, specifically the textile and footwear industry which he mentioned. We have already seen what the government has done to the footwear industry. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray) takes pride in saying that he gets great support from that industry, but 1 note that the footwear industry will have representatives in town on Thursday to demonstrate and discuss with many Members of Parliament their concerns over the latest actions of the government affecting that industry.
If what the Minister of State for Economic Development said on the weekend is factual-you have to wonder because you cannot believe who is saying what at times and people contradict each other-I am sure we will find more areas designated. There will be a great number of people who will qualify under this particular bill.
The minister and deputy minister were not able to give us accurate figures in committee on what these additional benefits will cost. They mentioned approximately $10 million up until this fiscal year, but I suggest that figure is an underestimate because more designated areas will arise much faster than expected due to the terrible economic conditions in Canada today.
We urge quick passage of this bill so that the benefits, which are meagre and only touch a very few people, will help those people most in need. We will work toward that end in order to pass this bill as quickly as possible.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to be taking part in this debate. At the report stage there are a few comments I should like to make on Bill C-78, the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act. Basically, this bill is a humanitarian measure aimed at helping workers who are suffering the adverse effects of a rapidly changing economy, and who are faced with the consequences of decisions that are often beyond their control, especially at the national level.
The proposed legislation on labour adjustment benefits is part of a special three-year industry and labour adjustment program which was announced last January and given a budget of $350 million. Hon. members will probably recall that under the program, the Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and Labour (Mr. Caccia) have already designated four communities that are in financial difficulty, namely, Port Cartier and Sept-Iles in Quebec, Sydney in Nova Scotia, Tracy and Sorel in Quebec, and Windsor in Ontario. These communities are having to cope with widespread industrial disruption caused by import competition or by industrial restructuring made necessary as a result of changes in the economy. Whatever the cause, the result is almost always a
Labour Adjustment Benefits
severe reduction in manpower. The number of lay-offs in the sectors most seriously affected in these communities indicates that they are faced with some of the worst adjustment problems in Canada.
The industrial restructuring encouraged by the industry adjustment program is essential to a sound economy. However, it does cause a number of serious social problems. That is why Bill C-78 is a necessary complement to this program, and there are two major reasons: first, because it provides benefits for older workers who have been permanently laid off, and also because it proposes amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code that are aimed at lessening the harsh consequences of loss of employment.
First of all, the labour adjustment benefits program provides financial assistance to older, laid-off workers when they have exhausted all other sources of financial aid. They must be at least 54 years old and have been permanently laid off in one of the designated industries. They must have been employed for at least ten years in the industry during the 15 years previous to lay-off. Benefits are the equivalent of 60 per cent of average insurable earnings before lay-off. Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for the establishment of a labour adjustment review board that will certify the eligibility of laid-off workers to apply for benefits. The House will note that the bill also covers adjustment assistance benefits programs already being offered by the Department of Labour to workers in the textile, clothing and footwear industries.
The primary objective of the program is thus to provide relief for older workers with many years of seniority, who have been laid off, either by helping them find employment in other locations or by enabling them to take advantage of early retirement benefits.
The second part of Bill C-78 consists of amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code, which would lessen individual problems caused by loss of employment and increase the entitlements and benefits of workers affected by massive layoffs in industries under federal jurisdiction. We all know that lay-offs have been made necessary by a reduction in demand for manpower in industries that are undergoing restructuring. However, the impact of lay-offs on employees is often very serious, and the bill we are considering today tries to remedy the situation by improving conditions for payment of severance pay and by increasing the period of time required for giving notice of termination of employment.
From now on, when employers foresee a reduction in their work force, they will have to plan ahead and give workers earlier notice of any mass lay-offs. The minister and unions representing redundant employees must be sent notice in writing of the employer's intention at least sixteen weeks before the date of termination of employment. Employers will also have to establish a labour-management committee, whose members will be responsible for setting up a plan for minimizing the impact of termination of employment. Finally, sever-

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
ance pay conditions will be more generous. Workers will be entitled to severance pay after one year of service instead of five, as is the case at the present time. Employees will still receive two days' wages for each year of service, but the bill provides for a minimum of five days' wages and the present maximum of forty days' wages will be abolished.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that although industrial restructuring is necessary in our economy, the fact remains that it can have very harsh consequences for redundant employees. Society and especially government and employers have an obligation to balance the impact of these adjustments.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I shall be voting for Bill C-78, and I hope that this bill, which has a very human dimension, will receive the approval of the House.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, not having been a member of the committee, I feel some reluctance in making the presentation I am about to make, but nonetheless I wish to bring forward a point of view on Bill C-78 which I have not yet heard expressed this afternoon in this chamber and which I think is rather pertinent.
It is well and good to help older folk who have worked many years-perhaps 20 or 30 years-in our work force avoid the trauma of unemployment when an industry town goes down or when there is a major dislocation due either to technological or economic restructuring, but I want to say this afternoon that one of my most serious concerns relates to the fact that there is no dignity associated with people who are forced to go into early retirement. In the case of an industry where the whole plant is not shut down, it seems rather ludicrous that we should place the employer in the position of being able to push older, more experienced and more skilled people out the back door in order to make room for young people who perhaps do not yet have the necessary skills and developed abilities and who might very well be in much demand in other sectors of our economy.
It bothers me that this bill seems to make it easy to go into early retirement and to draw a pension prematurely-amounting to some 60 per cent of average insurable earnings-from age 54 or, in some cases, from age 50 until a person reaches normal retirement age. I believe this reflects adversely on the general state of our economy, and it is not adequate for governments to continue this preoccupation with programs, programs and still more programs which are not in fact working because they are not getting to the heart of the problem.
These programs and make-work projects are in a sense only aspirins for a terminal illness, and the government opposite has not chosen to address that terminal illness. Palliatives cannot substitute for the important policy choices and decisions which must be made if we are to restore the state of health and
prosperity to our economy we once knew and, in fact, knew up until only a few short years ago.
I want to say something about five subjects in particular. First, Bill C-78 does not seem to bear any relationship to an over-all comprehensive industrial development plan which is so important to our nation.
The philosophy is wrong because it encourages people at the prime of their lives, when they have all the experience and knowledge in the world, to go into early retirement while other, younger people are brought into those jobs when perhaps in many cases they could be retrained and, with the whole concept of mobility, redirected into new technological disciplines and new challenging work.
Third, as other speakers have pointed out this afternoon, we see more layers of bureaucracy being added. It is the typical NDP socialist approach that we can add more bureaucratic jobs, and that at the same time we have to be peering constantly over people's shoulders, checking up on them and threatening them with penalties if they violate the rules, and then establish layer upon layer of rules and regulations with all the additional meetings, boards, expense accounts and paper shuffling that will entail. Once again we see that this emphasis on a new layer of bureaucracy-and in particular as represented by the Labour Adjustment Review Board-is part of the problem. The whole philosophy of more boards, programs and gimmicks is part of the problem and comes nowhere near to providing a solution.
As my colleague the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid) pointed out, the funding provided for this program is totally inadequate. It does not at all provide the kind of relief that would be fair and equitable. If we want to provide equity, we should do so for all workers beyond age 50 or age 54 instead of a select group which happens to live in certain depressed rural areas of Canada. We should not be laying off other workers-for example, in the aerospace industry or the automotive industry-in areas such as Brampton and southwestern Ontario or parts of Quebec, and saying: "Well, because you live near Montreal or Toronto, you will not be eligible for this program." The amount of funding is paltry and totally inadequate in terms of being able to provide the assistance that would be needed if we wanted to do justice, given the premise on which this program is based, to all those who have contributed for many years to our work force.
This program is an illusion of action, Mr. Speaker, because it only adds to Canada's declining productivity. It takes the most skilled, the most experienced, the most knowledgeable and toughened people who have been in the work force for 20 or 30 years, and puts them out to pasture. What we really need is to get our young people reoriented into new skills and keep the older people working. They want to work, Mr. Speaker, and as a matter of human dignity they should be entitled to and be given every opportunity to work. Instead, their employers are being encouraged to put them out to pasture, albeit in a very mediocre way through this program.
February 15, 1982

At the most, the program will help some 1,000 employees over the age of 50 go into a leisurely form of early retirement. One thousand persons per year really only represents .1 per cent of all of the unemployed people in Canada. That is the measly amount of assistance that the program purports to give. I think that is an astonishing and appalling condemnation of the over-all policies of the government which have led the country to its knees, economically speaking.
The program will only benefit .01 per cent of our total work force and .05 per cent of the total work force in the age group 50 to 54. Or only one person out of 16,000 or 17,000 people in the work force would qualify for the benefits extended by this bill. As I said before, the program presents the illusion of action and it is most unfair to the other thousands and thousands of Canadian workers who will not be eligible for its benefits.
Finally, no accountability is shown by the governor in council for the basis on which the designated areas are selected, so the situation is wide open to abuse through political patronage. We do not want to see that happen, but if past experience is any indication it certainly will and that is most regrettable.
There must be more accountability, Mr. Speaker, and the provisions on reporting should be tightened. The quarterly report submitted to this House should include detail on the amount of information that is available as the basis for the position taken-


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to take it at the end of my 20 minutes.
As I have said, there is no evidence that this program is part of an over-all industrial development plan. This is like prescribing an aspirin for a terminal illness. Until this government comes to grips with the need for an over-all development plan, the statistics on unemployment will continue to escalate. We need a plan that stresses opportunities for our young people and training for the unemployed and the unemployable.
Clause 16 will encourage people to moonlight or go into other types of marginal business by allowing them to keep 40 cents on every dollar earned in those pursuits. If they should take retraining, they will have to deduct the compensation received for taking the retraining program from any benefit received under the labour adjustment benefit plan. In fact, this proposal encourages people in their senior years to earn income on the side and not to upgrade their skills to keep up with the technological structuring that we are all concerned about these days.
We need to provide an industrial development plan which will put the focus on secondary industry and upgrade the extent to which we extract value from our natural resources. It must put emphasis on getting the megaprojects going. This ties in to taxation policy and the attitude of the government with respect to foreign investment. We must stop this attack on
Labour Adjustment Benefits
foreign investment and realize that people who come to Canada and take some risks by investing in capital and plant will produce jobs for Canadians. Many of us would rather see people coming here and investing in the future of the country than have them lending money to Canada at preferred rates of interest without taking any risk in the future of the country. The attack on investment from outside Canada must stop.
The attack on the small business sector, especially as reflected in the job-destroying budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-as it was called by one columnist-and the whole thrust of the government intervening, regulating and overbearing on the private sector must stop. Changes in policy must be made in these areas before we can talk about bringing justice to those who have worked for decades. These people seek dignity. They want to go off every day with their lunch bucket, earn a living for their family and pay their income tax cheerfully. In this way they can feel they have a stake in the country and can make the choices that are in their own best interests.
It is obvious that there is not a shred of evidence that this program will be properly integrated with a long-range survey aimed at increasing and improving our productivity. It does not reflect any sense of the human worth of people who have been trained and who have worked hard and long in order to build this country to the height of prosperity and affluence which we enjoyed until a year or two ago.
There are some in this House, Mr. Speaker, who believe that robots and technology will take work away from humankind. We often hear the statement that in future we will only have to work ten or 20 hours a week. If we ever reach the point where everyone can work for government shuffling paper, and there are machines for making all the paper and all the products, then we will be in a state of stagnation. It is only human effort and ingenuity which will allow us to grow and develop as human persons and expand the opportunities and demands for trades and manual skills.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, the demand for trades and human vocational skills will be with us for centuries. If the human spirit is to be preserved, men and women must have something constructive and creative to do. They must feel free to enjoy the rewards of their efforts. Those who say that computers and technology will take over are wrong. In fact, we cannot take solace in more programs, more bureaucracies and regulations as substitutes for real employment. Real employment is the production of goods that Canadians need; but, more important, if this is to be a healthy and growing economy it must produce more of the goods that are needed by the rest of the world.
This proposal flies in the face of entrenching the productivity of the nation. It merely reflects the government's total lack of competence to determine what the real goals of a nation which our potential ought to be. Instead, a three-layered bureaucracy is proposed which would have people apply for benefits either through their employers, their unions or directly to the Labour Adjustment Review Board as set out in Clause 4 of the bill. They may have to wait for many months until their

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
application is processed by a board of five people. Some of the criteria applied to their application will be, for example, whether they were laid off from a designated industry and whether the work force was reduced by 10 per cent or 50 employees. That is the task of the board, Mr. Speaker. It seems elementary. Why do we need a board to decide whether people have been laid off in designated industries? Contrary to the hopes of the NDP, the designation will not be made by the board; it will be made by order in council on the basis of political considerations. Why do we need a board to decide whether or not the work force has been reduced by 10 per cent or 50 employees in a designated industry or region? It makes no sense.
Once the board has judged upon applications by employees, it will decide whether or not they shall have leave to submit applications. I have been to the Soviet Union, and that is the way it works there-every bureaucrat is backchecked by another bureaucrat; every board is backchecked by another board; one must obtain permission in order to apply for benefits which the government allows. Bill C-78 is advocating that employees must first go before the Labour Adjustment Review Board. If they have the stamina and the patience to wade through mounds of paper, applications and criteria then the board might give them leave to apply for permission to receive benefits from the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. Then, of course, they must submit other applications, after all this bureaucratic rigmarole, to the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.
Now, what does the commission want to determine? First, it wants to determine whether an employee is a Canadian citizen; that should take approximately 30 seconds. Then it wants to know whether he or she is less than 54 years of age but not more than age 64; that should take another 30 seconds. It wants to know whether or not the employee has exhausted his or her UIC benefits; the office and the records are there, so it should take about 10 minutes. Then it must determine whether or not there are prospects for alternative employment. At that point, 50-plus-year-old men and women are sent down to line up and apply for other jobs. This is the illusion of the entire program. In fact there is a paltry $10 million maximum to help some 1,000 senior employees at the most. The greatest number of applicants, after going through this rigmarole and applying to the commission, will be sent to line up and file applications for employment. If the commission cannot decide on the relative merits of a particular application, the bill provides that it can be referred to a board of referees.
As well, in the amendments to the Canada Labour Code the bill provides for the establishment of a joint planning committee to analyse the criteria under which the adjustment program shoulds be initiated, and how many and what type of employees should benefit. Thus there will be four separate boards, bodies and commissions involved in spending $10 million. My estimate is that a good third of this amount will be spent on paper work and bureaucracy. It will be a further waste of taxation resources that can only be earned by the
production of products which the country can sell and the people need. Bureaucracies, boards and commissions handing out government money and taking productive people out of the work force run totally contrary to what we are trying to achieve in the country.
I should like to refer to a couple of inventories of recent applications for unemployment insurance. In 1981, in my riding applications for unemployment insurance benefits rose from 7,900 to 8,900, or a total of 1,000. In the last month alone, the Employment and Immigration Commission office staff in my riding had to work overtime and on weekends. Approximately 30 additional staff members were required because unemployment insurance applications rose from 1,100 in January, 1981, to 1,400 in January, 1982. Also I should point out that applications rose from 1,200 in December, 1980, to 1,600 in December, 1981. The proposed legislation does little to solve the escalation of unemployment, caused primarily by the policies of government. There have been over 2,000 lay-offs in the mining industry since the November 12 budget, and we expect another 5,600 by the beginning of summer, for a total of 8,000 mine workers being laid off permanently or taking early retirement. In many cases they do not want to go on early retirement because it is contrary to their sense of dignity; they want to work. What is the point of going on early retirement in a community such as Sudbury? What can one do? Why are we letting young people sit around drawing unemployment insurance benefits? Why are we not retraining them, upgrading their skills and redirecting them into new and challenging forms of employment? Instead the government talks about removing the most productive segment of the work force. I cannot understand it. It is a condemnation of government that all it comes up with is alphabet soup gimmicks as solutions to very grave and serious problems confronting the nation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Communications-Reception of television signals from CanCom satellite; the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Metric Conversion-(a) Forced implementation, (b) Prime Minister's views; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Airports-Calling of tenders for advertising concession.
February 15, 1982



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (Mr. Kristiansen) and Motion No. 10 (Mr. Caccia).
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-78. First I should like to say to the government member, who mentioned this was a humanitarian bill, that if the government brings before the House a bill which will create employment, then it could be called a humanitarian bill.
During discussions at committee stage there were representations from the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers of America, the Canadian Trucking Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and The Railway Association of Canada. Virtually every one of them condemned the provisions of the bill. In fact, the CLC went so far as to indicate that the government is not offering medicare but a death benefit.
Bill C-78 is to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, but I should like to add the words, "in designated areas where the government sees fit". Basically this is what the bill identifies. We in the NDP have put forward 13 amendments to the bill at committee stage and on the floor of the House; the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) has put forward approximately ten. This clearly indicates that the bill was very poorly drafted and has not had the benefit of consultations with labour, management and other related groups.
The qualifications for receipt of benefits are very stringent. In order to qualify a person must first be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident; this sounds logical. Also he must have been laid off as a result of non-cyclical factors, where the total lay-off equals 10 per cent of employees or 50 employees. Can one imagine the discrimination in the bill? If it is not 10 per cent or 50 employees, some residents in that designated area could receive those kinds of benefits and yet others could not. What about those who have been employed for ten years out of the past 15 years working for 1,000 hours each year? One employee could be sick during one of those ten years and not complete his 1,000 hours of work. We in the New Democratic Party suggested an amendment that instead of 1,000 hours per year, there should be an average of 1,000 hours per year for ten years. That amendment could not be accepted because the minister and the committee chairman indicated that it was a money matter and was not something we could discuss. This is without doubt a discriminatory clause. I do not see why one of two workers working in the same industry for the same amount of time and who happened to be off work for one year
Labour Adjustment Benefits
out of the ten should be disqualified. I ask hon. members whether that is humanitarian. What about exhausted unemployment insurance benefits?
[DOT] (mo)


Charles L. Caccia: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have completed my speech, I will be prepared to answer questions.


Charles L. Caccia: Read Motion 13.


Sidney James Parker: What about a person having exhausted unemployment insurance benefits with no prospect of employment or one who is able to find only a low-paying job? In addition to all of these restrictions surrounding qualifications, the procedure for applying benefits seems needlessly bureaucratic.


John Horton McDermid: You want to make it more bureaucratic.


Sidney James Parker: First, an application must be inspected by the Labour Adjustment Review Board. Second, if cleared, the application is then sent to the Employment and Immigration Commission, which may conduct its own investigation. Finally, a third investigation might take place if the commission deems it necessary to refer the application or any question arising to the board of referees. What a horribly complex system to impose upon Canadian workers denied the right to a job!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Typically NDP.


Sidney James Parker: I have asked the chairman of the committee and the minister how much money is going to be set aside so that these things can be carried out. I have not yet received an answer. Is the amount $10,000; $10 million; $20 million; or $30 million over the next three years? I have not been able to get that answer.
For immediate release on January 19, 1981, we found the announcement that a $350 million special industry and labour adjustment program would go into effect. In the body of that release we find the following:
The designation of communities, for the community-based portion of the special adjustment, will be made by cabinet with the first designations within the next few weeks. Communities will be designated for one year with a maximum of two six-month extensions. It is estimated that at any point in time five or six community designations would be in place.
Since that time we have not heard of extra allotments to this program. The answer given by the minister was that times have changed and we are going to designate larger areas.
The Canadian Labour Congress, the steelworkers and various delegations put forward very clearly that communities have asked for full corporate disclosures of all information and data relevant to the decision by a company to shut down its operation. That is not too much to ask, is it? Is it too much to ask of a company that has been established for many years in a community? Is it too much to ask for a corporation or company to relay why it is shutting down and why the reasons

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
should not be investigated? Those are some of the concerns that came forward.
I want to talk for a moment about the representations made by the trucking association. 1 asked them about their hours of work. I realized they could not answer in hours per day or hours per week, but surely to goodness an industry as large as that serving all of Canada should be able to identify a monthly scale. I was told by representatives of the trucking industry that truckers could work as much as 260 hours a month and that they could ask for extensions on top of that. The railways are doing a similar thing. Workers are required to work 11 hours a day and yet we have over one million people unemployed. At the same time industries are allowed under the Labour Code to let workers work excessive hours. If the Minister of Labour is really concerned about employment and if he really wants to do something humanitarian, he should meet with companies and unions to find a way to solve this dilemma. Workers should be working hours of work that are in the 1980s, not those worked in the 1890s.
That is something productive that could happen. In my riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke, 200 IWA workers were laid off in the Canadian forest industry by Crows Nest Forest Products Ltd. Right next door construction is going on by Crows Nest Resources. Do you think that the parent company has made an attempt to give the long-term employees an opportunity to work within the resource sector of the company? To this date the unions, Canada Manpower, management and myself, as a Member of Parliament, have been calling upon the parent company to try to relocate lumber workers in the mining areas. They are qualified to run machinery. I am sure they are qualified to carry on those kinds of jobs. But what is the Minister of Labour doing? He is bringing in amendments to the Canada Labour Code and bringing forward extensions to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will provide mobility for people to move from province to province. But what about people in a province who have homes, are unemployed and looking for work? They want work, not benefits. That is the message we were getting loud and clear from the various groups.
The steelworkers talked about Uranium City and its problem. Before Christmas our members in Uranium City were told without prior indication or warning that Eldorado Limited would be permanently closing its Beaverlodge mining operations as of June, 1982. For the work force of 850 this meant that their jobs, homes and the whole community would be written off. Not only was there no prior indication of the shut-down, but some 45 new miners and their families had just moved into Uranium City and were still in a company orientation program. Those kinds of things are going on. We are not having the kind of consultation that should occur in order to ensure that we have an industrial strategy which will keep workers employed in the future.
The union together with the community have asked for full corpporate disclosure of all information and data relevant to the decision by the company to shut down its operations. On the basis of his public statement, the president of Eldorado is
apparently of the view that his simple figures of $60 in production costs and $25 in current quoted prices per pound of product is sufficient information for the people. Anything more can wait for the publication of the company's annual report. We on this side do not feel that is sufficient.
The Sydney steel mill, Sysco, has suffered chronic problems ever since it was abandoned by Dosco in 1967, its previous irresponsible owners, and the mill has suffered long-term job losses as well as short-term lay-offs and recalls. Part of the reason has been loss of markets and part technical change. The government is well aware of the problems of Sydney steel. It has been aware of them. It knows about the expenditures that must be made. But the government is now coming in with patchwork policies to try to cover up for the mistakes it has been making over and over again.
[DOT] (W20)
With regard to the railways, it seemed odd to me that the government would be bringing about the same kind of talks as the trade unions, management groups and workers; but the conclusions of The Railway Association of Canada were that it understands the conflicting recommendations made to legislators as they attempt to maintain realistic labour standards. Legislated improvements which are not the result of real productivity improvements, however, will come at the expense of the employees. Rather than benefit the terminated employee, the proposed Labour Adjustment Benefits Act may ultimately lead to further erosion of the employees's wellbeing. The Railway Association goes on:
It is for these reasons that The Railway Association of Canada remains convinced that the proper role for government is to create an economic environment where business can grow and prosper.
That was typical of the comments of virtually every delegation which came before us.
There was one personal representative from Sept-Iles. It was a pathetic thing to see that worker come before the committee and talk about the unemployment there, the loss of homes, and the attitude of the government in offering them programs such as this which are only stop-gap measures against a very serious unemployment problem. The Canadian Labour Congress offered some adjustment programs which put forward the following points, and I think the minister should take a look at them. They said:
One year advance notice of plant closures and major lay-offs and six months for lay-offs of less than 50 employees.
Is that so much to ask for on a major shutdown?
Major lay-offs and plant closures must be justified in hearings before a job protection board. A single member board, appointed by the government after consultation with the parties affected, would have powers under the Inquiries Act to examine the reasons for the full or partial closure.
Is that too much to ask? Surely to goodness, when people have worked long hours and years for a company, it is not too much to ask a board under the Inquiries Act to examine the reasons. The next recommendation reads:
Compensation payments to communities affected by lay-offs payable out of a special fund financed through employer contributions. The job protection board would make recommendations concerning payments out of the community
February 15, 1982

adjustment fund. The rules governing the establishment and administration of the fund and respecting entitlement for assistance would be made by regulation.
Is that too much to ask in a community where the workers have worked long and diligently, invested their money, their lifestyle and their youth in those communities, only then to be told by the government that this is a humanitarian bill; that if they take their pension a little bit early, and if they happen to work over 1,000 hours every year for the past ten years, they could qualify if they can pass all of these various provisions. The recommendations go on:
In addition to proceedings before the job protection board, no lay-offs may occur until negotiations take place between the employer and the union or, where there is no union, a committee of employees, to discuss ways of avoiding a loss of jobs. During such consultations, the employer shall make available all relevant financial information concerning the lay-off.
Again, is that too much to ask? Why should the government come in with programs to bail them out when they have not even identified why the lay-offs are taking place?
Where lay-offs cannot be prevented, an agreement must be signed between the employer and the union or committee of employees covering all terms of the lay-off before terminations may proceed. The Minister of Labour shall make regulations setting out minimum amounts to be paid to terminated employees as relocation allowances.
In cases where employees are on strike or locked out at the time the employer announces his intention to lay off, the above-mentioned negotiations remain mandatory before any action can be taken.
Standard hours of work must be lowered through collective bargaining; to facilitate this, the Canada Labour Code must be amended to provide that all overtime work is voluntary and to increase overtime pay to 2'/2 times the regular rate.
Is it too much to ask of a company, if they insist on the overtime, that they must pay two and a half times the rate? Not only do we lose out on overtime hours, but that employee is only paying his contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. If extra jobs are created, extra funding would come into the program.
Some more recommendations are:
Severance pay of at least one week per year of service, or portion of a week's pay for each portion of a year worked, with no service requirement.
A levy-grant system to ensure that all employers contribute to the cost of retraining workers.
Changes in pension legislation to improve vesting rights and ensure portability of pensions.
Those are constructive suggestions which the minister should look at very seriously.
The approach to the adjustment assistance bill taken in C-78, supplemented by the illusory employment measures announced recently by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), falls far short of what is needed in this country. Those were the comments made by the Canadian Labour Congress. On and on it goes. I want to say that I thought the committee put a very constructive effort into improving the bill, but it is not good enough. I am recommending to our party that we do not support this legislation because it is limited, discriminatory and not in the best interests of Canadian workers.
Labour Adjustment Benefits


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part at the report stage in the debate on Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees in times of undue economic difficulties in a designated industry; that is, when an industry is undergoing significant economic adjustment of a non-cyclical nature by reason of import competition or by reason of industrial restructuring implemented pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada to encourage such restructuring, or when the economic adjustment is resulting in a significant loss of employment in the industry in Canada generally.

Since my hon. colleagues have already addressed themselves to the portion of the bill concerned with the payment of benefits to laid-off employees, I will restrict my comments to that part of the proposed legislation concerned with the amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of hon. members to Clause 31, which proposes the repeal of Section 60 of the Canada Labour Code. The earlier legislation states that:
Any employer who terminates, either simultaneously or within any period not exceeding four weeks, the employment of a group of fifty or more employees employed by him within a particular industrial establishment, or of such lesser number of employees as is prescribed by a regulation made under paragraph 60.2 (b) that is applicable to the employer, shall, in addition to any notice required to be given by him under Section 60.4, give notice to the minister in writing of his intention to do so at least
(a)	eight weeks before the date of termination of the employment of the employee in the group whose employment is first terminated where the group of employees whose employment is to be terminated does not exceed one hundred;
(b)	twelve weeks before the date mentioned in paragraph (a) where the group exceeds one hundred but does not exceed three hundred; and
(c)	sixteen weeks before the date mentioned in paragraph (a) where the group exceeds three hundred.
(2) A copy of any notice given to the minister under subsection (1) shall be given forthwith by the employer to the Department of Manpower and Immigration and to any trade union certified to represent any employee in the group of employees whose employment is to be terminated or recognized by the employer as bargaining agent for any such employee; and where any employee in such group is not represented by a trade union, a copy of such notice shall be given to him or posted forthwith by the employer in a conspicuous place within the industrial establishment in which that employee is employed.
Section 60.1 states:
An employer who gives notice to the minister under section 60 and any trade union to which a copy of such a notice is given shall provide to the Department of Manpower and Immigration any information requested by it for the purpose of assisting employees to whom the notice relates and shall co-operate with that department to facilitate the re-establishment in employment of those employees.
These actions of the Code require amendment because they are no longer adequate to cope with contemporary industrial needs. In the past it has been implicitly assumed in government policy that the Canadian economy is able to accommodate and adjust to disruptions, dislocations and costs caused by closures and relocations of enterprise. Unprecedented numbers of plant closures and large scale permanent lay-offs of workers have recently focused public attention on this issue and have

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
brought into question the serious burdens placed on workers in such situations. Owing to his growing concern with this matter, on March 9, 1978, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) appointed the commission of inquiry on redundancies and lay-offs under the chairmanship of A.W.R. Carrothers to study these problems. His recommendations, published under the date of April 5, 1979, laid the basis of the proposed legislation before Your Honour today.
I would like to give a rough summary of the Carrothers recommendations. First, there was a recommendation that, through legislation, redundancy management be recognized as a shared responsibility and that "effective joint consultation" be required. The commission argued that the right to be consulted should be applicable to both uionized and non-unionized employees. In the case of non-union operators, it was recognized that a mechanism to provide employee representation would have to be established.
Second, on the matter of notice, the commission proposed that a "notice of intent to introduce a change" should be required. At this time, the manpower consultative services of Employment and Immigration Canada would be available to assist the parties. The purpose was to ensure consultation before a fixed plan of lay-offs was established. Under present provisions in the Canada Labour Code, this is not the case. If "notice of intent" were established, the commission proposed that present notice requirements be reduced.
Third, the employers and employees should be prepared to resolve the impasse with respect to lay-offs or face third-party intervention. The commission chose not to recommend processes for the resolution of impasses in the belief that prescribed procedures would inhibit consultation, and that ad hoc intervention should be in reserve.
Fourth, employer and unions, or a committee of employees created for the purpose, should establish standing "work councils" to meet on a regular basis for continuous joint manpower planning. It was not proposed that this be a legislated requirement.
The government, when considering the precise form which the legislation should take, took the recommendations of Mr. Carrothers one step further. The government realizes that there is a problem when one employee is laid off; but whether such a laid-off employee is one of 50 or 300, the government proposes in the new Section 60(1) of the Canada Labour Code that all lay-offs involving 50 or more employees will be treated equally; that is to say, the employer shall give notice to the minister, in writing, of his intention to terminate employment at least 16 weeks before the date of termination of employment of the employee in the group whose employment is first terminated. Subsection (2) provides that written notice of termination be given to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and the trade union representing any redundant employee.
Implementing Carrothers' previously summarized recommendation of notice through Section 60.1(1) will ensure that
the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission will have access to the information requested for it to be of assistance to laid-off employees since it requires that:
An employer who gives notice to the minister under section 60 and any trade union to which a copy of such notice is given shall give the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission any information requested by it for the purpose of assisting any redundant employee and shall co-operate with the Commission to facilitate the re-establishment in employment of that employee.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the time is insufficient to enter into the thorough discussion merited by Sections 60.1(2) through 60.3. I recommend them for the hon. members' perusal with the thought that they go a long way to effecting the recommendations made by the Carrothers commission and will prove to be a great boon to the workers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, after so many days of committee hearings, it was a pleasure to be able to return to the chamber, not to discuss a bill which may not be an important bill, and I will make a case for that as time progresses today but, rather, to discuss what is certainly an important problem. I believe we have a piece of legislation which is still far from adequate, but perhaps somewhat better after the committee's examination of it. For those who may be listening to us today and have an interest in this problem of lay-offs, the transcripts which were largely generated by the witnesses who appeared before us should be of considerable interest. Obviously, they are obtainable from the Clerk of the House of Commons upon request.
Some weeks ago, I stood in this chamber and asked, first, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) what he thought of the impact of the massive lay-offs on the health of Canadians. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stood in his place and told me that I was off on some sort of wild goose chase and that lay-offs did not lead to health problems which should be of concern to him and his government. That flew in the face of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce comes from Windsor, Ontario; and if he had simply read his daily newspapers over the last year and a half, he would have seen that a special mayor's committee laid out in the public domain the fact that social agencies and health agencies in Windsor had experienced a tremendous increase in the volume of requests for their services.


An hon. Member:: He can't read!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Someone from across the chamber shouts, "He cannot read!" I do not know if that is correct or not, but certainly the minister does not seem to read his local newspapers. He does not seem to understand his own constituency and the difficulties for human beings which have been caused in that Windsor area by massive lay-offs.
Later that same day was the first opportunity that I had to speak in this chamber about the issues which Bill C-78 brings to our attention. In Hansard for that day we find the Minister
February 15, 1982

of Labour (Mr. Caccia) making an interjection in the middle of my presentation to this chamber. That interjection is very simple. He said: "Nonsense, sheer nonsense". That is what the Minister of Labour said in this chamber on that day. That interjection was in response to a part of my presentation to this chamber in which I was indicating some of the statistics available to the public related to the social service costs and health costs of massive lay-offs.
In committee I brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour the fact that the statistics I was using on that occasion had come from the Carrothers report. That report, mentioned just a few minutes ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Yanakis), underlies the piece of legislation which we are exploring here today. It behooves me to take a minute or two to read from page 39 of that report so that the public record shows clearly and unequivocally what is contained in at least one page of that report.
Quoting from that report, they tell us that when unemployment goes up 1.4 per cent-and we have seen that kind of rise in Canada in the last year-there is an increase in suicides of 5.7 per cent. Admissions to mental hospitals increase 4.7 per cent for each 1.4 rise in the unemployment rate. Admissions to prisons go up 5.6 per cent with that same rise in unemployment. There is a rise in homicides or murders of 8 per cent for every 1.4 per cent rise in unemployment. The mortality rate as a result of cirrhosis of the liver goes up 2.7 per cent, and the mortality rate as a result of cardiovascular renal disease will go up 2.7 per cent. The total mortality rate on average will go up 2.7 per cent from a 1.4 per cent increase in unemployment.
If those are the figures which we can expect to find in a nation, these rises of 3 per cent to 8 per cent from some of the indicators of social stress and distress, we will find the same, only magnified, in those communities which experience sudden massive lay-offs.
If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce were here to listen to this debate, or if he takes the time to read Hansard, or if he has read his local newspapers in the city of Windsor where there have been so many unfortunate Canadians laid off in the automobile plants, he would find that these effects are real and significant. They not only cause harm to people, but lead to increased mortality rates. More people die in those kinds of circumstances than would normally die if those circumstances were not present.
The importance of that in this piece of legislation before us lies in what the legislation does not deal with. As we look at the legislation, there are two principles which are enunciated. One deals with the fact that there shall be benefits for designated people who have been laid off. These benefits shall be of a financial nature. I guess it is easiest to think of them as an early retirement. There shall be for older workers some kind of security provided. That is a step forward.
The victims of government policy and an economy which is not allowed to perform the way it should by a government that does not seem to know what it is doing or the harm it is causing should have something from society on which to fall
Labour Adjustment Benefits
back in order that they can buy adequate food, have adequate shelter and live a life of dignity.
I do not think any member of this chamber could seriously argue with the principle of this bill. It is a valid principle, one which I hope all members will support. If we had seen a bill dealing with a desire to help in that way, pure and simple, I suspect it would have had rather quick passage in this chamber and in committee. The witnesses we heard did not quarrel with the need for Canadian society to help these kinds of victims.
Instead, we got a different kind of omnibus bill. We have provisions in this bill which we cannot separate. Members of this chamber will have to vote on both principles, and we only get one vote. It is the second principle which causes me difficulty. It is the second principle on which we heard a great deal of testimony.
In this country today there are in excess of one million people unemployed. We have been told by Statistics Canada that over the last year 400,000 people have been lost to the work force. They have given up looking for work. They know there is no work to be found in their communities.
In summary, we have skilled, caring Canadians who are not allowed to make a contribution to society because we do not have an economic system in place which encourages their participation. If you say to yourself with a great deal of clarity that what this country needs is a bigger pie with more jobs, more opportunity for young, old and middle-aged people, and you look at the first part of Bill C-78 which talks about the responsibility of employers in relation-to lay-offs, you have to ask yourself some questions.
Whether you are a labour union leader, a member of this chamber, employed by a business subjected to lay-offs or an employer, you have to ask yourself whether there is a cost involved if society adopts this bill. The answer should come very quickly. Yes, there is a cost involved. You then have to ask yourself who pays the cost. That is where it starts to become a little unglued, a little less clear than it might be. The early retirement benefits or labour adjustment benefits are to be picked up in large part in the long term by society in general. But in the short term, a specific employer must give notice and pay full salary for a period of time, be it ten, 16 or 20 weeks. Therefore, it must be considered by that employer as a cost of doing business.
This might sound reasonable, as it is in many cases, but it also has a down side. The minister said in committee that he did not care or was not concerned about this. I was disturbed even more when he said that. This down side can be illustrated within the following context: ask yourself if there is any employer or owner of a business who would willingly lay off employees rather than expanding his business and hiring new employees. The reason a businessman can expand is because his business is strong and whatever he produces is in demand and being used by society. As his commodities become more popular, he has to produce more and therefore hire more people to make these items. This is what the business climate
15018

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
in Canada should be. A business which is growing, expanding and providing more jobs for more people is what any businessman would like to have.
Let us contrast this with the situation of an employer who must reach the difficult decision to begin laying off people. Why would he decide to lay off people rather than hire new employees? Of course, the reason is that business is poor. He has to make this decision after carefully studying the situation and realize that if he continues to pay people to do a job which does not need doing, if he has to pay employees money for 16 or 20 weeks for doing nothing, it may well be the straw which breaks the camel's back. That increased expenditure may drive the firm into bankruptcy, and no one in that firm will have a job. That is the cost of doing business.
Are we putting forward a piece of legislation which will increase the bankruptcy rate and thereby increase the unemployment rate? If there is even a threat of doing that in these present economic circumstances, we should be very, very cautious.
There is another hidden cost which is perhaps somewhat more difficult to understand. This involves a businessman deciding upon whether he wants to build a new business in Maine or Massachusetts, for example, or in southern Ontario or Montreal. He wants to employ 100 people but must reach a business decision on behalf of the shareholders as to whether he should build in Maine or Montreal. Knowledgeable businessmen will consider the business climate in which they will be and consider the costs involved. If they find that the Canadian government has gone out of its way to make it more expensive to produce goods in the long term than they can be produced south of the border, they will decide to build the factory and thereby create jobs in Maine or Massachusetts instead of Canada. That is the reality.
Perhaps I speak with some passion on this issue because during the past year and a half I have seen people become the victims of an overnight change in federal government policy. Since October, 1980, when the National Energy Program was introduced I have seen people who started a small welding shop with 20 employees, or someone in an oil-related business, or pensioners who invested in an oil rig become victimized by an overnight change in policy. The experienced people in those businesses who knew the results of the government policy started laying off people immediately because they knew that if they did not cut their expenses rapidly they would be facing bankruptcy.
As I travelled through my riding today, I found that those people who reacted quickly may only have half of the employees they had a year and a half ago, but they are still in business and still have jobs for some people. On the other hand, those less experienced businessmen who failed to react quickly, went bankrupt and have no employees.
I urge the Minister of Labour to consider carefully the weight of my argument before we enshrine into law the principle which may cost us jobs at a time when the government is being criticized because not enough jobs are being created. Over a million people in Canada are unemployed, and
we should be careful about passing any piece of legislation which may make it more difficult for them to obtain employment.


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the debate this afternoon, with the exception of the two members of the NDP and a couple of Conservatives who have spoken, I could not help being struck by the fact that this legislation does not even address the problem of unemployment in Canada. If it does, it is only so marginally that it is almost embarrassing that the government would even want to bring this legislation forward. There does not even seem to be any provision to enhance the bill in such a way as to remove the very causes of unemployment in our society.
When I hear the minister responsible for economic development, who, I assume, speaks for the government, say that it is the government's policy that there is nothing very much wrong with Canadians continuing as the hewers of wood and drawers of water and it has to phase out even further established Canadian industries, which provide by far the best employment opportunities in Canada-not the resource sector-I cannot help wondering if any member of the government realizes that the unemployment problem is simply not being addressed.
I would like to make specific reference to the inadequacies of this particular measure at eight o'clock. May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has been asked to advise hon. members that other amendments pursuant to Bill C-78 have now been considered by the Speaker.
Madam Speaker has ruled as follows; she examined the remaining motions in amendment to Bill C-78 and wishes to inform the House of her decision concerning the grouping and voting of these motions.
Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) causes the Chair some difficulty in that it appears to be going beyond the scope of the bill when it calls upon the board "to investigate the expected social and economic impact of intended termination of employment". Beauchesne's Citation 773(1) states that an amendment is out of order if it is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, on that basis one would presume that the motion may be out of order, but subject to the usual consideration that the hon. member may wish to argue the case.
Motion No. 12 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West appears to relax conditions and qualifications respecting the receipt of benefits. In this regard it appears to go beyond the royal recommendation as referred to in Beauchesne's Citation 773(7).
The Chair would be prepared to hear argument on the acceptability of these two motions at the appropriate time.
February 15, 1982

Motions Nos. 13 and 14 should be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 should be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 20 and 21 should be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 22 and 23 should be debated and voted on separately.
I think it might be a courtesy to hon. members if at eight o'clock this evening the Table had an adequate supply of copies of this ruling for hon. members to have in hand.
Pursuant to the suggestion of the hon. member, I will call it six o'clock. Accordingly, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[ Translation]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 6 p.m. this evening, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) had the floor.


Pauline Jewett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are debating Bill C-78 which is an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. It sounds pretty good, particularly the first part-an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees. Yet when one looks at it closely one sees that this year it will benefit at the most, from my estimate, 350 and not 850 employees. This, in a society where, in January, 1982, 1,096,000 Canadians were unemployed, or 9.5 per cent of the labour force. If you add to that the hidden unemployed which in January, 1982, is estimated at 745,000, you will find that the number of unemployed constituted 15 per cent of the Canadian labour force. When you look at lay-offs-and I wonder if members of the government were really looking at lay-offs when they introduced a measure like this which is supposed to benefit those who are laid off-you will see that in 1978 there were 75,000 lay-offs and that since then the numbers have increased both in quantity and severity, until in 1980 there were 183,000 lay-offs. Then, between September, 1981, and January, 1982, the number increased to 277,000, and in the last month alone, December, 1981, to January, 1982, there were 89,000 lay-offs. That is about 3,000 lay-offs per day in this country.
In British Columbia the unemployment and lay-off situation is far more serious than I think the government realizes- perhaps because it has no members from that province. In January, 1982, the number of unemployed totalled 129,000 and the unadjusted unemployed rate was, therefore, 9.8 per cent, which is 0.3 per cent higher than the Canadian average.
Labour Adjustment Benefits
If one includes the 63,000 not included in the official Figures, the unemployment rate in British Columbia jumped to 13.9 per cent, just below the national average of 15 per cent. The IWA estimates that in January, 1982, 30.6 per cent of its members in British Columbia were unemployed. This figure contrasts sharply with the IWA estimate for October, 1982, of 17.5 per cent. On the coast, 37.8 per cent of members are unemployed, and in the interior the figure is 17.8 per cent.
In terms of lay-offs, the situation is equally, if not even more, serious. In my constituency of New Westminster-Coquitlam, British Columbia Forest Products laid off over 250 employees. MacMillan Bloedel, in its Jardine division, laid off 80 employees in September, 60 of them indefinitely, while its sawmill division laid off 400 employees last year. Lamford Cedar also laid off 110 employees in September for an indefinite period of time. This is the magnitude of lay-offs in the one federal constituency of New Westminster-Coquitlam.
At the same time we find that the consumer price index increased to 14.3 per cent in 1981 in Vancouver, the highest increase of any urban area in Canada. In the more general situation, costs for non-food items such as housing, transportation and energy, have risen much higher than the average consumer price index. The average industrial wage in British Columbia has increased to 12.2 per cent, while the CPI increased to 15.5 per cent last year. As a result, workers have suffered a loss of purchasing power amounting to $581 per year.
The economic circumstances in British Columbia, and in Canada as a whole, are extremely serious and demand attention on the part of the government. This is where Bill C-78 comes in. Perhaps it was not intended to address the overwhelming unemployment problem, but it does not even effectively address the question of lay-offs and of providing benefits to laid-off workers. It is intended to provide assistance to laid-off workers who are 54 years of age and older. As I said, by its title it sounds as if it may do a great deal, but in fact Bill C-78 applies only to a very few laid-off workers in a very few industries in a very few regions. Actually, it does not apply in British Columbia at all. Another subject which concerns me very deeply is that it does not touch, or barely touches, women in the labour force who are 54 years of age or over.
Let us look at the numbers. There are the designated areas in Quebec of Sept-iles, Port-Cartier and Schefferville where the unemployment and lay-off problem is extremely serious. Of 566 laid-off workers in Sept-Iles, ten are between the ages of 54 and 65 and are, therefore, eligible for benefits under Bill C-78. In Schefferville, 16 of 286 laid off workers are eligible, and nine of the 109 management personnel laid off are eligible. In total, only 35 out of 961 are eligible for benefits under Bill C-78.
The total number of people across the country who will be eligible to receive benefits were estimated this afternoon at only 850. It would appear to me-and certainly I stand to be corrected-that 500 of those 850 are already receiving benefits

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
because labour adjustment benefits are at present being paid to a few textile and clothing workers and to footwear and tanning workers under separate regulations. According to the Department of Labour, the base figure for the number of people receiving benefits under these two programs is 500, less the number of new people who will be receiving benefits under the program in 1982, the figure will be 350. This is in a society where there are 1,096,000 unemployed and where lay-offs are taking place at the rate of 3,000 per day-350 individuals 54 years of age and older will receive benefits from the program. It seems absolutely ridiculous that the government would embarrass itself by bringing forward such a piece of legislation. It must be an embarrassment to the government. Furthermore, the benefits under the present programs for textile and clothing workers and for footwear and tanning workers are 66 per cent, whereas under the new legislation they will be 60 per cent. Even these workers will receive less.
Not only are the numbers extremely tiny of those who will benefit from the program, but there will not be any of them in British Columbia because the act is quite explicit that an industry may be designated only if it is undergoing significant economic adjustment of a non-cyclical nature-and presumably this would not affect the major industry of British Columbia-or by reason of import competition or industrial restructuring implemented pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada. That is to say, the Government of Canada has already to have initiated some program to assist in industrial restructuring. Since there is no Government of Canada program which affects the British Columbia lumber industry, no one in British Columbia 54 years of age and over and involved in that industry will benefit from the program should it be enlarged in numbers. When only 350 will receive benefits, it is almost too silly to talk about. In any event, should the numbers be enlarged, no one in British Columbia, the way it is presently worded, will benefit from the program. Furthermore, women will not benefit from the program. This is one of its great inequities. It is no wonder that "he" is referred to throughout. As I read it, very few women will benefit.
For example, one is required to have been in an industry for ten of the previous 15 years in order to qualify. This is very unlikely for large numbers of women. Furthermore, one is required to have worked 1,000 hours in every one of the years. This knocks out immediately a woman who has taken off some time to have a child. I do not think the government even thinks or realizes that 40 per cent of the work force is women and that over half of them are women with children. It does not even realize that they are in the economy and of course are suffering as much as men from unemployment.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Pauline Jewett: I will be glad to accept a question at the end of my remarks. The government does not realize that women are suffering as much from unemployment, particularly if we take into consideration the number of hidden unemployed. The bill barely touches upon women in the labour force.
My colleagues have and will continue to enumerate further serious limitations in the bill, but it would seem to me that if the government were really serious about the increasing number of lay-offs, it would extend the bill far more broadly than what I estimate to be the 350 laid-off people it will cover this year. Also it would make the regulations sufficiently flexible, particularly on the 1,000 hour regulation, so that women will at least be eligible. Also it would take a serious look at the resource sector-particularly the forest industry in British Columbia and elsewhere-which has not had the benefit of any special government planning. It would look at the 30 per cent unemployment rate there and at the incredibly high number of lay-offs, and would adapt the bill to suit other parts of the country and other sectors of the economy. If the government does not do something along these lines, the bill will remain what it is at this very moment-not even a band-aid but a laughingstock. That is how it strikes those of us in this corner, and that is how it will strike all Canadians who learn about it.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. lady entertain a question?


Pauline Jewett: Certainly.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in examining the bill we find it provides benefits for persons aged 54 who have worked 1,000 hours-


Pauline Jewett: Every year.


David Berger: -in ten out of the past 15 years. The hon. member indicated, and I would note, that 1,000 hours a year, 1 believe, is five months and that this would disqualify many women who might have had to leave the labour force in order to give birth. How many women does the hon. member know who give birth after the age of 45?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty silly question, but the answer is quite a few.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to speak at report stage of this bill. It gives me an opportunity to deal with some of the matters that were dealt with in committee. It might be useful if I tried to focus for a moment on the philosophy of the bill. From the many speeches that I have heard from the far end of the House one would have thought that what was being dealt with here was a large bill dealing with industrial strategy.


Mr. Orlikow:: That is what we need.


David Edward Crombie: It may well be what the hon. member says we need, but there are certain specifics that can be done for people who are disturbed as a consequence of economic dislocation. This bill helps them do that.
In the Dodge report that dealt with labour markets in the 1980s there is a rather significant statement. I think it is worth
February 15, 1982

putting on the record. I hope it will do two things: First, that it will remind the government that that is the philosophy behind the bill and therefore urge the government to do more; and second, that it will remind those who are not going to support the bill that there is something being done today, however small it might be.
The Dodge report reads:
Throughout the 1980s a decade already bearing the mark of uncertainty, there will be a need to focus more heavily on measures to facilitate the process of adjustment so that expanding industries in areas have access to the labour, including the skilled labour they require and so that workers in declining industries and areas do not bear undue costs. The benefits of adjustment are considerable and they accrue to society as a whole. Governments should therefore not be reticent about providing compensation to those individuals who are adversely affected by the process.
That is what this bill is about. It is a very small specific practical thing that it does, but that is the philosophy behind it. I might say that the committee itself was able to broaden the bill. I gather other speakers have mentioned this already, but it was one of the few times in a long time that I, as a Member of Parliament, bave been able to provide some argument for changes that indeed, if not accepted initially, were accepted before the bill came back into the House for report stage. It may well be, as the hon. member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) says, that it does not help very many people, some 850. It may not be important to that member, but if you happen to be one of the 850, it is very important. But more than that, we are hoping that the government, by receiving support, is going to designate more areas and more industries as they get hurt in terms of dislocation over the 1980s and 1990s, and therefore more people will be helped.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should be understood at two levels. It is the first attempt in any significant way that I know of that the government has understood the necessity of the 1980s and 1990s in relation to who should pay for the technological change that we hope we will experience. Second, it at least gives some specific compensation to people who are already hurt now. That is important.
On this side we were very concerned at the outset with the definition of industrial restructuring. How is a community or an industry designated for industrial restructuring? In our view, it is important that industrial restructuring be understood to include technological change. It was the view of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), his deputy minister and staff, that industrial restructuring implied technological change. But all representations that dealt with the question of industrial restructuring were uniform. They did not see clearly that industrial restructuring included technological change. There is a change in Clause 2 of the bill under the heading "Interpretation" which reads:
"industrial restructuring" includes technological change;
That is an advance, not for today's delivery but for other people to understand what the philosophy of the bill is and therefore be able to argue later on that because the bill is that broad, there is other legislation to be brought forward based on that bill and the acceptance of the philosophy.
Labour Adjustment Benefits
A second area with which we concerned ourselves was the establishment of the labour boards. In our view, and it is still our view-and we were not successful about this-that it would be easier and better had the implementation of the administration of the program been carried out by the Canadian employment commission. That would seem to me to have put the people applying for the benefit through one process rather than two. Indeed, it was clear from the remarks made by the deputy minister of labour that the only reason we have two systems is that someone over there decided to put the job definition with labour rather than with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I am sure that you know, Mr. Speaker, that the people who will get support and help from the bill do not care if it is done by the Supreme Court. They would like it done efficiently, clearly, quickly and understandably.
I hear the Minister of Labour saying if we had amended it, it would go to the Supreme Court, and we probably would not have had it accepted. We hope that our fears are wrong, but as the Minister of Labour has pointed out time and again, it will be simpler and it will make it easier. If that is true, it will be the first time in the history of the federal government in this century that adding yet one more board, commission or special purpose body will make it easier for people to get the benefits.
The approach that says "Hello, I am from the government and I am here to help" is increasingly being met with skepticism. It seems to me that that would have been one change on which we could have insisted. We believe very strongly that what we have here is going to be an administrative problem that will not be of benefit to the recipients of the adjustments.
We also dealt with an amendment offered by the New Democratic Party, which we supported in the committee, with respect to a change in the 1,000-hour requirement. It seems to us unnecessary to stick rigidly to 1,000 hours per year. We think the average is appropriate.
We also dealt with the question of reports to Parliament. Anyone who attended the committee hearings would know that everybody agreed there is great difficulty with the various programs being offered by the various departments of government. We could find ourselves lost in a sea of paper with no one remembering who helped whom last. It is important that we have a more rapid reporting system that would impose some discipline on those who are administering the various programs so they could have some coherence about what they are doing and we would not get mixed up with three different programs from two different departments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there were four or five changes, not the least of which was a motion which was accepted to broaden the representative nature of the Labour Adjustment Review Board to include employer and employee representatives. That is a good change; we supported it in committee and will now. We also had a good discussion in committee on the broadening of responsibility of the joint planning committee, which we support. That change was very significant in my view and, I think,

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
in the view of all members of the committee, Mr. Speaker, because it allows the joint planning committee not only to deal with the question of looking for ways in which to cushion the shock of unemployment, but also to look at programs which could obviate the necessity of lay-offs in the first place. That was a good advance and it was carried by the committee unanimously.
We are also pleased that the minister is bringing forward the suggestion made by my friend from Montreal that we should include the CPP deductibility in terms of the calculation. That is a good change. I could go on with two or three others, Mr. Speaker, but what we wanted to say is clearly this. The government's efforts in this bill, which is essentially an early retirement bill, are welcomed by those of us in this party because we recognize the government is trying to take its first-however small and timed-step into a field which is going to be very important for technological change and its consequences, which takes us into the twenty-first century.
1 spent a considerable part of my remarks on second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, chastising the government for not understanding it. I would like to change that in one connection. The Minister of Labour understands it but 1 am not so sure-all right, 1 will be kind. Clearly, though, the Minister of Labour demonstrated in committee that he understands what he is about. We wish the bill could have provided bigger and broader benefits for more people, but to reject the bill on the basis that it does not do everything you want is, I think, irresponsible. So, speaking for my party, Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), and the reason his party proposes to support this bill is that it is a small step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, this country is facing tremendous problems. We have over a million unemployed; thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec, the manufacturing heartland of this country, are being lost every week. Instead of a modern antibiotic to deal with the epidemic, the government proposes to use a small mustard plaster.
Almost half of our one million unemployed, Mr. Speaker, are people between the ages of 15 and 24. What makes the situation serious is that unemployment is no longer confined, as it was for so many years, to the traditional slow growth areas of Canada such as Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec where, unfortunately, people have become used to having large scale unemployment for years. It now cuts a wide swath right across our manufacturing industry. In the last year we have lost 240,000 jobs, and, according to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in the next six months we are going to lose
100,000	to 150,000 more jobs. Does the government have any employment policy? If they have, they certainly have not shown it to us.
1 am sorry the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) is leaving because just a couple of days ago the Minister of State
for Economic Development made a speech in Victoria and it was recorded in The Globe and Mail as follows: "Ottawa is going to stop propping up manufacturing industries that have not been able to make a go of it". Then he went on to illustrate the kind of industry he meant: Textiles, clothing, footwear and a number of others. There are probably 300,000 workers in those industries, most of them in Ontario and Quebec, so the minister joins some of the theorists working for the Economic Council of Canada in saying that those industries have to go, but he does not give any indication at all that the government has devised any plans for alternate work for those people. Many of those workers live and work in one-industry towns in which industry closures will mean economic suicide.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the beginning of this. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) announced new quotas for the footwear industry, which means it will go the way of our radio and television industry. What we have is a government which has adopted, quietly and without admitting it, Reaganomics. The most important problem in their view is to deal with inflation, and the way to do that is to keep interest rates high. The fact that we have had that for five or six years and we have restricted the money supply, and all we have had is higher inflation and more unemployment, has not cut any ice with the government. So they will continue these policies. Dealing with inflation is more important to them than trying to do something about unemployment. They will keep interest rates high and keep government expenditures down, and that, Mr. Speaker, is precisely what President Reagan is doing in the United States.
So we have that policy from the Liberal government, and what do we hear from the Conservatives? Well, here is the finance critic for that party, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), making a speech in Toronto a couple of days ago where he said he supports the economic policies in the United States such as free enterprise, a greater reliance on the private sector and government cutbacks. These are important programs, he says, and the Conservative Party should be following them. It is something we would do, he says, if we were the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just put on the record a couple of paragraphs about what Reaganomics has done to the United States. We know that it means they have more unemployed in the United States than they have had since the Great Depression. We know President Reagan has predicted a $90-billion deficit. What we have not talked so much about is what his cutbacks in social programs means to the American people. According to a study by the North Carolina Senior Citizens Federation:
-reduced aid to the elderly will result in "hundreds of deaths, and thousands of people suffering severe hardship, and irreparable physical or mental damage." This is because, under President Reagan, the federal government is reneging on many decades-old commitments to older Americans and because the budget cuts destroy or weaken the so-called safety-net programs critical to their very lives: social security, medicaid, food stamps, housing, energy assistance, and social services. Indeed, these cuts mean-together with the termination of the Community Services Administration-that there is no "safety-net" and no guarantee that the needs of 6 million elderly poor will be met.
February 15, 1982

It continues to state:
-programs that directly aid children have been cut with special severity: nutrition, education, and health programs. Child nutrition programs-including School Lunch, School Breakfast, Summer Food, and the Child Care Food Program-have been cut from $4.3 billion to $2.8 billion or 34.9 per cent.
I would like to know if those are the kinds of programs the Conservative Party is supporting. Our members in the committee which dealt with this bill in detail co-operated in the discussions and moved some amendments. A few amendments, the less important ones, were even accepted by the government. Of course, we tried, as did the Conservative members, to make it a better bill.


John Horton McDermid: I thought they were all important.


David Orlikow: However, the fact is that this bill will deal with such a small percentage of the people who are really in need that, in our opinion, the bill is, to a large extent, a fake. It is a camouflage. It is an attempt by this government, as Liberal governments have done so often in the past, to give the appearance that it is doing something when, in fact, it is doing virtually nothing for the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs and the tens of thousands more who are likely to lose their jobs in the next year or so.
Let me deal with just a few of the shortcomings of the bill. The bill, for example, does not deal with the unemployed workers who have been laid off because of a recession. At the present time, they comprise the bulk of the unemployed people. Thousands of workers in the automobile industry have been laid off in the city of Windsor, which is represented by three cabinet ministers.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Only until the next election!


David Orlikow: I hope the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) is right in saying that those three ministers are only here until the next election. Thousands of auto workers have been laid off, and the possibility that they will be coming back to work in the auto industry in the near future is very slim. They have been laid off because the automobile industry is in a recession. A large part of the reason the automobile industry is in such difficulty is the high interest rate policy of this government, which means that Canadians who are working cannot afford to buy cars because they cannot afford to finance the purchases. That is one of the problems.
Let me illustrate another problem. In order to qualify for assistance, a worker must work in a designated industry. The decision as to which industries will be designated, of course, is left entirely to the government. The reasons the government would designate an industry are not quite clear. However, even if a worker works in a designated industry, in order to qualify he must have worked for ten of the last 15 years and must be 54 years old. Studies have indicated that the turnover rates in industry show an average job tenure of seven to eight years. This means that most workers who work in Canadian industry would not qualify because they have not worked for ten of the
Labour Adjustment Benefits
last 15 years in the industry. We suggest that that is too restrictive. However, again, the government wants to keep the numbers of those who will qualify small.
I would like to discuss benefit levels proposed in the bill. As the hon. member for Rosedale said, we are making a start for the first time. What kind of a start are we making? The benefit levels of the few people who qualify are limited to 60 per cent of the insurable earnings, according to the unemployment insurance regulations. I think the steelworkers' union has made a very reasonable suggestion that the benefits should not be 60 per cent, but 75 per cent, and not just 60 per cent of the unemployment insurable benefits, but 75 per cent of the actual earnings.
There is another important reason we feel this bill does not meet the bill. We say that the termination notice is too short. All across the country, there are companies for which workers have worked many years, and these workers are being laid off on very short notice. Some of these workers are miners who have worked in Sept-iles and Schefferville, Thompson, Leaf Rapids and Uranium City. Because the ore body is worked out, or because of the recession, or because of a slowdown in the economy, the worker loses his job. We do not believe that a termination notice of four to 16 weeks is sufficient. We believe that the termination notice in these kinds of cases should be at least six months.
When a worker in a one-industry town loses his job, his difficulties are infinitely greater than those of the worker who lives in one of Canada's cities, because that worker may find another job in the same industry. If he cannot find another job in the same industry, he will at least be able to move to another city or to another area where there is more economic activity and where he can find a job. He can usually sell his home. For most Canadian workers, the equity they have in their homes is the only equity which they have ever been able to accumulate. What is happening in towns like Thompson and Leaf Rapids in Manitoba, towns like Sept-iles and Schefferville in Quebec, towns like Uranium City in Saskatchewan, and towns like Sudbury in Ontario? The workers are losing their jobs. They are from these one-industry towns. They are not likely to get their jobs back. They are finding that they have to move. They are finding that they cannot sell their homes. They are having to start all over after years of living in one city or in one town and years of working for one company, through no fault of their own.
We say that the company has usually been able to look after itself. Over a period of years, the company has, quite properly, been using our tax laws to get back, through depreciation allowances, the investment which it put into establishing the mine; not so the worker. The worker is left completely helpless. He is left with nothing. We say that if we are serious, if the government meant to do something real for the workers for whom it claims to have a concern, the termination notice would be at least six months.
The minister and the government have made a great deal of the fact that under this bill, for the first time, we will have established joint labour management committees, as the gov-

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
ernment calls them, joint planning committees, which will be able to give some thought and consideration toward planning how to help the workers relocate. That is a worthy objective. However, we have looked at the bill and the unions have looked at the bill and they see that the joint planning committees have no real power. There is no adjustment fund from which the workers could draw benefits until they could make the transition.
We felt that if the committees were to do the job, they should have the right to complete disclosure of the finances and assets of a company. When I had the temerity to move that kind of amendment, it was greeted with shock and pain by all the Liberal and Conservative members. They could not believe that anyone would make that kind of suggestion. If we are serious, and if we really want the workers to feel that they have some rights and that they have been given some consideration, why should workers not have the right to know everything about the financial situation of a company?
Yesterday's and today's news tells us that the United Auto Workers and the Ford Motor Company have reached an historic agreement in their contract negotiations. The companies, beset by fallen sales, buffeted by competition from foreign cars, have called on the workers to take quite substantial reductions in their hourly pay rates and other benefits. Cognizant of the fact that tens of thousands of their members are now unemployed, the unions have had to give serious consideration to the proposals of the Ford Motor Company. We do not know the details of the agreement. We do know that in its recent agreement with the company, the union has been able to get the right to look at the financial structure and the assets and to get information about the future plans of the Ford Motor Company. I understand that Ford has made the commitment that it will not move any of its existing operations, such as engine parts or anything else now being produced in the United States, to another country, as has happened in recent years. That is real planning, real joint labour-management discussions and negotiations. As far as we can tell, the joint planning committees proposed under this bill will have no real power.
[DOT] (-D
We have heard from unions which represent the workers in some of these cities which have been designated. Sept-Iles and Schefferville have been designated to benefit under the ILAP program.
Because of the recession, the iron ore mines in Quebec and Labrador are not selling the same tonnage as they did years ago. Thousands of workers have been laid off. This is a one-industry area. Not only do the workers not have jobs, they cannot sell their homes. The area has been designated under the ILAP program for which $350 million is supposedly being appropriated. The union tells us that the committee which has been established has made a number of recommendations, most of which have been ignored by the government.
Sydney, Nova Scotia, and the steel mill there have been designated to be helped. Sysco has had persistent major layoffs since 1967. There is little evidence that the provisions of this bill will help Sydney. The steel mill is the major employer in the area. It needs an infusion of capital of major proportions in order to be competitive and to continue to operate. There is no indication from the government that it proposes to do that. Many older workers are retiring, and the younger workers are leaving because they cannot find permanent employment. The town continues to decline.
Windsor is facing major problems. We can go over this city by city. Even when this bill passes, it will provide very little help. The hon. member for Rosedale admitted that this bill will provide some assistance for the tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs and the thousands who will lose their jobs in the next year or two. It is a step in the right direction. However, as I said earlier, it is so small and so hesitant a step that we believe we ought not to vote for the bill because, when passed, it will create an impression which would be false, namely, that much will be accomplished when, in fact, very little will be accomplished.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to make some remarks on this bill in particular and unemployment in general as, I am told, this bill tries to address the problem of unemployment. The hon. member who spoke last and the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) before him mentioned that the bill takes a small step in the right direction. If anybody should know about small steps, I suggest it is the hon. member for Rosedale and I because we take small steps every day.
While the hon. member for Rosedale may be happy with this small step, I am not. As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) at this time with one million unemployed, this bill is a disgrace. At a time when
500,000	young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed, this bill is a disgrace. At a time of unemployment in the maritimes and Atlantic Canada of over 16 per cent, this bill is a disgrace. At a time when a portion of the forest industry of British Columbia is out of work and a time when numerous auto workers are out of work because of a lack of government policy and other reasons, this bill is a disgrace.
How can one vote for a bill that does so little to address a really big unemployment problem in this country? People know that every day in the House of Commons the members of the NDP are always complaining and asking questions about jobs. They ask what we would do. That is a question that demands an answer. Instead of bringing in a bill like this to help a small proportion of the unemployed, dealing with the problem in a small way, we would deal with it in a big way and really tackle the unemployment problem.
It is not that difficult. It is really a political question. It is a question of will. Do you really want to tackle unemployment or not? The one-party system in this country, the Liberal government which has been in office far too long, decided some time ago and has continued with the policy-at least it has been straightforward and consistent-to govern the country in a way which basically consists of being hewers of wood and drawers of water.
February 15, 1982

Senator Olson told the students at the University of Victoria exactly that the other day. He was not misquoted. He told them that the Liberal policy is, basically, to sell our unprocessed resources, that in the long run that is our best hope for a healthy economy.
You can have an economy that works in such a way. You can get prosperity for some people. You will have ups and downs in the world market. When the world market is up, you have a good percentage of the population working. However, there will always be an unemployment problem in Canada. This will always be a colony. We will never be masters in our own houses if we do that. It takes political will to make a change in the system.
I have asked myself what can be done. I would like to answer that. We have to stimulate the economy now. The government could bring in a bill to do that. It could force our banks and other lending institutions by law to lower interest rates immediately on consumer loans. That could be done. Second, we could fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Gerald Bouey, whom the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae) calls Bouey XVI, whose policies do not take into account the interests of the people of Canada. We could fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada and increase the rate of growth in the money supply. Third, we could apply an excess profit tax on chartered banks and roll back their marginal tax rate from 16.1 per cent registered last year to 55 per cent collected in 1970. The extra federal revenues could then be taken and pumped into housing. Fourth, we could significantly lower personal income tax for low and middle-income Canadians in order to stimulate consumer spending. We could then increase corporate taxes for many large corporations but drop the rate for companies in selective growth industries. That would be an industrial strategy. It is different from the strategy of the megaprojects and the continued sell-out of raw resources.
We could then allow the Canadian dollar to fall slightly in relation to the United States currency to help our export industries and allow a general lowering of interest rates. In this way we could have a made-in-Canada interest policy which would be different from the present Liberal policy.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if you could address yourself to the question of whether the hon. member is speaking to the bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with unemployment. It is the government's answer for jobs, and I am indicating how generally inadequate this bill is. That is what I am speaking to, and if the minister would listen to some of our proposals he could change government policy and bring about real jobs in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Come on. Shame.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member need not yell out. I will come to them in a moment.
Labour Adjustment Benefits
The Liberal policy is a monetarist policy with a few sops, as in this bill, to provide some jobs. It is a high interest rate policy. It is a follow-the-U.S. policy.
The Conservative policy as enunciated by the member for St. John's (Mr. Crosbie), the former finance critic, and the policy as enunciated recently by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) are exactly the same. They advocate high interest rates, following the Americans and continuing an economy with substantially high unemployment. The monetarists say that to squeeze out inflation you have to bring the economy into a recession. They will squeeze out recession in the United States on the backs of the black people and poor people in the ghettos, and so on, and they will do it in Canada on the backs of the unemployed. That is the government policy, make no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker. That is what this government intends to do, and that is what the opposition would do as well. It is hypocrisy for the opposition to say anything different in this debate.
The government should also introduce a guaranteed annual income to protect pensioners and workers who are living on fixed incomes from the ravages of inflation. What does this bill do? I approve of the measure which provides assistance to people in the work force who are over 54, because they need assistance. However, what about the 500,000 people between the ages of 15 and 24 who are unemployed? I am told that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) is very compassionate, so why does he not bring in a bill to deal with that?
There is another direction from which we could approach this matter.


David Berger: Why do you not deal with this bill?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The hon. member asks why we do not deal with this bill. The fact is that we will never get to what we are proposing. We will never get to a full employment strategy. That is what this bill should deal with and that is the difference in Canada right now between the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party proposes a full employment strategy and would not bring in a bill such as this which takes such small steps. We would take bigger steps. As a matter of fact, it would not be a radical proposition to take bigger steps through a bill such as this. I offer this example to the hon. member for Rosedale to consider. In the American Congress some years ago there was a joint effort between the late Senator Humphrey and Representative Hawkins to introduce a bill which took a radical, new attitude for those days. This Humphrey-Hawkins bill, as it became known, stated that people would have a right to a job. This would be clause one in any employment bill: "You have a right to a job." That was a radical strategy; that a person had a right to a job and the government was to find him a job. This was a full-employment strategy. This can be done. I can see hon. members laughing at this but it would be a clear industrial strategy in Canada to start with the premise that everyone is entitled to a job. If a young person said he was unemployed and needed a job, he would be given a job. Why do we not bring legislation such as
Labour Adjustment Benefits
that Humphrey-Hawkins bill of the late sixties which was never brought in?
I would like to deal with other aspects of the bill. With respect to the measure concerning those over the age of 54, it is needed because there is a problem in Canada of older workers being laid off. I appreciate the fact that the minister is in the House tonight, and although we cannot deal with it at this time I would like to suggest one possible amendment. In my constituency office I hear of many problems of workers in that age group who have injuries and never receive a pension for which they have applied. I have argued some of these cases myself and found it to be a Catch 22 situation. These people cannot work, but the pension board says they are capable of doing some kind of minor job. But there are no minor jobs for them. I thought the minister would like to know that when considering further amendments.
One possibility we may consider is to guarantee a minimum wage at retirement or for those over 55.
Finally, the government is asking Canadians, businessmen and workers, to show restraint in order to provide more jobs and ultimately beat inflation. I have received many letters from my constituents on this matter, and 1 want to take this opportunity to say that we perhaps were not wise in Parliament recently when we voted ourselves a salary increase. I would like to say for the record that I think we should reconsider our future takes. I do not know how we can justify telling Canadians to show restraint while we do not show it. I intend to write to my constituents and personally forgo any increases for the balance of this Parliament. It is a small contribution but one which I think all members can make. I do not believe we can call upon labour or business to exercise restraint if we are not prepared to do it. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise.
As I have said and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North has said, it would be hypocritical for us to support a bill that does so little to help the advancement of the unemployed in this country.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, come on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Conservative members say, "Come on". I have offered seven concrete steps toward a full employment strategy.


John Horton McDermid: Except to say where the money would come from.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I said where the money would come from if the hon. member had listened. It is a complete program which we are offering to the Canadian people. Unlike the legislation before us, it will meet the problem of unemployment among younger Canadians. We in the House should not be asking why we cannot solve the problem of unemployment. We should be saying how we can solve the problem. I have proposed specific suggestions while the government has introduced a piece of legislation which does nothing. It is a minor piece of legislation which does not deal with the problem of a million
February 15, 1982
unemployed, half of whom are young people. I recommend to the Minister of Labour that he read my speech tomorrow and bring in a bill which would incorporate these suggestions and tackle unemployment in the proper way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I remind hon. members that pursuant to a ruling made by Madam Speaker earlier today, a number of motions have been grouped. Accordingly. I will be putting the question on Motion No. I. In accordance with the manner in which hon. members want to deal with that motion, Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be dealt with as a result of the handling of Motion No. 1. The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motion lost, and that disposes of Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (Mr. Kristiansen) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will now put the
question on Motion No. 10, in accordance with Madam Speaker's ruling erlier today. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Again pursuant to the grouping of motions made earlier, Motions Nos. 3 and 4, which are to be debated together but voted on separately, will be put before the House.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Motion No. 3


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


Mr. Deans:: On division.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Caccia) agreed to.
February 15, 1982

That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 39 and 40 at page 2 and lines 1 and 2 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"trial restructuring; and".


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 3 of the French version by striking out line 42 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"de Timportation, soit d'une restructuration indus-".


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some comments to Motion No. 3. Our amendment, Motion No. 3, would amend Clause 3 of this bill by striking out lines 39 and 40 at page two and lines one and two at page three and substituting the following therefor: "Trial restructuring; and". Clause 3(2) reads in part as follows:
An industry may be designated generally pursuant to Subsection (1) if the governor in council is satisfied that
(a)	the industry in Canada generally is undergoing significant economic adjustment of a non-cyclical nature by reason of import competition or by reason of industrial restructuring-
All Motion No. 3 would do would be to remove from the subclause the words:
-implemented pursuant to a policy or program of the Government of Canada to encourage such restructuring-
In committee, reasons for this change were put forward. The example of the forest industry was given. Certain restructuring is taking place in various parts of Canada. If we were to leave the bill as it is before us, we might bring about gross discrimination against the industry in one part of Canada as opposed to another. Under the forest industry modernization program, the federal government and provincial governments are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to companies in the pulp and paper industry in Atlantic Canada, in the province of Quebec and in the province of Ontario. That is clearly a policy of the Government of Canada and would be seen to be so according to the text of this bill. In relation to the pulp and paper industry in western Canada, the private sector has said that this is the private sector's job, that it does not need the government to tell the industry in western Canada to do what should be its job, and that it would rather have the government spend its money looking after its business, which is to improve stock and forest resources so that those companies will have something to work with. One is not necessarily superior to the other. It is just that the industry in western Canada has taken a different point of view as to what its proper role is.
This bill stipulates the policy of the Government of Canada. It would be grossly unfair to discriminate against an entire region of the country simply because the industry in the west has a view of its own obligations and duties different from that of the central and eastern part of the country.
As the bill reads now, for there to be a general designation of an industry, there must be a significant economic adjustment of a non-cyclical nature, which already tends to make worse many of the major upheavals within the resource industries of the country. Some would say this provision is a further
Labour Adjustment Benefits
discrimination against western Canada, or, when it states "by reason of import competition", why only import competition? Many people will have even more cause for suspicion of regional discrimination if import competition, industrial restructuring or industrial chaos as a result of import competition is the cause of government assistance. However, if there is restructuring because of export competition, which can happen suddenly as a result of a policy of a government far removed from North America, or perhaps the government to the south of us, we might see gross disruptions and upheavals in the economy and in plants and operations from one end of the country to the other. If that should happen-and it may well happen if the Americans are silly enough at their hearing in Portland next month to put tariffs on the import of Canadian lumber-this legislation would be powerless to come to the assistance generally of the Canadian forest industry simply because of this wording.
Some hon. members may say this matter can be resolved because the bill says, "by reason of industrial restructuring". If that was all it said, they would be correct, but there is a limitation in the bill because it says industrial restructuring only if it is "implemented pursuant to a policy or a program of the Government of Canada". The minister has argued that somehow it would be an amputation if we were to imply that if it is not a policy of the government the government could not go ahead. But how can something be considered an amputation if it extends to the minister authority he does not have within the confines of this bill? It allows him to exercise more flexibility in recognizing a serious situation with which he, the government, and all of us may well want to deal. However, the minister would have his hands tied in terms of general designations under the bill.
It is interesting to note that Clause 3(3) dealing with regional designations, reads as follows:
An industry may be designated with respect to any region of Canada pursuant to Subsection (1) if the governor in council is satisfied that
(a) the industry in that region is undergoing significant economic adjustment
of a non-cyclical nature;
That clause does not mention whether it must be in line with the policy of the Government of Canada. If the minister is able to exercise flexibility and his right of political choice to designate an individual region without showing the restructuring flowing from the policy of the government, why can he not do that in the case of an industry? When there is a difference in the two clauses, we must ask why that is so. In the absence of a clear and definitive answer, the peoples' imaginations will soar. We have not been given a logical reason. If government policy is not necessary in a regional sense, why is it necessary in a national sense? This will allow the government and the minister the necessary flexibility to provide assistance whenever and wherever it is needed in the country, where circumstances warrant. We hope that the minister and the government will think again and not get hung up on pride and will seriously consider supporting the amendment which my colleagues and I have placed before them.

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, while I am sympathetic to the motives of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) and to the sincerity of his argument, the proposal he is making to delete the last two lines on page 2 would make of the designation of industry, a policy without a government in charge of it. For that reason it should be rejected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay!
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11), the vote stands deferred.
The question is on motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Caccia) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question before the House is on Motion No. 9.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended
(a)	by adding immediately after line 9 at page 4 the following:
"4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the governor in council may, in any order under Section 3, declare
(a)	that the designation of the industry in the order is retroactive in effect and applies as of such day, before the date of the order, as is specified in the order; and
(b)	that this act applies in respect of lay-offs from a Canadian establishment in the industry designated in the order occurring on or after the day specified pursuant to paragraph (a).
(2) The governor in council may not specify pursuant to paragraph (l)(a) a day that is more than forty-eight months before the day this section comes into force."; and
(b)	by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Caccia) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question before the House is on Motion No. 11. 1 would remind hon. members that earlier today the Speaker indicated that the motion might not be in order pursuant to Beauchesne, Citation 773(1) which states that an amendment is out of order if it is beyond the scope of the bill. Does the hon. member for Kootenay West wish to present argument?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 11, we would ask to stand this motion until we have time to present further argument, although I shall make some comments now. According to page 25 of the bill, it is clear that a subsidiary body to the commission referred to in Motion No. 11, a lesser body, a committee rather than the board referred to in the motion, would have, by the nature of its existence and duties, exactly the kind of requirement and authority which, it is suggested here, go beyond the scope of the bill. On page 25 the bill reads as follows:
60.13 (1) It is the object of a joint planning committee to develop an adjustment program to eliminate the necessity for the termination of employment or to minimize the impact of such termination on the redundant employees and to assist those employees in obtaining other employment.
(2)	Subject to Subsection (3). in attaining its object under Subsection (I). a joint planning committee may, unless the members of the committee agree otherwise, deal only with such matters as are normally the subject-matter of collective agreement-
That is, unless they agree otherwise. That clearly gives them the power, by mutual agreement, to go beyond those items most often found in collective agreements.
The next subclause reads as follows:
(3)	The members of a joint planning committee shall co-operate and make every reasonable effort to develop an adjustment program as expeditiously as possible.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in committee a clause was deleted from the bill which had provided that a joint planning committee would not be allowed to look at some of these questions. If we deleted that clause, which said we could not do what this amendment covers, and if we have already put in, through Clause 60.13 (1), a provision which by its very nature necessitates the investigation of the expected social and economic impact of the intended termination, then if a subsidiary body to the board is given that power and that authority, surely it is not going beyond the scope of the bill to suggest that the board should have similar authority, similar scope and similar powers. I do not argue that, if this were not the case, Her Honour would be correct in reaching the conclusion she has, but with all deference I think that the bill has been misread or misinterpreted. The clear implication of the bill would require exactly the kind of provision that is mentioned in our amendment.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, we submit that Motion No. 11 goes so far beyond the principle of the bill that it is quite unacceptable to us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Kootenay West has sought leave of the House to present written argument to the Speaker, presumably tonight or
February 15, 1982

tomorrow. Does the hon. member have the consent of all hon. members to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles L. Caccia: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will have to examine the argument made by the hon. member and the citations from Beauchesne.
While that is being done, perhaps the hon. member would like to make some representation on Motion No. 12, where again a caveat has been entered by Madam Speaker today with respect to the admissibility of the motion.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, we are prepared to accept the Speaker's ruling on Motion No. 12.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As I understand it, the hon. member for Kootenay West accepts the Speaker's ruling on Motion No. 12?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is left with a ruling to be made on Motion No. 11.1 would ask the consent of the House to defer that ruling for a few moments while I check the authorities. 1 would then seek permission to revert to Motion No. 11 and deal with it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that we are grouping Motions Nos. 13 and 14 for debate.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: 
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 8 the following:
"(c) an employee shall be considered to have worked 1,000 hours in a year in each year for which he failed to work 1,000 hours because he was in receipt of a disability pension, sick benefits, workers compensation or was on leave of absence with the consent of the employer." and that the following paragraphs be renumbered accordingly.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak specifically to Motion No. 13, if I may.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Motion No. 13 stands in the name of the Minister of Labour. I should like to draw that fact to the attention of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I see no problem in that regard. Earlier today the Speaker ruled that Motions Nos. 13 and 14 could be debated together but voted on separately.


Ian Deans: In fact I was quite prepared to concede that it stood in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia); I would not want to claim credit for it. I should like to draw to the attention of the minister paragraph (b)(3) of Motion No. 13, which reads:
Notwithstanding Subsection (1), where an employee certified under Section 10 would be qualified under Subsection (1) to receive labour adjustment benefits but for the requirement set out in paragraph (l)(b), the commission may determine-
The word "may" is the word which concerns me. I should like the minister to think for a moment about the possible consequences of "may", given the qualification which is then set out in the clause. It continues:
-that the employee is qualified to receive labour adjustment benefits if he shows that he is in substantial compliance with the requirement and that he docs not meet such requirement by reason only of illness, disability, lay-off or any other good cause whatsoever.

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
I suggest the minister should listen; I am not rising to speak because I like to listen to myself at 9.32 p.m.


John Horton McDermid: That is a change.


Ian Deans: I am rising to speak because 1 happen to think, despite the fact the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is intervening from his newfound front seat, which no doubt is temporary, that the minister might consider the consequences of the word "may". If an employee goes before the board and is able to prove that he would normally meet the requirements of the act for benefit, and if he were able to show that the only reason he was disentitled from receiving benefit was illness, disability or lay-off during the period under consideration, or any other good cause whatsoever, I contend that the word "may" ought not to be there. Surely the board shall find, in cases where it is proven to the satisfaction of the board that the employee would otherwise be entitled, except for illness, lay-off, disability or another cause which the board determines is a good cause, in favour of the employee. I think the employee is being put in double jeopardy. He must go before the board to try to prove, on the one hand, that there is good and justifiable reason why he should be eligible. On the other hand, having once proven it even to the satisfaction of the board, he must then await the board's determination as to whether or not it will accept the circumstances. There is far too much latitude involved.
If I appeared before the board as an employee, and if I were to show that I complied with the employment requirements of the act, that I was employed for the appropriate length of time to qualify for benefit but that as a result of having been disabled, ill or laid off, in a technical sense, the time of my employment would be reduced to a point where I might otherwise not be eligible; if the board, having heard my argument, were to accept that I was legitimately laid off, ill, disentitled by way of injury or for any other good reason, then it ought not to be a decision of the board whether it may or may not decide to give me the benefit. Surely, having once accepted that I have given justifiable reason and therefore would otherwise be eligible, the board shall grant the entitlement under the bill.
I suggest that it is a simple word change, but if the board were given the authority to make a decision with regard to the evidence I placed before it, there must be a concurrent responsibility on the board to find in my favour, if my argument is sustained, not simply to say in the end, "Yes, we agree with your argument; yes, I think you should be getting the money; however I have decided, since it is discretionary on the part of the board, not to give it".


John Horton McDermid: Can it work the other way?


Ian Deans: No, it cannot work the other way. Unfortunately it cannot because the requirement on the employee is to give proof. The trouble is that it indicates that the employee is qualified to receive labour adjustment benefits, if he shows that he is in substantial compliance with the requirement and that he does not meet such requirement by reason only of
illness, disability, lay-off or any other good cause whatsoever. The onus is placed quite squarely on the shoulders of the employee to prove the good cause. Having once proven that, surely the entitlement should be automatic, not discretionary.
I know the minister is both listening and talking at the same time. I realize ministers develop that rather unique talent immediately after being appointed. However, I suggest that this kind of discretion vested in the board can only cause great hardship in the future. It will cause decisions to be made which cannot be used as precedents because the board will always have discretionary power. For example, it is not inconceivable that in one case an employee could argue that he was disabled but in receipt of workmen's compensation benefits and therefore technically still in the employ of the employer. In so doing, if he could prove to the board that he has a period of employment which would otherwise qualify him for entitlement under the act, he could win because the board might, in exercising its jurisdiction, say, "Yes, I accept it and therefore grant the payment". However, another employee appearing before a differently-structured board with different members could not really use that argument to sustain his case, because the discretion is solely the discretion of the board and the board may or may not grant entitlement.
My argument simply is that that is bad legislation. It does not deal adequately with the concerns of the House of Commons. If it is to set out the criterion under which an employee will receive benefits, once the employee has met the criterion, the benefits should be automatic. I see a head or two on the government side of the House nodding in the affirmative. It should not be discretionary on the part of the board.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Labour if he would accept that very small word change which would clear up the amendment to the satisfaction of the House of Commons and, in addition, would make it much better in terms of dealing with employees in the future. Will the minister accept the change from "may" to shall?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member was making such kind remarks about the behaviour of the Minister of Labour, he was listening to him as well as to some good advice coming from my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead).


Ian Deans: I agree.


Charles L. Caccia: I listened very carefully to the representations made by the hon. member. But I would like to draw to his attention that Clause 12 begins with:
The commission may determine-
And the paragraph carries all subparagraphs further down on the same page. But the major point in reply to the hon. member is that the word "may" following the words "The commission" gives the commission the full scope to carry out an inquiry without being preconditioned in one direction or another. It is good drafting. Clause 12 is carried with the word "may". It is a way of carrying out the principle into the
February 15, 1982

legislation in the interests of all those concerned. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. member's proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rising on a point of order?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification which I think falls within a point of order. I can well understand the meaning of the word "may" in the operative SubClause 1, that "The commission may determine". But when you get down to a clause which deals specifically with a set of circumstances which must be placed before the board, in that set of circumstances the word "may" is not the appropriate operative word. It is quite clear that the clause reads:
The commission may determine that an employee who has been certilied under Section 9 is qualified to receive labour adjustment benefits if
(a) he is a Canadian citizen resident in Canada-
My concern with it is that an employee could meet every single one of those qualifications as set out in Clause 12(l)(a) through (f). Therefore, Clause 12(1 )(a) to (0 could be met in its entirety, except that the employee might not, in the sense that it is set out, be technically employed through that period as a result of illness and whatever else, the other conditions that are set out in the amendment proposed by the minister. It is an amendment, incidentally, which is not one that we find obnoxious or unacceptable. But if you put in two "mays", you are putting those people in double jeopardy. On the one hand, if in the first section the board may find it subject to these conditions and then you go on to say that additional consideration should be given to a specific set of conditions, then 1 would suggest to the commissioner that the appropriate operative word in the second part is "shall". In the First case, I can appreciate that that you must meet all of those conditions. But having met all those conditions and still having a question as to the appropriateness of the acceptability of the length of time of employment, if the employee can prove that he does qualify under all other terms, then the operative word should be "shall" and not "may".


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with this particular point. I had experience with the workers' compensation act in Alberta several years ago. The interpretation act said that "may" means "shall" and "shall" means "may". In making representations on behalf of an employee, I found that "may" did not mean "shall", and "shall" did not mean "may", when it came to actual administration. The board rejected this particular claim. When 1 wanted to know why, the board said that it had the discretion. I agreed they had the discretion, but the man was injured in industry, and I asked whether they recognized that. The man had a disability. The doctors claimed that and I asked whether the board recognized that. I asked why they denied him the benefits. They answered that they had the discretion because the. act said "may". We fought that and eventually won the case. I would point out to the minister that administrative boards sometimes bring in other factors that are really irrelevant. This man I have in mind was an obnoxious fellow. People did not like him, but that should not deny him the right to
Labour Adjustment Benefits
compensation when he was injured. Therefore, when every condition is met in this particular requirement, surely the board must accept that and pay a claim. Consequently, why does the minister not want to put in the word "shall" and make it mandatory? The words "may" and "shall" do not mean the same thing. "May" is permissive, "shall" is mandatory.
If the individual meets every requirement, then the word should be "shall". Why is the government going to deny the benefit to an employee because of some irrelevant material? That is what we will do if we leave in the word "may" and not put in the word "shall".
I support the amendment.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I want to say that when he makes his comments he is really not aware of the background of this amendment. He did not participate in the committee hearings.


Ian Deans: What does that have to do with it?


David Berger: I would like to point out to him that there is a basic requirement under Clause 12, to which the hon. member referred, that an employee work 1,000 hours during a period of ten years.
[ Translation]
The Eastern Townships Regional Development Council- [English]
-which suggests that this be replaced by the word "average". In other words, an average 1,000 hours per year over the ten years in the case of somebody who is sick, laid off or disabled for a certain period of time.
The minister, to his credit, listened to the representations made by all sides in the committee. He has come up with an excellent amendment, which the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain grudgingly concedes.


Ian Deans: What are you talking about?


David Berger: In this amendment he is giving discretion to the commission to say that notwithstanding the fact that an employee might not have worked 1,000 hours in any one of those years, the commission may determine that the employee is qualified to receive these benefits if he shows that he did not need it because of illness, disability, lay-off or any other good cause whatever. That expression "any other good cause whatever" is extremely broad. I suggest that the word "may" is necessary in order to go along with that broad expression "any other good cause whatever."
The word "may" is extremely fitting when taken in the context of that last phrase.
In addition to that, I would like to point out to the hon. member and to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) that there is a rule in administrative law that a commission that exercises discretion must exercise that discretion reason-

February 15, 1982
Labour Adjustment Benefits
ably. I would suggest that their concerns are entirely unfounded-


Ian Deans: Come on.


David Berger: -that if a person was able to demonstrate that because of illness or disability he was not able to meet that 1,000-hour requirement and if the commission turned him down, he would be able to appeal that decision before an administrative tribunal in this country and that he would win his appeal. Therefore, in light of principles of administrative law-


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


David Berger: Certainly.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The hon. member has referred to an alleged duty of reasonableness on the part of administrative tribunals, and to the possibility that an individual affected by an adverse decision of such a tribunal may appeal. Would the hon. member indicate what his authority is for this suggestion that there is a reasonableness requirement on administrative tribunals? Secondly, would he indicate to whom this rather nebulous appeal would take place?


David Berger: 1 would suggest this is not a nebulous principle, it is a firm principle of administrative law.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Established where?


David Berger: I would suggest further that an appeal against an unreasonable decision could be directed to one of the courts of the land.


Ian Deans: Oh, come on. Why do you write ambiguity into the law?


David Berger: Furthermore, I would suggest that the principles we are trying to ascribe to the Constitution of this country by virtue of the charter of rights-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Berger: -would tend to enhance such an appeal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House earlier gave its consent to a delay by the Chair in ruling on Motion no. 11. It is approaching ten o'clock and perhaps what we might do is to dispose of Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).
The Chair has had the benefit of consultation with the Table and examined the provisions of the bill, in particular Clauses 4 through 7. Under those clauses, the Labour Adjustment Review Board is created, the head office established and the powers of the board are set forth. The motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West provides, under Clause 8, for a rather considerable extension of the powers of the board and involves, as referred to in the Speaker's tentative
ruling earlier today, a power to investigate the expected social and economic impact of intended termination of employment.
The motion is faithful to that general principle and discharges upon the board various rights that seem to the Chair, after consultation, to be extensively in excess of the rights conferred on the board under the bill proposed by the minister. Accordingly, the Chair finds, after due consideration, the motion goes beyond the scope of the bill and is out of order.
Now, hon. members may wish to continue the debate on Motions Nos. 13 and 14 which are now on the floor, and for that purpose I will recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I could not help being amused, although it is not a laughing matter, at the comments a few moments ago of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). If he or any member of the House were to visit with working people who have ever had contact with, for example, the Workmen's Compensation Board and suggest to them there is a practice in Canadian law that suggests if a question may go this way or that way, that it go in favour of the victim, he would be lucky to simply be laughed out. In fact, he would be lucky to get out with his head. With the possible exception of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, in which very few Canadian workers would suggest that principle is operative, Workmen's Compensation Board is perhaps the most hated establishment in this land, because it is widely believed that its practice is exactly the opposite, in terms of administration, to that which the member suggested a few moments ago.
On the positive side, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister and drafters of the amendments for going a long, long way toward meeting the objections and suggestions raised not only by myself but by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), two or three of the Liberal members of the committee, my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revel-stoke (Mr. Parker), and others.
While the amendments do not directly deal with the question of the 1,000 hours and whether it should be averaged or required, neither does our own amendment, but it does get around the problem of employees who may find themselves laid off or on sick benefits. In that same spirit I would ask the minister once again to consider the proposal put forward by my House leader a few moments ago, that the word "shall" replace the word "may" in order to make it operative.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), Mr. Speaker, is new in that position. This is the first bill he has piloted through the House as minister, and he will soon be dealing with major amendments to the Canada Labour Code, both Part IV and Part V, and it will be necessary for him to have the understanding and sympathy of working people across the country in order to help resolve some of the conflicts which happen in labour relations from time to time. Almost everyone, especially blue collar workers, has had experience with grievance procedures, with the law and with commissions, which is perfectly in line with the principles of British common law that property
February 15, 1982

rights always take precedence over human rights unless the law is so clear and so exact that there is no room for anyone to rule in favour of property and against the individual. Unless it is crystal clear, then the worker will believe, as his experience dictates, that he will lose because that is the principle upon which our laws have been based. Hopefully, our charter of rights will start us in slightly another direction in order to balance the ledger. However, it is vitally important for the minister, in order to have credibility with the labour force, to make it clear that he understands that attitude and feeling which exists amongst hundreds of thousands of people in the Canadian work force.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am not hung up on wording, and the minister has shown before that neither is he if we believe we can solve the problem. With the exception of that one little word I quite agree that the wording as presented by the government is preferable to that submitted by my own party. However, it is important to make it crystal clear to those administering this law that they should follow the intent, and if people are in fact absent and short of that 1,000 hours by virtue of sickness, injury, disability, any good cause whatesoever, they shall be considered to have worked that
1,000	hours, if that is the reason they are short, and be provided with the benefits which this bill provides.
I will conclude with one last and recent example, Mr. Speaker. Just this past year there was a clause in the Canada Labour Code which said in effect-and said it much more clearly than this bill-that if a supervisor refused to work simply because he refused to cross a picket line, he could not be disciplined or lose his job because of that. The Canada Labour Code was crystal clear and it took many months to get justice for those who had lost their jobs, their income, and had their lives disrupted. That was crystal clear. We hope that people in this unfortunate situation will not have to suffer those kinds of delays because of pride and one little word.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair recognizes that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) is standing in his place and presumably wishes to continue the debate, but it is now ten o'clock and accordingly 1 conclude that the House does not wish to have Motions Nos. 13 and 14 put before it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on November 24, I put a question to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) concerning the reception of American satellite television signals by local cable television systems in northern Canada. A number of applications are before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission at the present time to provide local cable television service to many northern communities using the CanCom satellite. The unfortunate part of that whole system is that only four Canadian independent television stations will be received on that system.
My question to the minister was to inquire whether those local cable television systems being established in many northern communities will be able to continue to receive the signals from the American TV satellites, such as the superstations in Chicago and Atlanta and the home box office TV stations.
My reason for putting this question to the minister is that a number of communities in northern Canada have been receiving these American satellite signals in the past, and they have established a cable system and are distributing them to Canadian viewers. Most of them have not been prosecuted in the past, and of course it would be ridiculous for the government to move and do that at the present time, when these communities have no other television available to them. 1 think the problem will be that when these applications which are before the CRTC at the present time are reviewed, we will find that the installation charge and the monthly service fee will be so high that, without the additional American stations being provided to this cable system, they just will not be able to make a go of it.
It seems to me that if the minister does not change the policy and clarify it in the very near future, there will simply be rank discrimination against the northern communities.
We now have the policy in southern Canada for all of the major cities such as Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver and so on, under which they are allowed to receive the three American networks plus the PBS system from the United States on the three plus one formula; but in northern Canada, there is no such provision. There could be rank discrimination against the cable operators in the northern communities and, beyond that, this would just make the situation impossible for most of these cable operators who have applied to have a package which is appealing enough to sell to these small communities. For instance, there are applications before the CRTC for four communities along the north shore of Lake Huron; that is, Iron Bridge, Spanish, Massey and Nairn Centre. The Northern Cable Services is requiring an installation fee of $200, and a monthly service charge of $15 per month. That will not provide any American channels, whereas, in the south, most cable operators provide the three plus one formula.
I hope the minister will clarify this arrangement and provide the same kind of service to northern communities; that is.

February 15, 1982
Adjournment Debate
American stations as well as the Canadian independents that are on the CanCom satellite. He should rectify this situation which is wholly unfair and, in my view, not workable as it is now established. I hope the parliamentary secretary who responds tonight will state that the government will be able to remove this impediment to the provision of much better television service to many of the communities in northern Ontario and many other northern areas of our country.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), I would like to explain the international understandings which have a bearing on the direct reception in Canada of television signals from U.S. domestic communications satellites.
Both Canada and the United States, as members of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, are obliged to consult with IntelSat if they should wish to use their domestic satellite systems to carry communications traffic to or from points in the other country. The two countries would have to demonstrate that any use of non-IntelSat facilities for international telecommunications services would not cause significant economic harm to the IntelSat global satellite system which was established specifically to carry international traffic.
The other arrangement is the 1972 exchange of letters between Canada and the United States under which the two countries have agreed to restrict the use of their domestic satellites for traffic between the two countries only to special circumstances, such as a major technical failure or a temporary shortage of domestic satellite facilities.
It should be noted that all current Canadian and U.S. commercial satellites are classified under regulations of the International Telecommunications Union as constituting fixed satellite services in which radio communication is carried between earth stations at specific fixed points. These are not broadcasting satellites which by definition carry signals intended for direct reception by the general public.
However, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) has made it clear on several occasions that the federal government's major concern is to solve the underlying problem which is giving rise to the unauthorized reception in Canada of U.S. satellite TV signals.
Over the last year very substantial progress has been made in developing a multichannel television service on our ANIK satellite system to meet the basic viewing needs of rural and remote residents who lack the access to television that most Canadians take for granted. Of course, I am referring to CanCom.
CanCom offers a very wide variety of North American programming, both Canadian and U.S. Concerning the wider question of access to U.S. channels, the minister has indicated in the House that it is in the interest of all Canadians that there should be an equalization of viewing opportunities across the country. CanCom is only the first step in this process. The minister has received many requests to open negotiations with
the United States to allow reception of certain U.S. signals in rural and remote communities. This matter is being given very careful consideration within the context of an over-all broadcast strategy currently being developed by the federal government. The objective of the government is definitely to improve service for underserved Canadians in a way that contributes to a healthy environment for the future of the Canadian broadcasting system and serves those communities best.


METRIC CONVERSION-(A) FORCED IMPLEMENTATION (B) PRIME MINISTER'S VIEWS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of this House and the people of Canada that they are being misled by the government in many of the statements pertaining to the implementation of metric in the retail food stores of this nation.
First, I would like to point out that the acting executive director of the Metric Commission has made the statement over national television that no stores in Peterborough were closed while it was a pilot centre during the implementation of metric. That is clearly not the case. Stores were forced out of business because they would not buy metric weigh scales.
Second, I would like to point out that it has been circulated through the Metric Commission, with the knowledge of the ministry, that 68 per cent of the Canadian people support the implementation of metric in the retail food stores. That is clearly not the case. Ministers also go to press conferences and say that the majority of Canadians support metric. We know from a Gallup poll which was taken in November of 1981, which the same Metric Commission is suppressing, that the majority of Canadians are opposed to forced metric in the retail food stores. This Gallup poll which came to my attention clearly documents that fact.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who is also the minister responsible for the Metric Commission, when asked a question on January 14, 1981, if there would be fines, confiscation of equipment and imprisonment, answered, as reported in Hansard of January 14, 1981:
we shall not resort to the methods the hon. member would have us use.
In other words, there would be no fines, no confiscation of equipment and no imprisonment. Later I will go on to prove that that is not the case as it applies today.
On April 23, 1980, I asked the same question of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe); if he intended to sit idly by while the government forced metrication on the people of Canada. The minister replied as reported in Hansard on April 23, 1980 that:
The government has no intention of imposing the metric system manu militari and that it has always been the policy of the Liberal party and government of taking care of the people first, not regulations.
To put the record straight, I would point out an article that appeared in The Calgary Herald. The headline read, "Merchants given metric warning". The article quoted an official of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Calgary as saying:
February 15, 1982

"We won't come down like a ton of bricks on the first day (but) there might be a couple of prosecutions to wake people up," said Mac Cooper, Calgary operations supervisor for the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Weights and Measures.
I would like to read from the Winnipeg Free Press dated January 9, 1982. the headline on the editorial page read, "Misleading on metric". The article went on to say:
The Metric Commission, with the backing of the federal government has the unquestioned power to dictate to Canadians that they will henceforth measure their groceries in kilograms rather than in pounds.
Moving on to The Globe and Mail of February 4, 1982, the headline read, "Civil Servant is suspended after protest". Imagine, Mr. Speaker; a civil servant who spoke out against metric in the city of Kingston lost four days pay and an additional ten days pay because he persisted in the principle of freedom of speech and spoke out against forced metric in the city of Kingston.
Let us review some of the businesses. In Kamloops, British Columbia, Gary Cooper said that it will cost him $60,000 to convert the scales in his six stores in British Columbia. An article in the Kamloops News dated December 9, 1981, quoted Cooper as saying:
"There's no turning back now because we're talking about the law ol' the land"
The article went on:
Cooper said metrication is always something that is imposed from above. "Even Napoleon was unable to gel his people to accept metric. He had to impose it."
Another article appearing in the Hamilton Spectator referred to the forced implementation of metric. This particular grocer had been in business for many years. The article stated:
But now, with no sign of reprieve and only weeks remaining before metric conversion becomes law, the aging couple stands a millimetre away from closing their store.
Another article describes a merchant who was willing to face jail. Mac Tackaberry in Kingston is determined he will not be bullied by the federal government and he is prepared to pay the $1,000 fine if necessary and serve the jail sentence that goes along with it. At least there are people in Canada who feel this issue needs full parliamentary debate and should not be handled through regulations that are passed through an order in council without the opportunity for Members of Parliament to debate this method of implementation.
An article appeared in the Daily Mercury dated January 21, 1981, with respect to a merchant in Fergus, Ontario, under the headline "Metric conversion forces retailer to close his doors early". The article states in part:
The move to metric will force a local meat market out of business.
We in the city of Peterborough have lost our only independent dairy. It employed some 40 people. It has been in business for 67 years. The proprietors said:
Adjournment Debate
We invested in the future of our dairy until the metric system came into effect. This made our equipment obsolete, our cartons and glass bottles were no longer of any use.
As of March 1, 1980, when metric was forced on the city of Peterborough this dairy closed its doors and is no longer in business. This was a small family business. The letter from which I have just read was signed by Harold Moncrief, John Moncrief and Gord Moncrief of Moncrief Dairy.
I am a little tired of the government telling the people of Canada that there shall be no force. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has made that statement, as has the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
When will this government start telling the people of Canada the truth? There is no voluntary movement to metric in the grocery stores of this nation. This is forced metric against the will of the people, and it is forced without a consensus of Parliament and contrary to the wishes of the people. If the government would release the secret Gallup poll taken for the government in November of 1981, we would see that the poll clearly documented that the people of Canada do not wish metric. Why is that the case? They do not wish metric because they do not wish it by force. They do not mind it by choice, but there is a great difference in metric by force and metric by the choice of the people.
The United States has decided not to force metric on the people of the United States. The Americans have abandoned their metric board. They fired all its members by act of Congress to be effective September, 1982. Britain is totally back to miles an hour on the highway and pounds in the grocery store. The British are back to Fahrenheit at the weather bureaus of their nation. Let us not have any of this nonsense about the whole world going metric. The fact of the matter is that the whole world is not going metric, unless by choice.
Only Canada is going metric. Canada is a free country-we think-but the people have lost the right to choose. The Metric Commission is dictating to the Government of Canada the implementation time-frame against the will of the people and without a consensus, and the government will not even release the results of a Gallup pool paid for by the people of Canada which indicated that the people do not wish metric at this time.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like very briefly once again to address the concerns of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) with regard to the enforcement of regulations made under the Weights and Measures Act for metric conversion of individually measured foods and scale conversion.
As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has already informed the hon. member, the enforcement of these regulations will be conducted in a decent and appropriate manner, and we shall not resort to the methods the hon. member has suggested at various and sundry times in the House.

February 15, 1982
Adjournment Debate
I can tell the hon. member that it will be the responsibility of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada to enforce regulations made under the Weights and Measures Act in exactly the same manner as all other such regulations are enforced.
Our well-established inspection practice in all instances involves first informing non-complying retailers of their obligations under the law, in this case to advertise and sell individually-measured foods as required by these regulations. Then we encourage the retailers to take whatever action is necessary to comply with the regulations. Should a retailer not take action to comply with the regulations, then he would be advised in writing that continued non-compliance would result in the initiation of prosecution action.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: That is force.


Gary Francis McCauley: Should a retailer be prosecuted for noncompliance with these regulations, I might point out that the highest penalty that could be imposed in such cases would be a maximum fine of $1,000 for each offence. I might also point out that devices would only be seized in those instances where that would be required in the gathering of evidence for enforcement action.
I would also like to assure the hon. member that we do not anticipate that extensive enforcement action will be required to ensure compliance with these regulations. Unlike him, we have every confidence that retailers of individually measured foods will convert to metric as required. Surely, the hon. member realizes that Canadian retailers are good corporate citizens who will obey the law.


AIRPORTS-CALLING OF TENDERS FOR ADVERTISING CONCESSION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, fair and proper tendering procedures are very important in this country, not only to the government but to business and consumers. On December 17 when I raised with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) the issue of the failure to institute proper or any tendering procedures for advertising in airports, he gave me an answer which I thought was rather unsatisfactory. We spoke about tendering for advertising concessions and in the course of our dialogue we also discussed duty-free procedures which are obviously very important in terms of the policy of the department.
There are many incongruities here, Mr. Speaker. I will deal first with the specific question of the Toronto International Airport where over $200,000 per month was lost for two and a half years because FIRA-the misbegotten agency of federal government which has done so much to discourage investment in this country-took that long to decide what should be done with the people who were awarded the duty-free franchise at that airport.
Finally, in disgust, I understand, Duty Free Shopping Group Ltd. of Honolulu, threw up its hands because of the delays. That is amazing when one realizes that Mr. Robert Campeau's organization was able to sell the Harbour Castle Hotel to
Hong Kong interests in ten days. It would be nice if FIRA and the Department of Transport got together and did something even remotely like that to settle the duty-free agency at the Toronto International Airport. If they had, they could have saved the taxpayers over $5 million. I suppose it depends on who you are.
Since the minister raised the issue of Sky Shops, I want to refer to what is going on at Dorval Airport. As I understand it, it is long-standing department policy that when someone tenders for a concession-in this case a duty-free one in the Dorval Airport-it is enforced by the Department of Transport. The company is then supposed to pay the greater of a minimum guarantee or of a percentage of sales. I understand that business is such that this is not being done; the company is merely paying a percentage of sales, which is less than the minimum guarantee. Obviously, that particular concession to Thomcor should be terminated. That company is the successor to Sky Shops which, as a matter of passing interest, Mr. Speaker, once sued me for $500,000 for pointing out that one could buy things cheaper on the street than in their duty-free shops. They were pleased to withdraw that suit, with costs. That is in the past, however.
I want to point out again that there is something very wrong in the administration of the Department of Transport. 1 want to know who authorized this departure from departmental policy whereby a contract, which is tendered on the basis of payment of either the greater of the minimum guarantee or the percentage of sales, is wilfully disregarded. 1 believe that is also true of the Quebec restaurants and probably of other concessions as well.
If the parliamentary secretary does not have an answer for me tonight, I hope he can find out who authorized this departure from a clearly set out policy designed for the benefit of consumers and in the interests of fairness to the people who tender.
On the subject of Dorval, I have a very great interest in seeing that the concessions in that airport are operating in a healthy and respectable state and, indeed, that the airport is maintained in its present condition. I think it would be a travesty to close this well-used and successful airport, which is making money, for the sake of transferring a lot of these operations to that white elephant, Mirabel, which is costing the Canadian taxpayer about $1 million per month in operational cost deficits alone. But I am wandering off the subject and I apologize for that.
1 should like to ask my hon. friend opposite if he can assure me tonight that the government and the Department of Transport will get off their proverbial seats and do something about getting a proper tendering procedure instituted for airport advertising. At the same time, they should take a hard look at what is going on in terms of altering-unilaterally, I suspect- a policy that is very clearly understood and is designed to bring in revenue and ensure fairness when it comes to honouring the contracts awarded by tender. There may be good reason why the Thomcor company cannot pay-perhaps business is bad. If it is an impoverished organization, it is clear the contract
February 15, 1982

should be revoked and that the concession should be awarded to the next highest bidder or, failing that, it should be retendered. But allowing these irregularities to perpetuate themselves, in defiance of fairness and established policy, does not do the government, the Department of Transport or the Canadian public any good. 1 would urge the minister to take a very close look at these procedures and report to the House as soon as possible.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, Duty Free Shops Limited definitely decided not to take up its contract. The present concessionaire is to continue on an interim basis until a new concessionaire is selected by a new tender call which is expected to be placed in the very near future.
Prior to 1969, very little advertising was sold at airports, revenues were minimal, and there were no standards regarding size and quality of displays or rates to be charged for advertising space. Because the department had very little background in advertising, it was decided to develop this medium through the expertise of an advertising concessionaire. In 1969, the Department of Transport called for tenders for the right to sell advertising at ten Canadian airports.
Adjournment Debate
The concessionaire began operating on January 1, 1970, with a Five-year agreement which was renewable for a further Five years. The renewal was granted in 1975. During the term of the agreement, the concessionaire was granted additional rights to sell advertising at smaller airports, if he could show that the revenues generated by the company exceeded those which could have been achieved by the department. Within the ten-year period, from 1970 to 1980, the company sold advertising at 13 additional airports in Canada. The company has been granted two extensions of short duration to the original contract. The second extension expires on June 30 of this year. The main reason for the extension was to permit the Department of Transport time to develop linguistic requirements for advertising at airports and to include these requirements in the speciFications for the next tender call.
Linguistic requirements have been completed and a public tender for the concessionaire will be announced in the newspapers on February 26 and February 27, 1982. We expect the award to be determined on or about May 1.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 16, 1982