1982-05-28

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in order to prop up the dollar the government raised interest rates in Canada to the highest level in nearly six months. At the same time, earlier this week, the Americans dropped their T-bill rates to 11.48 per cent. Canadians now pay as much as 3.7 per cent more interest than Americans pay. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the government cease blaming the Americans for its made-in-Canada high interest rate policy, cease using interest rates as a special tax on Canadians to cover its total mismanagement of the economy, and immediately take steps to reduce interest rates so that our interest rates are comparable to the American interest rates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DECLINE IN VALUE OF DOLLAR-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, in spite of present high interest rate policy and heavy intervention by the Bank of Canada, the Canadian dollar fell yesterday to within one half of a cent of its record low of 80.08 cents set in December of 1931. This situation simply reflects the appalling economic policy of the incompetent Liberal government. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the backbenchers of the Liberal government urge the Minister of Finance to bring in sweeping new measures which will stop the erosion of our dollar and will give some sense of hope and direction to the people of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Today is the twenty-first birthday of Amnesty International, the internationally respected human rights movement which is independent of government, political grouping, ideology, economic interest or religious creed. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and supported, I am sure, by all hon. members in this House:
That the House recognize the outstanding work done by Amnesty International for the promotion of human rights throughout the world, congratulate it on the occasion of its twenty-first birthday, and wish Amnesty International many more years of success in its work to free prisoners of conscience, to halt torture and execution, and to seek fair trials for political prisoners.


Madam Speaker:: The House might want to applaud this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF OUTSTANDING SCHOOL PATROLLERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. There are three outstanding young Canadians in the gallery today and they are to be honoured at noon by the Governor General for their acts of bravery while on duty as school patrollers. Their actions resulted in saving several young lives. I accordingly move, seconded by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen):
That the House recognize Karen Dickson, Lora Lee Kurylo and Jason Roberge for their courage and resourcefulness. These young school patrollers have shown qualities and dedication we all can admire.


Madam Speaker:: Perhaps the House will want to applaud these young heroes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
17862

May 28, 1982


S.O. 43 ENERGY CONDEMNATION OF TAXES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, taxes under the national energy policy are sucking the lifeblood out of the oil and gas industry: excise taxes, incremental oil revenue taxes, petroleum and gas revenue taxes, Canadian ownership taxes, natural gas taxes, natural gas liquid taxes, taxes on ethane, butane, etc. It is no wonder the industry is drying up, leaving hundreds of unemployed, and scores leaving the country. There have already been more than 3,800 bankruptcies of businesses in 1982.
The Alberta and Saskatchewan governments are cancelling some taxes and cutting back on royalties to help, but the insatiable desire of this Liberal government for more and more money just cannot seem to be satisfied. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That this House demand that the cabinet ministers and the Liberal government and the Liberal Members of Parliament come out of their ivory tower and into the real world and start cutting back on taxes and royalties, or else throw in the sponge.
No government has a right to live in luxury while its subjects exist on relief and unemployment insurance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, in preparing for the Versailles conference, the government has been forced to give statistical evidence of its complete failure. We now learn that for the first time in 18 years the Canadian economy will decline rather than grow. The gross national product will fall .5 per cent rather than rise 2.2 per cent as forecast by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). This government has now admitted its complete bankruptcy. It is bankrupt of programs. It is bankrupt of ideas. It is bankrupt of capable people. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House demand that the incompetent Minister of Finance, the incompetent Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the incompetent Minister of Justice, in fact, the whole incompetent cabinet, and the incompetent and irrelevant Prime Minister resign, call an election, and let the Canadian people get the monkeys in this government off their backs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday the National Assembly in Quebec tabled Bill C-74. As the 74 Liberal members opposite from Quebec know, Bill C-74 is aimed at them since many among them have established residences in the province of Ontario where provincial taxes are lower and can save them as much as $4,000 or $5,000 a year. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That this House ask all Liberal Members of Parliament, especially cabinet ministers, from Quebec to pay their taxes in Quebec as every one of their constituents must, and not try to evade their responsibility to their provincial government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that the Atlantic fishery is plagued with plant closings, threatened bankruptcies, high interest rates, exchange rate disadvantages, low prices, unemployment, and now, to the shame of the government, harassment from the Department of National Revenue, and given the fact that all of this was obvious to the government as long ago as last summer, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House condemn the government for its lack of action, and especially that this House deplore the fact that the Kirby task force, established to come up with answers to the present and continuing crisis, will not report until, at the soonest, September, leaving the fishing industry and those dependent upon it in confusion and uncertainty.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 28, 1982


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity. Last November the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) forecast the unemployment rate for 1982 as 7.8 per cent. Yesterday he revised it upward to 9.2 per cent. The minister's gross errors in economic forecasting and planning have significantly contributed to an additional 230,000 Canadians being without work. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Minister of Finance immediately introduce measures designed to create job opportunities for Canadians so as to redress the impact of his iniquitous November budget which callously added another 200,000 Canadians to the unemployment rolls.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND THAT UNLEADED GAS PRICES BE POSTED AT SERVICE STATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let) admitted in a letter that the growing spread between the pump prices of leaded and unleaded gasoline could be the result of unleaded gasoline prices never being posted at Canadian gasoline stations. A number of U.S. States, including California and New York, have already forced the posting of all gas prices at each service station in an attempt to remedy a similar situation south of the border. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the government take immediate action to require the posting of unleaded gas prices at service stations across this country in order to bring down the price of unleaded gas and thus protect the consumers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, on the continuing issue of Dorval and Mirabel. In view of the extreme interest shown by members of all parties, such as the hon. members from Lachine, Chateauguay, Vaudreuil, Annapolis Valley, and so on, I want to ask the minister very seriously how much longer he will equivocate and delay in coming to grips with this festering sore on Canadian aviation, and indeed on international aviation, called Mirabel. When will he make a decision on the relationship between the sound, well-used and satisfactory airport called Dorval and the white elephant many miles-or should I say kilometres-away? How much longer will we have to wait for a decision?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have already said how much I regretted having mentioned a date. I was hoping that public opinion and my colleagues here in this House would have looked at the spirit of what I was doing, not at the letter or the date I was indicating. I hope to present my views on the subject very soon to my colleagues. I do not dare mention a date any more. Then it will go through the discussions of cabinet, and the final result will be announced.


COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MIRABEL
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, it is a refreshing change to have this minister and indeed this government finally beginning to pay some attention to public opinion. That is an innovation around here. The minister knows that if it were not for some common sense and determination, Canadians would by now have had another monstrosity like Mirabel foisted on them at Pickering. I would like the minister to give me, if he could, some rationale as to how we can cut down the tremendous continuing losses the extent of which, together with the additional construction cost, will probably never be known. Are we going to continue to undermine a profitable airport with the intent of propping up a loser? Can he give some indication of his policy and his thinking in this regard now?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, both at Mirabel and at Pickering the use of the land is being optimized. The Minister of Communications is making an announcement today, as a matter of fact, on the use of the surplus land at Mirabel. He will indicate what will be sold, and what will be rented, and what will be protected. At Pickering similar action was taken some months ago. We have established a regime for the maximum use of the land in both cases. In Mirabel and at Pickering, sufficient lands are being kept for

May 28, 1982
Oral Questions
future use, both for Pickering as a secondary airport to Malton and for Mirabel as a complementary airport to Dorval.


PLANNED USE OF MIRABEL
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that, unfortunately, a lot of the land in the Mirabel area has been rendered almost useless for agricultural purposes by bulldozing and other methods that were necessary when this white elephant was being constructed.
1 would ask him, finally, if it is true that the Minister of Communications, his cabinet colleague, is pushing for a three-hour rule, meaning that all flights over three hours would land at Mirabel. That would also mean, Madam Speaker, that people in Quebec City, for example, would have to deplane at Dorval, take a $40 taxi ride to Mirabel, and lose many hours of travel time in order to get to the United States. Is it true, as well, that the Minister of Communications wants all charters to be transferred from Dorval to Mirabel?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That is terrible.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is exactly what has been going on for a number of weeks now.


Walter David Baker: Make a fuss in cabinet.


Jean-Luc Pepin: A number of people, well intentioned and knowledgeable, in many cases, have come out with compromise solutions for what to do with Mirabel. Two have been indicated by my hon. friend. One is to put in Mirabel every route which is more than three hours away from Montreal. Another idea referred to a moment ago by the hon. member is to direct all charter flights to Mirabel and not to Dorval. In my presentation to the cabinet in the coming weeks I will be indicating the difficulties, the advantages and the disadvantages of each of the compromise solutions which have been offered, and the judgment of the cabinet will be exercised on all issues, the extreme ones and the middle of the road ones.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Canadian government intend to embargo the planned shipment of 3,000 uranium bundles to Argentina on the ground that it is too risky to maintain a program of nuclear co-operation with a militaristic regime which has defied international standards by invading the Falklands and cannot be trusted not to use Canadian materials to make a nuclear bomb, and can the minister state what Canada's reaction will be if Argentina attacks the Queen Elizabeth II at sea with 3,000 soldiers aboard?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as 1 have stated in this House several times, the government has no intention of imposing export controls of that kind. If we did have export controls as well as import controls, they would likely be of the kind that the previous government adopted after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They would likely not apply to pre-existing contracts but only to new contracts. We not only have an undertaking from Argentina that Argentina will not use any nuclear technology or material from Canada for non-peaceful purposes but, of course, there will also be inspection of Argentine facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency which will serve as a guarantee of the peaceful use of our nuclear facilities.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat my question about the reaction of the Canadian government if Argentina attacks the Queen Elizabeth II at sea, but my supplementary question is related to the question of exports versus imports and sanctions. I want to know why the government has applied sanctions against Argentina only on the import side, which allows Canada to continue to export nuclear technology to this repressive and dangerous regime, thus weakening the support we should be giving Britain, which is trying to uphold international standards of law and order in this moment of grave crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman's second question was really answered in my first answer. The fact is that we have not imposed export controls, nor has the European community. If we did impose them, they would not be of the kind that would affect existing contracts in any event, because that is not customary with sanctions of this kind.


DEVELOPMENT OF ARGENTINIAN NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who must realize that what we are talking about here is not the export of butter or wheat or even eggs. What we are talking about here is the export of nuclear fissionable materials, and there is a big difference. How far is the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to accept that the aggressive and belligerent activities of the Government of Argentina can go, including the building of a plutonium reprocessing plant which could use the plutonium waste from the Candu reactor being built in Argentina by Canada? How far does Argentina have to go before the Government of Canada is prepared to halt its export of nuclear materials?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I referred previously to the record
May 28, 1982

of the former government with respect to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. When asked the other day by the press as to the difference between the two situations, I understand that the hon. member for St. John's West stated that in the case of Afghanistan the Soviet government was invited into Afghanistan by the Afghan government. If that is the kind of foreign policy which is propagated by members of the party opposite, then I do not think we have any lessons to take from them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATURE OF EXPORTS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he recognizes any difference between the export of wheat and the export of nuclear fissionable materials. Does he see any difference between them?


Mark R. MacGuigan: What I see, Madam Speaker, is that the hon. member is attempting to score political capital by trying to make suggestions that the government has not been wholly supporting the British position. The Prime Minister is on record as stating that we are 100 per cent behind the position of the United Kingdom. We have satisfied every request which the United Kingdom has made of us in this crisis, and we have taken all the same measures as her friends in the European community.


Mr. Clark:: MacGuigan, the arms merchant.


STATEMENT BY ARGENTINIAN OFFICIAL ON USE OF FISSIONABLE MATERIAL
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware that a high Argentinian official has admitted that one of the interests Argentina had in acquiring a Candu reactor in the first place was for its possible military implications, and to learn about the use of fissionable material for military purposes?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend is referring to a television program which was aired some time ago, in which a number of statements were made, he will know it was not the Government of Canada on which the finger was put as a possible source of nuclear supplies for non-peaceful purposes.


MEDICAL CARE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It
Oral Questions
concerns the erosion of medical care and health services in this country.
Yesterday we learned from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that she will no longer insist on eliminating extra billing for medicare. We on this side consider this a betrayal of the whole principle of medicare and the 1966 Medical Care Act to which the government is committed. In addition, we know that the provinces are facing cutbacks in federal funding for medical care. This year there will be a reduction of some $800 million in federal payments. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if these trends and cutbacks by the federal government mean that it is no longer committed to the Medical Care Act of 1966, and does it mean that it is in favour of extra billing, user fees, and long waiting lists for medical care?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Oshawa, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Beaches, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni, I am pleased to answer the question of the hon. member for Vancouver East by saying that the answer is no.


PROVISION OF SERVICES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister, who seems so energetic this morning. I am glad that the minister responded because I believe he was responsible for the initiation of some of the medicare legislation to which I referred. Is the government aware that in British Columbia today there is a cutback of some 1,200 acute care beds that have been closed down, 3,000 hospital workers have been laid off, and 12,000 people are waiting for elective surgery?
Since the federal government must obviously share responsibility for this very severe crisis in health care, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, speaking as Acting Acting Acting Prime Minister, undertake to ask cabinet for a review of this situation, as it affects not only British Columbia but all other provinces? Under the legislation to which the government is committed, will the minister guarantee a review of federal funding to help meet these required costs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the Acting Acting Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare, I will take due notice of the representations made by the hon. member. I wish to draw to her attention the fact that the administration of health comes under provincial responsibility. This week the Minister of National Health and Welfare met with provincial ministers of health to try to stress to them the importance of maintaining the highest standards of service to the Canadian public. I would urge my hon. friend to use every effort to try to convince the government of British Columbia to maintain those high standards and to co-operate fully with the federal government in achieving that particular objective.

May 28, 1982
Presence in Gallery


Mr. Young:: Madam Speaker, I would like to advise the Minister of Energy that I am here, and have been here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It is hard to see you; that is all.


TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. I fail to understand how the government can make these kinds of statements, that medicare will not be affected by the reduction in transfer payments of some $5.7 billion over the next five years. When will the cabinet come clean and stop trying to do a snow job on the Canadian people as far as medicare is concerned? Tell the truth for once; there will be a reduction in transfer payments, it will seriously affect medicare, and in fact the Ontario government has stated that the plan will reduce hospital beds under medicare over the next two or three-year period?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to see that the hon. member for Beaches is here. I should have said that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was not there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend is completely wrong in his statement that transfers for medicare are going to decline. 1 invite him to look at the figures which are public and there for anyone who wants to read them. They are to the effect that payments by the federal government to the provinces for medicare over the next five years are going to increase significantly year by year. I invite my hon. friend to take the trouble to look at the figures, and he will realize that indeed the federal contribution to medicare will continue to increase significantly over the next five years.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ENERGY MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of bringing to the attention of the House the distinguished presence in our gallery of the Hon. William Birch, the Energy Minister of New Zealand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I delayed putting my question because I had expected the Minister of Finance to be in the House. Possibly I can put my question to the Minister of Energy, who is rumoured to be the Minister of Finance shortly.


Mr. Smith:: A lot sooner than you will be, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The economic plan of the Minister of Finance is now in total shambles. That came out this morning in the briefing documents for the Versailles Summit which show that growth in the national income, anticipated to be 2.2 per cent, is now minus .5 per cent. The budget estimated unemployment at 7.8 per cent, it is now estimated at 9.2 per cent for the year and, as the minister knows, it is now in fact 9.6 per cent. That means there are now 200,000 more unemployed than were estimated at the time of the budget.
Since the minister's economic plan has proven to be totally out of touch with reality, and since so many of the members of cabinet and caucus are pushing the minister for a new economic plan and budget, would the Minister of Energy state whether it is the intention of the government to have a new economic plan and budget shortly following the Versailles Summit?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the figures referred to by the hon. member, which were published yesterday in a briefing document for the Versailles Summit, did not originate from the Department of Finance but were taken from a study prepared by the International Monetary Fund. Since the hon. member is accustomed to seeing various organizations prepare forecasts and publish figures, he should know the relative value of such statistics. I should like to remind the hon. member that the best way to bring down interest rates and unemployment is, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday in his press conference, to restore a climate of confidence, and in order to do so, we must get rid of the uncertainty created by high levels of inflation. I would invite the hon. member to support the efforts being made by the present government to reduce the inflationary pressures and expectations which are causing this uncertainty.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, surely the minister must understand that because we have not had any budget legislation for six months people do not know what they are dealing with. Surely he understands the fact that the economic plan has proven to be totally out of touch with reality, that it is doing more to undermine the confidence in
May 28, 1982

and credibility of this government than anything else imaginable. I will put the question again. Is the government considering a new economic plan to try to add some confidence in the economy now, and bring in a new budget which will erase some of the disastrous policies brought in last November which have caused some of the problems we have today?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is saying that no budget legislation has been passed as yet. However, yesterday evening the House had an opportunity to vote on a very important piece of fiscal legislation that introduces petroleum and gas revenue taxes. Furthermore, next week the House will be sitting in Committee of the Whole to consider the borrowing authority bill, an extremely important piece of budget legislation, and the House will have an opportunity to continue the debate on the economy. The hon. member is asking whether the government intends to bring down a budget. In fact, only a few weeks ago in his green paper on proposals for broader consultation in the budget process, the Minister of Finance indicated that he was in favour of having budgets on set dates, preferably in the autumn.


ORIGIN OF STATISTICAL DATA
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance who, if I understand him correctly, has just made an astounding statement. Do we understand that the minister is saying that these figures referred to are not Finance Department figures but are available from the IMF and other agencies? If so, if international agencies can forecast and revise unemployment and inflation rates, why can't the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, 1 think that if the hon. member took the time to do a bit of research she would find that it is common practice for many international organizations, including the Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-the OECD-to publish regularly projections and forecasts on employment, unemployment, and the economic outlook in various countries. There is certainly nothing to get excited about. Similar studies are published by the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance tabled several when he brought down the budget, and many other organizations publish them as well. There is nothing unusual about that.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I will leave the Minister of State for Finance to swing at the end of the rope in his response to that question, and will direct my supplementary to the minister responsible for unemployment and immigration.
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


STUDENT SUMMER JOB-CREATION MEASURES
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration to the critical lack of jobs this summer.
I was present yesterday at the opening of one of his student employment projects in the Vancouver area. I know placements are one tenth the number of applications, and I know there could be 200,000 students without jobs this summer. In B.C. the youth segment of the labour force is running an unemployment rate of 20 per cent. I know the minister is bringing in his training bill today, but there are no emergency measures in place for this summer, and I ask the minister what assistance he is planning now in the short term to encourage business to employ students in the next four months?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, to begin with, I am pleased the hon. member took time to attend the opening. I think it is important that all Members of Parliament work in very close co-operation with our special system of student employment centres in order to help them achieve their goal of aiding students to gain employment.
We have undertaken a number of special measures. I have now written to close to 1,400 employers across Canada asking for their co-operation in developing employment opportunities for students. The federal government has undertaken special measures to add money to the student employment budget this year, in contrast to the position taken by the government of British Columbia which cut back on its allotment for student employment.
We have made an appeal to Members of Parliament asking them to undertake special measures in their own ridings to contact businessmen to see what resources they have in their own offices to help students with employment. We are undertaking a major advertising campaign in an effort to engage and enlist the support of the private sector in providing employment for students this summer.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Senator Austin, who is in charge of the Canada Development Corporation, announced yesterday that the government plans to privatize that corporation. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm this? If he does, how does that square with the Liberal promise found in the Montreal Gazette for February 13, 1980. which quoted a statement made by the Prime Minister that when the Liberal party was re-elected, it would convert the CDC into a bigger player in industrial development along the lines of

May 28, 1982
Oral Questions
Petro-Canada in energy. In light of the statement made by Senator Austin, and the tremendous unemployment in this country, can the Acting Prime Minister tell this House and the Canadian people why his party is breaking yet another campaign promise? Why is the Liberal government throwing in the towel?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member would be better off reading our press releases instead of the reports in The Gazette or other Canadian newspapers. He would realize that this decision in no way contradicts our intention to sell the government's shares in the Canada Development Corporation, nor does it contradict the commitment made by the government during the last election campaign. If he read the press release, the hon. member would realize that Senator Austin, who is responsible for the CDC, indicated that, with the consent of Parliament, we would be establishing a new company, wholly owned by the Canadian government, in order to help the latter make the appropriate decisions, both in terms of selling its CDC shares and advising us on new investments.


MANDATE OF PROPOSED NEW CORPORATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I have not relied only on press reports; I have here some letters that were exchanged between Senator Austin and officials of the CDC. The Senator says in one place that the CDC has failed. In a second place he says that it has fulfilled its mandate. He talks about a new corporation, and he calls it a new corporation wholly owned by the Crown. Yet in another place he talks about a holding company. Can the minister, who is speaking on behalf of the Senator, tell us what the mandate of this new Crown corporation will be? What are its objectives? Why is the government creating a new corporation when the CDC was established for that purpose in the first place?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I am, perhaps, not as fluent in English as the hon. member, but I have also read the letters to which he is referring, and in those letters the senator states that, after ten years, the CDC has clearly fulfilled its mandate and achieved the objectives for which it was created, the first one being to enhance Canadian ownership of industries, which was fully attained. Furthermore, the CDC has become one of the major resource companies in Canada and, within the Canadian commercial sector, it is the Canadian company with the greatest impact in terms of risk capital and the purchase of high-technology companies.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport relating to the Dorval-Mirabel situation. As the minister is aware, one of the major reasons for the pressure on him for the transfer from Dorval to Mirabel coming from municipalities in the Mirabel region is the matter of infrastructure costs which these municipalities incurred in anticipation of economic spin-off activity. Would the minister give consideration to possible assistance to the communities thus affected by this infrastructure burden in order to relieve the pressure on them, and allow the government to make a decision based on real, common sense interests relating to this situation, namely, the interests of the Montreal travelling public, the interests of the Montreal business community, and the interests of the Canadian airlines that are very much concerned about the possible effects on their profits of options being proposed for a move from Dorval to Mirabel?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking me if I intend to be a good minister. The answer is pretty obvious; yes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is a difficult exercise; otherwise it would be already resolved.
In this particular instance there are some fairly obvious conflicts of interest between groups of people and areas, depending upon where they are located.


Mr. Bradley:: Conflicts of interest within caucus.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The problems are all located in the back benches.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In my usual compromising and friendly way, I was hoping to find compromises that would accommodate the greatest number of people. I have listened in recent weeks- because the tension has been particularly acute in recent weeks-to every idea on the subject, and I am still open to others. That is all, because I see Madam Speaker is signalling the end as a television producer would.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The day before yesterday in answering questions posed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings concerning the Susan Nelles case and compensation for her legal costs, the Solicitor General said that the hon. member should direct his attention to the
May 28, 1982

government responsible for the decision and the prosecution. By that, he meant the government of Ontario. I do not deny that the government of Ontario has responsibility with respect to some compensatory arrangement in a case where an accused has been exonerated. However, I do believe the Solicitor General ought not to slide away from his responsibility on that basis.
Given the fact that this matter has been previously discussed as a matter of principle at the federal level, and the inadequacy of the system has been touched upon at the federal level, is the Solicitor General prepared to take an extraordinary responsibility and get in touch with the Attorney General of Ontario concerning this case, knowing that he will be joined by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, by me, and by several other Members of Parliament from Ontario who are anxious that there be some justice done in this case, particularly when it appears that the charge should never have been laid in the first place?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, l have been able to ascertain that there is no precedent my officials have been able to find for such compensatory action at the federal level.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Establish one then.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am having a search done, although it is more difficult, to find provincial precedents for doing so in any of the provinces of Canada.


Mr. Beatty:: Tell us about compassion.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: However, I will note the hon. member's representation and I will bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Attorney General of Canada.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, perhaps when the minister does that, he could bring to the minister's attention the 1973 study of the federal Law Reform Commission on Criminal Court costs where the existing system is described as being totally inadequate and which should be replaced by a full cost system. The recommendations in that study went on to suggest that perhaps federal-provincial arrangements might be made, and for that kind of thing to be provided. That is what I meant when I said there has been a discussion in principle by the federal government on this inadequacy. Given that, will the Solicitor General go a little further and not only discuss the matter of compensation with his colleagues but join with others in this House of Commons, especially in view of the fact that in this case an injustice has been perpetrated, and go to the government of Ontario to ask it to move on its position in the hope also that the Government of Canada will see its way clear to do justice in this case?
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 note the hon. member's point. I will bring it to my colleague's attention.

[DOT] (U50)


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. With respect to his calculations on the Dorval-Mirabel operations, I would ask the minister if he has had provided to him a cost-benefit study with respect to the cost to Montreal of the removal of certain airlines from Dorval to Mirabel?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this has been thoroughly researched. A first study has already been made public, and a second will be made public at the same time as the cabinet decision is announced.
My hon. friend should know, and does know because he is a very sophisticated economist, that there are many ways of presenting these costs. For example, one of the airlines has put in as a cost a new airplane, because of the extra distance that this move to Mirabel would represent. The same airline forgot to reduce the 17 miles from trips going west that this would also bring about.


Donald W. Munro: Seventeen miles?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is not news; there are many ways to present costs. There is a saying that if you put ten economists in a room you will have 15 answers, and this applies in this particular case also. To calculate the costing to passengers, airlines, to government and so on is a very uncertain exercise.


POSITION OF AIRLINES
Donald W. Munro: The one
element 1 am sure the minister has not taken into account is the possibility of not spending that money on that operation, and instead installing radar at Victoria International Airport. I would ask the Minister of Transport whether he has taken that into consideration. At the same time, would he tell us which airlines have actually petitioned him to move from Dorval to Mirabel to get on the back of that elephant?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the answer to the second question is none.
The answer to the first question is to observe my hon. friend's total lack of gratitude because I have already informed him that in the RAMP program, the radar development program, Victoria is first on the list. I already told him that. I expected compliments, regards and gratitude, but obviously I am not getting anything!

May 28, 1982
Oral Questions


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the Canadian Dairy Commission's export marketing activities which have been investigated three times recently, once by David Kates of the Public Service Staff Relations Board during the investigation of a grievance, once by Justice Hugh Gibson as part of a royal commission, and most recently by the Auditor General of Canada as a result of complaints arising from the previous two reports.
Since the Kates report revealed documents showing losses on one deal alone amounting to over $900,000-money which comes out of the pockets of the farmers of Canada-and since the Auditor General's report has been in the minister's hands for some time, will he tell the House what recommendations were made by the Auditor General concerning the internal operations of the Canadian Dairy Commission?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made some wide-sweeping statements about the report. There was nothing in any of the reports I have received, up until the latest one which I have not had time to study. The final report just arrived on my desk last Friday, a week ago today. I have looked at it very quickly and I will be studying it and will be making it public in time. That will be in due course, after I have studied it, and I may follow whatever recommendations may be in that report.
I asked for the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General's report is a review that I asked for over a year ago. It was finally submitted to my desk last Friday. I have not had time to study it. I do not intend to hide that report in any way, fashion or form.


John Allen Fraser: An urgent, single supplementary, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AIRPORTS
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for your generosity. My question is also for the Minister of Transport. What we would like to know, Madam Speaker, is this: are the persons who designed and decided to build Mirabel still with the government and, if so, what are they designing now, where is it going to be, how much will it cost, and is there any possible way we can stop it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have not made inquiries into the background of every officer in my department to find out if he was there or not away back in 1967 when that project was conceived. There
were also a number of consultants brought in from outside when the decision to build Mirabel was made.
I have been cautioned by a great number of members in the House to make my own decision on the subject. That is what I am trying to do. In doing so, I have listened and taken into account all the representations that were made here and outside the House. I am going to develop, in the presentation of the final decision, an answer to all the questions that can be raised and have been raised in the past.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, and I apologize to him.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam
Speaker, I would like to return to the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture concerning the Canadian Dairy Commission. Since he has the report and admits that he has not had time to read it, would the minister make a commitment to the House that once he has read the report and analysed its recommendations he will table that report with its recommendations, in the House, in addition to a report on the action taken by the Dairy Commission to implement those recommendations?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking for something that I have already said I would do, that I would follow the normal procedure of making the report public. He is asking that it be tabled in the House. If that is the normal procedure, that is what I will do.
Let me say to him that there is nothing in either one of the two previous reports that found out that there was anything wrong with the Dairy Commission that you would find even under any normal business operation. There have been many charges made about the incompetency of the Dairy Commission. I had Secretary Block here, the Secretary of Agriculture from the United States, and when you talk about his dairy problems in his country, with the huge surpluses and so on, his search for markets and his subsidy problems, I can tell the hon. member that our problems are very small.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Charles Joseph Clark: 
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, Devon Cole is a resident in my constituency, a former resident in my constituency, who worked in election campaigns and works actively in community activities in my constituency. He is not an employee of the government or an employee of my ministry, and never has been. He worked as a volunteer in election campaigns.


REMUNERATION FOR ELECTION WORK
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, did Mr. Devon Cole receive any compensation of any kind from any source for his work on behalf of the Solicitor General of Canada in an election campaign?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I believe he worked, for a short period of time, as a driver in one of my campaigns, not for the full campaign. The expense was disclosed in my statement of spending during the campaign.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General will know that as a result of comments he made urging members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to carry on acts that had been declared illegal by the McDonald Royal Commission, several prominent Canadian lawyers have petitioned the Law Society of Upper Canada to have the Solicitor General investigated for unprofessional conduct. Would the Solicitor General be prepared to invite, himself, the Law Society of Upper Canada to carry out an investigation of his conduct to see if it is unprofessional conduct in relation to the matter raised by these lawyers-


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: You are on a fishing expedition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not want to be shouted down by members of the government, Madam Speaker. Would he be prepared to invite that investigation which has been requested by a number of prominent lawyers?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, that letter, which is well known and has been made public, is not directed to my conduct. It is directed to the policies which I have approved for the operations of the RCMP. 1 do not believe it is within the mandate of the Law Society or of the disciplinary committee to review the policies which I have established for the RCMP. I believe that the place for those policies to be reviewed is here. 1 have frequently explained them in committee and in the House. I am prepared to do so.
Oral Questions
These policies, when criticized by the McDonald Commission, were confirmed by me with the law officers of the Crown, who have advised me that these policies which 1 have in place are supported by precedent and are perfectly lawful. Notwithstanding that, for further assurance. 1 went outside and obtained two outside legal opinions on these policies, which are the subject of the complaint of these lawyers to the Law Society. Both of the opinions which I obtained supported these policies. I continue to believe that they are proper, and they continue to be the policies of the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE JUDICIARY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, since, in the case of Arrindell and English, the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister have made the incredible claim that the Solicitor General was acting in his private capacity, rather than in his ministerial capacity, a claim which no one in this House can accept, with the exception, perhaps, of the Liberal Party, given its standards. And since the conduct of the Solicitor General, acting as a lawyer, has been called into question by the president of the Canadian Bar Association, would the Solicitor General, in order to clear his name, invite an inquiry into the propriety of his conduct by either the Canadian Bar Association-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -or the Law Society of Upper Canada, having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General have made it impossible for Parliament to judge that behaviour which they claim was private? Will he allow the governing body of his professional association to look into his professional conduct in this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The evidence that I put forward in those trials was evidence put forward in open court, not as a lawyer, not as the Solicitor General of Canada, but as someone who knew the individuals. I am a lawyer and 1 am the Solicitor General of Canada, but if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to make the point that this was done in my character as Solicitor General of Canada, I do not see how he can argue at the same time that it should be put forward as conduct of a lawyer to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Before sending those letters, I considered the propriety of them and was satisfied that they did not violate the guidelines set down by the Prime Minister, in any sense of the word.

May 28, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Paproski
What I had to give was evidence of my knowledge of these two individuals which-


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Lack of knowledge. You said you hardly knew them.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -I gave in open court and which was available to the other side for comment, and I do not feel this was conduct which had anything to do with the conduct of a lawyer. It was the conduct of a person with knowledge of two individuals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and fifty-fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) on Thursday, May 27, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the assertion of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) during question period that I was not in attendance in the House when, in fact, I was in my place, as I always am when the House is sitting. It would be appropriate if the minister were to acknowledge that fact.


Mr. Deans:: Or even to listen.


Madam Speaker:: The presence of hon. members in the House is not officially or traditionally acknowledged. However, the hon. member has made his point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,832, 2,959, 2,981 and 4,134.
May 28, 1982


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $90,277 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. (a) and (b) The guidelines used to determine which employees qualified for educational leave with pay and reimbursement for all expenses incurred are Treasury Board's Personnel Management Manual, chapter 110-5-Conditions governing education training and subsidization, DREE's training policy in Personnel Services Manual, volume D, Human Resources chapter, personnel training section, and the collective agreements.
2 and 3. Nil.
4.	In the past three years, of the 13 employees granted such leave, only one (7.6 per cent) has left the public service.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of miscellaneous items recorded by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in footnote No. 15 at page 13.4, volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances were the transit and level lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such losses did not recur and, if so, what were they?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The
reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
(a)	On July 30, 1979, a Theodolite Transit and Automatic Level were among several items stolen during a break-in of a locked government vehicle parked on a Winnipeg street.
(b)	The vehicle and equipment were assigned to a PFRA engineer for a visit to a project site. Upon discovery of the theft, the Winnipeg Police Department was notified immediately. The stolen items were entered into a national police computer system and a detective assigned to investigate.
(c)	To date, none of the stolen items have been recovered and no charges have been laid by police.
(d)	Replacements were purchased by PFRA.
Order Paper Questions
(e)	Instructions to all regional staff have been issued to the effect that no attractive items are to be left overnight in vehicles unless they can be securely locked in the trunk and whenever possible vehicles will be securely parked in government warehouses or compounds.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport under the Marine Transportation Program at page 32.39, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to motion picture production and distribution (a) what was the title and total cost of each film produced in the fiscal year 1979-80 (b) at what audience was each film aimed (c) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the films?


Mr. Jesse P. Elis@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport: (a) and (b) (1) "Coming Back Alive"-total cost was $79,115 of which $64,780 was paid in 1979-80. This is an educational film which was aimed at hunters and fishermen who consider a cartop boat as a platform for their particular sport and do not consider themselves as boaters.
(2)	"The Volunteer Marine Rescue Auxiliary Program Float Plan"-total cost $4,950. This is an educational film which was aimed at the boating public, including commercial inshore fishermen and pleasure craft users.
(3)	"What now Skipper", "Canadian Boating Test", "Cold Can Kill", "Cold Water Survival", "La Garde cotiere cana-dienne", "La Garde Cotiere canadienne" (videotape), "Le Nancy J. ne pechera plus", "Securite a bord", "Pourquoi pas l'endosser"-total cost of the above was $2,298. These educational films were aimed at the boating public, especially pleasure boaters.
The remaining expenditures relate to the rental of films for use by Canadian Coast Guard Vessels.
(c) No distribution proceeds are expected as these films are made available to groups for education-information purposes.


Mr. Taylor: 1.	How many teachers were employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the purpose of teaching students on reserves in the province of Alberta as of June 30 (a) 1981 (b) 1980 (c) 1979?
2.	How many of the teachers who were on staff in 1979 were still on staff as of June 30, 1981?
3.	Does the department have its maximum number of teachers required on the reserves in Alberta?
4.	Does the department give the teachers they hire a contract?
5.	What is the actual turnover of teachers on reserves in Alberta?
6.	Does the department have a curriculum that teachers are required to follow?
7.	Does the department provide a special curriculum for Indian boys and girls and, if so, does it include special education for slow learners and medical, hearing and sight testing?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Teachers employed by the Depart-

May 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
merit of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on reserves in the province of Alberta as of June 30, are as follows: (a) 1981-187 teachers, (b) 1980-205 teachers, (c) 1979-198 teachers.
Note: The decrease from 205 in 1980 to 187 in 1981 occurred due to a turnover of the school operation to the Saddle Lake Band. The department reduced its staff by 18 person-years to accommodate the band's needs.
2.	Ninety-one teachers on staff in 1979 were still on staff as of June 30, 1981.
3.	Maximum number of teachers allocated on reserves are established by ratio. One classroom teacher for every 18 students, kindergarten, grades one to twelve, plus two teacher aides for every five teaching positions, K-4 to grade three. For kindergarten grades, one teacher is allowed for every 15 students attending on a one-half day basis. As of March 12, 1982, calculations are based on February, 1982 student enrolment. The instructional requirement projected for September, 1982 is 198 teachers plus 33.5 teacher aides equalling a total of 231.5 instructional staff. This allocation has been approved. It is difficult to maintain the number of staff at the allocated level due to resignations and other factors.
4.	Teachers are hired through the Public Service Commission in the same manner as other federal civil servants. Contracts are therefore not required.
5.	Actual turnover of teachers is estimated to be approximately 40 per cent.
6.	Department teachers are required to follow the Alberta provincial curriculum.
7.	The department does not provide a special curriculum, however, our schools add cultural material by expanding social studies programs to include native history, culture and language. Special services are purchased through tuition agreements with the provincial schools, i.e., (a) School for the deaf, (b) Schools for the mentally retarded, etc. National Health and Welfare visit our schools for medical and dental work including hearing and sight tests.


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


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


Mr. Stevens:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Once again I feel it necessary to ask the parliamentary secretary why question No. 2,042, which was put on the Order Paper on January 29, not this year but last year, has not yet been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend will be pleased to know that I have in fact made inquiries with regard to the preparation of an answer to this question. Information is required from a number of different sources. Much of that information has arrived, but a few of the sources have not yet provided information. I hope to be in receipt of it before too
long and I will continue my efforts to satisfy the hon. member with an answer as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-114, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2), be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to hon. members of the House for their courtesy in permitting this bill to be considered during this one day sitting. I appreciate the fact that they are prepared to give up what would perhaps otherwise be a Friday afternoon in their ridings to debate what is a very important measure for a large number of Canadians.


Mr. Nielsen:: You owe us one.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am always prepared to pay my debts. The provisions of this bill are very simple. In fact, there is only one. It is to extend for a further year the present variable entrance requirements under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The importance of this measure is that, without this provision to extend the variable entrance requirements, a large number of Canadians would require a minimum of 14 weeks' eligibility in order to claim unemployment insurance benefits.
In this time when we are facing very serious levels of unemployment and having to cope with major strains upon the unemployment insurance system, it would obviously be very unwise to try to bring about any destabilizing forces by undertaking major changes to the act. Therefore, we are asking the permission of the House to extend for one further year the extension provisions which would otherwise come to an end on June 4, so that we can offer to Canadians who unfortunately require support and assistance under the Unemployment Insurance Act some stability which will be maintained in present circumstances during this trying period.
It is important at this time to pay tribute to our forefathers and predecessors in this House who in 1940 had the wisdom and foresight to establish the unemployment insurance system. We are now experiencing perhaps the most significant test of that system because we are going through a very serious period of recession. It is a credit to this House in terms of its history
May 28, 1982

and longevity that at times it makes the right choice, which may not be recognized or appreciated at the particular moment, but generations that come after receive the full benefits of their judgment.
In this case, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are benefiting from the existence of the unemployment insurance system. It provides a basic income floor and ceiling for many thousands of Canadians at this time. Without the unemployment insurance system, certainly the tragedy and severity that unemployment brings would be that much more severe for many individuals. The existence of the unemployment insurance system provides a certain degree of continuity during this period when we face such high rates of unemployment. If for some strange reason we were not to let this bill go through, the consequences could be very dramatic. We would be faced with conditions in parts of Canada that none of us would like to contemplate.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, 1 have estimated that over 300,000 people receiving unemployment insurance benefits would otherwise not be paid. In addition, most of these people, and there are now 83,000, are from Quebec and the Mari-times.

We can see the difficulties that would be faced by a large number of Canadians if this bill did not go through. The obvious need for it is there. This is not something that is new, untried or innovative. It is simply a bill to maintain the present system for a period of one year.
I owe an explanation to the members of the House as to the progress or state of development in terms of the over-all reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act which we initiated over a year ago when we brought forward the task force report on unemployment insurance. At that time the feeling of many members of this House was that a general review and assessment of the entire unemployment insurance system was required. We therefore brought in a task force report which had as its objectives the need to streamline the system and to ensure that many of the administrative difficulties and peculiarities could be changed and altered.
Second, we indicated that there was a need for greater equity in the unemployment insurance system. Many repeaters or new entrants coming into the system for the first time are penalized under the existing act. With regard to those who now require a 20-week entrance, we should look seriously at how we can reduce their eligibility needs. At the same time, there are other parts of the act in the area of social equity that need to be reformed. I refer to the need to change substantially the benefits under the maternity provisions.
Many women have quite rightly complained that the requirements under the maternity provisions are inequitable. We agree with that. That is one of the areas of reform we propose to examine as well as the provisions that apply to adoptive parents. That matter has also been brought to my attention many times.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
There is also the fundamental question of cost. It is a fundamental issue to be raised in this House. The unemployment insurance system is presently a $5 billion item shared jointly by employers, employees and the government. This is a very large expenditure. It is obviously of some concern as well that we find ways to ensure that the administration and delivery of the system is efficient and is cost-purposeful.
We want to examine very clearly the impact of the unemployment insurance system on income and the redistribution of income in this country. It is a matter of real concern that there are regions in this country which face high, chronic unemployment, not just in the phase we are going through, but for a continuous period. It is important that the unemployment insurance system be utilized to provide for some levelling of equal treatment of those who are faced with those conditions.
At the same time, we have examined ways in which we can make the Unemployment Insurance Act somewhat more creative in terms of using the unemployment system to help people train for new skills of work on community projects during periods of unemployment. This will bring about a number of beneficial results to the community and at the same time allow the community to retain very important skills and a work force.
All of these proposals were made in the task force report. It was my clear commitment at that time that we would not proceed with any of these major reforms or changes without very widespread discussion and consultation in this House and throughout Canada.
Over the past year we engaged in a very wide-ranging process of discussion and consultation with labour groups, business groups, community groups and social organizations. As one would expect, there were a number of conflicting points of view. Because there have been some suggestions from time to time that the task force report and recommendations in it are government policy, I want to underline very clearly that they are not. They are simply recommendations to the government to be considered in light of the discussions and consultations we engaged in over the past year.
Equally important, as we are now revising and condensing those recommendations and consultations, is that we come forward with a package of reforms which would give Members of Parliament a full and open opportunity for fair examination and detailed discussion.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is far too important an ingredient in our total economic and social framework for us to ignore. It is our intention and desire to provide the time in which we can have a very open and clear discussion in this House on the recommendations we bring forward.
It was discouraging to us that that kind of discussion could not take place within the time restraints of this session. We all know how occupied the parliamentary agenda is with a number of very important measures on economic matters. It was clear that we would not be able to alter as much as we would like the full-ranging discussion that the unemployment insurance bill would demand. Therefore, it seemed to make sense

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
that we continue the existing provisions of the act for another year.
When Members of Parliament return, the government can bring forward its proposals for reform and provide the time and opportunity for the very detailed discussions and judgment that this House can bring to such a very important issue.
That is the fundamental importance of this bill. It really gives a degree of security, a degree of assurance and continuity to those presently receiving unemployment insurance, while not bringing about major changes at a time when there is a high degree of turbulence in the economic system. It also ensures that we maintain the provisions with regard to the degree of equity, namely, the variable entrance requirements, to the point in time where we will have a full-scale ranging discussion in this House about a number of reforms.
So, Mr. Speaker, I recommend this short but important bill to members. I hope that we will be able to give it quick dispatch. I would welcome the comments members may have. I hope they will restrain some of their comments about the broader impact of the Unemployment Insurance Act until the time when we bring in the full-ranging reform.
1 know that members are anxious to give me the benefit of their wisdom and judgment about the whole unemployment insurance system. But, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it would be somewhat redundant to spend the time of the House talking about something which as yet has not been presented. I think we would be conserving some of the efficiency of time of members and of Parliament if we were to wait until the government comes forward with its proposals, which we would intend to do at the earliest opportunity when there is time in the parliamentary timetable, so that we can then have a discussion based upon reality, based upon something that is before us, rather than something which is hypothetical and speculative. I do not think the time of the House needs to be taken up in wishful thinking or prejudgment but should be spent on something based upon facts.
If that is the case, it would then give us the opportunity, in the time remaining today, to initiate discussion, 1 would hope, on the training bill. It is a measure that will deal directly with the problem of unemployment by providing major opportunities for all young people and others to get broadened and expanded training opportunities during this period of recession.
So, Mr. Speaker, with the courtesy and co-operation of members of this House, I hope that we may pass in very quick order this unemployment insurance measure. Then for the sake of Canadians we can go on and do something which is equally important, perhaps more important, and this House can show its commitment to deal with the problem of unemployment by engaging in discussion on the training bill, which will give us all the opportunity to do something concrete, real and important for those who are waiting to receive some sign or message of hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the minister in his request to have the bill passed through its three stages and therefore be eligible for official passage on June 4, as I think is required by law. We are happy to do that, for a number of reasons.
First of all, we in this party, as 1 am sure all other members of the House, support the basic philosophy of the unemployment insurance scheme and have done so for many years. As the minister has indicated, it is a scheme to support families in hard times and in between times and it has done so for two and one-half generations. If we did not pass this bill today, Mr. Speaker, we would be changing the variable entrance requirements. It may have been a good scheme to try to take account across the country of the variation in unemployment rates. As people understand it, between ten and 14 weeks are the insurable weeks required, depending on the level of unemployment. Therefore, a high unemployment area will require fewer insurable weeks.
That is the basic understanding of the recommendation which was first brought down in 1977. It was brought down as an amendment in 1977 in order to give effect and flexibility to the scheme, to make it easier on those people in some parts of the country who needed help most, particularly in relation to the fact that there was higher unemployment there.
In 1977, Mr. Speaker, when it was brought down, part of the agreement or understanding was that there would be a general review of the act. That is why a task force was appointed. This idea was put forward in 1977. That part of the act would legislatively die in 1980. It was extended in 1980-81 primarily to allow for the continuation of a review of the act. In 1980 the task force to which the minister has referred was established.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, look with favour on the work that the task force has been doing, not because we support all of its recommendations but because it is the first time in a long time that we have had a review of the act, an act that has been with us since 1940. It is worth while reminding the House-I do not think the minister needs to be reminded-that it is not some small review that is taking place with respect to the act. In fact, four issues are being addressed. First of all, everyone knows that it has been very difficult to understand administratively how UI works. Consequently, the first issue being addressed by the task force is the complexity of the administration of the program.
Second, this aspect is not well understood by the public, and therefore public comprehension suffers as a result of the 40 years of administration of the plan.
Third, I suppose the question is raised as to the cost-effectiveness of unemployment insurance. It seems to me that this is something the minister could bring forward in terms of a recommendation in that part of the task force report.
Fourth, the labour market impact is important. It is important, obviously, that whatever we are doing with unemployment insurance relates to the labour market in terms of
May 28, 1982

training and also in terms of income redistribution systems that we have in other levels and in other parts of the country.
These four issues have been dealt with on the understanding that effectively the unemployment insurance program has two basic purposes. First of all, it is an income protection scheme; secondly, it is a labour market development program.
There has been some experience, some exchange and vigorous discussion from time to time, with respect to how well each of those two purposes are fulfilled, particularly with respect to the labour market development program. 1 do not think there is any doubt about our willingness-and I think I am speaking for all members of the House-to see unemployment insurance continue as an effective income protection scheme as well as the labour market development program.
The task force report has some very specific recommendations to which we would like the minister to give some consideration. He mentioned some of them, I think. I did not catch all of his speech and I apologize for not getting all of it. He mentioned the question of entrance requirements and the recommendation of the task force for the elimination of the special entrance requirements for new entrants, repeaters and so on, and having one entrance requirement. That has some sense to it and we hope that the minister will bring that forward. It is clear that if we had a single entrance requirement we would have a sense of equity and simplicity that would help in the comprehension of the program.
The minister may also have mentioned that the task force report talks about some changes in the benefits schemes. 1 think the minister will probably have to avoid that for a while. The essence of the task force report is that, for good and sufficient reason which I need not go into at this point, there ought to be a tightening up of the regulations and a diminishing of the benefits. From time to time we have had some differences of opinion with the minister, but 1 have never heard any opinion that he would be so foolish as to take that step at this point in time.
The task force also referred to maternity benefits. In particular it went on, as the minister indicated in his own remarks, to deal with the special conditions surrounding what is known as the "Magic 10" rule. Even more so, the restrictions on adoptive parents is something that the minister could bring forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: It is even a human rights problem. It is not known merely as another regulation with respect to a benefit. If I am correct, the Human Rights Commission has already spoken on the matter. Certainly it is a question of human rights, and it is one thing that could be singled out by the minister without waiting for the finality of the comprehensive review.
The minister mentioned a number of other aspects of the task force report. I think all I need to say to conclude my thoughts on the task force report is that I urge the minister to
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
proceed with it. 1 know he has a lot on his plate, but there are aspects or sections which could be knifed out of the report and dealt with. I think we are as interested as the minister in making sure people have faith in unemployment insurance as a program both for income protection and for labour market development. Those two functions as part of the program are as important to us and the Canadian people as they are to the minister. The more he can do to show that the scheme or the program continues to serve Canadians, as it has for two and a half generations, the better, and we would certainly support him.
There are one or two smaller problems. They are not small in one sense because they affect people and they are always important, but they do not necessarily affect as many people as some of the things I and the minister have been talking about.
One problem we find from time to time is with the regions that are used for the unemployment insurance scheme, particularly in relation to the fact that we are now specifically talking about regional variations. Whenever we draw boundaries of any kind, whether they are physical, ideological, emotional or spiritual, those closest to the boundary get hurt. So I am not arguing that there has been any intention to create problems; indeed, there are some problems, and I will cite one example for the minister.
If we go to the riding of Simcoe North, we will find that that riding is divided in half in terms of the regional variation rate. One half is the Georgian Bay area and the other is the Toronto area. I am sure most of the people in the Georgian Bay area wish they could have been included in the Toronto area for reasons other than unemployment insurance, but the fact is that there are two small townships in that portion which is included in the Toronto catchment area, and those two townships are Rama and Mara. Unfortunately, Rama and Mara have high unemployment rates, but they are in the Toronto area. Therefore, the people who work in Rama and Mara have to work more weeks in order to have the same qualifications as their brethren in Orillia, which is their normal catchment area.
The boundary review committee was approached about this, and the only suggestion it made at that time was that it would have to wait until after the 1981 census. Incidentally, 1 might say in December, 1979, DREE made a report and included these townships in an area which clearly would be suffering from high unemployment rates into the mid-1980s, so the minister has some specific information from DREE, a December, 1979 report, which talks about such areas as Owen Sound, Orangeville, Barrie, Orillia, Lindsay and Peterborough and includes those areas as areas of high unemployment into the mid-1980s.
The people who live in the little townships of Rama and Mara would be forever grateful if they could find themselves included in the Georgian Bay section rather than the Toronto section, because that would mean they would not have to have what they consider to be-and I think quite rightly-unfair qualifications for the variation rate.

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
There are one or two other points I would like to make at this time for the minister's consideration. I know he has considered one of them at other times and in other forums, but I think the credibility of his department-and, indeed, the credibility of all of us-could be enhanced. When we talk in this chamber about unemployment, we all use the statistics which benefit us most. I do not apologize for that. I do not expect apologies from anyone else because we all do it, but it certainly does not contribute to the education of the general population when we use an amazing array of statistics which are used primarily to benefit our own arguments. 1 think the minister, the government and all of us have a vested interest in seeing if we can arrive at a definition of employment and a definition of unemployment which we could all use and understand.
For example, the minister knows, and many hon. members know-but many people do not understand-that when we talk about unemployment, we are not including those whose unemployment benefits have expired. They may still be out of work, but their benefits have expired. We are not including those who have never qualified because for one reason or another they could not qualify. They are still out of work. Those who are able-bodied but on welfare are not included in unemployment statistics. Those who have simply given up looking because in the location in which they live there is just no point in looking any more are not included. Indeed, in order to be counted, according to Statistics Canada, a person has to be looking actively for a job in the last four weeks.
As I have just pointed out, there are many good reasons why we find people not in that category, but they are still considered not to be unemployed. Indeed, a person can work for one day out of three months, and if he was doing so in the last four weeks, then he is not counted as being unemployed. I want to make it clear that I am in no way at all blaming the minister or his department for this. I think over the years our understanding of employment and unemployment has become encrusted like barnacles on a boat. We have simply added on new thoughts and never clarified them.
We have three separate organizations the government uses-and we all use-for different sets of statistics. I think many policy decisions these days are made less on people's understanding of the realities and more on their understanding of the statistical descriptions of realities, and when that is the case I think we should have very strong interest in making sure we have not only a cogent, clear and honest definition of employment and unemployment, but also one which is generally agreed upon so that we are always talking about the same numbers.
Finally, if I could, I would like to make one observation with respect to the relationship between unemployment and welfare.
I have already indicated that there are many, many people who are not on unemployment rolls in terms of being reported but who suffer because they do not have jobs. Obviously, people on welfare are in that category. Increasingly, as times get tougher-and the minister has said that times will get tougher in the next number of months and, indeed, into 1983 and beyond-we will have to make sure we are not for our own
purposes avoiding putting people on unemployment rolls but simply putting them on welfare rolls.
I remind the minister that when it comes to whether people are on unemployment insurance or on welfare, two things are clear. People would rather be on unemployment insurance than on welfare because, no matter how we say it, teach it and try to learn it, there is a stigma attached to welfre that is not attached to unemployment insurance, as people still regard unemployment insurance as paying their own freight. That is the reality. I could dress that phrase up for the dance, but that is the reality. It is important not to look for the easy way to remove people from unemployment statistics and therefore off unemployment insurance benefits and on to welfare, because that affects people personally and emotionally and I think hurts their own futures.
The second reason I hope we do not take that easy route is that the cost of welfare rests, obviously, with all three levels of government. However, as this minister in particular would know, it rests most heavily on municipal governments. As you might remember yourself, Mr. Speaker, the ability of municipal governments to cope with these costs and their other responsibilities is wearing pretty thin.
For those two reasons I would like to raise again an old issue about which I have not heard much-at least with respect to the two points I raised-regarding the relationship between unemployment insurance and welfare. They are both income protection schemes, but one has a significantly different effect on the individual, and it also has a different effect on the ability of a particular level of government to be able to afford the costs.
Finally, let me say that we are looking forward to dealing with Bill C-115. I hope it will be very soon. 1 am not the House leader for my party, but I have my modest thoughts on that, which I will bring forward at the appropriate time. Bill C-l 15 is not unrelated to Bill C-l 14. Bill C-l 15 is a bill which I trust will give us some hope for the future, and in a sense Bill C-l 14 is a gentle reminder of the runs, hits and errors of the past. They are related bills and we will certainly have lots to say on Bill C-l 15. We would like to support the minister on Bill C-115 every time he takes a good step, but we will not support him every time he does not take a good step.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-l 14. 1 do not think the minister is going to be very happy when I say I am not going to take his advice and restrain my remarks on the whole field of unemployment insurance. In his remarks the minister made a comment about legislation to come forward this fall which will give Members of Parliament a full and fair opportunity to study the subject and have input into the legislation. If that comes to pass it will be the first time in my three years' experience in this House. As a rule we do not have much opportunity under this government to study legislation and have our concerns noted.
May 28, 1982

For the last few years I have been a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence which has spent a lot of time studying the different aspects of national defence and foreign affairs and has made recommendations which the government has ignored. The most recent of these was the cutback in reserves funding which the committee recommended against.
At this time in Canada 1.2 or 1.3 million people are officially unemployed. We all know that the real figure is closer to two million so it is too much to ask us to restrain our remarks at this time.
In my constituency things are not very different from conditions anywhere else. There is very high unemployment. There are 11 Indian reserves in the constituency, on all of which the unemployment rate is in excess of 75 per cent. On a number of reserves at some times in the year unemployment runs between 90 per cent and 95 per cent. An example is the Easterville reserve when in the non-fishing seasons there are only about half a dozen jobs available in the community-a couple in the band office, a couple working for the schools, and a couple operating the honey wagon. About 1,000 people live in the community but there are only half a dozen or a dozen permanent jobs. Yet the minister wants us to restrain our comments!
For the last two weeks in the city of Winnipeg Indians from the Peguis reservation have been demonstrating outside the office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development because of a very serious shortfall in housing on the reserve. There is a backlog of some 120 houses. Yet when these concerns are brought to the attention of the government, the natives are given funding for only five or ten houses. This is a case where jobs could be created and housing provided on the reserves, but the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ignores it, saying that the natives should get outside funding through the banks and CMHC. How are they to pay off the mortgages if they do not have jobs?
1 want to make some comments on how the government has moved away from its responsibility in the unemployment insurance field over the last ten years. The provisions in Bill C-114 are not earth shattering nor are they provisions which this party is about to oppose. We know that the purpose of the bill is to extend the existing variable entrance requirements of ten to 14 weeks according to the regional rate of unemployment. We support that. The alternative is that all Canadian workers would be required to have worked for 14 weeks in order to qualify for UIC, regardless of how much unemployment there is in their region.
The variable entrance requirement permits people in areas of high unemployment who have more difficulty finding work to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits with fewer weeks of insurable earnings. Without it, many of Canada's seasonal workers, whether they work in the tourist industry of Prince Edward Island or fish our oceans and freshwater lakes, would be cut off from unemployment insurance benefits.
This variable entrance requirement has not always been a feature of the unemployment insurance program, however. In
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
1971 the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), who was then minister responsible for the program, introduced a progressive piece of legislation which enjoyed the unanimous support of the House. I am speaking about his unemployment insurance legislation. In the long forgotten "just society", this was to be the cornerstone of the guaranteed annual income.
The Unemployment Insurance Act of that year substantially reduced the eligibility requirement from 30 weeks of insurable earnings over two years to eight weeks over one year. It also reflected an understanding that the government had an important responsibility to control regional and structural unemployment.
While the unemployment insurance program introduced in 1941 fixed the federal government's contribution at 20 per cent of the cost of unemployment insurance, the 1971 act provided for the government to assume financial responsibility for unemployment insurance benefits when the unemployment rate was above 4 per cent and for the benefit of people who were unemployed for an extended period of time. This gave the government a vested interest in keeping the unemployment rate down. Because the government accepted that responsibility, its contributions to the unemployment insurance program increased as unemployment surpassed the 4 per cent ceiling anticipated for the 1970s.
In 1971 the government's contribution to the program was 19 per cent of the total cost and the rest was made up of contributions of workers and employers through unemployment insurance premiums. By 1975 the government's contribution had reached 51 per cent of unemployment insurance payouts. From 19 per cent in 1971 to 51 per cent in 1975 is quite a jump and it accurately reflected the responsibility that the government must assume for full employment in this country. That was obviously the understanding when the new unemployment insurance program was introduced in 1971.
Of course, the government was upset that its share of the cost of unemployment insurance had increased so remarkably, but what did it do? Did Liberal governments of the 1970s undertake measures to permit Canada to regain control of its economy and to create more jobs? Did it launch a massive job-creation program? Absolutely not. In fact, at various times it actually cut its funding for job creation. To bring down unemployment costs it introduced a series of legislative measures that shifted this financial responsibility for unemployment insurance on to the private sector, that is, the contribution of employees and employers to the unemployment insurance program.
That is not all it did, Mr. Speaker, We can all see that the government's economic policies could not maintain an unemployment rate of only 4 per cent for the duration of the 1970s. In fact, by 1979 the government's own definition of full employment had been changed so that 6 per cent was set as the benchmark at which full employment could be said to be achieved. We look back at 6 per cent longingly now, Mr. Speaker.

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
With more and more workers unable to find work, both Liberal governments and the short-lived Conservative government moved to prevent more people from qualifying for unemployment insurance by tightening up the entrance requirements. It was only four years after the new Unemployment Insurance Act had been introduced in 1971 that the Liberals set about dismantling it. Recognizing that unemployment would undoubtedly persist at above the 4 per cent predicted for the rest of the decade, the threshold level above which the government was responsible for the cost of initial benefits was changed from 4 per cent to an eight-year moving average of unemployment rates. In 1977 the government wriggled out from its commitment to bear the cost of extended unemployment. Bill C-27 eliminated two extended benefit periods for which the government had previously been totally responsible. The same bill introduced the variable entrance requirement we are dealing with today.
Most of the members opposite will no doubt insist that the variable entrance requirement was introduced to promote regional equity in the UIC program. I submit that is nonsense. After that requirement was introduced, unemployed workers in the hardest hit regions of the Atlantic provinces were required to have ten weeks of insurable earnings to qualify for unemployment insurance instead of eight weeks. How can making it more difficullt to qualify for unemployment insurance promote regional equity? That can only be characterized as Liberal logic. They make it more difficult to qualify for UI, and then they make it even more difficult for people who do not live in those regions hardest hit by unemployment, and sell the whole package as promoting regional equity.
The introduction of this requirement in 1977 had nothing at all to do with promoting regional equity. It was a sop to the Liberal backbenchers from areas of high unemployment who were protesting the government's intention to increase the entrance requirement from eight weeks to 12 weeks. It seems to have worked; the backbenchers were silenced, and anyone today committed to saving our crumbling UIC program is forced to support the variable entrance requirement.
Since unemployment insurance was overhauled in 1971, every amendment introduced by the government, either with Liberals at the helm or my Conservative friends to the right, has ultimately served to tighten the screws even further in order to disqualify more Canadians, thus saving the federal government even more money. Of course, none of this would be possible without first trying to convince the electorate that it was in their best interests.
Bill C-14 was rammed through Parliament in 1978. It was preceded by a very slick advertising campaign designed to convince Canadians that unemployment insurance was fraught with cheaters and people who did not really want to work. Then, after trying to convince the public that it was essential to stop the unemployed from abusing the program, the federal government set about abusing it in its own way, to the tune of more than $900 million, in Bill C-14. It did so by shifting the burden of the extended period of benefits from the government to the premium payer, and by making it even more difficult to
qualify for benefits. The victims of the government's abuse were young people and women, those sectors of the public having the most difficulty breaking into the labour market.
Finally, in 1980 the government ushered in legislation to take it out of the unemployment cost-sharing business to an even greater extent. The eight-year moving average was eliminated. No longer would the government assume financial responsibility for unemployment insurance should the unemployment rate become unacceptably high. The government only contributes now to the regional extended benefits. That manoeuvre saved the government about $360 million in 198081. Not content with that, it began to raid the fund, paid for by workers and their employers, to finance other government ventures. In April, 1980, an order in council transferred the costs of the national employment service, some $202 million in 1980, from the Government of Canada to the UIC. Last year $188 million in job-training costs were charged against unemployment contributions. This year the minister is raiding the fund to the tune of some $190 million to date to pay for work sharing. This, instead of taking real steps to create jobs for the thousands of Canadians facing lay-offs as the government's economic policies take their toll.
However, we have good reason to fear, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has even worse changes in store for unemployment insurance. I am referring now to the recommendations of the task force on unemployment insurance which the government reluctantly released last summer. I say reluctantly because 1 think it is evident that if my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), had not secured a copy of that report and made it public it would not have been released to this day.
I mentioned earlier that the government's share of the cost of unemployment insurance has been dropping with each amendment since 1977. In 1980 Bill C-3 reduced the government's contribution to 20 per cent of the cost, the level which existed prior to the hon. member for Lincoln's Bill C-229 in 1971. But now the recommendations from last summer's task force would have assumed a fixed share of costs established at 15 per cent, rather than assuming the responsibility for any part of a program which is costly because of the government's inability to produce jobs where they are needed.
The task force would also have the regional extended-benefit phase eliminated entirely. The focus of unemployment insurance if these recommendations are implemented, will shift from income protection to labour market development. People living in areas hardest hit by unemployment will be penalized with a boost in the requirement from the present ten to 14 weeks to 15 to 20 weeks. So here we have regional equity being promoted in a way which will disqualify more Atlantic workers from benefits and force them to move west to meet the needs of the labour market.
The task force cited as evidence of the need for these changes more allegations of the unemployed abusing the program. It spoke of the fact that in Newfoundland workers could now qualify for up to 42 weeks of benefits with only ten
May 28, 1982

weeks of insured earnings. Meanwhile, workers in Alberta must work 14 weeks to qualify for only 14 weeks of benefits. The task force cited this disparity as an incentive for Newfoundlanders to set up a cycle of dependency, implying they will work only long enough to establish a new claim. That is a rather slanderous thing to say about the workers of Canada. Even in Newfoundland, where unemployment is higher than in most of the country, only 12 per cent of claimants exhausted their claim in 1979.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, before one o'clock I was speaking about the unemployment insurance task force report of last year and how it had unfairly singled out Newfoundland workers as an example of how people become dependent upon unemployment insurance, at least dependent in the definition of this government. The task force ignored the fact that the Atlantic region has a higher proportion of repeat claims because job opportunities in that region are often seasonal or non-existent. How can this government seriously consider the findings of a task force that is so blatantly bent on blaming the victims?
I think it is clear, as in all other changes to the unemployment insurance program introduced since 1971, that the reason for recommending longer entrance requirements and shorter benefit periods is to cut government costs for this program. In addition to that, in a cynical move to encourage labour migration to the site of the government's ill-fated megaprojects, the task force recommendations sought to force workers to move to the west where the jobs were expected to be.
According to the provisions recommended in last year's UI task force, the regional rate of unemployment would still be used to determine the benefit period of unemployment insurance claimants. The benefit period would vary across the country from 20 weeks where unemployment was less than 6 per cent, up to a maximum of 50 weeks. However, claimants in areas hardest hit by unemployment could by no means be guaranteed 50 weeks of benefits. The maximum benefit period would vary from 20 to 40 weeks in most cases. It would only be those people who were fortunate enough to hold a job for a full 35 weeks prior to their claim who could possibly qualify for a longer benefit period than the 40 weeks.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
The task force says that these changes are necessary to reinforce work incentives and to take people's labour force patterns toward work and away from unemployment insurance. The people of Canada have been told by the minister's task force that they did not really want to work, that they were inclined to live off unemployment insurance rather than work.
I reject that accusation, which is what it is. It is an accusation that the working people of Canada are lazy and need to be prodded by their government to contribute to the general wellbeing of this country. What kind of Victorian moralizing is that?
Even in Newfoundland where it is more difficult to find work than in many other parts of this country, only 12 per cent of unemployment claimants stay on unemployment insurance until they are cut off. This would suggest to me that the people of Newfoundland, and all other Canadians, do indeed want to work. This government has taken away their right to work by its ruinous economic policies and it is now blaming them for being unemployed.
Traditionally, there have been four categories of unemployment; seasonal, frictional, cyclical and structural. It is now apparent that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and his UI analysts would have us believe that there is one very important category of unemployment that has been ignored in the past, and that is intentional unemployment.
For the record, we in the New Democratic Party reject the accusation that the working people of Canada are lazy and need to be prodded by the government from collecting unemployment insurance and made to work. In the worst kind of cynicism-Liberal cynicism-this government throws thousands of Canadians out of work with its tight monetary and fiscal policies and then blames them for being unemployed or for living in one of the high unemployment regions of the country.
According to the unemployment insurance task force, tightening up UI regulations and further restricting the extent of UI claims will cut $220 million off the government unemployment insurance bill.
Canadian workers can breathe a bit easier, at least for now, because the Minister of Employment and Immigration has decided that it is advisable to maintain the status quo on unemployment insurance entrance requirements for at least one more year. They can breathe easier because what the minister apparently has up his sleeve is much worse than what is in effect now.
It is valuable at this time to recall what the hon. member for Lincoln, the author of the 1971 unemployment insurance legislation, had to say about the series of amendments to that legislation throughout the 1970s. I quote the hon. member:
-since 1971 when the Unemployment Insurance Act was brought in, reflecting the views of all members of the House, there have been no less than five or six amendments to the bill, if I recall correctly. In each and every one of these amendments there has been a clause or provision, among others, subtly to shift

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
the financial burden of unemployment from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the government to the employer-employee to the point that it is almost absurd. I would say that close to $1 billion has been so shifted-
He goes on to say:
It might have been more fair if the officials had told Parliament that they had miscalculated the rate of unemployment in 1970 when they said it would average 4 per cent and that, for reasons beyond their control, unemployment should more realistically be predicted at 6 per cent. They could have made the necessary adjustments and I think Parliament would have understood, the country would have understood and the opposition would have understood.
Instead either by coincidence or design, prior to every one of these amendments we had a well orchestrated campaign based on the alleged abuse of the plan, thus preparing and conditioning people for the amendment, and supposedly aimed at reducing the abuse or tightening up the regulations, when in fact the main purpose of most of the amendments was to shift the financial burden from the government to the employer-employee. I think that has been unfair-
It must sadden the hon. member for Lincoln, a member of the government of this country, to sit in the House and see what his government is doing to unemployment insurance. After he warned the Minister of Employment and Immigration in 1980 to save unemployment insurance from those determined to undermine it, after he warned the minister not to heed those who would suggest that the contributions from workers and employers to unemployment insurance be used to finance department programs, that the government should pay for the unemployment programs from government revenues, after all these warnings from a member of his own party, the minister has done just the opposite. He has watched over the preparation for further dismantling of unemployment insurance in this country and has diverted millions of dollars of unemployment insurance contributions into government programs.
The combination of the government's deliberately induced recession, dressed up as an anti-inflation economic strategy, and its dismantling of the unemployment insurance program is drawing unemployment insurance and the entire system of social services to the brink of a crisis.
The unemployment insurance fund derived from employee-employer contributions could well fall $1.2 billion short of meeting the demands for benefits. It could even go above that figure. For the month of February this year, the total bill was $650 million. That is close to double the average monthly payout last year, which was some $370 million. Instead of costing $4.8 billion as it did last year, unemployment insurance could end up costing from $8 billion to $10 billion this year. That is before account is taken of bills for more than $200 million for the administration of the National Employment Service, $188 million for job training and $190 million for work-sharing, all charged against UI contributions.
With the government existing from cost-sharing for unemployment insurance and charging the costs of its other programs to the UI fund, those Canadians who are lucky enough to have weathered another year of this government's inflation fighting and still hold a job will see their UI premiums increase dramatically. There are 270,000 fewer jobs this year than last year. With unemployment expected to continue its rise, it is unlikely there will be more premium payers among whom to spread the increased cost next year.
But that is not all. The unemployment insurance system, of course, will not go broke. The government will boost unemployment insurance premiums next year to meet this year's deficit. By the end of the year a good many Canadians will have exhausted their claims and will have to look elsewhere for means of support. Of course, the preference would be for them to find work, but the ugly truth for many of those people will be that there is no work to be found. Unemployment is now at a post-depression high and even the government's own analysts are predicting that the Canadian economy will shrink-not grow-this year, eliminating even more jobs. This will be the first time since 1954 that the Canadian economy has actually shrunk.
With no jobs to turn to, what can these unfortunate souls do? Unhappily, it looks as though their only option will be to turn to provincial welfare, which is totally unequipped to deal with such an increase in demand. In the past when recessions hit, workers could often find temporary work to enable them to renew their unemployment insurance claims. Their chances of that are now more remote than ever. For one thing, I have already mentioned that there are 270,000 fewer jobs this year than last year and that the economy is continuing to slide. But the other factor is that the government, in an effort to save itself money, has consistently reduced the protection afforded by unemployment insurance. It has done this just as the need for an effective unemployment insurance program has increased.
In the recessions of the seventies, unemployment insurance had been the main stabilizing influence to help to limit the impact of the decline; but now, as the government deliberately takes this country further down the recessionary path, it does so after substantially weakening the unemployment insurance program. What will happen to the Canadian economy when unemployment insurance and the welfare system collapse under the strain of the climbing number of jobless Canadians?
Finally, I want to address myself to a couple of clauses in the unemployment insurance regulations which are particularly discriminatory. The first of these affects farm workers. Section 16 of the regulations stipulates that in determining a worker's eligibility for UI benefits, only jobs lasting 25 days or longer with the same employer are considered to be insurable earnings. As far as I know, farm workers are the only group of regular workers affected by this requirement. It is quite possible for a farm worker in, say, the Fraser Valley to work steadily for six months, but not with the same farmer. Farm workers often move from crop to crop and from farm to farm, only spending a few weeks or even a few days with each employer. It is not uncommon for the 25-day regulation to deny them benefits when they would otherwise qualify.
I hope that I do not need to remind the House that farm workers are often subjected to inhuman and dangerous living and working conditions, near starvation wages, unlimited hours of work and even racial abuse. Section 16 unfortunately serves to perpetuate the exploitive system of labour contracting
May 28, 1982

which farm workers often must endure. By working through a labour contractor, a farm worker is, in fact, working the whole time for the same employer, no matter how many farms are actually worked on. That is the principal service provided by these farm labour contractors who, in turn, pocket a large part of the worker's pay, often up to 40 per cent of the worker's wages. But many farm workers are faced with a difficult choice of either working independently of the contractor and forgoing UI benefits during the winter off-season or working for the farm labour contractor who pockets a huge portion of that worker's pay.
Last fall, the Canadian Farm Workers Union approached the Human Rights Commission to rule on Section 16 of the Ul regulations. It argued that it was racially discriminatory since it discriminates against farm workers who are largely members of minority groups. The union said that because of Section 16, the federal government was the best friend a farm labour contractor ever had. It said that Section 16 was the Magna Carta of unscrupulous farm labour contractors.
The Canadian Farm Workers Union is calling on the government to delete Section 16 of the regulations, and I want to support its demand. By deleting Section 16, the government could accomplish two things. It would provide farm workers with a modicum of justice, and it would eliminate the need for farm labour contractors who have been milking farm workers for too long.
Another inequity in the UI regulations discriminates against inland fishermen, an occupation of many of my constituents. Under the present regulations, fishermen were declared to be eligible for benefits during their off-season, but the regulations also define their off-season strictly as running from December to mid-May. In my constituency and in many other areas of prairie Canada, fishermen have a winter season which generally runs from November through until March or April. When they are laid off or they catch their quota by some time in March or April, they are not eligible for UI payments for the rest of the off-season. It is an unfair regulation which my colleague the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and I have been calling upon the department to change for a number of months, indeed years. All we hear from the government is that it is working on it. It is working very, very slowly on it.


Neil Young: Until the next election.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: We in the New Democratic Party support the bill before us today, Bill C-114. It is, given the current state of unemployment insurance and what the minister seems to have in mind for the future of unemployment insurance, a valuable provision to protect those Canadian workers employed in seasonal occupations. We call for the government's continued support for unemployment insurance and the strengthening of the program. However, we are suspicious of the government's proposals to make UI a more effective tool, tilting workers toward work and away from unemployment insurance. Those kinds of proposals are only window dressing for the government to abdicate its responsibility for income protection for
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
the working people of Canada. Of course, that is what unemployment insurance should be. It should be only income protection. It should not take the place of a vibrant economy and job creation as an answer to the growing number of unemployed. We have seen the government stake its development dreams on the energy megaprojects and we have seen those projects go down in flames. Now we hear that the government is expecting the economy to continue to decline for the rest of this year and that it has no intention to stimulate it or to mount any realistic and effective programs to stem the tide of unemployment. What we want and what the people of Canada want is an economic strategy which will create jobs to provide incomes for Canadians. Nothing I have seen in the three years that I have been in this House suggests that the federal government, whether Liberals or Tories are at the helm, is about to deliver such a program.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to join in the debate for just a few moments and to join my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), in saying that it is the intention of our party to support this bill and to allow the matter to go through on all three readings this afternoon so that it can become law, bearing in mind the time limit under which the minister operates. But I want to say that while we arc discussing what I believe to be improvements to, or at least in terms of the existing economic situation the maintenance of, the system of unemployment insurance, it must cross the mind of any hon. member who speaks in the House of Commons on this bill and who considers the fact that we are focusing this day on unemployment insurance, that we are really discussing a program which has had to be augmented and changed, not because of failures of unemployment insurance, but, rather, because of the failures of the economic policies of this government, policies which have refused to recognize the realities of the country. That is really the bottom line of all of our discussions, whether we are referring to UIC, student employment programs, or what have you. If we had a reasonable economic policy in the country that spoke to growth, to incentive, to reasonable trust and use of the exuberance of the private sector, which enticed people who now save their money in savings accounts to invest that money, to build plants and equipment and to expand their businesses, I expect that the House would not be concentrating to the extent it is on unemployment insurance and the problems facing the unemployed.
I also worry that when we discuss this matter we always seem to speak in terms of percentages of unemployed and discuss for how long people who comprise these percentages are without work. The percentages do not illustrate the human problems of the people behind those statistics. I think the government must address those programs, as well. 1 know that the minister is involved in some job-creating programs, summer programs and others. He and I know that while the dollars spent on those programs create some jobs, they are very costly and temporary jobs. I hope that in the course of considering its economic program for the future, whether before or after Versailles, the government will consider the cost of those jobs

May 28. 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
and whether there might not be a better way of approaching the problems of the unemployed in this country, and will particularly address employment for our young people.
There is a great deal of confusion concerning government policy. Aside from taking the wrong direction, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his ministers have added to the confusion. Last week in Vancouver, on May 24, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) spoke to the International Monetary Fund Conference. I wish to quote from page 3 of his text. I assume he followed it; there is no indication he did not. He usually reads his speeches. He said, and I quote:
-I believe that we can no longer look to the traditional reliance on fiscal policy stimulus as a job-creating device.
That was his statement. The minister raises his eyebrows. I raised mine as well when I read it. The kind of programs this minister is involved in, job-creation programs, are fiscal policy stimulus. The minister makes speeches here and across the country saying that they are relying on those kinds of things as a device to help create jobs. Some say they are ineffective, some say they could be more effective, but that is what the government is relying on.
What is confusing things is that this minister speaks with a forked tongue. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. A confusing situation is created.
What does the President of the Treasury Board mean when he says we can no longer look to the traditional reliance on fiscal policy stimulus as a job-creating device? Is he telling us the government is going to do away with the job-creation programs of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy)? Are they going to be diminished? Are they not going to be improved? Is he saying the government is not going to look to recreating the tax system to provide some incentive for investment?
Is the President of the Treasury Board saying the government is going to abandon the research and development stimulus that is necessary in this country? That is a fiscal policy stimulus for Canada. We have opportunities in the high technology industry to create a whole new era of industrial development and secondary manufacturing.
The President of the Treasury Board said in Vancouver what he would not say in Kanata, in my constituency, where people engaged in the high technology industry know the importance of research and development. Is that going to be abandoned? Are no jobs to be created as a result of using the tax system to provide incentives to get people to invest?
Is the government stepping out of manpower training? That is a fiscal policy stimulus and a job-creating device. You train personnel for jobs that are available. Is he saying it is beyond the ken of this government to put in place a tax system that will encourage companies and corporations which require skilled help? They cannot wait for governments. They need these people. They must create their own schools of learning
rather than bring people from abroad at this time when so many young people are looking for work.
Is the President of the Treasury Board saying we are not going to have problems of export promotion support? What is the government saying? On one hand it is not going to look to fiscal policy stimulus. On the other hand it says it is behind research and development and all those other things.
It is this glaring, blatant inconsistency that is confusing the business community, young people looking for guidance and those concerned about the state of the economy; there is one message in Vancouver and another in Ottawa. It depends on the audience to whom ministers are speaking.
What did he say? He says that what the government is going to do will no longer be a quick-fix. We either have a nofix or a quick-fix. The government until recently did not talk about getting on with the job of changing the direction of its economic policy. That is neither quick-fix, slow-fix or no-fix. That is an important initiative.
People think that the meeting at Versailles will be a great watershed convocation of world leaders who will discuss the direction the world will take. I hope they do. I also hope that the confusion that has been added to the debate by the Prime Minister will be removed. While the President of the Treasury Board said one thing in Vancouver, the Prime Minister was quoted in the May 27 edition of the Ottawa Citizen as saying "his government could have a new economic strategy for a fall throne speech if the Versailles Summit fails to find solutions to the world's worsening economic situation".
In other words, if Versailles does not work, Canada is going to do by itself what I said it could not do. It said we are dependent upon the United States; but if Versailles does not work, we will not be dependent on the United States, we will do it on our own. That is the situation. It is that kind of silly, inconsistent economic nonsense which drives Canadians up the wall.
It is about time we considered the situation in which we find ourselves. The cabinet came back from Meach Lake as devoid of new ideas as when it when it went there. They wasted the heat for the building that weekend. They wasted your money, Mr. Speaker, and mine as well as their time because they came away with nothing new in terms of economic directions which would affect to a corresponding degree the unemployment insurance system. We will never do away with it; it should never be done away with. There is a certain amount of humanity about it. From time to time governments have to be humane. They also have to look at situations which face them.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) says in this House there is nothing we can do, that we have to rely on the Americans, that we are caught in the great vice of world conditions. The Prime Minister says that after Versailles the government may do something. The question is why it has not been done before Versailles. Why did the government not do something two years ago when it promised Canadians a number of things about the good life that would accompany the return of the Liberal government to Ottawa?
May 28. 1982

What we have now is a new slogan for Canada. Instead of a new deal for Canada, we have a new slogan- "Liberal times are tough times". The International Monetary Fund indicated just how tough they are. We are into a negative growth rate period in the country for the first time within the memory of many people.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The thirties.


Walter David Baker: I suspect we have not had that kind of situation since before the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was born. That is the kind of inconsistency we face.
The government which says it loves small business is going to help small business through the employment it provides for young people and others. It is going to study again what has already been studied with regard to changes in the legislation and initiatives that could be taken by the government in respect of small business.
It must be dreadful for members opposite to visit their constituencies on the weekend. It must be rough on them. My heart goes out to them. However, my heart goes out also to those people who are the victims of these policies which smack of inconsistency and do damage, not just to this country but to many Canadians who thought when they put this government back in office that something reasonable would be done. That is the situation we find ourselves in and it is under those circumstances that we are considering this bill.
While I have the minister here, I want to put a proposition to him. It is a proposition that he will receive from me in the mail. It deals with some changes that might be made in unemployment insurance legislation and benefits, matters which I suggest are in some respects effecting a discrimination.
1 have in my hand a letter dated May 14, 1982, from a constituent of mine, Mrs. M. E. Villeneuve of No. 4. David Drive, Nepean, Ontario. With a number of other people she prepared, had circulated and had signed within the Ottawa-Carleton region a petition that asked for some changes. I believe I can best put the case by reading the letter into the record, because it lays the matter out. In writing to me she said this:
I object to the fact that there are no unemployment benefits for women who go on leave when they adopt a baby.
When a natural mother has a baby and is on maternity leave, she receives unemployment benefits; and Federal Government employees, in certain categories, now receive additional funds from their employing department. Natural mothers are also able to return to their jobs as early as they wish to earn their salary if they financially need to.
Adoptive mothers must be off work for a six-month period, a policy of Children's Aid Society, with no benefits from unemployment or from their employing department.
When a couple adopts a child they are taking over a government financial responsibility. People who adopt a child go through so much stress and wait for so long, that they certainly deserve the same privileges as any other parents. In this day and age no one can afford to be off work six months without pay, and I pay my unemployment insurance just like anyone else.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
1 feel this is an extremely unfair situation, and you can see from the attached petition that many other people are against this. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for this, and it is time that the government gave unemployment benefits to adoptive mothers instead of continually increasing natural mothers' benefits.
That is how it appears to that mother in that situation. She concludes:
I request that you present this letter and petition on my behalf to the Minister for his consideration. A reply would be most appreciated.
I can tell the minister that I have written to him today and 1 also have sent the petition to him today. At the same time, I felt that as we are going to deal with this legislation today in the House vis-a-vis unemployment insurance, 1 would like to address the matter directly to him today.
I am sure that if he had his way, the programs of the government would be much different. He would not want to go home to Winnipeg every day and defend the banalities of the Minister of Finance to the effect that nothing can be done. I am sure that this is the case with a whole host of backbenchers in his party. That is why there is trouble in the backbenches of the Liberal party, and a great deal of difficulty. I want to say to my friends in the Liberal Party that silence by them, public silence by them, will ensure either one of two things-the continuation of the existing policies which are doing so much damage to their constituents, or a movement away from those policies which will be insufficient to meet the needs of the country, one or the other.
We are members of the opposition. We are always being turned to for advice by the government. We have given them advice but the advice is never taken. It lies in the hands of the Liberal members of this House to move the government away from its damaging fiscal policies; and they will not do it in caucus. I tell you, my dear friends, through you, Mr. Speaker, that you will not do it in caucus.
It is time that backbenchers of the Liberal Party realize the important position which they hold and rise up publicly, openly, in this debate or otherwise, and at whatever opportunity there is, to drive home the point in the British parliamentary system to which the government House leader so often refers when it is convenient to him to do so.


Mr. Pinard:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I see my hon. colleague is making his usual Friday afternoon speech and is throwing dirt at the government and the backbenchers. I want to assure him that there is full solidarity in this party and that there is no way the Liberals will support any Tory government or their policy.
Since he has been referring to me and to the British parliamentary tradition, 1 want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, through you, to say that I have just made public my intent to strike a special committee to deal with parliamentary reform at the beginning of next week. I hope that he will make his views clear there and that he will not stick to the paper he tabled some one or two years ago, because it was less than acceptable.

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)


Walter David Baker: I thank the hon. member very much. He has raised a whole new point that I could discuss.


Some hon. Members:: No, no, no!


Walter David Baker: I do not believe, first of all, that I was throwing dirt on his colleagues.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Shame!


Walter David Baker: I do not care if his colleagues support us. That is not the issue. 1 was not throwing dirt on his colleagues. What 1 was saying to his colleagues was that the responsibility for the present economic situation and its continuation lies on the backs of those Members of Parliament who support publicly the government's economic policy.
Now, they may talk about it in caucus; 1 am sure they do. They may talk about it at home; I am sure they do. But the time has come for them to speak out about it in Parliament, because that is the way you get governments to move.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Right on!


Walter David Baker: That is the way you get
governments, including the government House leader, to pay attention to Parliament-because they have to pay attention to Parliament. 1 hope that those proposals that are brought forth by the government for parliamentary reform go a lot further than just making it convenient for Members of Parliament. What needs to happen here is to create a system where Members of Parliament who represent ordinary people have an opportunity to speak out and to investigate, to be healthy skeptics of what government tells us they are going to do. Unfortunately, what has happened to this Parliament-and the government House leader is admitting this finally-is that Parliament has come more and more under the thumb of the executive.
That is what has happened to this institution. 1 wager that if we had a half decent budget process in place and there had been a good recommendation hanging around since 1977, we would never have had the budget we got on November 12. There is too much good sense in this House of Commons. There is not much good sense in the Department of Finance, not much good sense with the deputy minister of finance, not much good sense with the Minister of Finance. Putting that deputy minister together with the Minister of Finance, with the two of them never having met a payroll in their life, has been a combination that has been lethal to the country. That is the problem. We have never had that kind of thing before.
If this parliamentary reform program will allow Members of Parliament-I do not care what their stripe may be, Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, or Independent even-to make some contribution to policy development, then the minister will have done something. But I warn him that if his program-1 have not seen it yet-is merely designed to meet the convenience of Members of Parliament, then it is not enough, and it will be judged to be not enough by the country or by any interested observer in this place. Because the country is looking
at this place. They are looking at it, the government House leader knows it, and they are going to demand some things of this place. We have the responsibility-I am prepared to accept that, but so has the government-in terms of making it relevant. 1 hope, I pray, that he is enlightened, that he went far beyond his speech to the federal lawyers' club, which was a speech on the cosmetics of parliamentary reform rather than the reality of parliamentary reform to get to the heart of things. My position paper, which he referred to, was not the last word. The problem with the situation is that my position paper was the first word ever heard from a government in a long time about meaningful changes.
Members of Parliament would be a little better off even to take what he describes as those shallow reforms. If they were so shallow, why were they not adopted by the government immediately?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 hate to interrupt my hon. colleague. 1 respect the fact that he has the floor and 1 would not object if he is given a bit more time, if he requires it. However, I think he is on the wrong track. He presumes I will impose on the committee changes just as he tried to do. The reference will be very broad, and the committee will be large in order to allow as many backbenchers as possible to participate.
I hope the hon. member will refrain from participating because 1 would not like to see the old pros giving their views on this; I would like to hear new and good views from backbenchers.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is a rare and refreshing observation. It is not a point of order although it was raised under the guise of a point of order. In any event, we will see what the proposal is. I never look a gift horse in the mouth, but I have a healthy skepticism about what this government tells me it is giving to me. Any time the government gives me a gift, I worry. Sometimes it flares back and kicks me where I am very tender. We will see if that occurs. If my friend's proposals are good, if there is some reasonableness, if he will allow backbenchers and if he does not chair the committee-


Yvon Pinard: 1 won't.


Walter David Baker: -then there may be some hope. I hope it does not die with this Parliament, though, because the problems will be around until the fall and we will have to deal with them.
1 hope my friend does not put his thumb under this. When we get to the moment of truth with respect to parliamentary reform, I hope what happened with respect to freedom of information will not happen again. When we got to the moment of truth with respect to freedom of information the government started to quiver and shake. The government said, "My goodness, we are going to have to give up some secrets; we can't have that." However, 1 will give my friend his due. If it is a good approach and if the committee system is good, he
May 28, 1982

will have my support. We will take a look at it Monday, but there is a long road of parliamentary reform ahead.
1 am a perpetual optimist. I believe sometimes the leopard can change its spots and that suddenly out of a shroud of secrecy there will be a streaker of openness in terms of freedom of information. Where there has been closeness before in terms of parliamentary reform and a desire to keep government in control, 1 hope suddenly there will be a transformation to sainthood and a new plateau of involvement of Members of Parliament. If that is the result, we will all cheer. I will cheer with my friend. If need be, I will even buy a bottle of champagne which we can share together! It will be a bottle of Canadian champagne, by the way. I suspect, however, that many of the things we are discussing in terms of unemployment insurance as well as the economic program of the government would be different if parliament could have been involved.
I want to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness. You allowed me to proceed because you had also allowed the government House leader to do the same thing. As usual, you have presided over the House with the even hand and fairness we have come to expect of anyone from eastern Ontario who approaches that task.
I hope the minister will consider very carefully the question of adoptive parents, who have a unique problem. I also hope the government as a whole will bear in mind the new things that are happening in the unemployment insurance field.
I want to close with one further reference. I found an interesting clipping in The Globe and Mail which reports that the federal government is now setting up an ombudsman's office in Manitoba-I believe in the minister's riding-on a trial basis. I think that is very generous of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). The article in The Globe and Mail says that a new ombudsman would cut Unemployment Insurance Commission red tape. The office is being set up on a trial basis. I think it is wonderful the minister would do that for his riding. I do not know whether additional public servants will be hired for this, but it is a pilot project. It will cost $200,000 in the first year and will be expanded to other provinces if it proves useful. That is what the article says. This office is now being dubbed the "Canada Public Help Centre". The article states the centre, and I quote:
-will open Monday in Winnipeg's Osborne Village area, and will be staffed by four advisers under the direction of Ted Wakeman, a 30-year veteran of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
1,	of course, wish him well in that new undertaking. The minister made an interesting observation about what this is all about. He said it is to "break down the barriers to ensure people get a sympathetic response".
The advisers will help people understand confusing government forms, and will patch up difficulties that occur when public servants have bad days and give their callers the brushoff-
Now we have an ombudsman for those who get the brushoff. What is happening is interesting. When the freedom of information bill goes through, we will have a freedom of information ombudsman. We now have a language ombudsman. We
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
have a penitentiaries ombudsman. We have a privacy ombudsman. We will have a UIC ombudsman.
If I may finish with this thought, I think the government should consider creating an ombudsman to report to this Parliament. There was a first-class bill in 1978, Bill C-43, which was advanced by the then minister of justice, Mr. Basford, which would have created the office of ombudsman. We cannot afford to have these little ombudsmen's offices all across the country. It would be much too expensive if we did it jurisdiction by jurisdiction, problem by problem and statute by statute.
The government's having gone this far, I think a case could be made now to create the office of ombudsman. I speak for myself only in this, naturally. If the government decided to move in that direction, I would be prepared to support it. I might even be prepared to help because what has happened in this country is that government has grown so large that in comparison the ordinary people feel quite small. I think we need help. Members of Parliament can help. Attitudes certainly can help. I think if this pilot project works out-the idea of a new kind of ombudsman is very interesting-the government should perhaps consider bringing in some legislation to create the office of ombudsman. It seems to me that should be the next step in this matter, the government's having gone as far as it has.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues in the House of Commons. I hope the minister will take to heart my comments respecting adoptive parents and that my friend, the government House leader, will reveal himself ultimately as the saviour of Parliament.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate on the bill now before the House. I realize that we, the House leaders, have an agreement to get the bill through all three readings this afternoon. We are now engaged in second reading, and I shall therefore be brief, except to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) on his present initiative to request an extension of the existing legislation, as he has done in the bill now before the House. My colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party, the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), wanted to draw a parallel between parliamentary reform and the policies favoured by the government, and he implied that if our parliamentary rules were different, we would also be getting different policies, especially concerning employment. Perhaps he is right. I am not in a position to contradict his statement out of hand, but where he is making a mistake is when he is looking for scapegoats. I feel that even in 1982, it is rather presumptuous to accuse a few parliamentarians of being responsible for the very slow pace at which our noble institution is gradually becoming more modern. The hon. member knows this as well as I do. More or less as a joke, I said earlier that in a document tabled by the hon. member, there was

May 28. 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
nothing that could be taken seriously. He realizes as well as I do that 1 approve of some of his proposals and already mentioned this to him, and especially, to give only one example, the proposal for a twenty-minute limit on speeches. I have always found this a sensible proposal and 1 certainly would support it if presented again.
However, without wishing to judge too severely his manner of proceeding when he was House leader, I think the proposals he made at the time should first have been considered by all parliamentarians in the course of preparing and approving a report by a parliamentary committee. He implied that he could not accept the proposals I made and explained in a speech to federal lawyers a few months ago. I want to make it clear that every single one of the proposals I made on this occasion had been considered previously by a parliamentary committee in 1976 and 1977, or from 1975 to 1976, it does not make much difference, a committee of which both the member for Nepean-Carleton and myself were members. Since these recommendations had already been made by a parliamentary committee, 1 felt it was entirely proper to air them publicly as being desirable changes in the short term, in order to show some confidence in the growth of our parliamentary procedures and the changes to be made.
In any case, 1 want to give the hon. member the assurance, since he insisted on drawing a parallel between parliamentary reform and the bill before the House today, that the referral to a special committee is a referral of a very general nature that will make it possible for members on both sides of the House to express their views, without constraint or limitation, regarding all aspects of the rules of this House. In addition, there will be no undue limitation on the committee's proceedings, we have no intention of cutting off the committee's work before it has reported to Parliament, and we earnestly hope that parliamentarians and especially backbenchers, will make a major contribution in suggesting procedural changes, as part of the committee's work. That is why when the member for Nepean-Carleton made it clear that he would agree not to sit on the committee, since he is more or less an old hand at parliamentary procedure, he did so provided 1 would agree not to chair the committee. I have no objections. I will not sit on the committee if he does not, so that more backbenchers will be able to express their views. In any case, we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter at the House leader level-I am referring to the membership of the committee. I shall certainly consider the offer made by the member for Nepean-Carleton.
Finally, it should not come as a surprise to him, because earlier today 1 advised the Progressive Conservative House leader and the House leader for the New Democratic Party, of my intention to give notice today of this referral to a special committee of twenty members for the consideration of parliamentary reform, and also to present this motion. I also have the consent of the parliamentary House leaders for approving the referral, without debate, some time next week, probably
early in the week. In the circumstances, there are absolutely no snakes in the grass. This is a very frank and open approach which will make it possible for members on both sides of the House to make recommendations, while the referral also provides for interim reports under which certain changes could be tested. In any case, all this will open the door to changes that may further affect the government's policies but, above all, will make it possible for Parliament to be more efficient and more productive and to respond more satisfactorily and promptly to the present demands of modern society, where problems tend to surface more rapidly than they did in the past.
Consequently, I believe there is reason to rejoice at this approach, and I shall be speaking to this subject in greater detail later on. In concluding, I hope, with the member for Nepean-Carleton, that the policy we are discussing today will be a step toward greater parliamentary flexibility. I am convinced that in view of the present unemployment levels and the economic situation the present bill will be very useful in our society. Once more, I wish to congratulate the minister on his initiative, and I thank members on both sides of the House for their co-operation in expediting the passage of this bill at all three readings today.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-114 this afternoon. Is the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) was rising on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sorry. We tend to focus on the center of the House all the time. It is my mistake. I did not see the hon. member rise. Usually we recognize one member from each party in the debate on an amendment, and in this case also we want to hear the opinion of each party. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was recognized, followed by a member of the government. Now I will recognize the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), followed immediately afterwards by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we speaking on the labour bill or-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sorry, I cannot recognize the hon. member when he is not in his seat.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody was rising in response to the government House leader who strayed far from the contents of the bill we are dealing with here.
May 28, 1982


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


William C. Scott: I will take my orders from other places. 1 thought the hon. member was answering the government House leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There was some confusion, I admit. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton had the floor and was talking of reform. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) spoke at some length on the subject of the committee that will be formed next week. Perhaps the Chair got carried away and was listening with great interest to what was being said. 1 agree that not enough was being said about the matter before the House, namely, the amendment to Bill C-114. However, I recognized the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody. That was done inadvertently because I did not see the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton rise in his place.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I should like to deal with. First of all, it is very strange that in the middle of a discussion on Bill C-l 14 we got into a discussion of parliamentary reform. There is limited time for debate on this bill so I do not think it is advisable at all to stray from it. A number of members want to speak on the bill, and the subject of parliamentary reform will be dealt with at another time. If we are to continue the debate on parliamentary reform then it is proper that we hear a member of the NDP, but we are dealing with Bill C-114 and the proper method is to go from one side to the other. Consequently the next speaker should be from the official opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have not a list of hon. members who have participated. I said that I did not see the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton rise, and therefore inadvertently 1 recognized the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody. That can be withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Consent is not given, so the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I feel like the phoenix rising three times from the ashes. If the rules of relevancy were to be strictly adhered to perhaps both sides of the House would come under criticism from the Chair. 1 support the Chair and the decisions of the Chair. When the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody 1 do not quarrel with that.
There has been a great deal of wandering from the subject in a couple of the other speeches, as was pointed out by the deputy whip for the Conservative Party. I do not think that started with the government House leader. It started with the intellectual and literal, if not verbose musings of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who is a very capable man. He knows how many devils can dance on the head of a pin. He can launch into great stylistic meanderings on a moment's provocation. I think it is only fitting, after all
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
his years in the House, that he be known as "the wizzard of ooze". I am very fond of him personally, even when he makes such gross literary errors as saying that the leopard can change its stripes at any moment. That kind of allusion baffles me, but obviously it does not baffle the master of bafflegab. I think he must have provoked the government House leader, which is why the government House leader got all mixed up, took the heat off the minister of unemployment, and we went on to a debate about parliamentary reform. I think there is probably a need for that because some of us tend to, if not defame, at least deform some aspects of Parliament. We should get on with reform through a special committee, and I think all of us are looking forward to it. I was a little worried, though, about the offer of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton to buy the government House leader a bottle of champagne. I just wondered if that might be considered by some to be payola, or something like that.


Walter David Baker: Canadian champagne.


Mark Willson Rose: Canadian champagne. I am quite sure he did not mean it in that way at all.
Since we started out today speaking about unemployment insurance and the extension of the variable requirement, 1 would just like to make a couple of observations. First of all, we do not oppose the proposed extension. We are going to have a lot to say, though, when the bill is amended because we do not like the attitudes which are assumed in some of the utterances, not only of the minister but also of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in attempting to put the blame for unemployment squarely on the backs of the unemployed, or to shift the cost of unemployment off the federal government and onto provincial welfare rolls. You might be able to do that, but you cannot shift the misery of unemployment to anyone else but the unemployed.
Some people do not pay unemployment insurance whatsoever.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Senators.


Mark Willson Rose: MPs, Senators-


An hon. Member:: Stanley would not let us.


Mark Willson Rose: -but senators do not need it. They have a lifetime job. They do not need severance pay either. But I would point out that an MP's job is one of the most insecure in the world, as perhaps at least some of us have occasion to know. The average time in office of an MP is 5.3 years, so the job security is not all that great, and perhaps we as a group should be paying unemployment insurance regardless of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might have said.
I am sorry the minister has gone, Mr. Speaker, not that I blame him after the last couple of exchanges. He urged us not to talk today about the level of unemployment. He asked us to

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
avoid all discussions of the misery and insecurity of those employed who are about to lose their jobs. He did not want us to talk about long-awaited changes or what improvements we might suggest to unemployment insurance. He did not want us to talk about the grim employment prospects for students and young people. I do not blame him. He does not want us to talk about that because he wants people to forget about it and talk about the brave new world which will come about with some future legislation. He does not want us to talk about the 1.5 million unemployed, the people who have given up looking for work, the young people in communities with perhaps 20 per cent or 25 per cent unemployment. He does not want us to talk about native unemployment, which runs up to 80 per cent in some communities. I can understand why he does not want us to talk about that. 1 do not blame him. He said it would be redundant if we were to talk this afternoon about those things because, after all, we have a great chance to talk about those things some other time. Perhaps we will have that opportunity when Bill C-115 is introduced. Interestingly enough, the minister had a proposal that we should introduce that bill for second reading, not waste the time of the House this afternoon with Bill C-114 which everyone favours, but deal with the minister's second reading speech and we could have ours the following week. That was a very generous offer, especially when one considers that the minister woulld introduce the bill, it would be discussed in the press, and he would be the only one to get any news out of it. I think when we deal with Bill C-115 we should be all here together to discuss it, and each party's critic should have the opportunity to provide input.
So, Mr. Speaker, he does not want us to talk about those things. The government does not want us to talk about lots of things. A committee of the government, though, certainly talks about things. A committee of Liberal members talks about things. Here is a leaked document of a caucus committee, including one cabinet minister and one ex-cabinet minister. What are they talking about? They say:
The political-economic situation is very serious and every effort must be made to improve it.
We cannot disagree with that. The document says:
Committee must help demonstrate that the Liberals have the will and determination to govern.
No one can quarrel with that because they are demonstrating just the opposite at the moment. They are falling apart at the seams. Hardly a week goes by without some backbencher getting up on his hind legs and saying things about his own government which are hardly complimentary. It goes on:
The committee should probe radically alternative ways of revitalizing the economy and of offsetting current hardships.
That is what members of the government are saying. We have been saying that for years now, but the government is now beginning to catch up and talk about things like that, too. But there is a cautionary note here when it says we:
-must ensure that whatever is recommended it be consistent with Liberal philosophy.
I have been here some 14 years and what the Liberal philosophy is completely eludes me, if it is an identifiable philosophical position. There might have been a Liberal philosophy at one time, but what it is today is: do what you have to do and get away with all you can.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a philosophy.


Mark Willson Rose: That is the philosophy. I am glad the minister admitted that is the philosophy. They go on to ask: what do we do and how do we achieve it? The document goes on to say we:
-need to break the bureaucratic stranglehold on the system. Structure of government departments frustrates effective direction by ministers and prevents an imaginative, action-oriented approach.
1 could go on and on. I am pleased to read that into the record, not just to embarrass the government, but to suggest that even the very prominent members of that government are worried. They look at the polls and are worried. Well they should be, because, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said earlier, the country is worried. We have entered a period of negative growth for the first time since the depression.
I would like to direct the minister, Mr. Speaker, to a very serious matter which is not beyond his ability to correct.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Where is he?


Mark Willson Rose: He is the Scarlet Pimpernel; one minute he is here, the next minute he has gone.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is on the telephone.


Mark Willson Rose: The next time I wish to speak to him, then, 1 will phone him. He is listening to me on the telephone. 1 am very pleased to hear that.


An hon. Member:: He is out looking for a job.


Mark Willson Rose: I do not know where he would get a job. In any event, I do not want to proceed as though what I was about to discuss were a frivolous matter or one that I did not care about. It has to do with the farm workers in the Fraser Valley. Many of these people are of one ethnic group. Many of them do not speak English. Many are new immigrants and work for $1.25 an hour. Many of these people are among the lowest paid people in my riding. They go from job to job as the crops ripen and develop doing farm work. Most of these jobs do not last more than a few weeks. Sometimes they do not last more than a few days. Because they do not last for more than a few days, they cannot work for one employer more than a few days and, therefore, they cannot establish the 25-day minimum necessary for them to qualify for unemployment insurance. I do not know of any other working group of people in society who are discriminated against in the same way that farm workers are. I do not know why this is so. On the other hand, if these people decide not to go to work for an individual farmer-because if they do and they work less than 25 days they do not qualify for unemployment insurance-and instead are employed by a farm labour contractor who can put them to work at several farms over a season, then they do qualify for unemployment I suppose if it works that way in the Fraser
May 28, 1982

Valley with crops such as broccoli, strawberries and raspberries, it should also work for us in southern Ontario with our grape picking, tobacco harvesting, and so on.
In addition to being very low-paid and having most insecure jobs, which causes difficulty in plugging themselves into the system-at least this is the experience of my constituents, many of whom are immigrants-they are discriminated against in terms of unemployment insurance because they cannot qualify for benefits.
I do not claim that all farm labour contractors are exploitive. They are not. They perform a good service for some of these people. But a person should not be faced with having to work for a farm contractor because otherwise he will not receive unemployment insurance. They should have the choice of working either for an individual farmer or for a farm labour contractor.
At the moment Section 16 of the regulations forbids this. If a farm worker goes to work for two weeks for farmer A and then two weeks for farmer B, he does not have the necessary 25 qualifying days. Therefore, he is not eligible for unemployment insurance. When that farm worker is laid off, as all of them are because this work is seasonal, he collects no benefits even though he has to pay the premiums. That is blatantly unfair.
This is not a new problem. It goes back two years, if not longer. It is at least two years that I know of, but the situation has become so bad that farm workers, like the lettuce and the grape harvesters in California, have formed a union. We hear people say there are too many unions and that unions are too strong. But unions come about because people are forced to bargain collectively in order to look after themselves. A farm workers' union has developed in the Fraser Valley. It will grow as it has in California and elsewhere, because there must be some way of fighting for rights collectively. You would think that people would have to fight a big, rotten and inflexible bureaucracy in order to change the act. That is only half right. They do not have to fight to change the act. The regulation is all that needs changing, and that can be done by order in council. That is all that is required to right what I think is a wrong which should not be perpetuated.
The farming season is nearly upon us, and there is no protection or relief for these people. If there is a Liberal philosophy which is: do what we have to and do only when we have to, and if there is more to it than that-and I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who is the acting Prime Minister, is nodding approvingly-surely a simple change by order in council is not beyond the ability of the government and a process which would not take long.


Walter David Baker: After all, there are more than 3,000 orders in council each year.


Mark Willson Rose: This is not the first time I have mentioned this matter. On December 8, when the Christmas spirit pervaded all our hearts, including, presumably, those who govern-


Douglas Keith Anguish: Including the Liberals?
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)


Mark Willson Rose: -I rose under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and said this:
In contrast to other workers like plumbers and carpenters, Section 16 of the Unemployment Insurance Act denies farm workers all unemployment insurance credit for the days worked unless they work 25 days for the same employer. Thus, over 100,000 farm workers among Canada's poorest paid workers who are not normally covered by minimum wage legislation, health and safety protection, or workers' compensation benefits, are victims of unemployment insurance discrimination which can force these workers into the arms of labour contractors who can, by moving workers from job to job, employ farm workers for the season for a fee of sometimes up to 40 per cent of their already low wages.
I moved then that we change this regulation because it is only right and just to do so.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we support the extension of the bill. We want to see it go through all its stages today. We think this is important. We look forward to improvements when the act is changed. But we are not all that optimistic about improvements in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Our experience has been just the reverse. Cutbacks have occurred and the poor have been blamed for the failure of the government's economic policy. I could certainly speak on that topic as well. However, 1 will not do so today. I will leave the House, I hope, with a very determined wish, supported, I think, by all fair-minded people, that we scrap Section 16 of the Unemployment Insurance Act regulations and start treating people who work in the agricultural industry on a seasonal basis as decently as we treat other people who work in our society and who have more protection.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) yesterday about this bill, he said it was the wish of our party that this bill receive speedy passage through the House. We all agreed on that and we agreed that we would keep our remarks brief. I am sure this was also the wish of the minister. Today, however, the government House leader made a very lengthy interjection, and I am sure other members were involved, which puzzled us. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are affected by this legislation, and all of us should see to it that this bill pass.
I am, however, critical of the minister for waiting until the eleventh hour to introduce this bill. This legislation needs many amendments. Probably the minister agrees, but the point was agreed on years ago, yet here we are with a bill that has to be passed in all stages today to enable the unemployed in Canada to receive instead of what should be a paycheque some form of assistance.
I am very critical of the bill, and there are many sections of it which should be discussed. Many amendments should be made. 1 am sure every Member of Parliament has constituents phoning daily saying that they cannot get their unemployment insurance or their maternity benefits. We should also be dealing with the point raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) concerning adoptive parenthood regulations and benefits. This is something which certainly needs attention. This bill should be more creative and should stimulate people to work instead of merely passing out unemployment insurance cheques to them just to enable them to make ends meet. We should be striving to provide something more

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No, 2)
meaningful in life for them. That is the direction in which the unemployment insurance program should be headed.
1 believe that this bill should have been dealt with some time ago. I believe that it is proper that the minister had asked for input from members of Parliament since a Member of Parliament has a better opportunity to indicate how the bill may rectify problems that our constituents are having. The minister reflected this view recently in the House when we were speaking about the workload that some offices in the Unemployment Insurance Commission were taxed with. He indicated that he would look into the matter if hon. members would bring it to his attention. While that is very kind of him it is, after all, his department's responsibility. It is not the responsibility of a member to bring this to his attention.
There should be more prompt payment of claims, which is a matter we should be dealing with today. However, we are setting this aside for another year. I hope that in another year's time we will not once again be dealing with this at the eleventh hour. 1 hope something can be done in the meantime to have this bill put through with many amendments made to it. We need this Unemployment Insurance Act in our changing society. I do not think that any member would argue with that fact.
Another gross unfairness within the act concerns the regional boundaries. This had also been mentioned by the hon. member for Rosedale with respect to the riding of Simcoe North. I have the privilege and the honour of representing the two townships, Roma and Mara which he mentioned some time ago, which are located just outside of Orillia. These townships are grouped with the Toronto area for unemployment insurance entrance purposes. Also within my riding is the township of Georgina in the region of York where unemployment is the highest of any region in the regional municipality of York. Yet it too is grouped with the city of Toronto. I find that this is very unfair.
I think this bill is long overdue. What grieves me is that my constituents who live in the county of Haliburton and the county of Victoria are probably grouped with other areas where there are different industries and different unemployment problems. The entire riding of Victoria-Haliburton has an unemployment insurance rate of 9.5 per cent. It had been recommended by DREE in 1980 that this area would suffer large scale unemployment by the mid-1980s. Yet this area is not entitled to the DREE program to stimulate employment; it is ignored.
I have met with the minister many times. As late as yesterday, 1 travelled with the ex-minister responsible for DREE, who is still involved with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I asked him about a DREE grant for my area. He said that it is coming and the government is working on it. I have heard this assertion for years but nothing happens.
I realize that we cannot take time on this very important bill and that there are other members who wish to speak to it. But
I believe that we should not deal with this bill which affects so many Canadians in this manner. One would think from the way the debate was conducted by the government House leader that there were many Members of Parliament who would be unemployed. He brought that statement into it. It did not relate whatsoever to the bill we are discussing today.
I believe that the government should not delay any longer and should begin to introduce amendments to this bill immediately. I join in expressing the sentiment of many other members who spoke today that we need reform. We need to have a bill introduced which has some meaning and which will provide some light at the end of the tunnel for the unfortunate unemployed of this motion. We need new programs introduced.
I do not understand why the minister's riding has been chosen to have an ombudsman, as was revealed by the member for Nepean-Carleton. There are many other parts of our country that probably need and should have an ombudsman as well. I do not know when the minister will make that announcement, but it has probably been leaked out by now.
In closing, I would suggest that the government is responsible for the fact that this bill is necessary. The government came in with many promises and all the answers for an ailing economy in the 1980 election, but the economy has become increasingly worse ever since. I hope that the government will take the gravity of this situation to heart. This bill should receive top priority. It has not reached that stage yet and it is the government's responsibility to take it there.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I will begin my remarks by saying that I believe it is a tragedy that we are dealing with an unemployment insurance bill in one day, when, had the minister seen fit to introduce it sooner we could have taken it to committee and given it a thorough examination to determine whether it needed further amendments. However, I understand the urgency of the plea.
I come from Calgary, a community in Canada which has been an engine of growth within the last decade. Last Saturday I attended a meeting in that city at which there were many people who had lost their jobs and had either lost or were losing their homes because they could not afford to pay their mortgages at 19 per cent. They especially cannot afford those mortgages when they are unemployed.
I stand here today as someone who has recently experienced what is a very frightening phenomenon, that is, a government which can turn a healthy and thriving community and country into a disaster zone through its ill-conceived policies. We are debating this bill today because there are four times as many unemployed Canadians as there were 14 years ago when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. It is an achievement to turn out four times as many Canadians in 14 years. That is the undeniable record of the government.
I wish there was more money available for the unemployed.
I realize, however, that our taxes are almost double what they were 14 years ago.
May 28, 1982

Another item which has risen 12 times as much in 14 years is the interest on the public debt. It represents 14 years of mismanagement, which has created a situation where 12 times as much money today is required to pay the interest on the public debt. As well, a good portion of that money leaves Canada. This means that it is not available for unemployment insurance, hospital beds or pensioners. That money simply pays the bankers' interest on the debt which this government has incurred over 14 years, with the encouragement and even the blackmail of the New Democratic Party, going back to the mid-1970s.
We have a tragic economic situation today. This dilemma was predictable. We stand here today knowing that last year we spent $4.8 billion in unemployment insurance benefits. That is a lot of money; close to $5,000 million. Last year we also spent twice as much as that amount on importing one commodity, that is oil. Today we are buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Mexico and other countries at $35 and $45 a barrel, which amounts to some $10,000 million annually. In the meantime, oil sits in the ground in western Canada because we have a government that developed a policy which favours the importation of oil. We have a government which has developed a policy indicating that Canadian oil should be left in the ground, Canadian jobs should be lost and unemployment rolls shall grow. That is the rhythm of the energy policy to which this nation has been subjected since the "Liberal Party West" chose to throw out a sensible government. The NDP, the "Liberal Party West" threw out a sensible government and returned a government-


Some hon. Members:: The people!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -whose record has been, is today and will be tomorrow a tragedy for Canadians, and then it had the gall to stand in the House and say, "We care. We would like to get rid of unemployment. Let us throw more money at the problem."


An hon. Member:: The people put you out!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: But do the hon. members ever say how the government is to raise the money? Do they feel very good about the borrowing pattern over the last 14 years, with the result that today 23 cents out of every federal tax dollar goes to pay the interest on the debt? When one pays taxes, the government is left with 77 cents out of every dollar one gives. The rest goes to the bankers. The taxes go up, but the payment of interest goes up even faster. We have less money today. The NDP solution is to tax business. Where do the unemployed come from? Where did the unemployed come from, if it were not businesses which had to lay people off and then went bankrupt? Where did the unemployed come from, if it was not a factor that-
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)


Ian Deans: How about young people who cannot get into the work force?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -the costs went up so high that they could not sell the things they produced?


Ian Deans: How about the young people who cannot get into the work force?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The young people cannot get into the work force because the factories are closed.


Ian Deans: Because they are poorly managed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Support the labour union leadership, not the membership. The leadership wants 30 per cent raises. In Medicine Hat, just in the last two weeks, there was a union like that, a leadership like that, which represented 175 people and it wanted 30 per cent raises. All right, that is what they got, but the business was closed and not one of those 175 people is working. They just had an auction, sold off the equipment and there are no more jobs for those 175 people. Did we really ask those 175 people if that is what they wanted? Or were they the captives of a leadership element which was paid so well it was out of touch with the grass roots and did not understand that the grass roots person in this country, in Canada today, is a person who cares, who wants a job, who wants a chance to be promoted, who wants a life which allows him to own a home and to have a decent standard of medical care? That is what the grass roots of this country want and we have a leadership which has gone berserk at the urging of people who have no common sense at all. To be spending $10 billion a day, paying four nations, importing oil when the oil is sitting in the ground in Canada, is not common sense.


Ian Deans: Right!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is not common sense to tax a business or an individual to the point where he cannot compete in the marketplace, where the things he produces cannot be sold. It is insanity. It is not common sense.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You want to tax the consumer!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is not common sense. The prescription or the trail that we have been on for the last 14 years, is a disastrous trail. I think people can understand it. Today it is possible for people in the gallery and people watching television to go out and get many credit cards or to go out and borrow a lot of money. But they must surely know that if they borrow so much money that their entire paycheque goes to pay the interest on the money they have borrowed, they will have nothing left for food. That is the growing achievement of this government, aided, abetted and supported by the New Democratic Party. It is a prescription for borrowing today to pay back tomorrow.
I remind people that today we spend 12 times as much paying the interest on debt as we did on the day that the Prime Minister took office. In 14 years, we have increased our need to pay interest by 1,200 per cent. There has been a 1,200 per
17894

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
cent increase. That is one of the major reasons for our difficulties, because money is auctioned. The government borrows 25 per cent of what it spends, goes out into that auction market and competes against everyone in this chamber, everyone in our gallery and everyone watching television who wants to borrow money. It drives up the cost of that money. It drives up interest rates because its borrowing needs are so high. When it does that, it causes the small businesses in this country to collapse.
I would like to refer to interest rates. Farmers cannot afford the interest rates and they have no choice but to lay off their employees, to voluntarily liquidate or to go into bankruptcy, and the jobs are gone. The need for help for those important, unfortunate victims increases. So the costs go up and the jobs go down. That has been the prescription in this country for 14 years.
I would like to conclude by drawing the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to the Hansard of June 26, 1980, almost two years ago. I would like to remind hon. members of the New Democratic Party that that was the last evening on which we considered an employer tax credit bill. Hon. members in our party fought the government and the New Democratic Party in this chamber for eight days. We said that unemployment would get worse and the economy would collapse. The cheapest and best way to create jobs in this country is through employer tax credit programs, some kind of wage subsidy program, because that would help people, especially young people, to get and keep jobs. Instead of costing an employer $260 a week, it would cost about $65 a week. For one quarter of the the same dollar, four times as many jobs could be created. One other impact would be to reduce the cost and the production of those goods. They would be cheaper to make, inflation would be kept down and jobs would be created.
On June 26, 1980, I moved an amendment which would have extended that program for an additional two years. It would have been in place today. There would have been more jobs in the Canadian economy.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Bail out big business!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The hon. members of the "Liberal Party West", the New Democratic Party, said no to that amendment. The Minister of Employment and Immigration said no to that amendment. Two years later, we are standing here with a major problem which must be solved. Common sense must begin to prevail. In the inner workings of the Liberal cabinet, it is crystal clear there are people charged with the responsibility to help people. The Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), and the minister responsible for social policy, are losers in the resource game. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) are the winners in the resource game. When hon. members, through passive behaviour, allow the minister of energy to win, they are sending money and jobs out of the country to other nations. When they allow the Minister of Finance to win, they are doing the same thing. It is about time that the backbenchers on the other side stood up in caucus,
stood up in this chamber, and forced that cabinet to pay attention to those ministers who are supposed to help people, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and others. You can no longer afford, in the name of common sense, to allow the minister of energy to win the resource battles. We will help the Minister of Employment and Immigration today to pass this bill, because Canadians need it. Next time, I hope he brings it in a little sooner so we can look to see if it will be even more helpful. But we need the help of the backbenchers on the other side.
The minister of energy is a minister who has caused more economic grief in this country, more of this unemployment with which we are dealing, than one can ever imagine. If you have a day and a half, read the transcripts and you will find out how and why. However, he must be replaced with somebody with common sense. That is the way to get this nation back together and get rid of the unemployment problem. Get rid of the ministers who are causing it. It cannot be done without the will of the backbenchers on the other side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the chair.
On Clause 1-Short title
Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I did not want to interrupt because I did not want to delay the Committee of the Whole, but I have a couple of questions for the minister.
The minister will recall we had some difficulty with regard to discrimination in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. For example, there was a time when women who fished with their families were discriminated against. The minister may recall the case of the squid fisherwomen. There are still elements of that, I suspect. In any event, I want to give the minister an opportunity to report to the House on what steps he has taken to close the loopholes which allow for women to be discriminated against in the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report to the hon. member that we did take actions to allow women who are spouses of fishermen who would also be eligible for fishermen's benefits to also collect those benefits. I do not have the exact details in front of me, but I will be glad to provide them to the hon. member.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. He was out of the room making a phone call when I made the plea about Section 16 of the regulations which discriminates
May 28, 1982

against farm workers. Is the minister considering removing through order in council Section 16 at an early date?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member. I was called to the phone. I am sorry 1 did not have the chance to hear the whole tone of his remarks. I will look at the transcript of his remarks in the House this afternoon and give him the reply by letter at the beginning of next week, if that is agreeable. I would prefer to have his exact remarks before trying to reply in the House.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I have three questions for the minister. I will ask them quickly because I understand there is an agreement.
First, there are a lot of people unemployed. Many of them try to find jobs on their own. Sometimes when they find a job, they have to get to that job immediately, and it requires a move. Under the regulations, persons are supposed to make arrangements before moving in order to receive any moving assistance. I would ask the minister whether there is any flexibility, as many of those unemployed who find a job on their own do not have the chance to get to the unemployment insurance office first, as there are not that many in the country. Could there be some flexibility to encourage our unemployed to find jobs by offering them some assistance with regard to moving expenses?
Second, I want to reinforce the argument made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton in connection with adoptions. Many of my constituents have adopted babies two, three or four days old. That is tantamount to having given birth to those babies. The department insists that a mother stay home with a baby for six months. Many can ill afford to do that. They have taken the child and given that child a name. Will the minister give consideration to amending the statute so that those adopting will receive some consideration with regard to unemployment insurance?
Third, 1 would like to mention a situation with regard to telephones in the Calgary office. Sometimes you phone and phone and phone. There is an antiquated telephone system in that office. Other government offices have switchboards. It is not necessary to sit listening to a busy signal minute after minute, sometimes up to half an hour. I would like to pay tribute to John Hodge, the man in Calgary. He does a good job. However, he is handicapped because of the telephone system. He has not told me that, but I know. I would like to see a switchboard installed in those offices where there are a great number of calls. This would help keep down the blood pressure of people, and they would not explode when someone finally answers the phone.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question of mobility, we have a mobility grant program. I can report that that program has been used substantially more in the last few months than a year ago. It is designed for permanent, not temporary moves. There are certain conditions with regard to the distance one must travel. The reason we require a person to go through our office is so that we can verify that it is a
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)
legitimate move and meets the conditions. I will be glad to supply the hon. member with a more complete explanation. 1 am conscious of the clock; 1 do not want to take too much time. However, it is a legitimate question and he will be provided with an analysis of what is taking place.
I am glad the hon. member raised the question of adoptions.
I receive a great many representations on this, not only from the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton but from many members of the House. These proposals were contained in the task force recommendations on reform. They are being kindly looked upon by my colleagues in government. We have not completed our recommendations. I can assure the hon. member that these are areas we plan to act on when we bring in the omnibus bill for reform to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
With regard to the third point of telephones, I cannot give an immediate answer. I will ask the deputy minister's office to look into this and I will get back to the hon. member.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to tell us when he anticipates bringing in the comprehensive reform bill. There are a number of matters we want to deal with in the House.
The second matter is directly involved with the bill. Some time ago I wrote the minister about the situation that prevails with regard to the interpretation of being involved in a labour dispute and the problems that flow from that. Has the minister had an opportunity to look at the proposals for change in keeping with the case that he dealt with very well? It affected a number of employees in Hamilton during the Steel Company of Canada strike. Can we expect to see some change to that interpretation? Is he in a position to give us an indication as to what sort of change we can expect to see?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, on the first question, that decision is not entirely in my hands. We have gone through a full year of consultation, and recommendations are being considered by cabinet. Because of their extensive nature, we felt we needed a good deal of parliamentary time in order to give them proper examination. That would be a matter for the government to decide in terms of the next session and when the distinguished House leader feels we will be able to give the matter proper consideration. That is a matter for discussion between him, the hon. member and the hon. member for Yukon. We would be prepared to bring in our recommendation as soon as we can. Under the circumstances, I would like a clearer picture of what is taking place so that we can modify it to take that into account.
We established a committee of employers and trade union people to examine what changes can be made to Section 44 dealing with the unemployment insurance requirements during strikes. Their findings were not exactly universal or based upon consensus. My officials now have the findings of that committee and are preparing a report for me. If it is possible to arrive at something satisfactory for both sides, we will see if we can include it in the omnibus bill.

May 28, 1982
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2)


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Chairman, not only the unemployment insurance program but a number of other programs which are supposedly of a job-creating nature come under the jurisdiction of the minister. They are to be based on the percentage of unemployment in that particular region. In regions such as those that I represent, particularly those in the north of Canada and those areas that have a large indigenous population, the Statistics Canada figure can create a problem. I will give an example. In my constituency 8 per cent unemployment is shown, whereas offices within the Department of Employment and Immigration will say that the real rate is something like 22 per cent, because many people just are not counted, they are no longer entitled to UIC benefits and they are not counted at all.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is aware of this type of problem and is proposing any solution. It is becoming more and more widespread that programs are based on the percentage of unemployed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, that is similar to the issues raised on second reading by the member for Rosedale, with a view to getting a much better definition of unemployment, who is unemployed, and how we can provide for more adequate distinction for the different categories. I associate myself with these remarks because it is important to have a clear understanding. I have asked my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, to find out if StatsCan could find a more appropriate way of coming to grips with the issue. The report back was that, without exceptional additional expense the present labour survey is probably the most useful tool that we have to make those judgments about the rate of unemployment. We do take into account as the member knows, that that part of the problem is caused by the fact that a number of native people on the reserves are not included in the labour report survey. We tend to build that factor into the formula when we come to the calculation of the allocation of money for the direct problem of unemployment. We just do not use the labour force survey statistics in that respect. We do build in some additional factors.
I would like to find a better answer for those points raised by the hon. member for Rosedale. We are trying to examine the position to find if there is a more effective way to come to grips with the figures. It is not always fair to compare the labour force survey with the actual number of claims that there may be in an unemployment centre office at that time. The unemployment centre judges claims by a different means, and they are in regard to different cycles. The labour surplus judgment that they make is not always an accurate reflection of what the actual rate of unemployment may be.
I must confess that I am as perplexed at times as the hon. members opposite are. We have asked StatsCan to look into the problem to see if we can get a better reading on it, to find a system that is not only effective but also that is not so costly as to be prohibitive.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions for the minister. The minister will recall that on March 24, 1982, there was a motion under Standing Order 43 that I raised regarding the question of voluntary lay-offs. There was an exchange of correspondence relating to that. The minister's last answer was, I think, on April 30, 1982. I am not sure-it may be partly my fault or maybe the minister misread it somewhere in an excerpt-but I would like to explain the problem again and again get a response from the minister so that he could take another look at it.
What basically happens in these cases is that a discrimination takes place as between the treatment of employees of nonunion firms and the treatment of employees of unionized firms which have seniority clauses and collective agreements. In the case of a non-unionized company, the Unemployment Insurance Commission will simply accept the word of the employer that a given person is laid off. But where there is a collective agreement in place, the UIC tends to go behind that decision and see whether or not it is going to accept the word of the employer, and make its own judgment as to who should or should not be laid off in the circumstances. Here is what has happened in some of these cases. I am not attempting to sensationalize it in regard to the allegations, because one never knows what the medical reasons may be. There have been older employees in some cases who have been forced to remain on the job, people who are close to retirement, working on very heavy jobs that they are not used to any more, and who have suffered injury and are now on compensation. In some cases it is alleged that heart attacks have occurred and that at least one person has died as a result of that. It is urgent that we return to the kind of humane consideration and flexibility in the interpretation of regulations, that we require to go back to the system of two or three years ago, when the UIC simply accepted the word of the employer, in good faith, that this was the person who was laid off. That is one question to which I would like an answer.
The second question deals with another matter. I know that the minister is currently considering some correspondence from me. I have not yet received the answer, but I am sure his staff is working on it. The problem arises owing to the existence of clauses in collective agreements whereby employees do not receive their holiday pay, for example, for Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day, because they were on layoff. These agreements state that they must work the scheduled day preceding the holiday and the day following, and that has to be within a 60 day period. What has happened is that we have many employees, many hundreds in my own community alone, who have found themselves intermittently off and on work over a period of months and months. But because they reported back to work once within that 60 day period they are now dinged for two or three days' unemployment insurance overpayments, sometimes having to make up for the whole qualifying period, depending on when that vacation or the time of lay-off fell.
When you have been unemployed for five out of six months and find yourself dinged for that much money, surely there is
May 28, 1982

something in the way of humane consideration that could be put in place so that we are not playing the role of the Grinch that stole Christmas retroactively, or something like that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, as I explained in the correspondence with the hon. member, it is certainly not the intention of the commission to play that heavy role in this area. It merely comes down, in many cases, to the choice of the older worker who, because of the existence of a collective agreement, is given the right to choose voluntarily to be laid off and thereby provide the remaining work space for a younger worker. That choice is made usually in the circumstances where the collective agreement provides for a sub, where there is a payment procedure through the collective agreement for a lay-off.
Of course, where we get caught in the cross-fire is that we see that, according to the legislative framework, as a voluntary lay-off without just cause and a six-week penalty is therefore imposed for doing that. We understand that that may be done for good reasons. One may want to help the younger worker to stay on the job and that may bear ultimately on the sub. But to make that change, to take into account that peculiar case in that collective agreement would mean that we would open up the whole question of a large number of people who could take voluntary lay-offs and therefore be held to receive these benefits, and that, as you know, would run counter to the wishes of Parliament when they made the amendments earlier. That is the reason for the problem.
I will take a look at this correspondence again to see if we can come up with a more satisfactory answer. I suppose that perhaps when we get to the larger bill and if we have time to discuss it in committee, we can get to a better exchange on this matter at that time.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4.10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders preceding No. 111 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Broadcasting Act BROADCASTING ACT


AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT ADVERTISING ON CHILDREN'S TELEVISION PROGRAMS
James Aloysius McGrath: that Bill C-311, to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up too much of the time of the House except to bring the House up to date on a measure that has been before it now for approximately 13 years. The bill was first introduced in the House in 1970, and it was at the second reading stage on November 22, 1971. Of course, at that time it was talked out.
Just by way of interest let me point out that during the course of that debate there was a very distinguished intervention by Your Honour, which I am sure you will want to read at page 9945 of Hansard for November 26, 1971.
Let me bring it up to date a little bit further. The bill was again introduced in 1973 as Bill C-22, and at that time it was agreed that the bill would be withdrawn and the order withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the then Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. We held very substantial hearings indeed. We heard from a number of witnesses, 19 altogether. Indeed, the hearings were comprehensive and resulted in a very interesting report to the House, which hon. members can find if they refer back to the first session of the Twenty-ninth Parliament in 1973. 1 presume the Journals for July of that year would have the report. It should interest the House if I put on the record the recommendations of the committee, which were unanimously concurred in by the House, as follows:
In the opinion of your committee, it is recommended that consideration be given to the advisability of taking whatever action is necessary, including the introduction of legislation to accomplish the following objectives:
1)	that the CRTC pass regulations which would provide that advertising must not be directed exclusively to children;
2)	that the CRTC limit further the number of commercial minutes per hour during children's programmes;
3)	that the CRTC require the deletion of advertising directed to children from American programming distributed on the Canadian cable systems;
4)	that the Income Tax Act be amended so that advertising directed at Canada on foreign television stations would no longer be considered deductible for income tax purposes;
5)	that ways and means be found to expand the Canadian programme production industry with particular emphasis on the creation of children's programmes.
As I say, those recommendations were unanimously concurred in by the House, and it would be well for us to consider what has happened since that time. Indeed, that is the purpose for bringing on the bill at this time, to enable the House to being itself up to date on just exactly what has happened since the House unanimously concurred on those five recommendations.
I believe hon. members will find there is a disposition on the part of the House to do just that by way of an amendment which would have the effect of withdrawing the bill and the order at second reading and having the subject matter referred

May 28, 1982
Broadcasting Act
to committee, which would allow the committee an opportunity to call the CRTC to ask the CRTC to report to it on just exactly what progress has been made with respect to the implementation of the recommendations of the committee which were concurred in by the House.
I will not go into the arguments in support of the bill. I refer hon. members to Hansard for November 26, 1971, page 9941. I have already made reference to the report of the committee; the bill is the same bill, and the arguments we could put forward can be found there. Since I believe there is a disposition on the part of the government to allow the subject matter of the bill to go to committee, I will not take up any more time of the House other than to say that I believe this is a very important matter. Children are influenced by television more than any other group in our society. Children are much more vulnerable than any other group in our society and, hence, they need the protection of society.
Advertising for children usually is perceived as a directive or an order, and often a child-especially a child as defined by the bill, one who is under ten years of age-cannot differentiate between a commercial message and the program the child is watching. This creates a great deal of confusion. It creates stress on the child-parent relationship, especially in these difficult economic times.
As I say, I could go on and on, but 1 will conclude by just noting that since the bill was introduced, Quebec has introduced its own legislation which prohibits this form of advertising within the province of Quebec. 1 believe that has created jurisdictional problems which have been the subject of court references from time to time. I think that as well could be something we could look into when this matter is referred to the committee.
In any event, I thank the government in anticipation of the amendment which I expect will come forward to allow the subject matter of this bill once again to be referred to committee.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I and my party agree with the bill, as we did in 1973. I heartily recommend that it go to the appropriate committee, and hopefully this time something will come of its recommendations, certainly as they apply to certain private broadcasters here but, also as they apply to programs which spill over into our country from the great nation to the south of us.
I recall the hearings vividly. While I did not take full part in all of them, I can well remember the effort and the concern expressed by some companies producing breakfast foods. They manufactured their "crunchies" out of some sort of sawdust and loaded them with sugar and then defended the nutritional value of their products before our committee, even to the point of bringing in experts and nutritionists from south of the border to defend the position they took.
This bill will not be embraced with jubilation by all advertisers, so I think it takes a great deal of courage on the part of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to bring this bill forward again and also for Parliament and our broadcasting authority, the CRTC, to do something about it.
I do not think the fight will be an easy one. The idea of a voluntary code will be the idea most appealing to many advertisers. The point is that a voluntary code has not worked; otherwise, we would not need to have this bill.
As I said before, we agree with the intent of the bill, and probably would support stronger legislation than is actually in this bill. However, I understand that it is only the subject matter of the bill that will be referred to the committee. If it is referred to the committee-and I understand it is to be- perhaps in its wisdom the committee might take stronger steps than are outlined here.
Since the inception of CBC television the CBC has had an advertising ban on child-directed educational programs. Five years ago the CBC increased its restriction on child-directed advertising, and a total ban on advertising during programs directed at children under 13 has been in effect for some time. This has not been the case on a number of private broadcasting stations. A total ban on advertising adjacent to-meaning before and after-programs directed to children under the age of 13 is also part of the CBC code. There are also restrictions on the number of child-directed commercials during prime time or family viewing times. That is also part of the code, and I support that, as does my colleague, the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who moved a motion under Standing Order 43 the other day proposing to ban television commercials during prime time if they are commercials advertising horror films which show the most violent and sensational clips from those films while children are watching which, presumably, they are since it is a time for family viewing and the programming is supposed to be suitable for family viewing.
I think there are a lot of areas that could be examined and investigated. Certainly, violence of any kind is something we should guard against. In our society there is far too much violence, and allowing it, or in effect almost recommending it to children as a form of entertainment or masochism, is something we do not need.
We can ask why child-directed commercials are allowed during adult programming. Perhaps it is because parents can discuss the programs with the child and rationalize the bid being made by the advertiser.
What the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has been proposing since 1973 is that the kind of policy which the CBC has adopted be made widespread throughout the broadcasting media. He has noted, and I agree with him, that the province of Quebec is tougher about advertising than the rest of the country. Three years ago the province of Quebec adopted legislation banning advertising on children's programs. Naturally such a ban leads to a loss of revenue and advertisers could charge discrimination. There is no denying that in some ways that would be the case, but other things have been banned for a number of years. I think of liquor and beer commercials which are prohibited on certain television
May 28, 1982

stations. Tobacco commercials have been banned but advertisers have survived. Perhaps more money would be put into children's toys and games or food as a result. In any case, I think the advertisers would soon make up the revenue.
I should like to thank the hon. member for St. John's East for bringing this to our attention again and I recommend that the bill go to committee. I should like to close by quoting briefly from a report prepared by the research branch of the Library of Parliament for the House of Commons Subcommittee on the International Year of the Child. It notes the need for positive action programs, and on page 14 has this to say:
-the CRTC encourage the development of a television program composed of brief segments (one or two minutes each) to be aired several times daily, providing information on a variety of subjects such as nutrition, the harmful effects of alcohol, drugs and smoking, and on available sources of help for people with problems; and encourage increased use of television for educational discussion groups and talk shows dealing with subjects such as the developmental needs of children, parenting practices, etc.;
This is the kind of child advertising we need, not just banning what we do not need but, adding the kind of educational topics that children desperately need in order to survive in this consumer jungle in which we live.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief as well. I welcome the chance to comment on this important area of children's television. It has been noted this afternoon that much has been done on a voluntary basis. Like the hon. member opposite, I believe that the subject matter is worthy of parliamentary review from time to time and therefore the government does not oppose the idea of submitting it to committee for scrutiny to see how far we have come and where we are going.
I should like to make a few observations on the subject. I think we all recognize that the ban would have little or no effect on the CBC, Radio-Canada or the provincial educational television systems. The CBC has never accepted commercials for pre-school programming and since 1975 it has not carried commercials on any program for which the majority of the audience was made up of viewers under the age of 12. Provincial organizations such as Radio Quebec and TV Ontario are, by the nature of their licence, noncommercial. Therefore, the effect of this legislation on Canada's public broadcasters is nil in that none of these organizations presently accept advertising in this type of programming.
What the bill suggests is the elimination of advertising in children's programming on the private television stations in Canada. These privately owned and operated stations reach over 96 per cent of all Canadians and rely entirely upon advertisers for financial support. As has been pointed out this afternoon, there would be some difficulty for them as a result.
Broadcasting Act
I think it is useful at this time to step back for a moment and review what has already been achieved in the important area of children's television. In the early days of television in Canada, that is, in the 1950s and 1960s, private television stations produced and scheduled many programs for children. These were financed out of the revenue of commercials. The Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission has routinely reviewed the licences and the progress made in this important area. A review of the commission's decision does not reveal any great objections to the performance of private television. However, in the latter part of the 1960s, a number of people began to question some high pressure advertising techniques being used by a minority of television advertisers in their commercials for products and services of interest to children.
The advertising industry and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters recognized that there was merit in these concerns and in 1971 produced a voluntary code imposing standards and restrictions for advertising for children. In 1974 the CRTC required each private broadcaster to adhere to the code as a condition of its licence renewal, as well as limiting the number of commercial messages in children's programs.
I would like to point out that the voluntary system seems to have worked quite well. We believe, with hon. members opposite, however, that there is a time to review the impact of such measures on young people. We certainly have no objection to bringing the subject matter of this bill before the committee for further study and review to see if our thinking is as clear as we would like it to be.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
That Bill C-311, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs) be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.
Motion (Mr. McGrath) as amended, agreed to. Bill withdrawn and order discharged.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for consideration of private member's business has now expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 31, 1982