1983-06-02

POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a minor point of order that I would like to reserve at the moment. During the proceedings of Private Members' Hour yesterday, there arose a rather unusual situation. We are attempting at the moment to hear the actual tape recording of the proceedings in order to determine whether or not the situation occurred in the way that we believe it occurred; and if it did, we reserve the right to raise a point of order at a later time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member's point is well taken.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Bills (Commons):
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of Bill C-156, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3).
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before proceeding with the second reading of the Bill, I would like to point out that, after discussions held among all Parties representing the House, I should like to ask consent of the House for the following changes.
First of all, after second reading this Bill will be referred to a Committee of the Whole rather than a Standing Committee. Second, we have obtained royal recommendations permitting several amendments in Committee; these are now at the Table and I ask leave to have them printed in the Votes and Proceedings. After Committee and the pro forma report stage, we would proceed immediately to third reading of the Bill.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to co-operate fully on this side of the House. However, we have some small but what we feel are important amendments. One concerns fishermen and the other maternity benefits as they affect natural parents. We would like to be able to introduce those amendments today at the same time as the Government introduces its amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). Is the proposal agreeable to the House?


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I have to point out to the House that what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) is seeking now is at variance with the understanding and accord entered into with the Government. The Government extracted from us an undertaking that we would proceed with all stages of the Bill and deal with it in Committee of the Whole and that there would be no amendments except those put forward by the Government. We agreed to that but now the hon. gentleman seeks consent for his own amendments. That is completely contrary to the understanding and perhaps the Minister could confirm that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would want to confirm what the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) indicated. We proposed to Members of the Opposition Parties that there were some critical amendments to be introduced and that we would have some additional amendments relating to maternity benefits and adoptive parents. At no time did I receive an indication that other amendments would be introduced at Committee stage. I am a little surprised to hear the Member from the NDP make that recommendation because it was not drawn to my attention when we had the discussion.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was party to the negotiations that took place with regard to the agreement to pass the Bill today. At no time did I give any undertaking that there would be no amendments moved from this side of the House, neither was I asked for such an undertaking. I agreed on behalf of this Party that we would proceed with this Bill starting at eleven o'clock or as close thereto as we could, and complete it in all stages today. There was never any suggestion made to me at any of the meetings I attended that we were not to be allowed to move amendments.
I want to put it to you quite bluntly, Mr. Speaker, that we intend to move the amendments. If that understanding is not acceptable, then I suppose the whole agreement is in jeopardy.

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we get on with the Bill. In the interim, the House Leader for the NDP could confer with my House Leader and a representative of the Government and perhaps resolve the matter that way. In the meantime we are losing valuable time; we only have one day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Agreed and so ordered.


Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-156, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3), be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
[ Translation]
He said; Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to introduce Bill C-156, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, for second reading. Before considering the proposed changes, I would like to deal briefly with the role of unemployment insurance as a system for providing income support and as a labour market adjustment mechanism.
\ English]
I think it has been well understood by most Canadians during this very difficult period that the unemployment insurance system has made a remarkable contribution in maintaining a sense of security for many Canadians who were faced with the serious difficulty and tragedy of unemployment. It has also been able to maintain a very great degree of stability in our total social and economic system as a result. It has demonstrated its value as an important and significant framework of economic and social legislation during this very critical period of time.
I would like to point out to Hon. Members of the House that the unemployment insurance system has been one which has been constantly updated in order to be relevant and contemporary with changing economic conditions. I simply hearken back, in particular, to the major amendments which were made to the Bill in 1971 by one of my predecessors, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), who has unquestionably provided one of the most important contributions to expanding the application of universality to the unemployment insurance system, as well as introducing very many critical and important social clauses to that Bill, which allows Canadians during the 1980s who are faced with recession to be able to absorb the kinds of shocks and difficulties they have had to face.
We also recognize, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important to undertake a constant review and adaptation of the unemployment insurance system so that we can constantly have it evolve as a proper and effective governmental, legislative tool as the
economic and industrial environment of Canada goes through change.
In that respect I would like to report to Hon. Members of the House that we are continuing to review many of the essential ingredients of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We have submitted some of the critical questions, such as the nature of payments and contributions, the phases of benefits and other means of trying to develop a more efficient and effective system as well as a more equitable system, during this period of time. I certainly am one of those in this House who share the view that changes and reform to the system must be a matter of constant undertaking by Parliament.
I would like to suggest at this particular second reading of the Bill, that we limit our modifications and refinement to a couple of very critical areas, partly because of the demands of time and partly because this is not the time in which we should undertake a major restructuring of unemployment insurance. I feel we are certainly looking forward to a period of recovery in Canada, but at the same time there are many Canadians who are still unemployed and who still require the services of the unemployment insurance system. Now is not the time to start major reformulation and restructuring. It is under continual pressure. As a result we must ensure that any changes we make do not destabilize the system and make it unworkable during a time when it is providing such a major source of support and security for so many Canadians.
Therefore, the proposals we will be making today on second reading deal with essential and necessary changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, as well as some major areas relating to an inequitous clause under the Act with respect to women and the family position in Canada. I hope that Hon. Members will limit themselves to those kinds of changes.
That does not mean to say, however, that we will stand still and not continue with modifications. We still have the opportunity to undertake a number of imaginative uses of unemployment insurance. I would like to point out to Hon. Members how in the past year and a half we have slowly, but very deliberately, started to reshape the direction of unemployment insurance towards an employment insurance program. This would be a program which would not only provide income security during a period of a loss of job, but it can also be used to help people keep their jobs as a system of providing a way of using those funds to provide job protection and security.
It is that area where, I believe, we have made some of our most important changes and progress during this past year. Let me point out, for example, Mr. Speaker, that we have successfully employed Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act to help keep people working during a time of instability and have, therefore, provided employment for over 31,000 Canadians. They have been able to undertake very useful and effective work in fisheries, forestry and mining; moreover, it allows people to stay on the job and keep themselves at work rather than staying at home and going through the frustration and the anxiety of being idle. Therefore, I feel
June 2, 1983

Section 38 has demonstrated its value as a way of helping the evolution of unemployment insurance towards that concept of employment insurance.
Equally, Mr. Speaker, I think Members also recognize the important contribution the work-sharing program has made over the past year and a half. Under Section 37 we have now signed over 13,000 work-sharing agreements with Canadian firms and their workers. Those agreements have provided income and job security for over 250,000 Canadian workers. The work-sharing program is still being used by a large number of Canadian workers and their firms on a voluntary basis. That is unquestionably a clear demonstration of the willingness of Canadian workers, unions, employers and the federal Government to co-operate in a partnership to help keep people on the job. Recent evaluations we undertook have demonstrated that 90 per cent of Canadian workers in the program support it and were prepared to pay higher unemployment insurance premiums to see it continue. I think that is clear proof of its value during these difficult times.
As Members know, 1 recently announced the Government's approval of taking work sharing one step further to use it as a tool for preventing lay-offs and to provide an orderly transition for workers faced with technological change and industrial dislocation. Thus rather than have workers laid off and going through a kind of cold turkey on the street when a firm has to change to new equipment or new technology, we can now use this program over a 50-week period to enable management and workers to design a system for retraining, proper counselling and guidance so that workers are not sent onto the street and have in fact the opportunity to adapt to industrial change. I hope Members of Parliament will help us in the development of these pilot projects so that we can use this to face what is unquestionably one of the most serious concerns among Canadians-how to protect their job. Using this program under the UI system provides one of those basic and essential ingredients to provide that job security.
I can see a clear demonstration of this in my own Province, Mr. Speaker. In Thompson, Manitoba we had a major lay-off of over 2,000 workers at Inco. At the inception of the lay-off a Section 38 program was brought into play where something like 500 to 700 of those workers were employed for over two or three months doing major work in helping to expand the hospital system, provide major revisions in the physical structures of the schools, helping to rebuild the union centre and do a number of major light construction jobs around the town of Thompson. We were then able to introduce a work-sharing program into the Inco mine which has now enabled 2,000 workers to go back to work. So with that one firm in that one town in my Province, the new applications of unemployment insurance regulations have demonstrated their value. I would ask any Member who has any doubt whatsoever to go to Thompson and ask those workers and their United Steel Workers Local whether they think this particular direction we are moving in is valuable? I know what kind of answer they
Unemployment Insurance Act
will get because they have told me personally how much they support this kind of movement.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we recognize there have been many examples over the past several months where regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act sometimes appear to be unbending and too rigid. I want to tell Members of the House this morning that the CEIC has implemented a system of quality control to ensure that claimants are treated with fairness under an appeal procedure within the system. In addition, we have undertaken to refer a number of the regulatory requirements under the Act to a legal expert from Laval University to do a major review for us on some of the regulations themselves and how they can be applied with greater fairness and equity. I hope to be able to report back to Parliament in the fall, particularly to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, on the findings in this area and the kind of regulatory changes we will make after the review is completed.
Those are the kind of changes we are making without having to go through statutory amendments. At the same time, we do face some very essential and necessary changes to the Act due to circumstances somewhat beyond our control but nonetheless necessary. Action is required to put in place something that we have talked about for too long but have not taken acted on, that is, to introduce more equity into the payment of maternity benefits and to extend those benefits to the parents of adopted children.
Mr. Speaker, we need your support to get these changes through the House. Otherwise, the provisions will expire on June 4. One hundred thousand Canadians might lose their benefits next year. These workers, who live in areas with high unemployment, may have accumulated less than fourteen weeks of employment and will no longer be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

Obviously, the question of entrance requirements is central to the whole operation of the unemployment insurance system. As we all know, on June 4 of this year we face a sunset clause which would require the entrance requirements under the Unemployment Insurance Act to be a standard 14 weeks right across Canada. That would mean that many Canadians who are in areas of particularly high unemployment would not have the eligibility for a ten-week requirement.
Therefore, one of the major amendments that we are introducing today under second reading is to restore, for a two-year period, the ten-week to 14-week variable entrance requirement to ensure that Canadians in regions of high unemployment will still be able to have the kind of special requirements under the Bill which would be allowed to them under the ten-week rule. I think this would recommend itself to all Members of the House without much debate. It affects close to 100,000 Canadians. While it would have a saving of

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
perhaps some $500 million to the fund, the kind of ensuing hardship which would be extracted by those who would be faced with a 14-week requirement I do not think any Member of the House would want to impose upon that particular segment of Canadian workers.
Therefore, I would ask for support in that particular amendment to extend the ten-week to 14-week variable entrance requirement for another two years at which time, perhaps, the House of Commons and Senate would be in a position to reexamine the whole structure of the unemployment insurance system and be prepared to make longer term amendments and reformulations of the Act.
The second major amendment contained in the Bill clarifies the Commission's authority to establish special regulations for Canada's fishermen. This particular requirement on the Act was first initiated in 1957. Fishermen, particularly selfemployed fishermen, have a very special place in the unemployment insurance system. While self-employed people are not normally eligible for benefits, we have had to develop unique rules for fishermen, taking into account the seasonal nature of their work. They comprise a category of workers that is quite unique in our country.
These special regulations have been called into doubt as a result of the March 24 decision by the Supreme Court in the Vicky Silk case. While the Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Federal Court decision, it ruled that regulations restricting the qualifying period for fishermen are in conflict with provisions of Section 146 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and therefore ultra vires. Essentially, it said that we have no right to treat fishermen differently from any other group, despite the seasonal nature of their work. It would affect some 35,000 fishermen, with particular impact in areas of the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec and the West Coast. What the amendment does is simply to reaffirm and strengthen the power of the Commission to make special regulations and in effect, restores our power to undertake the kind of requirements we place under the Act for fishermen to receive benefits.
The proposed amendment would promote stability of the fishing industry by enabling us to put into effect many of the key recommendations contained in the Kirby Task Force Report relating to the fisheries industry across Canada. The changes would also directly affect the ability of inland fishermen and other winter fishermen by allowing them to become eligible for benefits as well, consistent with their fishing season, which will come as great news for fishermen on the Great Lakes system and in my own area of the Prairies.
I want to make it clear that the Task Force recommendations could not be implemented under the provision of the order of the Supreme Court. The amendments that we are now introducing into the House will allow us to continue the power to implement the special requirements outlined by the Kirby Task Force.
We will also be introducing the rights of claimants to deal with some other special problems identified in the Kirby Report, such as the right of claimants to build boats while
drawing benefits and new benefit levels based on the best ten weeks of earnings in fishing. That is a key requirement of the Kirby Task Force. I know it is a recommendation that will be largely supported by the fishing community across Canada. The amendments in this area, therefore, will encourage increased stability of the fishing industry by improving income protection and permitting the recommendations of the Kirby Task Force which were meant to rationalize the industry.
The third set of amendments propose to strengthen the regulatory power granted to the Commission in dealing with workers on annual contracts but with recurring time off. Categories of workers to fall under this definition are most obviously school teachers but they also include marine captains, navigational pilots and some professional athletes.
Once again, we were faced with a Federal Court decision which indicated that its interpretation of the present Act would require us to pay benefits to teachers on their off season, for example, even though they are being paid a full annual contract by their school boards. I think Members would recognize that this would essentially create a double system of benefits and would cost the unemployment insurance system somewhere between $300 million and $400 million alone. Therefore, we are asking for clarification of the right of the Commission to make regulations to ensure that that Federal Court interpretation would not provide the requirement for teachers to have that particular permission of payment even though they are under a particular contract of service. I would welcome Members of the House giving their support to this particular amendment so that we can clarify the Act and the law in this particular judicial decision.
That essentially sums up the contents of the Bill as it is presently presented to the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I also hope to introduce several amendments related to maternity and adoptive parents benefits. We would hope to be in a position to introduce these amendments at the Committee stage, and with the introduction of this Bill I think we are in a good position to do that.
I chose this approach because it was obviously essential the Act be passed by the June 4 date so the relevant sunset clauses that apply to the other amendments would not come into play. At the same time I want to express my own appreciation to Members of the opposition Parties who have indicated they are prepared to give quick passage to this Bill so that we may introduce the changes to the maternity benefits provision. I think this speaks to the consensus on the importance of both these issues as well as to a level of co-operation that Members have personally given me. I appreciate their gesture in this matter and I know many Canadian women will applaud this particular act by both sides of the House in bringing these amendments forward.
The particular amendments that we are introducing are to those sections which have been recognized as being inequitable
June 2, 1983

in terms of the present Act. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has commented upon them and many women's organizations across Canada have indicated very clearly that the present system of maternity benefits is unfair.
I think we should also underline that these amendments which we propose to introduce at Committee will also speak to a very critical change in the work force. Women are no longer simply secondary workers in the work force but full-time workers and, therefore must be recognized as such under the Unempoyment Insurance Act. As well, we must recognize that in major social and economic change we must still try to provide full protection for the concept and values of the family status. As a result of particular provisions of the Act, people were forced to make choices and so were employers. We hope these amendments will clarify that very quickly and take into account changes taking place in our society.
The first amendment which we propose goes back to the 12-year-old maternity benefit. Under the proposed amendment, the outdated Section 46 would be deleted. This restrictive clause now prevents pregnant women not qualified for maternity benefits from drawing regular or sickness benefits in the weeks surrounding the birth. Such women will now only have to show that they are unemployed, capable of and available for work like other Canadians. We estimate that this legislative change will cost the fund $50 million, but would benefit close to 20,000 Canadian women in the work force.
We also propose to provide more equity to women by eliminating the so-called "magic ten" rule. Under this rule, a woman now has to prove that she worked for ten weeks around the time of conception. The intent of this requirement was to prevent women who found they were pregnant from seeking work to qualify later for unemployment insurance. Now, when women are such an integral part of our labour force, such a barrier is obviously not in tune with the times. It is also unfair to those women who have a long work history but do not happen to meet that rule at the particular time they become pregnant. According to the proposed amendments, any claimant who has worked 20 weeks in a qualifying period will be eligible for maternity benefits, the same as for all other special benefits.
Finally, I propose to alter the time in which maternity benefits can be claimed by providing additional flexibility. This flexibility will permit many mothers of premature and sick babies more time in which to receive maternity benefits. A maternity claimant who has been on regular unemployment insurance for 15 weeks or more has not been able to switch to maternity benefits under the present Act. That is because maternity benefits could only be paid in the first 15 weeks of a benefit period. Under our amendments, benefits would also be paid at any time during a 25-week period rather than being restricted to the first 15 weeks of the initial benefit period.
The new flexibility in the system will add an extra $80 million to costs in 1984-85 but the changes are expected to benefit some 65,000 women in the work force who would otherwise find the Act too restrictive.
Unemployment Insurance Act
We also propose to extend the same rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act to adoptive parents as natural parents have. The federal Government must enable parents to offer their new children the best of care. The amendment, if approved, would authorize benefits of up to 15 weeks to either of the prospective parents. Claimants will simply have to show that they have at least 20 weeks of insurable employment in the last 52, much the same as if they were claiming sickness or maternity benefits. Approximately 7,500 adoptive parents could benefit from the new legislation at a cost of some $22 million in 1984-85.
Unemployment insurance benefits for adoptive parents have been discussed for a number of years. In the past couple of years, I have received some 120 letters from Members of Parliament endorsing this change. I expect this is one clause in particular that will have full support from both sides of the House. The Task Force Report on unemployment insurance also adopts these recommendations. With the support of Hon. Members, we can have these provisions for adoptive parents and changes to maternity benefits in place by January 1, 1984.
That summarizes both the amendments in the Bill itself as well as the amendments we propose to introduce at second reading and Committee. Once again, I appreciate the support of the House for allowing us to undertake the debate of this Bill in one day. I believe that Bill C-156 reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintain income protection for those people without work as well as to try to redevelop the Unemployment Insurance Act as a vital act. It will enable Canadians to use the unemployment insurance system not just for income security but also as a way of protecting jobs. 1 call on Members of the House to support these amendments and give them swift passage.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say to the Minister that he is right when speaking to the consensus in the House to give this Bill passage at all stages in one day. It speaks to the consensus which exists in this place on the urgency of the matter and the serious unemployment situation which exists in the country today.
I also have to say to the Minister that while I do not hold him personally accountable, since he does not have much to do with the management of the business of the House, I believe this is a sleazy way to treat Parliament. Let me explain why. This Bill did not receive first reading until May 18. The Bill that received first reading on May 18 contained only the sunset clauses that will expire on June 4 and the clauses dealing with the Supreme Court decision on the Vicky Silk case.
Approximately at the first reading of the Bill on May 18 I was handed a letter from the Minister. I had a discussion with the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary. I was handed further additional amendments with which the Government intended to proceed if we in the Opposition agreed to a one-day debate. But here is the position in which we are placed. Obviously, we had to agree to a one-day debate on the sunset clauses because today is June 2 and the provisions regarding variable entry

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
expire on June 4. Therefore we had to agree with that. If we did not agree to including the changes in the maternity provisions, the repeal of the iniquitous, unjust and unfair Section 46 and the new adoptive parent provisions in the one-day debate, the Government was not prepared to proceed with the Bill. That is what I call pretty sleazy. That is what I call holding this House up to ransom. We were left in the position if we did not agree to a one-day debate that we would have to carry the burden of responsibility for a continuation of these unjust and unfair provisions in the Act which have been there for the past 12 years.
We, Sir, would have looked upon this as an opportunity to reopen the Unemployment Insurance Act to give it the kind of exhaustive study it requires, to call witnesses as well as to see what improvements we could make to adjust the Act to the reality of the situation that we find today. It would have been an opportunity not only to close the loopholes in terms of the Vicky Silk case and in terms of extending the variable entry requirements, but to see what other ways we could improve the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to adapt itself to the realities of the day.
I believe this Bill would have given us that very opportunity, and in that regard I have to say I disagree with the Minister that this is not the time to start restructuring the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think this is the time. I intend to make the case for that during the course of my remarks. Obviously the unemployment situation is so bad, and it is going to be with us for so long, that the entire provisions of the Act are no longer really relevant to cope with the situation. We now have the problem of the exhaustees. These exhaustees are coming on to the statistical catalogue at the rate of 50,000 or 60,000 a month.
I have to say that we agreed to a one-day debate; we agreed to a one-day debate on the Government's amendments reluctantly. We did so not because we did not support the repeal of Section 12 and the closing of the gap with respect to treating women equally in terms of maternity benefits and to treating adoptive and natural parents equally. However, we resent being presented with this measure at the eleventh hour and told that if we cannot deal with it in a day then we have to take the responsibility for not having maternity benefits changed, not having adoptive parents benefits put into the Act or getting on with extending the sunset provisions.
With regard to the sunset provisions, en passant, and the variable entrance requirements, for which I can claim some parentage, it was our Party through myself as spokesman who suggested these variable entry requirements when the Bill was last being amended to deal with what was then a problem of regional disparity. Subsequently, of course, it has become a national problem. I intend as well to point out to the House the absolute need for extending the variable entrance requirements and giving the Government the power, arising out of the Vicky Silk Supreme Court decision, to make decisions with respect to
fishermen, and with respect to fishermen on the Great Lakes and in the northern areas of Canada.
In reopening the Unemployment Insurance Act we have to ask ourselves how we propose to pay for these provisions. During the course of a brief discussion on this Bill in committee during the estimates of the Minister, I sought to obtain from the Minister an undertaking that there would be no increase in the premiums. I made the point then, and I make it again now, that to increase the premiums at this particular time would represent a disincentive to the private sector to create jobs because to do so would impose an additional burden, particularly on small business. I did not get the undertaking I asked for from the Minister during the course of the committee hearings.


Miss MacDonald:: Neither did I.


James Aloysius McGrath: I noted the Minister made no reference to that during the course of his speech except to indicate what it would cost in additional charges to the fund to make these changes in the Act. I am looking forward to Committee of the Whole when we will have a chance to question the Minister.
We are now in the era of the billion dollar a month unemployment insurance benefits. We passed the billion dollar mark at the end of last year. Let us take a look at where we are today in terms of the state of the UI fund. In January, 1983 $1.05 billion was paid out in benefits to 1.5 million Canadians. In February the figure went down slightly to $997 million. The change was negligible. In March the benefits jumped to $1.47 billion paid out to 1.5 million Canadians. Benefits paid out in March were up 46 per cent from benefits paid out in March of the previous year. In 1982 a record $8.4 billion was paid out to Canadians in UI benefits. Of course, the all-time record will be this year.
I believe very strongly that if we are to address ourselves to financing these necessary changes, these humane changes, these changes which we as the Official Opposition support, then it will be necessary, notwithstanding the Minister's view, to think in terms of restructuring the Unemployment Insurance Act because the unemployment situation facing the country today will be with us into the 1980s. We have that forecasts on the authority of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) during the course of his budget presentation to this House.
The Government has had lots of time. Why is it we are only dealing with these changes at this time, the genesis of the changes with respect to maternity benefits in Section 46, and the adoptive parent benefits? These are from the study commissioned by the Minister on unemployment insurance in the 1980s and undertaken by a task force. The Minister has had the report since July, 1981. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has had the recommendations of the task force for over two years and yet he comes to the House and says: "We have one day to deal with it". If that is not a sleazy, irresponsible way to deal with Parliament, I do not know what is. I do not hold the Minister totally responsible, because he is not responsible for the management of the
June 2, 1983

House, but I certainly hold his colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), responsible for his sleazy treatment of Parliament.
Let us go back to the genesis of the changes. Let us go back to what the task force had to say. Let me read from page 70:
The Task Force also favours the extension of maternity benefits to adoptive parents. These changes will result in much more equitable maternity provisions. The earnings interruptions of adoptive and natural parents will receive similar recognition, while elimination of the special maternity conditions will remove the potential inequities contained in such rules.
Then the report goes on with regard to maternity benefits, which comments I think are worth putting on the record because they sum up the view of the Official Opposition with respect to Section 46. We read:
Return to a strict physical incapacity basis for maternity benefits would reestablish a clear philosophical foundation for their payment and achieve significant cost savings. However, in the judgment of the Task Force, it would constitute a significant step backwards in social policy.
That is the judgment of my colleagues and myself as well. This paragraph continues:
In a period in which women's labour force participation is increasing steadily, such a change would greatly reduce the income protection capacity of UI as it applies to working women. Since it would contradict the intent of the 1975 Statute Law, referred to above, it would be difficult to justify.
Indeed, it would be difficult to justify. That is what the task force had to say two years ago.
Why has it taken the Minister of Employment and Immigration two years to come to the House with these long overdue amendments? Why does he come to the House and say we only have one day to deal with them in all stages? That is the question which the Minister has to address to the House and to the women of this nation who have had to suffer the inequities of Section 46 for two years during which changes could have been and should have been made if the recommendations of the task force had been implemented. The state of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is relevant. We will have more to say about this. I hope the Minister will address himself to it when we get to Committee of the Whole.
Why did the task force feel so strongly about Section 46 back in July, 1981? Obviously it was recognizing changes in the patterns of the work force, the emergence of the role of women as a major and permanent factor in the work force. I suspect it was also looking into the future because, based on our experience in the last recession when we lost have a half million jobs, the disadvantaged are the first to go and the last to be rehired.
In terms of the work force, who are the disadvantaged? The disadvantaged are women, young people and native people. That is why we look at the unemployment statistics today with a great deal of concern. For example, we find that in April, 1983 609,000 women were unemployed as opposed to 490,000 last year. We are told that this is going to get worse as we get into the new microchip society, the new industrial revolution in high-tech.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The task force was obviously able to anticipate what would happen in terms of the experience of the last recession. That, of course, is precisely what has happened. That is why there are so many women and young people unemployed in this country today. That is why the prospects of women being rehired are diminishing. It is because of the implementation of the new technology.
I want to talk for a minute about where we are in terms of women in the work force. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) will have to say more about that. It does speak to the position in which we find ourselves today with respect to women in the work force. Not only are they behind, but they continue to fall behind in terms of being discriminated against with respect to the work force.
Very simply, to relate the impact of high-tech on women is merely to look at the service jobs of the country, the majority of which are filled by women, and to see what word processors are doing to clerical occupations in the country. We see that in our own offices today. Women let go as a result of the recession in many services unfortunately will not be rehired. That is why I believe it will be necessary before too long to start thinking in terms of restructuring and changing the Unemployment Insurance Act to make it more relevant to the reality of the situation, a situation in which the Government, as part of its policy, bases its fiscal and monetary policy on projections which will see unemployment in double-digit dimensions go through the eighties and into the early nineties. We had that on the authority of the Minister of Finance in the course of his budget presentation to this House.
We now come to fishermen's benefits. This, of course, is not only a result of the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in the Vicky Silk case which was, as the Minister indicated, a decision by the Supreme Court stating that the Canada Employment Commission had no authority under the Act to make special benefits or regulations for fishermen. The consequence of that is the changes before us in the amendments which the Minister has brought to the House.
As well, there are the recommendations of the Kirby Task Force dealing with other provisions with respect to Unemployment Insurance benefits for fishermen. For example, there is the right of fishermen to draw Unemployment Insurance benefits in the fresh water regions of the country.
We welcome the changes that are being brought forward today. Some of my colleagues are concerned about the impact this will have on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Hopefully, some of them will express that concern during the course of the debate.
We are concerned that the Government has seen fit to bring in this Bill at the eleventh hour, holding the gun to our head as Parliamentarians and forcing us to deal with all phases of the Bill in one day. That, of course, does not, nor is it intended to in any way, diminish our support for what the Bill seeks to achieve, which is to close the inequities in the Unemployment Insurance Act so that women who have to seek recourse under the maternity provisions of the Act will have the same benefits

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
and be treated the same as anybody else under the Unemployment Insurance Act who receives sickness benefits.
Finally, I want to say this about the Act. It has been reopened now to deal with these long overdue amendments and to deal with the sunset provisions which expire in a couple of days. We have to think about changing the Act to deal with the reality of the present situation. I have no hesitation in putting this on the record. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), put forward a proposal which I personally endorse. In this regard I cannot pretend to speak for my colleagues because it has not been discussed in my caucus.
In terms of the present recession and the scope and extent of the unemployment situation, we should think of extending the benefit period to deal with the long-term unemployed. We have the phenomenon now of a large number of Canadians who are classified as long-term unemployed. If my memory serves me correctly, there are just under a million Canadians who are now officially long-term unemployed. Many of these are accounted for in the 50,000 to 60,000 unemployment insurance exhaustees who come on to the statistical record every month.
My colleague put forward the proposal that we extend the benefit period to cope with long-term unemployment because it would be better to extend Unemployment Insurance benefits than to have the exhaustees humiliated by undergoing a means test when applying for welfare, half of which will be paid by the federal Government in any event under the Canada Assistance Plan. I support that provision. I believe it is one that under the present circumstances would find favour with my colleagues in the Official Opposition, although it is a proposal that has not been considered at this time by the Official Opposition.
In conclusion, I look forward to the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. She has provided leadership in many areas of the-I am trying to pay a compliment to the hon. lady and she persists in interrupting me. I am merely trying to say that she deserves recognition for the leadership she has provided.
For example, I remember that the very first act of the Conservative Government of 1979 was to bring in a Bill extending the spouse's allowance which had previously treated women unjustly and unfairly. That was the first act of the Conservative Government in which my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands was a distinguished Minister. Of course, as spokesperson on women's issues for the Official Opposition, she on many occasions has put forward her concerns with regard to the unjust provisions of the Bills as they deal with maternity benefits.
I would also like to point out that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the distinguished Assistant Whip of this Party, brought before the House a Private Member's Bill that dealt with the unjust provision of the Act which failed to address the issue of eligibility for
unemployment insurance benefits under the maternity provisions of the Act for parents who adopt children.
As well, my colleague the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) put forward a motion under Standing Order 43 a year or so ago calling for the Government to agree to change the Act and repeal Section 46 to provide the same treatment under the terms of the Act for adoptive parents as for parents who were entitled to maternity benefits. That motion, of course, did not achieve the required unanimous consent.
We agree, Mr. Speaker, to honour the commitment we made to the Government to deal with all provisions of this Bill today. I point out to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), that we intend to hold him to the commitment that we made on the floor of the House to deal only with the Government's amendments. That is our understanding of the undertaking we made. It is also our understanding of the undertaking that was made by Members of the NDP. We intend to hold them to that undertaking and we hope that a satisfactory solution can be reached before we come to an impasse. God knows that we have little enough time left as it is to deal with these very important provisions in the Bill as we go into Committee of the Whole.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to speak on the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would like to begin with an overview of what the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act cover. We, of course, are supportive of the over-all thrust of this legislation, but in spite of the positive things that are contained in it, much more remains to be done.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, deals with variable entrance requirements which would allow people to collect unemployment insurance with fewer qualifying weeks in regions of higher unemployment. It has become necessary for us to deal with this legislation because there is a sunset clause attached to this provision of the legislation. So that we do not jeopardize the unemployment insurance claims of these people, we of course support this provision.
The Bill also attempts to deal with something called the Silk case which has to do with unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen. While we in this Party see the need for unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen, we have heard very urgently and strongly felt concerns expressed by fishermen about the adequacy of the present unemployment insurance system as it affects fishermen. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), will go into this matter in more detail later on today, Mr. Speaker, because the rights of fishermen to unemployment insurance benefits have not yet received adequate attention.
It is obviously necessary to have an unemployment insurance system for fishermen and this Bill does provide for that to continue, but a more equitable system is needed, a system that ensures that all fishermen will get the unemployment insurance benefits that they are entitled to. It is with this in mind, Mr. Speaker, that we prepared an amendment to the Bill before us regarding fishermen.
June 2, 1983

We on this side of the House did agree to a one-day debate with regard to this legislation. That can be seen as a measure of our desire to have the positive items in this legislation receive approval. But clearly there are matters of great concern to people in the country that are not yet addressed in the legislation, and that is why we drafted amendments, one of which is in regard to fishermen. Since the Government introduced amendments to its own legislation today, we feel that it is only reasonable that we should be able to bring forward amendments at the same time, particularly in light of the fact that we are co-operating with the Government to see that this legislation is dealt with in an expeditious fashion.
It surprises me, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is co-operating with the Liberals in order to deny us this opportunity to introduce amendments which would address the concerns of fishermen in a more adequate way than in the present legislation. This leaves me with the impression that the Liberals and the Conservatives have formed a coalition to block the NDP from presenting the real concerns of fishermen in any adequate fashion. I do not want to dwell on that for too long, Mr. Speaker, because my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River, will go into that issue in some detail.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a point of order to seek your assistance. The Hon. Member has no right to impute motives. I indicated to the Hon. Member very clearly why I felt that the procedure he was suggesting was unacceptable, and that was because we had agreed to a one-day debate. That does not mean that I support everything the Government does and that I believe this is as far as the Government can go.
I had already indicated in my speech that we should be reopening the Act. I know that you are about to intervene, Mr. Speaker, and say that this is debate, but the Hon. Member has no right to impute these kinds of motives to me. He made an undertaking, he has abdicated that undertaking and we intend to hold him to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for St. John's East is quite correct in presuming that the Chair will refer to his point as debate. Nevertheless, it is always dangerous for the House to be put in a position where an Hon. Member would impute motives to another Hon. Member. Therefore I would caution all Hon. Members to be very careful in that respect.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I do intend to respect the rules, but I must point out as well as a matter of courtesy that I certainly did not interrupt the speech of the Hon. Member for St. John's East, and I find it incredible that he would interrupt my speech. We have made a commitment to co-operate and allow passage of this legislation in one day and we intend to stand by that commitment.
However, as stated quite clearly by the NDP House Leader, we certainly made no commitment that we would not seek leave of the House to introduce amendments. I would be glad to indicate that the purpose of those amendments is to give some voice to the current concerns of fishermen. I do not intend to impute motives, Mr. Speaker, but I would say that
Unemployment Insurance Act
the fishermen who have contacted us have certainly asked us to bring their concerns to the attention of the House.
They would appreciate it if the Hon. Member for St. John's East and the whole Tory caucus would assist us by getting these amendments on the floor of the House. They would appreciate it if the Government would do the same thing, Mr. Speaker. We would appreciate their co-operation in introducing the amendment with regard to fishermen so that the rights of fishermen to unemployment insurance without discrimination could be more adequately dealt with by the legislation before us today. We have co-operated with the Government in allowing the legislation to go through in one day and we have no intention of backing away from that. We do not need the Conservative Party to hold us to our commitments; we make our commitments and we live by them.
This legislation not only deals with the variable entrance requirement and with the Silk case but also the Anderson case. This concerns the capacity of teachers to collect unemployment insurance in the summer months when they are paid on a 12-month basis. The Government is introducing amendments to deal with that situation and that is good.
The other matter that is dealt with by the legislation is maternity leave. We are dealing with the legislation and putting it through in one day because there are positive things in it that remove discrimination that affects women and maternity leave. I will come back to that point more fully later.
That is roughly what the Bill covers, but one of the things it fails to address in an adequate way is employment and income security for people.
At an earlier time unemployment insurance benefits were paid out of general revenues to a greater extent than they are today because the Government had a commitment to provide a job for every Canadian. When the rate of unemployment went above a certain level, rather than benefits coming out of the premiums paid by businesses and workers, instead they came out of general revenues. The Government recognized it had a responsibility to provide an economic climate and a job for everyone. When unemployment increased, the general revenues of the Government would kick money into the Unemployment Insurance Fund to pay for the increased benefits.
It is important that we return to that manner of financing unemployment insurance for a couple of reasons. The first is that when the cost of unemployment insurance comes out of general revenues it is a reminder to the Government that it has to create jobs for people. Second, when the cost of unemployment insurance comes out of general revenues, then it is shared on a more equitable and broad tax base. Premiums for unemployment insurance are regressive and inequitable because the poor pay more in premiums than the general taxation system pays.
I raise the question of premiums because there was an increase in premiums of some 54 per cent last October and

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
there is the prospect of a further increase this Fall. In Committee we asked the Minister for a commitment that premiums would not increase in the Fall but we did not get it.
It is important that the Government be committed to two things, Mr. Speaker. The very first is full employment, which would mean less of a drain on the Unemployment Insurance Fund and, therefore, less likelihood of an increase in premiums. The next thing is that the financing of unemployment insurance be done in the most equitable way possible. That means that the greater share of the revenues for unemployment insurance should come out of general revenues rather than strictly from premiums. This is an urgent and important matter because there has just been a massive increase in premiums and there is the possibility of a further increase in the Fall.
The other major matter that the legislation fails to address is that as so many people have been unemployed for a long period, more and more of them are exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits and are being forced on to welfare. On a number of occasions this Party has called for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits so that people may enjoy a decent income without being forced on to welfare and suffering the stigma involved. Specifically, we have called for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits by 26 weeks. The response from the Government is that this would be massively expensive and thus impossible. The Government does not seem to recognize that whether people receive their income support from unemployment insurance or from welfare, the money still comes from the public purse. Denying people unemployment insurance benefits does not really save the Government a great deal of money.
The principle involved with the extension of unemployment insurance benefits is one of dignity, Mr. Speaker. Why not simply recognize that it is the responsibility of Government to see that people have work and, second, if the Government is not willing to provide work for people, that it is willing to provide income support by way of unemployment insurance. People have already paid into the fund and therefore have earned their right. If the Government does not keep people on unemployment insurance, then obviously they are going to be forced on to welfare and the Government has to pay in any case.
It was with interest that I noted an article in The Globe and Mail today saying that the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), a major candidate for leadership of the Conservative Party, has joined the New Democratic Party's call for an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. If the Liberal Party would follow the lead of the Conservative Party, perhaps we could get these benefits for people and increase their level of dignity. I should like to quote from the article as follows:
Unemployment insurance benefits should continue indefinitely for the sole wage earner of a family living in areas where unemployment is higher than 10 per cent.
Unemployment is higher than 10 per cent in all of Canada today, according to the statistics that I am familiar with, Mr. Speaker. This is quite clearly an endorsation of the efforts of this Party to achieve an extension of unemployment insurance
benefits so that people may have income support in dignity rather than being forced on to welfare. We all know that there is a stigma attached to welfare. The article goes on:
Continuing benefits ... would not add greatly to the cost of social assistance because the recipients otherwise would shift to welfare payments if jobs are not available-
So a major leadership candidate for the Conservative Party has endorsed our position regarding unemployment insurance benefits and I welcome it. 1 hope the Government listens to the reason set forth by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, which is that the Government is going to have to pay through welfare anyway and so it is time to extend unemployment insurance benefits. He notes that unemployment is higher than 10 per cent. I welcome this call for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. I think the humanity of the country and the Government would be better served by extending unemployment insurance benefits than by forcing people on to welfare when the Government has failed to live up to a real commitment to provide employment.
The essence of the legislation concerns maternity benefits. We welcome the attempt to remove discrimination as it affects women. For example, there is the "magic ten" rule which provided that women had to be working within certain very specific dates in order to qualify for unemployment insurance in the event of pregnancy. The implication of the "magic ten" rule, without going into detail, was that if a woman became pregnant she would immediately run out and get a job in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and so rip off the system. Clearly the Government has recognized that such is not the case. In today's economic climate it is very difficult to imagine anyone being able to find a job. We welcome this change.
The Government is withdrawing Section 46 so that there will be more flexibility around the administration of maternity benefits, and we welcome that, Mr. Speaker.
The most important part of these changes has to do with the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to adoptive parents. This is something our Party has been calling for. I note, for example, that my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), had a Private Member's Bill with regard to maternity benefits and adoptive parents, along with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Therefore we welcome this extension of maternity benefits, Mr. Speaker, to adoptive parents just as these benefits presently go to natural parents.
It is interesting the way the Government has extended these benefits to adoptive parents. In making unemployment insurance benefits available in the way of maternity benefits to adoptive parents, it has made those benefits available to both the father and the mother, both the male and female members of the family. This, Mr. Speaker, is a recognition of the principle of parental leave. It shows there is a moving away
June 2, 1983

from the notion of simply maternity leave, that is, the right of the woman to benefits so that she may take time off in the event of the birth of a child, and a moving towards the principle that both parents have a responsibility to parent children and both have a right to have time off around the birth of a child in order to care adequately for that child.
The Government, in extending unemployment insurance benefits to adoptive parents, is doing more for adoptive parents now than they do for natural parents. It was our intention, Mr. Speaker, to introduce an amendment today which would call upon the Government to make those unemployment insurance benefits which are available to natural parents, not only available to the mother, but to either the mother or the father, within the limits of the benefits which are presently there in the legislation. This is to make the legislation more flexible.
This kind of a change would not cost the Government significantly more than it is costing them presently to administer unemployment insurance. However, it would be an incremental step towards recognizing the principle of parental a moving away from strictly maternity leave to parental leave. That, Mr. Speaker, is an important principle. However, the Government should treat natural parents at least as well as it now proposes to treat adoptive parents.
This was the amendment which we wanted to introduce with regard to maternity benefits, and I would hope that the Government would co-operate to see that that amendment could be introduced and that the Official Opposition would extend the same co-operation. We are now saying, with respect to adoptive parents, that either the male or the female member of the family could receive unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore I say, why not do that for natural parents as well? It will not cost a great deal of extra money. It is just a matter of allowing for some more flexibility.
We welcome these changes with regard to maternity benefits. We welcome the fact that these benefits are being extended to adoptive parents. This is long overdue. We are happy to co-operate in the effort to have that done, Mr. Speaker.
I would like, however, to put this matter into a broader context. How does Canada compare with respect to the provision of maternity benefits with other countries? I will give some examples. In Sweden, maternity and paternity leave extends for nine months with 90 per cent of salary. This can be divided between either parent. In France they have the right to 16 weeks' paid maternity leave at 90 per cent of regular earnings. In West Germany, workers are entitled to 100 per cent of regular earnings for 14 weeks. In Italy, women workers have the right to 20 weeks' maternity leave at 8 per cent of regular earnings. In Canada, Mr. Speaker, we have 15 weeks at 60 per cent of earnings.
Therefore, there are other western industrialized countries which provide a greater measure of support to the family in the event of the birth of a child. There are other countries which have provided a more adequate system of maternity and paternity leave.
Unemployment Insurance Act
What I am doing today, Mr. Speaker, is first of all calling upon the Government to recognize the principle of parental leave, that is, that a family has both a mother and a father, and the Government should recognize that principle. It has alrady recognized it with respect to adoptive parents in the legislation before us. It must also recognize it in terms of natural parents. That would at least be a recognition of the principle.
In the long term we should make a commitment to work towards an adequate system of parental leave. In terms of working towards an adequate system of parental leave, which some other countries have already achieved, I would like to say that I know there would be objections about the cost. Some people who would oppose that would draw pictures of this costing an enormous amount of money. However we treat families, however we treat the birth of a child, there is a cost involved. It is a question of whether we should have measures which allow for nurturing in order to create healthy and full families. If we choose not to provide adequate support for families, Mr. Speaker, we may pay for it further down the road in terms of family break-up, alcoholism, and crime. Everyone knows that it costs an enormous amount of money to keep in prison people who come from troubled families and who lead troubled lives.
So it really comes down to a choice, Mr. Speaker, of whether we want to take preventive measures or rehabilitative measures, or whether we just want to have people suffer. The long-term costs of developing an adequate system of parental leave is going to be paid for one way or the other. Other countries seem to have done a better job in terms of parental leave. We should choose preventive measures rather than rehabilitative measures.
I would call upon the Government to make a commitment to work towards an adequate system of parental leave in this country, and I would call upon it today to accept our amendment which would allow for the equal treatment of natural parents along with adoptive parents as it affects maternity benefits in the existing legislation.
There is some progress in this legislation. We welcome it and that is why we are co-operating. However, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that while we are moving forward, there are also some fears afoot that, in terms of unemployment insurance, we might again be moving backwards. I am thinking now, Mr. Speaker, of farm workers. Farm workers have fought for a system which would allow them to collect unemployment insurance the way other people can collect unemployment insurance. The Government has moved toward changes in regulations which would actually make it possible for farm workers to collect their unemployment insurance. There were administrative changes. There are groups in the country, Mr. Speaker, financial groups and some farm organizations, which are objecting to the changes which the Government brought in and who are lobbying the Government to backtrack on this move towards a greater equality for farm workers, to make it impossible for them to collect unemployment insurance. Today I call upon the Government to stick to

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
its guns with regard to having an administrative system which allows farm workers to collect unemployment insurance just like any other worker in this country. I would call upon the Government in this day, when it is making some progress, not to backtrack, whether it is a few months from now, whatever the pressures which come to bear on it.
We welcome this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that it removes certain discriminatory clauses which were long overdue for removal. We also want to indicate there is need for more, which is why we wanted to introduce amendments as they affect fishermen and maternity leave. That is why we have called for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits by some 26 weeks and why we welcome the fact that a major Tory leadership candidate has also called for the extension of benefits. We call upon the Government to recognize the fact that it is important to provide income support for people if it is not going to provide them with work, support which allows for the dignity of the individual.
At the same time we once again call upon the Government to make a serious commitment to full employment and, in the process, dedicate a greater share of the cost of unemployment insurance out of general revenue so that it can be borne more equitably and the Government can be reminded of its responsibility to provide work for all Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise and take part in this very important debate today, and I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bujold) for having yielded to me his place in the speaking order.
As my colleague the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has said, the Government's proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act as they affect maternity benefits are indeed long overdue. I am sure the Minister will recognize that I, among others in this House, have been pressing for these changes not just for weeks or months but for years. I am pleased to see that they are being brought forward. They will have the effect of making maternity benefits more accessible to women in the work force.
But while that is important, equally significant is that these amendments signal a change in attitude. They signal an acceptance of what is already a fact for so many Canadian women, the fact of the permanent presence of women in the paid labour force. More and more Canadian women are in the paid labour foece and they will continue to be for most of their adult lives. The 1981 census statistics indicate that 65 per cent of women under the age of 45 now work outside the home. Even more important and noteworthy is the fact that 45 per cent of women, almost one in two, who have children under the age of three years, were in the paid labour force in 1981. Although the majority of part-time workers are women, three quarters of all women in the paid labour force are working at full-time jobs.
In other words, women are in the work force to stay, yet they will face considerable obstacles, not the least of which is access to the so-called non-traditional jobs. That is, Mr. Speaker, the better paying jobs, the ones that offer more career opportunities than the clerical, sales and service occupations in which women in the labour force continually find themselves heavily concentrated. As was mentioned by my colleague, it is those very categories which are most threatened with obsolescence by the massive high-tech revolution which is sweeping over us.
Women are indeed under-represented in the higher paid jobs, Mr. Speaker. As well, they will continue to be paid less for the so-called women's jobs even though such work may be of equivalent value. That is, in terms of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions they will still be of lesser value, given the way in which the market operates, when compared with jobs usually performed by men.
Until this situation is changed, women will continue to earn on average about half the salaries earned by men. That has been documented over and over again. Of women working in this country today, 75 per cent receive salaries of less than $12,000, yet women's earnings are essential to the well-being of the Canadian family. The Canadian Council on Welfare estimated in 1981 that if all the women in two-income earning families ceased working if they were to be out of the paid labour force, then the number of Canadian families living below the poverty line would rise by 60 per cent. That shows how critical the income of women is to the maintenance of family support.
That is why income support is so vital during the period when a pregnant woman or a new mother cannot work. Yet our Unemployment Insurance Act as it is presently constituted, before these amendments take effect, contains several barriers which stand between pregnant women in paid jobs and the income support they need for the time they must be off work due to pregnancy.
In addition to meeting the qualifications necessary to obtain regular or sick benefits, that is in addition to a labour force attachment of some 20 weeks, women claiming maternity benefits must also satisfy that "magic ten" rule in Section 30(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This Section seeks to ensure that the women who was in the paid labour force has to be in the labour force at the time she became pregnant. At least ten of her 20 weeks of employment must fall between the thirtieth and fiftieth weeks prior to confinement.
That requirement, Mr. Speaker, has caused untold hardship, confusion and frustration for women who attempt to obtain maternity benefits. Not only does it create inequities which have been mentioned by the Minister and by my colleague from St. John's East, because the date of birth is not always accurately predicted, but it also means, and this is critically important, that a woman who has been in the labour force for any number of years but who happens to be ill or laid off temporarily at the time she becomes pregnant would not qualify for maternity benefits.

June 2, 1983
If this were not bad enough, Sir, Section 46 of the Act prohibits a pregnant women who is not qualified for maternity benefits from getting any other benefits in the weeks surrounding the birth even though she would otherwise qualify for regular or sick benefits but for her pregnancy. This is the infamous Section 46 which has been referred to as the catch-22 section of the Act as far as pregnant women are concerned. But it will be repealed by the amendments we are considering today.
There are many people who are opposed to changes when it comes to any reference to maternity benefits because they somehow feel that there is going to be a huge extension of payments or a huge addition to the moneys paid out through unemployment insurance benefits. I do not think that such people, when considering the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act as regards-maternity benefits, fully understand the ludicrous position in which some women find themselves as the result of the Act as it presently stands.
I want to refer to a couple of concrete cases which will perhaps give a better idea of the injustices and absurdities caused by these sections to which I referred, Section 46 and Section 30(1). One such case was that of Stella Bliss. She was unemployed at the time of her confinement. She had worked the necessary 20 weeks to qualify for regular benefits, but she did not satisfy the "magic ten" rule. She was therefore denied maternity benefits.
Shortly after her child was born, however, she was in need of income and therefore sought work again. She was unsuccessful in finding a job. Being unemployed, capable and available for work, and having worked the required 20 weeks, she applied for regular unemployment insurance benefits. She was denied them because she was still within the 15-week period when maternity benefits may be payable, even though she was not receiving them.
Bliss argued that Section 46 was discriminatory since it had the effect of denying her benefits to which she would otherwise be entitled but for her pregnancy. She sought redress under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Canadian Bill of Rights was not contravened in her case because Bliss was being discriminated against, not because she was a woman, but, rather, because she was a pregnant person.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is really absurd, ridiculous, to think that such a ruling could have been made. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Bill of Rights did not cover this kind of situation since it prohibited discrimination in the administration of the law only, and not in its content.
Of course, Section 15 of our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms would clearly apply to the discrimination faced by Stella Bliss and others like her. However, the women of Canada cannot yet rely on the Charter, since Section 15,
Unemployment Insurance Act
unlike any other provision in the Charter, does not come into effect until April of 1985.
I want to cite another concrete case which will be addressed by these amendments today, the case of Bernadette Stuart. She was a pregnant woman who left employment as a result of acute appendicitis. She was denied any sick benefits because of Section 46 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which, as I mentioned earlier, denies payment of any benefits other than maternity benefits in the period starting eight weeks before the week of the birth and six weeks after. She was also not entitled to maternity benefits since she did not meet the "magic ten" rule. As a result, she was denied both maternity and sick benefits even though she met all the qualifications for sick benefits. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that Stuart could not rely on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms since Section 15, which guarantees equality before and under the law, does not come into effect until 1985.
These are two very concrete cases which are both reflected in what will happen today, but which could have been addressed previously had Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms been in effect. That is why my colleagues and I have argued time and again in the House of Commons and elsewhere that the Government should act in accordance with the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and amend laws which blatantly discriminate against women, rather than waiting for the three-year period to expire and for such cases to be forced to go to the courts. I am glad to see that this is being done in the case of the discriminatory aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, as the Minister and others know, there are a number of other inequities in our laws which have not been addressed during this period when amendments could very well have been brought in and changes made in the laws.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been asking the Government to amend these provisions under the Unemployment Insurance Act since it brought down its annual report in 1979. Women's organizations such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Association of Women and the Law, and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women have repeatedly sought the amendments with which we are dealing today.
In fact, as the Minister will probably remember, on March 7 of this year, an Opposition day, the Progressive Conservative Party directed its attention to women's issues during the International Women's Week. Our motion at that time criticized the Government for its failure to move to grant legal equality in accordance with the Charter. In my speech I specifically referred to the Bliss case and the discriminatory aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I also want to refer briefly to the important amendment to the Act which my colleagues and I have been seeking through Private Members' Bills, through Question Period and other means, for the last number of years. I am now referring to the amendment which would allow adoptive parents access to maternity benefits on the same basis as natural parents. This,

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
too, is a long overdue amendment; it was mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East, when he spoke earlier today. It has been put forward and argued strenuously by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), not only in the House of Commons but also in many other forums where I have heard him present the case for the extension of UI benefits to adoptive parents, and by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and a number of others in this Party.
Again, this amendment recognizes the fact that women in the paid labour force need income support for periods when their work is necessarily interrupted, just as working men do. In addition, the amendment recognizes that there is no reason to assume that adoptive parents have any less need for such income replacement than natural parents.
I mentioned at the outset that these amendments are long overdue. I am sure the Minister recognizes that I say, with real sincerity, that I am pleased that he has brought forward these amendments today. We have pressed for these amendments time and time again. I know that the commitment has already been made and that our Party is firmly behind them. The recognition of this commitment is very clear from the fact that our Party has given its agreement to pass the legislation through all stages after only one day of debate.
In terminating my remarks, I would say that these amendments are one step forward, maybe a small step but still an important step, to full acceptance by society of women in all aspects of our paid labour force. This is a move toward the acceptance of women as a permanent factor in the labour force of Canada today. I am glad to see the Minister has finally brought them in.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Conservative speaker, and it follows on the subject of the Bill before us today and the failure, I think, of the Conservative Party to address critically the issue of fishermen's unemployment insurance. It did not appear in the previous Conservative Member's speech.
More importantly, the original attempt this afternoon by the NDP to place an amendment before the House to improve and make more equitable the right of fair access of fishermen to the unemployment insurance legislation was blocked by the Conservative Party, who are prepared to accept the Liberal amendments without question. At the same time the NDP attempt to improve the lot of fishermen was blocked today-


James Aloysius McGrath: That is a cheap intervention.


Raymond John Skelly: -by failing to accept an amendment that would protect fishermen on this important issue. I would be more than pleased to hear any representative of the Conservative Party stand up and justify that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned over the years is that Members of the New Democratic Party do not understand the code of honour or ethics that exists in this House of Commons. When an agreement is made to
debate certain amendments and to put those amendments through in the course of one day, I would anticipate that all Members of the House would honour that agreement. But what I see from the intervention by that Member of the New Democratic Party, who is also the spokesman for his Party, is an attempt to undermine and skewer the passage of these very vital amendments which women in this country have been calling for for many years. What the NDP really want to do now is introduce some amendments and upset the agreement that was arrived at after negotiations between the Parties. If they do nothing else, surely these amendments will have the respect of the women in their Party whom I would at least hope would want to see these amendments go though.
I would also ask the Hon. Member to read the words of the Hon. Member for St. John's East and those of us who have taken part in the committee. We do not consider these amendments to be the only ones ever made to this Act. We have said that there will be ongoing amendments which we will be presenting. We are aware that today is devoted to passing certain critical amendments for which a number of us have been fighting for a long period of time.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to engender the wrath of the previous speaker. I simply wanted an explanation as to why, given an opportunity not only to do justice for the women of this country in terms of unemployment insurance and adoptive parents, they were prepared to skewer fishermen. All that was required of the Conservative Party was simply to agree with the New Democratic Party that there were appropriate amendments that could be put at this time which would in fact improve the lot of fishermen. They failed to do that. If anyone is being skewered, it is the fishermen as a result of the combined efforts of the Conservative and Liberal Parties. That is what should go on the permanent record of this House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman does not seem to understand or want to understand English. The agreement was that we would deal with the Government's amendments at all stages in a one-day debate. The hon. gentleman's Party gave that undertaking. They are now breaking that undertaking for some cheap, shoddy, political act of one-upmanship.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Of course, that was not a point of order; that is contribution to the debate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the matter raised illegitimately through a point of order. In consideration of the day, would the Conservatives not recognize that the agreement that was put forward and ultimately accepted by all Parties was that we would pass the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act put forward by the Government during the course of the day? At no time was there any discussion of whether it was possible to put other amendments.
The rules of the House quite clearly allow that if Members of the House wish to put forward amendments, they may do so. It is not a breach of the rules and neither is it a breach of any agreement.
June 2, 1983


James Aloysius McGrath: It certainly is.


Ian Deans: There was no agreement not to place any other amendments. I did the negotiating. There was no agreement. It was not even mentioned.


James Aloysius McGrath: The agreement concerned the Government side. It is not yours.


Ian Deans: The Member can sit and babble on all he wishes. I was at the meeting and there was no such agreement.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is not true.


Ian Deans: I beg your pardon? I demand that that be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It seems to me that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) was given the floor to put a question or make a comment on the basis of the previous Member's speech. In the opinion of the Chair, however, the Hon. Member departed from the content of the speech made by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in order to introduce a totally new matter.
In the Chair's opinion, that is a departure from the understanding of how this question and comment period should be used. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wishes to introduce a new element of debate under the guise of a point of order, in the opinion of the Chair that is hardly acceptable under the general agreement as to how the period should be used.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I now rise on a point of order. I ask that you require the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to withdraw his statement that what I said was untrue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: After consultation with the Table, the Chair should inform the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain that the statement made by the Hon. Member for St. John's East is found both in the list of unparliamentary language and in parliamentary language that has been accepted since a certain date.
However, in the Chair's opinion, which of course is the Chair's opinion and nothing else, the statement made by the Hon. Member for St. John's East is not emphatic in the sense that he has made an accusation that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is-


Ian Deans: You are getting yourself into a mess. Ask him to withdraw it.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Stop challenging the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: If the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain would let me complete my remarks, for an Hon. Member to say that an Hon. Member is not saying the truth is not necessarily the equivalent of saying he is liar. That
Unemployment Insurance Act
is the Chair's understanding of previous decisions by other occupants of the chair.
If it pleases the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, I shall give an opportunity to the Hon. Member for St. John's East to clarify his statement if that may be helpful.


James Aloysius McGrath: In order to get on with it, I am surprised the Hon. Member is so hypersensitive. What I said was not unparliamentary but I will withdraw it and I will tell the Hon. Member that he is guilty of a gross terminological inexactitude.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will not accept the substitution of other words to achieve the same end. Surely that is unacceptable by the Chair. Surely the Chair either requires that the statement be withdrawn or he names the Member.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously what the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said as an interjection is not unparliamentary. You have expressed your view in that regard. Therefore the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has no right to get up and demand that you order the Member to withdraw his remarks.


Ian Deans: That is a lie.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is unparliamentary.


Ian Deans: That is unparliamentary too, I will tell you. But that is a lie. Page 110 of Beauchesne clearly states that you may not use the term "untrue". Read your book. Now you have yourself in a mess.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It is the Chair's duty to try to reconcile different points of view arising in the House, taking into account the circumstances in which they occur. The Chair earlier based a decision on precedents that certain words-


Ian Deans: Pages 110, 112 and 113. Take a look.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: -are to be found in both lists of parliamentary or unparliamentary language in Beauchesne. I can refer Hon. Members to page 113 and the use of the word "untrue". It is to be found as well on page 110.


Ian Deans: Meaning what? Those are unparliamentary words.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is in both lists and previous occupants of the Chair have ruled on a number of occasions that words found in both lists are not deemed to be unparliamentary language. That was the Chair's earlier ruling. The Chair does not intend to go back on that ruling.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am in the hands of the House. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, it is patently obvious that to accuse one Member of deliberately having lied, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain just did in my case, having said that what I said was a lie-


Ian Deans: It was.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -is unparliamentary and I want the remark withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has heard the comments of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. The language used by the Hon. Member is obviously unparliamentary and I would plead with him to reword or rephrase his thoughts. He possibly went beyond what he really meant.


Ian Deans: No, Mr. Speaker. I considered it a lie but I will say it was untrue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1:03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the fisheries industry in Quebec and on the resumption of operations in four Pecheurs-Unis du Quebec plants in the Gaspe.
In March 1982, the directors of Pecheurs-Unis du Quebec submitted a preliminary plan to the Government of Quebec for restructuring the Federation cooperative des pecheurs.
Minister Jean Garon and the PQ Government failed to take any action. In December 1982, fishermen from the Gaspe, the Lower North Shore and the Magdalen Islands established
June 2, 1983
solidarity committees in order to seek the support of Quebecers for government intervention.
Since the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indulged in petty politics instead of letting fishermen and plant employees go back to work at the beginning of the fishing season, the Government of Canada intervened, in the person of the Hon. Pierre De Bane.
I am very pleased to be able to inform the House today that as of June 1, 1983, plants in Newport, Riviere-au-Renard, Saint-Maurice de l'Echouerie and Cloridorme, all in the Gaspe, have resumed operations. In all, 350 fishermen have gone back to sea and, with the fish they catch, are providing employment for 800 workers in the processing plants. Without the intervention of the Government of Canada, the Gaspe plants would still be closed as they are in the Magdalen Islands today.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, there is no question that farm marketing boards have proved their importance to consumers because they provide a stable supply of food at reasonable prices. Marketing boards were created because the free marketing of farm products proved unworkable in reality. Because farmers had very little bargaining power, they were always at the mercy of buyers and food corporations, which invariably resulted in unrealistic low prices for their produce. This in turn resulted in financial instability which drove many farmers, if not out of business, close to the poverty line.
In spite of what some special interest groups would like us to believe, marketing boards do not create scarcities or inefficiencies and do not provide excess profits. What they do is stabilize production and income on the farm, the vital factor needed to give consumers a regular supply of food at reasonable prices. This has resulted in Canadian consumers spending only 17 per cent of disposable income on food, the lowest of any country except the United States.
If farmers lose the protection of marketing boards, the result will be a widely fluctuating supply of food with prices that will have no relation to actual costs of production, and where the middle man will guard his profits by passing the pressure on to the producer or farmer. It would be a regressive step if this were ever allowed to happen.
June 2, 1983


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, in today's Globe and Mail the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) gives us some interesting insights into his policies should he become Leader of the PC Party. While trying to co-opt the forces of the right, he tempers this by advocating governance from the centre. After titillating the right with Reaganomics-Crosbie style, he now talks of accepting a federal deficit which he admits is largely attributable to the very generous, humane, and compassionate policies of the Liberal Party. In accepting the deficit, he sounds vaguely like another well-known Progressive Conservative who, a few years ago, reversed his previously hardened attitude on Government spending and talked in terms of a stimulative deficit. In fact, I quote the story:
As a finance Minister whose 1979 budget promised to halve the deficit in four years, he argues that the only way to reduce the deficit is to hold Government spending down to the rate of inflation, resist the temptation to launch costly new programs, cut where possible and shoot for economic growth. "If you could do what I'm saying, it will be a very great victory".
Well, Madam Speaker, this just happens to be the very enlightened policy being followed by the Liberal Government over the last few years. Furthermore, after going down the dead end of advocating a policy of free trade with the United States, he now apparently embraces the Foreign Investment Review Agency because, as he admits in the article, Canadians basically support the concept of FIRA, which ensures that, to be accepted, proposed foreign takeovers must show a significant benefit to Canada.
One is left perplexed by the Hon. Member for St. John' West. Is he really supporting sound Liberal policies which have steered Canada well through the tough economic recession? If so, why is he running for the leadership of a Party whose policies he obviously rejects? Or, is one to believe that the Hon. Member for St. John's West realizes that victory is not within his grasp and he is laying the ground work for his return to the Liberal fold?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, a well known maxim is that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. Once again a high official in Parks Canada was quoted in The Globe and Mail of May 27 as saying, "There are no admissions that anyone was doing anything wrong" in allowing Mr. Buchanan and his partners to begin work on the project.
Nothing wrong in destroying a beautiful park and replacing it with an apartment building? Nothing wrong with rushing the project through? Nothing wrong with ignoring and waiving the normal requirements for offstreet parking that all other applicants had to follow? Nothing wrong with swapping public lands worth $1,300,000 for land worth $600,000?
Now hear this: Parks Canada officials have agreed not to bend the rules again like they did to allow the Buchanan apartment building to desecrate a beautiful park, and that in all future developments the park officials must follow the proper procedures. If the park officials think this late confession will wash away all of the guilt of the Judd Buchanan deal, they should realize that every time anyone looks at the apartment buildings now located where the park once graced the town of Banff, they will be reminded of the bending of the rules to accommodate an ex-Liberal Cabinet Minister.
This under the table deal will forever remain a blight on Parks Canada and on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) who permitted it, if indeed he did not order it.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, recently the Ontario Securities Commission ordered that several Canadian chartered banks disclose information on their extensive foreign operations. It is one of the first times in Canada that the big banks have been forced to divulge such information. Usually we obtain this information through the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
In the United States all companies that trade shares are required to report details of financial operations, executive salaries and compensation, and affiliations, to the Commission. If many of our largest corporations did not trade shares in the United States, we might never find out this information. This is a disgraceful situation.
The five big Canadian chartered banks control over $348 billion in assets and enjoy a federal charter which allows them a virtual monopoly of banking in Canada. They are extremely powerful and are controlled by a relatively small group of individuals who also sit on the boards of many major corporations. Thus, linked by interlocking directorships, the banks make decisions which affect our economic life.
It is disgraceful that we should be required to wait for information from the United States to find out what our banks are up to. Canadians have a right to know what bank executives are paid, what investments the banks are involved in overseas, and the extent of the non-productive loans the banks carry. Canadian legislation should require that the banks make such information available.

June 2, 1983


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, a new expression has been coined by the media, "bag ladies". This is not to be confused with the image implied by the political term "bag men". The so-called bag ladies are single, transient women whose total worldly possessions are contained in a bag they carry, hence the name. They rely on drop-in centres for sustenance, and depend upon hostels for a night's shelter. They are more numerous in large communities but are present in small cities as well.
Over 60 per cent of these bag ladies are ex-psychiatric patients suffering from chronic mental illness. This calls into question the effectiveness of provincial psychiatric release and follow-up programs.
[DOT] (MIO)
The remainder are women who become homeless because of a variety of destabilizing social reasons. These ladies are street-wise, unemployed, and very often depressed. Most of them have experienced some form of violence, either in childhood or in early adulthood.
Hostel centres, such as the Brothers of the Good Shepherd Women's Centre in Hamilton, fulfil short-term needs for these women. What is required for long-term help for these unfortunate women is the provision of more supervised boarding homes, more halfway houses and community support systems, as well as greater participation on a voluntary basis by established women's organizations. I hope that all levels of Government as well as non-profit organizations will explore what avenues are open to help these ladies.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, a landmark decision has been made by the Income Tax Appeal that will assist the handicapped of the country in spite of Government inaction. Yesterday, Mr. D. E. Taylor, Chairman of the Tax Appeal Board, ruled that disabled people do not have to be confined to a conventional wheelchair to qualify for the $2,100 disability deduction. This decision overturns a ruling which openly discriminates against handicapped people who contribute to society through their taxes rather than being dependent on society to keep them.
The person who has been successful in challenging the Tax Appeal Board is Mr. Michael Overdyk of Pickering, Ontario. I congratulate both Mr. Overdyk, for his courageous and relentless efforts and appeals, and Mr. D. E. Taylor for making a fair and enlightened decision which, though long overdue, will go far in correcting the obstacles faced by disabled persons, particularly those who are able to help themselves.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, the Progressive Conservative leadership candidates agree that the Crow rate should be changed and that grain farmers should pay more. The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie) says that the farmers' share of the cost has to increase. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) says that the revised Bill is "a move in the right direction". Montreal businessman Brian Mulroney agrees that the Government is "going in the right direction". The Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), who has only been here 11 or 12 years, says that he has not had time for a detailed study of the issue. Edmonton millionaire and barefoot boy, Peter Pockling-ton, says that the Crow rate is obsolete and should be abolished, and the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) wants changes in the Bill but agrees that grain producers should pay more.
If the leadership candidates for the Progressive Conservative Party agree that the Crow rate should be changed and the farmers should pay more, and that the Government is going in the right direction, will those leadership candidates tell all of us in which direction they would steer the Conservative Party on the issue of the Crow rate?


FISHERIES
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, I wish to express to the House my indignation concerning the situation now prevailing in the Magdalen Islands. For more than a month, the PQ Government of Quebec has been holding people hostage in this part of my riding. A month ago, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made a proposal to the Quebec Government for reopening the fish processing plant which is a vital part of the economy of the Islands. The Quebec Government never gave any indication of any desire to help reopen the plant. Two weeks later, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made two major concessions to the Quebec Government that were in the interests of the fishermen and the people of the Islands, and once again, the PQ Government refused the federal offer. As recently as last Saturday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tried again and submitted another proposal to the Quebec Government, saying that he was prepared to issue fishing permits to the Association des pecheurs hauturiers, thus authorizing them to go to sea and harvest the fish, and once again, the PQ Government refused to co-operate in settling this case.
Consequently, Madam Speaker, I believe the Government should consider the interests of the people and the fishermen,
June 2, 1983

set aside its political ideology and enable workers and fishermen on the Islands to go back to work so that plant workers as well will be able to do the work they normally do at this time of the year.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As the Minister will know, last evening on the CBC national news it was revealed that the Minister for International Trade made extensive use of the Government JetStars during 1981. On 60 per cent of those trips, the Minister, his family, and relatives, rode for free. I would ask the Minister of Transport what the Liberal policy is with respect to free rides for family members on Government JetStars.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, Department of Transport planes are made available to members of the Cabinet who travel on Government business. The Minister's department is charged on the basis of the plane operational cost. In other words, the number of people on board the plane does not affect the cost.
I was also on TV yesterday trying to explain that, because of the heavy load on members of Cabinet, which everybody will recognize, travelling affords Cabinet Ministers one of the few opportunities they have to be with their wives and children. I argued this case, and I was promptly chastised by my own wife for not practising what I was preaching.
I have said all of this to indicate that Members of Cabinet use these planes on the honour system. They use them when travelling on Government business, and I tried to explain that having one passenger, or two or three, on board the plane does not make a real difference to what is being charged to the country.


AVAILABILITY OF COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. What effort is made by Transport Canada to check the availability of regular commercial flights, such as those from Ottawa to Calgary? If the Minister were to take a regular commercial flight, it would save the Government some $1,150 per hour. What effort is made by the Government to check the availability of commercial flights before the free rides take over?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I repeat that the Ministers operate on an honour
Oral Questions
system, and I do not ask every Minister on each occasion if they could have used some other facility of a commercial nature. The guidelines are available for everybody to read. By way of illustration, the guidelines say:
-in the following circumstances:
(a) when a flight is being made to a point where there is no commercial air
service; where no space is available ... where ... substantial savings of
essential time can be made by using departmental aircraft-
Time is a very important consideration. Using myself as an example, very often in the last year and a half I have travelled west on Crow business and, because of the Government airplane, I have had the opportunity to do in one day or half a day what I would not have been able to do in three days using commercial airplanes. This illustrates the phrase "savings of essential time".
I believe that the population as a whole does recognize this. They generally request Cabinet Ministers to be present for many kinds of occasions, for personal negotiations as well as social events, and consequently using the Government airplane is the only way that we can fulfil those requests.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, we are not very impressed with the Minister's use of the phrase "honour system", because the Government abandoned the honour system a long time ago.


COST OF FLIGHT FROM OTTAWA TO CALGARY
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister specifically about what transpired on April 16, 1981, when the Minister of International Trade flew from Ottawa to Calgary with his wife and three children, even though regular commercial service was available. That trip cost the taxpayers of Canada $10,000. How much advance notice was Transport Canada given of the Minister's requirement for a JetStar for his family on that occasion?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, to be able to answer that question fairly, I would have to know about all of the circumstances, and I do not. But I do know that I went to Calgary at about the same time, but I also went to Edmonton and to Regina at the same time. It all depends on the circumstances, and I referred to savings of essential time as one of the criteria that would be helpful to consider when making a judgment on any decision to use a JetStar. Be that as it may, I do not answer for each of the Ministers singly. Each one of them has to justify the flight of a Minister to the public, in general, and follow the guidelines. Each one of them has to send me a letter in which he says, and I quote:
I (or my Minister)-
If it is the Executive Assistant.
-request the use of this aircraft fully cognizant of the guidelines established by the Department of Transport, consistent with the Government's commitment to restraint and the Prime Minister's code of conduct as applied to Ministers of the Crown.

June 2, 1983
Oral Questions
He must sign that, and then it is his responsibility to justify and answer questions of the type which has just been posed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, the Minister, and other Hon. Members on the Government side, seem to miss the objective we are seeking over here, and that is to restore some honour and integrity to the actions of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: And in this regard, to avoid the boondoggling as much as possible with respect to Canadian National Railways' further investment of Canadian taxpayers' dollars in Cast, and to avoid what we are learning more and more about every day the fiasco with the Challenger, with Canadair, the $1.5 billion-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, my dear, I sure and definitely do-


Madam Speaker:: Do not call me "my dear". Call me "Madam Speaker".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I sure as hell do.
The Minister of Transport will be aware that the Standing Committee has deferred, until such time as negotiations between CN and the Cast group are completed, any further hearings with respect to their annual report. Might I ask the Minister very specifically, with respect to the decision now in front of Cabinet to be taken with respect to further investment, whether the Minister would not give an undertaking to consult and advise his Cabinet colleagues on the special committee not to take a decision until such time as, first, the Standing Committee has completed its examination of CN's annual report, and, second, until the hearing under the Combines Investigation Act with respect to rebates west of Montreal is completed. That is the only way whereby affected interests can participate, that no decision be taken until the Canadian Transport Commission winds up its full hearings on Cast-CN sometime in September or the early Fall.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, a decision has not been made, so, consequently, my colleagues in the Cabinet, having listened to the question, can decide to take the factors mentioned into consideration. At least some of them have already been taken into consideration. However, I can only say that the merger of Cast and CN is a commercial deal. If one waits until one goes to the CTC to get an authorization of some kind, one may wait a long time, first of all because it takes time to make the decision and, second, it
can be appealed, and so on. This is a commercial deal and, really, one cannot stop the world to get on or off depending on approval of regulatory bodies. The practice in the past has been that the CTC approval is a post facto event. Therefore, I do not see really why we should stop the world in order to accommodate the question which was raised.


TIMING OF CABINET DECISION
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, would the Minister not concede that there at least has to be something strange about Cabinet giving approval to one of its principal Crown Corporations to proceed into a questionable private adventure at the very exact point in time when that principal Crown Corporation is under investigation, under the Combines Investigation Act?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I did get some advice from the Minister of Consumer Affairs on the subject and I was informed by him that the inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act now taking place has nothing to do with the circumstances, with the factors, conditions, et cetera, of a possible merger between CN and Cast. I took that precaution before giving the okay to the finalization of the negotiations between the two parties.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the Minister knows, Ontario Hydro has stored millions of gallons of radioactive water at Pickering as part of the waste from its atomic energy reactor, part of the disastrous nuclear power program which has placed Ontario Hydro and the people of Ontario into $16 billion of debt.
As the Minister also knows, Ontario Hydro has recently announced that, in order to cut out the cost of a treatment plant, which it promised after some of this radioactive water leaked into Lake Ontario four years ago, it will transport this dangerous radioactive poison, in the equivalent of a truckload every second day, through Ajax, Whitby, and Oshawa, to Port Darlington. Will the Minister, the toothless watchdog of the Atomic Energy Control Board, today give this House a commitment to stop Ontario Hydro from endangering present and future generations of Canadians, and to provide the money necessary to treat nuclear waste safely?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, government directives have been issued regarding safety procedures for these materials, and Hydro Ontario is obliged to follow them. We intend to ensure
June 2, 1983

that the regulations concerning the disposal of nuclear waste are observed, in this case as in any other.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY COSTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, since the Minister has not seriously answered the question, I would like to ask him a further question. Since he seems willing to risk the safety of millions of Canadians, not only with radioactive water but with radioactive spent nuclear fuel and radioactive mine tailings, will he now tell us the true total cost of the Government's nuclear power program, including the cost of waste treatment? If he does not know the answer to that, will he at last heed the call of church leaders, union officers, and community spokespersons, by establishing a public inquiry into the risks and costs of the whole nuclear production cycle from mining to waste disposal?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, to answer the question in terms of the cost, I cannot give the Hon. Member that answer because he did not give me any notice. I will certainly look into it. If he would ask his question in a proper fashion, it would be put on the Order Paper and we would reply to it.
In terms of the inquiry, there were many inquiries on that subject, and I do feel that the performance of the Canadian nuclear atomic energy industry has been probably the safest in the world. We have never encountered any serious accident in Canada. We have developed a very good safe system, the Candu reactor. We have some mines which operate in the uranium fields, and so on. There is in Canada a nuclear energy policy which is one of the best in the world, and I am not ashamed of it.


TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, my further supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Three years ago in July, Parliament passed the Minister's Bill on the transportation of dangerous goods, but the Minister has not yet put any of the regulations under the Bill into force. Will he therefore tell this House today when he will put these regulations into force, and whether these regulations will control the transportation by Ontario Hydro of dangerous nuclear wastes, so as to protect the people of Canada from danger to life and health through irresponsible cost cutting by provincial and federal Governments?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the value and beauty of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act which the House passed two years ago is that it is all-encompassing. It covers federal and provincial jurisdictions alike, which is an innovation in the federal system in Canada-a very good one, I feel. Indeed, we have had difficulties in producing the regulations. We are still working at it. The difficulties are many, one of which is that we are trying to reconcile in this set of regulations the development of
Oral Questions
this matter in the world today, in Canada-U.S. trade relationships, and so on. It is very, very complex. Drafting is done in full consultation with industry. Progress is being made. Already Unit 1 of these regulations has been gazetted. Units 2 and 3 are coming. I recognize that my Department is late on this subject and I beg indulgence in view of the size, the magnitude, and complexity of the task.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The City of Winnipeg has deferred the reconstruction of the Salter Street bridge over the CPR yards in Winnipeg to the point that delay can no longer be tolerated. The Canadian Transport Commission will not issue a board order for the reconstruction of this overpass until it receives proof that the funds required are secured.
Since the UTAP funds are now exhausted, can the Minister tell us if the Government will soon be in a position to guarantee federal assistance for major grade separations of this nature under a successor program to the Urban Transit Assistance Program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I remember reading that this is a good project that normally would have been approved. As everybody knows, however, UTAP is coming to an end in March, 1984, and at the moment all funds have been assigned. There is the question of whether there will be what friends of mine refer to as "Son of UTAP". The answer is that a paper is before Cabinet at this time. Consequently, if there is a son of UTAP, and if priority decisions are left to the Provinces, and if the Province of Manitoba decides that this is still a good project, then it will be done, but there may be some change in the legislation that the Government may approve.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Labour. Having regard to the fact that negotiations have broken down between elevator terminal operators and the grain handlers, is the Government going to continue its hands-off policy, or is it going to show leadership, exercise its responsibility, and bring the parties together? Will it appoint a conciliation commissioner or a conciliation board? I ask this in view of the fact that the core of the problem is found in the policies of the Government. What action is the Government going to take?

June 2, 1983
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we regret very much that both parties to this particular dispute have not shown any sign of compromise or of trying to reach agreement. It is particularly regrettable that they have now broken off all discussion.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member that the right of collective bargaining is an essential right in the whole area of labour-market development. With that right there comes a responsibility to the parties to the collective bargaining. It is very clear in this case that labour and management must exercise their responsibility, not only to themselves but to the public interest. They should get back to the table and bargain for an agreement between themselves as collective bargaining requires them to do.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Since this imminent strike or lockout comes at a very critical time, the crop year end, and having regard to the fact that there was a disruption of a shipment of one million tonnes caused by a strike last Fall, is the Minister saying that he is going to allow a strike or lockout to occur before any action is taken? Why will the Government not take its responsibility and ensure that grain moves in an orderly manner and without disruption?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the policy of the Hon. Member's Party is because it is difficult to determine its policy on anything these days. Our policy is very clear. For years we have believed in collective bargaining as the basic means by which we arrive at solutions to labour disputes. We also believe that in order to ensure the trust of collective bargaining we must put the onus on the parties to the dispute to arrive at settlements and to take into account that the full right of the public interest must be served. Of course we want a settlement, and of course we do not want disruption. We believe that the parties to the conflict must get back to the table and bargain in good faith.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that Argentina is negotiating with Libya for the sale of nuclear technology. He will also know that Canada has recently completed co-operating with Argentina in the establishment of a Candu reactor system and that the system was just inaugurated. Is the Minister aware of the negotiations between Argentina and Libya, and is aware that Libya has attempted to procure nuclear weapons technology from China?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have been made aware of comments allegedly made by a representative of the Argentinian authorities about possible discussions with Libya but I have not received any authoritative information from the Argentinian Government that would lead me to invoke the provisions of the agreement we have with Argentina with respect to the nuclear facilities in that country which are of Canadian origin.


RELATIONS WITH ARGENTINA
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The head of the Argentinian Atomic Agency was quoted at the opening of the Candu reactor as saying that this negotiation was under way and was being undertaken. I think that report is something that should concern the Minister and that he should follow it up.
In view of the current test of the reliability of Argentina, and in view of the fact that as a country we have not been able to secure that additional safeguard treaty that we feel is important, will Canada continue to carry on business as usual with Argentina? Will the Minister take any specific action to ensure that Canada will not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to statements that have been made by the authorities in Argentina. My information is that a reference was made to the possibility of supplying medical isotopes to Libya and that they may consider the possibility of entering into a nuclear agreement with Libya. I do not think that constitutes a basis for invoking the agreement we have with Argentina with respect to the retransfer of nuclear technology.


INDUSTRY
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As he knows, the steel industry in Canada is in a pretty chaotic state compared even to some segments of the United States. In my riding, Lake Ontario Steel Company Limited has been operating at 30 per cent capacity and recently increased that to 40 per cent capacity because the inventory depletion.
In view of the fact that the two associated plants of Lake Ontario Steel in New Jersey and in Dallas are working at 100 per cent capacity, and the plant in Whitby is working at 40 per cent capacity, with 400 people unemployed, what action is the Government taking in order to give some security to the steel industry and getting employees back to work?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: June 2, 1983

Madam Speaker, first of all the cyclical problem that the Canadian industry is experiencing is no different from that of other industrialized countries. As a matter of fact our steel industry happens to be in better shape than nearly all the industrialized nations of the world. That is mainly because of the capital cost allowances which the federal Government has offered over the past 15 years.
As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, when the Reagan administration came into power, one of the areas they wanted to look at was the capital cost allowance that the Canadian Liberal Government had introduced, because they wanted to adopt similar measures to ensure that their steel companies were operating at maximum capacity utilization.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. My first question in the House on October 27 last was addressed to the Minister of State for mines when I urged her to look into the iron and steel industries in this country, particularly the Adams Mine in Kirkland Lake which was facing a three-month shutdown. The same problem is occurring today. Imported steel is being dumped in Canada. What is the Prime Minister going to do to help thousands of Canadians get back to work in order to get our steel industry going?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, the problem is over-production of iron ore. I am sure the Hon. Member is very much aware of that situation. I must add that I believe that people in his area are being called back to work. It has one of the better mines in Canada.


FORESTRY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who is responsible for the Canadian Forestry Service. He will be aware that British Columbia is experiencing the most disastrous forest fire season in decades. The Province this year has already lost some 45,000 hectares of forest land, which is a record loss of about 80 per cent above average. Has the Minister received any request for assistance from the Province of British Columbia? On the other hand, has he, or have his officials, made any offers of assistance to the Province to help meet this threat?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the situation is being monitored through the Winnipeg Inter-Agency Fire Centre. I am told that British
Oral Questions
Columbia has not, at least as yet, requested any aid from the Fire Centre. However, the Centre has identified possible sources of aid in Canada and the U.S. in case such a request is forthcoming.


INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE ARSON
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, in the Hudson Hope area, one of the three major areas in British Columbia currently being consumed by fire, we understand the RCMP are conducting a number of investigations into what they view as possible arson being responsible for a number of fires in that area. Is the Minister aware of how those investigations are proceeding? And, while he is at it, on a related matter can he tell me what the response from British Columbia has been to the offer in the federal budget of two new Canadair water bombers for the price of one?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, on the First part of the question, no, I do not have at hand knowledge of any investigation being undertaken by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As to the second question, I will be meeting with the British Columbia Minister to discuss that matter, among others, I think in the next week or so. I do not have the date immediately at hand, but we have had a request for a meeting and it will be taking place very shortly.


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. In light of the recent conversation between his office and my office concerning the term employees who have not been called back to work at Canadian Forces Base Borden, the fact that their jobs have been filled by people on welfare, and that these welfare recipients in many cases would not report to work for these jobs, would the Minister now admit to the House that his so called job creation program as far as National Defence bases are concerned is really a job replacement program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member is in conversation with our Department. I am glad he is in conversation with somebody about the program. It is unfortunate that he has not learned more about the program and the fact that we have now approved some 50,000 jobs across Canada. This is not for people who are simply on welfare, but in fact for those who have exhausted unemployment insurance benefits and therefore have not only lost their jobs but also their incomes. That is one reason why they were given some priority. Not only do they face by far the most serious and drastic circumstances, but they have also lost the protection and security of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

June 2, 1983
Oral Questions
As far as a specific case on a DND base is concerned, we have stated in this House many times that it is not a job replacement program. In the circumstances where it was, the Minister of National Defence has indicated that those were term contracts coming to an end in any event. If there were any attempt to overlay those, we would bring them forward for review. We are presently doing that with the Minister of National Defence but we have not been able to determine whether there are actual cases of that kind.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, a broad rule of thumb used by Government officials to estimate the number of full-time jobs provided by capital intensive projects is one job for every $100,000 spent. Other non-capital intensive but temporary make work projects of course are less costly but are mostly non-productive.
My question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Business. Since small business is by far the largest and most productive potential employer in Canada and is not able to benefit from all the phony and costly temporary make work projects, would the Minister consider initiating or supporting employment tax incentives against unemployment insurance premiums for easier and more extensive hiring by the small business sector, thereby providing more jobs and, more important, more productive jobs?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, we are always prepared to consider other initiatives which would help small business, but I have to point out to the Hon. Member that the recent budget of the Minister of Finance is clearly a budget for small business. It is quite clear that the Minister listened to the small business community and responded extremely well. 1 want to congratulate him on the way he has done that.
When I look at the carry-over and carry-back provisions for capital losses and look at the R and D incentives, when I look at the capital projects going ahead all across the country which will provide a lot of work for small business contractors, and when I look at the housing initiatives that will do the same thing, there are a lot of initiatives there for small-businessmen. Of course if the Member does not believe me, he should listen to the spokesmen for the small business community who, I think, are saying the same thing.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The press has reported the Minister as indicating to the
annual meeting of the Calgary Immigrant Aid Society that "there would definitely be no amnesty declared for illegal aliens". Is that in fact the case? Has the Minister made his decision?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we have a special review going on concerning the whole question of illegal immigration. I indicated at that meeting in Calgary that a general amnesty is not a solution to that problem. In fact it would simply provide a perpetuation of the problem by bringing in another wave of illegals. But I want to report to the House, Madam Speaker, and I intend to table the report of that special review in front of the Committee of Labour Manpower and Immigration at the end of June, at which time we will outline the recommendations to deal with the serious problem of illegal immigration.


INCENTIVES FOR OIL SANDS PROJECTS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who will know that the development of the oil sands creates thousands of jobs in virtually every sector of the Canadian economy, particularly in central Canada. He will also know that had the same deal been given to Alsands or Shell as was given to BP at Wolf Lake, we would now have an Alsands project going. In the spirit of creating jobs and putting Canadians back to work, is the Minister presently dealing with Shell Oil or Syncrude to see if they can be given the same deal so that they will develop the oil sands in the same way as at Wolf Lake?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we are discussing some projects with some sectors of the petroleum industry. I am not at liberty to name the companies. There are some projects being debated at this time. Of course one of the problems is that many of the projects in the past were based on an ever-increasing international price for oil. We see now that the price has gone down so the economics of these projects are not the same as they were two years ago.
Most of the difficulties are not because of the tax propositions we have put forward. The Wolf Lake project was accepted not long ago. Many of the difficulties are not because of a lack of tax incentives from the federal Government or royalty incentives from the Alberta Government; they are based on the international price of oil which is not going up but is going down at this time.


GOVERNMENT OFFER
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, is the Minister saying that he is offering the same deal to other oil
June 2, 1983

companies for the development of the oil sands in exactly the same way it was offered to BP and Petro-Canada?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, when it was mentioned in the budget and in my communications with the press, we said we were offering a generous incentive to all the companies, so any which want to have the same deal as BP and Petro-Canada in the case of Wolf Lake can apply for the same deal.
By the way, I would like the Hon. Member to apologize to Petro-Canada because the day that Petro-Canada joined BP in the Wolf Lake project he was rather nasty vis-a-vis Petro-Canada. In fact the partners of BP, other companies in the private sector, did not want to join BP, so Petro-Canada did.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITY TO DEAL WITH TELEVISED PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, on January 18 the Minister of Communications, in reply to a question of mine on pornography in pay-television, told the House that Parliament had given authority over content to the CRTC and that the CRTC had the necessary powers to monitor the situation and take corrective action. He also said that he had full confidence in the Chairman of the CRTC and in the CRTC itself. Since then, the Chairman of the CRTC has said that he-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The long preamble, with all the quotations, which the Hon. Member has given, is not necessary for the question. I would urge her to go straight to her question.


Lynn McDonald: My question, Madam Speaker, is: does the minister of Communications agree with the Chairman of the CRTC that it is not its responsibility to deal with pornography? Has he changed his mind from the position he gave to the House on January 18?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, when one speaks of the powers of the CRTC and the powers delegated by Parliament to the CRTC, one must obviously consider the Broadcasting Act which was passed unanimously by all Parties in the House in 1968. What the Broadcasting Act states is that the CRTC has responsibility for supervising and regulating the broadcasting system in Canada.


INQUIRY RESPECTING PENALTIES
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, the Minister has not answered the question, and I think we must know where he stands. Does he consider that Canadian women deserve some protection against pornogra-
Oral Questions
phy, which is becoming worse? If so, how? Can he be very specific? If a pay TV station, or a network, or a television broadcasting station, is convicted of obscenity, for example, under the Criminal Code, does he believe that there should be revocation of licence?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member had the opportunity, if she so desired, to direct all of her questions to the Chairman of the CRTC, who appeared in front of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture of the House. During the course of his presentation there, the Chairman of the CRTC, himself, indicated that he thought the proper place for dealing with obscenity in Canada was through the Criminal Code.
Very recently the Minister of Justice of Canada indicated his intentions of bringing forward amendments to the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. The basic position of the Government of Canada is that problems of obscenity on TV or in other areas should be dealt with, as is also stated in the Broadcasting Act, by a statute of general application. The statute of general application which should apply in such a situation is, indeed, the Criminal Code of Canada.
It ought not to be up to the Crown, the Government, or the executive, to decide what type of programming ought to be allowed in the broadcasting system in Canada. To make that type of suggestion is to indicate that we should have the type of system which does indeed exist in many socialist countries, but which does not exist in countries such as Canada.


FISHERIES
Alexandre Cyr: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Gaspe fishermen accepted the federal Government's offer for reopening the fishing season in March 1983, pending implementation of the Kirby report. Although most co-operative fishermen in the Gaspe want to get rid of the Pecheurs-Unis, they agreed with the De Bane plan so that the processing plants could be reopened. Considering the fact that as of June 1, 56 per cent of the ground fish quota has been caught in the Gulf, could the Hon. Minister inform the House whether he expects fishermen from the Magdalen Islands to be able to go back to sea within the next few days so that they can also have a share of the ground fish quota in the Gulf?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member was present with other Members from Eastern Quebec when we made our offer to all Pecheurs-Unis plants, including the Madelipeche plant, and all plant workers agreed that the federal plan, namely, to reopen the plants, provided creditors exercised restraint, was supported by all plant workers, including Madelipeche. What I am

June 2, 1983
Oral Questions
trying to do now is to reopen Madelipeche, provided I can get the assurance of the Government of Quebec that it will do everything in its power to avoid a situation where reopening the plant would be a threat to other plants that have been reopened, in the riding of the Hon. Member for Gaspe, for instance.


ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Multicul-turalism. Before a parliamentary committee is set up on racism and bigotry, 1 would like to know whether the Minister has consulted with the Commissioner of Human Rights and with his ministerial counterparts in the different Provinces.


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Yes, Madam Speaker, the proposed parliamentary committee, although new reports have had it otherwise, comes as a result of a symposium held in Vancouver in April of 1982, on race relations and the law. The Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission was a member of the symposium. There were representatives of a number of the provincial human rights commissions. The major recommendation out of the symposium was that we should have a national inquiry into racism in Canada.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, is the Minister planning to spend another three-quarters of a million dollars out of his $13.7 million budget? I hope he will not take it out of the multicultural advertising budget and go ahead and travel across the country to study something which he has now done 11 times, spending $1.5 million. 1 wonder what the Minister will do now about bigotry. 1 think it is very important that something be done right now.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: am afraid the Hon. Member, my critic, has not been reading my press releases. I will forgive him, except to say that the 11 situational studies to which he made reference, although, again, the press was wrong, did not cost $1.5 million. They cost $94,000. They were done in preparation for the symposium on race relations and the law.
My budget for grants and contributions to multiculturalism was doubled about six weeks ago. Therefore, next year it will be approximately $17 million or $18 million, double the previous amount.
One of our major priorities is race relations. Therefore, we indeed have focused very much on the situation. I hope we will have the support of the Hon. Member for the proposed committee because, indeed, the ones who called for it were human rights commissioners, civil libertarians, and a cross-section of visible minority leaders. I hope we will have his support and that of his caucus. Indeed, that is our parallel, our initiative in doubling funding and proposing the Parliamentary inquiry.


Mr. Oberle:: I am inclined to say that an election has just been announced.


BANKS AND BANKING
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I am sure that he, like myself and many of our colleagues, has been inundated with reports that Canada's banks are not accepting Government cheques, usually income tax return cheques. They are not cashing them unless a person has an account. If there is an account, it is frozen by the amount of the cheque for up to six months.
I would like to ask the Minister whether that is a reflection of the Government's precarious financial situation and the excessive deficit which it carries.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: The Minister of National Revenue's lot is never a happy one.
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I have been accustomed to far more serious questions, and especially comments, from the Hon. Member.
I think the Hon. Member realizes full well that financial institutions are acting in the interests of Canadian taxpayers when they take certain precautions before cashing a cheque, and ask for ID and whether the individual has an account, to make sure that the person cashing the cheque is in fact the rightful recipient. I believe it is most certainly in the interests of the thousands of taxpayers who are now receiving income tax return cheques from the Canadian Government, to make sure their cheques do not go to the wrong person as a result of theft or because someone tried to cash the cheque by fraudulent means.
It is therefore a practice followed by financial institutions, to protect taxpayers by making sure that the cheque is being cashed by the right person.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I had not intended at all to be devious or funny in my question. It is serious.
June 2, 1983


DELAY IN HONOURING CHEQUES
Frank Oberle: There are many people who are unemployed, whose benefits have run out, who have earned some tax credits in previous years, and who do not maintain bank accounts. Why does it take six weeks or six months for a cheque to clear through the Government bureaucracy? Why do the banks need that unusual protection in terms of Government cheques? Where is the fraud? Is it in the Government bureaucracy? Is it in the Post Office? Has the Minister undertaken any initiatives to clean up this fraud and this mess?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has a problem but is reluctant to take a careful look at the facts.
The precautions taken by financial institutions when cashing cheques, whether it is a cheque issued by the Government or by a private citizen or any other kind of cheque, are taken in order to protect their customers and the people in whose name the cheques have been issued. I think it is in the interests of all Canadians that such precautions should be taken, to ensure that when large numbers of cheques are issued, there is no opportunity for fraud which would deprive the rightful recipients of the money to which they are entitled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 31, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-151, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Madam Speaker:: It being three o'clock, pursuant to Order made Wednesday, June 1, 1983, it is my duty to put every question necessary to dispose of Bill C-151, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority.
Accordingly, the question is as follows: Mr. Cosgrove, seconded by Mr. Chretien, moved that Bill C-151, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be now read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Borrowing Authority


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion:
That sub-clause 2(1) of Bill C-151 be amended by substituting-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. We are not yet considering clause 2.


Roderick Blaker: We have not yet arrived at Clause 2. Clause 1 agreed to.
On Clause 2-Borrowing Authority


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subsclause 2(1) of the Bill C-151 be amended by striking out line 14 on page 1 and substituting the following: "exceeding in the whole, ten billion seven"


Roderick Blaker: Pursuant to the House order made yesterday, the amendment suggested by the Minister is found to be in order. Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 2 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Mr. Cosgrove moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Paul James Cosgrove: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and Bill read the third time and passed.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, June 1, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Government House Leader to clarify the business of the House for next week. At the same time I would ask if he could clarify the disposition of the motion debated last Friday with respect to the Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission report.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the business for the remainder of the week is that we have agreed to go through all stages of the Unemployment Insurance Act today and it should be dealt with before six o'clock. Tomorrow will be an allotted day.

As far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, I would like to designate two days as Opposition days, namely Monday and Thursday. Next Tuesday we shall be considering the report stage of Bill C-85, the Canagrex Bill, and next Wednesday will be set aside for Private Members' Business. Regarding the point raised by the Hon. Member- [English]
In relation to the debate we had earlier last week on the electoral boundaries of the Province of Alberta, it was made clear during the debate that we intended that this debate be completed later. If I may, I should like to refer the House to Hansard of May 27, at page 25791, where I said:
The debate is not terminated today. It will go on at a later date and I will inform the House accordingly.
June 2, 1983

I think that was the agreement, Madam Speaker. What has been reproduced in Votes and Proceedings does not reflect what 1 said on the floor of the House. It should be made clear that the consideration of the objections to the boundaries of Alberta were not merely adjourned but that the debate has to be completed before the report is sent to the Chief Electoral Officer. If it is absolutely necessary, we might have a House order stating that the debate has to be completed first, but I do not think it is necessary. I think it was very clear, but to satisfy some minds we would agree that the debate has to be completed and that there be a House order to that effect.


Madam Speaker:: I think it has to be made clear to the House-I understand that the debate itself was not completed, as was made clear by the hon. Minister and as he repeated today. Members must understand that even if the debate is not completed, unless an order of the House is given to the contrary, the Speaker is obligated to make a report even if that report includes the warning that some future debate will take place. However, according to the law, once a report has been made by the Speaker, the procedure goes on and is open. As Hon. Members know, once a report is made, then the boundaries can be proclaimed. If it is a House order that the Speaker do not report, in the dalays provided by the law, then of course the House interprets the law, and if that House order is given the Speaker will comply with it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Under those circumstances, Madam Speaker, I will get together with the Government House Leader and we will draft an order, which I am given to understand the New Democratic Party will agree with.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think there is agreement that the debate not be adjourned but that it be completed before you report to the Chief Electoral Officer. I will seek unanimous consent to that effect.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the Speaker will not report before the debate on the electoral boundaries of Alberta is completed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Agreed and so ordered.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 19 of the Elec (oral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.
Order Paper Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


NEW MEMBER
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer, a certificate of the election and return of Lee Clark, Esq., Member for the electoral district of Brandon-Souris.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, again I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition from a large number of residents of the community of Sointula, British Columbia, many of whom are fishermen, and in past elections have been disenfranchised by the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. They humbly petition today the Government of Canada, and the Chief Electoral Officer to place in the Canada Elections Act an absentee balloting system so that these people within their own riding will have an opportunity to cast ballots in forthcoming elections.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have a second petition from residents of Ste. Catherine, St. Jean and St. David in the Province of Quebec, who petition the House of Commons to implement a rational and effective shipbuilding policy in Canada and place this request before the Government of Canada. Subsidiary to that, they would ask the Minister of State for Finance Development (Mr. Cosgrove) to bring forward a law related to the implementation of a Canada shipbuilding policy as soon as possible.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,786 and 4,910.

June 2, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 1,574, did the Department of Transport follow through on its plan to upgrade the Fredericton Airport by enlarging the reservoir, upgrading pumps and upgrading the field electrical facility in the fiscal year 1981-82, and by upgrading the waste water treatment plant, constructing perimeter fencing and extending the firehall in the fiscal year 1982-83 and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What improvements and maintenance projects were accomplished at the airport during the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. With the exception of the firehall extension which is 93 per cent complete and the construction of perimeter fencing deferred to 1983-84, the other projects have all been completed as scheduled.
2. Improvements and maintenance projects accomplished during 1981-82 and 1982-83, in addition to the above projects, are the following: (a) 1981-82; illuminate guidance signs, resolve VOR problems, enclosure and encapsulation of asbestos material in Air Terminal Building, energy conservation studies, replace mobile equipment, prepare airport land for leasing, modify intersection/access road, replace instrument landing system, roof repairs to transmitter site, (b) 1982-83; repair airport mobile equipment, energy retrofit, replace ceiling tile in Air Terminal Building, VHF/DF display control.
FY 1981/82	1,997 cases reviewed
FY 1982/83	2,213 cases reviewed
of which:
Enforcement Division
FY 1979/80 FY 1980/81 FY 1981/82 FY 1982/83
1,293 cases reviewed 1,258 cases reviewed 1,198 cases reviewed 1,275 cases reviewed


David P. Smith: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Deans: 1.	For each year since 1980, what number of person years has the Foreign Investment Review Agency assigned to its Compliance Division?
2.	In each of the past four years, what was the annual number of cases that were reviewed by the Compliance Division?


Edward C. Lumley: The
Foreign Investment Review Agency advises as follows:


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 (NO. 3) MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Mr. Axworthy: that Bill C-156, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
1. Compliance Branch
FY 1980/81	44	person	yearsFY 1981/82	47	person	yearsFY 1982/83	47	person	years
of which:
Enforcement Division
FY 1980/81 FY 1981/82 FY 1982/83
2. Compliance Branch
FY 1979/80 FY 1980/81
13 person years 15 person years 15 person years
2,142 cases reviewed 2,141 cases reviewed
Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on second reading of this important Bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is clear that in the circumstances, the Bill must be passed today, and I am sure that all Canadians will be glad to hear that we have been able to obtain the co-operation of the Opposition parties and will therefore be able to pass all three stages of the Bill this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, in 1977, when the Government introduced variable criteria for eligibility for unemployment insurance and decided that these criteria could vary according to region, it realized that the unemployment problem was not the same everywhere in Canada, and that is why periods varying from ten to fourteen weeks were introduced, depending on the unemployment rate in the region concerned. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is intended to confirm the use of these variable criteria
June 2, 1983

during the next two years, and I would like to emphasize that it is absolutely vital in regions like ours. I am particularly pleased, in this connection, to be able to draw the attention of the House to a group of senior citizens from the Municipality of Carleton, who can appreciate the advantages of this legislation.
Most of these people have experienced very difficult periods in their lives at a time when there was no legislation to protect them when unemployment was high and it was impossible for them to get a job. That is why the Government has decided to extend the period from sixty-six months to ninety, a measure that was urgently needed in our region and all other regions in Canada.
Of course, if we had agreed to proposals urging the Government to apply the same standard of fourteen weeks across the country, the Government would have saved about $500 million, but in view of the present situation across Canada and the unemployment rate, the Government has decided to maintain the variable criteria and to let some 100,000 workers continue to benefit from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker, we have also made other changes which are extremely important to many, many workers across the country and which have a direct impact on the region I represent in the House of Commons.
We want to make it possible for the Government to establish regulations that will help fishermen. I have already had an opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a very unfortunate situation existing today in the Magdalen Islands, in my riding, and I think it is very sad that the Quebec Government cannot set aside its political ideology so that we can settle this problem. The fishermen will understand and realize that the changes we want to make in the Unemployment Insurance Act will make it possible for many of them to extend their fishing season for up to two or three weeks and sometimes up to a month, because these changes will not affect their insurable earnings. They will be able to receive unemployment insurance benefits during the winter months and sometimes during the summer as well, which will guarantee them a decent income.
In recent years, and especially in recent months, I have been meeting a number of fishermen's associations in the Gaspe, in the Magdalen Islands, on the North Shore, on the Lower North Shore and even in wellknown fishing areas in New Brunswick and other parts of the Maritime Provinces, and most of these fishermen, if not all, were in favour of the changes that we are proposing today. That is why we are proceeding with this legislation and why we want to give fishermen-Mr. Speaker, I am referring to people who work as fishermen on a boat-better opportunities for working at their own occupation.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The changes we want to introduce will, as I said earlier, enable the Commission to prepare regulations that will give the fishermen far greater flexibility.
In recent years, and especially last summer, I noticed in my riding that people have had to give up fishing because it was not worthwhile for them to continue fishing during the last weeks of August, September or October, because of weather conditions. When a fisherman wants to go out to sea on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and there is a storm, he will certainly not go out on Thursday or Friday, because his catch for those two days will be so limited as to have a direct impact on his insurable earnings.
The changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act will enable the Minister to implement the recommendation in the Kirby report that the fisherman's ten best weeks during the fishing season should be used to establish his eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits and the amount of such benefits.
In my view, these changes are very important, and I am sure that the Opposition Parties have also realized that they were urgently needed in order to help people make a decent living during the fishing season, which has already started.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not make further demands on the time of the House, and these are the two points I wanted to make with respect to the Bill being considered today. I am sure that all Canadians, and especially people living in Eastern Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, will realize that in proposing these amendments, the Government has firmly resolved to remove regional disparities in our country and to enable all Canadians, wherever they may live, to have a share of the wealth in this country, and to be able to make a decent living and have the same standard of living wherever they may be.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the Minister and thank him for bringing in the adoptive parents amendment. Some weeks ago when this Bill was before us in Committee of the Whole, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister and he appeared sympathetic at that time. I am very pleased indeed that he has now brought in this amendment. I do not think that we recognize enough the service that parents give to the country in adopting children. Many of these children have no name and no prospects except that of living in foster homes or institutions. Adoptive parents give the child a name and he or she becomes part of the family with all its advantages. Most important, the child is given training by the parents and starts out on an equal basis with other boys and girls.
Until this time this legislation has been very discriminatory. Some time ago the lawmakers saw fit to give consideration to the natural mother of a child in collecting unemployment insurance benefits if she qualified. That was an excellent piece

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
of legislation also. When difficulties and complications during birth arise, sometimes the six month period is not enough. 1 understand the amendments which are going to be proposed this afternoon will look after that situation, and that where there are complications a mother who qualifies will then be able to have that time extended a reasonable amount. I am looking forward to seeing that amendment.
When Parliament adopted that Section to provide unemployment insurance for natural mothers, Mr. Speaker, it did not provide the same benefit for adoptive parents. Many Provinces, certainly Alberta, require that one of the adoptive parents must remain home with the child for a period of six months. In many cases this is tantamount to giving birth to the child because the child is adopted two or three days, sometimes seven days, after its birth. I think the agencies across this country concerned with child welfare who have followed that practice were acting wisely and in the interests of the child. I think it was one of the Holy Fathers who said if he had the care of the child for the first seven years, then he did not worry too much about that child after that. I think generally that is true and that is the basis, I believe, of the thinking of our welfare departments when they say parents who adopt a child should remain at home with that child for a period of six months. I hope there will be some provision made for that too.
What has happened until now, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been no unemployment insurance for adoptive parents. Consequently, they had to leave their jobs, and sometimes it was not there when they wanted to go back. With today's cost of living, many of these parents ran into financial difficulties because they were used to the two pay cheques coming into the home. When that is cut back to one, then they have financial difficulties. I understand that some provincial Ministers concerned, certainly in Alberta, have looked with a good deal of compassion on cases like that and have ensured that the parents could go back to work. However, there were other times when the job would be lost if the parents could not go back to work. Now that is no longer going to be a problem because if the mother qualifies for unemployment insurance, then she will be able to draw unemployment insurance just as if she was a natural mother. I think that is excellent, and again, as I said at the beginning, I want to commend the minister for bringing in this amendment. He could have said, "We are too busy now. We have many other Bills". Instead, he put this one on the line, he said it was important, and I agree with him. This will have a great impact on scores of babies who are adopted from this time onward because the parent will be able to stay home and give the child the training it requires.
Now when a parent adopts a child of school age the same problem does not exist. Many of our child welfare agencies recognize that. Someone should be at home with the child when he is not at school, but certainly parents can work during school hours without detriment to the child. That is provided for in the rules and regulations of the Province of Alberta, and I suppose in every other Province. Consequently, when a child is adopted at the age of 12 or 14, again the parent should be at home when the child is there. But it is not the same situation as when a family adopts a three-day old baby. So this is
excellent legislation. It will eliminate the discrimination in the Act.
Some of my own constituents have faced that discrimination and they felt it was the officers of the Commission who were preventing them from obtaining unemployment insurance. They could not believe that the law said that only natural parents would secure this benefit. Some even appealed the decisions because they wanted to bring attention to the discrimination which was evident. I am glad that the Bill, with thanks to the Minister who has brought it in at this time, will eliminate discrimination against adoptive parents.
I say again that we owe a tremendous amount to men and women who adopt a baby or child of any age, take the child into their home, make it their own, and provide it with not only worldly goods, clothes and education, but also with love and care. That is one of the important things in a young child's life.
This is important legislation and I am certainly happy that the Minister is presenting it this afternoon. Some people have said to me that there is too much of a chance for abuse in this legislation. I cannot see that. It has been mentioned that some people will pay $5,000 for a baby. Will the mother then be able to collect unemployment insurance? Anyone who pays $5,000, $1,000 or any sum of money to buy a baby is surely in such a good financial position that the mother may not even be working. Such people want a child so badly that they are prepared to buy one. They have the worldly goods. If it is done above board, and I do not like that type of thing myself, but if it is done above the table, through proper authorities, the child does receive a home. However, such a parent would not qualify for unemployment insurance.
The only mothers or fathers who qualify will be those who have the necessary weeks of employment with a particular firm. No one will work just for the sake of being able to draw unemployment insurance after adopting a child. It is part of their lives. They try to build up a home. They try to have a home, a nest, so to speak. Then, when they are in a sufficiently good financial position to give a child a worth-while life, they adopt. The everyday expenses are heavy. This is where the unemployment insurance will come in. It will be a tremendous boost to those who qualify for it. For those who do not qualify, it will be exactly the way it is today. There will not be any change. There will not be scores of people who will suddenly adopt babies just for the sake of receiving unemployment insurance benefits. I do not believe that at all. As a matter of fact, there are not that many babies available. They are scarce when one wants to adopt a child. Maybe that is good. However, these people do have to qualify under the Act.
When they qualify, they are entitled to benefits, just the same as a workman who becomes ill on the job. If he has the necessary weeks, he receives the unemployment insurance to which he is entitled. He must have it to continue to live. Today many of our workers do not have nest eggs. They live week by week or month by month, on their paycheques. Therefore, I do
June 2, 1983

not think this will be a tremendous burden on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I am doubtful if, after a year, we will even notice the amount which is drawn out of the fund by adoptive parents. However, even if we do, this is worthwhile legislation.
It is also necessary for everyone in the country who is contributing to be able to work. Work is necessary. Productivity is necessary. Without productivity in this country, we cannot have legislation such as this. Without productivity, we cannot have old age pensions or care for those who need it the most. Consequently, a central part of this whole program is to ensure more and more industries, investment and employment of people so that employers and workers continue to contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The productivity in the country enables the Government to give out social legislation such as this which will be of benefit and help to us in the future.
I do not think that a dollar spent on care for a child, whether an adopted child or otherwise, is money lost. I do not think it is an expense. Rather, it is an investment. Every child in whom we invest will make a contribution in the future. More and more, we must start thinking about investing in our boys and girls instead of paying thousands of dollars after they make mistakes. Let us prevent the mistakes from happening. We surely know enough psychology and sociology today to be able to work out plans which will enable scores of boys and girls who today land up in our prisons and institutional homes to have the proper channels to make a go in life so that they do not end up in jail.
I remember going to an institution in Edmonton just a few years ago. I saw many boys and girls, 14 years to 16 years of age, who had been sent there by the courts. When I spoke to many of them, I found that the reason they were there could be summed like this: they did not make their way in high school. They did not learn how to read when they were in grades one through five. They were slow learners. They were pushed ahead until they reached the senior grades of elementary school or the early years of high school. They could not read and could not keep up. They became discouraged and frustrated and dropped out. Then they lost their friends who were still in school. They got in with a bad crowd, and that is why they ended up in the institution.
I saw them trying to learn how to read. One boy was reading a book with the name of a detective story on the cover. I asked the instructor why he was reading detective stories. He said, "That is not a detective story. Go around and look". I did so and found that the boy was reading a grade three primer. He was learning how to read but did not want anyone to know that he did not know how to read, and that was natural. A child should not be embarrassed because he is a slow learner.
Our schools must recognize the fact that our boys and girls who are slow learners are not retarded. They just need extra attention. If they learn how to read, that is one of the best things in the world to ensure that they will make their way in life a little later on. This will prevent us from having to spend money on jails and institutions. Thousands of dollars are being spent today, but this expense could be avoided if we take the
Unemployment Insurance Act
necessary sociological and psychological steps to try to prevent these children from taking the wrong path. We should help them to go on the right path, which will make them better citizens and the country a better country.
Greater productivity will enable us to give good social legislation to the people who need it, including what we are doing today. However, if we do not have productivity, then we will not be able to provide those things we want to provide to those who are unable to provide for themselves, those who are unable to care for themselves, those who need the help the most.
Therefore, I would like to emphasize two points. The Unemployment Insurance Fund is there. If there are abuses, let us try to wipe them out. We should find them and cure them. There are abuses in this type of legislation, but let us not penalize those who only want to do what is right with the fund because there are others who abuse the fund. Second, let us ensure that we give the people of this country a chance to invest, encouraging them to invest their money so that we can have jobs. There are no jobs without investment. Invest the money, and then money will come into funds such as the Unemployment Insurance Fund, enabling us to provide legislation of this kind without its being a burden on the country.
I am happy to see this legislation coming in. It is long overdue. It is doing away with discrimination which should never have been there but has been there. It will now make many people across the country happy because they can see that they may well be able to adopt a child, whereas before they just could not afford to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions and comments. Debate.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say a few words about the provision in the Bill to allow adoptive parents to receive unemployment benefits the same as natural parents. However, I believe the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has said most of it. I was happy to hear him make a Liberal speech today and hear him come out in favour of Government intervention on behalf of individuals. I am also pleased that this Bill has come before the House. I appreciate the co-operation that was apparent from all Parties to have the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act passed in a very short period of time.
However, we did hear many complaints this morning from the Hon. Member for St. John's (Mr. McGrath) about the fact that there would be only one day of debate. He disagreed with that. I must remind Members that second reading of a Bill is supposed to be a debate of its principles. It would seem to me that if second reading would take less time in the House there would be much more time for committee study and detailed analysis of Bills. Since Members would be better informed, we could pass better legislation.

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
The second suggestion I would make to the Hon. Member for St. John's East, who I know has a social conscience, is that we could have more time available for debating Bills such as this if there were more expeditious votes instead of the Opposition Members leaving the House and letting the bells ring anywhere from several hours to 15 days. We would have a good deal more time to debate in the House if that did not happen. If I remember correctly, the Hon. Member said in his remarks this morning that the provision of the variable entrance requirements under the present Act was done by the Minister of the day following his suggestion.


Mr. Breau:: Did he say that?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I believe he did. As a matter of fact, he did say that. He just confirmed that he said it.


Herb Breau: That is not true.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) just said that that is not true. After the argument that occurred this morning, I would advise the Hon. Member not to say that. It leads to all kinds of procedural harangues.
With respect to the previous amendments to the Bill, I do not mind admitting that there was a fair amount of debate not only between the two sides of the House but in the caucuses. If the other caucuses reacted in any way similar to the Liberal caucus at the time, there must have been a lot of debate within the caucuses. I remember very well a number of meetings which we had with the then Minister in which we from the Atlantic Liberal caucus not only proposed but demanded that there be variable entrance requirements. The Hon. Member for St. John's East says that that was after he put it forward. If it was after he put it forward, that is fine with me. We won the day and we have variable entrance requirements.
The principle being argued at that time, which was not really a principle but an expediency, was that certain people from certain parts of the country, without naming them specifically, which were heavily industrialized and well developed, wanted to cut the guts out of the unemployment insurance system at the time and make it much more difficult for people to get on the unemployment insurance rolls. They were very enthusiastic about making it much tougher for people to draw unemployment insurance. Some of us who represent areas that are not quite as well developed and do not have all the facilities and industry that other areas have, stood our ground and said that they cannot legislate for the industrialized parts of the country alone. As a result of that objection we now have the variable entrance provisions in the Bill.
I wish to say something about the Minister. I believe most Members of the House would agree that the Minister is a very responsible and responsive Minister. He has taken his duties seriously and has worked very hard to mitigate the effects of the recession which we have experienced in this country. He has designed programs to put people back to work. He has listened carefully, reacted quickly and has used every means at his disposal to consult not only with his colleagues in the front
benches but with all of his colleagues in the House to make life better for the people whom we represent. I want to take this opportunity to thank him publicly.
There are three very important areas in the Bill and most of them have been spoken to. I want to add my support for the provision of equal treatment for women whether they are natural or adoptive parents. I believe that to be an extremely important measure. Another extremely important provision is the variable entrance requirements which are extended by this Bill. That is particularly important to areas of high unemployment in this country.
This morning we heard a lot of rhetoric about fishermen from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper). He talked about the fact that there were no amendments in this Bill dealing with fishermen. While there is no doubt that amendments are needed, everyone knows that this is what might be termed emergency legislation to prevent a sunset clause on the variable entrance requirements coming into effect. I am not convinced that amendments to the fisheries provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act at this time would receive the proper scrutiny in order to ensure that the best possible provisions are made for that vital industry in Atlantic Canada, the Pacific Coast and also the inland waters of Canada.
While the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James was doing a great job this morning of straddling both the issues of motherhood and apple pie, and wept eloquently, I must point out that he failed to mention that fishermen are in fact the only self employed people in the country who have access to the unemployment insurance scheme. He also talked about the need to lower the premiums, the Government's obligation to provide a job for everyone, and the need to pay for unemployment insurance out of general revenue. That is great socialist pap, but that is the best that can be said for it.
He talked about the degradation of welfare. I cannot see the degradation of welfare, and such a term should not be attached to it. If there is a degradation of welfare it is a result of how the Provinces have administered it. What the Hon. Member proposes to do with the unemployment insurance scheme would make it nothing more than an extension of the welfare system. In my opinion, to follow that kind of facile proposal would result in the destruction of the unemployment insurance scheme. It would no longer be an employment insurance scheme, as it should be called, but simply an extension of welfare. It would be another welfare system operated by the Government of Canada rather than by the Governments of the Provinces.
Before I sit down, there is one plea I want to make to the Minister. I think the greatest problem with unemployment insurance in the country is the determination of eligibility. We have literally hundreds of cases, probably thousands across the country, where eligibility or ineligibility is determined after the fact rather than before the fact. Claimants are sometimes told
June 2, 1983

that they must pay back thousands of dollars to the federal Treasury after they have received the payments in good faith, because it is not the Unemployment Commission that is determining eligibility, it is the Department of National Revenue, a Department that is known to have all the subtlety of the wreckers' ball. It is absolutely imperative in my opinion that that determination of eligibility be done by the Commission within the Department of Employment and Immigration where there is some sensitivity to the unemployed and knowledge of whether or not a person is eligible for unemployment insurance.
There are other regulations surrounding unemployment insurance that are counter productive as well, and I think we have to take a look at those. For example, there is the provision that prevents the person receiving unemployment insurance from going to school, trade school or some other institution of learning to take courses to advance his or her ability to find a job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The present regulations prevent people from doing that unless they go to school at night. That is another anachronism, because there are almost as many people who work at night now as those who work in the daytime. If you go to school in the daytime then you are judged available for work and you are denied unemployment insurance. However, if you go to night school, that is all right; you are not judged unavailable for work. That is a discriminatory regulation. In fact, I would say it is a stupid regulation and it should be removed. I hope the Minister will remove that regulation when we bring in the next batch of amendments before the end of this session or early in the next one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Are there any questions or comments?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise as a question or a comment a matter with the previous speaker. Section 146(11) provides some very broad and sweeping recommendations to make regulations under this legislation. I want to outline very briefly an incident that occurred in my riding, and I wonder whether the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) will speak to it.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission has hired former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to act as officers of the UIC. In a particular case in the community of Powell River, British Columbia, it appears a claimant's claim was cancelled in order to assist the RCMP in a police investigation. I wonder whether, to the knowledge of the Hon. Member, there are linkages between the RCMP who have retired and are working for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and those who are active in the force conducting investigations. To the Hon. Member's knowledge, has any such action, where the UIC has acted on office or in an attempt to render assistance with the RCMP, resulted in the cancellation of people's claims? In the particular case I am concerned about in the very powerful regulations, individuals are not
Unemployment Insurance Act
entitled to examine their claims. They have been told by officers involved that if they want to examine their files they must seek remedy under the Freedom of Information Act.
By way of notice to the Minister, and he will be in the House when we go into Committee of the Whole-I wonder whether it is possible to give him notice-I want to ask whether this is an official policy of the Department that he administers. Do you, as a Member, have any knowledge of this type of thing? Is it possible for us to have some comments on that kind of activity?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that question was directed to me or not. Having never been in Comox-Powell River I could hardly be aware of what a former member of the RCMP might be doing while employed now for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. That seems to be stretching my knowledge a little far. Neither do I have knowledge of any former RCMP officers in my own area working for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We have a CEIC branch in Northumberland-Miramichi staffed by some very capable people who do an outstanding job in applying the law and in dealing very reasonably, I think, in the vast majority of cases with people who come to them for assistance. I have not heard of any such situation as alleged by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River. I think he should be more aware of what is happening in his constituency than I am.


Mr. Miller:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Dion). The Hon. Member indicated that he felt there was some reasonable-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Questions and comments are directed to the Hon. Member who has just spoken, and that is the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I had the wrong riding. My question is for the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. My question is with regard to his comment that some of the fisheries regulations concerning UIC do need further scrutiny. Is the Hon. Member aware that this Bill and the purpose of part of this Bill, namely, Section 146, is to restore some of the regulatory power to the Government, of the UIC provisions, that were lost under the Silk decision? Would the Member be prepared to say that if, as the Minister indicated, this Bill is passed, some of the Kirby recommendations would be implemented, in particular, the recommendation declaring the best 10 weeks of 15 weeks' fishing? Is the Hon. Member aware of the Commission's decision, is the Government going to go ahead with that immediately, and will that stipulation of 10 out of the 15 weeks apply right across Canada, not only to Atlantic Canada but to inland waters and to the West Coast?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is having some difficulty. Since the provisional Standing Orders were brought into effect, for my own part, and I believe

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
other occupants of the Chair have done the same thing, I have extended to all Hon. Members the widest possible latitude under the term "questions, comments and answers." This is the first time that I have seen the development where Hon. Members have risen, now two in a row, indicating that an Hon. Member should respond to a question which sounds to me as though it ought to be put to a Minister, or to any other Member in the House. The Hon. Member can certainly defend himself in terms of his comments. However, I wonder whether or not the concept of the ten-minute question and answer period is such that a Member rising during that period can attempt to put a question to a Minister who in that event may not be the person whose comments he is concerned with. I am concerned that that may not be within the rules that are now in force wherein there is a reference to the fact that the ten-minute question and answer period must be relevant to the remarks made by the Hon. Member who had to floor. Given that simple warning, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I did accept the question from the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). I should not have because what Members of the NDP are involved in now is a mug's game, and I am not going to play it with them.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question I asked was a sincere question based on the comments which the speaker had made regarding some of our speeches in which we spoke of the need for some amendment which would specify changes in unemployment insurance that we think are important. I was simply asking if the Member feels confident-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order? The point of order is properly addressed to the Chair. It is I, not the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), who has expressed some concern about questions or comments which are not relevant to the Hon. Member's speech but which are more indirectly, apparently, refering to ministerial policy. I have some question as to whether that is an appropriate interpretation of the provisional Standing Orders that we have.
1 do not want to make a ruling on that because I have stated time and again to the House that my interpretation of these provisional orders is that they ought to be as open and as free as possible. However, I have a concern that questions can be disguised by putting them to the Hon. Member who spoke but, rather, intending them to be a reflection upon some other Hon. Member or Minister, regardless of which is the case.
The Hon. Member raised a point of order. I accept his point of order. It is a matter that may need further consideration as to the interpretation of our Standing Orders. For the moment I am going to leave it in the hands of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi as to whether or not he wishes to
continue. We are still in the ten-minute question and answer period.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, a fair comment to the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi is a response to his opinion that we cannot deal with this particular need to redress the grievances of fishermen at this time. My comment would be that that speaker and the speakers of this morning from the Conservative Party are absolutely wrong. As experienced Members of this House, they know full well that we will not have unemployment insurance legislation for eons before this House and thus an opportunity to provide some equity and fairness to fishermen. The key point, and the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi knows this full well, is that the Liberals and Conservatives-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. That is debate with the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. The Chair is most disposed to hear questions, comments and answers. There is no difficulty in that regard. I am trying to deal with the point of order. If I may, I prefer to recognize the Hon. Member on questions, comments and answers.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I thought you had disposed of the point of order. I was following with a supplementary comment to the Hon. Member's remarks.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member cannot read Section 146 as proposed in the Bill. It states that the Governor in Council may, and I quote:
-make such regulations as it deems necessary respecting the establishment and operation of a scheme of unemployment insurance for self-employed persons engaged in fishing, including regulations
(a) including as a self-employed person engaged in fishing any person engaged
in any activity or occupation related or incidental to fishing;
It broadens the scope for those who may receive unemployment insurance because it includes those who are engaged in activities related to fishing. Therefore, it does broaden the scope. The NDP seems to prefer to ignore that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Criminal Code-Pornography-Inquiry respecting ministerial action-introduction of legislation- definition of obscenity; the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-Northern Affairs-Northern Canada Power Commission-committee recommendations-price of
June 2, 1983

electricity supplied to Pine Point mines; the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Western Grain Stabilization Act-Request for earlier payout provision.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-156, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3) be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak briefly to this Bill. Before speaking to the Bill specifically, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) with respect to the current practice under the regulations of the unemployment insurance office in Orillia and Midland, clamping down with vengeance unseen anywhere else upon poor, unsuspecting constituents of mine who are laid off. Of their own volition they took a course and then found that the bureaucratic weight of the unemployment Insurance Commission came crashing down on them. Because the Commission cannot find them a job, because they had the gumption and the initiative to take a course to improve themselves, the bureaucrats in the Commission can find them unavailable for work and they are cut off unemployment insurance payments.
I share with the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi the abhorrence for this system and regulation. I urge the Minister to take a hard look at Canadians in every constituency who are trying to improve themselves and cannot find work. They find that the bureaucrats have an answer when they go to take a course, but no answer when it comes to finding a job.
I am pleased to speak to this Bill because for some time it has bothered me that discrimination exists in the present legislation whereby parents of adopted children do not have the same rights as natural parents. This Bill will change that. It will eliminate discrimination against an adoptive parent. Also, and I am in favour of this, it will repeal the rule which states that a woman must have worked ten weeks around the time of conception to be eligible for benefits. It will repeal the section which prevents a pregnant woman from getting regular benefits or sickness benefits in the weeks surrounding the birth of a child.
I support that concept entirely. In 1982 I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 on the floor of the House. I urged the Government to adopt the recommendations of the Task Force on Unemployment Insurance which came down in July, 1981. I said that in the interest of equity and fairness, maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be
Unemployment Insurance Act
extended to newly adoptive parents. Parents who adopt children face the same physical, mental, social and economic adjustments as natural parents. They often do not have advance notice of the date of adoption. I am pleased the Government has finally brought in this legislation to correct that discrimination.
I have received letters on this. The interest comes from my riding. In 1980 I received a letter from a person in Orillia who felt that it was unfair and discriminatory that adoptive parents do not have the same privileges as natural parents. The St. Columbkille's Catholic Women's League has urged me to push this. They state that as far as that organization is concerned, adoptive parents should receive maternity benefits under unemployment insurance in the same way as natural parents. I put this on the record knowing that in Ontario, the Children's Aid Society requires that adoptive parents have six months to get used to parenthood, taking care of an adopted child and helping to bring about the natural family. I have talked with several friends who have adopted children. I know there is an adjustment period much the same as any natural parent goes through.
I spoke only to those parts of the Bill which are of concern to me. They are the ones I have mentioned. My Party is in favour of this legislation. I am pleased that the Government has finally seen fit to eliminate this discrimination which should never have occurred.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend and thank the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) for introducing these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Some of those amendments relate directly to the situation of women in the labour force, and more particularly to maternity benefits. Since 1971, as you know, women in the labour force have been eligible for maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and special eligibility requirements were established at that time to facilitate the administration of this new program. I dare say that those requirements have been particularly hard for certain women, especially in ridings such as mine where there is precious little permanent employment. When the ten-week requirement had to be met, some women in the labour force did find themselves in a predicament, and that is why I commend the Minister for doing away with the ten-week provision. It is true that that provision had been unfair to some women, particularly those who had been working for some time and were unfortunately forced to change jobs. They were left in a difficult situation.
The repeal of the provisions of Section 46 is the second good news. Under that section, women were not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, including standard benefits or sickness benefits for a given period of time. On the basis of a

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
fancy formula, it had been decided that pregnant women would not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits between the eighth and sixth weeks before the expected delivery date. That provision has now been repealed. As any other unemployment insurance applicant, a woman will now have the right to apply for standard benefits or for sickness benefits during a certain period of time.
The other news concerns parents, natural mothers. With respect to adoptions, my colleagues and I are pleased with the new provision under which either parent would be eligible for standard unemployment insurance benefits, or for sickness benefits during 15 weeks, to make it easier indeed to welcome the arrival of a new family member under the best conditions.
Mr. Speaker, we all know how important the family situation is. In times of economic hardships-and I hope better times are coming-parents find it difficult to accept a new dependent, either through birth or adoption. Families will henceforth have a fighting chance thanks to the new unemployment insurance legislation. Once again, I thank the Minister for introducing amendments which, in my opinion, will greatly benefit the whole population.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being afforded the opportunity to put some concerns about the Bill which deals with the Unemployment Insurance Act before the House. We have been attempting to do that to some extent today and we were wondering if we would have the opportunity to do so. I would particularly like to point out some concerns that we have regarding fishermen.
It is difficult to vote against a Bill which includes some very positive aspects in terms of maternity leave, adoptive parent provisions and variable entrance requirements, but nonetheless, it is important to deal in this debate with concerns about the provisions for fishermen. We all know that these concerns were brought about because of a court decision regarding Vicky Silk. That decision brought into question all the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act as it pertains to fishermen and their special benefits under the Act.
While we appreciate the very positive aspects of this Bill, we are not that happy with it. I want to express why we are not happy with some of the provisions that are outlined in Section 146 of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In handing down its decision in March, the Supreme Court created much confusion within the fishing community. Fishermen are obviously very concerned about how the decision would affect their unemployment insurance claims. Because of the nature of their industry, unemployment insurance is a very large factor in the incomes of many fishermen. Their livelihoods could be very seriously affected by that decision. While we appreciate the concern on the part of the Government to restore some of the powers under the Unemployment Insurance Act through this amendment, we are concerned that there was not a great deal of input from the concerned fishermen into the drafting of this report, nor very much input from fishermen regarding what kind of regulations might come
under this provision. I see that the Hon. Minister is raising his eyebrows. Maybe we will be able to clarify some of these issues in Committee of the Whole.


Lloyd Axworthy: Has the Hon. Member not heard of the Kirby Task Force?


Edward Allan Miller: Yes, we have certainly heard of the Kirby Task Force and we have heard of many other kinds of representations made to the Minister by fishermen's organizations that have yet to be brought in under regulation and which could have been brought in under regulation in the past two years if the Minister and the Unemployment Insurance Commission had been sincere about addressing the concerns of fishermen. That is what concerns us, Mr. Speaker.
The concern that we have is that the provision in the regulations is only as good as the faith and the willingness on behalf of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Government. The changes are not minor. Changes provided under this Act could substantially change unemployment insurance benefits in the fishing industry and there is nothing to indicate what concerns the Minister is addressing other than a simple press report.
The United Fishermen's Allied Workers' Union in British Columbia, the largest union representing fishermen, is very concerned about this legislation. I think that its concern stems from its understanding of the Bill's implications in the short time in which it had access to this Bill. Only two weeks ago, on May 18, the Government indicated what some of the amendments under the Unemployment Insurance Act would be. Fishermen have not had the opportunity to meet with their organizations and look at the implications of these amendments, nor have they had the opportunity to make representations to the Unemployment Insurance Commission or any parliamentary committee about the concerns that they have been expressing for a number of years. I believe that those concerns must be expressed, but because of the shortened length of debate time for this Bill and because it is very important that some of the provisions in it are passed before June 4, fishermen will not be afforded the opportunity to have the input that they require in order to meet some of their concerns.
One concern that I think I share with the fishermen is that in the fishing industry at this time, an industry which is under a certain amount of pressure in terms of fishing, particularly on the West Coast, the length of the fishing season is being shortened all the time. That is in regard to conserving stocks and the amount of time in which people are allowed to fish. The amount of time that shore workers have to work in plants is being shortened all the time. Yet we see no indication that the entrance requirements for fishermen will be reduced.
Fishermen in British Columbia have made representations to the Government in the past to reduce the required number of weeks to eight weeks if possible, and there has been no indication that the regulations will deal with this concern. It is a sincere concern that fishermen have. Not only do they have a
June 2, 1983

restricted season, but as we on both coasts know, they are also limited by the kind of weather that they can work in, by breakdowns in equipment, and by scarcity of fish. These limitations do not allow fishermen the time necessary to qualify for benefits. Both on the East Coast and the West Coast the obvious concern will be for the number of weeks that will be required to qualify for unemployment insurance.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) represents the inland waters area and has indicated that there is going to be some change in the regulations which will affect the incomes of fishermen in Manitoba and Saskatchewan who are winter fishermen and therefore do not come under the normal fishing season from March to November. These fishermen are penalized because they need 20 weeks for a new claim and it is very difficult to get that in those Provinces because of ice conditions or lack of ice depth in those lakes in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The changes in the Act seem to provide the opportunity to address that problem, but we have no commitment from the Government that it will happen. Fishermen made representations for changes as far back as August, 1981, and the Minister said that his officials were studying the program and were aware of the problem. Now, in June, 1983, we have a promise that fishermen's concerns will be met. This Party is not satisfied that promises through regulations are something that we can put faith in. Despite what the Conservative Party may feel, we think some things should be changed in the Bill to guarantee fishermen access to unemployment insurance at any time of the year, whether in the winter season or what is the normal season for most Canadian fishermen, and those weeks should be considered as insurable weeks for UIC benefits. If our amendments are accepted in Committee of the Whole this is what they will attempt to do.
We have other recommendations to move which will allow fishermen to collect unemployment insurance benefits for any period of the year during which they have an insurable claim. At the moment, the seasonal fishermen in Manitoba whose season is in the winter months are not eligible from May 15 until the end of November under the Act. They find that they are able to collect only six weeks, and then when they get into the normal fishing season they are disqualified despite having paid into the fund over the winter months.
We are not pleased that this portion of the Bill was introduced in this way. There are some very serious and sincere concerns in the fishing industry. One day for debate at all stages of the Bill is not sufficient for us to express the concerns of fishermen and allow them to have additional input. They have only had two weeks to react to this proposal and in many cases have had no opportinunity to meet with their membership because they are out fishing.
Because there is so little time for debate, we would like to see these provisions proceed expeditiously. I suggest that the Government and the Official Opposition look seriously at the
Unemployment Insurance Act
changes in the Act so that fishermen are satisfied that they would be protected in insurable weeks and benefit weeks.
I also urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to have further consultations with fishermen before regulations that may adversely affect fishermen are implemented.
We can see the benefit of legislation that will allow the Unemployment Insurance Commission to react quickly to the needs of fishermen, but we are not too sure that the Government is willing to meet those needs. The secret of developing a good unemployment insurance scheme for fishermen is greater consultation with them and a willingness to understand their specific problems and the problems created by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as it imposes greater regulation. The Fisheries Act is arbitrary and results in a lot of controversy in the industry.
I urge the Minister to look at the proposals the fishermen will make to him. I think this Act will provide him an opportunity to put those proposals into place very quickly. We would prefer more provision for protection for unemployment insurance, and I am sure that when fishermen have a chance to respond to the Bill, they will have some comments to make along that line.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-156 has given us an opportunity to discuss a number of important questions in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Program. I am supporting this Bill because I believe it will improve conditions for many unemployment insurance recipients, and I am pleased to see that we have the consent of the House today for passing all stages of the Bill.
Regarding the changes proposed by the Kirby Task Force with respect to unemployment insurance premiums paid by fishermen, the Bill will enable the Government to make regulations authorizing fishermen to select the 10 best weeks among the 15 weeks in which they earn income from fishing in order to calculate their average earnings for the purposes of unemployment insurance benefits. 1 agree with this recommendation, but I believe that the recommendation by the Kirby Task Force is not entirely satisfactory because it does not mention the effect it will have on workers in fish processing factories. I realize it is impossible in the latter case to change the Act as quickly as in the case of fishermen, because there, the statutory basis of the Unemployment Insurance Program is entirely different, and changes can be made by Order in Council or by a single Cabinet decision. If we want to change anything that concerns ordinary unemployment, we must change the Act according to the same procedure followed in other cases. However, I suppose the Minister is aware of this point, because workers in fish processing plants have been complaining for a long time, and I know that Members on all sides of the House who have fish processing plants in their ridings, as well as related industries, are aware that usually in the fall, especially in the case of herring and groundfish when

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
the catch situation is either feast or famine, workers in fish processing plants-even before these changes-were losing a lot on their unemployment insurance benefits because they were sometimes on and then off again for two or three days, and this was on a very irregular basis. At the end of the season, when the weather was bad, and especially in the case of herring and groundfish caught along the coast, not by big trawlers, in the case of groundfish, but along the coast, especially with gill nets or lines, processing plant workers could expect a drop in their average earnings which would then be reflected in their unemployment insurance benefits throughout the winter.
Although the proposed changes will improve the situation for fishermen by letting them select their 10 best weeks out of 15, there will be no benefit to processing plant workers and fishermen on the contrary. I say this because fishermen will now have an incentive to go out, and that is all right, even if they can only do so one or two days a week if the weather has been bad, while the worker in the processing plant will be called back to work to process the fish, and as a result, he is going to be worse off. I raised this matter with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), and I hope he will soon proceed with a study of the impact this will have on fish processing plants and that it will not be long before changes will be introduced which, I feel, should not necessarily apply only to the fishing industry. I know that the same problem exists in other industries that are affected by weather, such as peat harvesting and sometimes the lumber industry, especially when there have been extensive forest fires. I would like to see the Act changed to allow the Minister some flexibility in designating, in certain cases, specific industries or regions where there has been a particular weather problem or when there has been a forest fire or a dry spell in the forest that has prevented lumberjacks from working for extended periods of time. Mr. Speaker, there is another problem which I will have to mention, although it is not the subject-matter of this Bill. I share the concern which the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) and other Hon. Members have expressed about the problem of "assurability" of the job under the existing legislation. On several occasions, I have discussed this problem with the Minister which I feel is both very serious and complex especially because there are some 27 or 28 applicants in my riding who have appealed the negative decisions rendered in their case, construction workers doing minor housing repairs; their "assurability" has been questioned after the fact by the Department of National Revenue, in some cases up to three years after the employment had been terminated. The result is that after many appeals at various stages, they are still faced with "overpayments".
I should like to remind the House of a decision which was rendered on February 6, 1980 by Hon. Justice Dubinsky, a current judge of the Federal Court of Canada, at a time when he was sitting as an umpire to deal with the appeal of a Mr. Childs, from Western Bay, Conception Bay, in Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote part of Justice Dubinsky's
decision, for it implies that we have a moral responsibility in connection with this matter and I quote:
The Appellant has been overpaid to a large amount. He is married and has four children, three of whom are in school. He owns his home at Western Bay, Conception Bay, Newfoundland, but he has no bonds, securities of any sort and his bank account does not exceed $200.00. I am satisfied beyond any doubt that to have him repay the overpayment would cause undue hardship for him and his family. 1, therefore, feel that consideration should be given to him under the provisions of Section 175(1 )(e)(ii) of the Regulations, particularly since he was allowed to receive benefits for a long time-
This is where the moral obligation comes in, Mr. Speaker.
-without there being question and, moreover, because his actions herein were not deliberately done to defraud the Commission.
The judge goes on to indicate that the Commission has the authority to write off these payments but that it has been impossible because of the present law. I am told that if it did this, it would mean that many overpayments by the Government would also go uncollected. I am not sure that the other overpayments by the Government have the same effect on people. Any Hon. Member from a rural area of the country has lived with this problem, I am told by a lot of them, and the Minister has looked at different options as to how we could solve this problem.
The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) has suggested that the whole question of insurability should come back under the law to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I could live with that. However, I am told that that creates incredible problems. The Minister has agreed in a personal conversation with me-and I would ask all Hon. Members to support this initiative-to refer this whole question of insurability of employment to the committee, either the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, or a special committee of the House, with a short term of reference, in order that Hon. Members can deal with this problem and come up with an option which would be acceptable.
The effect of this, Mr. Speaker, is that people have had their eligibility or insurability of employment questioned after the fact. They were working for an employer in an activity which they thought was legitimate and which they thought was insurable. They then found out that it was not. The employer is home free. He has no responsibility under the law. But the claimant then is classified as not having been in an insurable employment, and all of the benefits he has received become due and payable to the Government as an overpayment. In order to have them written off, according to the present law, one has to show "undue hardship", and that is practically impossible. To prove undue hardship under the present law one would have to lose everything he or she has. This is not acceptable.
It is incredible that we would have a system which would let this kind of thing go on. In my view, when a person is working
June 2, 1983	_______________COMMONS DEBATES
bona fide, and when it is shown that there was no attempt to defraud the Commission-because in some cases there are, inevitably-in no way should these people be asked, threatened or told that they owe money to the Crown, as in the case of the decision of Judge Dubinsky who said there was no attempt to defraud the Commission. If the person was well intentioned, the employer was well intentioned, and they both thought the employment was insurable, then the system should accept the responsibility of that and the onus should not be on the worker, post factum, two or three years after the fact to prove that he or she was eligible. We should say, "Okay, that kind of employment will no longer be insurable, but because of what happened in the past, a poor defenseless claimant should not have to repay that money".
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister will refer this to a committee of the House, which will come forward with an acceptable compromise which will do away with this incredible injustice, in many cases to defenseless people who are seen as having to repay the Crown thousands of dollars because they were put in a situation where the employment they had two or three years previously was judged to be not insurable.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. gentleman with great interest. I would just like to make sure I understand him. Is he telling the House he has received an assurance from the Minister that he will in fact bring in a suitable reference to the Standing Committee, or a standing committee, so that this matter, which I agree with him is a grave injustice, can be properly addressed and we can hear witnesses and make a recommendation?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interpret for the Minister what his position is, and the Hon. Member knows that I should not do that. What the Minister has indicated to me is that he found that the reference to a committee, where Hon. Members from all Parties could come to an acceptable option, seemed to him to be a good means to deal with this. Whether he is ready to make a commitment to do it or when he would do it, I do not know. I can just express the hope that this will be done. The Minister has agreed personally with me that this would be a good means to deal with this very complex problem.
As the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is the one who asked this question, I am sure he will understand also the impact of the other problem 1 raised, the impact of the Kirby recommendations on fish plant workers. It may be also that some industries which are susceptible to weather, like the wood industry, peat moss and fishing, may be a good subject to be sent to a committee for special study because it is very complex, and Hon. Members could come to an agreement before a Bill is presented to the House.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate on improvements to the unemployment insurance system. I recall having lobbied the current Minister, and indeed other Ministers, on the particular aspects of maternity benefits, which is
Unemployment Insurance Act
what I want to address today. I remember lobbying even a Conservative Minister on this subject, and it is pleasant to see that resistance eventually declined until we finally moved to the stage of receiving acceptance in principle. Then the issue stalled while the committee examined the question, but now we actually have the legislation.
First of all, let me deal with the subject of adoptive parents. We are all very pleased to see these new measures. Our Party has urged them for years, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), recently had his Private Members' Bill on this issue debated. The measures are long overdue and we are very pleased to see them.
One of the good provisions is that either parent can take leave to look after the new child. Most of the time the leave will probably be taken by the mother, but the option is there for the father. However, what is not yet in the legislation is the possibility of the leave being shared by both parents. There are of course many couples where the child care tasks could be shared by both and the parents would prefer to do it that way. Our system is still unduly rigid in this respect and it is something which should be amended. It is a concern of the women's movement that life be better organized to allow for the combination of paid work and child care. In the long term we want to see a shorter work week so that both parents can do this. In the question immediately before us of adoptive leave, surely it would be very reasonable to see that both parents could share in that work. We should be facilitating the sharing of child care between parents when they want it.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, eliminates a number of discriminatory sections which should never have been law in the first place and which have been an embarrassment to women. A large number of women were actually denied claims because of the additional requirements they had to meet to get maternity benefits. The magic ten rule is one that we are all very pleased to see go. It has taken a long time. It was based on a very insulting view of women in the first place, that an unemployed woman was sitting around idle until she became pregnant, and then went out to get a job so she would be able to take maternity leave. That is probably something which never happened in the first place and certainly should not have been the basis for legislation. It is very good to see that section go.
There will be more flexibility in the claim period. This is certainly a very welcome reform. The prediction of delivery dates is of course always difficult. Babies sometimes have their own timetables which do not coincide with those of their doctors or, indeed, of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. So we are pleased to see this new flexibility in the legislation.
The discriminatory provisions in Section 46, which did not allow women to claim regular unemployment insurance or sickness benefits during the period of pregnancy or after birth is of course something that should never have been in the legislation. We are very pleased to see it go. This is the Section

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
that Stella Bliss claimed was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights. She lost her claim. 1 do not think we can discuss Bill C-156 without remembering and indeed saluting Stella Bliss. The Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has recounted some of the judicial horrors of this case. It is certainly a model of erroneous judicial reasoning and should be required reading for future judges in our courts. It will go down with Murdoch, the Person's case, Lavalle and Bedard as horrors that Canadians ought to be embarrassed about.
Let me just recall a few points in this case, Mr. Speaker, Bliss first lost her case to a board of referees, but she won on appeal on a ruling by a federal court judge who was sitting as an umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Attorney General then appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. So here we see our own Government's Department of Justice appealing a case of unequal rights of women. We have had far too many cases of this before, and we are hoping that with the new Charter of Rights the Government will defend women in equality cases and not work against them. The case then went up to the Federal Court of Appeal and finally up to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was only decided in 1978, so it is not a long time ago. I think it is important for us to keep these cases in mind. We still have to watch both our courts and the Ministry of Justice.

Mrs. Stella Bliss should be congratulated and thanked for suing the Government for the discriminatory measures against women with unemployment insurance and maternity leave. Unfortunately, Mrs. Bliss lost her claim. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was not the law that discriminated against women, but nature, itself, as though pregnancy were a sickness and even a chronic illness that prevented women from working. After that ruling, the women's movement in Canada fought against this discriminatory legislation and feminist groups called for the elimination of those discriminatory measures. As can be seen today, their lobbying was successful. It took us years, but we have won!

However, what remains? We need a comprehensive parental leave scheme. Indeed, a recent poll showed that 61 per cent of Canadians are in favour of fully paid maternity leave. That is certainly something we have not reached as yet. We need a comprehensive scheme with both a longer number of paid weeks, with options for unpaid leave as well, and a higher rate of pay. In the meantime, further modest improvements could certainly be advanced. We could eliminate the two weeks waiting period, for example. This is an anomaly in the case of maternity leave. It is there to encourage an unemployed worker to go out immediately and look for a job. It is wholly inappropriate in the case of someone expecting to have a child or who has just recently given birth. This would cost money, and therefore it is not possible for the Opposition to move an amendment, but it is something which should be addressed.
Another loophole in the law which affects women is that a woman cannot claim maternity benefits if she is on strike. Her union could go on strike the day before she gives birth, for
example, and she would be disentitled to maternity benefits. That is very inappropriate in her circumstances.
However, there is another reform which would not add to the costs and on which we should act today. That would be to permit either parent to take leave after the birth of the child. Clearly only women can give birth, but after the birth the father could be looking after the child, or both parents could be looking after the child. A growing number of couples do want to these responsibilities, and we should be introducing this flexibility into the legislation.
[ Translation]
Some parents want to share the responsibility of caring for their children. This is allowed in several European countries, such as Sweden and Finland. After the birth of the child, either the father or the mother can take parental leave or both parents can share it. Why not in Canada? We are not suggesting an extension of such leave, but rather a reform, and what we are suggesting will cost nothing. The matter of further improvements to the system is something else that will require the co-operation of the federal and provincial Governments as well as unions and employers. We do not intend to deal with this issue today, but we hope that the Government will address it. For the moment, why not support the useful and reasonable reforms we are suggesting, such as allowing both parents to share the parental leave?

My Party will be presenting amendments in Committee of the Whole on this point. We support the amendments the Government has introduced today. They are welcome and we are very pleased to see them. We hope the Government and the Conservatives as well will support the amendments we will be introducing.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased today to have the opportunity to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-156 and to discuss some of the necessary amendments that will bring about a greater equity with respect to claimants qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits.
The basic concept of unemployment insurance, the original program, was established in 1940 and was designed to do two things, first, to provide income protection for workers suffering temporary income interruptions and, second, to facilitate the best possible match between unemployed workers and available jobs. In other words, it was designed to promote the economic and social security of workers. It was recognized that the employed needed to have a greater sense of security, a safety net to safeguard against the dehumanizing effects of the Great Depression. I was indeed very fortunate, because of my age, not to have experienced the frustration, hunger and helplessness faced by millions of people all around the world during the Depression. No one should ever have to be faced with those hardships again but, unfortunately, millions of people are faced with them. In the very grave economic times
June 2, 1983

at present, one sees how this legislation has been most effective in helping these people.
Since the Great Depression, Canada's economic capacity grew and became more stable. The increase in the labour force was meeting the expanding needs of industry. As our population grew, the demand for goods and services also grew. It seemed that this enphoria of economic growth would be never-ending. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Canada's economy has been on a steady decline, to the point at which we are in the midst of the worse recession since those dark days of the Depression. Over this past decade, as a direct result of Canada's economic demise brought on by a Government which felt it could spend with abandon, without any sense of control, there has been the need to meet the ever-increasing demands on the safety nets which were put in place to support Canadians during economic hard times. Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act comprise just one area where revision has become necessary to meet those demands.
There has been much criticism with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Fund indicating that it has provided a disincentive to workers to seek employment. This criticism might have had some merit in past years, at a time when employment opportunities were plentiful in our economy; but today, at a time when employment has never before been more difficult to find, with unemployment at a rate of over 12 per cent, this criticism does not hold true.
As the economic times change, so has legislation changed to protect the needs of Canada's citizens, be it through the need to encompass a greater degree of flexibility or to provide positive incentives for economic security. Over the past few years, as the country has attempted to weather the economic recession, Canadians have witnessed the effects of a declining labour force. Added to this, we are also confronted with the headlines of the ill effects of high technology, of how this new information society will displace millions of workers in the years ahead no matter how much the economy improves.
We know all too well the burden upon our society of unemployment rates of 12 per cent and 13 per cent, the despair of the unemployed, the rising hopelessness among our youth for whom the rate is already over 20 per cent. We know of the increasing incidence of family violence, alcoholism, delinquency and crime. We dare not contemplate the effects of another 5 per cent unemployed, yet unless we face up to the challenges posed by the new technology, that is precisely what we must expect and be prepared to accept.
There are both threats and opportunities associated with the evolution of the new technology. We have heard warnings of the dangers and the challenges which lie ahead. We must heed those warnings and meet those challenges. This has become more evident with respect to producing the skilled labour and personnel to meet the needs of the new technology.
Statistics have shown that women will be bearing the brunt of the new technology as, more and more, computers replace the jobs currently held by women. We must be prepared to
Unemployment Insurance Act
address the problem by meeting the needs for retraining and education.
The proportion of women in the growth of the labour force increased dramatically from 1940 to 1980, as it became necessary to have two incomes per family and as more women became single parents. We have seen an increase in the number of women in the labour force from under one million in 1940 to almost five million in 1980. Fifty per cent of working age women, those between the ages of 25 to 54, are working, and 66 per cent of those women are married. By 1990, it is expected that 75 per cent of working age women will be in the labour force.
If we consider the historical perspective of women in the labour force, we will see where women have traditionally occupied the lower paying jobs. The service industry, which employs a greater percentage of women than other industries, will be directly affected by the age of technology, and an even greater burden will be placed on the shoulders of women, necessitating the need for economic protection.
We are witnessing change in the roles of the husband and wife as more and more women are being recognized for their valid contributions to society outside the home. Indeed, it is becoming more common to find that the wife is bringing home the larger income and, in some cases, the only income.
We have just come through a decade in which it became increasingly necessary for both partners in the labour force to support the family. With the high cost of mortgages, rents, clothing and food continuing to rise, the burden of providing the necessities of life is falling on the shoulders of women as well as their husbands. Women have also had to enter the labour force out of necessity because many men no longer have the security of permanent, long-term employment. In many areas, such as the mining industry, where hundreds of men were laid off, it has become the responsibility of the wife to bring home the family income.
With these changes in the family structure and the labour force, the need for revisions to existing legislation must be considered in order to keep pace with the demands of a changing society. An area where I feel existing legislation has been most discriminatory and is in need of change involves unemployment insurance benefits with respect to natural and adoptive mothers. The Act does not discriminate with respect to persons in the labour force making contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, requiring that both men and women contribute to the fund in line with their earning capacity. However, the inequity occurs when it becomes necessary to collect benefits from the fund.
Claimants for sick benefits must only prove that they have worked for 20 weeks in the last year, but women applying for maternity benefits are required to meet a set of complex criteria which almost takes a legal mind to understand. At long last, the Government has finally come to terms with the necessity of making the eligibility requirements for natural mothers and adoptive parents more equitable.

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
We on this side of the House have seen this need for many years and I myself have dealt with many cases where this inequity has arisen. Having a family is a shared responsibility of both mother and father. If we are to encourage planned parenthood, then the Government must also share in the responsibility, assuring women that they will be treated equally and be equally protected by our safety nets.
The changes which are proposed to the Unemployment Insurance Act would simplify what has fast become an administrative nightmare with respect to collecting maternity benefits. I ask Your Honour if you have ever tried to explain to an expectant mother why she cannot collect maternity benefits when she meets the requirements for a major attachment to the work-force, having the necessary 20 insured weeks, but does not have the "magic ten" to qualify. It is almost impossible to make sense out of this particular section of the legislation.
What is meant by the "magic ten" is that a woman must have conceived between the thirtieth and fiftieth week prior to the expected date of her confinement. In other words, she is required to have worked for at least ten weeks around the time of conception. This requirement, I feel, is absolutely ludicrous. A woman may have had a long working history and been a major and consistent member of the labour force. Because of circumstances beyond her control, she may have been out of the labour force for more than the ten weeks during this unique period between the thirtieth and fiftieth week prior to her confinement. Consequently, she would not qualify for maternity benefits. There are hundreds of women who have had well over the required 20 weeks which would give qualification for sick benefits but who are missing the "magic ten" and therefore do not qualify for maternity benefits.
An even more blatant example of discrimination against women is that of the present denial of benefits to adoptive mothers. In all cases where an adoption is planned, the parents must provide proof to the adoption agency that they are financially secure and can provide an adequate, secure home for the new child. Women in this category, who have had a longstanding and major attachment to the work-force and who suffer an interruption of earnings in order to be home with the new baby, as is required by adoptive authorities, especially here in Ontario where it is a requirement that one must be at home for a period of six months, cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits during this interruption.
In the majority of cases of adopting parents, the mother has been working for a number of years while trying to conceive a child. When the decision to adopt is made, she will have been well established in the work force. However, under present regulations, she will have to give up the seniority of all those years of work. In effect, she is being punished because she cannot have children naturally and therefore cannot collect maternity benefits. She is not only denied the experience of bearing a child for various reasons but is also being denied the income protection that is afforded to natural mothers.
As I said at the outset, the program was initially set up to provide income protection for workers suffering temporary income interruptions. I have outlined examples of blatant discrimination in its application toward women with respect to their contributions to the labour force, to the family unit and to society. As legislation was introduced and passed to pay benefits to those members of the labour force who have suffered temporary interruptions of earnings, those benefits must be made available to both men and women in a fair and equitable manner without discrimination.
Today we are debating the adoption of legislation and amendments to the Act that will provide a more fair and equitable payment to all concerned. I thank you for the opportunity to debate today, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the House goes into Committee of the Whole, there has been consultation and agreement that in order to make up for some of the time lost today in the taking of a division, we would sit until 6.30 p.m. so that we could complete all stages of the Bill. I think you will find that there is agreement to that.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we had discussed among House Leaders yesterday that such time could have been recuperated during the lunch hour if it was asked for. It is now 5.40 p.m. I understand there have been discussions among various Members. I will not object to our sitting until 6.30, but it would not be to recuperate the time that has been lost. It was very useful to vote ona $14.7 billion Bill a few minutes ago.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that is a sneaky shot across my bow which I cannot resist. I was merely trying to make the point that for one reason or another-I will not go into that- it took a little longer than usual for the division today. That cut into our time. I think there is agreement on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the House shall sit until 6.30?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the chair.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-156, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 19871, (No. 3.).
On Clause 1-Qualifying weeks
June 2, 1983


Judith A. Erola: That Bill C-156, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3), be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 4 and 5 on page 1 and substituting the following:
"1. (1) Paragraph 16(l)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) "disentitled" means to be not entitled under section 23, 25, 29, 36, 44, 45, 54 or 55 or under a regulation:"
(2)	Section 16 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(3) For the purposes of subsection 22(3) and section 32, the placement with a major attachment claimant, at the same or substantially the same time, of two or more children for the purpose of adoption is a single placement of a child or children for the purpose of adoption."
2. (1) All that portion of subsection 17(6) of the said Act"


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister with regard to the adoptive parents provisions contained in the amendment now before the committee. Has the Government given any consideration for the future, after we have had some experience with this, to varying the maximum benefits for adoptive parents according to the age of the child? In other words, it would not require the same amount of time to be off work for a child six years or seven years old as opposed to an infant. The argument could be made that the benefits could vary in accordance with the age of the child to a maximum age. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, that is clearly not the intention at the present time, as it is in the amendment. It certainly could be a matter brought up in committee once we have had some experience with the Bill and how it applies.
I think I indicated in my opening remarks that a number of issues raised by Hon. Members relate to other portions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is good material for examination at committee, particularly at the time when we deposit the annual report. Members will then have a chance to get into a good exchange on this issue at that time. That would certainly be a matter that we would take under advisement. If the Hon. Member wishes to raise it at that opportunity, I would be happy to have the Department do some background work on that question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, 1 believe this would be the best opportunity to ask the Minister this question. A number of parents have been waiting a long time for this particular amendment. Would he consider having it become law before January 1, 1984?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to compliment the Hon. Member on his previous initiatives. He is one of the Members of the House who has provided much strong support for this move and has been very helpful in bringing these amendments through.
The reason for the starting date is mainly administrative and technical. This is a fairly major change which requires many changes in manuals and instructions to ensure that our staff and other people are properly prepared when the order comes
Unemployment Insurance Act
in. That is why we chose the January 1, 1984 date. That is the only reason.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister explain why the Government did not extend the option to one or the other of natural parents to have benefits extended to them that are extended to parents who adopt children? Why was this given to adoptive parents and not to natural parents?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is about to engage in some of the points raised in his motions. I would point out that there are a number of serious concerns which we have about that. Perhaps the starting point is that individual claim is still attached to an individual. It is not attached to a family unit. In fact, I would caution Members of the New Democratic Party that they are beginning to tread on some very dangerous ground when they begin to establish the notion that unemployment insurance should be attached to a family unit. That would begin to work very seriously against the individual rights for which so many people have fought for both men and women, that they be treated as individuals. In this case the maternity claim is very clearly assigned to those women who are pregnant. Therefore the maternity claim is assigned to that particular disposition.
If those Hon. Members begin to say that they want to move into areas of parental leave, that is a very different topic, issue and piece of legislation.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I am not actually trying to get into anything. I am trying to understand the reasons.
My understanding of the Bill is that the changes will afford to either the male or female in the case of adoption the option of taking the so-called maternity leave. You can call it whatever you like. Why would the Government see fit to allow that choice to be made in the case of adoption and not see fit to allow a similar choice to be made in the case of natural parents? That is all I am asking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: That should be obvious even to you.


Ian Deans: Let me put to you that the mother may decide not to take the benefit. She may decide, for example, that she earns the higher of the salaries of the two and she may decide to forego taking the benefit and return to work shortly after the birth, and the husband, or the male partner, may decide, because his income is less and because they cannot afford to live off the lesser income, that he will stay home and look after the child in its infancy. Now that you have all had your little laugh, why is that option not available to them? That is all I am asking.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the simplest answer to the question is that it is biological.


Ian Deans: Forget it. Sit down.

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act


Lloyd Axworthy: Only one of the sexes is capable of having children. On the question of what happened subsequent to that, they have already established a claim at that particular point in time.


Ian Deans: They do not have to establish a claim.


Lloyd Axworthy: And a claim has already been established in terms of a pregnancy. As I said to the Hon. Member for St. John's East, there are many other very important questions and I do not in any way downgrade the importance of examining the larger concept of parental need. The Government has established a group under the chairmanship of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women to look into that issue. But under the Unemployment Insurance Act it is a maternity benefit that is being established and, therefore, is being held accountable in that case.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Chairman, I am told that the most common circumstance under which adoptions take place within the Province of Ontario, and perhaps other Provinces too, is that when a marriage takes place between two people one or both of whom have children from a previous marriage, these people live together for a while and then decide they would like to formalize the status of children of previous marriages, and adoption proceedings then take place. Am I to understand that if this happens when they eventually get around to formally adopting the children they will then be eligible to collect unemployment insurance? Is that what the Bill is all about?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that is a circumstance under which the provisions of this Bill would apply. I think if the Hon. Member had listened to the very learned remarks of his colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River, he would have understood very well that when an adopted child comes into the home for the first time, obviously a period of settlement must take place. It is up to that particular couple to determine which parent would be the one to stay home. That is, of course, dependent upon leave being taken and being approved by the employer, at which point all we are doing is paying the benefit. We cannot require the employer to give the leave. That is a contract between themselves and their employer, the one most amenable. If a child is adopted after having lived for several months or years in a home of a couple who have been remarried, the settlement has obviously taken place during that period of time and it would not be required. But that would be the choice of the parents. It is a voluntary choice because they would have to justify the leave taking to their employer in the circumstance.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, if they did take leave, and there are lots of employers who probably would be quite willing to let one of these people go for a few weeks, especially if there was not any work available at that time, would they be entitled to unemployment insurance under this Act? Can we have a yes or no answer to that question, Mr. Chairman?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, under the Act we are providing the right of adoptive parents to claim benefits. We will obviously be establishing certain regulations to establish that provision. We would want to ensure that there would be no abuse of it. I think we will take the Hon. Member's representations under advisement. I would not in any way want to injure the basic principle, which I think is a very important step forward.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister not agree that while we have in name a scheme for providing maternity benefits, in fact part of the time for maternity benefits is for the physical work in labour, which obviously only the mother of the child can do. It is also a system of parental leave for the care of the child in the first weeks after the child is born. There is certainly no biological reason why the father could not undertake that care as well as the mother. In fact, many countries do permit a sharing between the two parents. This might be a very reasonable proposal to have.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I tried to indicate that at the present time the Unemployment Insurance Act has very clear provisions for maternity benefits that were established some 12 years ago.
The concept being raised by the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood in relation to parental leave is a notion that is very worth-while. It should be examined and discussed. But really it is a matter for either a collective bargaining agreement, amendments to labour codes, or some other special piece of legislation. It may not inherently be established under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is why I believe the intent is worth-while, but this is not the right place in which that debate should be entered into because it is a much broader, more far reaching concept than we are talking about in terms of the application of maternity benefits.
[ Translation]


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I have only one question for the Hon. Minister. In the documents annexed to his bill, it is mentioned that a claimant who is a fisherman will be able to repair or build a boat. Does this mean that he may also build and repair or build a boat. Does this mean that he may also build and repair lobster traps, nets and all the other fishing gear he uses?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the Hon. Member, I would say that this means particularly equipment used by fishermen in their work, that is boats and other means of production.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I fail to relate that intervention to the amendment that is before the committee.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Clause 1 is a fairly general Clause. The Hon. Member's point is well taken with regard to the amendment. The Chair has exercised a certain tolerance but the Hon. Member's point is well taken.
Shall the amendment carry?
June 2, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Shall Clause 3 carry?
Judith A. Erola: I move:
That Bill C-156, be amended
(a) by adding, immediately after line 23 on page I, the following:
"3. Subsection 22(3) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the maximum number of weeks for which initial benefit may be paid to a claimant
(a)	in any benefit period for reasons of pregnancy, placement of a child or children for the purpose of adoption, prescribed illness, injury or quarantine or any combination thereof, or
(b)	in respect of a single pregnancy or a single placement of a child or children for the purpose of adoption,
is fifteen."
4.	Subsections 30(1) and (2) of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"30. (1) Notwithstanding section 25 but subject to this section, initial benefit is payable to a major attachment claimant who proves her pregnancy.
(2) Subject to subsection 22(3), initial benefit is payable to a major attachment claimant under this section for each week of unemployment in the period
(a)	that begins
(i)	eight weeks before the week in which her confinement is expected, or
(ii)	with the week in which her confinement occurs, whichever is the earlier; and
(b)	that ends
(i)	with the week immediately preceding the first week for which benefit is claimed and payable pursuant to another section of this Part, or
(ii)	seventeen weeks after the later of
(A)	the week in which her confinement is expected, and
(B)	the week in which her confinement occurs, whichever is the earlier."
5.	(1) The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 31 thereof, the following section:
"32. (1) Notwithstanding section 25 but subject to this section, initial benefit is payable to a major attachment claimant who proves that it is reasonable for that claimant to remain at home by reason of the placement with that claimant of one or more children for the purpose of adoption pursuant to the laws governing adoption in the province in which that claimant resides.
(2) Subject to subsection 22(3), initial benefit is payable under this section for each week of unemployment in the period
(a)	that begins with the week in which the child or children are actually placed with the major attachment claimant, and
(b)	that ends
(i)	seventeen weeks after the week in which the child or children are so placed,
(ii)	with the week in which it is no longer reasonable for that claimant to remain at home for the reason referred to in subsection (1), or
(iii)	with the week immediately preceding the week for which benefit is claimed and payable pursuant to another section of this Part,
Unemployment Insurance Act
whichever is the earliest.
(3)	Where benefits are payable to a major attachment claimant under this section and earnings are received by that claimant for any period that falls in a week in the period described in subsection (2), the provisions of subsection 26(2) do not apply and all such earnings shall be deducted from the benefit payable for that week.
(4)	Benefits shall not be paid pursuant to this section to more than one major attachment claimant in respect of a single placement of a child or children for the purpose of adoption.
(5)	Where, before any benefit has been paid to a major attachment claimant in respect of a single placement of a child or children for the purpose of adoption, two insured persons with whom the child or children are placed for the purpose of adoption claim benefit under this section, no benefit shall be paid under this section until one of such claims is withdrawn."
(2) Section 32 of the said Act, as enacted by subsection (1), applies only in respect of a claimant whose benefit period begins on or after the day subsection (1) comes into force.
6.	Section 36 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"36. Nothwithstanding paragraph 25(b) and sections 30 and 32, a claimant is not entitled to be paid extended benefit for any working day for which he fails to prove that he was capable of and available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment."
7.	Section 46 of the said Act is repealed."
(b) by renumbering clauses 2 and 3 as clauses 8 and 9.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Chair has just a little problem at this point. These appear to be further amendments to Clause 1 of the Bill before us. I think they should be proposed as further amendments to Clause 1.


Judith A. Erola: I so propose it.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Clause 1 now becomes extended to additional subclauses as indicated.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move in the case of subclause 4 of the amendment:
That the amendment be amended
by adding immediately after subsection 30(2) contained therein the following subsection:
(3) After the birth of the child, either parent may take parental leave for the remaining time of the claim period, or both parents may share the parental leave, so long as the total time claimed by the two together does not exceed the total leave period provided.
I move the following amendment to subclause 5 of the amendment
That the amendment be amended
by adding immediately after subsection 32(5) contained therein the following subsection:
(6)	Either adoptive parent may take parental leave for the claim period, or both parents may share parental leave for the claim period, so long as the total time claimed by the two together does not exceed the total claim period available.
I have spoken about the reasons for this already. Given the shortness of time, I will not repeat them at this point.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order to suggest that these amendments really run counter to the basic concept as contained in the legislation put forward by the Government. As I indicated earlier, it is really introducing a concept of parental leave which is not in relation to the notion

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
of maternity benefits. While I have little argument with the notion of parental leave, I do not believe that it really fits the tenor or objective of the legislation. Furthermore, I would suggest the amendment would require or engage an additional expense to the Government which is really beyond the purview of the individual Member to offer by way of amendment to this legislation. Therefore, I suggest that the particular motions cannot be entertained by the committee at this time.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Chair will invite further argument on the point of order raised by the Minister.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that we do not necessarily oppose the intent of the amendment put forward by my friend from the NDP, but I have to make this point and make it very strongly to the Committee.
I have some doubts about the admissibility of this amendment. If the Chair rules that it is admissible, we will not vote on the amendment for two reasons.
First, it is in violation of the understanding we have with the Government. We agreed that we would pass all of the amendments presented to us by the Government in one day. It was our clear understanding that no other amendments would be entertained. That may not have been explicit, but in my view it was implicit and that was the understanding I took back to my caucus.
Second, in any event we are engaged in a one-day debate by special order of the House. I could not commit my Party to an amendment it has not had time to consider in caucus. For that reason alone I would have to abstain from voting on the amendment. In any event, I believe the case can be made, without arguing the substance of the amendment, that the amendment is in fact inadmissible in that it requires a charge against the exchequer and hence would require the usual Royal resolution or whatever.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I would argue on two grounds that it is in fact admissible. First, contained within the amendments put forward by the Minister, there is quite clearly the option in the case of adoptive parents for either of the two to opt to collect benefits. That is quite clearly within the legislation. This is not a deviation from that principle. That principle is part of the principle of this legislation. What we are doing is saying in essence that the same principle be extended whether adopted or natural parents are involved. I would argue that there is no deviation from what we now have before us.
I admit it is a broadening of one section, but it is a broadening consistent with what is already contained within the legislation that applies to other citizens of Canada. I suggest it is wrong to give to one what you are not prepared to give to others.
On the second point, the matter of whether it entails additional expenditure, it quite clearly does not. The expenditure that we are speaking about is the exact same expenditure, but to be shared with either of the parents. We are saying that the amount of money talked about is no more and no less than the amount of money currently put forward under the Royal
Proclamation, and that either of the parents should have access to the allowance.
The amount that we are talking about, both in terms of the amount of time that is to be made available and the amount of money, is quite clearly the same, involving the same expenditure. Therefore there has been no attempt made by us to increase the expenditures. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I might point out to you that it is entirely possible that we are speaking about a smaller amount of money. In fact, we could be speaking about less money than the Minister is currently putting forward.
I put to you, Sir, that in the case of a family where the wife earns $20,000 a year and the husband earns less, if the husband were to decide to be the parent in receipt of benefit, then he would receive benefit at a lesser amount since his entitlement would be a lesser entitlement.
I would therefore argue that we are not in any way trying to increase the expenditure of the Government. We are simply trying to make it possible for the family unit, something that all of us in the House support and that all of us think is so important for the future of the country, to make the decision for itself as to which of the two parents should stay home during that period immediately after the birth of the child. When that choice has been made by that family, the Unemployment Insurance Act should then recognize that right of choice, and having made that recognition the payment should be made to either of the parents, which ever one is designated to be the recipient.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain because I think he just made the case for suggesting that this is an inadmissible amendment. The fact of the matter is that there is no sharing principle encountered under the Adoption Act. We must talk about individual claims, and under the Adoption Act, one individual or the other can make the claim. They cannot share that claim. The Unemployment Insurance Act is totally related to individual claims for maternity benefits, sickness or regular benefits.
Hon. Members are introducing amendments which totally change the whole concept of unemployment insurance. That may be a good idea, but it is an idea that should be discussed in a different forum. Therefore, it is very clear why this amendment cannot be accepted under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, the Minister is twisting my words in an attempt to gain credence. Let me put it to him that we are not suggesting any deviation at all. In fact, we want to suggest that if the Government believes that those kinds of determinations should be made by families and not by the Government, if it believes that there should be some integrity left in a family household for the husband or wife or two partners in a relationship to determine which of the two
June 2, 1983

are best suited to care for a child, then this amendment surely could never be ruled inadmissable.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain defeated himself at the beginning of his presentation by indicating that, in a biological situation, if the mother opted not to draw the maternity benefits then there would be no charge against the Crown. In this instance, he is offering an option which is not available in the original legislation. This would clearly create a situation that could cost more money.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Two arguments have been made relating to inadmissability of the sub-amendments. The first argument relates to whether or not an additional charge must fall on the Crown. The Chair has difficulty determining from the argument the net results from the point of view of an expenditure. The Chair, however, is concerned about the principle in the sub-amendment which indicates that both parents may share the parental leave. It appears to the Chair that this introduces a new principle which is not found elsewhere in the Act and does go beyond the general intent as expressed in the legislation. On that ground the Chair rules the sub-amendments not acceptable.
The question is on the further amendments to Clause 1 proposed by the Minister of State Responsible for the Status of Women.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before you put the question on the amendment that is now before the Committee, I would like to say what I am sure the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women would love to have said, and I am surprised she did not say it. I would like to pay tribute to Stella Bliss and all the Stella Blisses of the world-this one woman and all the other women-who had the courage to challenge the inequities and the injustices in the system, because this is really their day. I think it would be unfortunate if we were to pass this moment in Committee without paying that tribute to Stella Bliss and all the Stella Blisses of the world.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I now want to put a question to the Minister, without diminishing in any way our support for this amendment. My question is prompted by our concern for the state of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Based on the experience of the past five months, the expenditure will exceed $12 billion this year. Last year it reached a record high of $8 billion. I put the question to the Hon. Minister now that I put to him in committee the other day when we were dealing with his Estimates. Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that there will not be an increase in Unemployment Insurance premiums? In my view and in the view of my colleagues, an increase in Unemployment Insurance premiums would impose a disincentive on the private sector, expecially small business firms, to hire people because it would impose an additional tax upon them. It would also impose an additional hardship upon women who are the lower paid members of our society and who would have to pay additional Unemployment Insurance premiums.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Can the Minister first give us some idea of how much the amendments will cost in terms of additional benefits, and can he then tell us how he intends to finance them? If at the same time, he can give us an assurance that he does not anticipate an increase in the premiums, we would be very satisfied.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, what I can offer to the Hon. Member is the very clear commitment that we intend to maintain insurance premiums at the lowest possible level. I cannot assure him that premiums will not increase because it is not wholly my assurance to give.
I would like to explain to Members of the Committee that before we arrive at decisions about premium increases, we first undertake an examination of what the various rates both of employment and unemployment are projected to be for the third quarter of the fiscal year, what the draw on the fund has been, and what we might see as the projected deficit in 1984. On the basis of those soundings and, as was done last year, on the basis of the kind of consultations I would undertake through the Commission with business and labour, we would then make recommendations to the Minister of Finance and to Cabinet who would then have to make the final decision.
I can, however, make it very clear that it is my belief that we will not have to raise premiums substantially in the forthcoming year unless the Hon. Member for St. John's East falls into the trap that is being laid by the recommendations of some of his colleagues. In particular, I read in the paper this morning that the Hon. Member from Etobicoke is recommending a totally uncapped extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits, a move that would probably add $4 billion or $5 billion to the cost of unemployment insurance. Substantially higher premiums would be required to begin to pay for that. If the Hon. Member for St. John's East will guarantee me that he will not endorse the position taken by his colleague, the Hon. Member from Etobicoke, I will assure him that I will do my best to make sure premiums stay at a very low level.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, that was un unfortunate misrepresentation of what I believe the Hon. Member from Etobicoke said and how it was construed in the House. Under the same principle that supported the variable entrance requirement, I think the same case can be made for extending the benefit period because we are into a deep recession and because the Government anticipates that we will be into double-digit unemployment throughout this decade and into the early part of the next. The Minister knows full well, but deliberately omitted to say, that when a person no longer receives Unemployment Insurance benefits, when he becomes an exhaustee, he still has to live, and in order to live he must subject himself to a means test to qualify for welfare.
The Minister also knows that the Government of Canada pays 50 per cent of the welfare bill under the Canada Assistance Plan. This proposal would certainly save money under the Canada Assistance Plan, it would save the money of the hard-pressed Provinces. A case could be made, albeit in another forum because this is not the day for it, to think in terms of changing the whole approach to unemployment insur-

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
ance to fit into the reality of the period that we are going through at the present time.
This proposal speaks to displacement as a result of high tech, the impact that it will have on women, the impact it is having on young people and how the Unemployment Insurance Act can relate to this new situation. I cannot give any assurance to the Minister, but I have every right to ask the Minister if he intends to raise premiums. I have every right to ask the Minister what in his opinion are the estimated additional charges on the Unemployment Insurance Fund that will flow from the passage of these amendments. I believe that to be a reasonable and responsible intervention, and I believe the Minister has a responsibility to deal with it in other than a facetious manner.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, far from being facetious, I was being very serious, pointing out that we take quite seriously the state of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That is why we have given very serious consideration in the past to finding the best way of coping with those who have exhausted their benefits.
I want to point out to the Committee that while we recognize that hardships are faced by those who exhaust their benefits, a study conducted last Fall showed that on average about 6 or 8 per cent of those end up on welfare. The figures could be substantially higher-perhaps as high as 12 per cent or 13 per cent. Not everyone who exhausts benefits immediately goes on welfare. About 40 per cent go back to work within five or six weeks and some others go back to school or find some other means of support. Only a small proportion make application for welfare.
We feel that we have made a substantial offer to alleviate that problem under the NEED program which was started with $500 million. Because of the leverage we have established with the private sector and the Provinces, it will be closer to $900 million by the time we are finished. We have been able to provide well over 60,000 jobs which should be properly cha-nelled for those who otherwise have to make a choice. That is a way of cushioning it.
The alternative, and this is very important to the Hon. Member for St. John's East and others who have made the case, is having an open-ended commitment, and even if we had a limited 26-week extension that would place an additional cost on the Unemployment Insurance Fund of anywhere from $3 billion to $4 billion. That would have to be raised either through premiums or further Government deficit financing. We have heard many comments from the other side of the House to the effect that we should not go into further deficit financing. That is the dilemma we face and that is why it is important that we not fall into the trap of saying we should automatically extend benefits. That would be a very costly charge against the fund and the money would have to be raised either by Government borrowing or higher premiums.
I agree with the Hon. Member that the Unemployment Insurance Act must change if it is to be relevant. That is why I
have suggested that we use the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration as a forum in which Members can make representations and where people can examine the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then when we come back to the House next time for amendments to the Act we will have had the full benefit of their representations.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have taken advantage of the debate on the amendment to discuss a question that might just as well have been placed under clause 3 if we were going to move ahead, but I see the clock is running out and we are about to go down the chute, as far as any further discussion is concerned. I think this is an important place to put the question of improvements to the legislation, especially if there is no objection to them in the House, which I think is illustrated by the consent that was given on the amendment.
I should like to make two comments in relation to administration of the legislation. The provisions of this Bill are obviously going to cause some further work load for the Unemployment Insurance Commission staff. The administrative burden of the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices in the regions which 1 represent and in others, has reached the point that they often cannot deliver service. Because of the complexity of the task, the lack of staff and training, some claimants are as much as 12 weeks behind in receiving their benefits. They are left without income for that time. Last winter the welfare system, acting on an emergency basis, was unable to provide support for them.
When the Minister says there are no additional costs that will go into the system, I wonder if he is fulfilling his responsibility to provide sufficient staff and sufficient resources and sufficient training to ensure that the additional burden and the more complicated approach to providing unemployment insurance is being dealt with in an appropriate way.
An example is the case of a great many claims of loggers and fishermen coming in at a certain time of the year as shut-downs occur. The Minister's training staff does not train unemployment insurance officers on a regular basis to evaluate those claims, which are very complex so there is a tremendous shortage of personnel who can handle these claims. This causes enormous delays.
Could the Minister give us an indication of what his Department is doing to ensure that people will not have to wait up to 12 weeks for benefits because of the more complicated provisions of the Act. What is he doing about special agents with the responsibility of dealing with large numbers of groups so that they can be moved through quickly?
The second matter I want to raise also relates to administration, and that is the access that individuals-women, adoptive parents or any other group-have to their files. Individuals in the community are being systematically denied access to their unemployment insurance files when they have questions about their entitlement or the decisions made by unemployment insurance officials. They are being told that if they want access to their files they must apply under the Freedom of
June 2, 1983

Information Act. A number of offices in the riding I represent are giving this advice to people, and it is not acceptable.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Hon. Member seems to be straying a little bit from the amendments currently under discussion. I wonder if the Hon. Member could shorten his remarks a little bit.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Chairman, the last item I want to deal with under administration is the RCMP involvement with the Unemployment Insurance Commission officials in police work and investigation.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Hon. Member is going substantially beyond the scope of the amendment under discussion. I suggest that he will have to avail himself of another forum for this.
Does the Minister of Employment and Immigration care to comment?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would invite the Hon. Member to attend the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration where I will be glad to go into any discussion he wants about the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
Having regard to his concern about benefits and the duration of payout, I can tell him that we have added some 1,200 staff to the unemployment insurance offices, beginning in 1982. They have been trained and are in place. The waiting time has been reduced by several weeks. I do not expect any office in his or in other region will have the problems we had last winter.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I find it almost unbelievable that the Minister cannot tell us how much this is going to cost. I am sure there must be people up in the gallery who have undertaken studies on behalf of the Department to find out how much the additional charge to the Unemployment Insurance Fund will be.
Am I correct in understanding from the amendment now before us that in one Province benefits will be payable for a period of eight weeks, and in another Province which has different regulations governing adoption the maximum period of benefits under the Act will be four weeks? How is it proposed that the matter be dealt with in those jurisdictions where no period is specified?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic that in my opening remarks I gave the actual cost of these amendments. He can read Hansard tomorrow and he will get all the information he needs.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the amendments dealing with fishermen, having regard to the Supreme Court decision, and I salute Vicky Silk, a Newfoundland women, who had the courage to challenge the system when it was treating her and other women unjustly. Will the Minister tell the House if the provisions of the Bill which now
Unemployment Insurance Act
permit the Commission to make regulations will allow the implementation of the recommendations of the Kirby Task Force?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it would be my intention to follow through the commitment given this morning in my opening remarks to bring forward the changes as recommended by Kirby sometime within the next week.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Chairman, I take it we are now on Clause 9?


Mr.   Chairman@: Clause 1 of the Bill is before us. The amendments have the effect of renumbering the clauses of the Bill, but technically we are still dealing with amendments to Clause 1.
Is the House in favour of the amendments?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   Chairman@: Shall Clause 1 as further amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 (as amended) agreed to.


Mr.   Chairman@: Clause 2 has already been agreed to.


Mr.   Chairman@: Shall Clause 3 carry?
On Clause 3-Fishermen


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Chairman, if we are dealing with Clause 3 now, I would like to move an amendment regarding fishermen, as follows:
That Bill C-156, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 3), be amended in subclause 9(1) by adding immediately after the words "to that matter" where they appear in line 10 of subsection 146(1.1) thereof the following words:
"except subsections (1.2), (1.3) and (1.4)"
Those subsections are as follows:
(1.2)	Notwithstanding anything in this Act, self-employed fishermen and persons engaged in any activity related to or incidental to fishing shall qualify for unemployment insurance, including, as an employer of a self-employed person engaged in fishing, any person with whom the self-employed person enters into a contractual or other commercial relationship in respect of his occupation as a self-employed person engaged in fishing.
(1.3)	All weeks of employment in any activity related to or incidental to fishing by a self-employed person in the fishing industry shall qualify as weeks of insurable employment toward a claim
(1.4)	All persons who establish a claim under this section shall be entitled to the full regular benefits under that claim without discrimination based on distinction between year-round fishermen and fishermen other than year-round fishermen.
The effect of these amendments would be to permit selfemployed fishermen, and those actively involved in fishing activities, to claim any work weeks as insurable work weeks. They would also enable fishermen to claim benefits in any week in the year based on their claim, which would in effect resolve many of the problems of discrimination found in the fishing industry right now. I said during my comments on

June 2, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
these amendments that they will do what we hope the Minister might have had in mind with respect to the regulations, but we have no commitment that the regulations will deal with a discrimination in the Unemployment Insurance Act as it pertains to fishermen at this time.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Is the Hon. Member contending that the proposed amendment would entail no additional charge to the Treasury, because this is a requirement in order for the amendment to be acceptable?


Edward Allan Miller: That would be our intention, Mr. Chairman, that it would not incur any additional costs on the basis of the commitments from the Minister to deal with discrimination in the Unemployment Insurance Act as pertaining to fishermen. If he is going to deal with those discriminatory practices, he would have to include changes in the regulations to deal with the very situations we have raised here.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The question of non-discrimination stands on its own. However, the question I put to the Hon. Member is, would the effect of the adoption of his proposed amendments entail an additional charge to the Treasury?


Edward Allan Miller: Not as far as we in this Party are concerned.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Chair has great difficulty accepting that argument. The Hon. Member will have to do better than that to persuade the Chair as to the admissibility of the amendments.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, it is simply the argument I used a moment ago. If, as the Minister explained in his speech this morning, and as others in his Party have indicated, this is going to deal with the difficulties fishermen have with unemployment insurance by regulation, then it is my contention that the changes in regulations are to cost some money, and this amendment, placing it in the Act rather than in the regulations, will not cost any more than what the Government is already proposing.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It seems to the Chair that the Hon. Member by his own argument is admitting that his amendment would involve an additional charge on the Treasury. Therefore it has to be ruled out of order. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 4 carry?
On Clause 4-Coming into force


Judith A. Erola: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply to some of the comments of the Hon. Member for St. John's East. I also intended to speak to this Bill generally. However, I feel that the Royal Commission on the
Status of Women, the parliamentary task force and the "Stella Bliss" have been talking for far too long. It is time for action. Therefore, I propose:
That Clause 4 of Bill C-I56 be amended by striking out lines 26 and 27 on page 3 and substituting the following.
"Transitional
10.	Where a benefit period established for a claimant begins before the day sections 4 and 7 come into force, any claim for benefit for a week of unemployment that falls in that benefit period shall, whether or not the benefit period was established before that day, be dealt with in all respects as if sections 4 and 7 had not come into force.
Commencement
11.	Section 1, 3 to 7 and 10 shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation.
12.	Sections 2, 8 and 9 shall come into force on June 4, 1983.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The House has heard the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 4 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Chairman, given the fact that we were discussing the administration and now we are on the title, I would like still to appeal to the Chair and to the Minister to respond to the question concerning the involvement of his Department in ongoing police work. I believe it is vital to the question of administration. I would like the Minister to respond to that. Has he sanctioned that particular relationship in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and by implication would this continue?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Chair has difficulty from the point of view of procedure. A general debate, which the Hon. Member is seeking, appears to be out of order at this stage of the Bill. It is with reluctance that the Chair so rules, but my understanding of the procedure is such that I have to make that ruling. Shall the title carry?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Chairman, in order to respect your ruling, I wonder whether the Minister could take this as notice and be prepared to comment on it at another time?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I can solve the Hon. Member's problem by inviting him to attend a meeting of the Standing Committee on labour, Manpower and Immigration where he will have an opportunity to place his question and receive an answer to it. And if he cannot do it, he could do it through his colleague.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the title carry?
June 2, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported as amended, read the third time and passed.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this time 1 wonder if there would be unanimous agreement to dispense with the Adjournment Debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.40 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 11 a.m. tomorrow.
At 6.40 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 3, 1983